House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Sarah Dines)
Tackling violence against women and girls is an important Government priority. We are supporting the Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Bill of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), which will make public sexual harassment a specific offence. We also provided more than £160,000 of funding last year to the National Stalking Helpline, run by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, which I have met. It responded to 7,440 calls and emails from or relating to victims of stalking between last April and March this year.
Mrs Hodgson
As the Minister will know, 71% of women have experienced harassment in public spaces, yet too many people continue to accept these patterns of violence or harassment, or do not have the confidence or resources to confront such behaviour when they see it. The Northumbria police and crime commissioner Kim McGuinness recently launched a fantastic initiative for active bystander training to prevent assault and the behaviours that lead to it. What will the Government do to encourage similar positive action to tackle the root of misogyny in other places across the country?
Miss Dines
The hon. Lady is right to highlight the work of the Northumbria police and crime commissioner. We have provided £3.6 million to the safer streets fund and the safety of women at night fund. I was surprised to read that one in six adults—not only women and girls but men and boys—has been stalked. That is horrendous. The Government are funding projects in that area through substantial funding of millions of pounds.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
Violence and harassment of women and girls takes place not just in this country but across the world, particularly in places such as Iran and Afghanistan. What work is going on across Government to ensure that the UK is not a bystander when it comes to global violence against girls? In particular, what are we doing about proscribing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps in Iran?
Miss Dines
My right hon. Friend knows that this issue is the responsibility of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, which leads the Government’s support for human rights, particularly matters pertaining to women. This Government, through the Home Office and the FCDO, do a lot to promote women’s rights. It is important that political systems in other countries are able to protect those rights. The main thing we do is sanctions, which are very important in this area. They send a clear message to all sorts of political organisations across the world, including the Iranian authorities. They will be held accountable for the oppression of women abroad.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
Last year, nearly 5,000 spiking incidents were reported to the police in England and Wales, but the real number is likely to be far higher. Spiking is endemic in the night-time economy. Women and girls should be able to go about their business and enjoy nights out without fear. While the Government pay lip service, cases across the country are rising, yet we have no actual reporting system for this heinous crime. When will the Minister do the right thing by victims and make spiking a separate criminal offence?
Miss Dines
The Government are looking carefully and speaking to stakeholders about spiking. There are adequate criminal offences for this sort of behaviour, and we have had some quite high-profile convictions. However, the hon. Lady is right to highlight the issue. The Government will review it. Specific funding has been given, and there is better testing. Evidence is important, but we need to get women and girls, and men and boys, to come forward when they have been spiked. Spiking also affects older people; I read a case the other day of someone in their 40s who was spiked. It is essential that we work in this area.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Sarah Dines)
The Casey review made for sobering reading about deeply disturbing allegations of racism, misogyny and homophobia in the Met. The Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have been clear that urgent improvements must be delivered. I have confidence that the Met Commissioner is leading in this area. I have also met Dame Lynne Owens, who is doing great work. We want to see improvement and we must have it.
Dr Huq
With the Police Federation now accepting that there is institutional racism, plus the vile sexism detailed by Casey and the damning fire brigade reports, will the Government order an urgent inquiry into cultures among uniformed officers, to keep workplaces and the public safe?
Miss Dines
Workplaces and the public must be safe, but I have confidence that work is going on, across the whole country but particularly in the Met, to ensure that racism is not accepted. Unfortunately, the Mayor has taken his eye off the ball; under him, crime, including issues of racism, rose by 10%. The Labour party is weak on crime and it is this Government who are holding the Met to account.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Ms Anum Qaisar (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)
The gender pay gap has fallen by approximately a quarter in the last decade. The Conservative Government introduced gender pay gap reporting, building on the pay protections we already have in the Equality Act 2010. That has motivated employers to look at their pay data and include workplace gender equality.
Patricia Gibson
The gender pay gap feeds the pension gap, which impacts on a large proportion of women in the UK. The Government do not even have a suitable definition for the gender pension gap. I have campaigned on this issue for many years, so does the Minister agree that delays in reducing the gender pension gap are simply unacceptable? What representations has she made to her colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions to urgently address this?
Kemi Badenoch
The gender pensions gap, as the hon. Lady has described it, is a complex issue. It is tied to the labour market, the pensions system and demographic differences. By 2030 more than 3 million women will have benefited from a higher state pension through our new state pension reforms. On average, female pensioners will receive around £570 a year more than they would have received under the previous system. That is the work that we are doing to address this issue.
Ms Qaisar
Fawcett Society evidence shows that more than a third of women want to work, but are prevented by reasons including a lack of flexible working options and affordable childcare. The reforms proposed in the UK Government’s consultation still require employees to request flexible working. Will the Minister ensure that that is enshrined as a day one right to support women to remain in work and to help tackle the gender pay gap?
Kemi Badenoch
The hon. Lady will know that we are supporting the Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Bill. That private Member’s Bill will deliver changes, including requiring employers to consult with an employee, as a means of exploring alternative options, before rejecting a request for flexible working; and enabling employees to make two flexible working requests a year—up from one—and receive faster decisions on their requests. Employees will no longer be required to explain the impact of their requests for flexible working arrangements on the employer. We think that will go a long way to resolve the issues around flexible working.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
Campaigners are highlighting the twin impacts of the gender pay gap and the cost of living crisis on women. What support is my right hon. Friend giving to women who are struggling financially?
Kemi Badenoch
My hon. Friend will know that the support we provide is based on need and not protected characteristics, so the decisive action we have taken has been to support households across the UK, while remaining fiscally responsible. We are delivering the largest ever increase in the national living wage, benefiting more than 2 million people—disproportionately women—and prioritising support for the most vulnerable families, increasing benefits in line with inflation, so that more than 10 million working-age families see an increase in their benefit payments.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
According to the Fawcett Society, the UK Government lag behind other European countries in making companies act to close the gender pay gap and they have failed to introduce mandatory reporting of pay differences based on ethnicity. If the UK Government are serious about driving down pay inequality, why will they not require employers to set out action plans to improve gender equality and why will they not mandate intersectional ethnicity pay gap reporting? If they are not serious and they continue to refuse to act, will they devolve employment law to Scotland so that we can do it ourselves?
Kemi Badenoch
As I have said in almost every discussion about equality—and I am prepared to say again—mandatory ethnicity reporting is not the appropriate tool. Ethnicity pay gap reporting cannot be compared to gender pay gap reporting. Gender pay gap reporting is binary; ethnicity pay gap reporting goes across at least 19 groups. It is dependent on geography, among other things, as well as representation within the workforce.
We need to do what we can to make sure that employers do the right thing, but the sorts of interventionist policies that the hon. Lady raises are not helpful and they make things worse. They obscure the data and do absolutely nothing to address the issues around ethnicity pay gap reporting that she describes.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
The Minister for Equalities (Stuart Andrew)
The Equality Act 2010 covers a number of protected characteristics, including age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnerships, race, religion and belief, sex and sexual orientation. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities has written to the Equality and Human Rights Commission to understand whether the Act is sufficiently clear in the balance that it strikes between the interests of people with those different characteristics.
Angela Richardson
What assessment has the Minister made of the importance of protecting single-sex spaces?
Stuart Andrew
We are committed to maintaining the safeguard that allows organisations to provide single-sex spaces. It is important to uphold the principle of being able to operate spaces reserved for women and girls. The Government are committed to tackling harassment and abusive behaviour by all individuals and to ensuring that single-sex spaces are safe. The EHRC has published guidance on the legislation. That clarity is there to help those who provide those spaces; it does not change the legal position or the law.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Just this week, the Government stated that they agree with the recommendation in the Law Commission review of hate crime laws that sex or gender should not be added as a protected characteristic. Can the Minister explain the implications for moves towards making misogyny a hate crime of violence towards women and girls? Can he assure us that there is no intention to address the protected characteristics in the Equality Act?
Stuart Andrew
Over the past few years, there have been at least 15 calls for various extra characteristics to be added. There has not been sufficient evidence for doing so, but we will always keep the characteristics under review. Let me make it very clear that this Government will absolutely do everything we can to tackle any issues around violence towards women and girls. We have been and will continue to be strong in our actions against those who seek to create harm.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
The Minister for Equalities (Stuart Andrew)
The Equality Act 2010 places a duty on businesses and service providers to make reasonable adjustments to improve disabled people’s access to the goods and services that they provide. It is imperative that disabled people are not placed at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with those who are non-disabled.
Richard Foord
Maggie from my part of east Devon is one of 11 million people in this country who have hearing loss. Maggie went to a well-known high street branch and explained that because of her hearing she is unable to use the phone. She was offered a 50-mile round trip to Exeter instead. In pursuit of the Equality Act, can the Minister explain what the Government are doing to ensure that banks and big businesses make reasonable adjustments for those with hearing loss?
Stuart Andrew
I am sorry to hear the example that the hon. Gentleman gives about his constituent. Under the Equality Act, it would be indirect discrimination if a service provider put in place rules or procedures that applied in the same way for everyone but had a disproportionate adverse effect on particular groups. I am more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the issue and see whether further action can be devised for his constituent.
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that this goes hand in hand with Access to Work? Does he agree that it is important that those who assess for Access to Work grants should not be too much the generalist? They should have specific knowledge of the condition of the person concerned. I would be interested to know whether the Minister has any plans to explain how the situation might be improved, because I have had one or two complaints.
Stuart Andrew
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work is looking at the matter as we speak, to see how things can be streamlined. I will be more than happy to update my right hon. and learned Friend with further details.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The Minister for Women (Maria Caulfield)
It is this Government who have recognised that maternal disparities do exist for black, Asian and minority ethnic women and those from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. That is why in February last year we set up the maternity disparities taskforce to tackle those disparities.
Olivia Blake
Does the Minister agree that we owe huge thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) for her work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Black maternal health? Secondly, black women are four times more likely to die during pregnancy and childbirth and 43% more likely to miscarry. The Women and Equalities Committee’s report highlights that the Government are failing to act. Ironically, the maternity disparities taskforce meets every nine months instead of every two months. Will the Minister commit today to setting a binding target and providing properly resourced solutions to end this scandal and these disparities?
Maria Caulfield
I am happy to place on record my thanks to the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), who does fantastic work in this place. I should point out that the figure is lower than that—it is now 3.5—but it is still too high, and we are doing record amounts of work to try to reduce it. Only last month the NHS published its “Three year delivery plan for maternity and neonatal services” with the aim of ending disparities in pregnancy and childbirth, and the maternity disparities taskforce is currently looking into pre-conception care, because many of those disparities are embedded years before a woman becomes pregnant.
Helen Hayes
Whether black women are 3.5 or four times more likely to die in childbirth, it is a shameful and inexcusable reality that that is the case in our country. The Women and Equalities Committee has been clear about the Government’s own failings in this regard, criticising a lack of accurate data, a lack of funding for maternity services, a lack of consistency of care across the country, a lack of representation of black women in the maternity disparities taskforce, and a downplaying of the role of racism in the issue. When will the Government get a grip on this disgraceful injustice, with the urgency that it demands?
Maria Caulfield
It is entirely wrong to suggest that the taskforce does not represent black women, given that Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, its co-chair and one of the most renowned midwives in the world, is a black woman herself. She has been leading and driving forward this work, including work on local maternity and neonatal systems and the publication of equity and equality action plans; I am sure that the hon. Member has read the plan for her own area. Meanwhile, the Nursing and Midwifery Council is introducing standards including the expectation of cultural competence, NHS England is introducing workforce diversity and the “Getting to Equity” programme to ensure that aspiring ethnic minority midwives are promoted, and the maternal medicine networks are targeting black women in particular with the aim of improving their overall health during pregnancy. Significant work is being done in this regard.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
It is very disturbing that there are such serious disparities in maternal health outcomes affecting black women. Can the Minister reassure us that the Government are looking into the causes? Until we know what it is causing the problem, we will not be able to solve it.
Maria Caulfield
My right hon. Friend is exactly right, and that is why the taskforce is focusing on pre-conception care. Many of the disparities have been there for years before a woman becomes pregnant, and we are working with stakeholders to establish how we can improve access to pre-conception care, which will make a huge difference to the outcomes of pregnancy and birth.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on baby loss, I have heard evidence suggesting that we can help women in this position by providing continuity of carer, which helps to expose lifestyle choices and experiences such as domestic violence that may affect people from ethnically diverse or social deprived backgrounds. What is the Department doing to expand that continuity of carer for those who need it?
Maria Caulfield
I can reassure my hon. Friend: we are spending £7 million to ensure that 75% of black, Asian and minority ethnic women are being cared for by the same midwife during their pregnancies, because we know that continuity of carer improves outcomes for those women.
Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)
My understanding is that the figure for the black maternal mortality gap is actually 3.7, and that the gap is twice as likely to affect Asian women, while women living in deprived areas are two and a half times more likely to die than those in the least deprived areas. Scandalously, even before the pandemic hit, the number of maternal mortalities increased by 12% over the previous six years of Tory government. As the Minister said, the maternity disparities taskforce was supposed to be tackling this. May I ask her how many months elapsed between its last two meetings?
Maria Caulfield
We absolutely recognise that these disparities have existed for decades, and we are the first Government ever to recognise that and to set up a maternity disparities taskforce to tackle the problems. We met on 18 April, and have set about introducing the toolkit that will enable us to look at pre-conception care. As we know, many women face disparities long before they become pregnant and long before they give birth, and it is tackling those pre-conception disparities that improves their outcomes.
Anneliese Dodds
The Minister did not answer my question, I think because she knows the answer. The taskforce did not meet for nine months, then it was suddenly convened the day after a damning report had been published. No Government who were serious about this would allow enough time for a baby to be carried to term to elapse between meetings; nor would they scrap continuity of carer targets—not mentioned by the Minister—or omit serious action against maternal disparities from their women’s health strategy. Labour would restore maternity services, training 10,000 midwives and nurses a year, paid for by scrapping the non-dom tax exemption. Why are the Government letting women pay the price for their failures?
Maria Caulfield
The Government do not need to have a meeting to take action. We are working night and day to drive down these disparities, with £165 million going into funding maternity services overall. There is £95 million to pay for 1,200 more midwives and another 100 consultant obstetricians. I am sure the hon. Lady has read, page to page, the three-year maternity plan—
Maria Caulfield
She says she has; I hope she has. The plan focuses on driving down inequalities in both maternal and neonatal care, and it would be great if we could have cross-party support for this groundbreaking work.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)
Last week, we published a report on the substantial progress we have made in delivering our groundbreaking Inclusive Britain action plan to tackle unfair ethnic disparities. Just one year after we launched the action plan, we fulfilled 32 of the 74 commitments, including issuing voluntary guidance for employers on how to measure and address ethnicity pay gaps, and I will report back to Parliament in 12 months’ time on the progress we have made on delivering the remaining actions to build a stronger, fairer and more united society.
Michael Fabricant
I thank my right hon. Friend for her answer. While I fully understand the need for protected places for women—I totally support that—and the issues when it comes to sports, I am growing increasingly concerned that trans people are becoming demonised in some quarters. What is the Secretary of State doing to protect the interests and the very nature of genuine trans people?
Kemi Badenoch
I want to emphasise that the Government believe in the principle of individual liberty and in the humanity and dignity of every person, and in everything we do we want to make sure that we take the toxicity out of the debate. A lot of the demonisation is happening out there on social media. We have a responsibility to make sure that all trans people have that dignity and are looked after.
In terms of other things we are doing, NHS England is working to expand clinical capacity in adult gender identity services by establishing new pilot clinics rooted in primary care and sexual health services. Four of those new clinics have opened since 2020 and a fifth is opening this year. They will be able to provide a lot of the healthcare that trans people need.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue of women being able to progress and do well in work. That is why the Department for Work and Pensions has a focus on in-work progression, giving women who have childcare, training or other needs in particular the support they need to progress and thrive in work.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
The Minister for Equalities (Stuart Andrew)
I commend my hon. Friend for the extensive work that he has done in this important area. I absolutely agree with his analysis, and as a DCMS Minister and the Minister for Equalities, I can assure him that I will be taking a keen interest in this area of work.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Damian Hinds)
Yes, of course safety must come first. Although it is true that more than 90% of transgender women prisoners are in the male estate, it is right that we have further strengthened our policy for those who have committed sexual or violent offences, and for those who retain their birth genitalia, who can be housed elsewhere only in truly exceptional circumstances, on a case-by-case basis.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
The Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak)
The UK will continue to work to end the bloodshed in Sudan and to support a democratic Government. We have begun a large-scale evacuation of British nationals, and I pay tribute to all those carrying out this complex operation.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Tim Loughton
Yesterday, the Opposition grabbed a crude headline about teaching boys to have respect for women—an important issue, as I am sure the Prime Minister will agree—but given that the Leader of the Opposition apparently does not know what a woman is, that he will not stand up to defend women in his own party who voice views on women’s rights and that, according to his own Front Bench, he failed to prosecute rapists when he was Director of Public Prosecutions, does my right hon. Friend think the Labour party is in any position to teach anyone about respect for women? And is irony dead?
Mr Speaker
Order. I will call the Prime Minister but, in fairness, he is not responsible for answering for the Opposition.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Leader of the Opposition’s record on women is questionable at best. Before Labour starts preaching about this issue, it should work out the answer to one very simple question. I am certain what a woman is. Is he?
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the brave British personnel involved in the evacuation effort from Sudan. The Government must do everything in their power to urgently evacuate UK nationals still trapped in Sudan.
Yesterday, George Osborne said that the Tory party’s handling of the economy makes them “vandals”. He is right, isn’t he?
The Prime Minister
While we are in the business of quoting former Chancellors and shadow Chancellors, I do not know whether the Leader of the Opposition saw yesterday’s remarks by a former Labour shadow Chancellor, who said that our country has faced four once-in-a-century shocks or threats to our economy, and that the fact we have come through that is “a triumph”.
Keir Starmer
The former Chancellor not only said that they are a bunch of Tory vandals but that the country has faced a “self-induced financial crisis”. That is those vandals. They like to pretend it was all just one week of madness last autumn, but the truth is that it has been 13 years of failure. Real wages—the money in people’s pockets—have fallen by £1,600 per household, and the Prime Minister’s response was to impose 24 Tory tax rises in three years. How on earth does he think his low-growth, high-tax economy is working for working people?
The Prime Minister
Because of the action we have taken on the national living wage, which is at record levels, on pensions, on universal credit and on yesterday’s generous cost of living payments, almost 8 million households are receiving direct support from this Conservative Government. We are supporting working people. Just this week, in the other place, we have seen the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s party side with protesters and picketers. He should try backing working people.
Keir Starmer
People are £1,600 worse off. I am genuinely fascinated to know: does the Prime Minister really think that everything is fine? Or is he just clueless about life outside his bubble?
The Prime Minister
Because of the actions we have taken—[Interruption.] Well, let us just go over it. A single mother working full time on the national living wage this year will get £1,300 more support from this Government. A working couple on a low income with two children will get £1,800. That is what delivering for working Britain looks like. But if the right hon. and learned Gentleman has any actual ideas for the economy, he should say so, because all I hear from the party opposite is more spending, more borrowing, higher inflation and higher interest rates. It is the same old Labour party.
Keir Starmer
This is Mr 24 Tax Rises; I have never heard anything so out of touch as the answer that he has just given. It is not just about his refusal to take any responsibility for the damage the Conservatives have done through the crashed economy and the hit to living standards; it is also that he refuses to take the action that is needed. He could stop the handouts he is giving to oil and gas giants. He could scrap his beloved non-dom status. He could put that money back in the hands of working people and get the NHS back on its feet. That is what a Labour Government would do. Why doesn’t he do it?
The Prime Minister
The record is clear. Look at it right now: record numbers of people in work, inequality lower, the number of people in poverty lower, and the lowest numbers on record for those in low pay. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about this non-dom thing. I think he has already spent the money that he claims he would raise on five different things, because it is the same old Labour party: they are always running out of other people’s money. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. We had enough of this last week and I am certainly not having this continuous noise. Just be aware that somebody will be going for that cup of tea today.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister calls it “this non-dom thing”. Let us be honest about what his refusal to scrap the non-dom status means. It means that at every possible opportunity he has voted to put taxes up on working people, while at the same time taking every possible opportunity to protect a tax avoidance scheme that helps his own finances. Why is the Prime Minister telling people across the country that their taxes must go up so that his can stay low?
The Prime Minister
The facts are these: the very wealthiest pay more tax and the poorest pay less tax today than they did in any year under the last Labour Government, and we have also boosted the national living wage, universal credit and pensions. Let us look at the rank hypocrisy of it. As we saw last week, when it comes to the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s own special pension scheme—I said it last week, but I will say it again—it is literally one law for him and a tax rise for everybody else.
Keir Starmer
Here is the difference: I would scrap the Prime Minister’s pension giveaway whether it affected me or not. He refuses to scrap the non-dom status that benefits him and his family. I can see why he is attracted to “this non-dom thing”. This Prime Minister is so removed from the country that he boasted that he did not know a single working-class person, so insulated from reality that he proudly told a Tory garden party how he had moved money from poorer areas and handed it to rich ones, and so out of touch that he looks at a petrol pump and a debit card like they have just arrived from Mars. Is it any wonder that he smiles his way through the cost of living crisis while putting other people’s taxes up? Is it any wonder that he doesn’t have a clue how food prices are hammering families across the country? And is it any wonder that under him people are paying more and more, and getting less and less?
