Migration and Economic Development Partnership with Rwanda

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend makes some very important points. He speaks of the generosity of our country, and I stand by that. I think this Government’s record speaks very strongly on supporting people from Afghanistan, Syria, Hong Kong, Ukraine, and the hundreds of thousands of people whom we have supported. He rightly speaks about our domestic courts in the same way as I did in my statement, and it is important to note that the courts have not challenged the legality of our policy.

In fact, I use this moment to pay tribute, which the Opposition parties will not do, to our officials in the Home Office, both in-country and here, for their work on developing the programme and on evidencing the legality of the policy, and how they have worked with Rwanda as a country on its capability and capacity to house people.

These arguments have been challenged in the courts and they have been well heard in the courts. If I may make one final point, our domestic courts have been transparent in their decision making and how they have communicated their verdicts from the High Court, the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. What is concerning is the opaque nature of the conduct of last night’s appeal by the European Court of Human Rights in the way that it informed the UK Government about one individual. It is now right that we spend time going back to that Court to get the grounds upon which it made its decision.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

My party continues to deplore this unworkable, illegal and immoral policy. It does nothing to stop smugglers and it inflicts serious harm on victims, despite the Home Secretary’s cloud cuckoo land description of it. We wholeheartedly welcome the cancellation of this flight, and we condemn the reckless approach that the Home Secretary has taken to taxpayers’ money and, more importantly, to the rule of law.

May I take a moment to commend the lawyers involved for their incredible work in the face of some utterly inappropriate commentary from the top of Government? Will the Home Secretary tell her colleagues to heed the call from the Law Society and the Bar Council, and stop attacks on legal professionals who are simply doing their job?

It is not the lawyers who caused this flight to be cancelled nor any court; this flight was stopped because of the stench of yet more Government illegality. [Interruption.] It was. Even the most ardent supporters of this dreadful policy must recognise that there is, to put it mildly, massive dubiety over its lawfulness. The UNHCR, the guardian of the refugee convention, is clear that this is in breach of it. To seek to press ahead before the courts have concluded that issue either way was a reckless waste of taxpayers’ money and shows again this Government’s total disregard for the rule of law.

The Home Secretary should call this off now, and wait for that Court ruling. That is all we are asking for in the meantime. She should start answering the basic questions that we did not get answers to on Monday, such as about oversight, age assessments, and screening for torture survivors and trafficking victims. This is a dreadful mess.

Inevitably, this pitiful policy failure will now, wrongly, be blamed by the usual suspects on the European convention on human rights, so will the Home Secretary recognise what the Prime Minister previously said about the convention being a “great thing”? Will she recognise its importance for devolution, for the Good Friday agreement and for the trade and co-operation agreement, and call off the agitators in her party who want the UK to follow Russia and Belarus through the exit door and on to pariah state status?

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

I thank my hon. Friend for the very thoughtful way in which she has made her points and asked her question. In particular, I want to pay tribute to her and to her constituents, because they are on the frontline. I have spent a great deal of time both in my hon. Friend’s constituency and with her, and with the professionals in her constituency—not just in Border Force or on the frontline on the coast, but in her local authority—who do a great deal of work when it comes to housing, providing sanctuary and providing support. We should take this moment to pay tribute to them, because they are on the frontline day in and day out, it is fair to say. I also want to commend them for the way they work with Home Office officials and our operational teams.

My hon. Friend speaks very strongly and powerfully about the lives that have been lost, and I think the House should recognise that this is not just about those crossing the channel. It is about those crossing the Mediterranean, going through European countries and sometimes even those going through parts of Africa and the Sahel. The conditions are absolutely appalling. On that journey I have just spelt out—from north Africa and the Sahel, crossing the Mediterranean and going to EU member states—the EU member states are safe countries, and this is the model that we have to break.

It is a fact—we know this through intelligence work and the UK intelligence network—that a lot of those gangs are based in European member states. While I cannot speak in more detail about the wider work that has taken place, a lot of good, solid co-operation led by this Government has spurred action in EU member states to deal with the smuggling gangs, go after the smugglers, and ensure they are prosecuted.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, Dame Diana Johnson.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

The permanent secretary refused to sign off the Rwanda policy on the basis of a lack of evidence of value for money for the taxpayer. That is only the second time in 30 years that the most senior civil servant in the Home Office has had to be ordered by the Home Secretary to implement a policy.

In light of those concerns about wasting public money, will the Home Secretary confirm that on top of the payment of £120 million to Rwanda, the taxpayer will also now be picking up the £0.5 million cost of the flight last night, and all subsequent charter planes, whether they take off or not? Will there be additional payments to Rwanda for people whom Rwanda is expecting, whether or not those people actually arrive?

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments that I made earlier.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement.

Bills Presented

Social Security (Additional Payments) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Orders Nos. 50 and 57)

Secretary Thérèse Coffey, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Kwasi Kwarteng and David Rutley, presented a Bill to make provision about additional payments to recipients of means-tested benefits, tax credits and disability benefits.

Bill read the first time; to be read a second time tomorrow and to be printed (Bill 13) with explanatory notes (Bill 13-EN).

Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Stuart C McDonald, supported by David Linden, Luke Hall, Alex Davies-Jones, Steve Reed, Caroline Lucas, Ben Lake, Tim Farron, Ms Anum Qaisar, Gavin Newlands, Alison Thewliss and Amy Callaghan, presented a Bill to make provision about leave and pay for employees with responsibility for children receiving neonatal care.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 July, and to be printed (Bill 14).

Protection from Redundancy (Pregnancy and Family Leave) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Dan Jarvis presented a Bill to make provision about protection from redundancy during or after pregnancy or after periods of maternity, adoption or shared parental leave.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 9 September, and to be printed (Bill 15).

Equipment Theft (Prevention) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Greg Smith presented a Bill to make provision to prevent the theft and re-sale of equipment and tools used by tradespeople and agricultural and other businesses; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 September, and to be printed (Bill 16).

Co-operatives, Mutuals and Friendly Societies Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir Mark Hendrick presented a Bill to make provision about the types of share capital issued by co-operatives; to make provision about the taxation of mutual insurers and friendly societies which issue deferred shares; to permit the capital surplus of co-operatives, mutuals and friendly societies to be non-distributable; to amend the Friendly Societies Act 1992; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 October, and to be printed (Bill 17).

Electricity and Gas Transmission (Compensation) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Dr Liam Fox presented a Bill to establish an independent mechanism to determine claims for compensation in cases where land will be or has been subject to the acquisition of rights or land, through compulsion or by agreement, for the purposes of electricity and gas transmission; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 November, and to be printed (Bill 18).

Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Bob Blackman presented a Bill to make provision about the regulation of supported exempt accommodation; to make provision about local authority oversight of, and enforcement powers relating to, the provision of supported exempt accommodation; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 November, and to be printed (Bill 19).

Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Greg Clark presented a Bill to make provision about causing intentional harassment, alarm or distress to a person in public where the behaviour is done because of that person’s sex; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 9 December, and to be printed (Bill 20).

Employment (Allocation of Tips) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Dean Russell presented a Bill to ensure that tips, gratuities and service charges paid by customers are allocated to workers.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 July, and to be printed (Bill 21).

Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Yasmin Qureshi presented a Bill to make provision in relation to the right of employees and other workers to request variations to particular terms and conditions of employment, including working hours, times and locations.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 October, and to be printed (Bill 22).

Carer’s Leave Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Wendy Chamberlain presented a Bill to make provision about unpaid leave for employees with caring responsibilities.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 9 September, and to be printed (Bill 23).

Offenders (Day of Release from Detention) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mark Jenkinson presented a Bill to make provision about the days on which offenders are released from detention; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 September, and to be printed (Bill 24).

