Hate Crime

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Monday 12th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on hate crime in light of the inflammatory letters inciting a “Punish a Muslim day” on 3 April.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)]

Mr Speaker, as you will appreciate, the letters described in the question are part of an ongoing investigation, and as such I am not in a position to comment on them. However, the Government condemn the content of the letters as clearly abhorrent, with no place in decent society. This Government take hate crime and Islamophobia extremely seriously, and the UK has a robust legislative framework to respond to it.

Freedom of speech, freedom of worship, democracy, the rule of law, and equal rights define us as a society. The Government are determined to promote those values actively, working in partnership and alongside Muslim and, indeed, all faith communities to demonstrate that what we have in common is the best defence against extremists who would seek to divide us.

Our hate crime action plan, published in 2016, sets out our comprehensive approach to tackling hate crime. We have a strong legislative framework to tackle hate crime, including offences of inciting racial and religious hatred, and racial and religiously aggravated offences. The legislation provides equal protection under the law for all ethnic and religious groups. We have sources of expert advice on the nature and causes of hate crime through the anti-Muslim hatred working group and the independent advisory group on hate crime.

We have committed £2.4 million over three years to help to protect places of worship that have been the subject of or are vulnerable to a hate crime attack. We also committed a further £1 million following the terrible Finsbury Park terror attack in June last year, to help to protect places of worship and associated community centres that are vulnerable to attack on racial, religious or ideological grounds. So far, we have funded 45 mosques under both schemes. We have also funded Tell MAMA to record anti-Muslim hatred incidents and to support victims. From this year, we have made it mandatory for police forces to disaggregate religious hate crime data held by the police to reveal the true scale and nature of the problem, which we are determined to tackle.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

Thank you for granting this urgent question, Mr Speaker. The letter calling for an attack on Muslims on 3 April offers attackers rewards, ranging from 10 points for verbal abuse, 50 points for throwing acid and 1,000 points for bombing a mosque to 2,500 points for nuking Mecca. May I remind the House that millions of Muslims fought for us in the two world wars, including members of my family? Figures show that the number of Islamophobia hate crimes has increased by 40%, with 1,678 anti-Muslim hate crimes reported in London in the year up to January 2018. Can the Minister therefore explain why no Minister in the past eight years has made a speech on the rise of anti-Muslim hatred?

Recent surveys have shown that 50% of the British population believe that Islam is a threat to western democracy and more than 30% of young children believe that Muslims are taking over England. Given that such anti-Muslim views have gained such traction, what are the Government going to do to help to prevent the growth of such extreme views, which appear to have come from parts of the print, broadcast and social media? What concrete steps are the Government going to take to tackle this growth in hate crimes and hatred against Muslims? Will the Minister set out the amount of funding provided by the Home Office to tackle each form of bigotry?

I think every Member in this House will accept that there has been a sharp rise in the far right movement in Europe and beyond, with the USA’s President retweeting far right material. This is a really urgent situation and it needs to be urgently tackled. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response as to what concrete steps are going to be taken to deal with it.

[Victoria Atkins]

I thank the hon. Lady for her urgent question. May I make it clear that this Government want to give a strong message of support to Muslim people across the UK that we are committed to their safety and security? I say to anyone who has received this letter, or a similar communication, please contact the police, where you will be treated with utmost seriousness and action will be taken.

I now move on to the points the hon. Lady made. The issue of anti-Muslim and far right extremism is of course a focus for the Government. As she knows, the Prevent strategy tackles extremism. It does not tackle Muslim extremism in and of itself; it tackles extremism, full stop. Sadly, more than a quarter of referrals in the Prevent strategy in 2015-16 concerned far right extremism. So this Government, and in particular this Prime Minister, with all the experience she brings to her position following her time in the Home Office, are focused on tackling extremism and radicalisation and how they affect any part of our community. That is precisely why we are refreshing the hate crime action plan this year.

Medical Cannabis

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Tuesday 20th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

That depends on what happens to the first two Bills.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

I have had a number of constituents in the past eight years who have suffered from different illnesses, such as epilepsy and multiple sclerosis. They told me that conventional drugs have not worked for them. Often, they have had to travel abroad, especially Holland, to obtain and use cannabis, which has helped them significantly. I therefore urge the Minister and the Government to please consider allowing the medicinal use of cannabis.

[Mr Hurd]

I totally understand the hon. Lady’s point, which underlines why the WHO is undertaking its work. I am sure she will agree, however, that cannabis products must be treated in the same way as all other drugs. That means going through the normal testing procedures that apply to any other medicine.

Child Abuse Offences (Sentencing)

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Monday 13th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon, and to respond to the debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) said, it gives no one pleasure to talk about this issue, but so many children have, regrettably, been sexually abused, and are being abused even now. I pay tribute to the family of April Jones for their strength and bravery in bringing to the attention of the House, and indeed of society generally, the challenges we face in combating sexual abuse and offences against children. In particular, I thank Jazmin Jones for her efforts in securing the success of the petition.

Today’s debate has particular significance for me. As a very new lawyer, I joined the Crown Prosecution Service as a prosecutor and within a year had to deal with the case of a six-month-old baby who had been sexually abused and then, a year later, that of a woman who had held her three-year-old daughter down while her boyfriend raped the child. Such things are horrific. Everyone will agree that those who commit sexual offences must be held accountable for their crimes, and it is right that in dealing with perpetrators of sexual offences, especially those against children, terms of imprisonment follow.

In this country we have some of the toughest powers for dealing with this type of offence. In fact, many years ago, our Government recognised that such offences were occurring abroad and for the first time introduced legislation that meant that individuals could be prosecuted in this country for sexual offences in relation to children, and put on the register. Even now, there are many people —sadly, mainly men—who go out to poorer parts of the world and abuse young girls and boys. It is a big pattern.

We have also seen an increase in victims of child abuse summoning up the courage to identify their abusers and inform the police. When I started practising law more than 20 years ago, it was difficult to get children to come forward and give evidence of what had happened to them. That increase is therefore to be welcomed, but we must ensure that the increased media coverage of such offences does not result in complacency or the mistaken belief that they are commonplace. Any offence against a child is an affront to our society and a personal tragedy for the victim and their family, and the courts must respond appropriately.

In addition, it is right that the police have the power and the capacity to monitor offenders when their custodial sentence comes to an end. That, too, is crucial for the safety of our children. The basket of information that those convicted of serious sexual crimes are required to submit is commonly referred to as the sex offenders register. Together with sexual harm prevention orders and sexual risk orders, the register is vital for police forces charged with monitoring those who pose a risk of committing sexual offences. As of 2011, the child sex offender disclosure scheme, widely referred to as Sarah’s law, has allowed parents to apply for information on registered sex offenders living in their area. It is right that the police should have that information available, so that they can act as its gatekeepers.

The length of time offenders are required to remain on the register varies. One of the major concerns that informs the petition is the right granted to those who have been placed on the register for an indefinite period to seek a review of the decision. As has been mentioned, that was the result of a Supreme Court ruling that said that there had to be a right of review, because otherwise article 8 of the European convention on human rights would be contravened.

The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) rightly said that the rights of children come before the rights of any perpetrators, and I would like to reassure him about what the court is trying to do. It is settled jurisprudence across the world that, when someone has either been convicted of an imprisonable offence or is on something like the register, there is normally recourse to some sort of appeal. All the Supreme Court was saying was that domestic legislation should have that right to appeal, not that those people should be released, after 15 years or eight years. It is obviously for the police officers and courts to decide in each case whether that happens. I wanted to reassure the hon. Gentleman, because sometimes these things get caught up emotionally with the Human Rights Act. However, for many people the potential for reoffending is clearly so great that, while an offence is perhaps not deserving of lifelong imprisonment, lifelong surveillance and tracking is required. It is quite proper that the police have the initial say regarding who is and who is not to remain on the register indefinitely, but it is also in accord with the principle of the rule of law that there is recourse to the judicial system.