The Prime Minister
Let us look at what has happened just this week to see where Labour Members have put themselves. On Monday, in the other place, they decided to side with extremist protesters. Just yesterday, they sided with polluters—[Interruption.] And tonight, we will see them siding with the people smugglers. Meanwhile, we are in the business of sending back the 1,000 illegal migrants from Albania, we delivered cost of living payments to millions of households just yesterday, and today we have announced that we have put 20,000 more police officers on the street. We are siding with the British people, Mr Speaker. That is what a Conservative Government do.
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I commend my hon. Friend for his campaigning on this issue. I know that there have been a number of proposals for road improvements in his area. He will know that it is for the local highway authority to develop those plans, but I know that a meeting is planned in June to move proposals forward and that he will take his energy and enthusiasm for his campaign to that meeting. I wish him well.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
Will the Prime Minister outline the safe and legal route available to a child refugee seeking to flee Sudan and come to the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister
As I outlined earlier, our priority in Sudan first and foremost was to evacuate our diplomats and their families, and I am pleased to say that we were one of the first countries to be able to do so. Since yesterday, we have been conducting a large-scale evacuation of British nationals. We have some of the largest numbers of British nationals on the ground and, rightly, as I am sure the whole House will agree, it is reasonable, legal and fair to prioritise the most vulnerable families, particularly those with elderly people, people with medical conditions and children. That is what we are in the process of doing, and I pay tribute to all those who are making it possible.
Stephen Flynn
To be clear, and I think everyone in the House is aware of this, children in Sudan are already dying. Whether it is a Tory slogan to stop the boats or a Labour slogan to stop small boats, we need more humanity in this debate, rather than the race to the bottom that we see here today. Now that the Prime Minister has confirmed that there is no safe and legal route, will he confirm that it would therefore be his Government’s intention to detain and deport a child refugee who flees Sudan and comes to the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister
In fact, because of the efforts of our aid teams, we have invested almost £250 million in humanitarian support in Sudan over the past five years. The hon. Gentleman always does this, but this country has a proud record of compassionately supporting those who need our assistance. Just over the past few years, we have welcomed almost half a million vulnerable people to our country, including many children. We want to make sure that we continue with that compassion, which is why it is precisely right that we make sure that our system is not exploited by those coming here illegally, and that is what our Bill will deliver.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is right to point out the hypocrisy of the local Liberal Democrats on that and to highlight the issue locally. The new infrastructure levy gives local areas the power to deliver the local infrastructure that he supports and wants for his area. He is also absolutely right to point out the importance of a local plan. Having a local plan is precisely what gives communities the power to ensure that development in their area happens the way they want it to, and the council is failing in its duty to do that for its communities by not putting forward the local plan.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Incredibly, any traveller wanting to go by train from north to south Wales has to go via England. Linking Wales north to south would cost £2 billion. The Prime Minister talks about running away with other people’s money, but his Government are depriving Wales to the tune of £6 billion by ruling that north-south England rail links such as HS2 somehow benefit Wales. Will he plead guilty to the great Welsh train robbery?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady knows how transport matters are handled in Wales. We always want to work co-operatively with the Welsh Government to see where we can deliver jointly for people in Wales. We are actually investing record sums in communities up and down Wales through the levelling-up fund and the community ownership fund. We are happy to continue those conversations and many of those are transport projects. Hopefully, she will join me in saying that what the people of Wales do not need is the Labour Welsh Government’s plan to ban all building of new roads.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. I of course recognise the valuable work that all colleges do in meeting local skills needs, and very much welcome local community groups working together to address gaps, as her local area is doing. My understanding is that my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary is in discussions with the college, and I know that my hon. Friend will continue making representations to her.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am incredibly sorry to hear about the tragic loss of Ian’s daughter. Of course we should do everything we can to improve road safety. I know that at the moment we are doing an enormous amount, and the statistics show that it is improving, but we are always happy to look at where we can do more, and I know that the Transport Secretary will look into the suggestions the hon. Gentleman raises.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman raises exactly why we need to take action, because it is not right that our local hotels in all our communities are being used to such a degree to house illegal asylum seekers, not least because it is costing the British taxpayer something like £5.5 million or £6 million a day. We want to put an end to that, which is why we are bringing forward legislation that will enable us to swiftly detain and send back those who should not be here. But I will make sure that he gets a meeting with the Immigration Minister as he needs.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
As I have said previously, we absolutely do not want anyone to have to rely on a food bank but, while there are people who do use them, I am very grateful to all those who volunteer their time to make sure they are provided in their local communities. We have put substantial provision in place, not least the infant free school meals and broader free school meals, which are helping almost 2 million children, but also, last year, the investment in the holiday activity and food programme, which provides not just food but activities outside term time. We will continue to do everything we can to help those in low pay, which is why we are raising the national living wage to record levels, and I am pleased to say that the number of those living in poverty today is 2 million lower than when we first came into office.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I commend my hon. Friend for her work in this area. I absolutely recognise the concern that she raises, both on the environmental impact of disposable vapes and on their appeal to children. The Department of Health and Social Care has announced a call for evidence to look at reducing youth vaping, including on vape appearance, flavours and marketing. We have also been clear that all electrical waste should be disposed of properly, and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is looking actively at what changes in legislation might be needed to ensure that the vaping sector foots the bill for the collection and treatment of its used products.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I am not aware of the specific allegations that the hon. Lady brings to light, but in general we should treat everybody with respect, understanding and compassion, and people should be allowed to gather and associate freely, within the bounds of the law. But, as we have said, it is important that the material that children are exposed to in classrooms is sensitive and age-appropriate, and that is why we are currently reviewing the relationships, sex and health education guidance.
James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I join my hon. Friend in his comments. Coincidentally, one of the first gifts that I gave President Zelensky was an old copy of “Henry V”, so my hon. Friend’s comments are well made. We are training and arming the Ukrainian forces with the equipment that they need to push back Russian forces. I know that the whole House will join me in saying that the people of Ukraine’s incredible strength and inspiring bravery will ultimately defeat tyranny.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
No, what I think our focus should now be on doing, while of course understanding our history in all its parts and not running away from it, is making sure that we have a society that is inclusive and tolerant of people from all backgrounds. That is something that we on the Government Benches are committed to doing and will continue to deliver, but trying to unpick our history is not the right way forward and is not something we will focus our energies on.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
The Prime Minister
It is vital that people can access the NHS services they need, and particularly emergency care, which is why we are investing an extra £1 billion of dedicated funding to support urgent and emergency care services. My hon. Friend will know that specific provision is a matter for local NHS commissioners and providers, because plans for those things need to be developed locally and take into account the expanding needs of local populations. I know that my hon. Friend will continue to engage with his local NHS trust to ensure that the views of his constituents and communities are well known and adequately provided for.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
We are doing an enormous amount to support those who most need our help with the cost of living and some of the pressures that they face on energy bills in particular. That is why we made the decision to tax the windfall profits of energy companies and use that money to help pay around half a typical family’s energy bills. That support is worth £1,500 and applies across the United Kingdom. On top of that, direct payments are going to the most vulnerable families in our society. Just yesterday the first of three payments went out, and that £300 went to one in three households, including many in Scotland. That is our Conservative Government delivering for the people of Scotland and making sure that they have the help they need to manage some of the pressures they are facing.
Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
In Yorkshire, we say that a person should be judged by the company they keep. What is the Prime Minister’s view of an individual who can not only bear to spend more than 10 minutes in the presence of Vladimir Putin but refers to him as a “dear friend”?
The Prime Minister
I think our views on President Putin are well known. His illegal war in Ukraine has caused untold misery for many people. It has caused a humanitarian crisis and is still ongoing, in defiance of international condemnation and sanction. We will do everything we can to bring those responsible for war crimes to justice, continue to support Ukraine militarily, and make sure that we can support Ukrainians all the way to victory. I know the whole House is united in wanting that outcome.
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
There is rare agreement between the right hon. Gentleman and myself: I am a wholehearted champion of and believer in the role that community pharmacies can play. We want to make sure that they can do everything they can to ease some of the pressures in primary care. We are actively talking to the sector about that and will always continue to do everything we can to support community pharmacies. I know at first hand how respected they are in their communities, and I think they can do more for us over time.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
After a 15-year break, Wrexham association football club is back in the English football league. Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating everyone at the club, including the loyal supporters and the owners, Ryan Reynolds and Rob McElhenney, and does he agree that Wrexham is no longer a neglected place but is quickly becoming a jewel in the crown of the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating everyone at Wrexham, from the owners to the players, the supporters and everyone in the community. It has been an incredible ride; we have all enjoyed watching them, and we wish them every future success. I join her in saying that they are indeed a jewel in the crown, and she deserves enormous credit for championing them in this place.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
When formal complaints were made, I rightly initiated an independent investigation, and as soon as it reported, action was taken. That is the right thing to do—to follow due process, and then let the process play out—but I do think it is somewhat odd to be getting lectures on values right now from the SNP.
Police Uplift Programme
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement about the Government’s police uplift programme.
Today is a significant day for policing. We can officially announce that our unprecedented officer recruitment campaign has met its target. We said we would recruit an extra 20,000 officers since 2019, and we have; in fact, we have recruited an extra 20,951 additional officers. That means that we now have a record number of officers—149,572—across England and Wales, 3,542 more than the previous peak. I am sure that colleagues will want to join me in celebrating those record police numbers.
This is the culmination of a colossal amount of work from police forces, the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the College of Policing, the Home Office and beyond. They have my heartfelt gratitude and admiration, and I pay tribute to the officials and police officers who made this possible. I feel honoured and privileged to have been able to take this programme to its successful conclusion. I especially express my thanks to my right hon. Friends the Members for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), for Witham (Priti Patel), and for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) for their work, as well as to the Prime Minister for his work as Chancellor, financing this programme. Their vision and leadership were instrumental in helping us reach this point, and I know they will share my delight today. I also pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who has energetically steered this campaign to its successful conclusion, and again to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, for his continued support and encouragement.
This was not a simple task. There have been challenges along the way and people doubted our prospects of success, but by sticking to the course and believing unequivocally in the cause, we have done it. To every single new recruit who has joined up and helped us reach our goal, I say thank you. There is no greater or more noble example of public service, and they have chosen a career like no other. Not everyone will be as happy as we are today. Criminals must be cursing their luck, and so they should, because these extra police officers are coming after them.
Not only are there more police officers than there have ever been at any point before, but the workforce is more diverse than it has been before, too. There are now a record 53,083 female police officers in post, compared with 39,135 in 2010. There are 12,087 officers identifying as ethnic minorities, compared with 6,704 in 2010. That is a significant increase, which I am sure the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) will shortly be warmly welcoming. There are more officers working in public protection, in local policing and in crime investigations. There are now 725 more officers working in regional organised crime units tackling serious and organised crime, as promised.
While it is right today that we pause and reflect on the tremendous success of the police uplift programme, this is not the end. It is about more than just hitting a number. It is the latest step in our mission to crush crime and make our country safer. The public want to see more officers on the beat, patrolling local neighbourhoods, and that is what they are seeing. The public want to see courageous and upstanding public servants in whom they can have pride and can trust, and we are working to deliver that, too. The public rightly expect police forces to use this increased strength and resources to the best available effect. They want to see criminals caught and locked up, so that they feel safe and secure, whether in their homes or out and about. They want police officers to focus on the issues that matter most to them.
We have made extremely good progress already. Since 2010, crime in England and Wales, excluding fraud and computer misuse, has fallen by 50%. It was double under the last Labour Government, and I have still not received an apology from the shadow Home Secretary for having served in a Government who presided over crime levels twice what they are now. The crime survey of England and Wales, approved by the Office for National Statistics, also shows burglary down 56% since the last Labour Government left office, robbery down 57% and criminal damage down by 65%—[Interruption.] The Opposition do not like to hear it, but I am going to keep telling them. Violence is down by 38%, and for people who are into riding bicycles, even bicycle theft is down by 49% under this Government. Figures also show reductions in homicide, serious violence and neighbourhood crime since December 2019.
Crime, however, is a broad and ever-evolving menace, which is why we are addressing it from all angles, acting to turn the tide on drug misuse with our 10-year strategy and cracking down on county lines, of which we have closed down thousands in the past three years. We are stepping up our efforts to tackle domestic abuse, violence against women and girls and child sexual abuse. I can see in her place my colleague who is leading that work, the safeguarding Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines). We are supporting law enforcement in the fight against serious and organised crime, terrorism, cyber-crime and fraud. We have shown that where our constituents express concern about an issue, we listen and we act, as demonstrated by the recent antisocial behaviour plan.
We are going to keep up the momentum in this area. We will challenge the police, of course, but also support them. We expect police forces to maintain these officer numbers going forward. We expect to see these police on the streets protecting the public, preventing crime and prosecuting criminals. It is vital that police forces up and down the country seize the opportunity created by these record numbers of police officers. As the Home Secretary has made clear, common-sense policing is the way forward.
The Government are holding up our side of the bargain. We introduced measures recently to cut the amount of red tape that has been wasting police time. We are introducing new measures to improve issues concerning ethics and integrity in police conduct, which have rightly been of recent concern. If any colleague wants to come and discuss these issues with me in more detail, I will be in the large ministerial conference room under this Chamber at 3 o’clock for half an hour and I am very happy to meet colleagues to discuss these issues in more detail.
We said that we would recruit an extra 20,000 officers since 2019 and we have delivered that. We said that we would have record numbers of police officers and we have delivered that. We said that we would cut crime since 2010 and, according to the crime survey of England and Wales, we have delivered that as well. I commend this statement to the House.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The Home Secretary has been out on the airwaves this morning but she is scared to defend her record in this House, and little wonder because that statement was a joke. Where are the Tories pretending to have been for the last 13 years? They cut 20,000 police officers. Belatedly, they set a target to patch up their own cuts and now they want us all to be grateful. They want the country to applaud them for their attempts to patch up some of the criminal damage this party of Tory vandals has done to policing and the criminal justice system over the last 13 years.
They were warned about the damage their cuts would do: arrests have halved; prosecutions near-halved; community penalties halved; crimes solved halved; more crimes reported and recorded, but hundreds of thousands fewer crimes are being solved—hundreds of thousands fewer victims getting justice every year. The Home Secretary claimed on the television this morning, “Oh, it’s irrelevant what happened over the last 10 years”: not to the millions fewer victims who have had justice in the last decade as a result of what this Tory Government have done.
As for the policing Minister’s claim that “Criminals must be cursing their luck” because we are “coming after them”, who is he kidding? The charge rate hit a record low last year: 95% of criminals not charged—for rape it is over 98%. The charge rate has dropped by two thirds since 2015 alone. That is record levels of criminals getting off under the Tories; they are not cursing their luck, they are thanking their lucky stars. Under the Tories the criminals have never had it so good; they are pathetically weak on crime and weak on the causes of crime.
As for meeting records, well, yes, they are meeting some records: a record number of crimes not being solved; a record number of people saying they never see police on the street; record numbers of police officers leaving policing last year; record low charge rates last year for rape and sexual offences. And then we have got serious violence rising: knife crime up; gun crime up. And of course the fraud and online crime that they never want to talk about is also at a record high. What has the Home Secretary got to say about that this morning—just some more waffle about woke. She has got nothing new to say to tackle the problems.
Then there is the chaotic recruitment process, with forces ending up cutting standards to meet deadlines. Most of last year, the average monthly increase from recruitment was 475 officers each month; in March, just before the deadline, it was suddenly 2,400 in a month. No one believes that this is a properly managed and sustainable recruitment plan. We have had reports of people who were initially turned down being asked to reapply at the last minute to meet targets; reports of people with addiction, and with criminal histories, being encouraged to apply and let in. A massive variation of standards applied across forces so that Matt Parr in His Majesty’s inspectorate said that hundreds of people have joined the police in the last three years who should not have, and then he said,
“certainly in the hundreds if not low thousands.”
Have the Tories learned nothing from Wayne Couzens and David Carrick? We have still not got proper national mandatory standards in place; have they learned nothing of the need to raise standards? So is the Minister confident that all these new recruits meet the standards we should expect from policing?
Look at the numbers that the Government have announced: this is not an uplift programme, it is a damage mitigation programme, and they have not even achieved that. In Hampshire the Home Secretary’s own force, in Cleveland, in Durham, Northumbria, and Merseyside, they all still have fewer police than they had in 2010. Compared to our growing population, there are 9,000 fewer officers compared to the rates in 2010. They have cut 8,000 police community support officers and 6,000 police staff, including intelligence and analysts, forensics, digital, vetting and standards checks. And worst of all, they are refusing to do Labour’s plan for 13,000 more neighbourhood police. Instead we have got 10,000 fewer police and PCSOs in neighbourhood teams since 2015. So when will the Government reverse those cuts to the police on the beat the public want to see? That is what people see and what people feel.
The reality is that half the country say they do not see the police on the beat at all any more—half the country, up from a quarter of the country in 2010. That is why people know all this boasting from the Minister is out of touch. That is the reality that no amount of boasting, crowing or fake headlines can cover up. Let me just say to all the Tory Back Benchers: the only thing that all this boasting and crowing does is tell the country you are even more out of touch than we thought.
Chris Philp
The shadow Home Secretary asked about police numbers in the years following 2010, during the coalition Government. She will recall that the outgoing Chief Secretary to the Treasury, her colleague, left a message saying the money had all gone and that led to difficult decisions that had to be made. But I am not sure if she was listening to what I said before because the number of officers that we now have—149,572—is higher, by 3,542, than the number of officers left behind by the Labour party. These are record ever numbers. Never in our country’s history have we had as many officers as we have today. It is important that the shadow Home Secretary keeps that in mind.
She asked about neighbourhood policing. The way the figures are reported, neighbourhood policing, emergency response policing and local policing are reported together. Since 2015, local policing, neighbourhood policing and emergency policing taken together is in fact higher.
She asked about crime. She asked about crime numbers. The only source of crime data endorsed by the Office for National Statistics is the crime survey for England and Wales. I have got the figures here. If she is unfamiliar with them, I can hand them to her afterwards, but they show domestic burglary down 56%, robbery down 57%, vehicle theft down 39%, violence down 38% and criminal damage down 65%. She may not like the figures from the Office for National Statistics, but those are the figures.
She asked about standards in police recruitment. For every police officer recruited in the last three years, there were about 10 applicants, so there was a good degree of selectivity. In relation to vetting, the College of Policing has just finished consulting on a new statutory code of practice for vetting, which will be adopted shortly, and police forces up and down the country are implementing the 43 recommendations made by the inspectorate on vetting standards. We are also conducting a review in the Home Office, which will conclude in the next few weeks, on police dismissals, so that where misconduct is uncovered officers can be removed quickly, which is absolutely right.
The message to the country is clear. We have record levels of police officers—higher than we have ever had before—and according to the crime survey, crime has gone down compared with the last Labour Government that she served in.
Mr Speaker
Order. Can I just say to the right hon. Member: calling somebody “she”—does he really want to use that type of language? For all our benefit, I would say to everybody: let us show a bit more respect to each other than we seem to be at the moment. I understand there might be a bit of anger, but respect does no harm. I would like to see a bit more and this will be a great example—Kit Malthouse.
Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)
Can I offer my congratulations to the Minister, the team at the Home Office, the National Police Chiefs’ Council and everybody involved in what has been a massive effort over the last three years to recruit the extra 20,000? Remembering that the gross recruitment to backfill retirements is about 45,000, it has been an enormous job and they have done a fantastic job, not least given that they were doing so in the teeth of a pandemic, which required some ingenuity.
As the Minister says, however, this is only half the battle. Maintaining the number where it currently stands will be the next stage. Can he confirm that funding will be provided to police and crime commissioners on the basis that they are incentivised to maintain police officer numbers in their forces, not least because, as we have seen over the last decade, in areas controlled by Labour or independent police and crime commissioners, they have failed to prioritise police numbers, which is why, proportionally, they may now be below the numbers in areas that are controlled by Conservatives?
Chris Philp
First, let me just thank my right hon. Friend, whose work over a number of years did more than just lay the foundations for this programme: it really got it under way and on the road to success, so I thank him personally for his work on this. He is absolutely right about the importance of maintaining officer numbers. We have created financial incentives to ensure that happens, and I know police and crime commissioners and chief constables are very keen to make sure those numbers are maintained.
On individual police and crime commissioners, my right hon. Friend is right. In some parts of the country, in the years when we were repairing the financial damage of the last Labour Government, some PCCs did not protect frontline numbers, meaning they were coming up from a much lower base. When the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), was Mayor of London and my right hon. Friend was Deputy Mayor for Policing in London, they protected police numbers, which is why London, in common with 27 other police forces, has record numbers.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Sir Mark Rowley gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee this morning. According to the Home Office, the Metropolitan Police Service missed its uplift allocation of 4,557 additional officers by 1,089, missing the target by 23.9%. When I questioned Sir Mark about why that had happened, he pointed to a range of reasons, including the erosion in the starting pay of a police constable and the hot employment market in London. Can the Minister say what the implications are for the ability of the Metropolitan Police Service to perform its UK-wide responsibilities, as well as to keep Londoners safe, particularly at this point when we have had the Casey review and we know that the Metropolitan police are in the engage phase with the inspectorate? What is the Policing Minister going to do to address those concerns?