Terminal Illness (Support and Rights) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Alex Cunningham presented a Bill to require utility companies to provide financial support to customers with a terminal illness; to make provision about the employment rights of people with a terminal illness; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 November, and to be printed (Bill 25).

Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Henry Smith presented a Bill to make provision prohibiting the import of hunting trophies into Great Britain.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 November, and to be printed (Bill 26).

Child Support (Enforcement) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Claire Coutinho presented a Bill to make provision about the enforcement of child support maintenance and other maintenance; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 9 December, and to be printed (Bill 27).

Worker Protection (Amendment of Equality Act 2010) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Wera Hobhouse presented a Bill to make provision in relation to the duties of employers and the protection of workers under the Equality Act 2010.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 9 September, and to be printed (Bill 28).

Online Sale of Goods (Safety) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Kate Osborne, on behalf of Ian Mearns, presented a Bill to provide for the Secretary of State to make regulations about the safety of goods sold online; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 January, and to be printed (Bill 29).

Shark Fins Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Christina Rees presented a Bill to prohibit the import and export of shark fins and to make provision relating to the removal of fins from sharks.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 July, and to be printed (Bill 30).

Dyslexia Screening and Teacher Training Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Matt Hancock, supported by Robert Halfon, Dr Rupa Huq, Sir Iain Duncan Smith, Paul Bristow, Rosie Cooper, Tom Hunt, Henry Smith, Holly Mumby-Croft, Christian Wakeford, Brendan Clarke-Smith and Jim Shannon, presented a Bill to make provision for screening for dyslexia in primary schools; to make provision about teacher training relating to neurodivergent conditions; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 September, and to be printed (Bill 31).

Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sally-Ann Hart presented a Bill to make provision enabling the making of arrangements for the collection of child support maintenance in cases involving domestic abuse.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 October, and to be printed (Bill 32).

Powers of Attorney Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Stephen Metcalfe presented a Bill to make provision about lasting powers of attorney; to make provision about proof of instruments creating powers of attorney; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 9 December, and to be printed (Bill 33).

HM Passport Office Backlog

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Nick Smith]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I hope that it is a point of order and not just disturbing the debate.

[Nick Smith]

Could you give some advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, on whether there is a difficulty with sightlines to this corner of the Chamber, as the Minister seems unable to see requests to give way from Labour Members?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

First, that is not a point of order. Secondly, I am sure that the Minister is well aware of the calls for him to give way, but it is entirely for him to decide whether to do so.

[Kevin Foster]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for helping to advise the Chamber, as always. I have heard mutters about my taking interventions from friends, but anyone who has been in the Chamber to hear me and the SNP debating matters in the last few years could hardly accuse us of having a great friendship.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call Florence Eshalomi.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I offer colleagues a gentle reminder that it is important to speak to the motion before the House. Going much wider than that is not really appropriate. I call Alison Thewliss.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Just another reminder that we are talking about passports rather than slightly wider issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Holly Lynch]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, speaking to the variety of reasons why people have to unlock this backlog, whether for work or personal reasons. There are economic reasons why we must get productivity up and have people able to travel again, alongside the family connections that we need to see re-established and people’s ability to undertake holidays once again.

As the Minister for migration is back in his place, I must say that I am grateful for the occasions when I have been able to reach out to him and he has intervened on cases where I have made an appeal directly to him. However, I am privileged in that I have his mobile number; what we are trying to get to is a position where—[Interruption.] For purely professional reasons, for anyone who made an odd noise there. We are trying to get to a process whereby a constituent out there would not need to have access to the Minister’s mobile number in order to have their case resolved by this Home Office.

At a time when the cost of living crisis is hitting the country hard and after two years of family holidays having to be postponed and rearranged, Home Office incompetence is landing British families with yet more unnecessary costs as they pick up the tab for the failures and pay for fast-track passport services, or face losing hundreds of pounds in cancelled holidays. The number of monthly fast-track applications has more than doubled since December 2021, as other colleagues have said. In April this year alone, British families spent at least £5.4 million on fast-track services.

The Passport Office’s own forecasts show that it expects to receive more than 240,000 fast-track applications between May and October this year, at a cost of an incredible £34 million. The cost of passport failure is being passed on to families stuck between a rock and a hard place, at the worst possible time. Even the fast-track service, as we have just heard, is not always a guarantee, with the website often saying that there is no availability of appointments due to high demand. My constituents report that they are calling day after day with no success. One constituent emailed:

“Another stressful day has passed of getting no answers from the passport office. It’s nothing but incorrect information and false hope. I’ve arranged 3 call backs, one of them being from the upgrade team and not one of them have got back to me. I’m due to travel next Friday, and I have no hope whatsoever.”

The trade union PCS says that the Home Office originally estimated that 1,700 new staff members would be needed to deal with the backlog, but as far as we are aware—and we have had confirmation of this—only about 500 have actually been recruited. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed the timeline for when those additional staff members will be joining their colleagues on the frontline.

In April, the Prime Minister reportedly said that he wanted to privatise the Passport Office, using more unparliamentary language than I have at the Dispatch Box. However, the Minister has confirmed to the House that most of the services within the process have already been privatised, with in-house staff dealing only with decisions on applications themselves. I suspect that it will come as a surprise to precisely no one to hear that the Prime Minister is not across the detail on this, but what does he think is left to privatise, and how exactly, based on the performance of the existing contractors, does he think it will improve the service? Looking at the three private service providers involved in passports, freedom of information requests published by the Mirror last month revealed that TNT, as the courier service for the Passport Office, has lost hundreds of passports and documents in the past two years despite applications being lower due to the pandemic, with 519 lost items in 2020 and a staggering 1,196 in the first seven months of 2021. This £77 million three-year contract was awarded in July 2019 and is due to be reconsidered this summer, so how do the Government propose to transform the courier service?

Sopra Steria, which provides frontline and support services including scanning, uploading and storage of documents, has its own backlogs, with PCS estimating that by April 500,000 applications completed by customers were awaiting opening and scanning on to Sopra Steria’s system. As we have heard, the performance of Teleperformance, which operates the helpline, has already been deemed unacceptable by Ministers. So how exactly does the Prime Minister think that to simply repeat the words “privatise it” is fixing a broken system that is already largely privatised?

Another constituent who got in touch shared their utter frustration:

“We got married on the 7th May after postponing 3 times. I applied for an urgent upgrade a week ago as I travel a week today and I’ve still not had a phone call back to make the payment and begin fast track. I have less than a week to get my passport to go on my honeymoon. I applied with plenty of time and also applied for the urgent upgrade.”

Another said:

“This issue has caused me and my family a great deal of distress, expense and now we are potentially looking at having to cancel our holiday, losing a significant amount of money.”

This Government are presiding over backlog Britain. If it is not passports, it is drivers’ licences, NHS waiting times, court dates, charging decisions, asylum decisions, housing waiting lists and Ukraine visas—and the list goes on. People cannot be expected to find the additional cash needed to bypass Home Office failure. They deserve better. This Government must apologise and find a way of delivering better.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I need to emphasise once again how important it is for colleagues to come back for the wind-ups in order to be able to hear the responses from both the shadow Minister and the Minister to what they have said in their speeches.

National Security Bill

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 6th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention on this very point. This is an area of great interest, primarily because of the type of cases we have seen. There is no question about that. I am afraid I have been subject to too many examples of cases of this nature. I am more than happy to speak to him and others about this. We need to get the approach right, and we will. People do move forward and change in life, but that is a separate issue. As was mentioned earlier, currently we are trying to address specific lacunae.

This Bill will amend the Serious Crime Act 2007 to better protect those in the security and intelligence agencies and the Ministry of Defence when discharging vital national security functions. It will also enable more effective joined-up working with international partners to improve not only our operational agility, which my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) has already touched on, but how we can be flexible going forward to address the changing landscape of threats.

