European Agenda on Security

Naz Shah Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2016 General Committees

[James Brokenshire]

The Government take their border security responsibilities seriously. We check 100% of scheduled passengers arriving at the border. Every year, millions of passengers pass through the border in that way. That is why I made the point about having better data at the border to assist those checks through our partnerships and co-operation with other EU member states. In respect of the general maritime sector, we have invested in intelligence and a field intelligence officers network, which has resulted in the successful interdiction of suspect vessels, disruption of people smugglers and significant seizures of class A drugs. We must work with our European partners as well. The action that the French, Dutch or Belgian Governments may take in stopping vessels leaving their shores is a powerful way of ensuring our own domestic security and underlines the need for good, practical co-operation.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

Looking at the immediate future, has the Minister considered the implications of Brexit for the UK’s security and our ability to tackle heinous crime?

Police Funding, Crime and Community Safety

Naz Shah Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman is trying to make an argument where there is none, because he knows full well the processes of determining the comprehensive spending review, and the discussions that take place between Departments and the Treasury that result in the final figures that the Chancellor announces. In truth, the Labour party decided what its line was going to be on police funding, and when the Chancellor stood up and protected police budgets, instead of sensibly changing that line, it decided to carry on with it anyway because one should never let the facts get in the way of an argument.

The right hon. Gentleman argues that the inclusion of cybercrime in the crime statistics will show that crime has doubled, but the uncomfortable truth for the Opposition is that crime has fallen by more than a quarter since 2010, according to the independent crime survey for England and Wales. That is one of the most authoritative surveys of victims of crime in the world. It is administered by the independent Office for National Statistics, which captures the experience of more than 30,000 households. The survey dates back to the 1980s and shows that crime is at historic lows. People in this country are as safe as they have ever been.

The ONS has been clear: its preliminary estimate on fraud and cybercrime does not mean that crime is rising, and certainly not that it has doubled. In fact, it confirms what we have long known, which is that such crimes have for too long gone unreported and unrecorded. That is why the Government welcome the work of the ONS to capture those crimes.

The right hon. Gentleman notes the heightened threat of a terrorist attack and the important role of the police in preventing such attacks, and I will go on to speak about that.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

The Chancellor is not present, but will the right hon. Lady confirm that his pledge to protect the police relies on an assumed increase of £369 million in local taxes?

[Mrs May]

I described accurately in my speech what was said about real-terms figures and maximising the precept, and that in cash terms there will be virtually a £900 million increase in funding for police budgets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

Let me start by paying tribute to my local police, particularly Inspector Tom Horner. He works tirelessly, along with his team, to keep my community and my constituents safe, as does the regional police force. West Yorkshire’s force has lost a considerable amount of funding and more than 20% of its officers, and it is now likely to be asked to find savings, despite having a “protected budget”.

Bradford is not like the leafy suburbs of some southern counties where funding has increased over the past six years. We deal with complex issues that create vulnerability. In the past few weeks, we saw the conviction of 12 people from a grooming gang in Keighley, and such cases affect the wider budget of a local police force. In our area, we have to deal with terrorism and with women who have fled with their children to Syria.

What I want from the Home Secretary today is an explanation of how she and the Chancellor will ensure that he will take all these complexities into account, including terrorism, alcohol, domestic violence and mental health issues. On the one hand, cuts mean austerity, which has an impact on people’s lives within their homes, while on the other there is an increase in poverty and crime: there is a correlation. We cannot deny that.

I would really like to understand how this Government are going to ensure that they take into account places like my constituency, where the issues are complex: we need extra funding to tackle terrorism and we have extra vulnerabilities. We are also looking at integration, as just a few weeks ago Britain First came to my area, and the English Defence League has also been. I worked closely with the police on both occasions. I am not convinced that the police funding formula will address all the issues, and that is my real concern. I would like to see some understanding of constituencies such as Bradford West. Ultimately, we need to be cutting crime, not cutting costs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Hayes]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. When communities know their officers and officers know their patch, the police have a public face at a local level. When that is taken away, public confidence all too often depends on headlines, high-profile cases and the individual experiences of people who have, sadly, already been the victims of crime. Neighbourhood policing should not be regarded as the softer side of policing. It should be regarded not as a luxury to be cut in a time of austerity, but as a vital relationship-building bridge between the police and the communities that they serve, and as the key to resolving and preventing many of the serious crimes that can threaten the security and stability of our communities.