Chris Philp
I thank the Select Committee Chair for her question. It is first worth observing that the Metropolitan police have by far the highest per capita funding of any police force in the country. I think the average for forces outside London is about £200 per capita and in London it is about £300 per capita, so the funding is very much higher. On the issues identified by the Casey report, there are a series of recommendations, most of which are for the Met and the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan. I expect them to implement those recommendations. On numbers, every single police force met its uplift target, with just one exception: the Metropolitan police. It is certainly a question I will be asking Sadiq Khan as the politician responsible. It was the only force not to meet the target. As the right hon. Lady said, it recruited an extra 3,468 officers and it should have recruited an extra 4,557. The funding was there to do that and I will certainly be asking Sadiq Khan why he failed. But I am pleased to be able to reassure the House that, despite that shortfall, the Metropolitan police still have a record number: 35,411 officers.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
From the thousands of responses I received from my local crime survey in Westminster, the people’s priority was clear: they want to see more police on the street. I therefore welcome the Government’s announcement today that we have now reached our 20,000 target. Does the Minister agree that, to ensure that people feel safer in their neighbourhoods and that we prevent crime, it is important that we see more police on the beat?
Chris Philp
Yes, I entirely agree. It is important that we see more police on the beat and more criminals getting prosecuted. In addition to hiring all those police officers to deliver a record number, we are trying to remove some of the burdens that have prevented police from spending their time fighting crime. For example, we changed the Home Office counting rules recently to reduce the amount of time spent on unnecessary administration. We are looking, with the Department of Health and Social Care, at how we can ensure the police do not spend time essentially with mental health patients, who would be better treated by the health service. We are absolutely focused on getting those police on the street, where our constituents can see them.
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) (Lab)
Confidence in the police from women is at an all-time low and nothing in the Minister’s statement today is likely to do anything to change that: still nothing on having domestic abuse call handlers in every 999 control room; still nothing on having a specialist rape and sexual assault unit in every police force across the country; and still nothing on national standards on training and vetting to make sure the scandal of Wayne Couzens and David Carrick never happens again. When will the Minister finally get a grip and address those issues?
Chris Philp
I am delighted to say that we now have more female police officers, by a very large margin, than at any time in history. In the most recent recruitment over the last three years, 43% of the new recruits were female, which is a very big step. We would like it to be 50%, but 43% is a very big step forward. On the prosecution of rape and serious sexual assault, by the end of June this year, we will have Operation Soteria Bluestone, an academically endorsed method for investigating rape cases, rolled out across the country. In early adopting forces such as Avon and Somerset, we have seen material increases in the number of charges and prosecutions. On specialist officers, every force has specialist officers. Some are organised into units and some are not. That is something I will look at in the coming months. The Government conducted a rape review. We have a violence against women and girls strategy. The safeguarding Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines), is leading work in that area, but I fully acknowledge there is more work to do on prosecutions and confidence. It is an area that the Government are working on extremely actively.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Our diligent Policing Minister deserves great credit for what he has achieved and for his statement today. He serves under an outstanding Home Secretary, of course. However, does he recognise that in rural areas such as Lincolnshire there are profound problems with the police funding formula? He will know that Lincolnshire is one of the lowest-funded police authorities in the country. Indeed, sadly, the force has had to cut the number of police community support officers this year. He has previously agreed to look at that. Will he now agree to an urgent meeting with me, so that Lincolnshire can benefit in the way that so many other areas have?
Chris Philp
Of course, I would be delighted to meet my right hon. Friend to discuss police funding in Lincolnshire as soon as possible. It is a topic I discuss with the excellent police and crime commissioner Marc Jones regularly. The current police funding formula has been around for quite a long time and needs refreshing. We intend to consult on the formula to start the process of getting it updated, so that areas such as Lincolnshire, which the police funding formula does not treat as generously as some other areas, can be addressed.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
Of course we all thank police officers who work diligently within the rules, but I came to Parliament this week from Northfield Primary School in South Kirkby, where there is an urgent problem with antisocial behaviour. Two points were made to me. First, where are the police? We do not see them in the villages in our area. Secondly, the 20,000 police officers who were lost each had many years of service and they are being replaced by people who are new to the job. In the vacuum that was left during the years when the Government cut the police service, criminality and antisocial behaviour became rife. Of course, they then cut £1 billion from youth services and mental health services. The Government’s record is a disgrace. They left communities ill defended and we are now seeing the consequences.
Chris Philp
I do not accept that. I have read out twice now—I will not repeat them—the ONS figures in the crime survey for England and Wales showing reductions in crime since 2010. On antisocial behaviour, the Government agree that more needs to be done. That is why, just a week or two ago, the Prime Minister personally launched an antisocial behaviour action plan designed to rid our streets of the scourge of ASB. On police officers being visible, I agree with the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) that we want visible police and we expect to see that with all the extra officers who have been recruited.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on the success of this policy. I also congratulate and thank Kent’s police and crime commissioner, Matthew Scott. Since 2010, we now have 400 extra police officers in Kent. Even more importantly, measurably, it is working. In the last four years, overall crime is down 12%, residential burglaries are down 44%, vehicle crime is down 25% and violent crime is down 5.2%. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, clearly and measurably, Kent’s streets are safer now than they were 15 years ago?
Chris Philp
I agree with my right hon. Friend and join him in paying tribute to the excellent police and crime commissioner in Kent, Matthew Scott. I am delighted to hear that crime is dropping in Kent thanks to the work of the Kent police and the PCC. On the police numbers in Kent, the most recent figures out this morning are actually a bit better than he suggested. The number of police in Kent today compared with 2010 stands at 4,261, up from 3,862—a significant increase. I am sure everybody in Kent will be delighted by it.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
If the media are good enough for the Secretary of State to talk to, I do not understand why she is not here to make this statement and answer questions. The Government did not just let 20,000 police officers wither; it was a stated intention by the Conservatives to cut 20,000 posts from the police. They were warned that we would lose experienced police officers, with a knock-on effect on charges and criminal conviction rates. Recorded knife crime is now up 70%, and 90% of crimes go unsolved. Sexual crimes are at a record high. Since 2015, we have seen 10,000 officers cut from our neighbourhood policing. That was all on the Tories’ watch—13 years of mismanagement of our police and criminal justice system. Is it not time that they started to listen to our communities, put the police back in local neighbourhood policing and adopted Labour’s policy of putting 13,000 officers on our streets?
Chris Philp
I have already explained that local policing numbers—the emergency response teams and neighbourhood teams together—are higher now than in 2015. Opposition Members should stop saying that again and again, because it is not accurate; it is misleading. It is not just about backfilling what may have happened in the past. We have more officers now—3,542 more than at any time in this country’s history. Yes, quite a few officers recently are less experienced. That is why we are keen for experienced officers to stay on beyond their 30 years. Mechanisms are in place to do that. We want mentors and experienced officers to help to train and induct new officers to make sure that they become effective. We are seeing the benefits of that already, and Members across the House should welcome that.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I welcome the Minister’s statement. He will be aware that my constituency falls within the Humberside force area. Let me take the opportunity to congratulate it on its outstanding rating. The Minister mentioned police on the beat. As we know, that is what our constituents want. Serious crime must take priority, but low-level antisocial behaviour blights the lives of so many constituents. Can the Minister assure me that he will continue to ensure that the police focus on antisocial behaviour?
Chris Philp
The Humberside force is doing a good job and recently had a good inspection. I thank Chief Constable Lee Freeman for his work. The Humberside force also has a record number of officers—188 more than in 2010. I agree with my hon. Friend that neighbourhood policing and visible policing on the street are critical. That is why we launched the antisocial behaviour action plan a few weeks ago. We expect that to be tackled by police forces up and down the country, including in Humberside, so I completely agree.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
One of the issues raised in the Casey review, which the shadow Home Secretary referenced, was standards and vetting. It is all well and good for the Minister to talk about new recruits and figures in the thousands, but even police officers are highlighting concerns with senior ranking officers. Why has it taken so long for this Government to introduce mandatory national standards on vetting, misconduct and training for all new recruits? That would help to address some of the issues that we see not only in the Met police but right across other police forces—the very same police forces that are in special measures. It is all well and good saying that we have new recruits, but that is no good if they have no confidence that if they raise an issue with their superiors it will be dealt with. That could be addressed by having a national vetting procedure for all new recruits.
Chris Philp
The College of Policing has just finished consulting on an updated statutory code of practice for vetting standards, which will come into force in the near future. As I said, we are also looking at the rules on dismissing police officers, because in the past it has been quite hard for chief officers and chief constables to dismiss police officers for misconduct. We would like to give chief officers and chief constables more power to do that where they uncover misconduct, to address some of the issues that Baroness Casey and others have raised.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I warmly welcome today’s statement, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the momentous achievement of beating our manifesto commitment three and a half years into the Parliament. Will he confirm that, proportionally, it is even better news for Thames Valley police, whose headcount now stands at 5,034? That is 518 more officers than in 2010—an 11% uplift.
Chris Philp
My hon. Friend is right to point to the fantastic police officer numbers in the Thames Valley. He is right that they are about 500 higher than in 2010. That is good news for people across the Thames Valley force area, who will see more police on their streets than under the last Labour Government, more criminals getting caught and more neighbourhoods protected.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
My constituents will be listening and some of this will ring hollow, because their experience in Thames Valley is that 174 crimes go unsolved every single day. Just next door in Gloucestershire, the new Justice Secretary’s backyard, it takes an average of 18.5 hours for the police to respond if they are called. Those are shameful figures. Does the Minister agree that the real litmus test is the day-to-day experiences of our constituents, not the boastful numbers?
Chris Philp
The numbers are important; if they had gone down, Opposition Members would be the first to complain. There are around 500 more officers in the Thames Valley force than under the last Labour Government, which is significant. We expect the police to respond to crime quickly, to protect neighbourhoods and to get prosecutions up. That is why we have gone through this enormous recruiting process.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
It is really good news that the Conservatives are delivering the 20,000 officers. The officers will need somewhere to work, so will the Minister ask the Mayor of London to scrap his police station closure plan, so that we can save Barnet police station?
Chris Philp
I join my right hon. Friend in calling for the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan to reconsider his unwise plans. As I said, the Metropolitan police has by far the highest per capita funding of any force in the country. I do not think any of us want police stations to close, so I join her in calling on Sadiq Khan to reconsider.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
After years of devastating cuts, any extra police officers are welcome, but it is not just about numbers; it is about quality and experience too. Can the Minister confirm how many new police officers are student officers, not yet qualified, such as the 300 in Bedfordshire? Does he agree that Luton, Bedford and Dunstable are clearly not rural areas? When will the farce of funding Bedfordshire police as a rural force end, so that the police finally have the resources to keep people safe in Luton?
Chris Philp
As I am sure the hon. Lady knows, Bedfordshire police has additional support through the police special grant, giving it extra money particularly to fight organised criminality. I corresponded with Bedfordshire’s excellent police and crime commissioner on that topic just recently. I am glad that she raised the question of police officer numbers in Bedford, because Bedfordshire has around 200 extra officers compared with the number under the last Labour Government.
Anna Firth (Southend West) (Con)
I congratulate the Minister on delivering more police officers than we promised in our manifesto. There is much to welcome. He points out that crime is at half the level it was in 2010, despite Labour voting 44 times to stop us introducing tougher penalties on violent offenders. I welcome the extra 1,000 officers for Essex and the 83 for Southend. Will he join me in congratulating Roger Hirst, our excellent police and crime commissioner in Essex? Antisocial behaviour is down by 55%, burglary is down by 45% and murder is down by a third. Is it not true that the Conservatives are keeping our streets safer?
Chris Philp
Yes, it is. I am delighted to note that Essex has 150 more police officers than under the last Labour Government. The police and crime commissioner Roger Hirst and Chief Constable BJ Harrington are doing a fantastic job reducing crime in Essex. On being tough on crime, I meant to say in response to the shadow Home Secretary that I was shocked in Bill Committee a year or two ago when Labour Members voted against a clause specifically introduced to keep rapists in prison for longer. I think we know who is on the side of victims.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
Merseyside has more than 300 fewer police officers compared with 2010, which has serious implications for the safety of our communities and police morale. A recent survey of police officers on Merseyside, carried out by the Police Federation of England and Wales, found that 17% of respondents intended to resign from the police service either within the next two years or as soon as they can. What steps will the Minister take to improve the morale of police officers, boost retention and boost the numbers on Merseyside?
Chris Philp
I pay tribute to Chief Constable Serena Kennedy, who leads the Merseyside force. I was up in Merseyside and Liverpool just a few weeks ago meeting officers. The target of the police recruitment programme in Merseyside was to recruit an extra 665 officers; in fact, 724 have been recruited.
In terms of people leaving the police, we have surveyed thousands of police officers recently recruited through the uplift programme. About 80% are very satisfied with the job and a similar proportion intend to make policing their long-term career. In terms of supporting and looking after police officers, I chair the police covenant wellbeing board. I have not got time to list all the initiatives now, but we are doing a number of things to ensure that serving and former officers get looked after and that morale is maintained.
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
Having 20,000 more officers across the country is a fantastic achievement. It is a Conservative promise made and delivered that will help crack down antisocial behaviour in Cleveland, drawing on our new antisocial behaviour strategy. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that cracking down on problem areas, such as the Norfolk shops in Berwick Hills, is exactly the activity that more officers will enable us to deliver?
Chris Philp
I agree completely with my right hon. Friend. That is exactly the kind of thing those officers will do. Cleveland had a target of 239 extra officers to recruit. They beat that target and have recruited an extra 267 since 2019, and I am sure those 267 new officers will be on patrol in exactly the place my right hon. Friend would like to see them.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
My constituents feel under siege from drug dealers, antisocial behaviour and online fraudsters. They will feel insulted by the Minister’s attempt to whitewash this Government’s record. Why did he destroy neighbourhood policing, and why does he ignore fraud, which represents 40% of crime but gets virtually no policing resources?
Chris Philp
As I have said, the Metropolitan police have record numbers; they are up to 35,411. They have never in their history had more officers. Had the Mayor of London used all the funding available, they would have about 1,000 more, so perhaps that is a question the hon. Gentleman might like to take up with Sadiq Khan.
We want to see more action on antisocial behaviour; that is a fair comment. That is why we have launched the antisocial behaviour action plan. Fraud is another important area, and an updated fraud action plan will be delivered by the Home Secretary and the Minister for Security very shortly.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
I wholeheartedly welcome the Minister’s announcement about the extra 20,000 police officers. That will benefit the people of Broxtowe, which currently has a significant problem with antisocial behaviour in Beeston and Chilwell. Will he comment on the military service leavers pathway into policing course, first set up in Nottinghamshire by the police and crime commissioner and chief constable, so that ex-military personnel, with similar values to police officers of sense of duty, teamwork and public service, will increase those numbers still?
Chris Philp
I congratulate the excellent police and crime commissioner in Nottinghamshire, Caroline Henry, who beat the police uplift target, delivering an extra 418 officers instead of the target of 357. If only Sadiq Khan had done the same in London.
I strongly commend the programme that has been pioneered in Nottinghamshire to get people leaving the military to come into policing. Just yesterday evening I was discussing with colleagues at the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the Home Office getting that model rolled out across the whole country, which we should urgently work on doing.
Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)
The announcement rings hollow for our constituents and serving police officers alike. I recently met with police officers at Honiton police station and it was plain that they receive way more priority calls than they have officers to deal with them. Earlier this month, we discovered that over 45,000 burglaries reported last year went unattended in England and Wales. Will the Minister get behind a Liberal Democrat Bill to create a statutory duty on police officers and police forces to attend and properly investigate every domestic burglary?
Chris Philp
I congratulate the excellent police and crime commissioner for Devon and Cornwall, Alison Hernandez, for delivering record officer numbers. There are 3,716 police officers in Devon and Cornwall, which is nearly 100 more than there were in March 2010.
In relation to domestic burglaries, I am afraid the Liberal Democrat party is a little behind the curve, because last autumn the Home Secretary launched an initiative to ensure every residential burglary got a police visit, which is something I am sure everyone in the House would support.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I and my constituents also welcome the uplift to over 3,500 officers in the Devon and Cornwall police area that the Minister just mentioned. I also welcome what the Minister said about investing in police forces. I draw the House’s attention to the fact that in the south-west we have five hard-working Conservative PCCs, who already have a voluntary vetting service between their five forces, so that is starting to work. Will the Minister meet with me and our excellent police and crime commissioner, Alison Hernandez, to talk about the summer funding that Cornwall and Devon so desperately need? We welcome more visitors to our area than any other part of the country, except London, and we need extra funding to help deal with the additional antisocial behaviour we see every year.
Chris Philp
I am aware of the financial and policing pressures that summer tourism creates in places such as Devon and Cornwall, the Lake district, Dorset and many other parts of the country. We plan to address that in the new police funding formula, which we intend to consult on. In the meantime, I would be delighted to meet with my hon. Friend and the fantastic police and crime commissioner for Devon and Cornwall, Alison Hernandez.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Mr Speaker. One of the unintended consequences of the programme is that police forces have to reduce backroom police staff because of the financial penalties they receive if they do not increase officer numbers, leaving police officers undertaking non-public-facing roles. As 50% of funding for Dyfed-Powys police now comes from the police precept, should the police and crime commissioner and the chief constable not have a greater role in determining the force’s optimal workforce mix? For how long will the Home Office maintain those financial penalties?
Chris Philp
Chief constables and police and crime commissioners are able to decide how to spend their budget and whether they spend it on physical equipment, buildings, police staff or police community support officers. They have operational independence, so they can make those decisions. I am pleased to say that every single one of Wales’s four police forces—North Wales, South Wales, Dyfed–Powys and Gwent police—have record officer numbers, and more officers than they had in 2010, under the last Labour Government.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
I congratulate the Minister on the recruitment of 207 extra police officers in north Wales. Would he agree with me that that is vital in combating antisocial behaviour in parts of my constituency of Clwyd South? Will he comment on the work he is doing to streamline paperwork, which takes up far too much police time?
Chris Philp
Yes, I certainly agree. North Wales police has 105 extra officers compared with March 2010. We expect them to be catching criminals. I agree with my hon. Friend that we want to minimise the bureaucratic burdens on policing. We recently changed Home Office accounting laws to reduce some of the bureaucratic burdens. We are working with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that people who are suffering mental health episodes that do not pose a threat to themselves or the public, and where no criminality is involved, are dealt with properly by the health service rather than by the police, so I completely agree with his point.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his statement. The positivity in relation to recruitment is to be welcomed. It is great to hear about England and Wales hitting the pledge of 20,000 new police officers. In Northern Ireland, we have a different situation whereby our terrorism threat level has been increased and our police officers are at risk of violence, with Detective John Caldwell having been brutally shot. What discussions has the Minister had with the Police Service of Northern Ireland about meeting the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland national pledge to keep our police officers safe while on duty?
Chris Philp
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about police officer safety. Of course, that concerns all of us, across the whole United Kingdom, but officers in Northern Ireland face unusually elevated risks, as we saw with the tragic shooting just a few weeks ago. I am sure the whole House wishes the victim of that terrible attack a speedy recovery.
We have dialogue with the PSNI on a number of issues, including officer safety. I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that those discussions continue. I know he will be working closely with the Northern Ireland Office to ensure that the PSNI has the resources it needs to keep his constituents and the people of Northern Ireland safe.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Before I came to this House, I was a criminal defence solicitor for 17 years. Many of the inefficiencies in the criminal justice system are related to Labour’s disastrous decision to move charging from the police to the Crown Prosecution Service, which has led to endless paperwork, form filling and inefficiencies. To assist the new recruits in tackling crime, cutting bureaucracy and doing the best job they can on behalf of all our constituents, will my right hon. Friend return full charging powers to the police?
Chris Philp
We have regular discussions about this topic with the Attorney General’s Office and with the Director of Public Prosecutions, Max Hill. Some police officers feel that they would benefit from taking more charging decisions; some feel that DG6, the sixth edition of the director’s guidance, could be improved; some are concerned about the burdens that redaction places on police officers. Those are all matters that we are discussing actively with the Crown Prosecution Service. I would welcome a meeting with my hon. Friend to discuss in more detail how we can remove and reduce the bureaucratic burdens.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s remarkable achievement of a record number of police officers across England and Wales. In Sussex, the Government’s uplift since 2019 has resulted in an extra 429 police officers. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the Sussex police and crime commissioner, Katy Bourne? After 10 years of remarkable service, she has achieved an additional 250 police officers in Sussex, who have been recruited through a local initiative on top of the Government’s uplift.
