Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill
Carolyn Harris Excerpts(2 days, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Christopher Chope
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. This Bill is an improvement on its predecessor, and I give credit to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for that, because it allows the defence to which she referred in her earlier remarks, and that is better. I regret that she would not accept the amendments that would have removed the attempt issues, but I must say I was alarmed when she said that she hoped the provisions in this Bill would be replicated more widely in other Bills. Would that be in relation to Wimbledon or Twickenham? It seems to me that the mischief being addressed in this Bill is peculiar to soccer supporters. I am not sure about the suggestion that we need to go more widely to deal with this type of hooligan behaviour. I declare an interest as a debenture holder at Twickenham, and I have never experienced the sort of problems to which she was referring.
When I was at university, I can remember the first football match I ever went to, which was at Dundee United. I stood on the terraces, and I did not feel any danger inside the ground. The danger in Dundee was outside the ground after the event. Then, when I had the privilege of representing Southampton Itchen, I was a frequent visitor to the Dell. Again, I did not see any problems there. There were problems associated with the need to ensure crowd control, and the football club paid dearly for the costs of policing to enable that to happen. That seemed to me a sensible arrangement, because the burden of policing soccer matches was not borne only by the local constabulary and its taxpayers, but also by the club itself. As Baroness Casey’s report makes clear, the Wembley incident that prompted the Bill was essentially a one-off incident caused by a set of different circumstances, including that we were still during the period of covid, which meant a severe restriction on the number of people who could attend such matches. Other problems were created due to the absence of experienced stewards and so on.
I remember asking the hon. Member for Amber Valley why provisions in this Bill would not be included in the Football Governance Bill, which was discussed earlier in the week. She said that although these provisions could have been included in that Bill, because of her legal experience she particularly wanted to have a Bill in her name on the statue book. I hope that in the end those dreams will be fulfilled, as that is an important matter for her.
I have reservations about how this Bill will work in practice, and I am concerned about unintended consequences for the police. If there is an incident similar to the one that took place at Wembley, how will we be able to arrest all those people? Every time somebody is arrested by the police, a policeman has to take that person away and put them in a black Maria or whatever, which means that they are no longer able to police the ground. I fear that what will happen is that an individual will be picked on every now and again, but when there is a problem of mass trespass, we will not be able to do anything about it because nobody will be able to police it. We will get a situation similar to the one in supermarkets, with blatant shoplifting and a failure of the police or security people to take any action because they choose not to do so.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said on Report, there is a danger that bringing the criminal law into these areas will result in disappointment and, as a result, bring the law into disrepute; we put all these laws on the statute book, but we cannot actually do anything about them. As I said earlier, the Home Office has responsibility for all this, but every day we find that it is unable to fulfil its existing responsibilities, let alone new ones that will be placed on it as a result of this Bill. Most recently, the Home Office revealed that it is unable even to record the number of people who have entered this country and then left. Obviously, the way to find out whether people who come in on visas are complying with those visas is to check the visa records when people leave. The Home Office cannot even deal with that. We are talking about extending its role in the belief that some magic new Bill will control unauthorised entry to football stadiums, when the Home Office cannot even control our country’s borders.
I am extremely sceptical about this piece of legislation. It is a pity, in a sense, that the private Member’s Bill process is giving rise to this sort of legislation, which is—I return to the word I used earlier—relatively trivial compared with all the other problems with which this country is faced and with which this legislature should be dealing.
Carolyn Harris (Neath and Swansea East) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but is he saying that the safety of those attending football matches and the likelihood of them being hurt and, in some cases, killed is a trivial matter?
Sir Christopher Chope
There are already laws against killing people at football matches. There are already laws against criminal damage. There are already laws against violent behaviour. I do not know whether the hon. Lady has looked at Baroness Casey’s report on the incident at Wembley in 2021, but it says that the issue of tailgating highlighted by the hon. Member for Amber Valley was not the only problem. There was also lots of drunken behaviour—
Sir Christopher Chope
The hon. Lady is shaking her head, but that is in Baroness Casey’s report—she finds that there was a lot of drunken behaviour and evidence of drug taking. Those are criminal offences. The expression on the hon. Lady’s face makes it seem as though either she believes that Baroness Casey’s findings were incorrect or she has some other reason for disagreeing with that.