I should also stress that, if the register and the associated orders are to be effective, they must be maintained and those subjected to them monitored sufficiently. In order to do that, the police must be given the resources they need, and a significant threat to child safety is posed by funding cuts to our police services.

Although I am sure that everyone abhors the crimes referred to in the petition, it remains the case that most of those who commit them will at some point have to live in society, albeit subject to some oversight. To protect our children, we must do all we can to reduce the risk of reoffending. Accordingly, more work must be done with offenders, both inside and outside prison, to enable them to function without committing further acts against our children. That must inevitably involve the National Probation Service, which has recently become stretched, and also psychiatric services. Just recently, the Royal College of Psychiatrists warned that its members felt unable to work in prisons.

The petition also calls on internet service providers and search engines to be better policed regarding child abuse images—an ambition we all must endorse. Each case must be judged on its own merit, but we must never forget that every image of abuse created is an image of actual abuse of a child, and that viewing such images only encourages their further production. Moreover, for an individual to have a visual record of a crime committed against them, for future viewing by other offenders, must outrage any sense of decency and provoke the fiercest compassion for victims.

We must also remember that not only abusive images, but forms of communication opened up by social media, are a potential source of danger to children. Law and legislation protecting children must be designed for a 21st century context where technology is constantly advancing. Technological answers alone can never suffice, however. The disturbing normalisation of highly sexualised language and images that children may produce and share among themselves via instant messaging poses a deep cultural challenge for our society. At the very least, it normalises the sexualised way in which children can perceive themselves. At worst, those types of communication provide weak points through which adult abusers can co-opt networks of younger people. If we are to counter that disturbing trend, teachers, parents, politicians and popular culture all have a role to play.

There are more immediate responses, however. In addition to greater cultural awareness and improved policing, it is not unreasonable to expect technology companies to do more to counter the availability of child pornography online. Doubtless the technological challenge is large, but they have a responsibility not to aid predators who view images of abuse. Moreover, internet service providers must do more to provide information to the police in a timely fashion when called upon. If the police are to use that information to the full in identifying and detaining offenders, they must have sufficient resources.

I ask the Minister to consider a number of things. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North mentioned what Chief Constable Simon Bailey said about having to make decisions on whether to pursue offences where someone is actively dangerous, as opposed to offences where someone may be dangerous because they are viewing things online. Due to the lack of resources, the police cannot give sufficient attention to the latter. The Government need to consider providing additional officers and resources—possibly ring-fenced—specifically to deal not only with sexual abuse, but with online abuse, online pornographic images and online sexual images of children. They also need more resources to train more police officers to carry out undercover operations of the type referred to by the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts). She referred to examples of undercover police officers effectively managing to stop abuses and predators, and prevent offences from being committed. They constantly do that. We need to resource those types of operations more so that there are more officers able to deal with the dangers of the internet.

We also need to think seriously about how the internet operates in relation to pornography and sexual images. As has been referred to, when an image on the internet is reported, it can take months and months for it to be removed. Sometimes nothing happens. The process needs to be strengthened so that internet providers have to deal with reported images immediately. If they fail to do that, criminal penalties should be considered. Will the Government relook at how the internet and internet providers work and allow so much indecent material to be on the internet? I hope the Minister can deal with that in her response.

Prevent Strategy

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) on securing it. I will start with one of her first points: that those who question the use of Prevent are accused of not being concerned with people’s safety. Let me give an example. When the 7 July incident took place near the bus stops in Euston, it happened in an area to which I normally used to travel to go to my chambers in the Temple—it just happened that that day I was out of the country. I therefore think I am well aware of the possible threats to security that people face. When I am accused of not being concerned about people’s security, I find that incredibly insulting because, but for the grace of God, I could have been in that incident.

The Minister intervened on the hon. Lady and said that Prevent is not about reporting but about putting safeguards in place. However, that is effectively reporting. When a person thinks there is someone of concern and they start the safeguarding process, they call on the local authority, social services and various other people—that is effectively nothing but reporting.

The Government have a duty to protect our country, but the rules, laws, programmes and provisions we put in place must be effective. There is no point in having a knee-jerk reaction to a problem and saying, “We will have Prevent. We will put it on a statutory basis, and somehow all the problems of radicalisation will go away”, without realising whether the policy is effective.

Countless studies have been carried out. In October last year I hosted an event for the Open Society Justice Initiative, which had spoken to 80 different sets of experts in the field and many families who had been affected by Prevent. It showed that 80% of the people affected had been referred wrongly—that is 80% of children and families affected completely unnecessarily. The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson, QC, said:

“Prevent has become a more significant source of grievance in affected communities than the police and ministerial powers that are exercised under the Pursue strand of the Contest strategy”.

Again, someone has looked at terrorism legislation and thinks that Prevent is wrong. Unless and until we get the community on board, we will not be able to effect any real changes. All Prevent does is stigmatise people.

Prevent was brought in by the Labour Government, but it was rolled out on a voluntary basis. I have to say I was not keen on it then, but at least it was voluntary. Now it is statutory, which means that doctors, nurses, hospitals and teachers can get into trouble if they do not report something that the Government think they should have done. That puts so much pressure on professionals. They are being asked to make disclosures and breach confidentiality, and families and everyone else are being put under stress for something that is not achieving anything.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Apologies for coming into the debate late, Sir David. I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) on securing it. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) agree that professionals—teachers, clinicians and so on—would say they already have professional standards that meet the need, and that the additional duty does not add anything?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I absolutely agree. Dr Clare Gerada, who spoke at the presentation I held last year, said exactly the same thing: they already have duties to look after vulnerable people. By making Prevent statutory, we are pressurising them, which could lead to them being affected if, for example, they feel that somebody should not be referred in a particular case.

[James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making a good case against Prevent. However, she said that it is not achieving anything. Will she set out the evidence for that assertion?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

All I hear is that the people who are being affected are annoyed by it, and they are getting upset. It is not achieving anything because the communities we need to have on board are not. It is therefore a waste of time, money and resources.

If we want to deal with radicalisation, whether far-right radicalisation or any other fundamentalism, there are ways of doing that. However, we should not use this method, which criminalises people. For example, in schools we could have classes taught to everyone, not to particular groups, about the dangers of the internet. We do not talk enough about the amount of online grooming, pornography on websites, how many young people are being bullied in schools and how much sex texting is going on. All those things are part of safeguarding. We should invest in classes in junior and secondary schools where all the children get together and are taught about all the dangers they could face, so that they can discuss and deal with them together. That would mean we could prevent them from facing such issues, whether far-right, sexual or whatever. We should not do that in the way that has happened since the Prevent programme was rolled out.

I want to make two final points. All of these measures come from the fact that there are security issues. However, we must remember one thing. I know we are talking about the far right, but we must remember that while the measures all came out of so-called Islamic terrorism, 99% of the people who have died as a result of Daesh, al-Qaeda and other such groups have been Muslims, whether in the middle east or the UK. Far-right extremism has killed Muslims in Canada, USA, Norway, the UK and other countries. Yes, there is an issue with people having right-wing or fundamentalist views, and we need to challenge those views, but Prevent is not the way to do so.

We say that Prevent is about British values. I am not making a joke of this, but the President of the USA, through what he has said and his Executive orders, has contravened every single fundamental British value. When he comes to the UK, he should be put in the Prevent programme, along with his adviser, Steve Bannon, who is a right-wing fascist and white supremacist. Both should be put in the Prevent programme when they come to the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) on securing this debate.

I recognise that there are concerns about Prevent, and I have heard those concerns from a range of different people. As a member of the Home Affairs Committee and as someone with an interest in this area, I have taken the time to speak to Muslim groups with the Committee, and to members of the Muslim community, police officers and teachers. I have not spoken to any far right extremists yet, but I am sure we will get some in to the Home Affairs Committee in due course.

