Stalking Protection Bill

Victoria Prentis Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 19th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure and an honour to join my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) in sponsoring this Bill and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), who was inspired to do so much to improve the law in this important area following the particularly horrific case that he has just told us about. As we have heard, stalking is a terrifying, intrusive and profoundly unsettling crime, and I defy anyone in the Chamber not to have been moved by the words that my hon. Friend has just read out, which truly sent shivers down my spine. It is important to recognise that the victims bear the scars for the rest of their lives.

I want to focus on the impact that stalking can have throughout a family. We heard about the Emily Maitlis case and how brave it was of her to have spoken so publicly about the effect on her marriage and children of what happened to her, and I have a constituency case that brought things home for me. My constituent, whom I will call Julie—not her real name—came to see me with her mother about 18 months ago having suffered a sustained campaign of harassment. With your leave, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will read her words to the House, rather than try to use my own, because the way that she puts things is very powerful. She wrote:

“Despite the stalker having been verbally warned by the police to leave me alone, he continued to contact me, receiving over 60 text messages/missed calls a day to either my mobile or home phone. I reported it to the police again as advised to. Different officers attended to take my statement, and I again had to repeat the situation. In the end I had to change my numbers for both mobile and landline. This did not stop the contact. He tried to contact me through various other means, Facebook, WhatsApp, email, Google Hangouts, and Instagram. Some of the messages received on WhatsApp were from numbers unknown to me, and some of the messages contained intimate images of me, or threats of exposing them. All of the accounts I deactivated and eventually, after laying low for a while, I set up new accounts. However, this did not deter him.

After a very short while, the stalker managed to obtain my new mobile and home number, and again he started with the calls. I know it was him as my partner and I both spoke to him on at least one occasion where he threatened to cause harm to my partner. He used to call my home number and would call in the middle of the night several times and hang up, which woke my children on many occasions and in the end I left the phone unplugged. I left BT and EE and set up a new contracts… and did not give my details to hardly anybody to reduce the risk of him”

finding them out. She continued:

“This obviously isolated me from my circle of friends... However, he was unwittingly involving them by adding all my circle of friends on Facebook, some of which are very close and dear to me, and he started to make a nuisance of himself with them, constantly bombarding them with messages asking questions about me”.

That email goes on much longer, and it is all profoundly disturbing. It provides a picture of how young women now live their lives. So much of a person’s life is now on social media, which is an important way to keep in touch with family and friends, but even though my constituent did all the right things, took all the right advice and went to the police repeatedly, she was unable to live her life in the way that she should have been able to.

Julie’s other family members were contacted, and the part of her story that affected me most deeply is that her daughter, a young teenager, was contacted by the stalker at school. Despite numerous statements to the police, my constituent had to organise her own non-molestation order, although she was pleased that the police served it on her behalf. When she approached me, she was anxious and very afraid of what would happen in the future:

“This man will continue with this behaviour…and from what I have experienced, he won’t stop—he will do it again but to what level next time. I would love nothing more than to try and change the way cases like this are approached.”

She was pleased to hear about the Bill, and she was pleased that I was able to come and speak about her case on her behalf, although she is not at a point where she would like her details to become public.

There is obviously little I can do to assist Julie as her MP, but I got involved in her case when the prosecution against her stalker sadly came to nothing. She had pursued the matter with the police, having to tell her story again and again, as she told us in her email. When she went to court, a vital piece of evidence, a screenshot of a WhatsApp message, had been lost by the Crown Prosecution Service so could not be presented. The prosecution therefore failed, and her stalker contacted her again the next day with a crowing message about what had happened.

I have been able to assist Julie in pursuing her complaint against the CPS, and we will see what happens as a result. The damage to her life, to her mum’s life and, very sadly, to her daughter’s life has already happened. It is now too late to take away their fear when going to work or school that something nasty will happen. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham, those fears are not unfounded. We have to take this very seriously.