It is worth remembering that things and situations can change for the better, as well as for the worse. Some of the UK’s closest allies today are countries with whom we have fought wars in the past, and we regularly develop new tools to keep us safe. The point is that none of this happens by chance. We should all reflect that when the Berlin wall fell back in 1989, some people thought that liberal democracy had won and history as we knew it then was at an end, yet this year, as we all know, Russia launched an unprovoked war against a neighbour.

It is right that we are vigilant, and we have to be vigilant every day, all the time. We cannot think in terms of just keeping up—we have to be several steps ahead. That is why the Bill is state-agnostic, but we need to be ready to face threats from wherever they may emanate, and the threat landscape is changing.

Keeping our country safe is not exclusively a matter for Government. It is also a matter for us as legislators. It is vital to come together on these measures and, as I have said several times, the measures in the Bill were drawn up after extensive consultation. They will mean that our courageous law enforcement and intelligence agencies will have the powers they need to keep us safe. We will have the ability to bring those who mean us harm to justice and, at the same time, to evolve and respond in an agile way to those threats. I urge the whole House to send a clear message to our adversaries that we will put the safety of the British people first by getting behind the Bill. I commend it to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Home Secretary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

There is a very strong case for having the same independent commissioner to cover espionage and terrorism. That is obviously a matter that the Home Secretary would need to consider, but clearly, especially with the STPIMs and the TPIMs, there are overlapping issues that it would make sense for the same framework and the same independent reviewer to cover. My understanding is that at the moment the independent reviewer covers only terrorism legislation and that the provisions of this Bill will not be within their scope. It would be very easy to amend the Bill—I hope it would receive cross-party support—to allow either the same independent reviewer or a parallel independent reviewer to look at espionage legislation. That would also allow for ongoing review of whatever changes we end up concluding are needed to the Official Secrets Act 1989. Again, there will be an important need for further review to make sure that we have the right measures to protect our security and support the public interest. We can cover our many other issues with the Bill in Committee. We look forward to those exchanges and to having further discussions directly with Ministers.

I am conscious that other Members with great expertise in this area want to contribute to the debate, so I will conclude simply by saying that at a time when across Europe we are all coping with the illegal invasion of Ukraine by Russia, and supporting Ukraine’s immense bravery in standing up and responding to this appalling Russian threat; at a time when we have seen hostile state activity not just from Russia but, as the director general of MI5 has said, from countries such as China and Iran; and at a time when we all know we need to stand up for our democracy, historic freedoms, liberties and democratic values, I hope that we will be able to come together to support our national security, and continue to defend our democracy and democratic values.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, Dr Julian Lewis.

Public Order Bill

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 23rd May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Along with a gentle reminder about the word “you”, may I remind hon. Members that it was suggested earlier that about eight minutes per speaker would be appropriate? I also remind the House that we must keep our language temperate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Zarah Sultana]

No. Many people have told you that, so please just stay sitting down.

The Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Bill, which is set for its Second Reading in the House tomorrow, has been described by one human rights organisation as an “exercise in denying justice.” [Interruption.] Stop heckling me and just listen—how about that? Thank you very much.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. It is important that hon. Members do not address one another directly in that way, but I do think that the hon. Lady has said that she is not going to take an intervention at this stage.

[Zarah Sultana]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

We also see this in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and today’s Bill. The first bans “noisy” protest and risks criminalising Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities out of existence; and the Government are trying to push the second through before that Act is even put into effect, repackaging measures that have already been rejected by Members in the other place.

The Bill will introduce so-called serious disruption prevention orders, which can be used to ban individuals protesting and can even apply to those who have never, ever committed a crime. As the human rights group Liberty states, it amounts to

“a staggering escalation of the Government’s clampdown on dissent.”

It will massively extend police powers to undertake stop and search at protests, including—as many hon. Members have mentioned—without suspicion of any wrongdoing. Police officers themselves seem quite alarmed about that. As one officer says,

“a little inconvenience is more acceptable than a police state”.

As we know, black people are already 14 times more likely to be stopped and searched without reasonable grounds. We can be sure that this new power will be disproportionately used against black and other ethnic minority citizens, including with the predictable effect of deterring people from raising their voice against injustice.

It does not stop there. The Bill’s vague and ambiguous language means that anyone walking around with a bike lock, a roll of tape or any number of everyday objects could be found guilty of the new offence of an intention to lock on, and could face an unlimited fine. These are just some of the measures in the Bill that are clearly aimed at climate campaigners. No one will be happier than the fossil fuel industry and the companies that fund the Conservative party. The Government are attacking our freedoms in order to criminalise those who stand up for a liveable planet for us all.

Conservative Members like to talk about freedom and liberty and make out that they are the champions of democracy and human rights, but a Government committed to freedom do not try to let their soldiers commit torture. They do not let state agents commit sexual violence. They do not deliberately make it harder for citizens to vote. They do not deport refugees to detention camps 4,000 miles away. They do not try to privatise a broadcaster just because of its rigorous coverage. A Government committed to freedom certainly do not crack down on protest and dissent, but that is exactly what this Government are trying to do. We have a name for a Government who do those kinds of things: an authoritarian Government. That is what this Tory Government are, and we all have a duty to oppose them.

[Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

It says everything we need to know about this Government’s priorities that their first Bill since the Queen’s Speech does not seek to address an out-of-control cost of living crisis, ensure that justice is done for the 1.3 million victims of crime who were forced out of the criminal justice system last year, or indeed deliver any of the people’s priorities. Instead, Conservative Members, who have so often styled themselves as the champions of individual liberty, have lined up today to defend this latest assault on our basic rights of peaceful protest and public assembly.

The Home Secretary has resurrected and repackaged some of the most draconian provisions of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which were rightly thrown out by colleagues in the other place earlier this year, and has returned them to this House, but the issues remain the same. The Bill is unworkable, disproportionate and deeply illiberal. The Home Secretary wants to silence the voices of protesters outside this House, but we must ensure that they are heard loud and clear today. We must kill this Bill.

It is not just about a single piece of legislation, but about the direction of this Government as a whole, and the creeping authoritarianism that increasingly characterises their every step. After years of being told that we had to free ourselves from the supposed despotism of the European Union, we now find ourselves subject to the whims of an Administration far more oppressive and contemptuous of dissent than any ever found in Brussels. From the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act and the Nationality and Borders Act to the Bill before us today, Ministers have come to this House month after month armed with legislation that seems more suited to Viktor Orbán’s Hungary than to a robust liberal democracy.

The right to protest, the right to boycott and even the right to strike seem set for the Tory chopping block. We are forced to contemplate with horror a future in which the rights and freedoms for which earlier generations fought and died have been trampled underfoot. We must not allow that to happen. I plead with colleagues on the Government Benches—there are not many of them here, by the way—and especially with those hon. Members who bemoaned mask madness as a symptom of Government tyranny, but who remain conveniently silent on this issue of actual importance, to join me in the No Lobby today.

Finally, I want to speak out about those environmental campaigners whose actions have repeatedly been invoked as justification for these draconian measures. I have no intention of justifying their tactics or some of their campaigns, which have caused significant disruption and even misery to working-class communities, but I find it interesting that a handful of activists blockading an oil refinery can set the wheels of Government spinning so quickly, while the imminent prospect of breaching the 1.5° global warming threshold musters, at best, empty rhetoric and unrealisable targets from those on the Government Benches.

