Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Ben Spencer Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 12th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Clive Efford]

I will not go down that rabbit hole, if the hon. Member will forgive me. I think Rwanda has done an incredible job. Furthermore, it has reined in the Conservatives by saying, “We also have international agreements. We have treaties and agreements with other countries that require us to abide by international laws and conventions. If you, the UK Government, don’t want to abide by them, we certainly do.” Rwanda has almost saved the Conservatives from themselves, from going too far in breaching international laws and conventions.

I have listened with interest to the speeches from Conservative Members, and the Gangway has never seemed so wide. It seems to be the equivalent of the Berlin wall for the left and right of the Conservative party. Listening to their speeches, they seem to be completely irreconcilable. There are those who want to defend the rule of law and the right of individuals to seek to uphold their rights in court, and those who want to take away that power. Members have made it quite clear that they are not going to vote for legislation if it does not satisfy their requirements, but the two requirements are complete opposites—they are totally and utterly irreconcilable.

I do not see how the Prime Minister is going to resolve this conundrum. From the expression on his face earlier, he has clearly managed to cobble together a coalition to get the Bill through today. He is confident of that.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s reflections on the Conservative party, but what are his reflections on the Labour party’s policy or absence thereof?

[Clive Efford]

I hear it all the time from the Conservatives that Labour does not have a policy. It would be nice if one of the policies implemented by this Government over the past few years actually worked. That would have been a revelation.

I commend—[Interruption.] Can we have a bit of silence over there? I commend the Government for the arrangement they have made with Albania, which is the sort of route we should be taking. Ministers have stood at the Dispatch Box today and said, “We have brought the small boat crossings down by a third.” That is largely due to the agreement with Albania, which is an indisputable fact. By being practical in dealing with things at source, we could resolve this problem. Investing in dealing with the gangs—[Interruption.] They are all laughing over there, but the fact is that convictions for trafficking people across the channel are down by 30%.

Perhaps Conservative Members should take a look at themselves and understand why this problem exists. It is because of the sheer incompetence of the Government. Some 160,000 people were included in the net immigration figures because the Government failed to deal with their asylum cases within a year and the Office for National Statistics included them in the figures. That is just sheer incompetence from this Conservative Government. They are incompetent in dealing with people’s claims, and in dealing with the boats and the illegal operations running them.

This is the fault of the Conservative Government from beginning to end, and this Rwanda scheme is doomed to fail. With its rhetoric, the Conservative party has overpromised and brought us to the point where we are having to legislate that black is white and that the Tories can have their own facts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

Our country finds itself in a difficult situation. The Government rightly made a commitment to the public that we would both stem illegal immigration and protect our borders while upholding our moral and legal duty to offer refuge to those fleeing violence or persecution.

Our efforts to stop people dying in the channel, to stop the criminal gangs and to stop the boats have been opposed at every turn—opposed by the Labour party, opposed through the legal system, and, of course, opposed by the criminal gangs profiting from the dangerous and illegal routes. It is claimed that this is a problem for the UK alone—that it is our Government’s problem alone—but it is, in fact, shared with our neighbours and allies across Europe, who face their own, often greater, challenges with illegal immigration.

Those challenges are not going away. Instead, as a consequence of climate change and global instability, they are likely only to get worse. Our approach to asylum needs to be fair both to the asylum seekers themselves and to our communities. Our communities have opened their hearts and homes to those seeking refuge, but that must happen through safe and legal routes. We cannot cede control of our borders to criminal gangs; we must tackle illegal immigration.

The European convention on human rights is often cited as the barrier that is preventing control of our borders. I am proud of the UK’s leading role in promoting human rights across the globe, and I want us to continue that and to support the ECHR, but the judgments of the Court appear to have moved away from simply guaranteeing the basic and fundamental rights enshrined in the treaty. Judgments have begun to infringe upon democratic decision making, and there appears to be no obvious way of holding the courts to account. That has been called judicial activism, but whatever we call it, the answer is not to withdraw from the ECHR or to break international law; the answer is to come together again, as we did in 1949, to find the answers to the challenges of the present day. That will take time, of course, and right now the Government must take steps that are within their power to control illegal immigration.