I have no doubt that an early stalking protection order would have made a real difference in Julie’s case, and I hope it would have limited some of the trauma she continues to deal with today. That is exactly why this Bill is so important. The police must be given the power to take swift action on stalking offences at an early stage, and as my hon. Friend said, it is important that such action is accompanied by rigorous and relevant training not only for the police but for the CPS and the judiciary. This is a very serious crime. Generations of Julie’s family have suffered, and I want to make certain it does not continue.

Unaccompanied Child Refugees: Europe

Victoria Prentis Excerpts

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who anticipates one of my points. We know that the Government have spent £81 million on security measures in Calais, yet just one member of staff has been seconded to France to try to progress family reunion claims even though we know that one in six people in the Jungle is trying to reconnect with their family. Local authorities undoubtedly need resource, but we also need a process that is quick and fair. We do not have that at the moment and those children often wait on their own for months before they access accommodation.

The Minister will know that I have raised cases with him of children who are waiting, often with severe mental health needs as a result of the delay—frightened, vulnerable young people who are looking to this country to be what it has been in the past.

We may be talking today about Calais and the processing centre, but we know that it is not just about Calais; it is about Greece. Not a single child has come from Greece as a result of the Dubs amendment, even though we know there are thousands of unaccompanied child refugees there. The same is true of Italy. Two thirds of the 3,000 unaccompanied children in Greece do not have proper shelter and care. Those are our children to take responsibility for, working with the Greek authorities and the Italian authorities. [Interruption.] The Minister is shaking his head. Is he really saying that he can be proud of a country that looks at children sleeping under bushes, without proper shelter and care, and says it is somebody else’s problem—nothing to do with us? Of course the Greek authorities have to take responsibility, but so too do we, Minister.

The question today is what responsibility we are taking for children in Europe, because the statement a year ago did not just specify Calais; it talked about all these children. When he responds, I want to hear from the Minister what he is going to do about the children in Italy and Greece as well, because we have a responsibility to all of them. He can shake his head all he wants, but I suspect the British public will not be satisfied with the idea that because some of them are in France, we might do something about them, but we do not have a responsibility for those who are in Italy and Greece.

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful case. Can we also make the case for the children who are still in the region or still in Syria? The Hands Up Foundation, which my small Singing for Syrians initiative tries to help, makes the point that not only are they suffering and alone, but often they are under gunfire. It is important not to forget that they matter too, and this Government have done so much to get funds out there where they are desperately needed.

[Stella Creasy]

I do not disagree with the hon. Lady, but it is not an either/or situation. As I said at the start, we all wish the world was different. All of us wish that there was not conflict, fear and persecution. All of us wish that the Oromo people were not fleeing in fear of their lives and that young Afghan boys were not frightened of the Taliban, but they are and they are acting accordingly. The question for us is whether we will act as well. That is the challenge. Whether they are in the region, whether they have fled to Europe or whether they are among the 10,000 at risk of trafficking, do we as British society want to say that it is just somebody else’s problem, or do we want to have a process in place so that we can hold our head high?

I say to the hon. Lady that for all of us this is not just about immediacy; it is about our history as well. It is not just about all of us who were inspired by Lord Dubs. Government Members may find this surprising, but I often say that I share something in common with Nigel Farage: Creasy, like Farage, is a Huguenot surname. Many of us have refugee traditions within our families. Many of us might, in a different generation or a parallel universe, be that child looking for help.

Over a year ago, I was trying to chase down with the Government what had happened to 178 children whom the Prime Minister herself was directly notified about and whom I have asked about repeatedly—children who would have been eligible to come here under the Dubs amendment. I have to tell the Minister that, more than a year and a half on, I am still waiting for a response that gives me confidence that our Government know what happened to those children whom they were notified about and who were in Calais at that time. Nobody is able to make contact with them. Those children may be in this country, but they may be elsewhere and they may be with the traffickers. I make a plea to the Minister: will he at least go and see whether we can find out whether any of those children are safe on our shores? I think that we have to accept responsibility because they came to us asking for help.