Chris Philp
I thank my hon. Friend for his campaigning work for the police and the public in Sussex. Katy Bourne, the police and crime commissioner, does a fantastic job. I have met her many times to discuss policing in Sussex; indeed, I visited Brighton with her just a few months ago. She has done a great job of recruiting extra officers locally. More than that, she has exceeded her police uplift target, delivering 439 extra officers in Sussex—10 more than the target of 429. I send huge congratulations to Katy Bourne and her whole team.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
I welcome today’s statement. Not only have the Government fulfilled their manifesto pledge of an extra 20,000 police officers since 2019, but the national police force has increased by 3,542 officers from 2010 levels. Does the Minister share my frustration that at every single opportunity the Labour party has voted against measures to bring in the tougher sentences that I am sure police officers want implemented, particularly for violent and sexual offenders?
Chris Philp
I concur entirely with my hon. Friend’s remarks about police officer numbers. It is striking that the Labour party has consistently voted against measures to toughen up sentencing. The vote that most shocked me was the vote by Labour members of the Public Bill Committee on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill against the specific clause that would have kept rapists and child sex offenders in prison for more of their sentence. I was frankly horrified by that.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
I welcome the 201 extra police officers we will have had in Suffolk since 2019. However, Josh, who runs Essential Vintage in Ipswich, which he set up over a year ago, has closed his doors. In the past two or three months, he has had 600 or 700 quid’s worth of items stolen from the shop, and he has closed his doors because he has had enough. Does the Minister agree that Suffolk police have a responsibility to look at the footage that Josh has shared with them—it is clear footage; I have looked at it—and to investigate it properly and punish those who are found guilty? Thieving is debilitating for a town centre and debilitating for local businesses. I welcome what the Minister says, but does he agree with me about those key points?
Chris Philp
Yes, I do. Suffolk has about 150 more officers than in March 2010 under the last Labour Government, and it is important that those officers are used to investigate crimes such as shoplifting. I completely agree with my hon. Friend: where a crime is reported and there is a reasonable line of inquiry or actionable evidence to pursue, I expect the police to follow it up and investigate it in all cases, in exactly the way he sets out.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
I welcome the news that there are already 267 more police on Cleveland’s streets. Some years ago, our then Labour PCC closed our community police base in Elm Tree, but since then I have been working with local Conservative councillors, with our new Conservative police and crime commissioner, with police and with stakeholders to secure a new community police base in a shared space on Bishopton Road. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such a base in the community will allow the police to be more visible and spend more time in Fairfield, Bishopsgarth and Elm Tree, Grangefield and Hartburn?
Chris Philp
That sounds like an excellent initiative to ensure that police are based in local communities. I strongly commend my hon. Friend and the local police and crime commissioner for their work to make it happen. I urge all hon. Members to be on the lookout for opportunities to base police in local communities: for example, in my community in Croydon, south London, we now have police based at Purley fire station to get them closer to the local community. Any Member of Parliament on either side of the House can be on the lookout for such opportunities to ensure that police are based as close as possible to the communities they serve.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am afraid I am an echo. Under the leadership of Conservative police and crime commissioner Katy Bourne and Chief Constable Jo Shiner—both wonderful women—Sussex police have increased the number of police officers by 429 through the national uplift programme and 250 through the local precept, beating the Government’s uplift targets and helping to reduce crime in Hastings and Rye. May I join the Minister in congratulating them both?
Chris Philp
That is a good note on which to end. Yes, police and crime commissioner Katy Bourne and Chief Constable Jo Shiner, both of whom I have met, have done a fantastic job in Sussex of protecting the public and beating crime, which is something I hope the entire House can get behind.
Scrutiny of the Illegal Migration Bill
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Speaker
I call the Scottish National party leader to make an application for leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration under the terms of Standing Order No. 24. He has three minutes to make his application; I remind hon. Members that there can be no interventions.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I seek leave to propose that the House debate a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration: namely, scrutiny of the Illegal Migration Bill.
Is it not astonishing that when this House voted to inflict the economic damage of Brexit upon this United Kingdom, it did so on the premise of taking back control? Where is taking back control when it comes to the Illegal Migration Bill? More than 300 amendments and approximately 30 new clauses were tabled in Committee, and democratically elected Members of this House were given just 12 hours to consider them. Today, there are 189 amendments and in excess of 20 new clauses, and democratically elected Members of this House will have less than six hours to scrutinise the legislation in front of us.
It gets worse. In relation to the Home Affairs Committee, there was no pre-legislative scrutiny whatever. The report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights will not be published in time for this afternoon’s sitting, and of course the Home Secretary opted not to give evidence to that Committee. What was she running scared of?
Right across the board, this Government have sought to railroad this deplorable, disgusting Bill through the House of Commons. Why is that important? Because it does not just affect adults and children; it affects asylum seekers, refugees and those who have been the victim of trafficking. It is quite clear that the Bill in its current form would breach the UN convention on refugees, and there are significant concerns across the House and in wider civil society about its ability to align with the European convention on human rights. That should concern everyone in this House and everyone across the UK, not just because of the legal impact, but because of the reputational damage that this UK Government in Westminster are seeking to do. They are seeking to do the unforgivable: to impose their draconian, dreadful views on some of the most vulnerable people in society.
We will continue to oppose this Bill in every way, shape and form we can. I am no fan of the other place, but I sincerely hope that it will be able to grow a backbone and throw the Bill out in its entirety.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member has asked leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely scrutiny of the Illegal Migration Bill. I have listened carefully to the application from the hon. Member, and I am not persuaded that this matter is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 24.
The Standing Order precludes me from giving reasons for my decision to the House, but I do wish to make it clear that I found merits in the application. I sympathise with Members who are trying to scrutinise a very large number of amendments to an already densely drafted Bill, and I wish to make it clear to the Government and to the House that my decision on any future such application regarding the way in which the Government invite the House to legislate might well be different.
Points of Order
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have notified the Immigration Minister of this point of order and, in fact, we have just had a conversation about it, so he knows very well what point I am about to raise.
On 19 December, the Immigration Minister told the House that the backlog of asylum cases
“was 450,000 when the last Labour Government handed over to us.”——[Official Report, 19 December 2022; Vol. 725, c. 8.]
However, the UK Statistics Authority has written to both the Minister and the Prime Minister to say that that is not true, and that they should correct the record.
I have been trying to get to the bottom of this ever since, so I have written two letters to the Minister and tabled two parliamentary questions. To be fair to the Minister, he has responded remarkably quickly. In the first parliamentary question, I asked
“how many asylum applications were awaiting processing in (a) June 2010 and (b) December 2022.”
The Minister replied not with a direct answer, but with a reference to a lengthy dataset. It did include a figure for December 2022—166,261—but did not include one for 2010. I therefore tabled another question, asking
“how many asylum applications were awaiting processing in June 2010”,
which was when the Labour Government handed over to the Conservatives. Again, the Minister replied not with a direct answer but with a reference to the same dataset, which provides 543 separate lines listing asylum backlogs from different countries in 2010. Fortunately, I got an A in O-level maths, so I added up the backlogs in the 543 lines, and the total came to 18,954, so that would be the correct figure for 2010, not 450,000, as the Minister had said.
Earlier this year, Madam Deputy Speaker, you yourself ruled that when Ministers reply, not only should they do so swiftly and fully but, ideally, their answers should be free-standing. The Minister’s answers in this instance were not free-standing, and I had to do my own maths on his behalf. Can you confirm, therefore, that Ministers should not attempt to obfuscate in their responses, but should answer the question as directly as possible? I know the Minister would want to make sure that the House has the most accurate information possible.
Can you also explain to the Minister, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to any other Ministers who might be interested, that there is a formal process whereby Ministers—not Back Benchers; only Ministers—can correct the record? That would mean correcting the original statement in Hansard. Will you explain what that process is, Madam Deputy Speaker, and will the Minister now finally admit that the figure for June 2010 was not 450,000, as he said, but 18,954?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order. He has given me a lot of tasks to undertake.
As the hon. Gentleman will know, Ministers, rather than the Chair, are responsible for answers. However, I would of course always expect Ministers to provide answers that are as informative and helpful as possible, and I know that Mr Speaker would also expect Ministers to correct the record if an error is made in an answer. The Minister is here, and he will have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said. He may wish to take it away, or he may wish to respond immediately.
Madam Deputy Speaker
If the Minister does not wish to respond, I should just add that the Procedure Committee reviews the performance of Departments in providing answers, so the hon. Gentleman may wish to make his views clear to that Committee.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Ah! I believe the Minister wishes to respond.
Robert Jenrick
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I have always taken my responsibilities to the House seriously, and I continue to do so. He and I have corresponded on this issue, but he may not have seen the letter that I wrote to him yesterday.
Robert Jenrick
The hon. Gentleman indicates that he has read the letter. I am happy to read out a portion of it for your benefit, Madam Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, and perhaps, with the hon. Gentleman’s consent, I may put a copy in the Library of the House, which is what I did with my previous letter to him.
In the letter, I wrote:
“I clarified my remarks on the floor of the House in the debate on Illegal Migration Bill on 27 March and”—
in the letter that I had sent to the hon. Gentleman and placed in the Library—
“I expanded on that clarification in writing”.
The point that I was trying to make in the debate, which I appreciate is different from what the hon. Gentleman believes, is this. As I said in my letter,
“With regards to the backlog of 450,000 asylum cases—this is the assessment of the then-independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, as reported by the BBC and the Guardian. Iusb therefore believe it is a perfectly legitimate figure to quote, as then-Home Secretary John Reid did in the House of Commons on 19 July 2006.”
I hope that that clarifies the matter and corrects the record to your satisfaction, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the Minister for responding at the Dispatch Box. It is obviously not for me to rule on different interpretations of statistics—
Madam Deputy Speaker
No, I will not, but I am sure that this debate will continue elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman may well wish to respond to the Minister’s letter, but I think at this point we should leave it at that.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On 27 March, the Home Affairs Committee invited Andrew Patrick, the UK migration and modern slavery envoy, to give oral evidence to our inquiry into human trafficking on Wednesday 26 April. The Foreign Office told us on 18 April that Ministers had declined permission for Mr Patrick to give evidence, given
“the focus of the inquiry, and his remit”.
We wrote to the Foreign Secretary immediately, pointing out that civil servants should be made available to Committees as requested. Although we were told yesterday that Mr Patrick’s role
“complements the work of the Home Office and is focused on the global and regional mechanisms to tackle modern slavery”,
the Foreign Secretary again declined our request. What action would you advise we take in relation to this discourtesy to the Committee, which was trying to carry out its duties to scrutinise properly the work of the Home Office and the modern slavery envoy?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for giving me notice of her point of order. Mr Speaker has said repeatedly that it is important that Committees are able to take evidence from the witnesses whom they believe to be essential to their inquiries. Ministers will have heard the point of order from the right hon. Lady, who chairs the Home Affairs Committee, and the Whip appears to be making a note of it right now. I am sure that Mr Speaker would encourage Ministers to reconsider their position on this issue.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In recent days a Russian vessel, the Admiral Vladimirsky, has been cruising off the coast of my constituency. It is not a trawler; it is not a pleasure boat; it is a spy ship, complete with armed guards. It has been snooping around the Beatrice oil field and examining the interconnector to my constituency, and it has been snooping around the oil installations and pipelines in the North sea. We all know what happened in recent times in the Baltic with the gas pipeline. I do not take kindly to this happening. I regard it as an important security issue that affects the United Kingdom and our energy security. What advice can you give me, Madam Deputy Speaker, on getting the Secretary of State for Defence to come to this place and make a statement, in view of this urgent situation?
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of this House, and I am sure he knows that there are routes by which he can request that a statement be made. I have to tell him that at this point we have had no notice of a statement, but his comments will have been heard and I am sure they will be fed back to the Secretary of State.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am afraid that I could not give you notice of this point of order because it follows the SNP’s Standing Order No. 24 application. It seems to me that the reason today’s debate on the Illegal Migration Bill finishes at the moment of interruption is that there was a programme motion. When I first came into the House, I routinely voted against programme motions. It seems to me to be a good thing that we debate things at length, and I would have been quite happy to sit through the night debating this issue. So unless I am mistaken, the problem is that these wretched programme motions keep getting tabled and the House keeps voting for them. Is that correct?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He is correct to say that there was a programme motion, and I believe that the SNP voted against it. However, the programme motion was passed. He was a Deputy Leader of the House, I understand. Yes, I recall very well his time as Deputy Leader of the House. He might want to make his points to the Procedure Committee, which might well look at them, especially in the light of his time as Deputy Leader of the House, when he might have tabled some programme motions himself—I am not sure.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman assures me that he did not do that, so there is perhaps even more reason for him to make his representations to the Procedure Committee.
Robert Jenrick
I am indeed going to correct the record in one respect. My officials have helpfully told me that in regard to the written parliamentary question tabled by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant), the Home Office did indeed provide the data requested. It is included in the table, the link to which was provided. I am told that there were instructions in the notes tab on how to use the filters appropriately. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman got an A in his O-level maths, but perhaps he did not take ICT at that time.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the Minister for that further point of order, which I think indicates why it is important for me not to get involved in interpreting statistics. We probably should not prolong the debate any further at this point, so we will move on to the ten-minute rule motion from Helen Morgan.
Carers and Care Workers
Wednesday 26th April 2023
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Carers and Care Workers Bill 2022-23 View all Carers and Care Workers Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish and implement a Care Workers Employment Strategy, with the aim of improving the recruitment and retention of care workers; to establish an independent National Care Workers Council with responsibility for setting professional standards for care workers, for establishing a system of professional qualifications and accreditation for care workers, and for advising the Government on those matters; to require the Secretary of State to commission an independent assessment of the support available to unpaid carers, including financial support and employment rights; and for connected purposes.
All of us will have had experience of the importance of care, whether we have had to care for a loved one ourselves or whether outside care has been provided to a relative or friend. I am sure that colleagues on both sides of the House will agree that caring is not only a skilled job but one in which compassion, respect, friendship and companionship are also hugely important. Before I dive into the detail of the Bill, I want to provide a small example of how important those elements can be.
Recently I was speaking to residents in North Shropshire and I came to a bungalow whose door was answered by a care worker. She explained that the lady who lived there was having her lunch but that she would help her to fill in my survey about local issues. A few minutes later I turned to see the care worker running up the street after me. “Joan would love to see you herself,” she said. I gladly went back to talk to Joan, who did not get many visitors and was grateful for the interaction. There was no need for that care worker to have literally gone the extra mile when she was doubtless under time pressure to get to the next resident, but it made all the difference to Joan’s day. Care is hugely important to the most vulnerable individuals in our society, yet there is consensus that the care sector is in need of urgent attention.
The Government have promised to sort out social care on numerous occasions, but we have seen little in the way of a coherent strategy to tackle the multiple issues faced by the sector. At the top of the list of issues is the workforce shortage. In only the last few years, the number of vacancies has skyrocketed to 165,000. Not only is this a vast number but the situation is getting worse. More than one in 10 posts are now empty, with the vacancy rate having risen from 7% to 10.7% between 2021 and 2022. Furthermore, the Health and Social Care Committee anticipates that a further 490,000 care workers will be needed by the early part of the next decade. To make matters worse, the Care Quality Commission has reported that over 87% of care providers responding to its latest “State of Care” report in 2022 said that they were experiencing recruitment challenges.
This workforce shortage is one of the factors driving the crisis engulfing A&E departments and ambulance services. The inability of hospitals to discharge patients into care, whether at home or in a care home, is preventing the critically ill from being admitted to hospital or handed over from their ambulance, with truly disastrous consequences for those in immediate and urgent need. But the Government have still not brought forward their NHS workforce plan and there is little chance that it will include details for the care workforce, despite the sector being critical to the healthy functioning of the NHS. On three occasions during the passage of the Health and Care Act 2022 the Government voted against amendments that would have required the Secretary of State to publish independently verified assessments of current and future workforce numbers every two years. They have not even engaged with the scale of the problem.
A care workers employment strategy should be the top priority of the Government—and not just any strategy but a workable one that is fit for the future and can be appropriately adapted as circumstances change, not just press-released and shelved with little impact. That means it has to identify where and why shortages exist as well as the areas of greatest need, and how to resolve those shortages. It needs to identify the causes of poor retention and slow recruitment, and it needs to be brave enough to tackle the importance of pay in a sector that is currently fishing in the same pool as retail and hospitality for new recruits. Caring is a skilled job and it should be paid appropriately. That is why the Liberal Democrats have suggested the introduction of a carers’ minimum wage. By increasing the minimum wage by £2 for care workers and introducing a care workers employment strategy, we can take a bold and realistic step to deal with the chronic staffing shortages that we face.
My Bill goes on to recommend the implementation of an independent national care workers council, free from political interference, which would establish not only minimum professional standards of care throughout the country but a system for the professional qualification and accreditation of care workers. This would provide public recognition of the importance of the care worker’s role and provide career development as skill and experience increases. I hope that by advising on minimum professional standards and the training needed to achieve them, such a council would provide the leadership needed to improve the varying standards of care we see across the country.
Back in the autumn of 2022, I observed a 12-hour ambulance shift with a crew in Shropshire, and I was struck by the variation in the circumstances of the patients we visited. One elderly gentleman was able to remain at home despite having been struck by covid. The ambulance crew were confident that his needs would be taken care of and that the carer would ring back if his condition deteriorated. However, a second gentleman’s carers had done everything required of them and taken the time to call an ambulance because he was poorly, but they were so short of time that they were unable to stay. This immense time pressure on care workers, and the fact that they are often not paid for driving between clients, means that some residents are living poorer quality lives than they otherwise might. Minimum professional standards would help to alleviate the time pressures on carers. It would also reduce the burnout and frustration that care workers must feel when they are forced to rush through their work faster than they would like.
It is also important to recognise that care is not a one-size-fits-all profession and that different skills and experience can have huge value in the sector. Recently I met the chief executive officer of a not-for-profit organisation providing care for adults with learning disabilities. The care workers in that organisation often provide lifelong care to individuals with high levels of need, and their excellent skills are in ever-decreasing supply. Reward and recognition for the people who provide this care are critical to ensuring that such organisations can continue to provide their unique service.
I cannot express enough the importance of dealing with the crisis in the care sector. The Care Quality Commission’s report shows that more than a quarter of care homes reporting workforce pressures say that they are no longer actively admitting new residents. Local care providers in my constituency have indicated that cost and retention pressures could force them to hand back care packages to the council, which would then have to find alternatives in an emergency. This would be costly, inefficient and have the potential to compromise the quality of care provided. As our population ages, this is an unacceptable state. A strategy is needed to resolve it right now.
The army of unpaid carers often slip under the radar. These people have often had to scale back or give up their paid employment, in many cases because there is not another available or affordable service. High-quality care is valuable, and unpaid carers contribute a huge amount to the economy, which is unrecognised. Carers UK’s latest estimate is that carers save the economy nearly £193 billion a year, which is a huge amount that should not go unrecognised.
My Bill would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent assessment of the support available to all unpaid carers, including financial support, as well as the employment rights needed to enable them to care. It is essential that the Government receive the best possible information and advice to ensure that those who care in our society are not forced to suffer themselves, and an independent assessment would provide this.
It is essential to remember why this matters. At the heart of the care system are people in need of assistance. Whether they are elderly, in poor health or have lifelong disabilities, those requiring care should have the right to live in dignity, knowing that their needs will be met sensitively, either by a loved one or by a caring professional. We can no longer ignore the crisis engulfing the care sector and the impact that a shortage of care workers and well-supported unpaid carers will have on those most in need.
As our care needs increase by the year, we must act now to ensure that we continue to be able to provide the high-quality care that everyone in our society deserves.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Helen Morgan, Ed Davey, Tim Farron, Sarah Olney, Sarah Green, Wera Hobhouse, Richard Foord, Layla Moran, Daisy Cooper, Jamie Stone, Christine Jardine and Munira Wilson present the Bill.
Helen Morgan accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November, and to be printed (Bill 298).
Illegal Migration Bill
Wednesday 26th April 2023
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Illegal Migration Act 2023 View all Illegal Migration Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 26 April 2023 - large print - (26 Apr 2023)
18:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 233 / Noes: 285 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:17 - The House divided: - Ayes: 231 / Noes: 290 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:29 - The House divided: - Ayes: 219 / Noes: 284 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:42 - The House divided: - Ayes: 231 / Noes: 290 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:55 - The House divided: - Ayes: 231 / Noes: 286 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:10 - The House divided: - Ayes: 289 / Noes: 230 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 19—Credibility of claimant: concealment of information etc.
Government new clause 20—Legal aid.
Government new clause 23—Electronic devices etc.
Government new clause 24—Decisions relating to a person’s age.
Government new clause 25—Age assessments: power to make provision about refusal to consent to scientific methods.
Government new clause 26—Interim measures of the European Court of Human Rights.
Government new clause 22—Interim remedies.
Government new clause 8—Report on safe and legal routes.
New clause 1—Detainees: permission to work after six months—
“(1) Within six months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act the Secretary of State must make regulations providing that persons detained under this Act may apply to the Secretary of State for permission to take up employment, including self-employment and voluntary work.
(2) Permission to take up employment under regulations made under subsection (1)—
(a) must be granted if the applicant has been detained for a period of six months or more, and
(b) shall be on terms no less favourable than those upon which permission is granted to a person recognised as a refugee to take up employment.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations within 6 months of the passing of the Act allowing those detained under measures in the Act to request permission to work after 6 months.
