Death of Ann Widdecombe

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I assure my hon. Friend that that is one of the issues I will pick up, as I said in answer to a question from an Opposition Member a little earlier in this statement. I shall discuss this matter with colleagues on a cross-party basis, and I will speak with Mr Speaker and the House authorities about what more we can do in respect of specific details relating to the homes of Members and former Members of Parliament.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and her tribute to Ann—it was extremely moving, if I may say so. Can I also point out the unfortunate statistical fact that a Member of Parliament is more likely to meet a violent death than a member of His Majesty’s armed forces or a member of the British police forces? I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to assure Mr Speaker that none of us doubts his personal commitment to our security, but this remains a very relevant problem. None of us wants our homes to be turned into fortresses, but maybe more people need to be encouraged to, for example, put security gates on the front of their houses, and to have security cameras recording what is going on, rather than just relying on the Ring bell that happens to be on their front door.

Can I also pay my own tribute to Ann? Much has already been said. I shared 18 years of her parliamentary life, alongside my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). There were disagreements about Maastricht, and about women candidates—my goodness, she loathed me trying to promote women candidates in the Conservative party. I maintain that she was wrong about that, but she was right about many things. Her maiden speech, about the Trident nuclear deterrent, was made at a time when the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats were a bit wobbly on that subject. What an emblem of her patriotism, and her fervour for strength and clarity of purpose!

I served in the shadow Cabinet with Ann when the Government were introducing the Human Rights Act 1998 and pressing for close adherence to the European convention on human rights. She was the one member of the shadow Cabinet who said, “We should oppose this”; members of our shadow Cabinet were saying that we should relish joining the ECHR. Her prescience has often invited derision from others, but she was right on that score. We in the Conservative party are learning the lessons that she left behind during her life; maybe other parties will learn them, too.

[Shabana Mahmood]

That was also a very moving tribute to someone of whom the hon. Gentleman was clearly very fond, and with whom he worked closely. He has dared to say that she was wrong; perhaps if we listen carefully, we can hear her saying something quite forceful in response.

I take the security of all Members of Parliament very seriously, as I know Mr Speaker does. Considering what has happened to Ann Widdecombe, we must now live up to our responsibilities to former Members of Parliament as well, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will take my duties in that regard very seriously. I do not want it to be the case that people are more likely to die a violent death if they are Members of this great House. This great House has great public servants in it from all over the country and from every party, and the public service of all Members of this House is something without which our country cannot do. It is incumbent on us all to protect that, for this generation and for generations to come.

European Entry and Exit System

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris]

It is reasonable for the House and the Government of the day to have a real focus on the juxtaposed ports, because the issues happen on UK soil and have impacts in UK constituencies. My hon. Friend is right that our constituents will go to all EU member states and, I would be willing to venture, they will travel to all ports in all EU member states at some point over the summer period. I do not want to see them delayed there, have their holidays ruined or to have a less enjoyable time. In the spirit that he suggests, we have talked to the European Commission and we have talked to member states individually. We have a rich sense individually of not just where every member state is, but where each port is, so that we can impose on them the clear view from the British people that they want flow prioritised, and that is what we are doing.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Will the Minister point out to the European Union that, because we have a common travel area with the Republic of Ireland, and because the Republic of Ireland is not applying any of these checks on British citizens going to and coming from Northern Ireland or direct from the United Kingdom, there is actually an open border between the European Union and the United Kingdom, so they might as well allow the same access through Dover rather than trying to impose all their rubbish on the United Kingdom? On the suggestion that this is all the fault of Brexit, this did not exist when we left the European Union; this is a result of a decision that the dysfunctional European Union is inflicting on travelling British citizens for its own reasons, not for any practical benefit.