Colleagues may remember my unease about a previous Bill that threatened to break international law. I was unable to support that Bill unamended, and had the same issues arisen with this Bill, my sentiment would be the same. However, the difference is that I have been assured that the Bill, as it stands, does not break international law. It is by no means perfect—we could spend a lot of time seeking perfection, but the challenges we face are real and impacting on lives now. I will therefore give my caveated support to the Bill tonight as a near-term measure to tackle illegal immigration, but at the same time, I give my unwavering support to the Government to engage with our international partners and work towards a long-term, sustainable solution.

Illegal Migration

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his announcements and the progress in this area. We urgently need to move people out of hotels and to instead provide stable, cost-effective accommodation that meets the needs of asylum seekers and the communities we serve. We all need to do our bit. We have received proposals from Home Office officials for asylum accommodation locally that would not work. The officials have been very helpful, but will the Minister agree to meet me and Runnymede Borough Council leader Tom Gracey to discuss alternative proposals to do our bit?

[Robert Jenrick]

I would be pleased to do so. One innovation that we have started this week is to write to all local authorities with an open offer: if they can bring forward better proposals for asylum accommodation than the Home Office’s providers, we would be happy to work directly with them. If my hon. Friend’s local council has ideas that would be more suitable, better value for money and more in line with the wishes of the local community, we will take them very seriously.

Illegal Migration Bill

Ben Spencer Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 13th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

Our immigration and asylum system must be fair and able to support people fleeing violence and persecution and those who are most vulnerable, but it must not be undermined by criminal gangs who profit from illegal immigration and put at risk the very people we want to help. Do people believe that the criminal gangs are supporting asylum seekers? Does anyone in this House believe that we should thank them for their humanitarian endeavours? Of course not.

Support for vulnerable asylum seekers should be based on assessment of need, not on ability to pay or connections to criminal gangs to bypass the system. Support for vulnerable asylum seekers should never mean that lives are put at risk in one of the world’s busiest shipping lanes in a small boat. Safe and legal routes must be the means through which the most vulnerable receive support, not by giving in to criminal gangs.

Schemes such as the Syrian resettlement scheme, the Afghan scheme and Homes for Ukraine have seen many thousands of refugees successfully relocated to the UK. We need more such schemes so that refugees, wherever they come from, can access safe and legal processes for claiming asylum. Our communities have opened their hearts and homes to those seeking refuge, and they will continue to welcome those genuinely fleeing violence and persecution. That is their choice, but our communities do not choose an ever-increasing burden of illegal immigration being foisted on the country by criminal gangs.

In the past year, 45,000 people illegally entered the UK by small boats. It costs the British taxpayer £3 billion a year. Imagine if the money spent housing people who came here illegally was used to create more safe routes for asylum claims—imagine the difference that would make for the thousands of genuine claimants without the means to access legal routes. Imagine the difference we could make if, instead of political point scoring, the parties on the Opposition Benches joined with us to end the exploitation and illegality that is rife in the current system and worked with us to prioritise the needs of the most vulnerable.

National Security

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Tom Tugendhat]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. As he will know, not only is the voice of Ulster heard very clearly in the integrated review, but it actually holds the pen. It is a pleasure to commit to working with him and others across the United Kingdom to make sure that voices are heard. On resources, we are in the early stages: at the moment we are setting out how we can work together better, but there is an awful lot still to do.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and warmly welcome him to his place.

In the same way that the UK took a leading role in international collaboration against the Russian invasion of Ukraine, is it taking a leading role in international collaboration against cyber-attacks by hostile actors?

[Tom Tugendhat]

My hon. Friend is quite right to talk about international co-operation, because this is not something that we can do alone. Our partners around the world are absolutely integral to our defence. Through agencies such as GCHQ and wider work through the National Cyber Security Centre, the United Kingdom has regularly been leading different forms of engagement and different ways of co-operation. My hon. Friend has my absolute commitment that that will continue and grow, because the way we extend the UK’s influence and defend ourselves is by making sure that our friends and allies are safe, too.

Public Order Bill

Ben Spencer Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 23rd May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

This is an important Bill, which I support. During this debate, we have heard a lot from Opposition Members about peaceful protest. I support peaceful protest and peaceful demonstration, but today’s debate suggests to me that there is some confusion about what peaceful protest is and what it is not.