There are two polar opposite views. Prevent is viewed as a vital tool in the fight against terrorism and absolutely essential, or it is said to be discredited because it targets Muslims and places unfair obligations on the public sector. It is important to note that Prevent is just one of the four elements of the Contest counter-extremism strategy that aims to stop people becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism or extremism. In answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) about success, it is difficult to measure success when there is no counterfactual, but I am sure that the Minister will tell us about the success that the Prevent programme has had, because I have heard that from some of Britain’s most senior police officers.

It is important to start by asking what we would do tomorrow if we cancelled the Prevent programme today. I asked one of the most senior counter-terrorism officers in the country about this and he was very open-minded. He said, “If we do not like Prevent and we get rid of it, what do we replace it with?” We would surely want a system for identifying people such as the poor young girls from east London—the people who have committed no criminal offence but suddenly slide into radicalism and attempt to go off to somewhere such as Syria. We need a means of identifying them and preventing them from going.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

On exactly the same point, those young ladies in the school were very bright. The teachers could not see anything wrong with anything they had done, so Prevent did nothing for them and would not have noted them.

[James Berry]

That is right, but that is certainly not an argument for getting rid of Prevent. There are countless other cases in which the Prevent duty would result in issues being picked up. That is why there have been 1,000 voluntary referrals to Channel, where people have been channelled away from any risks. That is what the Contest strategy does.

This hypothetical was tested when the Home Affairs Committee went on a trip to the USA. Two members of the Committee who went on the trip are in the Chamber today. We asked the Americans what they did about domestic counter-terrorism prevention and whether they had a Prevent type of programme. The answer was no, they did not have such a programme. They recognised that that was a gap in their toolkit and they were actually looking at the British system, although the Committee members did point out some of the deficiencies and gave them some advice. Of course, the trip took place under the Obama regime before Donald Trump became President. If only President Trump were focusing on domestic terrorism, which is where the threat actually comes from, rather than banning people coming from seven countries with currently no risk of terrorism on American soil. However, the Americans are looking at a strategy because they do not have a system like Prevent on their soil at the moment.

I will turn to the two main objections. The first is that Prevent targets Muslims. It is right that 70% of those who have been directed to Channel for voluntary referrals have been Muslims and 15% have been far right extremists who are not Muslims. That fact does not mean that the Muslim community is being targeted, but I understand why members of the Muslim community, including the young people we met on the trip organised by the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), felt that way. It is right that the Government should do more to publicise the cases of far right extremists who have been dealt with under the policy, because the people we spoke to on that trip simply were not aware of them, even though the cases were well publicised.

Equally, we have to guard against the reality that some groups such as Cage, a disgraceful organisation that gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, would make sustained efforts to undermine any replacement of the Prevent programme, just as they have done with Prevent. They have spoken out, criticised and been involved in threats against Muslim groups who stand up and support Prevent or elements of Prevent. They do that because they do not even accept that a problem exists that needs tackling by something such as Prevent in the first place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

I could not agree more. It also means that unfortunately we often know about the failures rather than the successes. The right hon. Gentleman knows from his long period as Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee that in the world of policing and security it is nearly always the failures that we hear about when there is an intelligence breakdown or someone slips under the radar. As someone who started in counter-terrorism as a young man in his early 20s, I can tell Members that something always gets through the net. One failure does not justify the scrapping of Prevent. I think that is important.

We all have a duty to do more to make sure that we challenge some of the perceptions that are peddled about Prevent, and to better investigate the stories that are sometimes put in the media. It was also in Lancashire that a child was reported apparently—according to the media—for saying, “I live in a terrorist house.” The child actually said, “I live in a terrorist house and my uncle beats me.” That story is never reported. The referral was a safeguarding referral about abuse of the child, but that was not good enough for some of the media, who chose to leave those details out and report in a lazy manner. We all have a duty to investigate and explore not only those local authorities that deliver Prevent, but the communities—

[Yasmin Qureshi]

rose—

[Mr Wallace]

I cannot give way; I must press on as I have only seven or eight minutes.

One of the first things I did as Security Minister, because I come from Lancashire, was to travel the country. My challenge to Contest is that it must not start and stop in central London. It must not be about the big metropolitan centres; it must be about the whole of the United Kingdom. I have been to the north-east, the north-west and around the whole country to meet more people, and I will continue to do so.

It is important that we start to pick up transparency in Prevent. One of the ways to challenge those perceptions is to get more statistics out where we can. We are going to do that and I have asked my officials to collate and publish many of the stats that the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) raised in her questions, because that is one of the best ways to counter the perceptions.

As Security Minister, I have responsibility for countering not only terrorism, but serious organised crime and child sexual exploitation. At the heart of all those—I am afraid I could not disagree more with my hon. Friend the Member for Telford—is safeguarding. What I see across that whole remit is people using the same methods to groom young men and vulnerable people into a course of violent extremism, gangs, crime or sexual exploitation. If we care about the safeguarding of vulnerable young people, Prevent is just one of those strains for delivering that safeguarding. Contrary to what is often reported, safeguarding is delivered not from my office in Whitehall but through the local authorities and the combined safeguarding officers. I met my hon. Friend’s Prevent officer in Telford at the beginning of this week; he is the councillor who deals with safeguarding across the piece, not just in Prevent, which is often how it is delivered. Of course we would like to see Prevent delivered more widely—not only from the police but across the board—which would be a right step in keeping communities on side.

We should challenge some of the main criticisms. There is the issue that there is no trust in Prevent. I recognise that in some communities there is a stigma attached to Prevent and that people do not necessarily trust parts of it, but in other communities some people do. It is partly about the relationship between the victims, or the people who have perhaps been diverted from a more extreme course. I have to say that in the speeches from the hon. Members for Bradford West (Naz Shah) and for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) there was an element of, “Locally we are delivering some success, but nationally we are worried about it,” or, “In other parts of the community we represent, it does not always work.” Of course we have to ensure that we rebuild that trust, and transparency will go some way towards doing that.

It is not the case that there is a special category for reporting children to Prevent, as opposed to normal safeguarding. Let me put this in perspective. Every year there are 621,000 child safety referrals to authorities. Prevent, which is not included in that figure, is less than 1% of it, if compared alongside it. There are safeguarding referrals from teachers, and from all the duties that doctors and teachers hold for safeguarding our children—they have a plethora of duties that are either implied or statutory—so we need to put that into perspective.

I have referred to the accusation that Prevent is not working. There are case studies and champions of Prevent. It is not the case that everyone is against Prevent and no one is for it. I met a mother of two children who did not go to Syria. She is delighted, funnily enough, that her children were successfully referred through the Prevent programme. People forget that Channel is a voluntary process. Regretfully, not everyone takes up some of the offers and some go on to do much worse things. However, Channel is voluntary and Big Brother does not force people into it. Some people have tried to imply that, but it is simply not the case.

In 2015, 150 people were prevented from going to Syria. That is a lot of people’s lives that have been saved. Many more people have been diverted from the path of throwing their life away through either violent terrorism and extremism or crime, gangs and the other areas that those same groomers often exploit—the methods they use are the same.

Many hon. Members raised the issue of internet safety and the hon. Member for Bolton South East made the point about education. We do teach cyber-safety in schools; my children had a lesson in cyber-safety at their primary school. We do teach the discourse between political beliefs and religious beliefs. I went to see a school’s Prevent officer in action in Walthamstow, teaching many girls in east London.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

Everyone would agree that there is nothing wrong with running programmes and working with young people, but one of the problems is the statutory obligation on teachers, schools and doctors, which means there may well face penalties if they do not deal with things. What we are saying is that it is the statutory obligation—the almost criminalising part—that is wrong. Why can it not be voluntary?

[Mr Wallace]

I have listened to the hon. Lady’s valid points, but statutory duties are writ large through the relationship between the state, children and the community. They are writ large in schools and in the medical profession. We all have a statutory duty. If I was a teacher and a child came to me and reported that they were being interfered with or sexually exploited and I did not report it, I would be in breach of a teaching council duty. We all have a duty and that does not make it wrong. What makes it wrong is for us to fail to safeguard our children or take action to prevent them from being radicalised.

