End-to-end Rape Review

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 21st June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend, who as Attorney General worked very hard with me on the issue of disclosure and started the process that resulted in the revised Attorney General’s guidelines issued last year. He and I both know from our professional experience that a badly prepared and badly run case, in terms of disclosure, can be extremely destructive and frankly a miserable experience for those involved. He will be glad to know that we are not only pledging to ensure that victims’ phones are returned after no more than 24 hours, but working on new technology to ensure that analysis of data can happen that much more quickly. We want to ensure that 10,000 devices are examined through the year, rather than being left for months and months before the investigation can be taken further. On the court process, he will be glad to know of my decision to ask the Law Commission to look at some of the enduring issues surrounding the trial process, which I think will address many of his observations.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. I was disheartened to hear that there are an estimated 128,000 victims of rape a year and that the reason that the figure is estimated is that less than 20% of victims of rape report to the police. Will the Secretary of State outline whether funding will be available to provide greater training for the first port of call in finding justice—the first police officer called to the scene—to help them to have a greater understanding of the needs of a rape victim in the first instance? Does he intend to provide additional funding for police forces throughout the UK to ensure that there are highly trained support-giving officers on every shift in every police district in every part of the United Kingdom?

[Robert Buckland]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I rightly have to speak about England and Wales as a jurisdiction, but I know these issues cover all three jurisdictions. There are plenty of examples of good practice where suitably trained police officers do that sort of work. We want to ensure greater consistency, and over and above the combined CPS-police working, I want more external scrutiny, in particular examining and looking at cases to ensure that all necessary evidence has been gathered, rather than the case being dropped. That aspect of challenging and testing the evidence will be an important plank of what I hope will be an increased number of cases. This is about confidence, and all Members of the House want to give those who have suffered at the hands of perpetrators the confidence they need to come forward. I accept that confidence has taken a huge hit in the last few years, and I hope that through my acknowledgement of that, and my willingness to take action—something I know is supported by Members across the House—we can start to grow confidence and improve that vital trust.

Unduly Lenient Sentence Scheme

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 25th May 2021 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) on setting the scene. I apologise in advance to you, Mr Dowd, to the hon. Gentleman and to the Minister for having to leave: I have a meeting at short notice with the Nigerian ambassador to discuss some issues that I have concern about.

Thank you for inviting me to speak, Mr Dowd. This is an issue that I feel strongly about. Most of the issues that I speak about in Parliament come out of my office: they are things that I am made aware of by constituents and so on. I want to speak about that, if I can. This is a very difficult matter, as the hon. Gentleman outlined. The fact is that what one person sees as justice is not the same as another person’s justice, although I perhaps have a very simplified view. That is why we have the law and legislation to set out sentences, and why we say that Lady Justice is blind, although some of the things that I will refer to are a blindness in the justice system.

I have sat in many a constituency surgery with the families of victims of assault, who have begged me to intervene in the sentencing of the perpetrator. When we know what that person did to their family member, we have to restrain our emotions and control ourselves, and that is sometimes difficult. When the people who assaulted their loved ones are given nothing of a sentence, they seek to find the broken pieces of the victim and hold them together with love. They know that in six months’ time, due to good behaviour, the perpetrator will be out on the streets again. It really nyarks me, to use an Ulster Scotsism; more than that, it angers me. I have outlined the procedure for sentencing in written evidence to the Attorney General, knowing that the likelihood of an increased sentence is slim to none.

When I get home, I will be writing a letter about a case that I read about in the provincial papers on the way over this morning. I am not going to mention any names, because the person is a paedophile who carried out awful, horrendous abuse of a young child. He got approximately 10 years in prison. He is back out again, and guess what he did when he got out? He did the same thing again to another wee defenceless child. I really feel that the law of the land needs to be incredibly strong when it comes to convicted paedophiles with a pedigree that will never change. My letter will ask for that person to serve all his living life in jail and never to be let out again. It is important that the law protects people from the actions that such people carry out.

I believe that a court or a judge should be able to increase sentences in certain circumstances, and I believe that we must broaden those circumstances. I will never forget reading of a lady whose daughter had been left severely disabled after a car accident caused by drunk driving. She discussed how her daughter had lost her future, and the whole family had lost theirs as a result. It does not just affect one person; it affects the whole family, and that should be taken into account in a court sentence as well. The driver was sentenced and released because he was a first-time offender. He then went on to kill someone in his next driving spree. Two families have been destroyed, but the second may have been saved had the judge known that he could extend the sentence. That option was not available or taken up.

I am someone who believes that people can change. I am a great believer in that position; I have always said that people can change. I live in a Province and represent a constituency—Strangford—where people have changed after their past, and we have to accept that people change. I am also a Christian and I believe that people can change their lives—I believe that, for I am a changed person from what I was many years ago, because of my religious belief and faith. I believe in second chances and I believe in rehabilitation. However, I also believe that there are consequences that have a price to be paid.

The Library briefing succinctly sets out the statistics on unduly lenient sentences. A parliamentary question to and response from the Solicitor General on 17 November last year noted that the number of sentences considered by the Attorney General’s office more than doubled between 2010 and 2016, from 342 to 837. The Attorney General in 2016, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright), said that the 837 referrals received by his office in 2016 represented a 17% increase from the previous year.

In June 2018, the Minister said that 2,347 people had applied for sentences to be reviewed in the last 12 months, and a total of 1,040 sentences had been referred to his office for consideration as unduly lenient. I probably made 20 of those personally, looking for sentences to be reviewed in many cases, whether it be criminal violence against people, unduly lenient sentences or the cases of those involved in horrific animal abuse; those are the things that I am concerned about.

In 2018, the then Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam, referred a fifth of all eligible cases to the Court of Appeal. Of these, 73% were found to be unduly lenient. So there was a change—a quite significant change. That indicates to me that there is a need for flexibility, so that courts can hand out stronger sentences.

In 2016, 190 cases were referred to the Court of Appeal and in 141 of those cases the Court of Appeal increased the sentence. Again, that tells a story. In 2015, the Attorney General’s Office considered 713 requests, of which 136 were referred to the Court of Appeal as being potentially unduly lenient, with the Court of Appeal agreeing to increase the original sentence in 102 cases. In 2014, the Law Officers considered 469 cases and referred 128 offenders to the Court of Appeal. Of those offenders, 86% had their sentences increased.

I am not a statistician by any means, but the reason I quote those figures is that it is important that we look at the referrals for unduly lenient sentences and see that the courts have increased the sentences in the majority of cases.

I believe we must trust our judges with wider powers and that we must do so in law. That is why I support my colleague and I have to say my friend, the hon. Member for Dartford, in what he is proposing today. I am quite sure that those who speak after me will reflect that opinion as well.

Speaking as someone who has been in tears with constituents in my office over sentencing issues, I know that this is a very tough issue to deal with. I know the Minister is a very understanding and compassionate Minister, and that he will be able to reflect in his speech on our request, as individuals, regarding this matter. However, we can and I believe we must make changes, to ensure that victims of crime are protected and that real rehabilitation of offenders can take place.

Sexual Offences Act 2003: Positions of Trust

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd March 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing the debate on the law about positions of trust and the Sexual Offences Act 2003. She is right—she has a strong interest in this area of law, and she deserves the House’s thanks for her work, including steering the work of the all-party parliamentary group on safeguarding in faith settings, which has helped inform our thinking as we consider the protections afforded to children and young people by the criminal law.

I confess I was a little disappointed by the very partisan tone that the hon. Lady took. Lest we forget, in 2003, under a Labour Government, a deliberate decision was made to limit the reach of the criminal law in this way. To emphasise that point, the Lord Chancellor at the time is the current shadow Attorney General. When we consider these matters, it is important to take some of the political sting out of it and recognise that they are difficult issues.

Our shared priority across the House is of course safeguarding young people and I welcome the opportunity to debate the important issue of the abuse of power by those who hold positions of trust in relation to young people and choose to exploit that to engage in sexual activity.

I acknowledge that it has taken a little time for us to share our next steps following our review of the law in this area, but I hope that the hon. Lady will appreciate that extending of the scope of protection gives rise to the complex issues that have had to be considered in a challenging broader public health context.



The hon. Lady is right; we did have a debate in March last year. As she will be aware, there have since been a number of competing considerations, but I hope that I can reassure her that our work in this important area remains a priority. We are continuing to look at how the law might be strengthened in this area, and I hope to set out our plans very shortly.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion)—she is Champion by name and champion for the work that she does, which we all appreciate and thank her for very much. We live in a very different world, as the Minister knows, and I believe that we in this House have a duty to protect the vulnerable and also those in positions of trust. What discussions has he had with the devolved Administrations, such as the Northern Ireland Assembly, to ensure that, whatever legislation comes through, we all come under the same rules and law?

[Alex Chalk]

It is a pleasure, as always, to hear from the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, I remember him asking this important question when we were in Westminster Hall. We have been sure to consult all the devolved Administrations, as indeed have sports bodies and faith bodies operating in those jurisdictions, because we want to ensure that we received feedback from across the United Kingdom in order to reach the right result.