As the northern hemisphere approaches a summer that is likely to be characterised by record-breaking heatwaves and power outages, I wonder how history will judge a Government who prioritise criminalising climate protesters over tackling the unfolding climate catastrophe.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Minister, Sarah Jones.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

I am not sure that today is the right day to be talking about people who have broken lockdown rules. Perhaps the hon. Member has not seen some of the pictures that the rest of us have been looking at this afternoon.

We believe that some of the provisions in this Bill effectively replicate laws already in place that the police can and already do use. There is already an offence of wilfully obstructing the highway. There is already an offence of criminal damage or conspiracy to cause criminal damage. There is already an offence of aggravated trespass. There is already an offence of public nuisance. More than 20 people were arrested for criminal damage and aggravated trespass at Just Stop Oil protests in Surrey. Injunctions were granted at Kingsbury oil terminal following more than 100 arrests, and there were arrests for breaching those injunctions, which are punishable by up to two years in prison—nine people were charged. When Extinction Rebellion dumped tonnes of fertiliser outside newspaper offices, five people were arrested. Earlier this year, six Extinction Rebellion activists were charged with criminal damage in Cambridge. In February this year, five Insulate Britain campaigners were jailed for breaching their injunctions. In November, we saw nine Insulate Britain activists jailed for breaching injunctions to prevent road blockades.

Removing people who are locking on can take a long time and require specialist teams, but a new offence of locking on will not make the process of removing protesters any faster. The Government should look at the HMICFRS report and focus on improving training and guidance, and they should look to injunctions.

I cannot but attack the issue of stop and search and SDPOs. This Bill gives the police wide-ranging powers to stop and search anyone in the vicinity of a protest, such as shoppers passing a protest against a library closure. The Home Secretary said the inspectorate supports these new powers, but the inspectorate’s comments were very qualified and talked of, for example, the powers’ potential “chilling effect”.

Many of my hon. and right hon. Friends talked of the serious problem of disproportionality, as did the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire, and talked of how these powers were initially rejected by the Home Office because of their impact. Members who have spent many years campaigning on these issues, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), pointed to the risk of these deeply concerning provisions increasing disproportionality, bringing peaceful protesters unnecessarily into the criminal justice system and undermining public trust in the police who are trying to do their job.

Our national infrastructure needs protecting. We hear the anger, irritation and upset when critical appointments are missed, when children cannot get to school and when laws are broken. As our reasoned amendment makes clear, we would support some amended aspects of the Bill, but we cannot accept the Bill as it currently stands. The proposals on suspicion-less stop and search, and applying similar orders to protesters as we do to terrorists and violent criminals, are unhelpful and will not work. The police already have an array of powers to deal with such protests, and injunctions would be a better tool to use. We will not and cannot stand by as the Government try to ram through yet another unthought-through Bill in search of a purpose.

I urge all reasonable Members to support Labour’s reasoned amendment, and I urge the Government to focus instead on their woeful record on crime.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Before I call the Minister, I remind colleagues that it is extremely discourteous to both Front Benchers not to get back in good time for the wind-ups. It is also extremely discourteous to spend long periods of a debate out of the Chamber. It is important to hear what other people have to say; those who give speeches and then disappear for hours ought to listen to others. That would be the courteous thing to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Over the weekend and this morning, Government Ministers have said that the meeting between the Prime Minister and civil servant Sue Gray ahead of the publication of her much-anticipated report was instigated by Sue Gray herself. However, this afternoon, No. 10 has conceded that the idea of the meeting came originally from Downing Street. Given the confusion and concern about whether political pressure has been exerted on Sue Gray ahead of her report being made public, could you advise me whether you or Mr Speaker have received any request for a ministerial statement to clarify exactly how the meeting was arranged and what was discussed?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. As she said, she is referring to statements made outside the House—nothing has been said in the House on this subject—and correcting the record on what may have been said elsewhere is not a matter for the Chair. However, I can confirm that the Speaker has not had a request from the Government tonight to make a statement.

Preventing Crime and Delivering Justice

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Gill Furniss]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, but I would say: your Government have been in power for 12 years and, if you did not like it, why did you not do something before?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. The hon. Lady knows that she must not address the hon. Gentleman directly.

[Gill Furniss]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Cutting BTECs flies directly in the face of levelling up. Instead of that, the Government should be championing them alongside T-levels. That is just one example of the Government’s actions failing to meet their rhetoric. Ministers are already making excuses on levelling up. The Levelling Up Secretary has spent the last week trying to cover up his own failures and those of the Government. He is trying to lead us to believe that deepening inequality is purely a result of external events such as covid and the war in Ukraine, but we know the truth.

We know that responsibility for the entrenched inequalities in our society falls at the door of this Conservative Government and their policies. Pensioners are having to ride buses all day to keep warm and families are struggling to afford the basic essentials, but, instead of stepping in, the Government are stepping aside. They are too busy trying to cover their own shortfalls to provide the support that people are crying out for. We all know why they are doing that: one day, just like the long-term economic plan and the northern powerhouse, levelling up will be retired as a political slogan with nothing to show but deeper inequality and worsening living standards.

The Government have once again shown that they are all talk and no action. The Queen’s Speech is yet another missed opportunity that fails to fix the deep-rooted inequalities caused by 12 years of this Conservative Government. They are out of ideas and out touch—and hopefully, following the Conservatives’ dire local election results on Friday, they will soon be out of office. Britain deserves so much better than this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neale Hanvey]

Drug deaths are not an isolated issue that exists in a bubble. The opportunities to correct them require the full economic levers of an independent country. While the problem exists, the remedy is retained by this place. The issues cannot be isolated. I certainly do not say that all is rosy in Scotland and that an independent country would flourish spontaneously, but independence is a gateway to different choices, different policies and different politics. It is not a panacea; that is not the argument that I am making. I will cover some of the Minister’s other points as I make progress.

There is another issue that affects crime and justice in Scotland and is a very good illustration of why Scotland needs the full economic levers of an independent country. Harnessing Scotland’s vast energy resources must benefit the Scottish people, not Her Majesty’s Treasury as it does currently. How can it be that in an energy-rich country such as Scotland, our people are fuel-poor and hungry and our pensioners survive on the lowest pension in the developed world? There are uncomfortable truths for those on the Government Benches. It is absolutely clear, from the Queen’s Speech and from the actions and words of Conservative Members, that this Government will prioritise the profits of energy companies over the wellbeing of the people whom they are supposed to serve. The chancellor’s economic policies are making inflation worse, not better.

There are alternative choices. For instance, the Chancellor could reduce council tax by a quarter, at a cost of £10 billion a year. That would reduce the retail price index by 1%. He could halt skyrocketing energy bills with a 50% cut. That would cost another £10 billion, but it would take another 1% off the RPI. Every time the RPI goes up, so do the interest payments to global financiers on index-linked gilt debt. A 1% RPI increase puts £5 billion on to those interest payments, but equally, 1% off the RPI saves £5 billion. The Chancellor—if he had a conscience—and a Government with the political will could reduce energy costs and cut council tax immediately. Her Majesty’s Treasury could finance the additional £10 billion with the windfall tax on the energy companies’ profits. Saving £10 billion for the financial markets and £10 billion from a windfall tax could fix many of the problems that we face immediately. All it takes is political will and a determination to improve the lives of the people you are supposed to serve.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order.

[Neale Hanvey]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I mean “the people the Government are supposed to serve”.

What is clear, and what I do not think has been mentioned by anyone today—although it has been mentioned many times outside this place—is that poverty is a deliberate political choice. Scotland is replete with energy, far more than we could ever possibly need, but our people see no benefit from that. Contracts for difference, along with asymmetric and uncompetitive transmission costs, impede any inward investment in Scotland. We should be in the vanguard of the renewables sector manufacturing industry, but unfortunately there is precious little manufacturing happening in Scotland.

