Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Debate between Wera Hobhouse and Steve Baker

Thursday 21st April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

The whole House can now see that this matter has moved far, far beyond law into matters of deep politics and fundamental values. As we consider both the motion and the issue at hand, every last Member of this House might remember some very old wisdom: if anyone ever says that they never fall short, never break a rule or never harm someone else, they deceive themselves and truth is not within them.

I am very grateful that we live in a society where there is the possibility of redemption and the possibility of mercy—where if somebody fulsomely apologises in a spirit of humility, going on for some hours, there is a possibility of redemption. That, of course, is not to excuse what has been done; it is not to defend it or condone it, or in any way to say that what went on was okay. It is to accept that it was wrong and nevertheless forgive—and forgiveness is difficult; no one should pretend otherwise.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Baker]

I think the hon. Lady is going to enjoy the rest of my speech, but I give way for a moment.

[Wera Hobhouse]

The hon. Gentleman talks about redemption and forgiveness, but should not things be done at the earliest point possible rather than drawing them out like the Prime Minister has done? This is his main problem. Had he come here immediately and at least expressed his doubt about maybe being at something that he did not consider to be a party, it would have been better, but the fact that he denied everything is the main problem that we in this House find so difficult to swallow.

[Mr Baker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I think she will recognise the spirit and inspiration of what I am saying, as people did on Tuesday, but I do not wish to be drawn excessively into theology about the timing of one’s repentance, and I will move on.

Many Members of this House—I can see some of them on the Opposition Benches—choose to live their lives under certain commands: to love even their enemies, to bless those who curse them and, yes, to forgive as they are forgiven, sometimes for grave matters. So when I sat here and listened to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister say the words he said in the House of Commons—which I will not put back on the record, because people know what he said—and when I read them again in Hansard, I think that is an apology worthy of consideration of forgiveness for what went on, because this has moved beyond law. As far as I know, no one else in this country is being investigated by the police for retrospective offences—it is gone, it is behind them, it is past—but those in No. 10 Downing Street are being held to a higher standard in ways that other members of the public are not. [Interruption.] I can hear Members barracking, but that is right.

When we imposed these not merely draconian but barbaric rules on other people, everybody in the centre of power should have understood that they had to obey not merely the letter but the spirit of those rules. There should have been no cake in No. 10 and no booze in No. 10; these things should not have happened. I do not defend or condone in any way what happened.

Nightclub Safety

Debate between Wera Hobhouse and Steve Baker

Monday 8th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

rose—

[Mr Baker]

Suddenly we are having a debate.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I totally respect what the hon. Gentleman says. Of course, we should not undo the fact that many men behave well and are decent towards women. However, we have a culture where women are not treated with respect where, through banter and all sorts of things, it goes into more horrible and violent behaviour. It is the underlying and, unfortunately, still prevalent culture of disrespect to women that we need to address.

[Mr Baker]

As I have said, my instinct is with the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Gower, but I have been asked to swallow my pride and to not demand that fellow men as a class change their behaviour; it is men who commit wicked acts who need to change. It is men whose attitudes towards women are appalling who need to change. It is people who do wicked things who need to change, and we need to be a bit careful about painting all men as some kind of criminals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Going out and having fun is an important part of everyone’s life. We need it for our general wellbeing, to switch off from our busy working lives, and for our social lives. Nobody should be excluded from it, or live in fear that their night out will turn into a nightmare. Why should so many women live with that fear when most men do not?

I am fully behind the many women, including those in my constituency in Bath, who have taken to the streets or boycotted nightclubs to campaign against the rise of spiking incidents. Just imagine the fear and trauma of suddenly losing control of your body on a night out: your vision becomes blurry; you feel dizzy or sick; your memory disappears. You wake up in the morning with no recollection of how you got home, or with a fear that something really bad happened that you cannot even remember.

Spiking is predominantly an attack on women, and happens primarily to young women. One of my constituents wrote to me to say,

“not only have I been spiked myself—so have two of my close friends and nameless other girls I know”.