[Alex Norris]

There is a lot in the hon. Gentleman’s question. I would slightly challenge the assertion that the CTA is an open border. If an individual crosses that border into the UK, they have to have a reason for being there. They have to have real leave and they are subject to enforcement activity if they do not. I would not want anybody, whether they are connecting into the EU or anywhere else in the world outside the CTA, to have the idea that any of our ports are an open border. I want to know who is coming and who is going: that is in our nation’s interests. On his final point about there being no practical benefit, it is not for me to make the EU’s arguments for it—it can do that for itself—but given the conversations that we have in the Chamber about the flows of people across the European Union and then to the UK, it is really good thing that the EU wants to have borders where it knows who is coming and going, because that plays an important part in ensuring that we have a safe border. I think that is a good thing.

Southport Inquiry

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend notes one of the key failures, which related to the question of who the risk was to. In this case, too many of the internal assessments were of the risk to the perpetrator himself, not the risk that he posed to others. That must change, and Sir Adrian Fulford will make practical recommendations for the individual agencies, but his report speaks to the need for a cultural shift in the way in which these cases are looked at and managed. That will be a cultural shift for colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education, as well as those in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

Where a Prevent referral is made because there is a vulnerability to terrorism, there are already systems in place that would enable those risk assessments to be made on the basis of risk posed to others. Of course, in this case, the onward referral to Channel should have been made, but it was not. However, we have to make sure that even where an onward referral to Channel does not take place and somebody does not quite meet the threshold for Prevent, they are still picked up, and that that cultural shift for dealing with risk—for its management and assessment—takes into account all of the findings that Sir Adrian Fulford has made.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and for the way in which she is promoting learning rather than blaming, because that is the best way to get the change we need. I also thank her for her robust response to the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), about the point he raised, and for the point she is now making about the requirement for a cultural shift. Can she take a close interest in this? Not many leaders in many organisations understand that it means changing the attitudes and behaviours of individuals in their organisations—it is not just about setting a policy. It requires a very concerted act of leadership, alongside diligence and consistency, as well as making sure that those who do not want to make that change are eased out of their positions and that there are no promotions for those people who do not respect and demonstrate the changed attitudes and behaviours that are required. This is a big ask, and does not often happen in the public service.

[Shabana Mahmood]

It is a big ask, and I am very clear that this must be a moment of change. I do not want to be standing here with a future tragedy, saying the same things that have been said in response to what happened in Southport. We owe the families a true moment of change in how public services are delivered. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: a cultural shift is critical for making onward progress, including for agencies that do not normally consider the risk posed to others, because they are primarily concerned with the risk of harm a person poses to themselves and their clinical need, which is different from the wider societal need to protect others from harm.

That is something the Government will now have to look at closely, to bring forward real change within our health service, within education and within local government. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that I will take a close personal interest in that because, at the end of the day, preventing harm and keeping our people safe is my responsibility. I will make sure we do everything we can to have those mechanisms as robust as possible for people who meet the threshold for being dealt with through the Prevent strategy and onward referral to Channel. Where people are below that threshold, we still need an answer as a society. I will take a close interest in that myself.

Iranian State Threats

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

The right hon. Gentleman has never bored me—[Interruption.] I sense, Madam Deputy Speaker, that not everybody in the Chamber would be able to say precisely those same words, but I can say them and look the right hon. Gentleman in the eye. He is right to mention Jonathan Hall’s work. He will know that Jonathan Hall is not an individual who sits on his hands; he will work at pace. We need to get a move on with this, and I can give the right hon. Gentleman an assurance that we will and that work will progress at rapid pace.

The right hon. Gentleman’s point about wider Government is exactly right. There is an important role for the Department for Education. The defending democracy taskforce that was set up by the previous Government, which I now chair, brings together virtually all the Departments, as well as a number of other operational partners, so that fulcrum point across Government that looks at these matters very much has that wider approach, which he is right to raise.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. It is reassuring that the Government are not losing sight of all the other threats that face the United Kingdom and our allies. I praise and endorse his comments about how our relationship with the United States is far deeper and more integrated in defence and security, goes well beyond any disagreements we have with the present White House and will endure. However, I warn him that while he has been speaking, President Putin has made overtures to the Iranian regime to offer to broker talks between Iran and President Trump. Is it now time to draw to the United States’ attention the true nature of their new friend in Moscow?