[Naz Shah]

Is my hon. Friend aware that Her Majesty’s inspector of constabularies, Zoë Billingham, who led HMIC’s police effectiveness inspection, the report of which was published last week, described neighbourhood policing as

“the cornerstone of the British policing model”

and said

“I need to raise a warning flag here. Forces’ good performance in preventing crimes is at risk if neighbourhood policing is further eroded.”

[Helen Hayes]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which supports the case I am making. In London, we need a Labour Mayor to restore neighbourhood policing, as my hon. Friend has just said, as a cornerstone of the Met.

Preventing Violence Against Women: Role of Men

Naz Shah Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2016 Westminster Hall

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Gillan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) on securing this debate, which is timely given the urgent question earlier today about the visit by the rape apologists from—

[Jess Phillips]

I don’t know where they’re from.

[Naz Shah]

When we consider violence against women, we always look at the woman and the family, but there are wider implications. As someone whose mother served time in prison for killing an abusive partner and as a woman whose own forced marriage is well documented, I want to provide a cultural narrative to the debate from a BME perspective and to enlighten people about the issues around women in prison. In this country, two women a week are murdered by their partners, but some women are driven to kill because they see no other way out and have nowhere else. Services are not responsive due to language barriers or a lack of understanding. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) mentioned, some women are still not believed. My experiences happened over 23 years ago, but many women face the same issues and obstacles. Language barriers and cultural differences are a double whammy, leading to more hurdles to overcome to access services. We must be mindful of the barriers that women face.

I am pleased to see Ikram Butt, the first Asian rugby player to play for England, present today. He is a white ribbon champion and has come all the way from Yorkshire. He has canvassed me many a time about wearing my white ribbon, which is important because he is a role model for Asian people and Asian young men in sport. Sport is one way in which we need to engage with young people and young men in particular.

I had a natural hatred of men and of my own community because of my experiences, but my hatred was alleviated by the good men whom I came across and worked with, who taught me that our communities do contain decent men. However, that fact does not take away from the inequalities that women suffer. Turning to women in prison, the majority—nine out of 10—of women incarcerated in our prisons committed a crime because they were a caregiver or because they suffered some form of abuse. When women with children are imprisoned, the system not only incarcerates the woman but punishes the whole family. The entire family, including the children, are set up to fail because services are not geared correctly towards children. I was lucky that I was 18 and not in the care system and was able to look after my siblings, but the experience of prison affects young people as well. When discussing violence against women, we should not talk only about the woman who has been violated. Whole families and communities are affected. When a man commits violence, he is perpetrating a crime against a whole community or people. It is not just about the woman who is physically hurt or controlled, whether financially or mentally.

I am disheartened by the Government cuts that have affected charity organisations. Last year, I led a debate on cuts in the voluntary sector in this very room. Since my election, Bradford has seen the closure of two local charities that helped women. Both the Blenheim Project, which was a refuge, and the Manningham Mills Community Association, which was a place for women to come together and seek support, have closed. In addition, more than a third of the women who go to Women’s Aid are unfortunately turned away because of the cuts since 2010. There has been an increase in reports of rape this week in my local area alone. We need to address the cuts to local authorities, police forces and organisations such as Women’s Aid. It is fantastic that we are empowering men, and it heartens me to see so many men taking part in this debate and that the debate was led by a man. However, we are setting our communities up to fail if we do not address the wider issues of the funding that should be available to communities.

I urge the Minister to consider the implementation of the Istanbul convention, which has been signed by the United Kingdom but has not yet been ratified. I also advocate making awareness of gender-based violence the focal point of our school curriculums. I am unsure whether we are doing enough to address children’s anxieties about the role of women and power and control. If we are to address the matter, we cannot just address what is currently happening; we need preventive work for the long term. Young people have even more issues now, such as body image, and I have an 11-year-old daughter, so I am familiar with the pressures that young people face and I am exasperated by them.