The National Police Chiefs’ Council has reported almost 200 confirmed incidents of drink spiking across the UK in the past two months alone. Reports of spiking by needle have added an extra layer of fear, and I completely agree with the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) that those reports need to be treated with much more severity, because they represent another level of crime. Those recent reports are not isolated incidents: data shows that drink spiking has been a growing problem in the UK for several years. Over 2,600 reports of spiking have been made to the police in England and Wales between 2015 and 2019, and that number may just be the tip of the iceberg, as many who have been spiked do not come forward.

Some have called for increased police presence in venues, or searches upon entry to night-time venues, but I am not sure that that is the right approach to stamping out spiking once and for all. As we have seen with stop and search policies under the Government’s hostile environment policy, increased police presence and searches often end up disproportionately affecting marginalised communities. We need a solution that considers the impact on all groups within our society. However, the Government should act urgently to make night-time venues safer for everybody. Spiking test strips should be made freely available at every venue; if necessary, that should be backed by Government funding. Police and venue staff should be given specific training to spot the signs of spiking so that they can give proper support when incidents occur. I urge the Minister to convene a conference of senior police officers from forces across the country as soon as possible. We need to get a complete picture of what is happening and draw up a national action plan on spiking, particularly the urgent issue of spiking by injection.

There is an epidemic of violence against women, and the rise in spiking incidents is simply the latest manifestation of that. We need to get to the root causes of why so many women are still regarded as inferior or, worse, a target for hate. Again, I agree with the hon. Member for Gower—

[Mr Steve Baker]

Wycombe!

[Wera Hobhouse]

I mean the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker)—I am terrible with names. We need to bring everybody with us in order to achieve behavioural change—I do get it—but we also need to call out what needs to be called out, which is that this behaviour is increasing, and it is predominantly a crime committed by men against women. We cannot paint that fact out of the picture, but we absolutely need to have men on our side, and we need men to find this behaviour despicable. I know that many men, particularly in this Chamber, find it despicable and are on our side as women to stamp it out.

I repeat my call to the Minister to make misogyny a hate crime. The culture that allows crimes such as spiking to continue without sanction must change. Women must be given confidence that the system is not stacked against them, and must feel confident that those who are perpetrators of disrespect and hate against women are being brought to justice. That starts by making misogyny a hate crime, but today we are talking about spiking, so I look for leadership and urgent action from the Government. They should call a conference of all senior police officers across the country in order to get a proper picture, and listen to what the young women who have been affected by this despicable crime are asking for.

Future Relationship Between the UK and the EU

Debate between Wera Hobhouse and Steve Baker

Wednesday 18th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Leaving the EU: Economic Analysis

Debate between Wera Hobhouse and Steve Baker

Tuesday 30th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

I must exercise some caution, Mr Speaker, because as you will know, Wycombe District, which is substantially larger than the constituency of Wycombe, did express the other view. However, what I think we need to do is come together to unite around the result as a country, and to choose for ourselves not to leave the EU because we must or because we ought, but to leave the EU successfully because we choose to abide by the democratic decision of the United Kingdom as a whole.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

How can we unite together when the Government are withholding information from the rest of the House?

[Mr Baker]

It is very difficult to answer the question of how we can unite together when certain Members of this House, including, I am sorry to say, the hon. Lady, keep provoking as much division as possible. She represents a party claiming to be liberal and democratic, and which once offered a real referendum on Europe, but we have had a real referendum on Europe and it is time for her to get behind the result.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Wera Hobhouse and Steve Baker

Committee: 8th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 20th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

I am very grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend. For all the fire and smoke that we have had over the course of this debate, there has been quite a lot of consensus.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Will the Minister give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Baker]

As the hon. Gentleman should know, my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General promised a Report stage, and we will indeed have that Report stage and we look forward to it.

[Wera Hobhouse]

rose—

[Mr Baker]

I will give way to the hon. Lady; she has been so patient.

[Wera Hobhouse]

I thank the Minister for giving way. He is generous. As a new MP, I must say that I am very surprised about how little constructive dialogue there has been. In fact, the comment that those on the Government Benches could deal with all of this without having to deal with the Opposition was alarming. We are all here to make constructive comments, to improve the Bill and to make compromises. The comments that they could deal with it all without having to listen to the Opposition or to have constructive dialogue were both alarming and disappointing.