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Gentleman speaks with great wisdom on these matters. I simply say that I completely agree with his analysis of the depth of the relationship with the United States. The truth of the matter is that all our constituents are kept much safer because of the partnership arrangement we have with the United States and other Five Eyes allies. That is the most important security relationship we have, and we need to invest in it for the long term. I can give him an assurance that that is what we will do.

Extremism Review

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend raises an important point, and the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have both recently referred to this, including during their statements on 21 February. She is right that there has been a troubling rise in the number of cases involving youth men, boys and teenagers who are being drawn into extremism. As I said to the House earlier, that includes a range of different areas, including Islamist and far-right extremism, but also there is a particularly concerning rise in those drawn into what is referred to as mixed and confused ideology, and those young men and boys who have an obsession with violence. This threat is not unique to the United Kingdom; it is being experienced internationally, but I assure her that the intelligence services and our law enforcement partners are working with Government at pace, along with our international partners, to look at what more we can do in this particular area.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

May I first echo the Minister’s point that we should be grateful to those civil servants who are working night and day to protect us from terrorist threats? I suppose we should also be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for denouncing the document, which certainly emanated from his Department, without making any personal criticism of those civil servants. But does that document not demonstrate that a large body of opinion has completely lost its way on how we deal with extremism and terrorist threats? I urge him to encourage the Department to return to what Prevent is intended to achieve and not get distracted by all this political correctness, given that most of the country have no idea what a “non-hate crime incident” is. We need to return to proper language that people understand, or the Government themselves will be driving people’s disillusion and despair about these matters.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as always, for his observations, and for his point about civil servants. He talks about political correctness; having served together in the House over many years, I hope he knows the Home Secretary and me well. Fundamentally, this must be about the threat. We will leave no stone unturned to ensure that we have the appropriate level of resource in the right place at the right time, so that the ever-evolving and complex nature of the threat we face—both in the United Kingdom and abroad—is appropriately addressed by our law enforcement agencies. I give the hon. Gentleman a categorical assurance that we will continue to work around the clock to ensure that we protect the public.

Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

The House should be generous towards the Home Secretary, as she has travelled a long way since last week by recognising that there is a requirement for far more inquiries into the towns affected, and we should thank her for that. However, one crucial thing still lacking from her statement today is whether these new inquiries will have the power to summon witnesses and require the production of papers.

Only the Home Secretary—or a Secretary of State or Minister—can set up a statutory inquiry. In fact, the Minister specifying an inquiry could set the terms of reference, decide whether it should concentrate on certain towns, set the timeframe and set the budget. She could appoint as many people as she wants to the panel so that different parts of the inquiry could run in different parts of the country concurrently. Is she really ruling out that any of these inquiries should be statutory inquiries? Victims have the real freedom to speak out only in this Parliament, as we have just movingly heard, or in a statutory inquiry, where they are legally immune from consequences for anything they say. Why cannot she provide the victims with those protections?

[Yvette Cooper]

The strongest protection for victims continues to be through police investigations, and of course the police have full powers to pursue investigations wheresoever they may be found. A series of local inquiries have been held in different ways. The inspector investigation into Rotherham, where Baroness Casey was the lead inspector, did have powers to get to the truth, whereas the Telford inquiry did not have those powers but still managed to uncover serious problems and make serious recommendations.

There are different ways in which to do this. We have made it clear that we want to strengthen accountability powers and the ability to ensure that answers are given to local areas, and that is alongside the work we already have under way as part of the Hillsborough law on the duty of candour that we need to implement across the board.

Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the local service; the Safeguarding Minister also is a strong supporter of the work that that service is doing. My hon. Friend is right about the importance of making sure that we support victims and survivors, and we need to work with the victims and survivors panel on how we take that forward. She is also right to say that part of the problem is that the children were not treated or respected as children. They were just treated as somehow being adults and not as being exploited and subjected to the most terrible of crimes. That is one of the fundamental things that has to change.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I also thank the Secretary of State for her statement. I think the House is overwhelmingly behind her in dealing with these difficult subjects and implementing the findings of the Jay report. However, I am listening carefully to these exchanges, and the arguments against a further public inquiry—in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), for example—seem rather thin: “Oh, we have already got too much to do,” “Oh, it probably won’t find out anything new,” “Oh, let the council do it on its own.” I just wonder whether this is in fact a matter of public confidence. If the Home Secretary cannot restore public confidence without a further public inquiry, please will she not rule it out?