My constituents know what peaceful protest is. As Members of Parliament, we see it every day on Parliament Square—people singing, people heckling us, people making themselves and their opinions known to us as legislators. My constituents also know what peaceful protest is not: it is not people blocking the M25, or roads to hospitals, which I think is particularly egregious. I was horrified years ago watching when ambulances were trying to get through to St Thomas’ Hospital. People from Extinction Rebellion were taking it upon themselves to decide who was worthy to pass the blockade and get urgent medical treatment. We have seen the same thing with the recent M25 protests. Peaceful protest is not stopping people going to work or blocking the distribution of newspapers. It is not blockading fuel at a time of particular pressures around fuel. It is not slashing the tyres of trucks or smashing up petrol stations.

This Bill is not an anti-peaceful protest Bill; it is an anti-criminal behaviour Bill. It is a Bill to tackle the tactics deployed by people with no regard to the consequences of their actions or democratic process and who use criminal damage to try to hold the public to ransom. What really infuriates my constituents is that the people they see deploying these tactics seem to be above the law. They go and lock on and do protesting round and round again, with seemingly no powers to act to stop them. That is why the serious disruption prevention orders are so critical in stopping it. These behaviours are not on and cannot be accepted in any society committed to the rule of law and democracy. This Bill is essential to tackle this criminal behaviour.

Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Bill

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 12th January 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir George. I am so pleased that the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire has campaigned with such tenacity on this issue. She has had knocks from every side, but she has kept on going because she knows that it is the right thing to do. I am in awe that she has got the Bill to this point, and all power to her. I would also like to thank the Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation, Karma Nirvana and the Girls Not Brides campaign for their ongoing work to help victims and put an end to child marriage.

This is a big problem. Internationally, 12 million girls are married before the age of 18 each year. That is 23 girls every minute. The UK signed up to the UN definition of a child being someone up to the age of 18, but child marriage is still prevalent in this country. Currently our laws allow for a legal marriage to take place from age 16 with parental consent. However, Karma Nirvana’s executive director, Natasha Rattu, says that in her experience many children are pressured into these marriages by family members. Last year, over a quarter—199—of the 753 cases dealt with by the UK’s forced marriage unit were of children under 18, and 113 of those forced marriages were of children under 15.

It is often difficult to apply the parameters of forced marriage to child marriage. Child marriage violates girls’ rights to health, education and opportunity. Girls are highly likely to experience sexual and domestic violence in a child marriage and they often struggle to find a way out. If the UK wants to be a global leader on women and girls’ rights, we must begin by banishing this horrendous practice from our own communities once and for all. Between 2007 and 2017, 3,096 marriages involving children aged 16 and 17 were legally registered in England and Wales, according to the Office for National Statistics. However, we must also discuss the importance of tackling unregistered child marriages. That is why I am so supportive of this Bill.

In the last year, Karma Nirvana has offered support in 76 cases of child marriage. Only 5% of those were registered and an overwhelming 95%—72 out of 76—were non-registered and religious marriages. These marriages are never reported, which presents a really significant barrier to protection and safeguarding. It is so important that this Bill covers any marriage involving a child who lives in England and Wales, or who is a UK national—here is the crux of it—even if the marriage does not take place in this country. It also covers those who officiate the marriage, so no more turning a blind eye with this Bill.

For years I have worked to try to improve safeguarding for all children, both nationally and internationally, which is why I am delighted that this Bill will provide a huge step forward in preventing child abuse. I am proud that England and Wales will soon be able to set an example for other countries to follow—I urge the rest of the UK to do the same.

Internationally, there is still a long way to go but there is some progress. In the USA, for example, in 2017 all 50 states allowed minors to marry in some cases. Since 2018, six states have banned all marriages before 18, but most states allow teens to marry at 16 or 17 if parents and a judge consent. Nine states still have no minimum age for marriage at all. We need to ensure that more protections are in place and that the general public are aware of the laws, so that victims of child marriage can be identified and supported, and I thank the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire so much for the work she is doing to make that a reality.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire on getting the Bill to this stage. It is a landmark piece of legislation and a very important Bill.

I will focus my comments specifically on legal marriage. One of the reasons why my hon. Friend’s Bill is so important is that the current legal position on consent to marry is, at best, bizarre and contradictory, and at worst, an historical anachronism. I will lay out why that is, in relation to the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how it applies to children in this situation. As well as implementing my hon. Friend’s Bill, we really need to take forward how that Act operates.