I want to put on record why I have tabled amendment 332 to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. There will be debates about the Dublin regulation and I agree with the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire that we need to make sure that we are living up to our Dublin commitments. There will also be debates about what happens to the commitments we made in the safeguarding statement a year ago. Clearly there have been issues. For example, the safeguarding statement spoke about working with the devolved authorities, but that has not happened to date, as the court case shows. Those debates need to happen on the Floor of the House, because how we treat refugee children cannot be dealt with in a statutory instrument Committee hidden away elsewhere in the House.

I therefore make a plea to the Minister. He may disagree with me about our obligations regarding the numbers of children. I still think that we made a commitment to 3,000 children with the Dubs amendment, and I would like to hold the Government to account on that. However, I certainly think that, given that parliamentarians debated that amendment and are having this debate today, any further changes that would affect our ability to help some of the most vulnerable children should not be hidden away. I hope he agrees that no changes will be made by statutory instrument, whether under the immigration Bill or the withdrawal Bill, to the treatment of refugee children. If he will at least say that, I think we can be on the same page in respect of this country’s commitment to do the best by these people. Certainly it should not be up to those wonderful men and women in all our constituencies to lead the charge and for this House to be found wanting.

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire on securing the debate. I look forward to working across the House on these issues, and I hope that the Minister will hear the plea to be the best of Britain.

General Election Campaign: Abuse and Intimidation

Victoria Prentis Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Newton]

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. When social media companies are notified of this type of abuse, harassment and bullying, we expect them to take that material down. The police have the power to request that such material is taken down. It is important that people report instances of hate crime, and that those reports are followed up and prosecuted.

The law does not differentiate criminal offences committed on social media from those committed anywhere else. It is the action that is illegal. Robust legislation is in place to deal with internet trolls, cyber-stalking, harassment, and perpetrators of grossly offensive, obscene or menacing behaviour. A number of criminal offences may be committed by those abusing others on social media. These include credible threats of violence; damage to property; sending grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or menacing messages; harassment; and stalking.

The Crown Prosecution Service recently revised its guidelines on social media to help to ensure a robust criminal justice system response. The updated guidelines incorporate new and emerging crimes that are being committed online and provide clear advice to help with the prosecution of cyber-enabled crime. On 21 August, the CPS published new public statements on how it will prosecute hate crime. The Director of Public Prosecutions committed the CPS to treating online hate crimes as seriously as those committed face to face. The CPS also launched revised legal guidance that sets out how prosecutors should make the charging decisions and handle these cases in court.

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is aware that the law moves exceedingly slowly on occasion. Would it be possible to encourage Facebook and other social media platforms themselves to have a system—not a criminal system, but perhaps a red-card one, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) suggested—to enable accounts to be taken down when abuse routinely appears on the accounts of armchair warriors?

[Sarah Newton]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We absolutely recognise that this is not just about the law, although the CPS has moved swiftly and done a thoroughly good job in this instance. The number of prosecutions is increasing. As if by magic, I now have the figure for successful prosecutions; it is now running at more than 15,000 a year. That is significant progress with the tools and guidance available.

Social media companies have a vital role to play. The recently enacted Digital Economy Act 2017 requires the establishment of a code of practice for social media providers. The code will set out guidance about what social media providers should do in relation to conduct on their platforms, including bullying or insulting an individual or other behaviour likely to intimidate or humiliate them. The Government are considering how to take forward the social media code of practice as part of the digital charter. We will shortly provide more details about the consultation and what should happen.

Health, Social Care and Security

Victoria Prentis Excerpts

Wednesday 28th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

It is always difficult to follow such a powerful and passionate speech, but I will do so because I feel just as passionately about what I am going to talk about—the draft patient safety Bill, which I truly believe will do a great deal to assist my constituents and all of us who care about patient safety. I hope that it will embed a new culture of learning lessons in the NHS.

I am deeply concerned about how the NHS is often defensive when something goes wrong. It is not always transparent; the medical profession can be very hierarchical. Believe you me, as a former senior civil servant and Government lawyer, I know about hierarchies—not least from when I worked at the Ministry of Defence. The NHS is much worse than many of the organisations for which I have worked. It is right that we should focus on outcomes, not inputs.