Social media has a massive part to play in violence against women. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley has been persecuted, and such action is unacceptable. I have experienced Twitter trolling, but nowhere near that of some of my colleagues. I stand by my hon. Friend and I retweet things, as do many others, but we need more men to do that. I encourage the men in this room to troll the trolls. I would like the Minister to commit to embed such issues in our curriculum, so that we can empower young people and teach them that the way to get real power and control is not through the persecution of others but through being comfortable and by empowering women. Like my hon. Friend, I thank the fantastic men out there. I have two sons of my own. Men are wonderful, but we need more of them to help us. Be the majority, not the minority.

[Mr Clive Betts in the Chair]

Donald Trump

Naz Shah Excerpts

Monday 18th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) on leading the debate.

I will start by quoting Martin Luther King, because he deserves much more recognition today than does Donald Trump:

“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”

Therefore, I welcome this discussion and I am grateful to the petitioners, who wanted us to raise our voices and to have the debate.

I want to share two things with the Chamber. I had an interesting lunch earlier with a number of people, including Rick Stengel, the US Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs. In our conversation—I said that I had to get back for this Donald Trump debate—we agreed that Donald Trump was no more than a demagogue, who panders to people’s fears, rather than their strengths. I should know, because the people of Bradford West helped me to get rid of one in the general election—so it is not the first time that I have dealt with a demagogue.

I want to point out several things. I really value this debate and accept that the subject is emotive. I understand and respect the views of my colleagues who say that we should ban this person for inciting hatred—I agree. However, as the Member of Parliament for Bradford West, I would give an open invitation to Donald Trump to visit my constituency. I would take him to the synagogue, the church and the mosque and I would invite him for a curry—we are the curry capital of Britain. I would welcome him, then have a conversation with him and challenge him about his views.

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Naz Shah]

I will make my point first. I would invite Donald Trump to join us in feeding the homeless at the InTouch Foundation, a Muslim charity that feeds homeless people in the city of Bradford. I would invite him to meet the Muslim volunteers who help at Human Appeal (International), a foundation based in a colleague’s constituency, and all those people who work together on issues that affect us as a country and as people, regardless of our race, gender, ethnicity or religion. That is what I would show to him.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I am a little confused. The hon. Lady said that she agreed with the ban, but at the same time she wants to invite him to her constituency. I do not see how that would work.

[Naz Shah]

I respect the views of my colleagues, but I do not agree with an overall ban. I would invite Donald Trump to Bradford West. I also think that the curries are better in Bradford West, but there we go.

There is an issue for me about challenging that narrative. In the name of democracy, it is important for us to challenge the hatred speech that comes out of Donald Trump’s mouth. By the same token, I stand here as a proud British Muslim woman, and he would like me to be banned from America. I would not get a visa but my Islam and, as I understand it, Surah 41, verse 34 teach me—this is not word for word, but what I take from my Koran—that goodness is better than evil. If someone does bad, you do good in return. I will not allow the rhetoric of badness into my life and my heart or those of my constituents. I will challenge that with goodness, because hatred breeds hate and that is not something that I will tolerate.

Given that it is Martin Luther King day, I leave everyone with his words:

“I have decided to stick with love. Hate is too great a burden to bear.”

Female Genital Mutilation

Naz Shah Excerpts

Tuesday 15th December 2015 General Committees

[Karen Bradley]

Again, the hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. The reason why we introduced protection orders at the beginning of the school holidays was that we know that is a time when girls can be taken out of the UK to be cut. The families know that the girls will come back to a new class, and possibly even a new school if they are moving from primary to secondary school.

The hon. Gentleman is right that girls leaving school for a significant period of time can be an indicator of FGM, and I know that there is multi-agency working across the country to look carefully at that. Reports can be made to multi-agency safeguarding hubs and, of course, to the NHS helpline. We have also published multi-agency guidance, which, as I have said, we are putting on a statutory footing. That includes information for schools and teachers on what to look out for.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

Do we know how many protection orders have been used for FGM so far, or even in the last year?