Looking at adults, the law on consent is codified in the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which lays out what criteria one needs to show in order to demonstrate that one has the decision-making capacity to make a decision. Marriage is one of the decisions that falls within scope, along with decisions to do with sexual relations and medical treatment. There are two types of adults in this world: those with decision-making capacity for a specific decision, and those without. When capacity is lacking and a decision and action has to be taken, the clinician or whoever is involved has to assess the decision-making capacity and then make a decision in someone’s best interests. There are provisions for what is effectively proxy decision making—such as lasting power of attorney, and some situations where people take part in clinical research—but even then the person making those decisions has to act in the person’s best interests.

In general, if someone is lacking capacity and a decision needs to be made, the person acting on behalf of an individual has to make a decision in their best interests, so a best interests framework operates. However, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 states that some decisions are far too personal for someone to make a decision on behalf of someone else in their best interests. I realise that I am going into a technical wonderland of best interests, but a good example is found in medicine. Let us say that someone has been hit by a car and is unconscious. When they come to hospital, the doctors need the powers to treat them. In the context of someone who is unconscious, it is not possible to assess their decision-making capacity, so a decision has to be made in their best interests. Problems arise when there are more complicated decisions and when people are awake, conscious and able to contribute to discussions.

The Mental Capacity Act excludes a certain set of decisions. Where people lack capacity, others can make decisions on their behalf—adoption and marriage are a couple of examples. Of course, parents are able to make a range of very personal choices and decisions for their children, particularly around medical treatment, but even in medicine there are limits on how much parents can consent. When children are detained under the Mental Health Act 1983, there are certain medical interventions for which parental consent alone cannot be relied on, because it is deemed to be too personal and too complex. Electroconvulsive therapy treatment is one of them, and I believe that in the context of serious interventions for children with long-lasting consequences, there are situations where clinicians may want to go to court to get extra back-up and reinforcement because of the nature of the decision.

We have a weird dichotomy, because the Mental Capacity Act states that if an adult lacks capacity, there are decisions that no one can make on their behalf, with marriage and adoption being two examples. However, if someone is a child between the age of 16 and 18— admittedly with decision-making capacity—parental consent can be used to enter into a contract such as marriage. I think that is completely bizarre and it needs to be changed.

Marriage is a big decision, and one that we expect to be a long and lasting decision. Of course, it is not an irreversible decision because of the divorce laws that we have, but I do not think there is a situation so pressing as to not allow a decision to enter into marriage to be delayed until the age of 18. I realise that is not necessarily an uncontroversial point of view—people have different views on it, such as those with strong religious beliefs—but fundamentally I think it is absolutely right that we move marriage to the age of 18. That is because the backdrop to this is a recognition that we see people under the age of 18—children—as inherently vulnerable. Although someone between the ages of 16 and 18 may have decision-making capacity, they are still not necessarily fully mature. They are still potentially more vulnerable than an adult, and we include in our law legal gatekeepers, the thresholds that we determine one must pass to become an adult. The Bill is very important in exemplifying that a child, even someone with full decision-making capacity at the age of 16 or 17, is still someone whose potential vulnerability we have concerns about, and has not moved into adulthood.

[Sarah Champion]

I agree with the arguments that the hon. Gentleman is making, but for me this is also about the fact that the state has a legal, mandatory duty to take care of someone under the age of 18. It is reneging on its duties unless this Bill is enacted.

[Dr Spencer]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I see where she is going with her mention of the duty. As always, we will get into a bit of a debate over the duties of the state to protect the most vulnerable in our society, under-18s. One could fiddle around with this, and we could start getting into debates about the right to personal freedoms under article 8(2) of the European convention on human rights, but she has made a strong point.

The hon. Lady has helped me to move on to my more substantial point in this debate, because although children are of course vulnerable and the state has a legal duty to protect them, there is another range of people who are quite vulnerable and who this Bill does not cover: those who have marginal decision-making capacity to consent to marriage. I have done lots of decision-making capacity assessments in my career as a doctor and as a subject of my previous academic research. I admit that I have never made an assessment of capacity to marry, but in general, while the decision about whether somebody has decision-making capacity is very binary—yes or no—there are people whose assessments lie somewhere in the middle, and whose situation is unclear and complicated. Those assessments go to the courts for determination, and there are people with a range of mental conditions, such as learning disabilities and cognitive impairment, whose capacity to consent to marriage may be marginal and may be queried, and about whom determinations need to be made.