Let us begin with some first principles, because they really are important. Any sexual activity with a child under 16 is a serious criminal offence regardless of whether consent is given. Equally, any non-consensual sexual activity is a crime whatever the age of the victim and whatever the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator. If an adult has sexual intercourse with someone over 16 and they do not consent, that is a crime in all circumstances.

Furthermore, when it comes to consent, the law has developed through our courts to ensure that, in many circumstances, if the perpetrator was in a position of power where they could abuse the trust placed in them by a victim, that may negate—or may vitiate, in the words of the law—any supposed consent given. It is always important to consider the facts of individual cases and recognise that law in any event may be apt to cover the criminality that is engaged.

However, alongside the more general sexual offences that address this behaviour, as hon. Members will be aware, and as the hon. Member for Rotherham has made clear, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 contains a number of offences that specifically target any sexual activity between a 16 or 17-year-old young person and a person who holds a defined responsibility of trust in respect of that young person, even if such activity is consensual. Those offences were designed to build on the general child sex offences in the 2003 Act, but they are defined to target situations in which the young person has considerable dependency on the adult involved, often combined with an element of vulnerability.

It is clear from the debates that took place in 2003 that the House was wrestling then, as indeed it is invited by the hon. Lady to wrestle now, with the balance that she struck. How do we broaden the offence to catch those people who are truly abusing their trust without making it so broad that, in effect, we raise by stealth the age of consent? She raises it as if to dismiss it, but it is none the less an extremely important consideration, because I venture to suggest that were the House to frame the offences too widely, in effect criminalising any person over 18 having sex with anyone aged 16 to 17, that would neither be in the public interest, nor would it meet the will of Parliament.

However, for all of that, the Government recognise that the current law may not be sufficient—this is the point I was making last year, and I reiterate it today—in dealing with situations in which an adult abuses their position of trust in order to exploit a 16 or 17-year-old, and that in the past victims have felt that the law was inadequate in this area. It is because the protection of children and young people from the scourge of sexual abuse and exploitation is one of this Government’s top priorities that we have looked at the issue in very great detail—in unapologetic detail. Making certain that the law continues to be effective in providing that protection is not just our priority, but our duty.

As the hon. Lady indicated, in 2019 we began an exhaustive review of the law on such abuses of positions of trust, to ascertain whether it is working effectively and to ensure that young people are fully protected. In essence, we were considering whether the House had got it right in 2003 or not. To ensure that young people are adequately protected, the review has considered a range of situations and settings in which a young person could be considered to be at risk from an adult holding a position of trust, including those that she has referred to in relation to religion and faith. But my goodness, that is not the extent of it, because as soon as we start down that road, plenty of other contexts hove into view, and that is what we need to consider with care.

A wide range of stakeholders were consulted to ensure that we developed a thorough understanding of the issues before establishing the best way forward. For example, across the youth and criminal justice sectors, the review engaged the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, sports bodies, victims’ groups, charities and religious organisations to discuss concerns around how well the law is working to protect young people against those seeking to abuse their power in this way.

In the area of faith and religion, to which the hon. Lady referred, we engaged key groups such as the Anglican dioceses of Chichester and Lincoln, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, academics, Gardens of Peace, Hindu Council UK, Marriage Care, Sikh Council UK and the St Philip’s Centre. I could go on, but I do not want to trespass on the patience of the House. With regard to those involved in the sporting sector, the review team heard from a very broad range of stakeholders.

Since the review, we have continued to engage with those stakeholders, including the hon. Lady and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch). I was grateful to the hon. Lady for mentioning my hon. Friend—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady is giving a thumbs-up, so Hansard can record that. My hon. Friend has done tremendous work, and the Lord Chancellor and I met her and the hon. Lady last year.

The discussions that we have had have been candid and wide-ranging, and I am very grateful for that. A number of themes emerged during the engagement that go beyond the law in this area and are important for us to address. Let me make this point clear: almost everyone agreed that, whatever we change in the law, we will need a more broad-based spectrum in our approach to dealing with this. We need better provision of education; we need consideration of the effectiveness of the Disclosure and Barring Service system in practice; we need to raise awareness and understanding of what grooming and genuine consent really look like; and we need the measures that need to be put in place to protect young people from this type of abusive behaviour. I make that point because sometimes in this House we can be guilty of assuming that changing legislation fixes everything. It rarely does. It is important, of course, but it is rarely the complete answer.

A key topic raised with us was, of course, whether a change in the existing positions of trust legislation was required in order to best protect young adults from those who sought to use their position of power for sexual purposes. Many of those we heard from agreed that any change or reform of the existing laws raised difficult and complicated issues. There was a clear concern from some stakeholders that any broad or sweeping new definition could raise the age of consent by stealth. The risk is that if we go too far in one direction, the pendulum may swing all the way back in the other direction. Who will be the collateral damage in all this? Young people. That is why we proceed with care.

Conversely—I think that the hon. Lady will find this point more to her liking—there were those who said that drafting the law too narrowly, or perhaps by simply listing roles or jobs to be considered as positions of trust, in effect adding to the list, could create loopholes or definitions that could be easily exploited or circumvented by abusers. That is why we have to take care.

It is fair to say, however, that most stakeholders felt that a change in the law was required, and I can see the merits of change. It was made clear during the review that any legislative changes would need to be bolstered by changes outside the criminal law in order to ensure an effective overall approach to safeguarding young people.

Let me conclude, however, by saying this. The Government are very sympathetic to concerns that have been raised throughout this process—not just sympathetic but, as I indicated in words that the hon. Lady was kind enough to repeat back to me, we agree that it requires a clear, considered and decisive response. We are continuing to look at how the law might be strengthened in this area, and as I indicated at the beginning of my speech, I hope to set out our plans very shortly.

Finally, I thank all those hon. Members who have contributed to the discussion of this sensitive topic. I am grateful to the hon. Lady, I am grateful to other colleagues in the House, and I am grateful too for the House’s patience as we consider our next steps and for its understanding of the need for care and sensitivity in approaching this important issue.

Question put and agreed to.

War Memorials: Desecration

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 13th January 2021 Westminster Hall

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of desecration of war memorials.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.

“Every war memorial in every village, every town and every city across our country is sacred and serves to remind us of the immeasurable gratitude that we must afford to our armed forces, both past and present.”—[Official Report, 23 June 2020; Vol. 677, c. 1215.]

Those are the words I spoke in the House of Commons on 23 June 2020, with my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) by my side, as we submitted our private Member’s Bill for a specific law to punish the desecration of war memorials.

A lack of comprehensive reporting of vandalism of this nature means that it is difficult to ascertain the exact number of incidents each year, although the War Memorials Trust does an excellent job of documenting them. My hon. Friend and I came together after images were beamed across the nation of a hooligan standing on the Cenotaph and twice attempting to set alight the Union flag on 7 June 2020.

Mr Sang has since pleaded guilty to attempted arson. For that, he received a two-year conditional discharge and a fine of £340. I am sorry to say it, but the punishment simply does not fit the crime. It is a slap in the face of our brave and gallant men and women from not just the UK but across the Commonwealth, who gave their lives in the face of tyranny. The Cenotaph is a symbol of the nation’s gratitude for the sacrifice of their tomorrows for our todays.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

When I saw the hon. Gentleman’s name down for this debate, I was keen to come along to participate and support him, and I sought his permission to do so. Does he not agree that the desecration of the Churchill memorial in Parliament Square was disgraceful? Our sincere thanks must be given to the couple who took the time to try to clean it with water and soap as a mark of respect. Does he also agree that the message must be strong not only in this place now, but in the legislation put forward, that if people vandalise, whatever their reason, they will be prosecuted? They should be prosecuted heavily and made to do community service, as well as paying any fine.

[Jonathan Gullis]

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman was a co-signatory—a sponsor—of the private Member’s Bill. I completely agree that what we saw happen with the Churchill statue was wrong beyond all measure. If only I could play the video of the Churchill statue filmed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) as he was standing outside. Clearly, were it not for Winston Churchill, swastikas would be flying above this very building and we would be living in a very different country. We owe Churchill a huge debt of gratitude for bringing together a nation, the Commonwealth and our allies to fight the tyranny and racism of, sadly, those who ran Nazi Germany.

The image of the Cenotaph is beamed into our homes and around the world on Remembrance Sunday, with Her Majesty the Queen, her family, our political leaders, Commonwealth representatives, heads of faith communities, and past and present armed forces personnel standing in silence to pay respect to the glorious dead. Rightly, therefore, many across our nation were sickened and angered by the actions of Mr Sang and the unduly lenient sentence that followed. That has only emboldened my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell and me to seek justice for our glorious dead.

We were shocked to learn that the law was severely lacking in this area. Although there is provision in existing legislation to hold criminals to account for damage to property, and offenders have been successfully prosecuted, relatively few are held to account for the severity of the aggravating circumstances that come with criminally damaging something as sacred to the nation as war memorials.

For damage to war memorials, my hon. Friend’s and my Bill proposes exemption from the £5,000 damages threshold under the Criminal Damage Act 1971; removal of a maximum fine in favour of an unlimited fine; and establishment of a maximum custodial sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment. It is important to stress that we are not calling for every offence to be met with 10 years’ imprisonment; we are enabling our judiciary to use their discretion to decide whether the offence is worthy of being moved to a Crown court, without the £5,000 threshold barrier blocking its way. Let us join our friends in Australia, the United States and Canada by paying the respect that we owe to those who died in the freedom fight against tyranny.