There is this idea that we should throw the baby out with the bathwater by scrapping Prevent. I hear what all Members have said today about those perceptions and making sure we reinforce trust and work with communities to ensure that it is collaborative. That is absolutely important and the direction we must travel in to keep it going. On the idea that Prevent is actually having a massive negative effect, I ask colleagues to look across the channel to Germany, France, Belgium and Holland, where they do not have a Prevent strategy anything like ours. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) rightly pointed out, in America they have almost no Prevent strategy. Why are they now scrabbling to engage with their communities and ensure that they keep back the flow of terrorist attacks? This country, under Labour, started a process; we invested in a Prevent strategy to work with our communities and to safeguard children and vulnerable people.

I absolutely agree that we can always do more, and I am committed, as Security Minister, to doing so. It is not always the Security Minister who must do that; local police forces must recruit the right policemen in the right places to do the right jobs. Ultimately, Prevent is working. I can only tell hon. Members the successes, but we have saved lives, we are preventing the far right from rising in other parts of the country, and we are making sure that young people have a future. That is why I back Prevent. I am passionate about it and I am happy to take colleagues to go and meet providers and hear about it at first hand. It is not the disaster that it is painted to be. The misperceptions that are peddled, often by an irresponsible media, only add fuel to the fire, rather than working with us to ensure we protect people in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered implementation of the Prevent Strategy.

EU Referendum: Race Hate Crime

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

I want to make it clear that this Adjournment debate is not about people who voted to leave. Many good people voted to leave, as they believed we will be better off out of the European Union. Today’s debate is about the rhetoric and images used by some in the leave campaign.

Growing up as the child of Pakistani immigrants in the 1970s, I frequently received abuse such as “Go back to your country” or “You smell of curry.” Often, the words I heard were, “Go back home.” The words stung because they implied that I did not truly belong in this country. Growing up, this taunt haunted many of my generation and others as well. Words such as “Paki” and signs on doors saying, “No blacks, no Irish, no dogs” still haunt many of us.

If we fast-forward to 2016, it feels like nothing has changed. I still receive abuse, and it is not just racially motivated. I have frequently been subjected to rape and death threats online—often I am told I should be sent to Saudi Arabia to be raped and lynched—but I will not be frightened off, despite the fact that I am one of those MPs who regularly hold drop-in surgeries in my constituency and I have no idea who will come to see me. These people will not prevent me from carrying on connecting with my constituents and giving them the best service I can.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

I have been contacted by my constituent Leroy Vickers, who describes four very serious incidents of racially aggravated offences. He says that in the past two days he has witnessed a man on a bus telling a passenger, “Get off the bus, Paki”, witnessed racially aggravated abuse in a takeaway, and heard a man of Jamaican descent say that for the first time since he was about five or six he is hearing the N word used regularly. What does my hon. Friend say to that?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

That is also the experience of so many of the constituents and other people who have written to me. That is why I am very grateful that I managed to get this Adjournment debate.

We have had words such as, “Go home, Polish vermin”, posted through the letterboxes of Polish residents in Cambridgeshire; heard of young Muslim school girls being cornered and intimidated, with people saying, “Get out, we voted leave” and “I can even give you a suitcase”; and seen signs in Newcastle urging the Government, “Stop immigration and start repatriation”, with words such as “This is England, we are white, get out of my country”.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making some strong, powerful and deeply disturbing points. Does she agree, though, that it is not just in the context of the referendum that we have seen hate crime increasing? I saw this horror in last year’s general election. In just one street in my constituency, somebody told me that that they would not vote Labour because all we did was support the N word, another person pointed to a black woman in the street and told her she should go home, another told me that gay people should be killed and sent to hell, there was a race hate attack in a fish and chip shop at the end of the road, and somebody said that we needed to stand up against the Jews. That was all in one street. Does she agree that this has been going on for some time? It has been a problem in the referendum, but it has been coming for a while.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I absolutely agree. Later in my speech I will deal with fact that this has been going on for some time.

Since last week, I have been inundated with emails, tweets and messages detailing hundreds of horrific incidents that have taken place. I understand that since last Friday, True Vision, the Government website to combat hate crime, has recorded a fivefold increase in reports to the police from the public, with 331 incidents since the day the referendum was held. The weekly average used to be 63 reports. In my own region, Greater Manchester, there has been a 50% increase in the number of hate crimes reported in the past week. There has been a very famous incident on YouTube showing an American professor who was abused by people.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

May I wish my hon. Friend a very happy birthday? She is obviously a very dedicated Member of this House to be spending this evening here with us discussing these events rather than celebrating her birthday.

May I also say how much I agree with what my hon. Friend has said? I have just received a letter from the Metropolitan Police Commissioner telling me that the number of hate crimes in London has gone up from 20 a day to 60—a huge increase. Does she agree that it is very important that there is consistency among all the police forces—in Lancashire, in the Met—in dealing with this problem?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I absolutely agree. We need consistency throughout the country in how these cases are dealt with. I thank my right hon. Friend for remembering my birthday.

Many here will know or remember that on 15 February 1971 Enoch Powell stood up to speak at Carshalton and Barnstead Young Conservatives club in Surrey. It was three years since he had made his incendiary “rivers of blood” speech, and now he was returning to the subject of immigration. Mass immigration, Powell claimed, led to the native British seeing their towns

“changed, their native places turned into foreign lands, and themselves displaced as if by a systematic colonisation.”

Three members of the shadow Cabinet threatened to resign unless Mr Powell was sacked. Mr Heath dismissed him.

I, like many other Members, was horrified by the return of such language during the recent referendum. I felt revulsion—I am sure many others did too—on seeing the image of Mr Farage proudly unveiling his “breaking point” poster, featuring Syrian refugees, a week before the referendum. It was the visual equivalent of the “rivers of blood” speech. The poster shows a crowd flowing towards us—face after face, an apparently unending human tide. The nearest faces are in sharp focus, the furthest a blur of strangers. Even though they are human beings, they seem to be aliens.

Nigel Farage and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) frequently made false claims that immigration, not austerity, is the reason that health, social care and schools are under pressure, fostering the myth that immigrants drain our resources rather than enhance them.

That is scaremongering in its most extreme and vile form. The leave campaign played on people’s genuine fears about poverty, unemployment and deprivation, especially in areas facing generational unemployment that have long been neglected for the past 20 to 30 years. Immigration is not the cause of social inequality, and such scaremongering does not and will not address the root causes of the problems faced by so many. It is successive Governments who have failed to deal with the issue of social and economic inequality. The gap between the rich and the poor is now even bigger, and five families in the United Kingdom own some 20% of the UK’s wealth. The issues that need to be addressed—such as eradicating poverty and providing equal opportunities—are not being tackled. Immigrants are accused of being the cause of all that and they are used as a natural target—that is what Vote Leave campaigners campaigned on.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As one of the 17.4 million people who voted to leave, I totally and wholeheartedly condemn the attacks. Immigrants who come to my constituency of Strangford get employment and jobs, and they get married and buy houses. I acknowledge the valuable contribution they make. Whatever hate crimes have been carried out, they have not been carried out in my name or in those of the 17.4 million people who voted leave.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is why I said when I started my speech that this is not about leaving or about people who voted to leave; as I said, many of them had very good reasons for doing so. I am talking about some of the people who led the campaign.

Mr Powell foresaw an unchecked inflow of black immigrants creating civil war. The UKIP poster told us absolutely the same thing about the people headed our way, it claimed, “across borderless Europe”. The tide of faces sums up exactly the same image as the swarms and rivers and hordes of otherness and racial difference that Powell spoke against in 1968 and that so many others—the National Front and the British National party among them—have tried to evoke over the years. I do not think that the creators of the UKIP poster would be insulted by that Enoch Powell comparison. They assume that we all share their unease with racial diversity. It was no wonder that the poster was reported to the police for inciting racial hatred.