It is not just Westminster that is at fault. This brings me back to the point made by the Minister a moment ago. The Scottish Government shamefully sold off ScotWind licences for relative pennies—£700 million. They set a ceiling on the bids. Bids for a much smaller licence in the United States realised $4.37 billion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to have this opportunity to speak on Her Majesty’s programme for Government for this Session. There are many things to be welcomed in it, and since I am by and large a positive person, I will start with those. I very much welcome the commitment by Government to the modern slavery Bill. It is an issue that I have pursued, and I have supported the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and others in the House on it. It is good news that we will see the end of the use of dubious supply chains and labour. The Uyghur Muslims are one of those groups of people who we are trying to protect. Justice is our topic today, and the Bill is a massive step forward in doing just the right thing, and I fully support it.

I also welcome that the Minister has given a commitment on two occasions in response to questions from our party about those who preach the gospel and preachers on the street. I also welcome the Home Secretary’s commitment earlier when she referred to the £187 million for victim support. Some clarification is needed on that, but she was very keen that contact should be made between Westminster and the Northern Ireland Assembly to see how we can make things better.

I very much welcome the national security Bill, because this Government—our Government—have been very clear about how they address issues of national security. Whether it is taking on terrorists—ISIS/Daesh or IRA—or the terrible atrocities by Russia in Ukraine, our Government stand firm and I thank them for that.

I also welcome the support for nuclear power stations. I ask that Northern Ireland be given consideration as the only part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland that does not have its own power supply. I welcome the change in planning, although I do want to look at how that will work if someone can object and the problems that there will be. There is a planning commitment to providing affordable houses, however, and I hope that some of that will trickle down to us in Northern Ireland where the planners appear to refuse as standard unless an exceptional case is made to prove why they cannot legislatively prevent something.

My note of caution is that that change cannot be permitted to prevent agricultural growth and our food sustainability goals. I see the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), sitting on the Front Bench, and I know that her commitment is to agricultural growth and food sustainability.

I also welcome the commitment to addressing the issue of those who block the roads, superglue their hands, lie on top of tube trains and are basically obstructive—I spoke to the Home Secretary about that earlier. I have protested legally on many occasions and I was born in a decade when protesting was the norm, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) said, so I understand the importance of it. I also understand, however, that people should not stop other people getting to work, nurses turning up for their job or a man earning his money. I express concern about something that I read in the press last week about a lady who was fined and jailed for taking her child to school. I have spoken to the Minister and I hope that that matter can be reviewed satisfactorily.

The hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) referred to the review of cold cases, which is an interesting point. Coming from Northern Ireland, I am a great believer in that and I would like to see cold cases where nobody has been made amenable being investigated.

This debate is about delivering justice and we need to deliver justice for the Northern Ireland protocol. That should have been made a priority—there is no other way of putting it. The Government have repeated time and again that the Good Friday agreement is at the heart of negotiations, which I support, but they have repeatedly failed to prioritise Northern Ireland’s constitutional place within the United Kingdom. The accountability in relation to the protocol lies with Westminster and it is crucial to the political stability of Northern Ireland that the Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Northern Ireland listen to the concerns of the people.

The cost increase of an increasing number of goods in Northern Ireland is a clear result of the protocol. Removing the restrictions forced on us by the EU should be a priority of the Brexit freedoms Bill. I remain disappointed that we did not see that in the Queen’s Speech, but I am encouraged by the fact that the Prime Minister has had meetings and that the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs has said in the papers in the last two days that the Government intend to take action. I have heard words of action before, but I believe in actions of action, so I look forward to seeing what will happen in the next period of time in relation to that. I know that it is not an easy job to do.

To give an example, a businessman in my constituency who supplies shops in every corner of the Province told me that some of his nationalist friends—people with a different political opinion who are his friends—had asked whether the DUP, my party, would be able to get the protocol sorted. My friend said, quite rightly, “Go and speak to your own MP,” but they said, “My MP is a nationalist MP and he wouldn’t like it if I spoke to him.” On behalf of all those across the Province who have been crippled by the protocol, whatever their religious persuasion and political opinion, I share with this Chamber the tales they have told.

In Belfast last week, the elections sent a clear message that all Unionist candidates oppose the protocol and the number of Unionists vastly outnumbers those of a nationalist point of view. People are facing rising costs for power and transporting goods. Increasingly, to save hassle, they are sourcing from other places when they want to buy their goods from the United Kingdom and the mainland. We need action to rectify the mistakes made.

I listened with great respect to the comments of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) yesterday. She said that, when she negotiated the deal, she had designed one to respect the Northern Ireland position. I wholeheartedly disagreed with her, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell). We were sacrificed to secure the deal, and we have paid enough. The Brexit freedoms Bill must give us back our freedom, and I believe the freedom to buy British goods must be part of that. We want the same opportunity as people have elsewhere. It is little wonder that my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley is waiting to see the substance of scrapping the protocol, not more suggestions for tweaking it. It is not tweaking we want; as I think the paper says, it has to be absolutely done away with, and that is what the Foreign Secretary was saying.

As one businessman said to me, “We are trying to rebuild after covid, yet if we build on a non-stable foundation”—I could be biblical on this, but I will not be—“the structure will tumble”. The Northern Ireland protocol is not a stable foundation, and unless we have one soon, businesses will crumble and the cost of living will skyrocket further. Again, I ask the Government to do the right thing, and I put that on record. If we are going to deliver justice, and that is what we are about—everyone in this House is delivering justice—then the justice has to be that the Northern Ireland protocol is ditched.

Stormont only works with consensus. We do not have a system of majority rule, as many of my hon. Friends have pointed out over the past few years, but power sharing. If Unionists are not on board, there can be no power sharing. Let us get it right, and get our people into positions on a stable foundation. This is a priority. The priority should not be cultural expressions or an Irish language Act, for instance; it should be enabling people to heat their home, feed their family and access medical care. Those pushing for limited finances to be spent in other ways need to go into the estates and into pensioners’ bungalows, and to look these struggling people in the face. Every right hon. and hon. Member who has spoken today has mentioned the cost of living, and rightly so. We must address all those issues, and we need to do it well.

I have one last point on the Queen’s Speech, which is about the legacy issue. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead very kindly let me intervene on her about this yesterday. I want to put on record my concerns about any legacy Bill that does not address totally, fully and in a very embracing fashion those who have lost loved ones in the troubles.

I think of many people I know, and I think of them often. I think of the Ballydugan Four, and I knew three of those boys extremely well. They were murdered, and I will be at a church service on Sunday to remember them some 32 years after they were murdered. Nobody has been made accountable, and I want justice for those families—I say that because they are my constituents, but I say it because I mean it as well. I want justice for Stuart Montgomery, who was murdered outside Pomeroy many years ago. He was only 18 years old, just out of the police training college, and never has anybody been made accountable for him. I want justice for those in La Mon who were murdered in a violent way, I want justice for those in the Abercorn and I want justice for those in the Darkley gospel hall. No one from the IRA has been made accountable for what they did on those occasions. I want justice for those who carried out the Kingsmill massacre and the Omagh atrocity. Those are the things I need to see. I want justice for my cousin Kenneth Smyth, who was murdered by the IRA. No one has ever been made accountable for him.

When it comes to the legacy, the legacy I want from this Government is a legacy for my constituents, my families, my relatives and the people of Northern Ireland who want justice to be done to those who murdered their loved ones and have never seen anything happening for it. A mother’s tears are the same regardless of their political persuasion or religion, and each deserves compassion, respect and, above all, truth. I have real concerns that the Bill will not provide this, and I will be anxious to see the detail of all the legislation and to listen to the views of the victims. They do not have law centres behind them or millions of pounds of public money, but simply miss their loved ones and do not want them to be forgotten. These people have paid a daily cost, and we cannot leave anyone behind while it is clear that Northern Ireland must move forward together.