[Yvette Cooper]

We obviously supported the independent inquiry into child abuse, including the two-year investigation that it did into organised networks of child sexual exploitation. That was immensely important as well. We also continue to support the local inquiries, reviews and investigations, including in Oldham. I have particularly highlighted the work that was done in Telford, and there is a reason for that.

The Telford inquiry was set up as a local independent inquiry, but it has proved more effective than many of the other pieces of work that have been undertaken in this area, through having victims and survivors at the heart of that local inquiry from the very beginning. They were involved not just in giving evidence but in drawing up and shaping the way that the whole inquiry went forward. It also has in place a proper framework for following up and making sure that, a year later, progress is being made and action is being taken. We want to learn from what worked effectively in Telford.

Interestingly, that is different from what has happened in some other areas, so the way in which it has worked is significant. That is why we believe that the right next steps will be for Tom Crowther, who led that inquiry, and the victims and survivors who were involved in Telford, to share that experience with other areas, including Oldham, so that we can make sure we have a proper framework for local areas and institutions to get to the truth about what has happened in their area and to ensure that changes take place.

At the same time, we must recognise that we had the two-year inquiry into child exploitation nationally as part of the overarching review, and that a series of recommendations from the overarching review have still not been acted on. So let us work with the victims and survivors panel that we are determined to set up on what is the best form for future investigations and work.

United Front Work Department

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I briefly mentioned earlier the importance that this Government attach to the defending democracy taskforce. We inherited that body from the previous Government. We are working at pace to ensure that it works across Government as effectively as possible. Fundamentally, it seeks to address the point he made about challenging those threats to the integrity of our democracy. This Government will ensure that no stone is left unturned in seeking to address the significant challenges that we all know we face.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Just a few days ago, the head of MI5 talked about having to make “uncomfortable choices” and paring back counter-terrorism operations in order to deal with the huge rise in state threats. If the Government mean what they say about security being the first priority of Government, will the Minister undertake to ensure that MI5 and the security services as a whole have the resources they need to tackle all the threats? By all means, blame the previous Government for the state we are in, but it will not get him far, because I need him to answer that question.

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point and a good challenge. I can assure him that the Home Secretary and I work incredibly closely with MI5 and colleagues across Government to ensure that they have the resources they need to do the difficult job they do. I mentioned the remarks that Ken McCallum made in his annual threat lecture back in October. The nature of the threat we face is more challenging and complex than at any point in our lifetimes. That does require resource and expertise. The Home Secretary, I as Security Minister and all the Government will work to ensure that our security services have the resources they need to do the job.

Illegal Migration

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

I am grateful for the work that the right hon. Gentleman and I have done on this issue, particularly on the very serious events that took place at the hotel he mentions. I contacted his office earlier today to notify him that the hotel will be included in the first tranche of hotel closures. The incident he experienced highlights why this is not an appropriate form of accommodation, as it took from his community a very valued asset that people used for weddings, birthdays and special life events. It was also a source of serious community tension, which is why we now have to exit the hotels as swiftly as we can. It is also a lesson to us that we have to be very alive to the challenges both of high levels of illegal migration and of high levels of legal migration that make it difficult for us to successfully integrate people into our communities.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his robust and confident statement, and for the significant progress he has been able to report to the House today. Can he also confirm that the hotel on the A12 near Langham in my Harwich and North Essex constituency is one of those that will no longer be used for asylum seekers?

Public Order Bill

Bernard Jenkin Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 7th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dr Huq]

I completely accept what the hon. Lady just said. As a woman, Madam Deputy Speaker, you know that, if any woman present in the Chamber were walking down a dark alley, they would shudder if someone was there. That feeling is magnified x amount of times for women having that difficult and distressing procedure when people determined to stop them having a termination are in their path. Those people can have their say, but let us move them away from the clinic door.