Anybody who has ever met me will know that I talk about the Horton general hospital within about a minute of starting a conversation, but there may be a few new Members who have not yet heard that my hospital, in which I was born, is under threat; I reassure them that in Banbury we talk of little else. I am proud to have been re-elected with an increased vote share to continue the fight for all my constituents. Most of my constituents accepted the Conservative message that to have a strong NHS we must have a strong economy. But however they voted, I will continue to fight to save the Horton on behalf of them all.

[Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Victoria Prentis]

No.

Last week, I visited the Grange primary school, where I met seven and eight-year-olds. They had grasped the two main issues: we are worried about the safety of poorly babies and about mummies who have to spend up to two hours in the latter stages of labour in their cars going to the John Radcliffe hospital. Those children reminded me of my seven-year-old self: I, too, made a speech in defence of the Horton general hospital in my primary school a few minutes’ drive from where I was last week. It is noticeable that the pupils grasped some of my concerns about patient safety better than some of the members of the clinical commissioning group, whose meeting I also attended last week. The children understood how quickly babies can become high-risk during labour. I have many reasons for losing sleep over the safety of the mothers giving birth in my constituency, and we have significant challenges in the year ahead.

In the minute remaining to me, I shall quickly discuss governance issues. Yesterday, we heard that the chief executive of the CCG would be retiring, as will the clinical lead. I am concerned that the architects of the transformation process will be disappearing halfway through it. I really beg them to stop the consultation process at this point and start again—regroup. Let us listen to patients. We have a problem with recruitment. As I have said before in this place, for want of a nail the shoe was lost. I am concerned that the lack of two obstetricians means that thousands of women in my constituency will be unable to give birth close to home.

In Banbury, Bicester and the villages that I represent, we concentrate on doing the right thing. Our companies adapt to the challenges of Brexit. We are building five times more houses than the national average. We need healthcare that is kind, safe and close to home. The draft patient safety Bill will strengthen our resources to fight for the Horton general hospital, and I really welcome its inclusion in the Gracious Speech.

Jamal al-Harith

Victoria Prentis Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her questions. Like her, and like my constituents, we will be outraged and disappointed by the sums of money that have been paid. As for the sums that have been paid, and that are reported to have been paid, I cannot comment on individual cases. Unlike former Home Secretaries, the Government are bound by their legal obligations—we cannot break those legal commitments—but I can say that some of the vulnerability that led us to have to pay those damages occurred when the right hon. Lady was a member of the Labour Government and when those individuals brought claims against us.

It is important that we recognise that that is why some of these claims had to be paid out and why, in response to those outrageous sums of money that have been reported, this Government and the coalition Government brought forward the consolidated guidance— David Cameron brought that forward—to make sure that our intelligence services act within the law and get the full support of the law in order to do their job. That is also why we brought forward the Justice and Security Act 2013 to introduce closed material proceedings so that in future claims brought by such people, held in Guantanamo Bay in 2004, can be challenged in court without revealing sensitive intelligence information and we can, thus, defend many of those claims. It is also why that Act brought in stronger powers for the Intelligence and Security Committee, in order that it can investigate such incidents and give confidence to this House that such events are properly investigated, with lessons learned if they need to be and allegations put to rest if they are found to be false. That happened as a result of these types of payments; that action was taken under the coalition Government of David Cameron to make sure that we minimise the risk of this ever happening again.

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

As you are aware, Mr Speaker, before I came to this place I worked as a Government lawyer. Although I did not work on this specific case, colleagues in the department in which I worked were involved in it.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

That is called hearsay evidence.

[Victoria Prentis]

No, it is not.

In this country, we have a proud tradition of law: law that supports not only people who are attractive to the general public, but those with whom the general public would not have sympathy. The question I wish to put to the Minister is this: to what extent has he worked and have this Government worked to enable the rule of law to be upheld and to enable the “secret courts” Act to come into effect so that we can study these cases properly?