My hon. Friend and I are very grateful to the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor, who have worked closely with us. We were delighted to see the intent in Government to create a specific law in this area in the sentencing reform Green Paper. We are therefore seeking from the Minister a cast-iron guarantee that this proposal will progress unamended into the Green Paper and any legislation, and that it will be made law as soon as possible. If we are given that assurance and see it in black and white, we will withdraw our private Member’s Bill on Second Reading to enable the Government to pick up the baton, and to give them the space to pass this legislation in haste.

The price of war is immeasurably high. I saw that at first hand when a young man from Stratford-upon-Avon, Private Conrad Lewis, lost his life in Afghanistan in 2011. The pain felt by his friends and the community stays with me to this today. Those of us who value freedom of thought, speech and expression know that we can never repay the debt that we owe to these men and women. All we can do is immortalise their memory and display our gratitude for their sacrifice.

In the constituency of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, which I am honoured to serve, I witness every year the importance the community places on remembering our past and present armed forces personnel. In Kidsgrove, the Royal British Legion, on its own initiative, has set up a beautiful war memorial garden that is used all year round. Every November, thousands of members of the community line the streets and come together to lay wreaths and remember our fallen. In Smallthorne, the superb veterans breakfast club at The Green Star pub, run by Martyn Hunt and Paul Horton, serves all veterans across Stoke-on-Trent as a way of bringing our heroes together to share their stories and lend support to one another.

In Norton Green, the local community came together when the local church, with the names of their fallen, was sold to a local developer. The residents’ association took it upon itself to create a memorial on the village green. Working with Stoke-on-Trent City Council and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, it now has a symbol of great importance at the heart of its community. Councillor Chandra Kanneganti and I hope to do that with the residents’ association of Goldenhill and Sandyford.

At Chatterley Whitfield colliery, the Chatterley Whitfield Friends, made up of former miners on the site, have created a beautiful memorial to remember those who lost their lives not only abroad but at home while bringing much-needed coal to support the war effort. In Ball Green, local councillors Dave Evans, James Smith and Carl Edwards are looking at helping to contribute funds to restore the memorial in that former mining village. Last but not least, in Butt Lane we have the Reginald Mitchell peace garden. Thanks to Councillor Kyle Robinson, the memory of Butt Lane lad Reginald Mitchell, who invented the Spitfire, which won us the battle of Britain, will never be forgotten.

I am proud to have family who served their country to protect our liberty. My great-great-uncle, Alan Gullis, who lives today, is a D-day veteran, and my grandfather, Terrence Gullis, served in the Royal Marines during the Suez crisis. I remember growing up and sitting on my grandad’s knee, listening to his tales about life in our armed forces, hoping one day to serve, but sadly unable to do so due to being deaf in my right ear. I also remember the exciting trips to the D-Day Story museum in Portsmouth with my dad, Malcolm, and touring the D-day beaches across France one summer.

Damage and desecration of war memorials is not about the financial cost to repair them. It is about the harm done to a community and nation, which no monetary value can ever be put on. Memorials stand in great, solemn, eternal remembrance of the glorious dead. We cannot bring back those lives or erase the grief of families and communities. The very least we can do is ensure that memorials are adequately protected and punish those who would do them harm.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I begin where my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) began, with a sincere thank you to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) for securing a debate on this really important subject and for his strong campaigning on it. He made an excellent speech, if I may say so. This is the second time I have had the pleasure of listening to him. I was in the main Chamber for his private Member’s Bill in June, and then, as now, he spoke with force and authenticity on behalf of his constituents.

I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell, who gave an excellent speech as well. In particular, he gave a powerful reminder of the abiding commitment to service that underpins the ethos of our armed forces—it underpins it now, and it underpinned it in the past, not least during the D-day landings, which he referred to.

Let me turn first to the context. As hon. Members are aware, during a variety of demonstrations last summer, protestors targeted statues, including war memorials and other commemorations of cultural significance. The Government were appalled to see the violence and vandalism at those protests because, however noble a cause a person believes they are supporting, there can be no justification for defacing statues or unlawfully damaging symbols of British history, still less desecrating memorials to those who died serving our country.

Quite apart from the hurt and pain caused, those are lawless and mob tactics. Such behaviour subverts our democracy because it corrodes the basic norms of due process that make this a free society under the law and, indeed, the kind of country that many hundreds of thousands of Britons have fought to defend.

[Jim Shannon]

I listened to the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) and for Bracknell (James Sunderland) and was inspired and moved by their comments. Wherever attacks on war memorials may be—in Northern Ireland, for instance, where I know the hon. Member for Bracknell served—those attacks will be raw for those back home, because the names of people they have loved will be on those memorials, and the names of family members or friends will be on them. The effect is not just what is done to the war memorial; there is also an effect on the family.

[Alex Chalk]

I absolutely agree. One of the great pleasures in this place is to have the opportunity to hear from hon. Members who have either served on the frontline themselves or have personal experience of what loss means for relatives. Our debates are enhanced by those contributions.

As I was saying, this kind of behaviour corrodes our democracy, far beyond the mere monetary value of the damage caused. Memorials matter. I will make a brief personal point. As I cycle home from Parliament, I pass by the Rifle Brigade war memorial, which is parked on a busy junction in Victoria. Every time I pass, I am struck by how modest is that physical tribute to those who gave so much. Although dignified, it is unobtrusive, austere even. One could easily miss it. Yet, it honours a full 11,575 men who died in the first world war and more than 1,000 who died in the second world war—more than have died in the British armed forces in all the conflicts since 1945. The least the living can do is defend and honour such memorials. We have a duty to do so, not least for the sake of the dead, who can no longer speak up for themselves.

In his excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell referred to those who served who had loved and were loved. That is an echo of the poem by John McCrae, “In Flanders Fields”. That came to mind because he summoned the voices of the fallen in that poem. He expressed what the dead might say, if only they could speak. The last three lines are:

“If ye break faith with us who die

We shall not sleep, though poppies grow

In Flanders fields.”

We must not break faith with those who died.

Memorials are not just limited to our war dead. The public is also rightly concerned about upholding respect for other memorials, including statues, gravestones and other matters. Such memorials can have historical significance as part of our national heritage, or other symbolic, cultural or emotional importance. When damage or desecration occurs, the law must be equipped to recognise the range and level of anguish that is caused.

As I have indicated, that anguish goes beyond mere pain to individuals or damage to property. In so many cases it can represent an attack on society. I regret to say that too many people feel able to lash out, to take the law into their own hands and to do so with relative impunity. That is why it has become clear to the Government, not least because of the excellent campaigning of my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent North and for Bracknell, that the law as it stands is inadequate, and we intend to act.

As I mentioned, on 23 June, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North introduced a private Member’s Bill, supported in this House by others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). The Desecration of War Memorials Bill seeks to create a specific offence of damage or desecration of a war memorial.

The Lord Chancellor has indicated, as indeed has the Prime Minister, that we wish to take action in this field. The Prime Minister himself made it explicit at Prime Minister’s questions on 17 June, when he said that the Government are

“looking at new ways in which we may legislate against vandalism of war memorials”.—[Official Report, 17 June 2020; Vol. 677, c. 796.]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North indicated, the Home Secretary has made similar statements. The Lord Chancellor wrote an article in The Sunday Telegraph on 21 June, committing to ensuring that

“laws around criminal damage are fit for purpose and that the punishment for vandalising memorials fits the crime.”

He went on to state that the Government would need to legislate, and that

“now is an opportune moment to think about memorials more broadly and make sure that all acts of vandalism that cause widespread disgust can be appropriately punished by the courts.”

There are various approaches that the Government could adopt to tackle this issue. We have been considering all options to stop those who seek to attack emblems of our national sacrifice and pride, including the proposed Desecration of War Memorials Bill. We want to make sure that any vandalism or attack on property can be met with the full force of the law, so that the courts are equipped with the tools they need to do justice on the facts of the case before them, which was an excellent point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North. No one is suggesting that all cases and all examples need to be dealt with by a maximum sentence; that would be absurd. The courts will do justice, but they need to have the powers so that they can do that justice on the facts as they find them to be.

As such, although the Government fully support the intention behind my hon. Friend’s private Member’s Bill and firmly agree with the action that needs to be taken, we want to go further and protect a wider range of property. As announced in the sentencing White Paper, “A Smarter Approach to Sentencing”, which we published on 16 September 2020, we will be reviewing the law, not merely the guidance, on criminal damage to ensure that where memorials are damaged or desecrated, the courts are able to sentence appropriately at every level for this particular type of offending. As we indicated in that White Paper, we will be legislating on this matter this year—in the early part of this year, I think it is possible to say—setting out the approach that we will be taking to deal with this issue. When the private Member’s Bill on the desecration of war memorials returns to Parliament on Second Reading next month, the Government will confirm their position on the Bill in accordance with the required parliamentary process, and I am confident it will address the points my hon. Friends have so ably made.