I welcome the economic crime Bill. I also welcome the Bill to reform the Mental Health Act. I will watch how that goes, but others have spoken about it. I will conclude by saying that I welcome Her Majesty’s Gracious Speech, but I am asking her Government to do the right thing by us in Northern Ireland. They should do the right thing constitutionally for us, but also do the right thing practically, such as by directing funding to help with the cost of living, addressing the waiting lists and educating our children. They must put political aims on the back burner, and work practically towards ensuring that every home can afford heat, light and food. Those are rudimentary things, yet things that too many homes feel they must choose between. This I believe cannot be accepted in any region of this glorious United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—always better together.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State, Steve Reed.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 25th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Relevant documents: Second Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Legislative Scrutiny: Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, Part 3 (Public Order), HC 331; Fifth Special Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Legislative Scrutiny: Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, Part 3 (Public Order): Government Response to the Committee’s Second Report, HC 724.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Financial privilege is not engaged by any of the items in the Lords message relating to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.

Clause 55

Imposing conditions on public processions

[The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)]

I beg to move,

That this House insists on its disagreement with Lords in their Amendment 73, insists on its Amendment 73C to the words restored to the Bill by its disagreement to that Amendment, insists on its Amendment 74A to Lords Amendment 74, disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment 74B to that Amendment in lieu, disagrees with the Lords in their consequential Amendments 74C, 74D, 74E, 74F and 74G, insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendment 87, insists on its Amendments 87A, 87B, 87C, 87D, 87E, 87F and 87H to the words restored to the Bill by its disagreement to that Amendment but proposes Amendment (a) in lieu of Lords Amendment 73 and additional Amendment (b) to the words restored to the Bill by its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendment 87.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following Government motion:

That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendment 80, insists on its Amendments 80A, 80B, 80C, 80D, 80E, 80F and 80H to the words restored to the Bill by its disagreement with that Amendment, disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment 80J instead of the words left out by that Amendment but proposes additional Amendment (a) to the words restored to the Bill by its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendment 80.

[Kit Malthouse]

I rise to speak to the motions in the name of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, including the associated amendments in lieu. We return yet again, I have to say with a smidgin of ennui and irritation, to the issue of police powers to attach conditions to protests. It is disappointing that the debate on these provisions continues to be characterised by misinformation about what the Bill actually does and irrationality.

I shall start with the issue of noise. As I said in round 2 of ping-pong, at the Opposition’s behest, we have added provisions to the Bill that can be used to limit noise and disruptive protests outside schools and vaccination centres. I am therefore at a loss to understand why they would not agree to these provisions outside, say, a convent, a hospital, an animal sanctuary or, God forbid, a factory. What happened to the workers’ rights?

It cannot be that a protest can inflict any amount of noise on those living or working in the vicinity for prolonged periods of time, day or night. I agree that it would not be necessary or proportionate, for example, to attach conditions relating to the generation of noise to a procession that will pass a particular location within a matter of hours, but the same cannot be said of an ongoing raucous protest, perhaps encamped in a residential area, which includes the banging of drums and the use of loudhailers. It is intolerable that local residents should have to endure that day and night, and it is right that in those circumstances, the police should have the power to act. I do not understand why those residents’ rights are so lightly set aside by the Opposition. When the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) rises to address the motions, I hope she will answer that question.

I can, however, assure the hon. Members for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) and for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson)—they questioned me on this in the last round—that there are no new powers here to restrict what is said and, for that matter, sung. These provisions are simply about the harm caused by excessive noise; the content is irrelevant. Of course, the existing criminal law relating to hate or intimidatory speech will continue to apply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

I am sorry that the Minister finds himself bored by the democratic process, but this is the process, and sadly he has to come to the Dispatch Box to engage in this debate. There is one—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. The hon. Lady is giving a speech. Carry on, Sarah Jones.

[Sarah Jones]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not mind how noisy the Minister is; I do not want to curtail his right to be as noisy as he likes.

We are debating one topic: the right to protest and make noise. We have indeed debated it several times. Members from across the House have spoken passionately about why this issue matters, and why the Government have got this so wrong. One might think that, with crime up 14%, the arrest rate having halved since 2010, and prosecution rates at an all-time low, the Government might spend their time on the bread-and-butter issues of law and order, such as fighting criminals. Instead, they seem intent on criminalising singing at peaceful protests. That suggests that the Government are tired, out of ideas and have no plan, and are searching round for anything eye-catching to distract from their years of failure.

The Lords responded to the Minister’s defence of his policy by voting against it again. Lords amendments 73 and 87 remove the Government’s proposed noise trigger, which would allow the police to put conditions on marches or one-person protests that are “too noisy”. Labour agrees with the Lords, and we support Lords amendment 80, which removes clause 56 from the Bill altogether. As with most Government policies thought up on the hoof, there are many questions about how the proposed powers would work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

The right hon. Member brings a lot of experience to the House, and I listen to him carefully. I agree with him about noisy neighbours, which are a distressing part of my case load because we often struggle hard to do something about it. However, the Bill does not do anything on that; it is about protests. We need to be clear that those are two completely different things. There are rules on antisocial behaviour and neighbours, and local authorities and the police have powers to deal with that—sadly, often those cases do not get dealt with—but that is not what we are arguing about.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. May I give a little reminder that interventions should be quite brief?

[Sir Mike Penning]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, you made my point exactly. With respect to the shadow Minister, they are different, and I agree that the Bill has nothing to do with noisy neighbours, but noisy demonstrations blight people’s lives in exactly the same way, and that is why the legislation is trying to do something about them.

We may disagree, and that is probably right and proper—this place is about debating and not just agreeing with each other all the time—but the principle must be that this House, with huge majorities, has voted for these measures. I respect many of the people on both sides of the other House—they bring huge amounts of experience—but they are not elected. They should listen to this House and consider the size of the majority. If it had been tiny, we could argue about the principle, but it was not, and the measures have been voted through. On that, I completely agree with the Minister, who is in the position where I used to be.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson, Anne McLaughlin.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 22nd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Tom Pursglove]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 22.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Lords amendment 24, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 23, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 25, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 26, and Government motion to disagree, and amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.

Lords amendment 27, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 40, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendments 28 to 39, 42 and 41.

[Tom Pursglove]

We now turn to the remaining amendments. Amendment 22 relates to our plans for conducting assessments of age-disputed people. Scientific methods of age assessment are already in use by many European countries, and the Bill will bring us into line with them. Failure to ensure proper assessments creates obvious safeguarding concerns and, of course, can create a plethora of risks to the most vulnerable when we get it wrong. I know those concerns are shared across the House. This amendment creates numerous restrictions on our ability to use age assessments in practice.

First, I want to make it very clear there is no appetite to start conducting comprehensive age assessments where there is no doubt about someone’s claimed age. Such an approach would serve no purpose whatsoever and would take significant resources away from the main task of seeking to establish the age of those involved where age is in doubt. However, there is no question but that the system is being abused, and we need to put a stop to that.

Secondly, the amendment would require that only local authority social workers could undertake age assessments under the Bill. There is significant variation in the experience and capacity of local authorities to undertake these age assessments, which are a significant resource burden on them. The Home Office already leads on other vulnerability areas, with responsibility for making complex and significant decisions such as claims for asylum. For these reasons, we are seeking to establish a national age assessment board comprising qualified social workers employed by the Home Office who may undertake age assessments upon referral by a local authority. Local authorities will retain the ability to conduct these assessments if they wish to do so.