Buffer zones are not outlandish. They exist in France, Spain, Canada, Australia and some US states. In Ireland, they are legislating on them at the moment. We will be out of step with the rest of the UK, because a Bill is being brought in in Northern Ireland and a private Member’s Bill will become law this year in Scotland.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer), because His Majesty the King was visiting my constituency today, so I arrived back too late to hear him propose the amendment. It is worth pointing out, however, that both Houses have now voted heavily in favour of the principle of buffer zones. We have to understand the passions behind what is proposed, but it is not really a relevant amendment that advances the argument. In fact, it tries to set the argument back against what both Houses have already decided.

[Dr Huq]

The hon. Gentleman and knight of the realm makes a completely incontestable point. When we last voted on it in this place, we voted in favour by almost 3:1. In the other place, the vote was taken on voices, because the support was overwhelming. Hon. Members should not fall for a wrecking amendment; they should reject it.

This is about not the rights and wrongs of abortion—that question was settled in 1967—but the rights of women to go about their lawful daily business. It is not even a religious issue: the Bishop of Manchester in the other place made a barnstorming speech on the day.

As we said after the tragic killing of Sarah Everard, she was only walking home. Women should be allowed to use our pavements unimpeded. We saw the re-sentencing of her killer yesterday, so it all came back, and sadly, Sabina Nessa and Zara Aleena have been killed since. We cannot stand by, do nothing and say, “This is all okay.” It is obviously not, when 10,000 women a year are affected. Who could argue with safe access? I urge hon. Members to support Lords amendment 5 unamended.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

My right hon. Friend will be pleased—but not surprised, given that he knows me so well—to hear that I entirely agree with him. I would not support loud, aggressive protests outside abortion clinics. They do take place in some other countries, but the evidence that they take place in this country is extremely thin. Indeed, a previous Health Secretary conducted a review to establish that fact. If that was in any way likely or possible, or was made more possible by this amendment, I would not be speaking in support of it, so my right hon. Friend is entirely right. This is about peaceful, silent protests.

In moving this Bill at its inception, the Government rightly said they were doing so because they were against violent disruptive protests. They had in mind people gluing themselves to roads, and stopping ambulances that were rushing to save lives. I support this Bill. I support its objectives because that kind of disruptive and violent protest is incompatible with a free, open and peaceful society. But it is extraordinary that, simultaneously, having said that they were in favour of peaceful protests—the defence being, “We are in favour of an open society, different opinions, the right to put your case by protesting peacefully”—the Government are now failing to support an amendment, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South because the Government refused to table it, to protect people’s right to protest in the very peaceful and indeed silent way that a few weeks ago they were saying they were prepared to defend.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

It is not a matter of interpretation, because it seems to me that this amendment would create exactly the kind of conflict and disruption to public peace that it is intended to avoid? If somebody kneels ostentatiously to pray in front of someone on their way to an abortion clinic, what is that intended to do? This amendment says that

“such communication or prayer shall not, without more, be taken to be—

(a) influencing any person’s decision”,

but why else would somebody kneel down and pray in front of a woman on her way to an abortion clinic unless it was intended to influence that person’s decision? There is a balance to be struck between the rights of people who pray, like my right hon. Friend and me, and the rights of people trying to avail themselves of a perfectly legal service to which they have a right.

[Sir John Hayes]

I do not know how often my hon. Friend prays—maybe more often than I do, although my need to do so is probably greater—but he must understand that prayer does two things: it sends a message, one hopes, to the Almighty; and it provides solace for the person praying. So the person praying outside the clinic may well be sending a message, but that message is just as likely to be transcendental as to be intended for any individual in proximity.