To conclude, the Government intend to deal decisively with this issue, and I thank my hon. Friends for their shared commitment to tackling this crime. I will close by saying that those who take the law into their own hands—who vandalise our heritage, lash out at symbols they disagree with, or demean and dishonour our war dead—should be on notice. We will give the courts the power to do justice on behalf of all: the dead, the living, and those who have yet to be born.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

I would like to thank all our staff in Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service who have carried on working throughout the pandemic. Currently, over 70% of staff work from a court or tribunal building, and the rest are working at home via the cloud video platform. We are investing £142 million in our court system to speed up the technological and modernisation improvements, and we are investing an additional £80 million to support the recovery of our criminal courts, including the recruitment of 1,600 members of staff and further adaptations to our courtrooms to allow more and more of them to be used.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

  Could the Secretary of State outline the legislation or case rulings that preclude Northern Ireland Bar-registered barristers located in mainland GB, such as silk Hugh Mercer of Essex Court Chambers in London, from claiming expenses for travel and hotel accommodation for Northern Ireland court cases? Does the Secretary of State believe that constitutional integrity should allow any silk to practise and be reimbursed?

[Robert Buckland]

I must declare an interest, because I am a member of the Northern Ireland Bar. The particular issue that the hon. Gentleman raises seems to be a matter for the Northern Ireland Justice authorities. However, I will discuss the matter with him further so that we can obtain maximum clarity.

Sentencing White Paper

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend is right to echo the comments I made about burglary being a crime against the person. She will have heard my observations about strengthening the safeguards of the “three strikes and you’re out” burglary minimum term of three years, which will mean that a greater proportion of that type of offender will now serve longer in custody. We are also doing two strikes for knife possession because we want to send a clear message that this type of criminality will not be tolerated.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Lord Chancellor for his diligence and wisdom in this statement. I welcome the news that child killers are to be held longer and that the automatic release of violent and dangerous criminals is to end, but will he further confirm that intervention measures will be in place for young men who are drawn into drug deliveries and so on and who need to be kept away from hardened criminals in prison, as a method of giving them space, a fresh start and a true rehabilitation purpose?

[Robert Buckland]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments, and I am grateful to him. He makes a very interesting point about young offenders. I am keen to make sure that people who are sucked in—they might be quite young and themselves victims—do not end up becoming criminals themselves. That is why reforms to the remand system for young offenders and alternatives to immediate prosecution, in particular for victims of modern day slavery or abuse, are so important. We are seeing with the county lines operations some really good work by the police in making that distinction between the child as abused victim and the child as criminal. We will keep drawing that distinction in a sensible and sensitive way.

Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Bill [Lords]

Jim Shannon Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 2nd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to make some brief comments in this debate. The Lord Chancellor is no longer here, but I thank him for setting the scene so well for us all to follow. As we are all aware, the Library has made things clear in the notes on the Bill. I want to start with the words of the Bar Council:

“Private international law is at once both a highly technical field and one that is extremely important in regulating the lives of individuals and businesses when they cross borders. Never has there been a greater need to consult specialists in this field and to ensure rigorous scrutiny to produce a cogent and coherent strategy in this field. Time is short to ensure that United Kingdom private international law is left in a clear and satisfactory state upon exit day.”

That sets the scene for where we are and the importance of what we are trying to achieve.

The Bill as introduced into the House of Commons contains only one substantive clause that would give domestic effect to three international agreements covering aspects of private international law—the Hague conventions of 1996, 2005 and 2007. These provide a framework for determining jurisdiction and enforcement in international disputes covering child custody and maintenance, and civil and commercial matters. The United Kingdom currently participates in these arrangements as a result of our former membership of the EU, as well as the EU-wide measures covering co-operation on cross-border legal issues.

My interest in these matters comes purely from my constituency work load. Over the years, as a Member of Parliament since 2010 and as a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly prior to that, constituents have come to me with such issues, and most of those were to do with the custody of children or divorce, but sometimes there were insolvency or commercial matters. However, the real issue was family law, so I am encouraged by what the Lord Chancellor said in relation to that, because there is a necessity to provide certainty and protection to children and families in what is often the very fractious and difficult environment of family disputes. Some cases and disputes that I have been involved in over the years as an elected representative—not as a legal matter; I am not legally qualified and I am always conscious of saying that—can be made additionally complicated by the cross-border element.

I have also been involved in issues when there have been accidents in other jurisdictions, where there were claims to be made and where accountability was part of that process, and that again comes under international law. On one or two occasions, someone has bought a product in another country and wants the right of recourse because it was defective. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) referred to one of the greater issues in the last few years—the purchase of houses and villas. I suppose my introduction to this was on behalf of constituents who then had difficulties with the purchase of those properties, and with land disputes. These are key issues for some of my constituents. There were not just problems with the law—sometimes the problems were with the interpretation of the law and, ultimately, with the language difficulties that arose.

We have found, in most cases, that the successful Brexit vote has determined that we must have arrangements in place that will include the continuation of our ability to govern cross-border legal disputes. I believe that that is essential—as the Lord Chancellor said earlier—for Northern Ireland and our border with the EU member, the Republic of Ireland. We want, need and desire a good working relationship with the Republic of Ireland and, if possible, with the EU. Many international companies operate in Northern Ireland, such as Bombardier in my constituency, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) referred in a question to the Prime Minister today, as well as insurance firms. These are among many others in Northern Ireland who need confidence and the assurance that, in the post-transition period, they will continue to be offered the same protections that EU firms enjoy. It is very important for firms in my constituency to have that same protection and to know that that will happen because of the Bill we have before us.

In a briefing for the peers, the Bar Council welcomed clause 1 of the Bill, suggesting that although it might not be necessary, it would be helpful in making things clearer in primary legislation. I am pleased to see that this has been retained. The Lord Chancellor also stated that for the Scottish Parliament, which the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) spoke about, and the Northern Ireland Assembly, matters will be devolved. Will the Minister say in his conclusion—it would be good to have this on record—whether there will be occasions when Westminster, or the House of Commons, will and can overrule what may happen at the Northern Ireland Assembly or the Scottish Parliament? I just want to have that on record, if possible.

The Bar Council also referred to the fact that it might be necessary to consult specialists in the field. The specialists that we have in the Northern Ireland Assembly and Northern Ireland will guide us and give advice, so it is always good to know whether there are occasions when we may find ourselves, not in conflict with the House of Commons in any way but with a difference of opinion legally.

In conclusion, I would also like the Minister, in summing up, to underline that the consultation process with those who work daily with the remit of this legal principle has cast the net wide—I am sure it probably has, but I ask him please to confirm it. Will he also confirm that he understands the necessary protections needed to ensure that on the day that our chains to Europe are finally broken—boy, do I look forward to that day—we have the continuity of domestic protection with effect to the three international agreements governing aspects of private international law, The Hague conventions of 1996, 2005 and 2007?

Black Women: Domestic Abuse

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

It gives me great pleasure to raise a very important issue to the UK and to this House, particularly as we are about to debate the Domestic Abuse Bill, which returns to this place in the next fortnight or so.

In preparation for today’s debate, I was aided greatly by a number of groups. I would like to thank Refuge; Southall Black Sisters; Women’s Aid; the End Violence Against Women Coalition; Hackney Council; London Councils; Imkaan, which does amazing work in this area; and my local organisation, Sistah Space, with whom I met recently and who were the inspiration behind this debate.

I would also like to put on record my thanks to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), who is unable to be with us physically today, for her assurance to me that she is committed to listening on this. I appreciate her willingness to engage on this vital issue, and look forward to hearing the Minister’s detailed response to the points that I raise.

It is important to summarise some of the concerns around this. We are dealing with domestic violence and domestic abuse, which is an issue that of course cuts across all people, all ethnicities and those of every socioeconomic status, but black, minority, ethnic and migrant women are particularly vulnerable to high rates of abuse. I am concerned that small specialist organisations are often unable to compete for the contracts that Government and other authorities run to provide money and support, partly due to funding cuts to local authorities and the knock-on effects on services provided. My own local authority, for example, has suffered over 40% cuts in the past decade. This collective loss of money means that anything that is not a statutory service is at risk.

There is also a need for greater representation of black women at policy level. The term, “black, Asian and minority ethnic”, or BAME, as some people call it, groups together a lot of different lived experiences and is a lazy shorthand for the real lived experiences of so many women. In Hackney, we see domestic abuse as an issue that particularly impacts black and minority ethnic women—disproportionately so. I will be touching on the issue of “no recourse to public funds” and of course return to the Domestic Abuse Bill.

The budget cuts to local authorities have meant that there has been a general push towards generic, lower-cost service provision for domestic abuse and violence against women services. Because of economies of scale, that push towards lower-cost services favours larger organisations and contracts over the small, specialist groups that are led by and for the communities they support. They often do not have the resources or finances available to them, or the stability, because they are small groups working in the community. We need to acknowledge that the experiences and discrimination faced by black women are different from those faced by other minority ethnic women, although I shall speak about other women in this speech as well. Using that term BAME—black, Asian and minority ethnic—as an all-encompassing term homogenises vastly different lived experiences.