I think that bringing the criminal law into this narrow and specific field when there are already a host of other criminal offences covering these issues is the wrong way forward, but I am obviously in the minority on that.
Victims of Terrorism: State Support
Carolyn Harris Excerpts(3 days, 17 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman, my friend and colleague, for that intervention, and I apologise, Mrs Harris.
Jim Shannon
I will mention others who are very important to me. As the leader of my party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), said in a recent debate on the European Remembrance Day for Victims of Terrorism, Northern Ireland has endured the brutality of terrorism for decades, and the legacy of so many atrocities remains in many hearts and homes to this day, right across all of Northern Ireland—not just in Strangford, which the hon. Member for Beckenham and Penge referred to and which I have the joy, honour and privilege to represent.
I think of the families of the Kingsmill massacre, where 10 Protestant workmen were slaughtered. It is as real today as if it had happened just yesterday. They still await justice. When I think of state support for the victims of terrorism, I think of accountability in the process of justice. I think of those who, to this day, hold on to the candle-like figure of justice that might just come their way, so that the person who murdered someone will be accountable. I say to the hon. Gentleman that, with fairness, it is not just about the support given; it is also about justice and responsibility. It is about feeling that the state—my country, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—has been able to satisfy our quest for justice, so that those who carry out the crimes are accountable.
I think of La Mon in my constituency. They were having one of their dinners for the Irish Collie Club. Someone planted a bomb—there was a massive inferno of fire—and basically burned them alive. Accountability? Nobody has been held accountable for that—but they should be. I think of the Enniskillen bombing. People were attending a Remembrance Day service; again, the IRA put a bomb there among men, women and children and just killed whoever was close to it.
I think of the Darkley Hall massacre—people were worshipping God. I think of the Tullyvallen Orange Hall, where Orangemen were killed just because they were Orangemen. I think of the four Ulster Defence Regiment men murdered at Ballydugan; I knew three of those men personally, and I often think of them—indeed, I think of them nearly all the time. No justice—no one made accountable; but there needs to be. That is what we want to see. That is what I want to see. My heart burns for justice for all those people who have lost loved ones over the years—for those families.
The inquiry into the Omagh bomb is currently sitting. Today, I was pleased to hear that Mr Speaker—and I am sure others also caught it in the Chamber—has agreed to what the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) asked for last night. He has agreed to the disclosure of the information that is relevant to the Omagh bomb, so we are going to have that on Monday, I understand. I do not know it yet, but that may give accountability and responsibility for those who carried it out.
Yet the pursuit of truth is too often obstructed, whether by the police ombudsman’s office or through political calculation, as displayed by the Irish Government’s ongoing stymieing of the truth of their role in our past. I think of Chief Superintendent Harry Breen and Superintendent Bob Buchanan. They were murdered on the border as they travelled home. The story is, very clearly, that those two men were murdered while returning, and the reason the IRA knew they were coming through was that someone in the Garda Síochána passed the information through to the IRA, who then made sure that they were targets. Accountability? No one has ever been made accountable for that. Indeed, the Irish Government run away from it. It is time that they stood up and made sure that the inquiries that we all wish to see actually take place.
Again, it is the same thing for my cousin Kenneth, who I referred to earlier. The three people who murdered him and his companion were looking for victims for supported violence. When Kenneth Smyth was murdered, his best friend was Daniel McCormick, who just happened to be a Roman Catholic—but that did not matter to the IRA, of course. As far as they were concerned, he was a former member of the Ulster Defence Regiment. Therefore, he was a target, and he was murdered as well. I want to see justice for him and his family every bit as much as I do for my cousin.