The referendum was one of the ugliest political campaigns that I have witnessed in my life. Leave campaigners could have talked about the need for reform, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, economic considerations and a whole host of other things. Instead, they chose to make the debate about the mythical “other”—the immigrant who is stealing our jobs and resources and taking our homes. They seemed to cry, “If only we could close the door, then Britain will be great again and all our problems will be gone.” I am afraid to say that the tone taken on immigration by some of the leave campaigners has made racism socially acceptable again.

[Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate and agree with all the points she has raised. I am sure she agrees with me that these actions against EU nationals, including the Polish people in my constituency who are having letters put through their letterboxes telling them to go home, are deeply deplorable and should be condemned.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I absolutely condemn the vitriolic abuse that the Polish community has received over the years. I would add to that that a lot of European nationals in this country are now very concerned about their status and their citizenship rights. I will ask the Minister to ensure that the Government deal with this issue fairly urgently to bring reassurance to a lot of EU nationals living in the United Kingdom.

The hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) claimed that Brexit would stop “uncontrolled immigration”, suggesting images of hordes of people rushing to our shores. During a televised EU debate, a member of the audience asked Mr Farage to explain how he would reduce racial tensions in the light of such rhetoric. Not only did he ignore her question, but later her Twitter timeline was filled with horrific abuse from his supporters. We must acknowledge that the abusers now feel more confident in making these claims because of Mr Farage’s frequent racist comments and claims that he can restore Britain’s place in the world.

[Stephen Doughty]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again; she is being incredibly generous. She made a point about Twitter. Does she agree that social media companies and internet providers have a great deal of responsibility here? It is not easy enough to report or deal with hate crime, of all sorts, and the internet is currently filled with abuse, whether it is anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim, anti-gay or anti-women. Many Members of this Chamber have experienced that abuse in recent days, from the left and from the right, and the companies that are involved need to take a much firmer hand.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I absolutely agree. It is so difficult to make a complaint. I am one of those people who can relate, on a personal level, the amount of abuse that I have received. When I tried to contact the organisations concerned, I got nowhere. It is important that we think about how we can regulate that and ensure that social media companies deal with these issues responsibly and monitor the posts that are being put on their sites. It seems that most of them completely fail to do that.

There have been constant calls that we are claiming our country back. After the Brexit campaign won, the first comment from Mr Farage was, “We have got our country back”, suggesting that it had been under the control of somebody else. These are the types of irresponsible comments that feed into people not liking immigrants—the “other”. Sadly, some senior politicians who perhaps should know better did the same, including the Prime Minister, when he talked last year about the “swarm” of migrants in Europe, and they have failed, time and time again, to stop the spread of such anti-immigrant feeling.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

It seems that confusion is being deliberately stoked on the definition of a refugee versus somebody exercising their right, or their former right, to freedom of movement across Europe, and other categories of non-European migration. In general, this leads to a sense that there is a lack of education about what migration actually is.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I absolutely agree with that. Very disturbingly, one of the arguments used by some leave campaigners was that the refugees who are fleeing war-torn countries such as Syria will come here as terrorists, and that, if we were to leave the European Union, they would not be able to come and somehow we would become safe. That feeds into the “anti-other”, or anti-immigrant, sentiment, and that is irresponsible.

Sadly, as of now, not a single prominent leave campaigner has uttered any condemnation of the rise of racial hatred or, better still, called for unity to heal the deeply dangerous divisions that have been created. Does the Minister agree that we now need a cross-party coalition to make sure that future campaigns on such issues are conducted according to some sort of code of conduct that ensures that we never again allow our political language to become so irresponsible?

The media have not exactly played a good role in this, either. We must consider the media and journalists who portray such politicians as colourful eccentric characters, whose outrageous comments are seen for their entertainment value and as being honest. How many times have we heard, “This person is saying it how people are saying it, and is not pretending to be something else—he is giving honest views”? That serves to legitimise their point of view.

We have heard about famous journalists who have continued with that kind of behaviour. Politicians here in the United Kingdom and in the US who encourage what I call “othering” quickly become big box office hits, especially if they are able to talk, not just unchallenged but endorsed by journalists, in a way that suggests that all Muslims are rapists, or that immigrants are sucking the NHS dry or are stealing our jobs while living on benefits. Imagine the effect on someone in an economically or socially vulnerable situation who is told on a daily basis that they are in that plight because of these immigrants who have taken everything. It is not surprising that some of those people think that the immigrants are to blame. That is why I talked about the need to eradicate poverty and provide good jobs, decent housing, education, schools and hospitals. That is so important. Can we really be surprised at some of the rhetoric and the things people have been saying when that kind of thing is perpetuated by our media?

The free hand of the print and online media to distort facts and blame entire groups of people for the troubles of our country, with almost no fear of contradiction, plays an important part in the spread of hatred, and is worrying. Certain parts of the media are complicit in the rise of bigotry and the consequent discrimination. Here, I touch on what my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) referred to. It is not that suddenly one day everyone decided to become abusive. There has been a consistent level of immigrant bashing over a number of years. There was a time in this country when the Irish were bashed. Then it was the Afro-Caribbean community, then the Muslims. Now it seems like everyone is hated. That is very worrying.

This is a great country to live and work in. I am very passionate about my country, which is why I think it is so important that everyone, including all politicians across the United Kingdom get together and say, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) did, “Not in our name.” This is not what we are as a country. We are a tolerant and liberal country. I have travelled and worked in other countries, and as far as I am concerned this is the best country to live in in the world. When I see this kind of thing happening, it really disheartens me. I know that others feel the same.

Let me give as an example some of the front-page scare stories from the Daily Express, the Daily Mail and The Sun. Recently, a Daily Mail cartoon compared immigrants to vermin and conflated them with gun-wielding terrorists. Who can forget the well-known shock tactic journalist who referred to desperate and scared refugees as “cockroaches”? It is amazing that the newspapers and journalists who make an enormous amount of money from those kinds of things are able to say them again and again and get away with it completely. In fact, the journalists are paid even more by the radio stations, television companies and media to carry on peddling their hate. When did journalists forget that with freedom of speech comes responsibility? Does the Minister agree that it is now more pressing than ever that we proceed with the next stage of the Leveson inquiry, so that the press act responsibly in their treatment of minorities? A free press is great—we want that, and we want the press to cover stories, responsibilities, wrongdoing and investigative journalism, and to tell us what is going on, but some sections of our media seem to have a completely different agenda of their own.

We have a proud tradition of welcoming people from around the world, and our diversity makes us stronger. We are grateful to all those who have chosen and continue to live and work in this nation. Members of the House must pledge to stand together and unite against hatred and intolerance in our communities. We will not, and should not have to tolerate hate crime again.

[Colleen Fletcher (Coventry North East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making important points about the responsibilities of different agencies. The Minister may have heard about the incident in Coventry, where my constituent, the Coventry and Warwickshire radio presenter Trish Adudu, was racially abused in the street last week. Trish said that an individual shouted at her and another Coventry resident, and said vile things, including the N word, which I have never used and cannot bring myself to use even when describing this incident tonight. She was told: “Get out of here. Go back home. Haven’t you heard the result of the vote?” Trish was visibly distressed when she reiterated that on the radio and on TV. Does my hon. Friend—and hopefully the Minister—agree that there is no place for such sickening and deplorable behaviour? We must work together to put a stop to it, bringing in all those agencies and working cross-party. Robust action must be taken—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. I have been very generous with the intervention, but that was very long. There is plenty of time and if the hon. Lady wanted to make a speech, she could have done so, but I think that was it.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

We have processes in place to report hate crime, and swift action can be taken, as was demonstrated by Greater Manchester Police following the incident of hate on a tram towards an American lecturer. Importantly, many who voted to leave the EU did so as a protest vote to voice concerns against the Government and austerity measures, and the vast majority do not endorse any racist rhetoric. Many who voted to leave felt that they were doing the right thing for the economy, and they fell for the lies being peddled as promises, such as £350 million a week for funding the NHS. However, Brexit has legitimised and normalised racism. We must ensure that all incidents are reported and prosecuted, and we must hold the media and leaders—including political leaders—to account when hatred is propagated. We must act against social inequality, and provide and protect jobs, wages, workers’ rights, good schools and hospitals. In essence, social and economic equality often leads people to view the “other” through the prism of dislike, hatred or suspicion. Only together can we work to tackle that problem, and ensure that future generations can hope for a safe future in this country and regard it as their home.