The idea that we should interrupt the relationship between an individual and their God seems to me to be pretty monstrous, particularly as amendment (a) states specifically that any activity, communication or prayer shall not influence any person’s decision or, more especially, instruct or impede any person. This is not about interfering with another. Rather, it is about expressing a view to oneself, to the Lord and perhaps to others; but that could surely be said of any prayer at any time. Are we going to arrest people in other public places? Once this is allowed and the police are permitted to apprehend people for what they think and what they are praying about, why not arrest them in other public places? Why does this have to apply only to abortion clinics? Once we open this door, why would the police not arrest people outside mosques or temples, or in any other public space where they are praying to illustrate an opinion—or indeed, as I have said, to express it not horizontally but vertically, to a greater power above us?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Paisley]

I look forward to the Minister joining me in the Lobby this evening.

Whenever we walk into the Palace of Westminster, we walk beneath a massive portrait of Moses by Benjamin West. We walk through St Stephen’s Hall, and what is St Stephen’s Hall? It is a church. We walk over the catacombs under which is another church. We come to this place—to the “mother of Parliaments”—and debate a piece of legislation that essentially says, “If you dare to pray in a certain part of this Christian nation, in silence, you will be arrested.”

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ashley Dalton]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger]

I recognise that, but the difficulty is that none of us can know their motivation. I can accept that my hon. Friend’s judgment is that the motivation is pretty malign. The prayer might be well intentioned, but the attempt to dissuade a lady from accessing an abortion clinic is genuine. There is no doubt that is what is happening. My concern is about the principle of this law, how it will be applied and the precedent it sets in our democracy.

My concern is that the Bill authorises the police to ask exactly the question raised by my hon. Friend. It authorises them to go up to a private citizen standing on a street corner, not overtly harassing anyone, and to ask the question that the police asked the lady in Birmingham, “What are you praying about? What is in your head at this time?” They could see that she was not doing anything offensive, but they concluded that she was probably thinking something of which they disapproved, so they took steps to arrest her. I think we are taking a very concerning step as a country in authorising the police to act in that way.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I utterly respect the sincerity with which amendment (a) to Lords amendment 5 was moved and why my hon. Friend is supporting it. I am pleased to hear that the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) is against harassment, but that is the point of amendment (a). It does not say that any person engaged in consensual communication or silent prayer shall avoid harassment; it says that it shall not be taken as harassment. However ostentatiously someone is praying, or however aggressively they are seeking to open consensual communication with an individual going to a clinic, it shall not be taken to be harassment. It is a blank cheque for a person to behave in a harassing way, because they can defend themselves by saying, “Oh, but it says here that what I was doing shall not be taken as harassment.”

[Danny Kruger]

The behaviour that will not be taken as harassment is private prayer. Other actions that may be taken—obstructing a person walking down the street was what my hon. Friend suggested earlier—will be in scope. What should not be in scope is a person thinking something in their head. That is the only defence on which we are trying to insist, and I invite Members to consider whether they want to pass a law that will ban people from thinking something. Other forms of harassment or obstruction will be in scope of the law. So I do not think the intention is to stop people praying—I do not think that is what the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton, the Government or indeed any of us want to do. We need to send a clear signal of the intention of Parliament through this amendment, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) for tabling it. I ask Members to consider that if they vote against it, they are voting to ban private prayer. Of course it is a special case and we are talking about tiny zones, and of course we can all sympathise with the intention of the clause, but the point is the principle of this—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

It is worth looking at what amendment (a) states. It states:

“No offence is committed under subsection (1) by a person engaged in consensual communication or in silent prayer”.

For the avoidance of doubt, amendment (a) goes on to say that nothing in it should allow people to be harassed or their decision to be changed, such as kneeling down and praying right in front of somebody’s face, or blocking the pavement, or indulging in any kind of harassing.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am not going to give way to my hon. Friend, who has intervened many times already. I have been asked to speak very briefly.

It is worth looking at what this amendment is, and it is worth considering the question put by the police officer to the lady. The police officer asked her, “Are you praying?” In other words, there was nothing she was obviously doing that was harassment or in any way objectionable. The police officer had to actually go into her mind—she was just standing there; I do not think it is even clear that she was kneeling—and that is surely what is dangerous about the measure.