Although the broad criteria for assessing decision-making capacity for marriage are codified in the Mental Capacity Act 2005, there was originally a common law test, and following that Act the courts have continued to interpret it and apply common law tests for marriage. The test that has been used has evolved over the past 20 to 30 years, and it interacts quite tightly with the common law test for capacity to consent to sexual relations, because judges, rightly or wrongly, have looked at those two as being quite closely associated. In previous cases that have gone to the courts, it has been said that the capacity to consent to sex has to be a lower threshold than the capacity to consent to marry, because by definition if a person marries they have to consummate the marriage. Those are not my words, and they are not necessarily my views, but they are how the courts have applied those two common law tests of capacity.

Our judiciary is absolutely fantastic. It is great that we have it, and those judges do fantastic work in applying the capacity test to complex situations, but nevertheless those tests have evolved over the past 20 or 30 years, importing societal values and mores into them. While we are making clear decisions about what we define as childhood and adulthood, there are some very broad-brush legal proceedings in terms of children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Loughton]

My hon. Friend is making some good points about this subject, about which he might like to introduce a private Member’s Bill. We are dealing only with the chronological definition of children, but there is a real problem. We know about the low rape convictions in this country—I apologise that I have to leave this Committee to go to the Home Affairs Committee, which is looking into this matter at the moment—but they are just the cases that come forward. Those who do not have capacity come forward to declare that they have been the victim of sexual offences even less often.

I have tried to allude to the definition of children, their rights and the responsibilities of adults towards them, but this whole area needs to be cleared up. Even if my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge is not lucky enough to be chosen in the private Members’ Bill ballot, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire and I have been in the past, I am sure the Home Office Minister here today will take away these important matters and come back with Government-backed legislation, in due course.

[Dr Spencer]

I thank my hon. Friend for that brilliant intervention. It was prescient, as I was about the say that there is an even bigger problem in the interaction between civil cases, about people who lack capacity to consent to sex, and criminal cases. That will be difficult to deal with, but we need to do that. There are different thresholds, and it is unclear how civil and criminal cases interact.

There is also the situation where one of the partners in a marriage loses capacity to consent to sex, but sexual relations continue. How do we, as a society, want to think about that? I am sure everyone has deeply held personal opinions on this, but I have heard what I think are awful stories—for example, a person in a couple developed dementia and lost the capacity to consent to sex, but the couple continued to have sexual relations. Social services got involved and it all got pretty horrible. These are big issues.

The last thing I want to do, however, is to hold up the Committee or prevent the Bill from making progress; that is why I declined proposing putting anything in the Bill, but I hope that the Minister has heard the points made, and that we can get something moving, using the Bill as a springboard to the next step in helping people in such situations.

[Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I will keep my remarks brief, so we can get on.

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire; I echo the remarks of the hon. Member for Rotherham on that point. My hon. Friend has expertly guided this vital piece of legislation through Second Reading and Committee. From my experience, I know how rewarding yet challenging this process can be. I congratulate her on reaching this stage.

More must be done to address the practice of child marriage in England and Wales. Official figures for 2017 show that in that year, 183 individuals entered marriage at age 16 or 17. We know, however, that the recorded data do not accurately reflect the number of children marrying in religious and customary ceremonies. I welcome the measures in the Bill to address that. I wholeheartedly support the Bill’s intention of raising the minimum legal age for marriage and civil partnership to 18, and making it illegal for persons to arrange the marriage of a person under that age. I am pleased to be in Committee to support my hon. Friend’s Bill as it progresses. I look forward to it completing its remaining stages.

Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Bill

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Friday 19th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) on introducing this crucial piece of legislation.

Let me start my brief speech by drawing attention to the importance of the institution of marriage. I think that all Members throughout the House—those who are married, those who are not married and those who are in civil partnerships—would agree that it is a critical, fundamental part of our society. It is important to our communities, to keeping families together and to raising children. I am married, and getting married was without doubt one of the best things that I have ever done in my life. It was a far greater achievement than becoming an MP. I am amazed that I managed to persuade my lovely wife to marry me: that was surely more of an achievement that being elected a Conservative Member of Parliament!

It is important that the institution of marriage is not corrupted but protected, and that we have strong legislation and strong cultural provisions to ensure that the institution has sanctity and significance in our society. I have already given my pitch on the religious aspect of marriage; now I want to say a bit about the legal, contractual elements. It is important to recognise that this is a serious decision, and that two people are entering into a serious contract with incredible long-term consequences involving finances, rules relating to next of kin, and parental responsibility—which applies to men only by default if they are married to the mother at the time of the child’s birth. As we know, when marriages or partnerships unfortunately do not work, there is a high bar which has been very deliberately imposed for unwinding them. This is a contract between two people on steroids. That is why robust measures are required to ensure that those entering into a marriage or civil partnership really know what they are doing, do it willingly, and understand the consequences.