[Mr Baker]

The hon. Lady reminds me of how much I miss the days of coalition on some occasions.

The clauses and schedules that we are debating in this final group contain a number of detailed, necessary and technical provisions. In many cases, they are standard provisions that one would expect to see in any Bill.

Clause 14 is a technical and standard provision that sets out important definitions of many key terms that appear throughout the Bill, such as “EU tertiary legislation” and “EU entity”, and clarifies how other references in the Bill are to be read. Clause 15 complements clause 14, setting out in one place where the key terms used throughout the Bill are defined and noting where amendments to the Interpretation Act 1978 are made under schedule 8. Together, clauses 14 and 15 will aid comprehension of the Bill.

Clause 18 provides that the Bill will apply to the whole UK. In addition, because the European Communities Act 1972 currently extends to the Crown dependencies and Gibraltar in a limited way, the repeal of that Act must similarly extend to those jurisdictions to the extent that it applies to them. The Bill also repeals three Acts that extend to Gibraltar, all of which relate to European parliamentary elections. The powers in clauses 7 and 17 can be used to make provision for Gibraltar as a consequence of these repeals. The approach in clause 18 has been agreed with the Governments of Guernsey, Jersey, the Isle of Man and Gibraltar in line with usual practice.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Wera Hobhouse and Steve Baker

Committee: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 12th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

I am grateful for my right hon. and learned Friend’s intervention, which has disappointed me neither in the sympathy that he expressed for my predicament nor in the sting in its tail. The Bill is the responsibility of the Department for Exiting the European Union, with the collaboration of other Ministers who are assisting in its passage. He is absolutely right that it covers a wide range of issues. I believe that I have given an answer on the particular point raised.

On two points of technical legal detail, I have asked for my memory to be jogged in the course of the debate, and I very much hope that I will be able to give an answer before I sit down. My right hon. and learned Friend will understand that I am not, like him, a learned Member of this House; I am a humble aerospace and software engineer. It is necessary for me to go through the clauses of the Bill that relate to parliamentary scrutiny and do not require technical legal expertise.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

rose—

[Mr Baker]

I will not give way, because I need to make progress and to keep my remarks to some form of limit.

Amendments 15 and 16, tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield, seek to narrow the categories of deficiencies arising from our withdrawal from the EU. The removal of clause 7(8), as amendment 16 proposes, would restrict our ability to keep the law functioning as it does now. Subsection (8) is about deficiencies arising not only from withdrawal, but from how the Bill works. For example, the Bill does not preserve directives themselves, as we have already debated, but instead preserves the UK law, which implements them. In some instances, there are provisions in directives, giving powers or placing restrictions on Government or on EU institutions or agencies, which it would not have made sense to transpose in UK law, but which then need to be incorporated in order for the law to continue to function as it did before exit. For example, the Commission currently holds a power to restrict the disclosure of confidential information in the financial services sector, which is referenced by UK implementation of the capital requirements directive 2013, but which will need to be transferred to the UK. We might also want to transfer powers that the Commission currently has to define what counts as hazardous waste, which is currently in the waste framework directive.

Subsection (8) allows the clause 7 power to correct deficiencies that arise from that withdrawal together with the operation of the Bill. For example, it might be appropriate to lift a relevant part of a directive and insert it into UK law in order to keep the law functioning as close as possible to how it does presently.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Wera Hobhouse and Steve Baker

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 14th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Baker]

I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He has made his case well, of course, but we will move the amendment that we have tabled.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Baker]

I will give way once more, and then I will make some progress.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Does the Minister not agree that exactly this argument is creating division between us and our European neighbours, which will make it very difficult to create a deep and special partnership?

[Mr Baker]

I do not accept that at all. When the Prime Minister wrote to the President of the European Council in March, she set in train the defined two-year process of article 50, which, unless extended by unanimity, will conclude on 29 March 2019. That is why the Prime Minister said in her Florence speech that the UK would cease to be a member of the EU on that day. That is the Government’s policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Baker]

rose—

[Wera Hobhouse]

rose—