Let me take a very human example. Imagine someone leaves their home fearful of their situation, in the middle of the night. They have managed to escape from their abusive partner and they turn up, if they are lucky, to a refuge or a hostel and are unable, as a black woman, to have the cream to cream their body or the hair products that they need to support their hair. Their dignity is already through the floor and these little things can make a significant difference, but generic services just do not always get that. That is not particularly a criticism of every generic service—they provide a service and I am not critical of them for that—but there often needs to be much more specialism, and it needs to be locally driven, because local areas know their communities best. Even in my own borough, for instance, we see many differences between our population and that in the neighbouring boroughs of Tower Hamlets or Islington, both of which my constituency abuts.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for bringing this issue to the House. I am always inspired by her care and compassion for others, for her community and for this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a whole—that is something that I have noticed in my time in the House. Does she agree that work must be done, time put in and funding directed to enable women to know that they are valued, that their experience matters and that there is a hand to help them towards a life in which fear is not the norm?

[Meg Hillier]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful and sensitive intervention. That is exactly what I think everybody is aiming for: to make sure that women are not living in fear and have somewhere to go. However, sometimes that somewhere to go is not a comfortable place to go for some women, and it is important that we recognise that domestic violence does not affect everybody homogenously, that different groups are affected in different ways, and that cultural, religious and other differences are important to recognise. It is important that we have an accurate representation of the needs of black women, and that they are listened to when decisions about services that disproportionately affect them are being made. Quite simply, I say to the Minister: no decisions about black women without black women.

Of course, work is being done to tackle domestic abuse, and I welcome the Domestic Abuse Bill, to which I will turn a little later. London Councils has begun work with the Women’s Resource Centre to better understand the structural inequalities that exist in grant making, to create a longer-term funding vision and framework that will bring about tangible change in the next grants programme. If we look at the numbers, we see that only 32 refuges are run by and for black and ethnic minority women. We know that there is a shortage of refuge space generally—I do not have time to go into some of the other wider issues today, but that is a big concern.

London faces some unique challenges with domestic abuse compared with the rest of the country. London-based refuges account for 23% of the total refuge spaces in England—higher than the proportion for any other comparable region—and domestic abuse is on the rise in London. Between July 2018 and December 2019, some 2,817 women and 2,425 children in London were placed in refuges. London boroughs will receive some £13 million in this financial year via the London crime prevention fund to try to tackle domestic abuse. London grant programmes distributed £14 million over the past four years to support the tackling of sexual violence and abuse.

It is important that we see better representation of different groups in the media. The London Borough of Hackney has been trying to promote awareness work, so that people from different backgrounds see themselves reflected and thereby have the confidence to come forward. It is a good way to educate people about what is available. Imagine, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you are living in fear at home. It is difficult to make that call to a domestic abuse hotline. You may be in a controlling relationship and it might be difficult to find help from a friend. You may have your phone monitored. But if the television is on and soap operas are sending out messages about where you can go for help, that is important. It is important that we press for that.

I recognise that it is not entirely in the Government’s control, but in focus groups that the London Borough of Hackney ran with survivors, the following comment was made:

“Having messages on TV shows, soap operas, radios would help.”

A recent storyline in “The Archers” was cited as a good example but, of course, only a narrow group of people listen to Radio 4 on a weekday evening. One person said,

“Having it talked about more makes it easier to talk about.”

Another said,

“There should be more advertising on buses.”

Someone said, rather poignantly,

“I lost my job due to being fearful. You cannot exactly tell your colleagues what is happening with your life, but if you see yourself represented in the media, you know that you’re not alone.”

It is a small but important element: too often, our media does not reflect the richness and diversity of cultures and backgrounds of people I represent in my borough, so I see this as a very significant issue.

I was talking about the London figures just now, but in London there was a 63% rise in reported domestic abuse offences between 2011 and 2018. In 2018, there were more than 85,000 recorded domestic abuse offences in London in just that 12-month period. Staggeringly, that represented one in 10 of all crimes reported in London that year, and that is just those that were reported. For many people, it is still very hard to report the situation that they find themselves living in, wanting to protect their children—I know that the Minister will be well aware of all the issues.

Funding for refuge provision is a key concern in London and for London councils. In my own borough since July 2017—so just in the last three years—169 women and 146 children have been placed in refuges. Of those 169 women, 110 were from black and minority ethnic backgrounds. There are real concerns about that percentage. Over and over, the evidence that I have gathered—although the data, I have to say to the Minister, could be better, including at national level—shows clearly that a disproportionate number of black women, and Asian and minority ethnic women, are affected in London.

In Hackney, in the last financial year, there were a total of 492 high-risk victims or survivors of domestic abuse reported to the multi-agency risk assessment conference. Black women constituted a disproportionately high number of those compared with the general population—27%. If this were any other group, people would take it a bit more seriously, and it is important that we recognise that.

I have mentioned children a number of times, and in my research for this speech I have been alarmed by the number of children who are affected by domestic violence, particularly for this group of women: 45% of all children assessed due to domestic abuse concerns in Hackney were black children. If there is a perpetrator in the household, it is not just the woman who is affected—it is usually a woman, but obviously men can be victims too—but it has a damaging and long-term effect on those children. In many ways, if domestic abuse was treated as a public health issue, notwithstanding the efforts of the Government to finally get the Domestic Abuse Bill through, it might have been dealt with in different ways and more seriously in the past.

I turn to the Domestic Abuse Bill, and I am particularly concerned as we approach that debate. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s views. The “no recourse to public funds” provision is a big concern in my constituency. I have many constituents who are migrants who come here to work, they work hard and pay their bills: they do all the right things according to Home Office rules, but they have no recourse to public funds, so if they need to flee a domestic abuse situation, they do not qualify for a lot of the support that is available. Those often life-saving routes to safety are not available, and the Home Office needs to look at this issue, just as it has with victims of human trafficking, for whom some safeguards are in now place—not all of them, but I will not go into that now.

There are some safeguards to support people in that situation, and there needs to be some safeguards here. These are people who want to work and will want to continue to work if they can, but if they have not got the money to pay their rent or they have a problem with their job, they will be left high and dry and in a very vulnerable position, often unable to leave, under the Domestic Abuse Bill. It is a significant barrier that excludes many people from those routes to safety.

The domestic abuse commissioner is also highlighted in the Bill. I hope the Minister can confirm that domestic abuse commissioner will listen to all voices and make sure that all these diverse groups—black women included—are at the table so that decisions are made that reflect their very specific needs. I know that my own Front Bench, with my support of course, are pushing for other migrant women to be better supported through the Domestic Abuse Bill. There is no provision, for example, for those on non-spousal visas to enter a refuge.

We also need to see a public duty on all commissioning authorities to fund domestic abuse services in the community. Refuges have a very important part to play but, as with Sistah Space in my constituency, it is the community-based services that are often there on the frontline, accessible and embedded, and they know who is who.

It is much easier to do that, especially for someone who, for example, is having their phone tracked or someone who cannot travel very far from their partner because they will not allow them to do that. Having that local specific support is very important.

It is important as well that the Bill reflects that the commissioning of community services needs to reflect protected characteristics. Too often, black and minority ethnic women’s services go completely unfunded, as I have touched on, and they cannot be sustained, and that means that black and minority ethnic women often struggle to access services.

It is essential—I hope the Minister will agree and give me some comfort and comfort to the women out there, some of whom are not yet affected, but may be in the future, and those who have been through it and those who are living through it now—that funding systems for domestic abuse understand that a one-size-fits-all policy will not address the problems within the sector. We need a granular way of funding so that whatever the main funding body, it can get right down to those small grassroots organisations that do not have the resources necessarily to bid, but can provide essential services.

We need, as I have said repeatedly, to ensure that black women’s voices are listened to and represented at policy level. I think I have time to segue into my experience 13 years ago almost to the day, when I became a Minister in the same Department as the Minister. One of the first things I was asked to do was sign off the board for the vetting and barring service. I was presented with a list of names, and I said, looking at it, “Can I just ask out of interest whether anyone has any experience of African child abuse?” At the time, there had been a number of such instances, including the torso of Adam in the Thames, which many people will remember vividly. Representing a constituency with a large number of West Africans, I was very attuned to it, but it was a very big issue at the time.

There was a slight awkward silence from the officials—I am not critical of the officials, who were trying to do a good job, but just were not tuned into this reality—but lo and behold, they went off and found an excellent woman. I have not told her I would name her, so I will not name her today. She was very expert in the area and became a vital part of making sure that our child protection and our set-up for the protection of vulnerable people began to understand and reflect some of those specific issues. It was a minority in that community, but nevertheless the issue was present.

She said to me, “I thought of applying for this position, but I thought they would not want people like me.” It is her story to tell, rather than mine, but the stories she told me about how people reacted to her as a black African woman in that position—unusual in the public sector—are important. The Minister is not entirely responsible for public appointments, but Ministers get that chance, and it is important we have a much more diverse reflection of our community in public appointments, especially for issues where their lived experience is vital to getting things right.