[Mr Wallace]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. First, as I said earlier, by introducing consolidated guidance to guide our intelligence services when they operate abroad; by introducing the 2013 Act, which allows for closed material proceedings; and by beefing up the ISC, we have put in place a much more robust and defendable structure so that we are not the victim of people coming along and trying to sue us for actions we may or may not have taken. That is the most important part of it. It is also important to point out to the House that we will act in accordance with our inherent right of self-defence. We will always put first the defence of our citizens and our nation, and we will make sure that we do that to the best of our ability.

Prevent Strategy

Victoria Prentis Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Lucy Allan]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have not so far mentioned, and I think I will not mention at any point, the Muslim community specifically. However, I will mention some use of Prevent to tackle the far right, which is a good point and one we should all take on board.

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is being most generous in giving way. In the course of her speech, will she tackle an important evil that Prevent is designed to counter and mention how it is used to build up our child safeguarding provisions?

[Lucy Allan]

My hon. Friend raises an extremely important issue, to which I will devote a whole section of my speech. I have concerns about the conflation of safeguarding and counter-extremism measures, which I will come to in due course.

The Government naturally have a duty to protect the public, and they are seeking to discharge that duty through the Prevent strategy. We all want to see extremism tackled, and the intention of Prevent is, in theory, to stop young people being drawn into terrorism and to protect them from extremist views that might render them more susceptible to radicalisation. We get into more difficult territory, however, when we start to tackle belief, ideas and the expression of political and religious views. The whole issue then becomes a great deal more complicated. We could find ourselves in a situation in which the Government decide which views are too extreme and debate can be shut down, so that issues that are better discussed and challenged openly are driven underground.

That is all before anyone has even done anything, Prevent is operating in a pre-crime space, which sounds positively Orwellian. That is at the heart of some of the concerns being expressed about the Prevent duty. Our schools need to be places where young people can discuss any issue at all and develop the ability to see extremist ideologies for what they are. We need to help young people develop the resilience to challenge those ideologies, and if we expose them to only the views that the Government find acceptable, we deny them the opportunity to challenge alternative views and fail to equip them with the ability to think critically and learn how to exercise judgment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Allan]

My hon. Friend makes a good point.

Children and young people will always test boundaries, and playground banter and bragging must not be seen as potentially sinister things where children must be watched. That breeds fear, suspicion and mistrust, which concerns me.

My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) raised safeguarding. I want to challenge the way that Prevent is packaged as a safeguarding measure. In effect, we are told, “Prevent must be a good thing, because it is intended to keep us safe.” It is depicted as offering support and advice to ensure that susceptibility to radicalisation is diminished. It is a real concern that that is how the Government perceive Prevent, because that perception is out of step with how Prevent is interpreted and perceived by those affected by it. In the context of Prevent, safeguarding is often about forcible state intervention in the private life of an individual when no crime has been committed, and that is inevitably experienced in a negative way.

It is important to understand that families subjected to safeguarding measures will, in any event, experience them as frightening, shaming and stigmatising. Someone in a position of trust—whether a teacher or a doctor—is used to gather and share data, often about young children, without consent, investigations are conducted and the police are involved. That process is anything but supportive and helpful; it destroys trust. A less heavy-handed approach would be far more constructive. Calling that approach safeguarding, and conflating counter-extremism measures and safeguarding, is quite dangerous.

[Victoria Prentis]

I, too, was one of those public sector workers before being elected. The difficulty is that counter-terrorism is the extreme end of what the Prevent strategy tries to deal with. The other measures—those to do with child safeguarding—are often part and parcel of the journey to countering terrorism and the problems that are experienced in families who are becoming radicalised. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Byron Davies) knows well that criminal activity is very much part of terrorism. I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Telford will talk about those links, which are rightly made.