[Karen Bradley]

We do not yet have the final figures. Protection orders were only introduced on 17 July, so the first set of statistics has not yet come through. We hope to have them shortly, and I am sure the hon. Lady will be made aware of them when they are released.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karen Bradley]

I will be happy to write to my hon. Friend with an analysis of the comparisons because we probably do not have time to go through it now. Let me be clear: the protection orders are for girls that we consider to be at risk of FGM, to protect them and stop them from being taken out of the country—for example, their passports are removed. That is girls who are at risk of FGM. We have also taken measures for girls where FGM has been committed. To return to mandatory reporting, that has been in force only since 31 October, but it means that any professional in a public body who comes into contact with FGM—to be clear: a health professional who sees that FGM has been committed and who knows it has been committed—has a mandatory duty to report it so that we get the information.

[Naz Shah]

I am going to speak about my experience of honour-based forced marriages and the case of Shafilea Ahmed. In that case we did not have a body, but we prosecuted. What I am struggling to understand is why, when we have got the evidence base—when we have clear medical evidence of mutilation—we need witness testimony. Why are we not prosecuting?

[Karen Bradley]

I cannot answer for why the CPS would choose to take a prosecution or not. I repeat that no cases were referred to the CPS before 2010, so it was impossible for it to take a prosecution. Cases are now being referred and the CPS will make its best judgment on whether a prosecution can be achieved.

The hon. Lady is right about the evidence. That is where mandatory reporting is so important, because it means that those professionals who feared coming forward and saying they had seen this, because they feared it was somehow going to create a cultural difficulty, now know that they have to come forward and we will get that evidence.

[Naz Shah]

We have had 386 reports connected to FGM since 2009. I accept that the law is complicated, but we have the evidence. Do we need to do more in terms of changing the law? The prosecution that was pursued had nothing to do with a parent or a non-family member; it involved a medical practitioner who was not trained and who was found not guilty. It was not set within the context of the law—when we introduced the law, it was not for that kind of case. It is exactly the same for forced marriage: when we prosecuted in Cardiff, the first prosecution was not to do with parents or people who take very young girls out of the country to get them married. In both instances, we are failing. Please can we acknowledge that and do something more than just what we are doing here, because clearly we are not doing it right?

[Karen Bradley]

I dispute that we are not doing enough. I absolutely share the hon. Lady’s frustration about the lack of prosecutions and successful convictions. However, the measures in the Serious Crime Act 2015 were included in response to failings or gaps in the law that this Government perceived. We have taken those steps, but she has to recognise that that does not simply change things overnight. The changes to the law apply to offences committed after the Serious Crime Act commences, and there will be a time lag, which we all have to acknowledge, while evidence is gathered and before a prosecution takes place. I want to see a prosecution and a successful conviction as much as she does but, also, I do not want to see FGM happening in the first place. The hon. Lady is right that a successful conviction would send a clear message, as it has with forced marriage, that the practice is not acceptable. We must have the deterrent of a successful conviction, but we also have to prevent this practice from happening. A conviction is, in many ways, a failure, because a crime has happened. That is not a success; a success is preventing it from happening.

The hon. Member for Luton North and my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington made a point about men. They are both absolutely right; we need to change the culture, and not just among women. We need women who have been victims or who are worried about their siblings and members of their family to come forward, but we also need men to speak out.

One of the most heartening things I heard over the summer was when I visited the Border Force safeguarding team at Heathrow terminal 5. The law had only changed a week before, and the team told me about their experiences of families traveling out of the country, often via the middle east, to countries where FGM may take place. It was the men—the brothers, the uncles and the fathers—who said to the Border Force guards, “Thank you for having told us that this is a criminal offence and that if this happens to my daughter, sister or niece while she is out of the country, you will be watching for that on her return and we will face jail for having allowed it to happen. That means I have the power and the authority to tell members of my family who want to do this to my relative that they cannot, because it is a criminal act here in the UK.” That is such an important point.