Hate Crime

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. There is no excuse at all for this behaviour. As I said earlier, I know the hard-working, loyal British people who voted in the referendum will want nothing to do with this behaviour and certainly do not want it to be used as an excuse for it.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

As you know, Mr Speaker, I tried twice to secure an urgent question on this matter, so I welcome the Minister’s statement today.

Does the Minister agree that the scenes of hatred and anger are the result of the racist, xenophobic and anti-immigration Brexit campaign, and of our print media, such as the Daily Mail, the Daily Express and The Sun, which over the years have blamed migrant communities for all the problems that occur in our country? This level of hatred and nastiness towards immigrant communities has led to some of the things that are happening. What will the Minister do to address this type of press coverage? Some politicians also need to take responsibility, such as Mr Farage and the right hon. Members for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) and for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), who in their campaign were absolutely disgraceful?

[Mr Speaker]

I greatly respect what the hon. Lady has said, so I hope she will not be affronted by this in any way. However, it is quite important for the future to bear in mind that we do not refer to unsuccessful urgent question applications on the Floor of the House. There are very good reasons for that. I absolutely understand the strength of feeling and considerable knowledge the hon. Lady brings to bear. As some colleagues perhaps might know—the Government are certainly aware of it—I did indicate to the Government that it would be helpful if there were to be a ministerial statement on this matter today. I hope the House feels that this is a very proper exchange in the circumstances.

Draft Investigatory Powers Bill

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of cyber-bullying, which affects the lives of too many young people—sometimes, as he said, with tragic consequences. The Bill will include a definition of serious crime, which is one of the areas in which it is possible for the agencies to apply for the most intrusive powers, such as interception warrantry. I would expect cyber-bullying, at the most serious end, to come within the definition, but I will check that point and write to my hon. Friend.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

Does the Bill deal with the process of applying to go through browsing history—the directory to which the Home Secretary referred? If there are no such regulatory procedures in the Bill at the moment, might the Home Secretary think about a system whereby somebody at the rank of chief superintendent, for example, would give initial permission under RIPA criteria?

[Mrs May]

It will not be possible for law enforcement agencies to access browsing history; they will just be able to access the first device or social media site that the individual device accessed, for the limited purposes I have set out—IP resolution, to see whether somebody is looking at an illegal website or to find out the communications services accessed. The arrangements for authorisation are those in existence for communications data in telephony, which were looked at by the Joint Committee on the draft Communications Data Bill. It felt that that was the right process to lead to serious and proper consideration of access—albeit not the browsing history—and that the right measures were already being taken in that authorisation process.

Counter-terrorism and Security Bill

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Hazel Blears]

My hon. Friend makes a point that is based on experience and it is all the more authentic and powerful for that.

These issues are not mutually exclusive. The police have a role to play and have an important security role, but other agencies and people in the community can equally make a big contribution.

The second point that I have raised consistently is about ideology. I am more reassured about ideology and paragraph 4 of the guidance, right at the front of the document, states that one of the objectives is to respond to the ideological challenge. Paragraph 17 talks about the need to train front-line staff so they are aware of the ideology and what they can do to push it back. I have asked again during the passage of the Bill how much resource will go into the area. We have £120 million to deal with the increased threat, but how much will go into the Prevent agenda? It is very important for people out there to know that. There is a hunger for training, support and capacity building among all the agencies that will have to carry out that duty. We need to offer some reassurance that that capacity and guidance will be in place.

My final point is about freedom of speech. I know that many Members have made their points on that already. The noble Lord Bates made a neat attempt to try to make the division between having due regard to and having particular regard to. I am not sure that I would envy him the prospect of litigating on that basis, because it seems to me to be a bit of a philosophical exam question. I know that the Home Secretary will look at that guidance again and make it as practical as possible, but reconciling those two formulations seems to me to be intrinsically difficult. I do not think for one moment that I am capable of reconciling that; that would require a greater philosophical brain than mine. Perhaps it will eventually come to judges. If the Home Secretary could say a little more about that, that would be very welcome.

Finally, will the Home Secretary publish all the responses to the consultation? That would help us all significantly in seeing the direction of travel. She has said that this is an ongoing generational struggle, as indeed has the Prime Minister. He said last week that the shadow will hang over our generation for many years to come. We are all engaged in trying to ensure that we tackle the problems we face. I will certainly seek to make whatever contribution I can to this agenda now and in future.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

On Second Reading, I and a number of other Members talked about the need for judicial or legal oversight of temporary exclusion orders and of the removal of passports and documents. I am pleased that some judicial or legal oversight has now been provided, but I am still a little disappointed about the number of days that a person’s passport can be held before that can effectively be challenged in the courts. I am also concerned that temporary exclusion orders are still closed proceedings, which means a person will not necessarily know what is being said against them. The ex parte nature of these proceedings is fundamentally wrong.

It has been said that any application for an exclusion order or to take someone’s documents will be intelligence-led and based on proper evidence. If that is the case, why is everybody frightened of proper judicial or legal oversight? That would not be by the method of judicial review, but in a proper, straightforward way, for example by going to the High Court to argue why a person should be excluded, or why they should not be on the managed programme, or why their documents should be taken. Proper legal aid should be provided for all those purposes as a matter of right, not as a matter of discretion.

On Prevent, I have to say that I disagree not only with the Home Secretary, but with my party and with what has happened previously. Prevent was brought in on a voluntary basis in 2007. I am afraid that some people think that they can introduce these kinds of things and then sit back and say, “Right, that’s going to deal with the whole issue of radicalisation.” That view is based on a fundamental flaw in the argument, which is that somehow this is all based on ideology. It is not based on ideology, or on a perverted ideology; there are other reasons why these things happen. It is completely wrong to think that simply by monitoring people in nurseries, schools, colleges, universities, hospitals and doctors’ surgeries we will be able to identify who might make the big leap from having a socially conservative view of something to going out to commit suicide and injure and maim other people.

I am very disappointed that that has not been looked at critically in this House. There seems to be universal acceptance here that Prevent is some kind of panacea; it is not. A number of organisations have said the same. A Demos report from 2010 recommended that the Government should dismantle the preventing violent extremism programme. The Intelligence and Security Committee’s report following the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby in 2013 said that the Government’s counter-radicalisation programmes are not working.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Lewis]

I appreciate the passion with which the hon. Lady is making her point and I agree with a lot of what she says about the fact that the people who commit those terrible crimes are unbalanced and unstable. That was true of the criminals who killed Lee Rigby, but it is precisely because they were unbalanced and unstable that they were susceptible to a particular extreme interpretation of a religious ideology. Therefore the two things interact. It is not quite as simple as she says.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I do not agree with that. One of the murderers of Fusilier Rigby quoted, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.” That comes from the Old Testament, not from the Koran. We cannot start saying that this is somehow linked with religious ideology. These are just confused, mentally disturbed people.

[Dr Lewis]

rose—

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I am sorry, but I have only a little time, and I have something to say that is different from what everybody else has said, so I would like to be able to take the opportunity to say it.