When it comes to support and financial restitution, they gave Daniel McCormick’s wife and three children, one of whom was disabled, £3,500 pounds, I think. My goodness—it might have been back in 1971-72, but £3,500 pounds to rear your children and bring them up! They are all, of course, young adults today. The point I am making is that when it comes to restitution, we do not seem to have it. There can be no discussion of state support for victims without highlighting the need for justice for them. If you offered my cousin Shelley £100,000 in compensation, or the truth and accountability for Kenneth’s murder, I know what she would take. She would take the accountability and the need for truth. Those are the things that I would love to see.
However, we must also be practical and say that there are those who need that financial support as well, and that is also the thrust of this debate. All those people suffered that trauma, that ache and those recurring nightmares—perhaps we do not understand those things in their entirety, but they understand them, every day of their lives. We need to ensure that those who need our financial support get it.
With the death of a father or mother comes undoubted financial difficulty and disadvantage. It is right and proper that true victims of terrorism, while they can never be adequately compensated, are supported—and that is what this debate is about. That is why I welcome the commitment from the Minister and Government to this strategy, this policy and this way forward.
That leads me to my final point, which is to ensure that those victim makers, whose hands are not clean, but drip with blood, cannot ever access support or any form of financial compensation from this or any other successive Government. I welcome the news that this Labour Government, the Minister, the Prime Minister and others have said they are to ensure that Gerry Adams and other architects of heartache will be precluded from claiming compensation.
Whereas a libel case in the Republic of Ireland may seek to whitewash history—as it often does, unfortunately —I say unequivocally in this House today, using a phrase that has been said a thousand times to me, and which others will know: the dogs in the street know their own, and they know what Gerry Adams did. To ever conceive that he be due a form of compensation spits in the face of every victim of terrorism and indeed spits in the face of justice.
Today, we stand strong beside the victims of terrorism across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I respect the Minister, as I think we all do. He has lived a life; he is an honourable gentleman. He has served in uniform—he served in Northern Ireland—so he understands the issues and comes with the knowledge and experience that I believe is necessary for his role, both in this debate and in the future. The legislation will ensure that only victims, and never victim makers, are eligible to receive state support or help. I respectfully ask the Minister: when will it come to the House, and what measures will be put in place to ensure the Attorney General’s past support of Gerry Adams, as his legal representative, will not be a factor in any role that the Attorney General’s Office plays in the legislation?
To the true victims of IRA terrorism, of loyalist terrorism and of extremist terrorism across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, support must always be given, and by extension to their families, and it must be withheld from the perpetrators. I believe in my heart that the Government must be crystal clear about that.
International Women�s Day
Carolyn Harris Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Carolyn Harris (Neath and Swansea East) (Lab)
In my almost 10 years in this place, I have become somewhat vocal on women�s issues. Some would call me a �ferocious campaigner�, others a �challenging mouthpiece�, but I will take both. My passion for ensuring that women get access to the support and services they need is what drives me�from women struggling through the menopause to women in prison, and women who are victims of domestic violence, human trafficking or modern slavery. It has been my mission to use this platform to be their voice.
Today, I will speak about an industry that is powered by women but is all too often overlooked and undervalued. As a former co-chair�alongside you, Madam Deputy Speaker�of the previous Parliament�s all-party parliamentary group on beauty and wellbeing, which we are reconvening, I have often spoken about the personal care sector. We championed such businesses during the pandemic, when they were belittled by those in power and were among the last businesses to reopen. Since then, we have continued to promote the contribution that they make to our economy, as well as the physical health and mental wellbeing benefits that they bring to society.
More than 80% of those working in the personal care industry are women, and the industry has one of the highest rates of business ownership compared with other sectors�especially for women. In fact, women are four times more likely to own a personal care business than a business in any other sector. �The Future of the High Street�, a report published by the Federation of Small Businesses last year, recognised that women owners of small and medium-sized enterprises were more likely to engage with their communities, but also highlighted the difficulties women faced, such as excessively high rental costs, when women typically earn less than their male counterparts and bear the brunt of the time and cost demands of raising a family.