Thirdly, the amendment would ensure that scientific methods of age assessment are specified only if they are considered ethical and accurate beyond reasonable doubt and approved by relevant professional bodies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Before I call the shadow Minister, I should say that I will need to impose a time limit, which will probably start off at five minutes. Apart from Members who have an amendment down, I will be prioritising those who did not speak in the previous debate.

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be responding for Labour to this second group of Lords amendment to the Bill, and I want to start by joining others in paying tribute to those who lost their lives or were injured in, and all those who responded to, the attack on Westminster five years ago today. I pay particular tribute to PC Keith Palmer and thank all those who work so hard to keep us safe every day.

I intend to keep my remarks tightly to the amendments before us, particularly Lords amendments 24 to 27, but I want to start by again expressing regret that modern slavery provisions have been included in a Bill on immigration. Members might remember that on Report I was intervened on only by Conservative MPs seeking to agree with me—which is certainly unusual—that the provisions in the Bill on modern slavery will only take us backwards. If this Bill passes unamended we will identify and protect fewer victims of modern slavery and identify and prosecute fewer perpetrators. That is not only our view: the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner has been fierce in her opposition to a number of the changes, and Caroline Haughey QC, one of the leading legal experts in this area, has said this Bill will

“catastrophically undo all that has been achieved in the 10 years since the first modern slavery prosecution.”

Lords amendment 27 seeks to exempt child victims from the most damaging of the Bill’s provisions and ensure that all decisions are made in their best interests. Throughout the passage of the Bill we have voiced our concerns that the Government fail to recognise that identifying victims of modern slavery or human trafficking is a safeguarding, not an immigration, matter. Last year, 43% of victims referred to the national referral mechanism were children, with 31% of them being British, and the rise in county lines gangs is believed to be one of the biggest drivers of the rise in child referrals.

This amendment must also be considered in light of what is currently happening in Ukraine and the reports by charity and aid agencies on the ground of the heightened risks of children being exploited and trafficked along the Ukrainian border and in neighbouring countries, such is the flow of people away from the Russian bombardment. If the Minister is not minded to strike part 5 from the Bill and work with the sector and us on genuine alternatives, he must protect children from the worst of the changes, which only put barriers between victims and the support and justice they need and deserve.

If the Government are to deliver on their own promise of smashing county lines, they must accept Lords amendment 27. The Government’s own existing statutory guidance states:

“Whatever form it takes, modern slavery and child trafficking is child abuse and relevant child protection procedures…must be followed if modern slavery or trafficking is suspected.”

Under the changes introduced in the Bill a child can access protection only if they disclose details of their trauma against a Home Office-mandated timeline, and can access NRM support only if they have no public order offences in their background. The Government’s own guidance rightly says that a child who has been trafficked must be protected, no ifs, no buts—which means no clause 63, no clause 66 and no clause 67 as a condition of support on recognition as being a victim. As a minimum, in order for the Government just to adhere to their own guidance and protect child victims of trafficking, they must adopt Lords amendment 27 to prevent changes that would leave children more vulnerable to criminals and traffickers.

In Committee, at the 12th sitting, the Minister stressed that the Government’s view was that it would somehow be unfair to establish a system that distinguishes between a child and an adult, and he has repeated that sentiment today. He said in Committee:

“To create a carve-out for one group of individuals would create a two-tiered system based on the age at which exploitation may have taken place”,

and went on to say that it

“would not be appropriate or fair to all victims.”––[Official Report, Nationality and Borders Public Bill Committee, 28 October 2021; c. 484.]

I am afraid that is just absurd: we differentiate between children and adults throughout domestic legislation, recognising the age-related vulnerability of children, and it is the very basis of the Government’s own age assessment proposals in the Bill. Child victims have rights to protection under the United Nations convention on the rights of the child and the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings, and it is there in the Government’s own guidance. If the Minister is really trying to tell us that the Government do not like creating two-tier systems given what else the Bill does, we are simply not having it. I urge the Government to follow their own guidance, recognise that child victims of trafficking are victims of abuse and adopt Lords amendment 27.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I think I will have to reduce the time limit to four minutes after the contribution from the SNP spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I am afraid that I have to reduce the time limit to three minutes.

[Richard Fuller]

I want the UK to be known as a place of refuge and justice as well as a place of opportunity and freedom. When examining immigration Bills over the years, I have always looked to see where there could be an issue of moral hazard in what is being proposed and the changes being made. In this Bill, my eyes were immediately drawn to clause 62 and to Lords amendment 25. The title of clause 62 is “Identified potential victims etc: disqualification from protection”. The clause is replete with moral hazards in whatever actions the Government might take. As it happens, I do not think that the Government have got the balance right, but I am also not sure that the Lords amendment is quite right.

My request to the Minister, who is ably managing the Bill, is to continue the conversation with their lordships on this provision, because of the risks of moral hazard. For example, is it really right that we should continue to include taking away this protection from children? Is it right that we should continue to have a provision that someone who in their past has undertaken a crime under duress should be liable to the protections being taken away? The Minister has argued that it is important to define this, so that the issues of public order can be applied, and I see some relevance there, but why is it important to rely so heavily on information that relates to an individual’s past, rather than take into account their circumstances and the potential risk they pose today? That balance has not been struck correctly.

The noble Lords Coaker and Randall in the other place sought to correct that by trying to draw a tighter definition about the risks, stating that there has to be

“an immediate, genuine, present and serious threat”,

but I think they have overcooked it a little bit. It is quite a lot to say that all those criteria have to apply. Between the Government’s present criteria, which rely too much on an individual’s past, and the Lords amendment, which is drawn a bit too tightly about where these protections should be applied, there is scope for the Government to find some ground for compromise. I certainly hope so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order and notice of it. I have received no notice from Ministers that they intend to make a statement on this matter, but I am confident that the House and Ministers on the Front Bench will have heard the point of order she has raised.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, in the same debate on P&O Ferries, I said that a spokesperson for the UK Chamber of Shipping had said in an interview on Radio 4

“that he was ‘content and very confident’ that P&O had acted properly.”—[Official Report, 21 March 2022; Vol. 711, c. 75.]

The UK Chamber of Shipping has asked me to point out that it had in fact said that it was

“content and very confident that P&O will have put procedures in place to ensure that the individuals that are going to be in control of those vessels would be familiar with the ships and the systems and would be competent to operate those vessels in a safe manner.”

I am happy to make that clear. Given the enthusiasm of the Chamber for its position being properly understood, it would probably be its wish that I should point out to the House that in that same interview the spokesperson for the UK Chamber of Shipping was asked in relation to different matters whether he condemned the manner in which this was done and he said:

“I can’t comment on the conduct of it”.

When the interviewer said that he must have an opinion, he said,

“I would be speculating so I can’t possibly comment.”

Then, when he was told that usually when more than 100 people have been sacked, the Government have to be told 45 days in advance, he again said, “I can’t comment.” It is curious therefore, however, that in relation to the contentment and confidence about the safety measures he did seem to be quite happy about that. Today, the UK Chamber of Shipping tells me that it does not condone the actions of P&O. That of course is very different from the full-throated condemnation that we might have hoped for, but I am sure that the House will want to be made aware of the position.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I am sure the House will be grateful that he has corrected the record and, at the same time, made clear the other information that he wished to add to what he said previously. The record is corrected and I am sure we are all grateful for that.

Police Custody: Rights of Minors

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rachel Maclean)]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) for bringing these matters to the House, despite the lateness of the hour, and I acknowledge the importance of the topic in front of us this evening. I thank her constituent Deborah, who I understand is here, and I very much thank the hon. Lady for telling the story of her constituent and her son Jayden. I also acknowledge that we have Dr Miranda Bevan with us and I will speak about her contribution later in my remarks.