People do not seem to appreciate that a lot of these people are mentally unbalanced and have other issues. The Prevent programme has shown that spying on young people, taking them in and questioning them incessantly simply traumatises them—I have spoken to some of them. It does not help them in any way, shape or form, and it makes them even more frightened to say anything. Programmes like Prevent, in channelling people’s thoughts or what they say, are effectively stopping them discussing things. If I come across somebody who has a certain view and take the law enforcement agencies or the local authorities to them, they will clam up and we will not hear anything that they have to say. These things are completely counter-productive. The former director general of MI5, the noble Baroness Eliza Manningham-Buller, is not somebody who does not know what she is talking about. She and a number of people like her have said that Prevent does not work and we do not need it. If people do not want to listen to me, why cannot they listen to people like her and intelligence officers who have been involved in these kinds of things and say that ideology is not the reason behind them?

Finally, I want to talk about an aspect of the Bill that I hope the Home Secretary will reassure me about—part 4, on ships and aviation. I hope that these provisions will not end up stopping people from a particular country being able to travel to this country. Some of my constituents have expressed the fear that if certain parts of part 4 are applied, the way that the law is currently worded could allow people to say that because people from one particular country are coming here with some issues and challenges—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Lady, but perhaps she does not realise that this is a very short debate. I trust that she will soon be coming to a conclusion.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I thank you for your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I hope that the way the provisions in part 4 are put together will not lead to airlines or countries saying, “We will not allow people from this particular country to travel here.” I hope that reassurance will be provided in the guidelines that are produced later on.

I know that what I am saying may be different from the conventional view of some people in this House. However, as somebody who talks to young people all the time and deals with people who commit criminal offences, defending and prosecuting, I have a very good knowledge of the criminal justice system and the people who often come into it. Most of them are unhinged and most have problems. Prevent is the worst possible thing to put on to a statutory footing. It will criminalise people. I do not often agree with Peter Hitchens of the Daily Mail, but I agreed with his article of 15 January where he said that these kinds of things are going to lead to people being banged up, and in 10 years time we will ask how that happened. It happened, I am sorry to say, because not enough people in this House got up and said that Prevent is a bad idea and the whole process of looking at these things is wrong.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

My local mosque is extremely progressive, but I was invited to visit it on Monday because it has concerns about the Bill. Perception is sometimes as effective as reality and they feel that the Muslim community is under suspicion and that this Bill is targeted at them.

I understand what has been said about the speed at which the Bill has gone through, but I do not think that the wider community has caught up with the debate or why there is a sense of urgency. On the Bill’s implementation, it is absolutely critical that we engage at local level and allow the community to lead, rather than just the police. I completely agree with the argument about the involvement of families and mothers in particular, but that involvement has to be resourced as well. There is a real feeling in my community that these measures are targeted at Muslims in a way that will infringe on their religious freedoms and divide the community rather than unite it.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi): real care needs to be taken in how the Bill is implemented at the local level. In my area, we are bringing all the mosques and agencies together to talk through the detail of the Bill, not only so that people can be brought up to speed, but, more importantly, so that we as a local community can drive the initiative, rather than its being seen as something that is being done to the Muslim community by the state.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

There will be a form of challenge available to an individual under judicial review. We will also have to notify the individual that action is being taken against them, so that they are aware that the measure is being put in place.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

On a point that was made earlier, if an individual has the right to challenge how they are managed—I think the right hon. Lady said that it would be by means of judicial review—can we ensure that they have legal aid to do that?

[Mrs May]

As the hon. Lady knows, the Government have made a number of changes to legal aid, and we are looking at the position in relation to that particular issue on these new measures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

Obviously, carriers in most parts of the world are already required to carry out some security screening. From time to time, we say that if someone is going to fly into the United Kingdom we wish them to adopt additional methods of security screening. At the moment, this is done on a voluntary basis, but the Bill takes that and puts it into statute, which will enable us to stop someone from flying into the UK if they do not adopt the security procedures.

Part 5 addresses the issue of those at serious risk of succumbing to radicalisation and terrorism. We propose a new statutory duty on certain bodies, including local authorities, the police, prisons, probation services, schools, colleges and universities, including in the private sector, to have due regard to the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism. That will ensure that Prevent strategy activity is consistent across the country and in all those bodies whose staff work on the front line with those at risk from radicalisation. The detail of how the duty should be fulfilled will be set out in statutory guidance, which we will publish shortly.

I hope that the House will find it helpful if I take the opportunity to clarify one specific issue that the guidance will address, which is the need to create an appropriate and sensible balance between the need to prevent people from being drawn into terrorism and the existing duty on universities to promote freedom of speech. I believe that our universities, with their commitment to free speech and the advancement of knowledge, represent one of our most important safeguards against extremist views and ideologies. There is no contradiction between promoting freedom of speech and taking account of the interests and well-being of students, staff and the wider community. That is already subject to guidance issued by both Universities UK and the National Union of Students. We must ensure that poisonous, divisive ideologies are not allowed to promulgate.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

The right hon. Lady mentioned universities and other institutions being sent statutory guidelines on Prevent. Why do the guidelines have to be in statutory format? Why cannot they just be sent, knowing that any responsible institution will follow them without their having to have legal force behind them?

[Mrs May]

The purpose of putting Prevent on a statutory basis is twofold. First, the statutory duty will now relate to a number of front-line institutions, as I have said, such as local authorities and universities. There is already some guidance that Universities UK and the National Union of Students apply to universities, as I have indicated. However, I believe it is important to ensure that there is that statutory duty on bodies such as universities, and the Bill allows the Secretary of State to make a direction to one of the bodies covered by that power if they are failing to exercise their statutory duty.

Deferred Divisions

Yasmin Qureshi Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the speech by the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), some of which I agreed with. Let me place it on the record that I also agreed with some of the things that were said by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) and, of course, my Labour colleagues.

I ask the House to bear with me for a few moments while I explain what I did before I became a Member of Parliament. It is important for the House to know where I am coming from when I make the observation that I am about to make. I was a prosecutor for nearly 15 years, so I am not shy of having strong laws in the criminal justice system. I do not have a problem with people being prosecuted for crimes that they have committed and being sentenced appropriately. If people commit a serious offence, they should receive a serious sentence. I do not think there is a problem in having laws that deal with criminality.

I understand the position from which Governments approach this subject. Obviously, they have an obligation and a duty to protect their citizens. That duty must, of course, be balanced with individual rights and civil liberties. I know that it can be a difficult balance to strike, especially in these challenging times. Perhaps it is at times of pressure that a civilised society can be recognised. When a civilised society loses sight of its liberties, it is giving in to the terrorists. It is saying, “You have succeeded, because we have put up all these fences and brought in all this legislation.”

I ask the Government to consider the following points. On the issue of temporary exclusion orders, there should be proper legal and judicial oversight. There should be a categorical commitment that a UK national who is overseas will be allowed back into the country. At the end of the day, everybody knows that, under international law, a person will be stateless if they cannot come back to the country of which they are a national.

Earlier, I put a question directly to the Home Secretary. As I understand it, she said not that people would be stopped from coming back to the country, but that they would have to go on a managed programme, by which she meant that they could come back on our terms and conditions. The question is, what happens to the person who does not want to accept our terms? We can deal with them if there is evidence of criminality against them, as we can prosecute and, if necessary, imprison them. But what if no criminal allegation can be proved? What happens then if they want to return? The proposed legislation suggests that they can return only on our terms. I ask the Government to reconsider that concept in its entirety. If they want a managed return, the person who is subjected to the order should be able to go to the courts to challenge it. I do not mean the judicial review process, because that is incredibly complex and the Government have recently passed quite a lot of stringent rules about whether people can have legal aid for judicial review.

The process of challenging a managed return order should not be dissimilar to that which applies when someone is charged with a criminal offence. They can apply for legal aid, they can go to court and they can contest the allegations against them. That element should be strengthened in dealing with people who are excluded. Legal aid should be available in a very simple system, allowing people to challenge the orders in the proper courts, as opposed to having to go through the very circuitous route of judicial review. As a lawyer, I can tell hon. Members that that is not an easy route. A straightforward application to challenge orders, such as that which people would make in any other example of criminality, is the right way forward. I hope that the Home Secretary and the Opposition Front Benchers, when tabling amendments to the Bill, will consider the judicial safeguards.