New clause 2—Arrangements for removal: pregnancy—
“The duty in section 2(1) and the power in section 3(2) do not apply in relation to a person who the Secretary of State is satisfied is pregnant.”
This new clause would exempt pregnant women and girls from the provisions about removals.
New clause 3—Effect of this Act on pregnant migrants: independent review—
“(1) The Secretary of State must commission an independent review of the effect of the provisions of this Act on pregnant migrants.
(2) The report of the review under this section must be laid before Parliament within 2 years of the date on which this Act is passed.”
New clause 4—Independent child trafficking guardian—
“(1) The Secretary of State must make such arrangements as the Secretary of State considers reasonable to enable an independent child trafficking guardian to be appointed to assist, support and represent a child to whom subsection (2) applies.
(2) This subsection applies to a child if a relevant authority determines that—
(a) there are reasonable grounds to believe that the child—
(i) is, or may be, a victim of the offence of human trafficking, or
(ii) is vulnerable to becoming a victim of that offence, and
(b) no person in the United Kingdom is a person with parental rights or responsibilities in relation to the child.”
Based on a Home Affairs Select Committee recommendation (1st Report: Channel crossings, migration and asylum, HC 199, 18 July 2022), this amendment would establish an Independent Child Trafficking Guardian to support every asylum seeker under the age of 18 in their interactions with immigration and asylum processes.
New clause 5—Immigration rules since December 2020: human rights of migrants—
“(1) Regulations bringing any provisions of this Act into force may not be made before publication of a report under subsection (2).
(2) The Secretary of State must commission and lay before Parliament an independent report on the effects of the immigration rules on the human rights of migrants since December 2020.
(3) The report under subsection (2) must include, but is not limited to, an analysis of the following areas—
(a) safe and legal routes,
(b) relocation of asylum seekers,
(c) detention,
(d) electronic tagging,
(e) legal aid, accommodation, and subsistence,
(f) the right to work, and
(g) modern slavery.”
New clause 6—Effect of this Act on victims of modern slavery: independent review—
“(1) The Secretary of State must commission an independent review of the effect of the provisions of this Act on victims of modern slavery.
(2) The report of the review under this section must be laid before Parliament within 2 years of the date on which this Act is passed.”
New clause 7—Effect of this Act on the health of migrants: independent review—
“(1) The Secretary of State must commission an independent review of the effect of the provisions of this Act on the physical and mental health of migrants.
(2) The report of the review under this section must be laid before Parliament within 2 years of the date on which this Act is passed.”
New clause 9—Accommodation: duty to consult—
“(1) Section 97 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (supplemental) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (3A) insert—
‘(3B) When making arrangements for the provision of accommodation under section 95 or section 4 of this Act, the Secretary of State must consult with representatives of the local authority or local authorities, for the area in which the accommodation is located.
(3C) The duty to consult in subsection (3B) applies to accommodation including hotel accommodation, military sites, and sea vessels.
(3D) The duty to consult in subsection (3B) also applies to any third party provider operating within the terms of a contract with the Secretary of State.’”
This new clause would add to the current law on provision of accommodation to asylum seekers a requirement to consult with the relevant local authorities when making the necessary arrangements.
New clause 10—Expedited asylum processing—
“(1) Within 60 days of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State must issue regulations establishing an expedited asylum process for applicants from specified countries who have arrived in the UK without permission.
(2) Within this section, “specified countries” are defined as those countries or territories to which a person may be removed under the Schedule to this Act.”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to establish a process to fast-track asylum claims from specified countries.
New clause 11—Accommodation: value for money—
“(1) Within 90 days of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament—
(a) all procurement and contractual documents connected with the provision of asylum accommodation and support provided by third-party suppliers under sections 4 and 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999;
(b) an updated value for money assessment for all asylum accommodation and support contracts currently in force.
(2) Any redactions to the documents provided under subsection (1) should only relate to material that is commercially sensitive.”
This new clause seeks to require the publication of key documents relating to asylum accommodation and support contracts held by private companies.
New clause 12—Border security checks—
“(1) The Secretary of State must appoint a named individual to conduct an investigation into the effectiveness of security checks undertaken at the UK border for the purposes of enforcing the provisions of this Act.
(2) This individual may be—
(a) the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, or
(b) another individual nominated by the Secretary of State.
(3) The first investigation conducted under this section must be completed one year after the date on which this Act is passed, with subsequent investigations completed every year thereafter.
(4) Findings of investigations conducted under this section must be published within three months of completion of the investigation.”
This new clause seeks to require an annual investigation into the effectiveness of security checks undertaken at the UK border for the purposes of enforcing the provisions of this Act.
New clause 13—Asylum backlog: reporting requirements—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the date on which this Bill was published, and at intervals of once every three months thereafter, publish and lay before Parliament a report on the steps taken and progress made toward clearing the backlog of outstanding asylum claims, within the preceding three-month period.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, “the backlog of outstanding asylum claims” means the total number of asylum applications on which an initial decision had not yet been made as of 13 December 2022.
(3) In preparing the reports required by subsection (1) above, ‘progress toward clearing the backlog of outstanding asylum claims’ may be measured with reference to—
(a) the number and proportion of applications on which an initial decision is made within six months of the submission of the application;
(b) changes to guidance for asylum caseworkers on fast-track procedures for straightforward applications;
(c) measures to improve levels of recruitment and retention of specialist asylum caseworking staff; and
(d) any other measures which the Secretary of State may see fit to refer to in the reports.”
This new clause would require regular reports from the Secretary of State on progress toward eliminating the asylum backlog.
New clause 14—Safe and legal routes: family reunion for children—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the date on which this Act enters into force, lay before Parliament a statement of changes in the rules (the “immigration rules”) undersection 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 (general provision for regulation and control) to make provision for the admission of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children from European Union member states to the United Kingdom for the purposes of family reunion.
(2) The rules must, as far as is practicable, include provisions in line with the rules formerly in force in the United Kingdom under the Dublin III Regulation relating to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.”
This new clause seeks to add a requirement for the Secretary of State to provide safe and legal routes for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children with close family members in the UK, in line with rules previously observed by the UK as part of the Dublin system.
New clause 15—Border security: terrorism—
“(1) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for the removal of a person from the United Kingdom if the following conditions are met—
(a) the person meets the first condition in section 2 of this Act; and
(b) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person has been involved in terrorism-related activity, as defined by section 4 of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011.
(2) If the Secretary of State cannot proceed with removal due to legal proceedings, they must consider the imposition of terrorism prevention and investigation measures in accordance with the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report before this House on activity under this section every 90 days.”
This new clause places on the Secretary of State a duty to remove suspected terrorists who have entered the country illegally, or consider the imposition of TPIMs for such individuals where removal is not possible.
New clause 16—International pilot cooperation agreement: asylum and removals—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of this Act coming into force, publish and lay before Parliament a framework for a 12-month pilot cooperation agreement with the governments of neighbouring countries, EU Member States and relevant international organisations on—
(a) the removal from the United Kingdom of persons who have made protection claims declared inadmissible by the Secretary of State;
(b) the prosecution and conviction of persons involved in facilitating illegal entry to the United Kingdom from neighbouring countries, including with regards to data-sharing; and
(c) establishing capped controlled and managed safe and legal routes, including—
(i) family reunion for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children with close family members settled in the United Kingdom; and
(ii) other resettlement schemes.
(2) In subsection (1)—
(a) “neighbouring countries” means countries which share a maritime border with the United Kingdom;
(b) “relevant international organisations” means—
(i) Europol;
(ii) Interpol;
(iii) Frontex;
(iv) the European Union; and
(v) any other organisation which the Secretary of State may see fit to consult with.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament a framework for a new pilot co-operation agreement with the governments of neighbouring countries and relevant international organisations on asylum and removals.
New clause 18—Suspensive claims and related appeals: legal aid and legal advice—
“(1) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for legal aid to be available for the making of suspensive claims and related appeals under this Act.
(2) The Secretary of State must make arrangements to ensure that legal advice is available to support persons making suspensive claims under this Act.”
This new clause seeks to ensure legal aid and legal advice are available to persons for making suspensive claims and related appeals.
New clause 21—Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme: reporting requirements—
The Secretary of State must, no later than 7 June 2023 and at intervals of once every three months thereafter, publish and lay before Parliament a report on the operation of the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme safe and legal route to the United Kingdom and on progress towards the Scheme’s resettlement targets for Afghan citizens.”
This new clause would require reports from the Secretary of State for each quarter since the publication of this Bill on the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme, including Pathways 2 and 3.
Amendment 44, in clause 1, page 2, line 14, leave out subsection (3).
This amendment and Amendment 45 would require the courts to interpret the Act, so far as possible, in accordance with the UK’s international obligations contained in several international treaties.
Government amendments 111 to 113, and 77.
Amendment 45, page 2, line 28, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
“(5) So far as it is possible to do so, provision made by or by virtue of this Act must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with—
(a) the Convention rights,
(b) the Refugee Convention,
(c) the European Convention on Action Against Trafficking,
(d) the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and
(e) the UN Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons.”
This amendment and Amendment 44 would require the courts to interpret the Act, so far as possible, in accordance with the UK’s international obligations contained in several international treaties.
Amendment 46, page 2, line 31, leave out clause 2.
Government amendment 89.
Amendment 17, in clause 2, page 3, line 9, at end insert “, and—
(a) was aged 18 years or older on the date on which they entered or arrived in the United Kingdom, and
(b) is not—
(i) part of the immediate family of,
(ii) a family member as defined by section 8(2) of this Act of, or
(iii) a person who otherwise had care of,
an individual who was under the age of 18 on the date on which they entered or arrived in the United Kingdom where that individual is physically present in the United Kingdom.”
This amendment would exempt children and, where they are accompanied, their immediate families from removal duty contained in clause 2 and other related duties or powers, ensuring the existing safeguarding regime in relation to these children is retained.
Amendment 47, page 3, line 38, at end insert—
“(10A) The duty under subsection (1) does not apply in relation to—
(a) a person who was under the age of 18 when they arrived in the UK;
(b) a person (“A”) who is an Afghan national where there is a real risk of persecution or serious harm to A if returned to that country;
(c) a person who is a refugee under the Refugee Convention or in need of humanitarian protection;
(d) a person (L) where there is a real risk of persecution or serious harm on grounds of sexual orientation if L were to be removed in accordance with this section;
(e) a person who, there are reasonable grounds to suspect, is a victim of torture;
(f) a Ukrainian citizen;
(g) a person who, there are reasonable grounds to suspect, is a victim of trafficking or modern slavery;
(h) a person who has family members in the United Kingdom;
(i) an person who meets the definition of an “adult at risk” in paragraph 7 of the Home Office Guidance on adults at risk in immigration detention (2016), including in particular people suffering from a condition, or who have experienced a traumatic event (such as trafficking, torture or sexual violence), that would be likely to render them particularly vulnerable to harm.”
This amendment would exempt certain persons from the Secretary of State’s duty to remove, including children, refugees, victims of modern slavery and other vulnerable people.
Government amendment 185.
Amendment 1, page 4, line 4, at end insert—
“(d) the person enters the United Kingdom from Ireland across the land border with Northern Ireland.”
This probing amendment would provide an exemption from the duty to remove for people who arrive in the UK from the Republic of Ireland via the land border with Northern Ireland.
Amendment 5, in clause 3, page 4, line 8, leave out
“at a time when the person is an unaccompanied child”
and insert
“where the person is an unaccompanied child or is a person who arrived in the United Kingdom as an unaccompanied child”.
This amendment seeks to remove the obligation on the Secretary of State to remove a person where the person has ceased to be an unaccompanied child.
Amendment 181, page 4, line 9, leave out subsections (2) to (4).
This amendment removes the power for the Secretary of State to remove an unaccompanied child before they turn 18.
Government amendments 174, 106 to 110, and 175.
Amendment 48, in clause 4, page 4, line 35, leave out paragraph (d).
This amendment would ensure the duty to remove under clause 2 did not apply “regardless” of a person making an application for judicial review in relation to their removal.
Amendment 49, page 5, line 2, leave out from “(2)” to end of line 2 and insert
“must be considered under the immigration rules if the person who made the claim has not been removed from the United Kingdom within a period of six months starting on the day the claim is deemed inadmissible.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consider protection and human rights claims if removal had not been completed within 6 months of the declaration of inadmissibility.
Amendment 184, page 5, line 8, after “if” insert—
“the Secretary of State considers that there are reasonable grounds for regarding the claimant as a danger to national security or a threat to public safety, or”.
This amendment would prevent a person who meets the four conditions for removal in clause 2 and who is considered a threat to national security or public safety from making a protection claim or human rights claim.
Government amendment 176.
Amendment 182, in clause 5, page 5, line 36, after “child” insert—
“and where a best interest and welfare assessment carried out in the three months prior to that person turning 18 concluded it was appropriate for them to be removed”.
This amendment would add an additional requirement that a best interest and welfare assessment would need to have been carried out before the duty to remove applies to someone who was previously an unaccompanied child.
Government amendment 177.
Amendment 132, in clause 7, page 8, line 24, at end insert—
“(1A) P may not be removed from the United Kingdom unless the Secretary of State or an immigration officer has given a notice in writing to P stating—
(a) that P meets the four conditions set out in section 2;
(b) that a safe and legal route to the United Kingdom from P’s country of origin existed which P could have followed but did not follow;
(c) that the safe and legal route specified in paragraph (b) has been approved by both Houses of Parliament in the previous 12 months as safe, legal and accessible to persons originating in the relevant country; and
(d) the number of successful applications for asylum in each of the previous five years by persons following the safe and legal route specified in paragraph (b).
(1B) Any determination by the Secretary of State to remove P from the United Kingdom based on information provided by the notice referred to in subsection (1A) may be subject to judicial review on the basis that the information was flawed, and the Secretary of State may not remove P from the United Kingdom while any such judicial review is ongoing.”
This amendment would prevent the Home Secretary removing a person from the United Kingdom unless and until the Secretary of State has confirmed that a safe and legal route existed but that the person nevertheless chose to follow an alternative route which resulted in them arriving in the United Kingdom without leave.
Government amendments 79 to 83.
Amendment 50, in clause 8, page 9, line 36, after “family” insert “who arrives with P and”.
This amendment would limit the power to issue removal directions to family members, to those family members who arrived with the person being removed.
Government amendments 90, 91 and 139.
Amendment 51, page 13, line 10, leave out clause 11.
Government amendments 140, 134, 141, 142 and 135.
Amendment 2, in clause 11, page 14, line 46, at end insert—
“(2H) Sub-paragraphs (2C) to (2G) above do not apply to any person who—
(a) entered the United Kingdom as an unaccompanied child;
(b) has at least one dependant child; or
(c) is a pregnant woman.”
This amendment would prevent an immigration officer’s detention powers from being used to detain unaccompanied children, families with dependant children or pregnant women.
Government amendments 143 to 145, 136, 146, 147, 137 and 148.
Amendment 3, page 17, line 15, leave out subsection (11) and insert—
“(11) Subsections (5) to (10) above do not apply to any person who—
(a) entered the United Kingdom as an unaccompanied child;
(b) has at least one dependant child; or
(c) is a pregnant woman.”
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State’s detention powers from being used to detain unaccompanied children, families with dependant children or pregnant women.
Amendment 52, page 17, line 18, leave out clause 12.
Government amendments 149, 86, 150, 87, 151 to 157, 85, 88, 84, and 158 to 160.
Amendment 53, page 22, line 30, leave out clause 15.
Amendment 183, in clause 15, page 22, line 39, at end insert—
“(5) Subject to subsections (6) to (8), an unaccompanied child may not be placed in, or once placed in, may not be kept in, accommodation provided or arranged under subsection (1) that has the purpose of restricting liberty (“secure accommodation”) unless it appears—
(a) that the child is likely to abscond from any other description of accommodation; and
(b) if they abscond, they are likely to suffer significant harm.
(6) A child may not be kept in secure accommodation for a period of more than 72 hours without the authority of the court.
(7) Subject to subsection (8), a court may authorise that a child may be kept in secure accommodation for a maximum period of 3 months.
(8) A court may from time to time authorise that a child may be kept in secure accommodation for a further period not exceeding six months at any one time.
(9) In this section, “significant harm” includes, but is not limited to, a high likelihood that the child will be at risk of trafficking or exploitation.”
This amendment would clarify the circumstances under which an unaccompanied child accommodated by the Home Office, rather than a local authority, can be accommodated in secure accommodation. It would require the child to be at risk of harm if they absconded, including at risk of being trafficked or exploited.
Amendment 7, page 23, line 1, leave out clause 16.
Government amendments 124 to 131.
Amendment 54, in clause 19, page 24, line 27, at end insert—
“(a) in the case of Wales, with the consent of Senedd Cymru,
(b) in the case of Scotland, with the consent of the Scottish Parliament, and
(c) in the case of Northern Ireland, the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly is only required if the Northern Ireland Executive has been formed.”
This amendment would ensure provisions in relation to unaccompanied migrant children could not be extended to devolved nations without the consent of the devolved legislatures, as appropriate.
Amendment 55, in clause 21, page 25, line 17, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
“grounds of public order prevent observation of the reflection and recovery period, or if it is found that victim status is being claimed improperly.”
This amendment seeks to align provisions in clause 21 relating to exclusion from trafficking protections (a reflection period and leave to remain) to those in article 13 of the European Convention on Action Against Trafficking.
Amendment 12, page 25, line 22, after “decision”” insert—
“, unless the decision relates to the person being a victim of sexual exploitation”.
Amendment 4, page 25, line 32, at end insert “either—
(aa) the relevant exploitation took place in the United Kingdom; or”
This amendment is intended to exempt people who have been unlawfully exploited in the UK from provisions which would otherwise require their removal during the statutory recovery period and prohibit them being granted limited leave to remain.
Amendment 16, page 26, line 2, at end insert—
“(3A) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply in relation to any person who is a national of a state which—
(a) has not ratified the relevant international legal agreements; or
(b) the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe may not be effectively enforcing its obligations under the relevant international legal agreements; or
(c) the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe may not be able or willing to prevent the person from becoming a victim of slavery and human trafficking upon their return to that country.
(3B) For the purposes of subsection (3A), “relevant international legal agreements” means—
(a) ILO Conventions 29 and 105 on Forced Labour;
(b) the European Convention on Human Rights;
(c) the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, Supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime;
(d) the Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking;
(e) any other relevant agreement to which the United Kingdom is a party.
(3C) In determining whether paragraphs (b) and (c) of subsection (3A) apply, the Secretary of State must consult with, and pay due regard to the views of, the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner.”
This amendment stipulates that the duty to remove victims of modern slavery does not apply to nationals of countries which have not ratified international agreements relating to human trafficking, or which the Secretary of State has reason to believe may not be effectively enforcing its obligations under those agreements.
Government amendment 95.
Amendment 56, page 26, line 25, leave out subsections (7) to (9).
This amendment seeks to protect those victims of trafficking and slavery granted leave to remain under s65(2) of the Nationality and Borders Act from the power of the Secretary of State to revoke that in certain circumstances.
Amendment 57, in clause 22, page 27, line 11, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c) and insert—
“grounds of public order prevent observation of the reflection and recovery period or if it is found that victim status is being claimed improperly.”
This amendment seeks to align provisions in clause 22 relating to provision of support to trafficking victims in England and Wales to those in article 13 of the European Convention on Action Against Trafficking.
Amendment 13, page 27, line 14, after “person” insert—
“, unless the decision relates to the person being a victim of sexual exploitation”.
Amendment 58, in clause 23, page 27, line 24, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
“grounds of public order prevent observation of the reflection and recovery period or if it is found that victim status is being claimed improperly.”
This amendment seeks to align provisions in clause 23 relating to provision of support to trafficking victims in Scotland to those in article 13 of the European Convention on Action Against Trafficking.
Amendment 14, page 27, line 28, at end insert—
“unless the person is a victim of sexual exploitation”.
Government amendment 96.
Amendment 59, in clause 24, page 29, line 6, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
“grounds of public order prevent observation of the reflection and recovery period or if it is found that victim status is being claimed improperly.”
This amendment seeks to align provisions in clause 24 relating to provision of support to trafficking victims in Northern Ireland to those in article 13 of the European Convention on Action Against Trafficking.
Amendment 15, page 29, line 11, at end insert—
“unless the person is a victim of sexual exploitation”.
Government amendments 97, 114 to 119, 161, 162, 104, 105, 122, 92 and 163.
Amendment 8, in clause 30, page 35, line 31, leave out “has ever met” and insert— “is aged 18 or over at the time of entry into the United Kingdom and meets”.
This amendment seeks to provide an exemption from the ban on obtaining citizenship for family members of people who are subject to the “duty to remove” if they were either born in the UK or arrived in the UK as a child.
Government amendments 164 to 166.
Amendment 62, in clause 31, page 36, line 31, leave out paragraphs (a) to (d).
This amendment and amendments 63 to 65 seek to remove provisions which would prevent persons accessing British citizenship.
Government amendment 167.