I do not think there is a single official deliberately trying to exclude people, but practices can build up and assumptions can be made. Unless we constantly challenge that, we will end up with a homogenous group of people making decisions about other people. I am on a mission to make sure we support civil servants and Ministers in understanding the wide diversity of people who are affected by the decisions they make.

The Domestic Abuse Bill is a real opportunity, but we also need clear data about the impact of domestic abuse on women, and we need detailed breakdowns of ethnic background, nationality and so on, so that we can really understand where the problems are and where emerging problems arise. As I have said repeatedly, future funding must recognise the importance of specialist services. In simple terms, let us make sure—I hope the Minister will agree—that we do not see decisions about black women without black women.

Lammy Review

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alex Chalk]

I certainly do. For a long time, I have spent time with Earls Court Youth Club, which I think is in the neighbouring constituency to my hon. Friend’s. I saw there how lives were changed and futures were enhanced. Crucially, I saw that people had a strong sense of aspiration, when, because of their background—which, by the way, was no fault of their own—they made not have had any. Youth clubs can make a massive difference, and I commend my hon. Friend for the attention that she is giving to one in her constituency.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Does the Minister agree that it is essential that every community must feel heard, valued and understood? Can he outline the Government’s strategy to ensure that we have enough community workers and community police in every area of the UK to build community confidence, and outline how he believes this can be achieved?

[Alex Chalk]

This Government absolutely share that view, which is why we are committed to recruiting an additional 20,000 police officers—and, by the way, that process is making excellent progress. That will allow more officers to get out into communities to build up that crucial community intelligence to ensure that individuals are kept out of crime and victims are protected.

Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [Lords]

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 17th June 2020 Commons Chamber

“happy couples and therefore comes out of the blue.”

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Lady for her considerable contribution in setting the scene for us. She and I have a very similar outlook on life, as I believe others in this House have as well. Is it her intention to ensure, through her amendments and new clauses, that services to save marriages—Relate and others—are available from the very beginning of a relationship breaking down to almost the end of it, so that every person at every stage will have a chance and an opportunity to save a marriage, rather than let it fall apart?

[Fiona Bruce]

I absolutely agree—indeed, not just from the very beginning of a marriage, but from before it, as I shall mention shortly when I refer to new clause 1.

I return to the important point that a great many family breakdowns may be a lot more salvageable than is commonly assumed, and therefore help towards that is important. Statistics bear this out: only 9% of married couples who split one year later could be categorised as high conflict couples who reported quarrelling a lot in the year before the split, and 60% of married couples who split were low conflict couples who also reported some degree of happiness. This Bill should have focused on helping to keep them together, not least, as has just been mentioned, by offering every couple going into marriage a pre-marriage course.

Such courses would help couples to appreciate that it is not all plain sailing; to understand what the commitment they are making will involve in practice and how to resolve conflict; to understand that better times do not always follow a break-up; and to equip themselves to persevere through difficulties to better times within their marriage. Such difficulties include the disruption a first child can bring, which is so often a crunch point in a marriage, and the current lockdown crisis, which has understandably exacerbated stress in some relationships. Indeed, lawyers report an increase in divorce inquiries of over 40% at present. The last solution offered by the Government for this should be a quick, spur-of-the-moment escape route.

This Bill is not focused on helping to keep marriages and families together; it does exactly the opposite. That is why new clause 1 is so important, and I am also minded to test the will of the Committee on it. New clause 1 would ensure increased funding for relationship counselling and new support for couples where an application for divorce has been made to a court. The availability of marriage support services in this country is wholly inadequate and requires substantially greater Government investment. This is no doubt one of the reasons why we have one of the highest rates of relationship breakdown in the western world.

It was encouraging that, in the last Budget, the Chancellor committed £2.5 million towards this, but much more is needed. Importantly, it is needed for less well-off couples, who cannot afford the private relationships counselling that better-off people can afford. The Government say that they want to remove conflict flashpoints and reduce areas of conflict in the divorce process. Improved relationship support and counselling would help achieve that. The Bill should have focused on it, and new clause 1 will amend this omission. I was encouraged by the support from those in many parts of the House for this on Second Reading.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady is most gracious in giving way. She will understand and agree with me and probably others that churches offer such services. Is it possible within this legislation, with the extra money that will come through if the new clause is accepted, for the Government to work alongside churches to ensure that relationships can survive?

[Fiona Bruce]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. Some excellent marriage counselling and, indeed, pre-marriage courses are supplied through church organisations. They are very popular, and I personally think it would be marvellous to see a lot more of them and to see some Government-funded support for them.



Counsellors help parties to understand the implications of what marriage means and, when difficulties occur, of what splitting up would mean for them, their children, and their wider families. They help people to consider what a split will involve practically, regarding contact arrangements and finances, and whether the option of staying together might be something that they could look at. Counsellors give people tools to help work through the problems, since they may not have had a role model to copy in earlier life. Critically, if the divorce goes ahead, such help can assist a couple to navigate their future relationship in a way that is best for the future wellbeing of their children, and that will, hopefully, foster continued co-operation and constructive communication, while avoiding, or at least minimising, unnecessary acrimony and relationship acidity over the many years—often decades—to come, for the benefit of all involved. It might help people who receive such counselling to know two interesting facts. First, in a study that involved more than 1,500 people, Professor Janet Walker found that two years on from a divorce, many people wished they had been warned beforehand of the harsh realities of life after separation, and said that if they had been forewarned, they might have sought reconciliation. Another piece of research from the US in the early 2000s found that people who are unhappy in their marriage are more likely to be happier five years later if they do not divorce than if they do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham]

I will address that later in my speech, but I am in favour of greater support for people who want to see whether they can reconcile their relationship.

Let us not prolong the hurt and difficulty that people inevitably go through when they decide that their marriage is no longer what either of them wants. As the Secretary of State said on Second Reading, a minimum period of six months provides

“an equality of approach that will no longer discriminate in favour of those couples who perhaps have the means and the wherewithal to either separate and live separately”—[Official Report, 8 June 2020; Vol. 677, c. 97.]

We must take into consideration the impact of our decisions on people’s lives. I see no reason why six months would be too short a time for this process to take place. Dragging out the proceedings would not be fair to either party, and it certainly would not be fair on any children involved; we have a duty to take their welfare into consideration too. It would be infinitely better for children to have two parents who separated and divorced quickly and quietly, rather than those children enduring years of something that can be very traumatic and have a lasting impact on them and their future relationships.

On Second Reading, the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) said:

“We have all experienced in our surgeries those parents who continue to use their children as weapons in prosecuting a continuing war against their former partners. The removal of fault will not remove that entirely, but I am confident that it will certainly diminish it.”—[Official Report, 8 June 2020; Vol. 677, c. 113.]

He was right. Why should anyone’s children be used as weapons for years on end, causing more pain, distress and doubtless illness as well? Let us not delay proceedings even further. Let us acknowledge that, by the time a divorce has been filed, the parties have already made up their mind and should be allowed to dissolve their marriage without having the legal period extended to a year.

Amendments 3, 4 and 5 appear to be an attempt to frustrate the process of a speedy resolution to divorce proceedings. Amendments 3 and 5 would strengthen the hand of the person who has control of the financial resources in situations where there is financial abuse. Maybe I have missed something, but it seems to me that it would do nothing to help the party who does not have the financial upper hand. Financial settlements are needed as quickly as possible to enable a divorcing couple to live apart. If the intent is for divorcing couples to remain living together during the period of the divorce due to financial restrictions on one party preventing them from moving out, this would be ill-advised. It would not lead to some miraculous reconciliation, but will allow for even greater friction, and it would be counterproductive to the aims of the Bill to encourage amicable divorce and separation. The Law Society has said:

“There can be severe, sometimes irretrievable, financial prejudice to an applicant if final divorce is granted before a financial settlement is reached.”

It is important for discussions on financial settlements not to be delayed, which would only delay divorce proceedings and cause further hurt and frustration.

I turn to new clause 1. I do not think anyone can fail to agree that increased support for marriages is a good thing, but we need much more clarity on how it would work and how it would be funded. I certainly do not think it is something that could or should be made mandatory for couples who are petitioning for divorce. The availability of support for people who wished to access it would be welcome, and I am mindful that couples who would like support may not have the resources that others are able to pay for. If the Government are not minded to adopt this new clause, perhaps the Minister could commit to bringing his own plan to the House designed to provide more support for couples petitioning for a divorce, as well as support for couples who want help to try to put things right before they petition for a divorce.

On new clause 2, we would be in favour of a report on the impact on divorce applications and marriage support. This House works best when it is informed by facts and the reality of people’s lives, and the hope is that this report would give us a true insight into the impact of the Bill. I hope the Minister will comment on that.

[Jim Shannon]

I probably have a different opinion on this from the hon. Gentleman, but if we are dealing with facts, I understand that there is an evidential base of facts that shows that 50% of people who have divorced, as the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) referred to earlier, wish to have had the opportunity not to have divorced. If there is an evidential base and the facts are there, why not take those on board?

[Alex Cunningham]

We do take the facts on board. People may feel that they have got it wrong, and we have all seen examples of people who get married, get divorced and get remarried. We have seen examples where people have done that more than once, which is remarkable. People have the choice, but that does not mean we should lengthen the period that people have to wait before they can divorce. It will be particularly interesting to see how many couples opt for no-fault divorces as an alternative to laying the blame at the feet of one person in the relationship.