[Lucy Allan]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. I reiterate that we should not present Prevent as simply supportive and helpful; we must be more aware of the way it is perceived by the people to whom it is delivered. If we do not try to put ourselves in the shoes of the people who experience it, Prevent will not achieve what we want it to achieve. It is all very well for the Government to say, “Well, we know best, we want the best and we are well intentioned. We want to support and protect people.” Actually, if we call the police, share data and stigmatise people, we will alienate them. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury may not agree that that can happen, but I urge the Minister to try to anticipate how he might feel if his children were subjected to a safeguarding procedure. That process is intimidating and frightening, and there is no doubt that people feel ostracised and alienated by it, however well intended it is.

That brings me quite neatly to the way the Government are responding to the concerns that have been raised by Members of several parties in this House and in the Lords, and by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, David Anderson QC and many others. We must listen to people when they raise concerns. It is not enough just to say, “Well, it’s well intended and there are good examples of it working well in practice for individual cases.” This is a much bigger issue of principle; it is about whether our communities will be safer or less safe as a result of Prevent. It is about whether communities feel stigmatised, alienated or marginalised. If people are saying that is how they feel, there is a duty on the Government to listen and not just bat their concerns away by saying, “Well, they don’t understand the level of terrorist threat,” “They are seeking to undermine Prevent,” or “They are doing something that is destructive of our efforts to keep society safe.”

I ask the Minister to listen and to understand that the state can be oppressive and authoritarian when it intervenes and interferes in the lives of individuals. People who are concerned about Prevent should not be dismissed as failing to understand or for not being a criminal barrister or having the right knowledge of such things. That is how they feel, and I urge the Government to listen to that. I do not believe the narrative that people are somehow motivated to undermine Prevent. They are just raising concerns, and it would help community cohesion if there was an overt attempt to hear those concerns and not just plough on regardless.

The terror threat is real and we must take all measures to reduce it. I do not underestimate the difficult job that the Minister and his Department have in doing that—I fully support him in his efforts—but the statutory Prevent duty is not the way to do it. It is too blunt an instrument.

I ask the Minister to consider the Select Committee reports we have talked about and to reflect on their recommendations. Some incredibly important work—research done and evidence taken—has been done on that and it would be helpful if all of that was taken on board. I ask him in particular to consider the views of David Anderson QC and the evidence he gave to those inquiries. He had been out in the communities, talking to the people affected, and his specific recommendation was that there should be an independent review of the Prevent duty. I gently ask the Minister to give that further consideration.

The Government have said in response to concerns that they intend to strengthen Prevent. I urge the Minister to consider whether the desired outcome would be more achievable if we were to use more emotional intelligence and consent, in a collaborative, community-led way at the grassroots, rather than the muscle of continued forced state intervention, which is what is implied by strengthening Prevent, even if that is not the intention.

Our safety and security is too important. We must get this right. It is therefore essential that we reflect on all these issues. I am grateful to the Minister for coming here today and for all the contributions that have been made.

Oral Answers to Questions

Victoria Prentis Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

23. I apologise, Mr Speaker. I thought my question had been grouped with this one, but I was clearly quite wrong.We have had a dreadful local case in which an international paedophile ring, such as those the Minister mentioned, infiltrated a chatroom aimed at nine-year-olds, with really dreadful consequences for those children. Will the Minister tell us what investment the Government are making to help the police and other law enforcement agencies deal with and stamp out this sort of abuse?

[Mr Wallace]

The National Crime Agency’s child exploitation and online protection command received an extra £10 million this year, and in November 2015 the NCA joined up with GHCQ in a joint operations cell to ensure that we tackle some of the most complicated crimes online. Those two things are just part of the whole process, and I would be happy to brief my hon. Friend further on the whole spectrum of efforts that we take against paedophiles and online abuse. The key is that we can all contribute to that online safety—teachers, parents, law enforcement agencies and community leaders— to ensure that we are aware of how paedophiles operate, and can shut them down and put them away.

Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme

Victoria Prentis Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

I am reluctant to interrupt my hon. Friend’s fabulous speech, which we are all enjoying, but as a fruit farmer’s daughter and a fruit farmer myself, I feel it is imperative to ask whether he agrees that these agricultural workers are a fairly unique breed. They must be both skilled technologically and strong physically. The type of work we ask them to do is unusual, skilled and often back-breaking. As such, they are a group of people who need to be able to move around—perhaps even more than other migrant workforces.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I completely agree. My hon. Friend knows very well that we share a passion for the British apple. As my right hon. and hon. Friends here will know, it is now russet season. May I strongly encourage those who have not had a Kentish Russet this season to do so? They are truly the champagne of apples—well, the English champagne of apples. They are the most fantastic product.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent said, we are talking about creating a system—I know the Minister is listening carefully and following the theme of this debate—that allows innovation in the agricultural sector to increase. As a boy in Kent, I did quite a lot of fruit picking, and I know that many other people did that too. My picking was not quite of the standard that my dear friend Marion Regan would require, as I was not packing for Wimbledon, which is where her strawberries go. We used to go as kids to a pick-your-own farm. Of course, we ate half the stuff before it got into the punnet.

Getting the system right would not mean some return to the halcyon days—which have not existed for a long time—of east-end Londoners going hop picking in the summer, because those east-end Londoners, thank God, now have very good jobs and spend their holidays all around the world. I am afraid that the idea that hop picking in Kent is an alternative to Ibiza is simply not credible for large swathes of people. Perhaps it is for some.

The change that we as a nation voted for on 23 June means that we have to reinvent ourselves and remember some old skills. Some of those skills are to do with imagination and creativity, which was the extraordinary thing about the seasonal agricultural workers scheme. Although other OECD countries copied the scheme, it was innovative when it came in. Indeed, extraordinarily, it almost—I do mean almost—still exists. It was last operated in 2013, which is only a few years ago. One of the many organisations that operated it, the Harvesting Opportunities Permit Scheme, or HOPS, stopped only then, and it still runs a recruitment agency for agricultural workers, so it could easily be brought back. We are not talking about a complete redesign; we are talking about switching back to a scheme that worked extremely well until only recently.

None of that will compensate for the many workers deciding not to come because they will take a 10% or 15% pay cut if they are paid in pounds but want to take their money back to parts of the world where they spend in euros, so a new scheme will not be a direct replacement. It will not simply turn on the tap immediately. We must recognise that there are still challenges for farmers, not just in Kent but around the country, but such a scheme will go some way to offering opportunities. If we look at the issue seriously, as I know the Minister will, we will create the flexible scheme that Britain needs, that farming needs and that many of our friends in Europe need.

We are of course about to enter—in some ways, we already have—the toughest negotiations the world has ever seen, on hundreds of lines of Government business, industry, migration and any number of other questions. Everything is to play for. As we started those negotiations, we must demonstrate our good will towards our European neighbours. Whatever people may think about the European Union, we are all friends with our European neighbours, and we must show them that we are open. We must show them again that we are believers in free trade. We created the rule of law and the system of international agreement—that system was created largely in the Chamber not far from here. If we remind them that openness is something that we feel we still share, and that we are not just willing but actually very happy for their young men and women to come and do a significantly better job than I ever did in Kent’s strawberry fields and take money home to enrich their own communities, that will go a little way—perhaps not far, but certainly a little way—to showing our good will to our European friends in particular, but also to people around the world. That would be an important gesture, not just for us but for them.

May I briefly sum up and ask the Minister a few questions, which I know he will be delighted to answer? Will he consider introducing a pilot scheme as soon as possible? I mentioned HOPS, which I am sure would be delighted to assist, should the Home Office be willing to engage with it. I am sure that he will not need to give reasons why he will not, so I shall skip over any explanation he might otherwise have given. Will he please collect data from that pilot scheme and share them with Members and groups such as the National Farmers Union, which has done a lot of work on this issue, and the Country Land and Business Association, which likewise has devoted an awful lot of energy to supporting not only the agricultural sector but all industry in rural areas? That would allow us to evaluate and, yes, to adjust. We do not pretend for a moment that the first scheme that will roll out will be perfect. It will not be, but we would be happy to work with him on that.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Victoria Prentis Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

Frankly, I struggled with the intricacies of RIPA and the other relevant legislation in my many years as a Government lawyer. I was, therefore, pleased and, indeed, excited to hear that previously almost impenetrable legislation was going to be consolidated into a new, easy to understand Bill, fit for the modern age.