Amendment 63, page 37, line 3, leave out sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii).
This amendment and amendments 62, 64 and 65 seek to remove provisions which would prevent persons accessing British citizenship.
Government amendment 168.
Amendment 64, in clause 32, page 37, line 17, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b).
This amendment and amendments 62, 63 and 65 seek to remove provisions which would prevent persons accessing British citizenship.
Government amendment 169.
Amendment 65, page 37, line 29, leave out sub-paragraph (i).
This amendment and amendments 62 to 64 seek to remove provisions which would prevent persons accessing British citizenship.
Amendment 66, page 37, line 39, leave out clause 33.
Amendment 67, page 38, line 1, leave out clause 34.
Government amendments 123, 170, 171, and 33 to 35.
Amendment 68, in clause 37, page 40, line 8, leave out from “means” to the end of line 12 and insert “—
(a) a protection claim
(b) a human rights claim, or
(c) a claim to be a victim of slavery or a victim of human trafficking.”
This amendment seeks to ensure that consideration of protection claims, human rights claims and slavery and trafficking cases would suspend removal under clause 45.
Government amendments 172, 173, and 36 to 43.
Amendment 69, in clause 43, page 45, line 30, leave out subsection (7).
This amendment seeks to reinstate onward rights of appeal against a decision of the Upper Tribunal under this clause.
Amendment 70, in clause 44, page 46, line 22, leave out subsection (7).
This amendment seeks to reinstate onward rights of appeal against a decision of the Upper Tribunal under this clause.
Government amendments 18 to 32, and 186.
Amendment 71, in clause 52, page 53, line 11, leave out sub-paragraph (i).
This amendment would ensure rules on inadmissibility of certain asylum claims were not extended to human rights claims.
Amendment 72, page 53, leave out line 33.
Amendment 75, in clause 53, page 55, line 11, leave out from “must” to the end of subsection (1) and insert—
“within six months of this Act coming into force, secure a resolution from both Houses of Parliament on a target for the number of people entering the United Kingdom each year over the next three years using safe and legal routes, and further resolutions for future years no later than 18 months before the relevant years begin.”
This amendment seeks to enhance Parliament’s role in determining a target number of entrants using safe and legal routes.
Amendment 76, page 55, line 15, after “authorities” insert—
“(aa) the United Nations High Commission for Refugees,
(ab) the devolved governments,
(ac) the Home Affairs Select Committee of the House of Commons,”
The purpose of this amendment is to broaden the scope of consultees on setting the target for the number of entrants using safe and legal routes.
Government amendment 11.
Amendment 9, page 55, line 37, at end insert—
““persons” means only individuals aged 18 or over on the day of entry into the United Kingdom;”
This amendment would exclude children from the annual cap on number of entrants.
Government amendments 178, 98 to 100, 120, 187, 133, 179, 180, 93 and 94.
Amendment 10, in clause 59, page 58, line 27, at end insert—
“but see section (Immigration rules since December 2020: human rights of migrants).”
This amendment is consequential on NC5.
Government amendments 103, 138, 101, 102, 121 and 188.
Amendment 73, page 59, line 19, at end insert—
“(4A) Section 23 comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint, provided that the Scottish Parliament has indicated its consent to the section coming into force.”
This amendment would require Scottish Parliament consent before disapplication of its legislation making provision for support for modern slavery and trafficking victims in Scotland could come into force.
Amendment 74, page 59, line 19, at end insert—
“(4A) Section 24 comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint, provided that, if a Northern Ireland Executive has been formed, the Northern Ireland Assembly has previously indicated its consent to the section coming into force.”
This amendment would require Northern Ireland Assembly consent before disapplication of its legislation making provision for support for modern slavery and trafficking victims in Northern Ireland could come into force.
Government amendment 189.
Government new schedule 1—Electronic devices etc.
Government amendment 78.
Robert Jenrick
On behalf of the Home Office, I pay tribute to those Border Force officers who nobly volunteered to serve in Sudan this week, to support British nationals and others as they are processed and swiftly returned to the United Kingdom. The Home Secretary and I praise their professionalism and their sense of service and duty.
Before I address the key Government amendments, it is worth reminding the House of why the Government introduced this vital Bill. A sovereign state must have control of its borders. Quite properly, we have an immigration system that determines who can come to the UK lawfully, whether to visit, to study, to work or for other legitimate reasons. Our immigration and asylum system also makes generous provision in providing sanctuary for people seeking protection. Indeed, we have offered such protection, in different ways, to nearly half a million people since 2015.
But the people of this country are rightly frustrated if a self-selected group of individuals can circumvent those controls by paying people smugglers to ferry them across the channel on a small boat. Why would someone apply to come to this country for employment if they can instead arrive on a small boat, claim asylum and then, as one amendment suggests, acquire the right to work here after 12 months?
Illegal migration undermines the integrity of our immigration system. It puts unsustainable pressure on our housing, health, education and welfare services, and it undermines public confidence in our democratic processes and the rule of law. That is why we want to stop the boats and secure our borders, and this Bill is dedicated to that goal. It will send a clear message that people who enter the United Kingdom illegally will not be able to build a life here. Instead, they are liable to be detained, and they will be removed either back to their home country, if it is safe to do so, or to a safe third country, such as Rwanda.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Is the Minister really asking the House to believe that such an amendment would act as a pull factor? Is he saying that people will come here because of the possibility that we might pass an amendment giving asylum seekers the right to work? If that is his case, it is particularly poor even by his standards.
Robert Jenrick
It is a pull factor to the UK that individuals can work in our grey economy, which is a cause of serious concern. If we were to add an additional pull factor, by enabling people to work sooner, it would be yet another reason for people to choose to come to this country. I will return to that point in responding to other questions before the House today.
Robert Jenrick
I will not give way at the moment.
The vast majority of people arriving on small boats come from an obvious place of safety—France—with a fully functioning asylum system, so they are choosing to make that additional crossing. They are essentially asylum shoppers, even if they originally come from a place of danger, and they are doing that because they believe the United Kingdom is a better place to make their claim and to build a future. Their ability to work is obviously part of that calculation, as our north European counterparts frequently say.
Several hon. Members rose—
Robert Jenrick
Let me make some progress, and I will return to those Members who want to intervene.
It is important that we get the Bill right. I understand the complexity of the legal and operational challenges we face. In enacting this legislation, we must be alert to those who seek to use every possible tactic to thwart and frustrate its operation. We have seen that with our groundbreaking partnership with Rwanda, and we will see it again with this Bill.
Since its introduction, we have continued to examine how to make the Bill as robust as possible, as well as reflecting on the debates in Committee last month. The Government amendments before the House today reflect that further work and consideration. We have repeatedly made it clear that, as we reduce the number of illegal immigrants arriving on small boats and through other forms of clandestine entry, we will free up capacity for more people to come to this country through safe and legal routes.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
We know that, in 2021, 71% of asylum claims were successful, and that a further 47% were successful on appeal. This is not illegal migration. If those claims were successful, why are we not allowing people to work? Is the Minister trying to make it illegal for anyone to come in, thereby reducing our standing on the rule of law?
Robert Jenrick
There are a number of points there. There is a legitimate point of view, as I have said on a number of occasions, that those seeking a determination should have the right to work, but we disagree, because we want to reduce the pull factors to the UK, not add to them. As I have said throughout my time in this role, deterrence has to be suffused throughout every aspect of our approach. Creating a situation where individuals could quickly access the UK labour market is not sensible if we want to reduce the number of people coming here in the first place.
Let me return to the issue of safe and legal routes—
Robert Jenrick
Let me make my remarks on this and then I will come to the hon. Gentleman. That issue is clearly of interest to many hon. Members on both sides of the House. In particular, I wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), with whom I have had a number of significant conversations in recent weeks. He is keen to see early progress on this front. The Government accept the need for greater clarity about the safe and legal routes available to those seeking refuge in the UK, while reiterating that it is simply not feasible for this country to accept all those who may seek to come here. That is why I am happy to commend to the House his new clause 8 and amendment 11, which would, first, require the Home Secretary to lay before Parliament, within six months of Royal Assent, a report detailing existing and proposed additional safe and legal routes for those in need of protection. We will aim to implement the proposed new routes as soon as practicable and in any event by the end of 2024. Secondly, the amendments would require the Home Secretary to commence the consultation on the annual number of people to be admitted through safe and legal routes within three months of Royal Assent.
Patrick Grady
The Prime Minister could not answer this earlier, so perhaps the Immigration Minister can: what safe and legal route is available today for a young person in Sudan who wants to flee the violence there and come to the UK?
Robert Jenrick
I am happy to answer that question. We have consistently said that those seeking sanctuary should do so in the first safe country. On the developing situation in Sudan, the United Nations is operating in most, if not all, of the countries surrounding Sudan. Last week, I met the assistant commissioner at the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, when we discussed exactly this point. The best advice clearly would be for individuals to present to the UNHCR. The UK, like many countries, works closely with the UNHCR and we already operate safe and legal routes in partnership with it. That safe and legal route is available today. To answer the hon. Gentleman’s point directly, let me say that the UK is the fourth largest recipient in the world of individuals through routes operated by the UNHCR. So his central contention that the UK is somehow not a generous and compassionate country and that we are not working with organisations such as the UNHCR in this regard is factually incorrect. We are working with them closely.
In addition, we have a family reunion scheme, which has enabled more than 50,000 refugees to come to the UK in recent years and to meet up with their family members who have also sought refuge in the UK as refugees. That scheme is available all over the world. So if the young person in the hon. Gentleman’s example had family in the UK, that individual could come here through the family reunion scheme. In addition, the point made in the Bill is that we will expand those safe and legal routes over the course of the next 12 months or so, so that even more individuals can make use of them.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The Minister is in danger of taking the UNHCR’s name in vain, because it has issued a statement that says:
“UNHCR wishes to clarify that there is no mechanism through which refugees can approach UNHCR with the intention of seeking asylum in the U.K. There is no asylum visa or ‘queue’ for the United Kingdom.”
Would he like to correct the record?
Robert Jenrick
With all due respect to the hon. Lady, I met the assistant commissioner of the UNHCR and had this conversation directly with her. So whatever the hon. Lady may be quoting from her iPhone, I would prefer to take at face value what I have heard in discussion with the assistant commissioner. The point is that the UNHCR selects individuals who have registered with it and to whom it has given refugee status to go to other countries on existing safe and legal routes. It currently has discretion as to who it puts in the direction of the United Kingdom. That was a choice made when the UK established that scheme, because the then Conservative Government took the perfectly legitimate view that we would offer complete discretion to the United Nations to select the people it felt were the most vulnerable in the world and help them to come to the UK. We have already opened the conversation with the UN on how we will establish a new safe and legal route, and there are a range of options on how we might configure that.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
I wonder if I might assist my right hon. Friend on this issue of the UNHCR, because I too have seen that quote. As far as I can see, the UNHCR is saying that somebody cannot just turn up at the UNHCR and say, “I want to go and have asylum in the UK.” The UK has an arrangement with the UNHCR whereby we say that we will take a certain number of refugees or asylum seekers, and we ask it please to identify those who are most vulnerable and therefore those who should be coming under our scheme. There is not that incompatibility that is being suggested.
Robert Jenrick
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right on that. Of course, how we structure any safe and legal route, whether we work with the UN or indeed any other organisation, is a choice for the UK. It is not impossible for the UK to say that we wish to take individuals from particular countries or regions, but the choice made in the recent past, which as I say, was a perfectly valid one, was to give that discretion to the experts at the UNHCR, rather than to fetter their discretion.
Sir Chris Bryant
I am not right honourable, but I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Let me take him back to the issue of people in Sudan at the moment, because he referred to brave officials from his Department who are out there. What is the advice being given where a family member has children under the age of 18, who, for all sorts of complicated reasons at the moment, may not be properly documented given the situation in Sudan? Will they be able to get on an aeroplane? Will they end up with some kind of determination having to be made when they get to Cyprus? What will be the situation?
Robert Jenrick
So far, we have been calling individuals and families forward in order of priority; those in Sudan should check the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office’s published advice to see that. There is discretion for Border Force officers where British passport holders, or those who have leave to enter the UK, present with minors and there is credible evidence that those children are their own, and this is so as to ensure that the family unit stays together wherever possible. That is the right approach. We have worked closely with Border Force to ensure that the group of officers we have in Sudan have the correct guidelines to operate that policy. To the best of my knowledge, we have not encountered any issues, but of course we are getting regular updates to ensure that that is functioning properly.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
I wish to draw the House’s attention to another safe and legal route that exists at the moment, the community sponsorship arrangement, which was introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) when she was Home Secretary. It enables communities to welcome refugees from around the world. Does he agree that it is a good model and that we should expand it in future?
Robert Jenrick
I do, and I commend that arrangement wholeheartedly. I took part in what is, in one sense, a successor to that scheme, the Homes for Ukraine scheme, and it was an incredibly rewarding experience for me and my family. The principle at the heart of that is that it is not purely a matter for the state to provide support; individuals, groups, churches, synagogues and mosques might want to come forward to gather support and funding to meet the state halfway and assist those people to come to the UK. That scheme is available. We would like more people to take part in it. It is exactly the sort of scheme that could be considered alongside the future expansion of safe and legal routes.
Robert Jenrick
If I may, I will make some more progress, but I would be pleased to revert to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) in a moment.
Let me turn to the other issue that my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham raised in Committee, which is that of unaccompanied children. Again, we have listened to the points that he and right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised. As I have said repeatedly, this is a morally complex issue. There are no simple answers and each has trade-offs. Our primary concern must be the welfare of children, both here and abroad. We need to ensure that the UK does not become a destination that is specifically targeted by people smugglers specialising in children and families.
Robert Jenrick
Let me make some progress.
I am also acutely concerned that we balance that with the very real safeguarding risks posed by young adults pretending to be children. This is not a theoretical issue; it is one that we see every day unfortunately. Today, a very large number of young adults do pose as children. In fact, even with our current method of age assessment, around 50% of those people who are assessed are ultimately determined to be adults. We have seen some very serious and concerning incidents in recent months. There are few more so than that raised in this House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) when one of his constituents, Thomas Roberts, was murdered by an individual who had entered the UK posing as a minor and, during his time in the UK, had been in education, in the loving care of foster parents and in other settings in which he was in close proximity to genuine children.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The Minister has raised the awful case of Thomas Roberts. I have asked him repeatedly why it was not known that the murderer was wanted for murder in Serbia and why it was also not known that he had already been turned down for asylum in another European country. Why did the authorities and Border Force not know that information?
Robert Jenrick
As I said in answer to an Adjournment debate on this issue, I have commissioned a review of all of the circumstances surrounding that most serious case so that we can understand the multiple failures that may have happened while that individual has been in the United Kingdom and what lessons we need to learn. Separate to that, I have taken further steps to enhance the security checks that are conducted when individuals arrive at the Western Jet Foil and at Manston, aided by the change in the law that I made earlier in the year so that we have, in extremis, up to 96 hours in which to hold individuals in that setting while we conduct those security checks. I am working closely with the security services, police and the National Crime Agency in that regard. If there are other things that we need to do, we will do them, and if there are other databases that we should be arguing for access to we will certainly do so, because it is critical that we secure our borders in this regard.
Several hon. Members rose—
Robert Jenrick
Let me make some progress if I may.
We have been clear that the power to remove unaccompanied children would be exercised only in very limited circumstances: principally for the purposes of effecting a family reunion or to return someone to their safe country of origin. Government amendment 174 makes this clear in the Bill while futureproofing the Bill against the risk that the people smugglers will seek to endanger more young lives and break up more families by loading yet more unaccompanied children on to the small boats.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
On the face of it, I, too, welcome Government amendment 174 on the limitations to the removal of children and the prescription that is put within it. However, my right hon. Friend has alluded to the fact that, further down in that amendment, it sets out that the Home Secretary can pass regulations to set out any other circumstances at a later date. Is he referring to changes in the way that people smugglers may operate? Will this be an affirmative procedure in Parliament, and what sort of circumstances does he anticipate that we may be dealing with?
Robert Jenrick
What we do know is that this situation is fast moving and that the people smugglers are individuals and businesses that will stop at nothing and stoop to any low. We want to retain a degree of discretion, of course accountable to Parliament, and we would ensure that it is an affirmative procedure, giving Parliament at least an opportunity to debate it should there be concerns with the approach of any Home Secretary. But let me be clear that the Government’s position is that we see the use of this power only for those two very limited, but understandable and sensible, suggestions. They are two routes that are used today judiciously. We do—although it is very hard to do—seek to reunify unaccompanied minors with their family members, and succeed in a small number of cases. We also remove minors from the UK back home to safe countries, always making sure that social services or appropriate authorities are awaiting them on their return. Those things happen today and we want to see that they continue and, if anything, that we take further advantage of them.
Wera Hobhouse
Nobody in this House would disagree that we need to stop the people smugglers, but I worry that the Government focus too much on the people smugglers, rather than on the damage that is caused to vulnerable children who are already traumatised. The whole process that the Government are proposing is retraumatising already deeply traumatised young people.
Robert Jenrick
On the broader point, let me reassure the hon. Member that, as a parent, I, the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister gave these questions a great deal of thought and our motivation was the best interests of children. We do not want to see children put into dinghies and their lives placed in danger. When we do see that, it is a harrowing experience that lives with us. We have to take these steps to ensure that, when we operationalise the scheme at the heart of the Bill, the UK is not then targeted by people smugglers specialising in families and children.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
On the question of children, I think everyone agrees with the compassionate view that the Minister has expressed but, in Kent, we take and look after the majority of unaccompanied children. Does he agree that the safest place for those children is in the care of the French authorities and not on those boats in the first place, and how will the Bill assist with that?
Robert Jenrick
The key element at the heart of the Bill is deterrence. We want to deter individuals, families or adults from going into these dinghies, putting themselves at the behest of people smugglers. Ultimately, that is the way that we protect children. If we allow this issue to escalate—that is not the intention of those who oppose the Bill, but it is the logical conclusion—it will simply see more children placed into these boats and we have to stop that. That is what we are setting out to do here. As my hon. Friend has raised the point, I would praise the authorities in Kent, which have gone above and beyond to support young people. I have recently visited the facilities there.
Robert Jenrick
I will give way to the hon. Lady, and then I should make more progress.
Apsana Begum
Does the Minister agree that it is deeply harrowing to learn of pregnant women arriving in the UK on these boats and that perhaps they should be exempt from the provisions on removals in the Bill?
Robert Jenrick
I do not want to see pregnant women placed in a difficult or compromising position. The scheme is structured in such a way that a suspensive claim can be brought where there is serious or irreversible harm, which, in most cases, is physical harm, that would prevent an individual from being placed on a flight either back home to their own country, if it is a safe place, or to a safe third country like Rwanda. The usual fitness to fly procedures will apply. Therefore, a pregnant woman would not be placed on a flight to Rwanda or elsewhere unless it was safe to do so. There are long-standing conventions of practice on how we would make that judgment.
On the issue of detention of unaccompanied children, I understand the concerns that a number of hon. and right hon. Members have raised about the prolonged detention of children without the authority of a court. I thank those Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, for their very constructive engagement with us on that and other matters. As a result of those discussions, we have introduced Government amendments 134 and 136 to enable a time limit to be placed on the detention of an unaccompanied child where the detention is for the purposes of removal.
I acknowledge my hon. Friend’s and other hon. Members’ concerns—indeed I share them. I commit to working with him and others, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), with whom I have had a number of conversations, to set out the new timescale under which genuine children may be detained for the purposes of removal without the authority of the court and what appropriate support should be provided within detention, recognising the obligations under the Children Act 1989, an important piece of legislation.
I can also confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham and others that it is our intention that, where there is no age dispute, children are not detained for any longer than is absolutely necessary, with particular regard to the risk of absconding and suffering significant harm. I trust that those amendments and commitments will assuage the concerns that he raised in Committee and that he will not feel the need to press his amendment 138 on this issue.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
As the Minister says, amendments 134 and 136 bring in the opportunity to introduce regulations for setting time limits. In the past, when there has been a contentious issue such as this across the House, it has often been the practice for the Government to bring forward draft regulations before the end of the Bill’s passage through both Houses. Can he give us an assurance that we will be able to see the detail of what the Government are thinking?
Robert Jenrick
I am not able to give that assurance today, but I will give it careful consideration and come back to the right hon. Gentleman. We must ensure that we give this careful consideration and get these difficult judgments right, and that we learn the lessons from when children have been detained in the recent past. I know he is very aware of that and through his constituency duties has been very involved with the immigration removal centre in his constituency.
We want to ensure that we only detain children in the most limited circumstances and in the right forms of accommodation, with the correct scrutiny and accountability. I have recently spoken with the Children’s Commissioner and asked her to assist us and give us her expert opinion in the further policy development that we intend to do. I am keen to work with any hon. Member across the House who has expertise to bring to bear on the issue.
I turn now to the question raised in Committee regarding modern slavery and to amendment 4 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), supported by, among others, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). They are both international champions of this issue and have played critical roles in establishing the UK as a leading force in modern slavery prevention and the protection of those who have proven to be victims. This issue of modern slavery is also addressed in amendments 12 and 16 in the name of the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and amendments 73 and 74 in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss).