I remember what I had to go through before my marriage: meeting a priest, taking marriage courses—which were fascinating in themselves—and speaking to the registrar, when I was tested on how well I knew my wife. Procedures such as that exist to ensure that people go into marriage with open eyes and understand the gravity of the institution.

I have always thought that allowing 16 and 17-year-olds to be married with parental consent is very odd. Given the personal nature of marriage and all its consequences, to have consent by proxy from one’s parents seems bizarre in itself. I am sure that plenty of children, certainly those over 16, have competence, in the sense of Gillick competence, when it comes to entering into a marriage, because in a way it is quite a simple decision. In our society and our culture, we all learn about marriage and its consequences. It is the gravity of the decision, rather than the decision itself, that is problematic.

In medicine we have parental consent by proxy, and parents give consent for medical procedures on behalf of their children all the time. When children get to 16 or 17, parents can still give consent on their behalf, but a doctor or practitioner is involved who is recommending the treatment. There is a third party, an officer of the state—that is what doctors and nurses are in this context—recommending the medical intervention. That deeply personal contract is very different from marriage, but even medicine recognises that there are some decisions that are so big that parental consent is insufficient. One example is giving electroconvulsive therapy to children under the Mental Health Act, where there is an acknowledgement that we cannot and should not rely on parental consent alone and that we need other legal procedures.

[Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) on introducing this Bill. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) agree that the Bill will bring legislation into the modern age? I am a big believer that it takes a village to raise a child, but in this Bill we are saying as a society that marriage is not something children should be doing at all. We are giving young people, as they grow, the autonomy to make that decision for themselves without the need for parental control.

[Dr Spencer]

I entirely agree. This Bill essentially brings historical views of marriage and marriage legislation into the 21st century, bringing it into line with other areas of law in terms of consent and individual autonomy. One of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 is essentially to delay a decision, if it does not need to be made there and then, until a person regains capacity. I would argue that the provision we are debating today is in line with the principles of that Act.

I submit there is no urgent need for a 16 or 17-year-old to enter into a contract of marriage or civil partnership. I think it can wait until they are 18 so that we can be confident that this big, important decision—one that will affect the rest of their lives—is one they enter into with full competence, willingness and foresight of all the consequences and benefits of marriage.

We have talked about child abuse and vulnerable people, but it is also about making sure people make the right decision about the person they want to marry. Not to put too fine a point on it, the people we fancied or liked when we were 16 are often different from the people we fancied or liked when we were 17, 18 or in our mid-20s. There is also a question of maturity as people grow up.

I think this is a fantastic Bill, and I am not at all surprised that it has cross-party support. All I can say is that I wish we had been able to introduce it earlier. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire for introducing it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Monday 18th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that, with the live investigation taking place, I will not be drawn into any commentary whatsoever, and no Member should. The issue of lone attackers is not new, and across society and across our country and other countries around the world, sadly, we have seen too many lone attackers in previous years as well. There is a great deal of work taking place, and we will continue to discuss the work that takes place across intelligence, policing and security, prisons and probation to prevent these attacks, but also the data and intelligence sharing undertaken across our systems, across Government and across all aspects of various institutions and society. Of course, that is linked to some of the current inquiries that are also taking place.

So a great deal of work is under way, but it is also important to recognise—I would like all Members to hear this—that we have some of the best intelligence and security agencies in the world, and I want to pay tribute to them and our police forces today for the work they have been doing, specifically with regard to the current investigation but also the much wider work they do to keep us safe every single day.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

T3. I want to associate myself with the remarks made by you, Mr Speaker, the Home Secretary and other hon. Members, and to pay tribute to Sir David Amess and James Brokenshire, two fantastic and honourable MPs cruelly taken before their time. Their friends and families are in all our thoughts and prayers.On the review of the security of MPs, does my right hon. Friend agree that one thing that makes our democracy great is the unfettered access our constituents have to us, and that this must be protected and strengthened as part of this review?