Custody is a core element of the criminal justice system and is critical for maintaining public confidence, obtaining intelligence, bringing offenders to justice and keeping the public safe. However, children should only be detained in custody when absolutely necessary. Where there are opportunities to divert children away, these must be considered. It is right and proper that children are acknowledged as a protected group with specific needs. Their treatment in detention is governed not only by domestic legislation, but by the UN convention on the rights of the child, which the UK has signed and ratified.

Everyone who works with children has a responsibility to keep them safe. Specific safeguards apply to children detained in custody, including a legal requirement for an appropriate adult to be present for interviews and strip-searches, if they take place, to ensure their rights are protected. Officers must take into consideration a child’s age when deciding whether it is necessary to arrest them and determining the time at which an arrest takes place.

The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 places a legal limit of 24 hours on how long an individual can be detained in custody by the police before they must be charged with an offence or released. It can be extended by an officer of superintendent rank or above under certain circumstances, and further by a court up to a total of 96 hours. These legal limits apply to both children and adults. Police officers must follow those requirements when detaining children in custody. The hon. Lady has referred to a case where she is stating that that did not take place, and I know that she is raising that complaint with the specific force—I think in her case that is the Met police—or with the Independent Office for Police Conduct.

It is right that these procedures and requirements are subject to scrutiny and oversight. That is why Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services regularly inspects police custody suites. Via its inspection programmes of approximately nine forces a year, it monitors the treatment and welfare of children in custody and makes recommendations for police forces and partners in maintaining and where necessary raising service delivery. We expect forces to respond to those recommendations and take action when concerns are raised.

The hon. Lady has raised an excellent point about the opportunity of a custody period for the police to engage with those young people who might be involved in crime and pursue possible diversionary activity to prevent them from becoming further involved in the criminal justice system. We recognise that this is a perfect moment for that to take place. Several London custody suites have youth workers physically present to support detained children and engage with them and their parents.

The hon. Lady spoke about training for police forces and she is right to recognise that. The police uplift introduced by the Conservative Government is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to increase the diversity of the police. Attracting a broad range of talent, cultures and backgrounds to policing is a core ambition in our drive to recruit 20,000 additional police officers, and we are working really hard to deliver the diverse police workforce that our communities need by co-ordinating efforts between Government and policing not only to attract more diverse candidates into policing, but to ensure it is a career where all recruits can thrive. We have recruited more than 11,000 additional officers as part of that programme.

I am pleased to say that the police officer workforce is more representative than ever. The latest data shows the highest proportion of minority ethnic and female officers since records began. There are now more than 10,000 black, Asian and minority ethnic officers across the police workforce. The Met police are our most diverse force, with 5,479 officers from minority ethnic backgrounds as of 31 December 2021 and some 21.4% of its joiners since April 2020 coming from those communities, but of course we must keep going further.

The hon. Lady is right that it is not simply about numbers; the training and cultural competence that officers possess is critical to successful policing. The College of Policing’s foundation training for all those entering the service includes substantial coverage of police ethics and self-understanding, including the effects of personal conscious and unconscious bias. The initial training undertaken by all officers also covers hate crimes, ethics and equalities, and policing without bias.

Further training is then provided in specialist areas throughout an officer’s career. For example, training for police investigators includes a specific focus on bias, policing fairly and the practical effects of those fundamentals on the investigation process. Training for those involved in public protection includes methods to raise officers’ self-awareness of their own views, stereotypes and biases. We agree with the hon. Lady that it is vital that all police officers have the right competences and values, and an understanding, especially when dealing with the most vulnerable in our society.

The hon. Lady mentioned the important work carried out by Dr Miranda Bevan of the London School of Economics looking at and working with the National Appropriate Adult Network. Together they have recently developed video guidance for family members acting as appropriate adults to ensure that they can effectively support their children while detained. We are grateful for that work, which is groundbreaking and provides easily accessible information in what is often the most difficult of circumstances. The Home Office has been deeply involved in the development of that innovative project and will be working to raise its profile through as wide a dissemination as possible. We agree with the hon. Lady that it is an incredibly helpful piece of work.

Home Office officials are also engaged with research funded by the Nuffield Foundation to examine the impact of PACE on the detention and questioning of children and to explore the merits of a more child-centred approach to the police custody experience. We look forward to the findings of that research and will consider its recommendations carefully.

This is a vital issue and I repeat my earlier thanks to the hon. Lady for securing the debate. I am clear that, although it is vital for public safety that the police should have the required legislative powers to detain people in custody, they must use them judiciously, appropriately and within the law. Police custody suites must be safe places for everyone and that of course applies to children.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I may not adjourn the House until I have notified the Royal Assent to any Act relating to the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill, agreed upon by both Houses. The House is accordingly suspended. I will arrange for the Division bells to be sounded a few minutes before the sitting is resumed.

--- Later in debate ---

royal assent

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2022

National Insurance Contributions Act 2022

Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022.

Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 7th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

I am pretty sure that they will hear that warning when they look back at this debate.

I do not often quote Lenin, but it is probably appropriate. As he famously said,

“A bayonet is a weapon with a worker at both ends,”

which is also true of the Bill. It will do great harm to the Russian economy and to our adversaries in Russia, but it will also do some harm to us—or at least, the retaliation will—and it will particularly hit the least well-off. We will see greater price inflation, less growth, less trade and therefore fewer jobs. We must recognise that when we undertake what we are doing here. We can make Russia a pariah state but Putin will retaliate, and we must be ready. We need to be ready for fuel crises, cyber-attacks and ludicrous threats from the Kremlin.

Beyond the Bill, there are many further things that we can do in the west and we should be ready to do them. To pick one example, the allies should be ready to reduce every Russian embassy to a bare minimum—to skeleton status—by the expulsion of diplomats at the first sign of retaliatory action from Russia. It must be clear to Russia that it will pay if it retaliates again.

We have said, and we must keep saying, that the Bill is not aimed at punishing the Russian people—that is incredibly important. It should target the Russian Government, Putin and his henchmen, which is why the actions in the Bill against oligarchs are as important as the actions against Russian banks and commercial institutions. There was some briefing from Whitehall over the weekend that implied that they are not, but that is wrong.

We have all heard the rumours that Putin has something like $200 billion of personal wealth. He does not hold any of it himself; it is held by the 140-plus oligarchs around the world. Targeting them, therefore, is at least as important as targeting the Russian state banks. To do that properly, we must act fast, which is the thrust of my new clause 29, which I will speak to later in Committee.

We should not kid ourselves. This is not an economic crime Bill, but an economic warfare Bill, and it is a war that liberal democracies cannot afford to lose.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call SNP spokesperson Alison Thewliss.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I am going to introduce a five-minute time limit. However, I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that, if they take less time than that, we will get to Committee stage more quickly, as they might wish to do. Those who particularly wish to speak in Committee might bear that in mind as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I have no problem with interventions, but it would be helpful to other colleagues, especially if the House wants to get on to the Committee stage, if Members could stick to their five minutes even if they take interventions.

TOEIC English Language Tests

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Wednesday 9th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Before we come to the next urgent question, I want to inform the House that I am aware that there are certain live court cases that are relevant. Given the importance of the subject matter, Mr Speaker has granted a limited waiver to allow general reference to the issues, but Members should not refer to the detail of live cases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

As the hon. Member says, we now have a very strong system of English language tuition and of both universities and other higher education institutions sponsoring under our student route. That works very well, is highly compliant and is an absolute world away from the system that existed 12 years ago. On what he suggests about other areas, there is the ability, as I have said, for people to make private life applications if they are here in the UK. However, on the wider position, I think it makes eminent sense, given that we are awaiting a determination from the highest tribunal in effect—the upper tribunal presidential panel—to actually have that determination and then consider what the next steps will be, rather than to announce something speculative.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the Minister for answering the urgent question.