The Bill is intended to stop the boats. People are risking their lives by making dangerous crossings and putting unprecedented pressure on our public services. Amending these clauses to create exemptions that could lead to abuse of modern slavery protections, and risk undermining the very purpose of the Bill, is something that we must think very carefully about.
I understand, of course, that in the preparation of their amendments my right hon. Friends the Members for Chingford and Woodford Green and for Maidenhead, and others, have thought in particular about how we can prevent individuals who have been in the UK for a sustained period from being exploited by human traffickers, or, if they are already being exploited, from being deterred from escaping that modern slavery, or raising concerns with civil society or law enforcement bodies. Those are serious issues, and I want to take them forward with my right hon. Friends, listening to their unrivalled expertise through the passage of the Bill, to see whether there are ways we can address and assuage their concerns. For that reason, we will look at what more we can do to provide additional protections to individuals who have suffered exploitation in the UK.
I remind my right hon. Friends that the modern slavery provisions in the Bill are time-limited, recognising the exceptional circumstances we currently face in respect of the illegal and dangerous channel crossings. Unless renewed, the provisions will expire two years after commencement. They take advantage of an express provision within the European convention on action against trafficking, which foresaw that there might be circumstances in which there was a sufficient risk to public disorder, or a crisis that merited taking this kind of action. The Government would argue that we are in that moment now, and for that reason we need to apply that limited exemption.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The Minister has rightly singled out two of my colleagues with flattery to try to help him—but he did not single me out, so he is going to get it in the neck. Suppose a 16-year-old in Moldova is told that she has a job in a restaurant in Belfast. She is provided with a Romanian passport. She comes across here on an aeroplane, with false documents, but when she gets to Belfast, she does not get a job. She is put in a terraced house and forced into prostitution; the lock is on the outside of the bedroom and she is effectively repeatedly raped. The police break that ring and rescue her. What happens then? At the moment, she gets protection, she is looked after and she helps with the prosecution. This Bill changes that. Can the Minister please tell me why? This person has been trafficked, not on a small boat, and exploited here. Why can he not accept the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith)? It seems to me that there is no risk. I want his Bill to succeed, but this is—
Robert Jenrick
I apologise to my hon. Friend for not praising his long-standing interest in this issue and the very good conversation that he and I had recently, in which he made exactly the point that he has just made on the Floor of the House. We are concerned about those kinds of cases and about those individuals who are exploited within the United Kingdom, but we are keen to ensure that that is not inadvertently turned into a loophole that would undermine the broader scheme.
One of the existing protections within the Bill for an individual such as the one my hon. Friend mentions is the provision that, if someone is co-operating with a police investigation, the duty to remove will be suspended. Therefore, if somebody was in exactly the position he described, they should of course go to the law enforcement authorities. At that point, the safeguard that we put in the Bill would apply and they would not be removed from the country.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I will speak to my amendment shortly, I am sure, as will my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and others, but I want to raise one particular point. The Minister used the word “inadvertently”, but I wonder whether Government amendment 95 is inadvertent when it gives sweeping powers to the Secretary of State to decide whether somebody is genuinely giving evidence to the police. I am also puzzled by the wording of proposed new subsection (5A) to clause 21, that
“the Secretary of State must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State”,
which is the same person, I think. I am not sure how that achieves the desire to be balanced on this.
Robert Jenrick
That provision ensures that where an individual has presented to the authorities and the police may have opened an investigation, the police would then make a submission to the Home Secretary, who would then decide whether that was sufficiently advanced for the provisions in the Bill to apply. That is a sensible safeguard, but this is exactly the sort of issue on which I am happy to continue working with my right hon. Friend.
Mrs May
Picking up on the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), I think that we were all surprised to see Government amendment 95, because it says not that the police can make an application to the Secretary of State, with a nice order and so on, but that the Secretary of State “must assume” that the person cannot stay in the United Kingdom unless there are “compelling circumstances”—determined initially and endorsed by the Secretary of State—for them to stay.
Robert Jenrick
That is the procedure that I have just outlined. Police forces would apply to the Secretary of State, who would then make the determination that my right hon. Friend describes. That is an important safeguard to ensure that there is rigour on this issue.
Several hon. Members rose—
Robert Jenrick
I will make some progress because this is a short debate and it is important that we enable people to make—[Interruption.] Well, it was only a few moments ago that SNP Members were saying that the debate was too short. I gently remind them that in both days in Committee we ran out of speakers, including on the SNP Benches.
Robert Jenrick
I really should make progress because I worry that we will run out of time.
I will say a few words in response to new clause 15 and on the issue of suspected terrorists. I welcome the shadow Home Secretary’s belated, albeit limited, endorsement of the duty on the Home Secretary to make arrangements for the removal of persons who enter the UK unlawfully—presumably including removal to Rwanda. That duty applies across the board, save in the case of unaccompanied children, so in our opinion, new clause 15 is, again, unnecessary. Protecting the public is the Government’s first priority, and the Bill includes powers to detain illegal entrants and, where necessary, release a person on immigration bail. There are existing powers to apply terrorism prevention and investigation measures where appropriate. They give the security service and the police powerful measures to help manage the risk of terrorism. They are, of course, considered case by case and used as a last resort if prosecution or deportation are not possible. We therefore judge that new clause 15 does not add anything to the Bill’s provisions or to existing counter-terrorism powers.
I have more sympathy for amendment 184, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke), in that she is seeking to make a constructive contribution to the debate on how we manage the clear risk posed by terrorism. It is already the case that all asylum claims must be declared inadmissible under the Bill. That is the case for any human rights claim in respect of a person’s home country. Where we are seeking to remove someone to a safe third country, it is right that they should be able to challenge that removal where they face a real risk of serious and irreversible harm—although that is a very limited ground—and the Bill provides for that, but we will always seek to effect removal as soon as possible, particularly where somebody poses a real risk of harm to the British public. I can assure my hon. Friend that, should removal be delayed, appropriate steps will be taken to ensure that the public is properly protected. She is one of the foremost Members of this House in issues related to tackling small boat arrivals, owing, of course, to the particular concerns of her Dover constituents. I am grateful to her for tabling amendment 184, and I look forward to continued work with her as we work through these challenges.
A number of other Government amendments address the concerns raised in Committee by, among others, my right hon. Friends the Members for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke) and for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), and my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Sir William Cash) and for Devizes (Danny Kruger), who rightly want to ensure that the scheme provided for in the Bill is as robust as possible and not open to exploitation and abuse by those who seek to frustrate removals.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
I would like to reciprocate, if I may. In my 39 years in the House, I had not had an opportunity of the kind that has been offered by the Government on this occasion for a good, proper and robust but none the less effective dialogue on these incredibly important matters. I put on record my thanks to the Government for that.
Robert Jenrick
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for those kind words. We value his expertise, knowledge and commitment on this issue. He has made the Bill better, stronger and more likely to succeed in our objective, which is to stop the boats and restore the public’s confidence.
It has always been our intention that the only claims that could delay removal would be the factual suspensive claims and serious harm suspensive claims provided for in the Bill. All other legal challenges—be they rights-based or other claims—would be non-suspensive. New clause 22, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes, makes it crystal clear not only that any judicial reviews will be non-suspensive, but that it will not be open to the Court to grant interim remedies that have the effect of blocking removals pending a substantive decision on a judicial review.
In a similar vein, new clause 24 makes it clear that any legal challenges relating to a decision about a person’s age are also non-suspensive. Through new clause 25, we are taking a power to make regulations setting out the circumstances in which it can be assumed that someone who refuses to undergo a scientific age assessment is an adult. I can assure the House that we will make such regulations only once we are satisfied that the scientific models are sufficiently accurate so that applying an automatic assumption will be compatible with the European convention on human rights. On that question, I thank in particular of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings, who has worked closely with the Government to achieve our shared objective.
On interim relief, we are replacing the marker clause relating to interim measures indicated by the Strasbourg Court. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary indicated on Second Reading, the Strasbourg Court is itself carrying out a review of the rule 39 process at the encouragement of a number of member states, including us. The former Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), who was then Lord Chancellor, and the current Attorney General, have had constructive discussions with the Court about reform, including on rule 39. However, we can and should do more.
New clause 26 will confer on the Home Secretary or any other Minister of the Crown a discretion, to be exercised personally, to suspend the duty to remove a person where an interim measure has been indicated on an individual case. The new clause sets out a non-exhaustive list of considerations to which the Minister may have regard when considering the exercise of such a discretion in that case. The Minister will be accountable to Parliament for the exercise of that personal discretion. The Government expect that the Minister will carefully consider the UK’s international obligations when deciding whether to disapply the duty.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
It seems to me that new clause 26 effectively introduces a presumption that the UK Government will breach international law when interim measures are handed down by the Court in Strasbourg. The Home Secretary has already said on the face of the Bill that she cannot certify that it is compatible with the ECHR, but she has declined to give evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights to assist our legislative scrutiny of the Bill. Can the Minister explain to the House why the Home Secretary is so reluctant to come to the Joint Committee to justify her admission that the Bill is not compatible with the ECHR?
Robert Jenrick
The Government believe that the Bill is compatible. We believe there are strong arguments, and of course there will be legal debate, but were any aspect of the Bill to be challenged, we look forward to defending it robustly. We take our treaty obligations—
Robert Jenrick
I will not give way to the hon. and learned Lady a second time, if she does not mind. We have been very clear that we take our treaty obligations seriously. In respect of the ministerial discretion in the clause, the Home Secretary, or whichever Minister of the Crown exercised that discretion, would of course take those obligations seriously and judge the individual case.
Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)
Is my right hon. Friend not in effect asking the House to give legislative sanction to at least the possibility that a Minister of the Crown will deliberately disobey this country’s international law obligations? Is not that really the effect of what is being asked?
Robert Jenrick
No. As I have already said, we take our treaty obligations very seriously and the Minister who exercises this discretion would have to do so. This discretion would be exercised highly judiciously and would ultimately be judged on the facts and be very fact-dependent.
Robert Jenrick
I am not going to give way to the hon. and learned Lady. I will give way one last time to my right hon. and learned Friend; then I must make some progress.
Sir Geoffrey Cox
A Minister always has the ability to ignore an indication under rule 39, because there is no obligation under the convention for the Government to heed one—it is an indication. Why, then, does it need legislation if what is not in fact being asked is that this House should approve, quite consciously and deliberately, a deliberate breach of our obligations under the convention? That is the truth. The Minister could ignore an indication and it would be a matter between states, but the provision invites this House to give legislative authority to the Minister who does that, if she chooses to ignore it. Is that not the position?
Robert Jenrick
My right hon. and learned Friend is correct in saying that rule 39 indications are just that, and that there are circumstances in which Ministers have chosen not to apply them—a small number of circumstances, but a number. The clause does not mandate a Minister to ignore rule 39 indications; it says clearly, to ensure that there is no doubt whatsoever, that the Minister has the discretion to do so. It gives a non-exhaustive list of reasons that they should consider, and in doing so they would clearly, as I have said on a number of occasions, take their treaty obligations very seriously.
Let me move on. As I have said, the Bill provides for two kinds of suspensive claims and sets out a fair but rigorous timetable for the submission of any claims, their determination by the Home Office, and any appeals. It is important that those who receive a removal notice should be able to receive appropriate legal advice to help them to navigate this process; accordingly, new clause 20 makes provision for legal aid. I trust that this new clause at least will be welcomed by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central, given that it covers similar ground to her new clause 18. The provision of legal aid will reduce the opportunities for challenges and speed up removals.
On serious harm suspensive claims, new clause 17 augments the existing provisions in clause 38, which enables regulations to be made about the meaning of serious and irreversible harm for the purposes of the Bill. We consider it important, and indeed helpful to the courts, to provide them with guidance as to what does or does not amount to serious and irreversible harm, albeit that ultimately the judgment will be for the upper tribunal, to be taken on a case-by-case basis. New clause 17 also makes it clear that the serious and irreversible harm must be “imminent and foreseeable”, which aligns the test in the Bill much more closely with Strasbourg practice.
Amendments 114 to 119 relate to foreign national offenders. In the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, we legislated to disapply certain modern slavery protections to FNOs who have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 months or more, and to certain other categories of persons who present a risk to public order. The amendments introduce a statutory presumption that the public order disqualification applies to FNOs who have been given an immediate custodial sentence of any length.
Robert Jenrick
I will not give way; I will draw my remarks to a close.
I will not detain the House by detailing the other Government amendments, which I have summarised in a letter—
Robert Jenrick
If Members do not mind, I will give way to my right hon. Friend.
Mrs May
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I wonder whether he can comment on a matter that has been brought to my attention while he has been on his feet. Greater Manchester police has released the following urgent update about Programme Challenger, which is the programme the force operates for dealing with serious and organised crime:
“As a result of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, changes came in to effect in February 2023 which have had an immediate impact on potential victims. This has seen positive first stage decisions drop from around 95% of all submissions to 18% of submissions between February 20th and March 31st. This means that 4 in 5 potential victims are not able to access immediate support from the national modern slavery and human trafficking victim care providers.”
Is my right hon. Friend as worried about that as I am? If he is not worried, is it because he feels that the 2022 Act is already having an impact? In which case, why does he need modern slavery provisions in this Bill?
Robert Jenrick
It is difficult for me to comment on remarks that are read out that I have had no sight of; frankly, my right hon. Friend would not have done so either when she was a Home Office Minister. She and I have a disagreement on the current impact of modern slavery on our system, but to me the evidence is very clear that unfortunately—this was never the intention of the framework that was created—there is significant abuse. We see that in particular in the number of individuals who are coming forward with modern slavery claims in the detained estate when we seek to remove them from the country. Such last-minute claims currently account for 70% of individuals. I am afraid that, among other evidence, that shows that we have a serious problem and we have to take action.
Several hon. Members rose—
Robert Jenrick
I am going to draw my remarks to a close now, because all Members want others to have an opportunity to speak.
Robert Jenrick
I am not giving way, because time is very limited.
I have summarised the other Government amendments, which are more detailed and technical in nature, in a letter to the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), and placed a copy of it in the Library of the House. I stand ready to address any particular points in my winding-up speech, if necessary. For now, I commend all the Government amendments to the House and look forward to the contributions of other Members. I will respond to as many of those as I can at the end of the debate.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
I start by associating myself with the comments of the Immigration Minister about the outstanding work that our armed forces have done in Sudan. I wish all who are there a speedy return home.
I want to make one thing absolutely clear, and it is a point with which I am sure every Member of this House agrees: the dangerous channel crossings must be stopped. Those extremely perilous journeys have tragically led to lives being lost, and the only people who benefit from that trade in human misery are the criminal smuggler gangs and people traffickers, who are laughing all the way to the bank at this Government’s failure to arrest and prosecute them. Labour has a comprehensive and workable five-point plan that will defeat the people smugglers and fix our broken asylum system. Our plan is expressed through the amendments and new clauses to this Bill that we have tabled, which I will speak to in due course.
Government Members repeatedly state that they wish to stop the dangerous channel crossings, but the fact is that they are completely and utterly failing to do so. Every single measure that Ministers announce turns out to be either an expensive and unworkable headline-chasing gimmick or a policy that succeeds only in making things worse, or indeed both. In the case of this legislative sham that we are debating today—this bigger backlog Bill—it is definitely both. Under the Conservatives, channel crossings have skyrocketed from 299 in 2018 to 46,000 in 2022. Throughout that period, Ministers have subjected the country to a seemingly endless stream of nonsensical proposals that have all been given pride of place on the front pages of the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph, only to be swiftly consigned to the dustbin of history where they belong.
For a deterrent to be effective, it has to be credible, and of course, our credibility is severely diminished every time we fail to follow through on a commitment that we have made. Let us take a quick canter through some of the posturing and empty threats that this shambles of a Government have engaged in over the past few years. They told us that the British coastguard would be instructed to push back dinghies in the channel, which would have breached the law of the sea and potentially led to further deaths of refugees and innocent children. Then they said they were going to build a giant wave machine in the English channel—I do not know where they would find a wave machine around here, given that the Conservatives have closed down most of England’s swimming pools, although I suppose it is possible that the Prime Minister might have a spare one back at his place.
The Government then said that they were going to fly asylum seekers to Ascension Island, 4,000 miles away, and they even fantasised about sending them to Papua New Guinea, which is literally on the other side of the planet. That brings us to the Government’s latest cunning plan: they went to Kigali and paid £140 million for a press release, and 12 months later they have managed to send more Home Secretaries to Rwanda than they have asylum seekers. One could be forgiven for finding all of this quite comical, but the fact is that it is deadly serious, because a vast amount of taxpayers’ money is being squandered on a profoundly unethical policy that is designed to fail on its own terms.
Even if the Rwanda scheme does get up and running, which the Government admit is unlikely to happen until at least March 2024, the Rwandan Government have refused to commit to taking more than around 1% or 2% of those who arrive here on small boats. We are talking hundreds of removals, rather than the thousands per year that might have a chance of deterring asylum seekers from crossing the channel. It will fail to stop the small boat channel crossings, because if a person has experienced personal tragedy, fought their way across continents and handed their life savings to a people smuggler so that they can endanger their own life crossing the channel, a 1% chance of being sent to Rwanda is simply not going to represent a level of risk that they might be averse to.
Yasmin Qureshi
On the Rwanda scheme, apart from paying £150 million to deport maybe 200 people, under the agreement we have to take people back from Rwanda as well.
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend makes a very important point, which I will use as a prompt to also talk about the Israel scheme. Of course, Israel and Rwanda did a deal. What happened with that scheme? Every single one of the people who was sent from Israel to Rwanda had left Rwanda within a matter of weeks and was on their way back to Europe, so it is a very expensive way of giving people a round trip, and I would not recommend it as a deterrent.
Then, just to add to the general sense that the Government have lost the plot, we had the bizarre and frankly appalling spectacle of the Home Secretary jetting down to Rwanda with a carefully vetted gaggle of journalists to indulge in a photo shoot that was akin to a “Visit Rwanda” tourist promo. I may have missed something, but I thought the idea was to deter the channel crossings by using Rwanda as a threat. I am not quite sure how that tallies with the Home Secretary likening Kigali to the garden of Eden. One minute, Rwanda is the perfect place imaginable for a person to rebuild their life; the next, the threat of getting sent there is being deployed as a deterrent.
It is a truly farcical state of affairs, but it is also of central importance to what we are debating today, because the entire Bill is predicated on the Government being able to remove those who arrive here on small boats to a safe third country, and right now Rwanda is the only safe third country they have. As such, the fact that the Rwanda plan is unworkable, unaffordable and unethical renders this entire Bill unworkable, unaffordable and unethical.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
This is an issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised before. As I said during the Bill’s earlier stages, when the Home Affairs Committee went to Calais in January and we met all the people involved in patrolling the beaches and the local officials, they told us that when the Rwanda scheme was announced, there was a surge in migrants approaching the French authorities about staying in France, because they did not want to end up on a plane to Rwanda. There was a deterrent effect; the trouble is that it has not actually started yet, but if it did, it would have an impact. That is the point.
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I am not sure I follow the logic of it. He said that there was a deterrent effect, but it has not started yet, which suggests to me that there has not been a deterrent effect. If we look at the numbers, channel crossings continue to skyrocket, so I think what matters to this House is results and outcomes. As things stand, there is no evidence whatsoever that the Rwanda scheme has acted as a deterrent.
This bigger backlog Bill is rotten to its very core, because it prevents the Home Secretary from considering those who arrive here on small boats as asylum seekers, and instead obliges her to detain and remove them. However, there is nowhere to detain them, and there is nowhere to remove them to either. We already have 50,000 asylum seekers in around 400 hotels, costing the taxpayer an eye-watering £6 million every single day, and on average, each asylum seeker is waiting a staggering 450 days for a decision. The backlog now stands at 166,000, more than eight times larger than when Labour left office in 2010, when it stood at just under 19,000. Incidentally, I am still waiting for the Prime Minister and the Minister for Immigration to apologise to the House and correct the record on that point.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentioned detention, and a number of amendments have been tabled today on that topic. I listened carefully to what the Minister said about detaining unaccompanied children, but I also wanted to ask my hon. Friend for his views on detaining children, families with children and pregnant women. This House has made very clear in the past its view about safeguards being required for the detention of the vulnerable groups I have just described. Does he think that we now need to think again about the detention of pregnant women and families with children?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank my right hon. Friend for that excellent intervention. She is absolutely right to highlight this issue, and she has tabled a compelling amendment to deal with it. Members on both sides of the House fought very hard for these legal limits, as she rightly pointed out, and when we are talking about the detention of pregnant women, removing those limits and paving the way for vulnerable individuals to be detained individually is morally wrong, wrong-headed and deeply counterproductive. I have not heard any argument from Ministers to justify it.
New figures reveal that this bigger backlog Bill could end up putting an extra 50,000 people into permanent taxpayer-funded accommodation this year, with hotel costs rising to more than £13 million a day, which is more than £4 billion a year during a cost of living crisis. That is because, according to the Government’s own forecasts, 53,000 who cross on small boats will be classed as inadmissible, without any prospect of being removed. What is particularly astonishing is that the Government made this same mistake last year by including similar inadmissibility provisions in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. The result is a cost of £400 million to the taxpayer in just six months, with only 21 people returned to their country of origin.