Some of the impact of this Bill may be unmeasurable, but it does not make that impact less important. For example, we might not know the true impact of quicker and more amicable divorces on children and how that affects their wellbeing and future lives, but I am confident in saying that having two parents apart but happy is infinitely better for a child than having parents stuck in an unhappy marriage for years on end. I hope the Minister will comment on that.

That leads me to new clause 3, which would reduce the time period to allow a divorce with consent from two years to one. I do not believe the new clause is needed, as the provisions within the Bill are better than what the new clause would achieve. It would still require couples to stay married for a year before they can petition for divorce, and it completely ignores the reality in which people live their lives. To be separated, people have to live apart and at least sleep apart, which simply is not possible for many people. Many homes do not have the luxury of extra bedrooms, and I doubt that 12 months on a sofa is very acceptable. Many couples do not have the disposable income for them to live separately and they have nowhere else to go, so I am not sure what benefit the new clause is supposed to have. Allowing a no-fault divorce is infinitely preferable to forcing an unhappy couple to stay married for a year before they can divorce.

New clause 4, which stands in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, me and other hon. and right hon. Members, relates to funds and income. It is undeniable that there is a problem with access to legal aid, not just in divorce, but across a wide spectrum of areas. The huge cuts made to funding over the past 10 years have led to unfairness and a lack of justice across our nation. Without adequate legal aid for divorce proceedings, we have a situation where some people cannot afford to petition for divorce. We are essentially forcing people to stay married to someone they do not want to be married to simply because they do not have enough money to take legal action.

If the Minister agreed to act, he would have the support of the Law Society. In a briefing, it told me that respondents should have sufficient time to respond to a petition and seek advice. It also stated:

“In our evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights in regard to the human rights implications of the Bill, we highlighted that there is the potential for issues under article 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998 due to its potential to have a particularly detrimental impact on women, who due to a range of societal issues are more likely to be less resilient to financial risks…While divorce affords some protections to women at the end of a marriage, they can only make best use of these legal safeguards if they can participate in the proceedings fully.”

It is right and just that we extend legal aid to divorce, dissolution and separation proceedings to allow people to escape unhappy marriages and civil partnerships. While we welcome the provisions in the Bill to make divorce easier, will the Government acknowledge that without legal aid, we are simply making divorce easier for those who have the funds to petition, while little change will be made for those who do not have such funds? I hope the Minister will go away and consider that, as we must do better for those who do not have the resources to use the legal system.

New clause 5 would require the Secretary of State to carry out a review within six months on the impact of extending legal aid for divorce proceedings. We on this side of the House are particularly interested in the disproportionate impact that an absence of legal aid has on women and how Government can help put a stop to that. Does the Minister agree that we should be conducting research to collect facts about the impacts of decisions made by this House and the potential impacts that decisions made by this House could have? With this in mind, I hope the Minister will accept that we must actively seek out areas where a group of people are being disproportionately negatively impacted, and make the necessary changes to fix that.

We know that legal aid is available in some circumstances, but, as we say in new clause 6, we would like to see financial abuse listed as a specific condition under which civil legal aid may be provided in matters arising out of family relationship. If a person is being financially abused, they simply do not have the funds to petition for a divorce. Does the Minister accept and acknowledge this fact? If he does, perhaps we can make some progress. This could be transformational change for those who have been essentially kept from having their freedom by their partners because they do not have the resources to pursue a divorce. Can the Minister tell me now whether he will seek to introduce financial abuse as a part of the domestic abuse conditions that allow access to legal aid? If not, is it the case that the Government do not wish to provide real and tangible assistance to those who are being financially abused and cannot escape an abusive relationship without that assistance?

There are other areas of family law that I would like to be addressed in the Bill, such as the out-of-date, archaic approach which means that families are entitled to bereavement support only if the parents are married. Not only does this fail to recognise that many families have happy and secure lives without the need for marriage, but it means unhappy couples may be discouraged from petitioning for a divorce because of the potential financial consequences. However, it goes much wider than that.

I have a constituent who when living with her partner had a child with him. Sadly, the relationship was not sustained but her partner, who left, kept up regular maintenance payments for his child until his death. Despite having those regular payments, my constituent is denied bereavement support. When I wrote to the Government seeking clarity on this, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Baroness Stedman-Scott, responded by simply saying that marriage was a key part of benefit entitlement. This is an outdated approach, and we must reframe our public policy on it. We live in a society where families come in all shapes and sizes, and we should not be deeming one shape or size as preferable to another.

The chief executive of Child Bereavement UK said:

“The inequality that unmarried parents face in the bereavement system denies them access to this financial support at a time of great distress and anxiety on many levels following the death of a partner…It is a gross injustice that the current system ultimately disadvantages bereaved children, who have no influence over their parents’ marital status.”

For bereavement support when one parent dies to be permitted only if the parents were married is backwards, and I hope the Government recognise that and will take action to right this wrong.

New clause 9, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and in mine, is an important one. I will not steal my hon. Friend’s thunder, but it is absolutely right that the Secretary of State publish by the end of this year a report on how this legislation will affect the financial status of children and families where benefit entitlement is linked to the civil partnership or marriage status of one or both parents. As I have said, basing benefit entitlement on marital status is outdated and not representative of the modern society in which we live.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope]

This is a very emotional subject, and we ignore that at our peril.

The Bill and the lack of response by the Government to the criticisms that were made on Second Reading lead me to believe that the Government do not really accept the important role that family life has to play in maintaining social cohesion in this country, with the institution of marriage at its heart. The Government almost seem to be venturing down the same route as those who support cultural Marxism. Are the Government inadvertently collaborators with cultural Marxism in seeking to undermine nuclear families?

In the opening speech on Second Reading, the Lord Chancellor said that

“it is often too late to save a marriage, once the legal process of divorce has started.”—[Official Report, 8 June 2020; Vol. 677, c. 95.]

but he sought to avoid the concerns of the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about access to free counselling for those with marriage difficulties, and he cited the Department for Work and Pensions programme of £39 million on reducing parental conflict as the solution.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman mentions my comments to the Secretary of State last week. I do feel that the opportunity for Relate and marriage guidance should be available, as the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) said, before the marriage starts but also as the process comes to its end. It should not just be available in the early stages—I understood from what the Secretary of State said that it would only be available early. Is it not important that at all stages the chance to reconcile and save a marriage should be paramount and should be tried in every case?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. My regret is that the Marriage Guidance Council ever changed its name to Relate because I do not think that as many people understand what Relate is actually about. Of course, after the hon. Gentleman put that point to the Lord Chancellor, there was a non-response—I think that is the generous way of putting it. Then my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire intervened and asked about guarantees that the DWP programme would continue, because at the moment it is only funded for the next nine months. Again, there was no willingness to give any assurance from the Front Bench that that programme would be renewed or even that the Lord Chancellor would support such a renewal. That is why I am sceptical about all this.

The Lord Chancellor said that the aim of the Bill is to “reduce conflict”. He described it as being about the “legal process”, not about stopping the decline in the institution of marriage or, as he put it, “committed relationships”. He also conceded that this Bill is not going to make divorce less attractive, and he did not think it was intended for that end. However, surely this is a golden opportunity to expand marriage guidance services and to make them more easily accessible. It is an opportunity that has been missed, and that is why I shall be supporting new clause 1 if it is put to the vote.

Marriage is something that people have to work at, and I think most marriages will have had their ups and downs. The temptation now is that a party to a marriage going through a bad spell can suddenly, arbitrarily, unilaterally and without consulting their spouse terminate the marriage, and then within six months have a divorce, and I think that is highly unsatisfactory.

The Lord Chancellor seems to believe that nobody embarks on divorce other than in circumstances where the marriage has ended. May I draw his attention to the fact that one of the side-effects of this will be to facilitate the development of more sham marriages? A sham marriage can then result in a sham divorce, and sham divorces will be able to follow on much more quickly than they have been able to do hitherto. Ironically, I think this is going to promote sham marriage and all the abuse of our immigration law and other laws that that leads to.

This Bill is essentially introducing what I would call marriage shorthold, a legal agreement that can be terminated unilaterally after six months, without any evidence of fault. Is it not ironic that, while the Government are introducing marriage shorthold, they are seeking to abolish tenancy shorthold? Section 21 of the Housing Act 1988 allows a six-month housing tenancy to be terminated unilaterally after six months, without evidence of fault. What is the justification that the Government are putting forward for ending tenancy shortholds? It is because tenancy shortholds undermine security. What does this lead us to conclude? It leads me to conclude that the Government value housing security above marriage security, and I think that is a really perverse order of priorities.

I suppose, as a supply side supporter, I could be arguing that, in the same way that the supply side reforms in the 1988 Act—I was privileged to be a Minister in the Department of the Environment when we bought it in—had the consequence of increasing the number of tenancies and the availability of rental options, perhaps the supply side changes to our divorce law will have the consequence that people will feel they can enter into marriage more easily because they are going to be able to end it after six months if it does not work out. That is not a justification so far put forward by the Government, but I would be interested to hear from the Minister how he finds consistency in the approaches to shorthold tenancies and to shorthold marriage.