In speaking to this Chamber, I am going far beyond what that lady was doing. Of course I am not indulging in any objectionable behaviour by expressing my thoughts. I am not harassing anybody, but everybody in this Chamber in a sense is being forced to listen to me, and I have spent 39 years no doubt irritating people and even boring them. They cannot shut their ears, but this lady was not actually saying anything, and the policeman had to go up to her and ask what she was doing. If we are going to have a law—a criminal law—it has to be capable of being effective.

The reason George Orwell’s novel “1984” resonates so much with all of us is that the state was trying to regulate not just people’s actions but what goes on in their minds. That is why, ever since that novel was written, people have felt that probably the most advanced form of totalitarianism is one where the state is trying to regulate not simply people’s behaviour, but their minds. What the debate is about is that those who oppose my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) are determined to stop anybody indulging in any kind of protest, if it could be deemed to be some sort of protest, even if it is entirely silent.

The whole point of the Public Order Bill, as I understand it—this is why I support it—is that it does not outlaw peaceful protest. What the Government are addressing is people making that protest who are deliberately trying to obstruct the rights of other citizens by blocking roads or whatever. That is the point of the Bill. It has now been hijacked by people who want to stop completely silent peaceful protest.

The case of Livia Tossici-Bolt has not yet been mentioned. In the past few days she was told by council officers in Bournemouth that she would be fined simply for holding up a sign saying, “Here to talk if you want” inside a buffer zone. She was not holding up a sign with any graphic images, and she was not trying to intimidate anybody; she was simply saying, “Please, if you want to talk, I am here if you want any advice. This is a very difficult day for you.” For that she was stopped by the police. In other words, that lady was told that she could not offer other women who might, in some circumstances, be coerced into attending an abortion clinic, or who felt that they lacked the resources to complete a pregnancy, the opportunity to talk if they wanted to do so.

We must not criminalise such peaceful activity. Where are we going? Where will this stop? I believe—this is how I will conclude; I think that this is the shortest speech—that this is an entirely worthwhile, harmless, moderate amendment, and I hope that Members will support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

I do not agree with that interpretation at all. We have public space protection orders around some abortion clinics now, and we are broadening that out. That has been voted for twice, in this House and in the other place. I believe very firmly that the changes proposed in amendment (a) would risk preventing people from getting the medical support they need. Let me explain why.

I am a person of faith. I have also walked into an abortion clinic. I pray, but I also know how intimidating it is to walk past people silently standing there with signs trying to communicate, trying to pray, trying to persuade women to change their mind. It is a balance that we strike in this place between a woman’s right to privacy and healthcare and everybody’s right to go about their business and do what they choose. This place has already struck that balance.

I will explain why I also believe the proposal would not work. It goes way beyond silent prayer. Amendment (a) states:

“No offence is committed under subsection (1) by a person engaged in consensual communication”.

What is “consensual communication”? How on earth can we define it? Members have said women should not be harassed. Everybody agrees with that, but one person’s consensual communication is another person’s harassment. We have taken some legal advice on the amendment. The Government, when considering whether to support it, should look at the wider implications it might have.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

Just to make the obvious point, the whole purpose of the buffer zones legislation is to create an exclusion zone around abortion clinics so that people with views they want to express about the subject of abortion clinics will not be in contact with people going to use those services. Amendment (a) would drive a coach and horses through that whole process. The way it is worded would mean that people would be protected from accusations of harassment, because their actions

“shall not…be taken to be…harassment”

whatever they may actually be doing, so long as they can call it silent prayer. That drives a coach and horses through what the House of Lords compromised on and what the House of Commons originally agreed to vote for and approve.

[Sarah Jones]

The hon. Member is completely right. The amendment also risks driving a coach and horses through all the protests legislation. If I am standing outside Parliament protesting and being annoying and loud, the police may want to intervene, but I might say, “Actually, I’m silently praying. Are you going to tell me I’m not?” How far does the amendment ride roughshod over all our definitions of protest? That is a question that the hon. Members who support it have not considered.