It is especially encouraging therefore to see that beauty and wellbeing businesses, which are predominately owned and staffed by women, continue to open and thrive�and they really are thriving. In 2023, there was an 11% year- on-year growth in the GDP contribution of the industry to �27.2 billion. The same year saw a 10% increase in the industry�s workforce, with businesses employing 418,000 people. Professional services, such as salons, directly employed 224,000 people, of which 180,000 were women.
Every day, the industry plays a role in our lives�from the products we buy to the services we use. It keeps us clean, enhances our appearance and helps us to protect our physical and mental health. Will the House join me in wishing every woman who works in the personal care sector or owns a business�let us face it, they will probably be working all day Saturday�a very happy International Women�s Day? [Hon. Members: �Hear, hear!�]
Several hon. Members rose�
Oral Answers to Questions
Carolyn Harris Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jess Phillips
I was waiting for that reference to Gloucester. As the right hon. Lady will know, the NAO report is largely based on the previous Government’s period in office, and although it makes clear recommendations, it would be premature of me to comment. However, the strategy to combat violence against women and girls that will be published by this Government in early summer will undoubtedly be looking to the NAO recommendations.
Carolyn Harris (Neath and Swansea East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jess Phillips)
The trafficking of women and girls for sexual exploitation is a horrific crime, and the Government work closely with law enforcement to tackle the drivers of that offending and target prolific perpetrators. That includes through operational intensification initiatives aimed at tackling modern slavery threats. The Online Safety Act 2023 sets out priority offences, including sexual exploitation and human trafficking offences, and starting from 17 March, in-scope companies must adopt systems and processes to address those offences.
Carolyn Harris
I thank the Minister for her response. In 2023 the then Home Affairs Committee recommended that pimping websites be outlawed, but the previous Government took no action, allowing sex traffickers to continue legally to exploit their victims online. I have since been made aware of further online exploitation, with websites allowing men to rate and review the women for whom they are paying for sex, including admissions of trafficking, under-age sex, and rape. Will the Minister share what action this Government will take to protect victims of online sexual exploitation?
Jess Phillips
Like my hon. Friend, I am horrified that such practices should be allowed to continue. Online platforms have a duty to assess the risk of illegal harms on their services, with a deadline of 16 March 2025, subject to the codes of practice completing the parliamentary process on 17 March. Online platforms will need to take safety measures set out in the codes of practice, and to use other effective measures to protect users from illegal content such as that of which my hon. Friend speaks. If they fail to do so, they will face significant penalties. As she might imagine, I will be keeping a close eye on that.
Commercial Sexual Exploitation
Carolyn Harris Excerpts(11 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tonia Antoniazzi
Giving someone money, accommodation, food, a job or other services on the condition that they perform sex acts is sexual exploitation and abuse, yet the global trade in sexual exploitation—perpetrated primarily against women and girls—is bigger than ever before. Sex trafficking is the most profitable form of modern slavery in the world, while violent, misogynistic pornography is consumed on an unparalleled scale, mostly by men. This was not an accident, and it was not inevitable: we could and should have done so much more to protect women and girls. Instead, the past 14 years have been a veritable golden age for pimps and pornographers.
Carolyn Harris (Neath and Swansea East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that under the United Nations protocol on trafficking, a victim does not need to have travelled in a vehicle in order for a trafficking offence to have been committed, yet under the UK’s Modern Slavery Act 2015, they do? This means that exploiters who are not actually moving a victim in a vehicle from one place to another are not being prosecuted as traffickers. It would make a huge difference if there were parity between the two pieces of legislation, to make sure that trafficking is justly prosecuted.
Tonia Antoniazzi
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I know that the Minister is listening and will likely agree with her, as I do.
Multimillion-pound pimping websites have been allowed to operate freely. Men who drive demand for sex trafficking by paying for sex have been left to abuse with impunity, while the most popular pornography websites in the country have been free to peddle videos of rape and sexual abuse.