When I read the draft Bill, I had concerns. I felt that greater judicial oversight was needed and that specialist groups, such as lawyers, journalists and, indeed, Members of this House, needed further protection. I read the Committee reports with interest and I was very much heartened to read the new Bill, which was produced following a large amount of scrutiny.

I feel that the double lock is a safe one. Assessing applications does and will undoubtedly take up a great deal of the Home Secretary’s time, but it is time well spent. It means that she is up to date with the details of real investigations in a way that few of her counterparts abroad can ever hope to be. It keeps her finger on the pulse. These are both political and judicial decisions; the fact that bulk warrants will come into force only once they have been authorised by the Secretary of State and approved by the Judicial Commissioner seems to be the very best of both worlds. Effectively, we are talking about judicial review with bells and whistles on, as Lord Judge informed the Committee, in every single case.

I was also pleased to read about the new protections afforded to those who provide information to sensitive persons—I hesitate to call lawyers and politicians sensitive, but perhaps those who provide us with information may be so described. The exemption is specially related to journalist sources.

I have been surprised by the openness of the Department in publishing the supporting material for this Bill. It is brave—I use that word as a long-term civil servant—of the Government to have published codes of practice complete with examples, and indeed the operational case for assessing internet connection records. It means that we can have a really informed debate today. I have presented cases where the security services, the police and the Ministry of Defence have analysed very large quantities of data. Although not very technically able myself, I did have to learn a certain amount about the search engines, which were designed to interrogate this material. I was reassured and, in turn, was able to reassure judges and Queen’s Bench Masters that the material on which important decisions were made was as complete as possible. The ability to collect bulk data is essential. The new Bill will help to ensure that there is no credibility gap in the balance between keeping us safe and protecting our rights to privacy. As important as pinpointing what information Government can obtain is deciding what can be done with it once it is gathered. This is where the important ethical debate should focus.

Last week the Justice Committee was fortunate to interview the President of the Citizens Crime Commission of New York City. He told us about new techniques to reduce crime by interrogating openly available material. Discussions now need to focus on whether we should interrogate social media to decide on a person’s propensity to commit crime or have drug addiction problems in the future.

I hope that the new IP commissioner will be a strong voice in the debates that lie ahead, and that he will be able to add a sensible and independent viewpoint to both the media and this House. Getting the balance right will always be a challenge, but I welcome the transparent approach of the Home Secretary and her team in presenting us with the Bill in its current form.

Donald Trump

Victoria Prentis Excerpts

Monday 18th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Jack Dromey]

I am sorry; I do not think that a debate such as this calls for flippancy. With the greatest of respect, when our police service and our security services are working night and day to prevent our country from being attacked, and when they need the support of the Muslim community, to have someone come to our shores who demonises all of the Muslim community would be fundamentally wrong and would undermine the safety and security of our citizens. That is not a risk I am prepared to take.

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says powerfully. That has been echoed by the Muslim Members, who have given powerful evidence about how Donald Trump makes them feel. However, are not British values strong enough to stand up to that? Does it not help our Muslim community to hear voices on all sides of this House standing up for the values we believe in as a nation?

[Jack Dromey]

I strongly believe in the unity of all faiths, and indeed of those across the political spectrum, in rejecting terrorism. I welcome the initiatives in which I think all Members have been involved in their respective constituencies, and we have such initiatives in Birmingham. The simple reality, however, is that if a vulnerable radicalised young man who has mental illness and who believes in the victimhood promoted by ISIS hears Donald Trump in London or Birmingham, the consequences could be very serious indeed.

In conclusion, I do not think Donald Trump should be allowed within 1,000 miles of our shores, because he would embolden the EDL on the one hand and fuel the flames of terrorism on the other. Donald Trump is free to be a fool, but he is not free to be a dangerous fool in Britain.