I think this Bill lacks ambition, and that is another reason why I am not going to be able to support it. I think it should be used as an opportunity to help address conflicts in marriage and between married partners, but it should not be designed, as I think it is, to undermine the institution of marriage in itself.



In conclusion, let me just say this. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor has repeatedly described himself as a doughty champion of family values, but I think it is significant that throughout the debates we have had on this Bill, he has been remarkably diffident about promoting the positive benefits of marriage, as many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have done during the course of this debate. Unless the Government accept the amendments before the House today—particularly, in my view, new clause 1—there will be no evidence to back up the Lord Chancellor’s assertion of being a champion of family values. Indeed, like a party to a divorce under this Bill, he will have absolved himself of any requirement to establish the facts. What a sad state of affairs that is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom]

I went into politics to make the world a better place. It has been my lifelong ambition since I was a kid to try to improve the world around me. The problem I have with this Bill is that it is just not clear that it does that. When I was four years old, my parents divorced, so I know first-hand what it is like to be the child of divorced parents. I have met so many of these people in my constituency surgeries. There are the estranged wives who say, “He’s a beep beep beep, he’s been horrendous, he does not turn up when he says he will, he’s been a terrible father.” Then the men come into my surgery saying, “She denies me access to the kids, she was unfaithful, she was this, she was that.” I have seen the problem of warring couples. Of course, as many colleagues have said, the children are often the ones to suffer.

Now we also have the more modern case where a couple cohabit and either do or do not have children, with the challenges for them of relationship breakdown and how they solve that. In recent years, since I have been a Member of Parliament, we have introduced civil partnerships for same-sex couples and then for opposite-sex couples, all designed to give people options, but ultimately, in my view, to help people have strong and happy relationships.

What do we do in this place if it is not to try to help people have better, happier lives—and what does that mean? I have heard an awful lot of, frankly, lawyers talking about the problems of this and the problems of that, the legal position here and there, and the financial position and so on, but ultimately this is about human happiness. What all of us in this place know is that human beings need to be together in communities. Just over the past few months, we have tested to destruction the idea of separating people into their single units to be lonely and isolated. We know that people want to be together, and yet what we never do in this Chamber is say, “We stand up for people being together and sticking together and loving each other, and we want to help them in every way we can.”

I really do not know what to make of this Bill, as someone who experienced divorce myself, and whose kids, now in their teens or early 20s, have friends whose parents split up and whose lives have been wrecked by the experience. I know so many people who have been through traumatic relationships. I also know lots of people who have divorced and got back together again—people whose relationships have been severely challenged and they have managed to find a way through it. I cannot see in this Bill any attempt to help them to stay together, to help them to get through a rough period, or to encourage them to stay together to focus on the children. It does not seem to me to do any of those things, which we all absolutely know are in the interests of a stronger and a happier society.

[Jim Shannon]

The right hon. Lady is outlining the issues clearly. I understand that when relationships break down there is anger, pain, and hurt, but at the same time there are also children, grandparents, and other family relationships. How important is it to ensure that there is time for people to consider those matters before the final step, which could be a detrimental and backward one, is taken?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he brings me to my key point: I totally support the idea of minimising the angst, pain, and further acrimony of a terrible divorce, as that is in no one’s interests—it is not in the interests of the warring couple, and it is certainly not in the interests of any children—but we are not talking about the other side of the coin. We are saying to people, “You can get divorced much more easily”, and that, in my view, is a good thing, because if the relationship is irretrievably broken down, it is right to make the process much easier. However, statistics show that up to 50% of people later come to be sorry about their divorce, and as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), that is because they still love their partner, or miss them, or because they are lonely. Yes, it might be because they are financially deprived. They might now be in a one-bedroom flat, whereas previously they were in a nice three-bedroom house with a garden. People may regret a divorce for all sorts of reasons, so why would we make this provision for six months? I literally do not get it.

Why not say that a couple can judicially separate after six months—they can move out of the family home, divide up their possessions, sort out arrangements for any children, decide who gets the cat and so on—but that they should at least then have a period of reflection? I simply do not understand. I think all the points have been made, and as a non-lawyer, I do not propose to get into that area, but I just feel that we are missing an opportunity to add to human happiness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

C S Lewis said:

“We are all fallen creatures and all very hard to live with.”

Since the fall from the state of grace, the prevailing condition of humankind has been imperfection. Because we are imperfect creatures the relationships we form are imperfect too. They are full of the joys, triumphs, disappointments and disasters that perpetuate through the human condition and that everyone in this place will have known during the course of their lives. So it is preposterous to suggest that a change in the process of divorce will iron out enmity or acrimony. The end of a love is by its nature acrimonious. It is full of disappointment and sorrow, and it will ever more be so. Let us not pretend that we are in a fairy tale, whereby if we change the business of divorce, we will change the content of that doubt and disappointment, for we will not.

As I said in an earlier intervention, the principal cause of that enmity is issues over children, and they will remain. The second cause is the sharing out of assets, and that will remain. Arguably the period of time that currently prevails gives a chance to sort that out, and certainly it gives a chance to take advice, to consider carefully, to contemplate and to reflect. One in 10 divorces that are begun do not end for that very reason—people do think again and when they think again, they often try again.

We are condemning many women, in particular, to a very sorry future, because for the most part it will be women who are left by men—not always, of course, but for the most part—and many will not even know they are being divorced, as the Law Society points out in its analysis of the Bill; divorce will be initiated, and women will learn that they will be divorced in a few months, but they will be given no cause, no reason, no justification and no explanation. That is what this Bill does. Thus I regard it as extraordinary that the imperfections that, as I say, have always been so are not recognised by this House as being bound to prevail regardless of this Bill.

Governments are imperfect, too. I spent 19 years on my party’s Front Bench, many of them as a Minister, so I know how imperfect Governments are. Governments bring legislation to the House that is ironed out during its scrutiny. I do not blame for a moment the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham, because he is a new Minister, a good man and a fine fellow, and he would not be calling the shots on this, but I find it extraordinary that the Government have not compromised.

All the time I was in government—people on both sides of the House will remember this—I used to listen to arguments from both sides to allow legislation to develop and mature through scrutiny and argument. Many times, I would go to my civil servants and say, “Well, the point that the shadow Minister is making is right, isn’t it? We ought to take that on board.” Yet this Government have remained entirely resistant to the measured overtures of the Bill’s critics. We conceded on the point about fault, but all we asked was that the Government think again about the time. The duration could be 12 months, as recommended.

[Jim Shannon]

The right hon. Member will be aware that the Government have said that they are going to reduce it to six months, but is he aware that the pilot scheme was able to do divorce proceedings in three months? In other words, a quick divorce could become a really, really quick divorce if we follow the process proposed by the Government.

[Sir John Hayes]

Yes, if the Government carry on down this road, we will have Las Vegas-style drive-through divorces. The hon. Gentleman is right. The Law Society suggested 9 months, and it was 12 months the last time reform of the law was suggested some years ago, so I am astounded, frankly, that we have come up with six months. It is an imperfect world, but a still more imperfect Government and, most of all, a wholly imperfect proposal, on which the Government have been resistant to amendment or change in any way.

The second thing I want to talk about is learning, because we learn from listening. The Government issued a consultation, and completely ignored the fact that most of the respondents did not want what the Bill now proposes. Most people felt that, even where they believed that the law should be changed, it should not be changed in this way. This is the most radical reform of divorce, with no public appetite for it, which completely contradicts the Government’s own consultation. That is how bad this is. I have seen many pieces of legislation come before this House as I have endured and enjoyed many Governments of many colours, but I can rarely remember a Bill that I would be less likely to vote for than this one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)]

I intend to speak only briefly, but I would like to reflect a lot of the wisdom that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) has brought to bear not only on this Bill, but on other Bills, such as on the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill the other day.

I speak as a supporter of marriage, but also as a supporter of the Bill. I think that, wherever possible, divorce needs to be amicable, and we need to remove blame as a necessity. In earlier stages of the legislation, we heard some hon. Members, including from my recent intake, speak personally of the pain they are going through at the moment with the blame levels in divorce. I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). I think the Bill does help remove some of that pain by removing some of the blame, and we are doing an important thing today in removing that.

I conclude by saying that I support the Bill, and I am glad the Government have brought it forward. As somebody with grandparents who have been married for 66 years and parents who are rapidly approaching their 40th wedding anniversary, I hope they continue, but I also hope, for others who are not in such a lucky situation, that the Bill will help remove some of the burden on them.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Earlier, the deferred Division on abortion legislation for Northern Ireland was announced, and the votes were Ayes 253, Noes 136. My mathematical calculations indicate that there were 261 abstentions. My understanding would be that many of those people abstained because they felt the Northern Ireland Assembly should have been the body that looked at this. If we add the Noes, who voted against the abortion legislation in this House, and the abstentions, it comes to a figure of 397 out of 650. My point of order is: has the House expressed its true wishes in relation to this legislation?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. The short answer to that is yes: we only count the votes of those who actually vote. We do not know what lies behind those who abstain.