[Priti Patel]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and question. He is absolutely right, and I think all Members take pride in our constituency work and the ability for constituents to approach us and us to be approachable for them. A number of security reviews are under way right now and we are rightly looking at practical considerations to protect Members and the public to enable us to carry out our functions as democratically elected Members of this House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Monday 28th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

As the shadow Minister says, on 27 March we paused cessations whereby people leave asylum accommodation when their decision is made positively or negatively. On 11 August, we resumed those for positive cases where they have been granted asylum, in a very phased, very careful, week-by-week, step-by-step way, moving them, where necessary, into local authority and other kinds of accommodation. We are now just beginning the process for the negative cases where asylum has not been granted, because clearly we cannot accommodate people at public expense indefinitely when their asylum claim has been rejected. We are doing this in a very careful, phased, week-by-week way to make sure that the sorts of risks that she describes do not come to pass. Where there are safe routes home to the country of origin for people whose claims have been rejected, we are working to make sure that those safe routes home are taken.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

What steps her Department is taking to maintain public order during the covid-19 outbreak.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)]

Throughout the pandemic, our police officers have been on the streets every single day working tirelessly to stop the spread of coronavirus. I am in contact, virtually every day now, with the National Police Chiefs Council and policing leaders to ensure that we have the right plans and the right approach to make sure that the police play their role in stopping the spread of the virus and maintaining public order.

[Dr Spencer]

During the lockdown in Runnymede and Weybridge, we saw a huge community response and support to get through some of its real challenges. Unfortunately, though, a small minority have been making life miserable for people through antisocial behaviour. I have already heard that, with the new measures coming in, this is starting up again. Will my right hon. Friend confirm the importance of tackling antisocial behaviour and assure me that the police have the support and resources necessary to do so?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the full impacts of antisocial behaviour previously that are manifesting again. That is why police leaders are working with local authority partners to address many of these issues. He is right to point out that we must back the police to have the tools, the powers and the support they need. We will back them all the way to make sure that we deal with issues such as antisocial behaviour.

Windrush Lessons Learned Review

Ben Spencer Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

The hon. and learned Lady raises some very important points, quite frankly, about how the Home Office not just undertakes reviews but picks up on recommendations and enacts recommendations around reviews themselves.

It is fair to say that Wendy Williams’s “Windrush Lessons Learned Review” is a review like no other. Thankfully, it is a one-off review of an absolutely shocking scandal that took place. As I said in my statement, it identifies and marks a stain on the history of our country, but it also scars my Department significantly. As a result, the measures that I have outlined today—just the five steps alone, which are very focused on the Home Office itself, including encompassing policy aspects—are very detailed. They are detailed for a reason. They are not a tick-box response, and they are not a “quick, let’s fix this and pay lip service” response either. A great deal of work is required. This speaks to the hon. and learned Lady’s third point, about reviewing the compliant environment and the work that will need to be undertaken there, which will take time. Obviously, I will report back, and as a Department we will report back, on exactly how policies are effected specifically on that.

It is fair to say that my commitment on this issue, and more fundamentally with regard to the Home Office, is absolutely solid and firm. I have seen all sorts of practices, I have experienced all sorts of practices in the Home Office, and I have been on the receiving end of certain practices in the Home Office as well, which quite frankly speak to some of the points that came out of Wendy Williams’s review. Therefore, our commitment is solid, and it is firm.

The hon. and learned Lady also asks about engagement with the devolved Administrations. She should take that as a given. There is always more work that needs to be done on that front, and that is something that I am committed to doing.

[Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Having compensation available that people are aware of is very important, but trust in the system also needs to be rebuilt so that people feel confident in claiming. What is she doing to ensure that people are not just aware of the funds that are available but confident to claim?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend raises a very important point. He will have heard my comment in my statement about rebuilding trust. For people to come forward, they have to have not just confidence but trust in the organisation that they are engaging with. That is fundamental to the work that the Home Office is now undertaking.

On a practical level—I have spoken before at the Dispatch Box about the practical steps that need to be undertaken—we need to do better in terms of our outreach. We have not undertaken engagement opportunities because of covid and, obviously, the problems with getting out and around the country. That will change. I have set up new stakeholder groups, we have a new communications campaign and officials will be going back into communities. I think I said when I came to the House the day after the publication of Wendy’s report, on 19 March, that I want to work with colleagues across the House to ensure that we are working in their communities to rebuild the bonds and bridges of trust—importantly, both to build those links and to reach out to individuals who have been affected.