The second part of the proposals involves taking away people’s passports or travel documents when they are travelling. I understand the rationale for that. A father or mother might ring up, saying that their child is travelling across the country and might be heading for somewhere they should not, and asking whether something could be done. I accept that it might not be possible, in the space of a few hours, to get a court order to ensure that there is a legal sanction behind the removal of that person’s documents. However, the proposal that the police or law enforcement agencies could keep the documents for up to 14 days—even after 14 days people might only be able to go to the courts for a judicial challenge—needs to be reconsidered.

Although there might be an urgent need for such a provision for the first few hours, or even for a day, the judicial oversight should kick in within a certain time—say 48 hours—of the stoppage taking place, rather than 14 days, which is what the Bill proposes if I understand it correctly. Even after those 14 days, the person would only be able to challenge whether the police officer had been diligent. They will say that they are diligent; what needs to be challenged is whether taking away the document was a right and proper decision. We know from history that whenever powers of stop and search are introduced, they are always abused and they are quite often never properly implemented. We therefore need to be careful about these draconian powers and how they are exercised. Adding a legal and judicial element to the process is necessary so that we have a balance between protecting the citizen from criminality and retaining people’s liberties. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider that. At the same time, it is pointless to have rights if people do not have the legal aid with which to exercise them. I hope that that will accompany this.

On TPIMs, I agree with the Home Secretary’s new definition involving reasonable probability. The standard of proof has gone up, but it should be even tighter. Provisions such as TPIMs take away people’s liberties and they should be able to challenge that. I know that people can challenge those orders in law. Members might not be aware that, interestingly enough, quite a lot of people who challenged their TPIMs in court were released from those orders, and that was with a very low standard of proof, as we call it in the legal system. I am very pleased that the standard of proof will go up and I think that there should be clear judicial safeguards in this regard as well.

I now come to my final observations on a point that is causing me some concern—the provisional statutory framework for universities, prisons, schools, nurseries and so on, intended to prevent radicalisation. It always makes me uncomfortable when the state tries to enter the arena of monitoring and controlling thought and discussion. Other hon. Members have alluded to the fact that some universities are worried that that might prevent the proper, sensible discussion of issues. There are many in this country, and across the world at large, who hold views that could be called socially or morally conservative, religiously conservative, or even radical; but there is a big difference between holding socially conservative views and getting to the stage of committing a criminal offence—that is a big jump.

Although I will wait to see the Home Secretary’s guidelines, I am concerned about another proposal in the legislation. If an institution does not carry out what it has been asked to do, or fails to monitor it properly, the Secretary of State can direct them to do it. It would be helpful to know what we are talking about in relation to the guidelines. I say this not to criticise, because I know that all Governments, of whatever complexion, do this, but when this type of legislation is introduced, we should have more time to analyse and discuss the matters sensibly and get the details. Regrettably, that has not happened in this case. We have not had enough time. I know that three days will be set aside for debate in Committee of the whole House, but we really should have had more time to discuss the measures in the Bill before it came to the Chamber today. I therefore look forward to hearing the Government’s proposals in relation to libraries, universities and other institutions.

Let me move on to my concerns about the state interfering in thought processes. The provision might look, on the face of it, very comforting and reassuring, but will it actually achieve anything? Will it be effective, or are we just bringing in another layer of rules and regulations without thinking about whether they will work? I think that organisations should be told that these dangers exist, and I do not see anything wrong with sending out guidelines that say, “This is the kind of thing you’re looking for,” but I think they should be voluntary, not statutory. I think that resources should be made available to help institutions deal with radicalisation and extremist views.

Although everybody is talking about radicalisation in general, we know that we are talking about a tiny number of people who call themselves Muslims but are doing things that I can quite honestly say most of us just do not connect with in any shape or form. As the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) said, of the 2.5 million to 3 million Muslims in this country, those people number in the hundreds. Many of them are young, and most of their information seems to come from the internet.

It is right that there should be a counter-narrative. The state should not set up a unit specifically to deal with that, but there is nothing wrong with going into a Department and putting in place funding, for example, to look at countering the narratives. Many Members have talked today about certain institutions that have been looking at radicalisation, such as the one in King’s college, but there are other people who have looked into it who, perhaps because what they say is sometimes a little broader, do not get enough attention.

A famous American academic, Professor Kundnani, has looked in detail at all aspects of radicalisation, and one of his suggestions—this is very pertinent—is that in universities and places of education there should be spaces for wide-ranging discussion of religious ideology, identity and foreign policy. Those spaces should not be undercut by the fear that expression of radical views will attract the attention of intelligence agencies or counter-terrorism police. If we scare people so that when they come out with some radical or conservative idea they will not discuss it, we will never find out what is going on in their head and never be able to challenge them and say, “Actually, your narrative is wrong.” A safe space should be allowed for that discussion to be had.

[Mr Khalid Mahmood]

When we start to engage with those with radical views that differ substantially from the views of the general Muslim community and of Islam, allowing them access at that level sets us back, because instead of putting their views forward, they put the whole radical doctrine and ideology forward, which weakens the entire case. We have done too much of that here in the past. We need to start to tackle those with very different and radical views that need to be addressed.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I am sorry, but I respectfully disagree with my hon. Friend. Yes, some people have radical views that we would all disagree with, but unless we hear what they have to say, we cannot challenge them.

I speak to a lot of young people all the time, especially young Muslim males, and I listen to what they say. Sometimes they come out with things that do not make me think for a minute that they are going to commit a crime, but show that they have a view about certain issues. I sit there and explain to them, “That is not right and this is how it should be,” and they listen. That kind of discussion is important, and we cannot stifle it.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

My hon. Friend is making an interesting contribution. Does she think that young Muslims, particularly young Muslim men, sometimes feel rather patronised because the only concern of the whole world is the danger of their being radicalised? I have had many discussions with young Muslim men at mosques in my constituency, and in schools and colleges, and their concerns are jobs, housing, health, and career prospects. They sometimes feel that they are being unfairly singled out as a danger to society, when they want to make a contribution just like everybody else.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He will not be surprised to hear that I entirely agree with him.

As somebody who talks to a lot of young Muslim males, let me explain that they are very fearful and frightened at the moment. We see all the headlines in the newspapers about what happened at the school in Birmingham, for example. Yes, what happened at that school was wrong, but pictures are painted that every Muslim school in the country is acting in that way, or that every single young Muslim male is behaving in a certain way. That kind of narrative is dangerous. Sometimes we in this place need to be careful about what we say as well, because these people are very vulnerable.

While I have no doubt that people I talk to are not going to do anything stupid or wrong at all, it is appropriate to be able to discuss things. In talking about a safe space, I do not mean that people should be allowed to say things unchallenged, but that we should hear what they have to say and then challenge them and tell them that they are wrong. Unless we confront people’s difficult thoughts, we will not be able to challenge them. That is how we deal with this. Professor Kundnani has suggested that proper research should be carried out with some of the people who have returned from Syria and other places to find out their motivation for going there.

Governments and politicians can certainly do a lot more to furnish a counter-narrative. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) said, we should see on the internet a counter-narrative to the other narrative. That is very important. As the Home Secretary has said, many imams and scholars of Islam living in this country post on websites and blogs and clearly state that the stuff that ISIL and others are doing is completely un-Islamic. It is important for the Government and institutions to push what those people and scholars have written to the forefront of the media, so that the country at large and young people can be educated by it.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

That is precisely the sort of role I see the Government playing—not setting themselves up as Islamic scholars, but giving support to those authentic Islamic scholars who can speak with authority.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I agree. I will finish by saying that there are people in this country who can help to create the counter-narrative, which is really important. If we sort out the narrative, half of this Bill will not be necessary.