Stella Creasy
I understand why the Minister did not want to give way on this issue, despite saying that he would, but my hon. Friend raises the question of people being in hotels. Does he agree that the Government need to be honest with their own Back Benchers about the statutory instrument that they tried to slip out at the end of the previous Session that will remove the licensing laws from houses of multiple occupancy for asylum seekers? That will presumably prevent local authorities from refusing to license those places, and it will also have the consequence of meaning that we no longer require places where we are expecting families, pregnant women and small children to live to have fire alarms, smoke alarms or running water. Does he agree that the Government need to be honest about how awfully they wish to treat asylum seekers and how they will avoid local authorities being part of that conversation?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank my hon. Friend for that powerful intervention. She is absolutely right. We are talking about basic standards of decency and humanity. Houses of multiple occupancy need to be properly regulated. They need a basic floor of certification and registration and of health and safety, particularly when we are talking about families. The Government should consider being more transparent and straightforward on that point.
Fortunately, we on the Opposition Benches care about secure borders, and we will clear up the mess by delivering a firm, fair and well-managed system that will stop the dangerous channel crossings, because we know that good government is not about chasing headlines; it is about common sense, hard graft and quiet diplomacy. Those are the qualities that underpin our new clauses and amendments to the Bill.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
I intervened on the shadow Minister in Committee, and I found out that apparently the Labour party supports a cap for safe and legal routes, which was news to me at the time. Has he had any time to think about what that cap level would be? Bearing in mind how many people would like to try to get to our country, what would the approach be to those who failed in their application, but had still travelled here illegally and got here? Would any potential future Labour Government be open to deporting those individuals?
Stephen Kinnock
The cap has to be determined in consultation with local authorities and Parliament—that is absolutely right. In terms of removals, what we need is a processing system that actually works, so that we can get to a decision. People from safe countries who should be removed need to be swiftly removed from our country, and those who are genuine asylum seekers should be granted leave to remain, so that they can get on with their lives and we can start to clear up the abject mess that this Government have made of our asylum system.
The first part of our five-point plan is to repurpose and redirect the funds currently being wasted on the money-for-nothing Rwanda plan into a new, elite, cross-border, 100-strong police force that will relentlessly pursue the ruthless criminal smuggling gangs upstream. The latest £500 million payment that the British Government have made to the French Government will be having some effect on reducing the crossings, but the reality is that we will not succeed if we focus all our efforts on the hundreds of kilometres of French coastline, where resources are bound to be spread thin. We also need sophisticated operations with the British authorities working with EU member states, Europol, Interpol and Frontex to tackle the gangs upstream. New clause 16 instructs the Government to lay before Parliament a framework for a 12-month pilot co-operation agreement with those Governments and agencies to do just that and secure the prosecution and conviction of persons involved in facilitating illegal entry to the United Kingdom from neighbouring countries.
New clause 16 also incorporates the second part of our plan: securing a returns agreement with the European Union, which is essential. Since the Conservatives botched the Brexit negotiations and Britain left the Dublin convention, which had provided agreements on returns, the number of channel crossings has gone up by an astonishing 2,400%. For every one person crossing the channel in a small boat in 2019, 24 are crossing now.
There are three vital points to make on getting a returns deals. First, international challenges require international solutions. Secondly, we need an agreement with our nearest neighbours that must include returns. Thirdly, we will only strike a returns deal with the European Union if we bring something to the negotiation, and that should include a proper plan for capped safe and legal routes for bona fide asylum seekers located in mainland Europe. We suggest that Britain prioritises unaccompanied children with family in the UK, and new clause 14 reflects that.
Sir William Cash
I would like the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the fact that when President Macron made his assertions about returns to France, the following day the European Union said it would countenance no such proposals; the EU simply does not agree about returns. Furthermore, France is not a place that people associate with persecution or threats of irreversible harm. What is his argument all about?
Stephen Kinnock
My argument is about a negotiation. We clearly have to do a returns deal; it is an important part of the deterrent effect. We do not get a returns deal unless we have something on the table. There is a clear link between policies on safe and legal routes and getting a clear position in terms of negotiations with the European Union. The reality is that it is the only deterrent effect that will work. We are dealing with people who have risked their lives, fought their way across Europe and are prepared to spend their life savings to pay people smugglers to cross the channel. We will not deter them unless they know there is a returns deal in place, and one reason that the Dublin convention worked is that it acted as a deterrent. How else can we explain that the numbers have gone through the roof since we left the Dublin convention?
Tim Loughton
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, because this is just nonsense. In the last year that we were covered by the Dublin convention, before the pandemic struck, we applied to the EU for 8,500 returns under that returns agreement and only 105 were granted—that is 1.2%—so what he says is complete nonsense. It did not work when we were in the EU, and he is now expecting to magic up some agreement that the EU will not give us anyway. Stop misleading the House about those figures.
Stephen Kinnock
I find the hon. Gentleman’s response bizarre, because there are some simple facts, which are that we left the Dublin convention, and since then the number of small boat crossings has gone through the roof. It is not rocket science; it is a simple fact of mathematics. The point is that we cannot solve an international problem without international co-operation. We have to recognise the flow of asylum seekers coming across the European Union. The idea that we just say to the EU, “You can take them all; we are not going to take any” is for the birds. It is fantasy politics, and I am stunned that Government Members do not seem to understand that simple political fact.
Sir Chris Bryant
If the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) does not mind me mentioning her, I remember that when she was Prime Minister the first letter that she wrote to the European Union in trying to trigger article 50 said that we wanted a security treaty with the EU. That is what I would dearly love us to have. One of the great flaws of how we have left the European Union is that we have not ended up with that. Surely this measure should be part of that security treaty, so that we have better relations with Interpol, Europol and Frontex and proper sharing of information, so that we know all the details of anyone arriving in the UK. Is that not where we need to go?
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We know from our long period of being in the European Union that, in order to get a deal with the EU, there has to be a quid pro quo. There has to be a negotiation based on a grown-up conversation about how to tackle the challenge we face, and an all-encompassing security agreement could be a very good way of opening that door, because of course the EU knows that the United Kingdom is a very important security partner for all sorts of reasons. I agree with my hon. Friend entirely on the very strategic point he has made. Although we support the Government’s new clause 8 on safe and legal routes, we believe it should be linked to securing a returns deal with the European Union. As I said, our approach is based on hard graft, common sense and quiet diplomacy, and we urge the Government to start thinking and acting in the same vein.
Our third commitment is that Labour will fix the problems with current resettlement programmes. This includes the broken Afghan schemes, and our new clause 21 instructs the Government to report every three months on progress—or lack thereof—in meeting their own targets in supporting those loyal-to-Britain Afghans who sacrificed so much to protect our servicepeople and to stand up for our liberal values in Afghanistan. All resettlement routes need to be properly controlled and managed, of course, and they therefore cannot be unlimited, but they do also need to work.
Fourthly, Labour’s long-term international development strategy will include tackling the root causes of migration upstream through increased humanitarian assistance and greater emphasis on conflict prevention and resolution programmes. This is slightly beyond the focus of the Bill, but an important aspect of migration policy—and a lesson that needs to be learned from Afghanistan in relation to Sudan, of course, which was mentioned earlier—is that if we cut aid and cut the right kind of aid, we will end up increasing the challenges around the dangerous channel crossings and hurt British values and interests.
Our comprehensive plan will also fix what is perhaps the Conservatives’ most astonishing failure of basic governance: the failure to clear the backlog. It is truly staggering that just 13% of small boat asylum claims are being processed within five years, and it is deeply troubling that, while around half of the huge 166,000 backlog is down to small boat crossings, another 80,000 has built up organically under the Conservatives since 2010.
This is no coincidence. Home Office decision making has collapsed. In 2013 the Conservatives downgraded asylum decision makers to junior staff, hired by literally going from a Saturday job one minute to making life or death decisions the next. No wonder this resulted in worse decisions, often overturned on appeal, and it is deeply troubling that the staff attrition rate in 2022 in these teams stood at an astonishing 46%. There is little prospect of improvement, given that Home Office statistics published on Monday show that this year the number of decision makers has decreased.
So let us be clear: the incompetence and indifference of consecutive Home Secretaries since 2010 have brought the basic functions of government to a grinding halt, and during this cost of living crisis the British taxpayer is paying the price. Our new clause 10 therefore sets out how the Government should get on with expediting asylum processing for the countries listed in the schedule to this Bill. If an applicant has no right to asylum in the UK, they should be removed, safely and swiftly, to the safe country from which they have come, such as Albania.
Further to new clause 10, our new clause 13 instructs the Home Secretary to publish a report every three months on the progress she is making on clearing the backlog.
John McDonnell
I am sorry to interrupt the shadow Minister’s flow, and I wholeheartedly support him, as we have time and again, with regard to the criticisms of the Government’s lack of processing of cases, including the lack of staffing resources. On new clause 10 and the proposal for an expedited asylum process, can my hon. Friend reassure me that there will be no lessening of the legal rights of asylum seekers, of access to legal representation and of the application of international human rights treaties and conventions?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. Absolutely, the proposal is that there are a number of countries with very low grant rates and that must therefore be where we triage, and put them into a category where the processing can be expedited. However, all the processing must be done on an individual, case-by-case basis, in line with our treaty obligations; we cannot have block definitions of any particular category of asylum seeker, which of course is one of the main issues concerning the legality of the Bill, and that includes access to legal aid. So I can absolutely reassure my right hon. Friend on that point. We have to get the balance right: we must focus on the efficiency and effectiveness of dealing with the backlog—which must be based on triaging, giving much more support and upgrading the staff in the Home Office—but that must be underpinned by the provisions to which my right hon. Friend refers. Of course, the return on investment for improving the quality of decision making would be rapid and substantial, because quicker processing means fewer asylum seekers in hotels.
Tom Hunt
If this quiet diplomacy was not as successful as the shadow Minister hopes and a lot of these return agreements did not materialise, and all these people who arrived here illegally were green-lighted if a Labour Government were ever in charge, would there ever at any point be any policy whatsoever to deport to a safe third country?
Stephen Kinnock
As I have just pointed out, we are proposing, for example, a fast track for people from safe countries. We absolutely are of the view that people whose asylum claims are not successful or legitimate should be rapidly and safely sent back to their country of origin. I hope I have understood the hon. Gentleman’s point; I am not quite sure what it was.
Members on both sides of the House have raised concerns about the way in which this Bill will undermine our ability to crack down on modern slavery, and we do have to ask why it is that the Prime Minister has taken the attitude he has towards trafficked women and young girls being sold as sex slaves and is so accommodating to terrorists and other criminals on the other hand. We just need to look at his tweet of 7 March, threatening victims of modern slavery with deportation; it was disgraceful, and now his Government’s amendments 114 to 116 have made it even harder for victims to come forward. It will be held up, I am afraid, by the pimps and traffickers to threaten their victims. Two former Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioners, Sara Thornton and Kevin Hyland, recently warned that this Bill will devastate modern slavery protections and is a gift to criminals. All of us in this House know that this Bill is a traffickers’ charter.
Then we should look at the Prime Minister’s shocking record on deporting foreign criminals. Astonishingly, 19 terror suspects are currently living in taxpayer-funded British hotels because the Government have failed to remove them. Labour’s new clause 15 places a duty on the Secretary of State to remove suspected terrorists who have entered the country illegally or to consider the imposition of terrorism prevention and investigation measures upon them.
Deportations of criminals have fallen off a cliff since the Conservatives came to power in 2010. They plummeted by 66% to 5,000 a year before the pandemic and to just 2,100 in 2021. This is an insult to victims, and it again proves what we all know: Labour is tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, but under the Conservatives criminals have never had it so good.
The Minister for Immigration was appointed to his position as the moderate voice who would curb the more fanatical tendencies of his boss, but that simply has not happened. Instead, it appears that he has either been kidnapped by the hard right of his party, or he has willingly hitched his wagon to it because he thinks that is the way the wind is blowing. However, the Minister is not alone, because his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also appears to have caved in to the Home Secretary and the Trumpian faction she leads. He has caved in by adding Government new clauses 22 and 26 to the Bill, thereby completely torpedoing his own negotiations with the European Court of Human Rights. It really is quite extraordinary that Conservative Prime Ministers never seem to learn from the fate of their predecessors: the more they appease the extremists, the more they demand. The Prime Minister is weak, and he is being played. This weakness did for his predecessors, and ultimately it will also do for him.
Arguably the most shocking part of this whole sorry tale is this Conservative Government’s contempt for taxpayer cash. Aside from losing billions to fraudsters during the pandemic, dishing out overpriced contracts to their mates for unusable personal protective equipment and crashing the economy to the tune of £30 billion, the Government’s asylum policy stands out as a prime example of Ministers scattering taxpayer money to the four winds and receiving absolutely nothing in return—chasing headlines while buying failure.
There are so many vital questions to be answered. Why, for instance, have the Government failed to publish an impact assessment? For example, do Ministers have any idea of the increase in detention capacity that will be required because of this Bill? The Home Secretary was completely unable to answer this simple question during her car crash of an interview on the radio this morning. How much will these additional detention places cost? How much will the Government pay Rwanda per asylum seeker, and how much will each flight cost? We still do not know the answer to that question one year after the £140 million was given. Our constituents deserve to know, as these decisions impact directly on their communities and on the state of our public finances. It is outrageous that the Government are not providing an iota of information about the impact of a Bill with such huge financial and community impact implications.
So we are bound to ask: what are Ministers afraid of? If they truly believe that this Bill will succeed in achieving its objectives, surely they would happily have published the impact assessment well before Second Reading, and they would have been delighted to stand at the Dispatch Box to defend it. However, there is of course another possibility, which is that Ministers have not even attempted to assess the impact of this bigger backlog Bill because they are utterly terrified of what they would reveal if they did. They are terrified of seeing the cost of their own incompetence. They are horrified by the thought of being transparent because transparency reveals the truth, and the truth is that this Bill will just make everything worse. It will boost the profits of the people smugglers. It will add tens of thousands to the backlog. It will add hundreds of millions to the hotel bills. It will tarnish Britain’s reputation as a country that upholds the international rules-based order. It will further inflame community frustration and tension, and it will add to the desperate misery of those who are seeking sanctuary from persecution and violence.
Many Conservative Members agree with every word of what I have just said, and I urge them to support our new clauses and to join us in the No Lobby when we vote against this deeply damaging and counterproductive Bill this evening.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. We have had some very long opening speeches, and I have over 20 people wishing to contribute to the debate. That means that, in order to get everybody in, everybody would need to take about six minutes, if not less. We will prioritise those who have tabled amendments. That is just my guidance for the moment, because we also have the SNP spokesperson to come in.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I rise to speak to amendment 4, in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. It is essentially about clause 21. Since tabling it, I have realised that the Government have a new amendment—amendment 95—which I am afraid makes quite a lot of what we are trying to achieve with our amendment 4 almost impossible to deliver. However, I will go through the purpose of our amendment and then deal with the new Government amendment.
First, a lot of this is foreshadowed by the already existing Nationality and Borders Act 2022, and we still wait to see what its impact is on a lot of this. There is some clear evidence already that it is tightening up the areas that the Government want to tighten up when it comes to those suffering from modern slavery. Therefore, first and foremost, I question the necessity of these provisions about modern slavery in the Bill at all. Frankly, I do not want to be too broad; I want to focus on this problem quite carefully.
I think, and I hope, that the Government may recognise—my right hon. Friend the Minister mentioned that that is the general direction of his thinking at the moment, and I really hope that is the case—that there are unintended consequences of what they have to tried to do with the changes they are making in clause 21, and that the clause would be damaged without our amendment. It is interesting that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) intervened with some very new evidence that the police are now saying that the effect of this, even though it is not in the Bill, is to concern people who might well give evidence that would lead to the prosecution and conviction of those guilty of trafficking. Can I just say that I think the whole purpose of this is to get the traffickers, prosecute them and put them inside? That is one of the deterrents against other traffickers doing such business, and I understand that the purpose of the Bill is to stop the business model of the traffickers, so this fits with that. The problem, as a counterpoint to that, is that clause 21 seems to move in the opposite direction and is actually now beginning to discourage people from the idea of giving evidence.
It is very important to remind everybody, because they get confused, that human trafficking is distinct from people smuggling. We tend to blur the edges of this, but human trafficking is about people who, against their will—when brought to this location or while in the UK—are themselves abused. All the issues were talked about earlier, but the reality is that this is against their will. They do not wish to do it, and we need categorical evidence of that. It is because this is dealing with the trafficking side rather than the people smuggling side that I am really concerned about it.
Remember that a majority of the potential victims referred through the national referral mechanism are exploited in the UK in full or in part. Mostly, those are non-UK nationals, but UK nationals are caught up in it as well. The majority of these cases are not relevant to those coming across on the boats; they are here. They have been trafficked, they are here and they are now involved in modern slavery, and they are possibly prepared to give evidence to the police in that regard. It could be sexual exploitation, or it could be criminal exploitation. When I was the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, we saw evidence of that with people brought over to stake their claims to benefits, and then they would disappear off, trafficked into brothels and various other places. I want to say that it is important that we distinguish between that and the issue of the boats.
Many of those people are likely to have arrived in the UK illegally under the terms of this Bill, whether by small boat or lorry, or with leave obtained through deception such as false documents, including deception by their exploiter. Instead of being given temporary protection in the UK, these victims—under clause 21, as now amended by amendment 95—will be subjected to removal and detention under this Bill and denied access to the statutory 30-day recovery period of support for modern slavery victims. Victims will be driven even further underground—this is our fear and the fear of those who deal with them—by the fear of deportation and trapped in the arms of their abusers. Why would that be the case? The answer is simple. If one looks at the wording of clause 21, we see straightaway a clear shift in balance: it is left to the Secretary of State to judge whether victims are going to give evidence or are giving evidence that is relevant.
Then there is Government amendment 95, which I am really concerned about. It shifts the whole rationale in the opposite direction. Instead of there being a judgment about that, under clause 21, it is clear that the premise of the Secretary of State’s decision making is now reversed:
“The Secretary of State must assume for the purposes of subsection 3(b) that it is not necessary for the person to be present in the United Kingdom to provide the cooperation in question unless the Secretary of State considers that there are compelling circumstances which require the person to be present in the United Kingdom for that purpose.”
I raised this point earlier. In doing that,
“the Secretary of State must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”
That looks to me like a bit of a closed advice section, which will come up with the same decision at the end of the day. Government amendment 95 amends clause 21, which we already had concerns about.
Mr Carmichael
Despite the right hon. Gentleman’s best efforts, and he is a model of clarity on this, it is still like trying to knit fog. Does not the fact that we are dealing here with an amendment he has tabled that has subsequently been affected by a Government amendment to the original Bill illustrate the total inadequacy of trying to deal with a Bill like this in this way?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
It is a concern because we have clashing amendments. We know that. The point of this debate is to rectify that. We do not have a lot of time, so the right hon. Member will forgive me if I tentatively nod in his direction but at the same time pursue my own purposes. I will try to keep my remarks narrow. I do not want to go wide because other people wish to speak.
Amendment 4 is needed because victims of modern slavery experience inhumane torture and abuse. They are deprived of their liberty and their dignity. They are exploited and abused on British soil. Whether a UK citizen or a foreign national, they deserve care to recover and we cannot leave them subject to that exploitation. The point I keep coming back to is that victims in this category hold the key to the prosecution of the very traffickers we are after. We should not lose sight of that. If the inadvertent result of these changes to the Bill and the Bill itself is that victims are fearful of coming forward to give evidence, partly because the presumption is that they will leave the country, and partly because they do not have enough time to feel settled and protected to be able to give evidence—I think the police know this and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead has quoted from a police statement—it will reduce the number of prosecutions, damage our case and act as an opponent, as it were, of the idea of sending a message to traffickers that their game is up.
All the evidence shows that, with appropriate consistent support, more victims engage with investigations and prosecutions, providing the vital information that brings criminals to justice. Support needs to come first to create that stability, otherwise they will not feel safe. If we put ourselves in their situation, we would not give evidence either if we thought that the next stage would be to go out of the country, where the traffickers would catch us and our families and others being abused. So it will get harder to get convictions.
I am pleased my right hon. Friend the Minister accepted there may be consequences, although we need to go further than “may”. There will be consequences as a result of the legislation. I do not believe that the Government want victims of modern slavery to be trafficked. I do not think they want the Modern Slavery Act 2015 to be damaged. In the minds of those in the Home Office, I think there is a genuine dislike of that legislation and a wish to blame it for excesses, but there is no evidence of that. Only 6% of those who claim to be victims of modern slavery have come across on boats.
First and foremost, there is not a huge, great swell. Secondly, the Nationality and Borders Act that preceded this Bill has tightened up on all the elements that claimants have to provide to show that that is the case. The rules are already tighter, and I suspect that will lead to fewer cases already. The question is, what is the point of putting these elements into the Bill, because they are in the previous Act, and we have still not seen the effects? We are putting at risk the prosecution of all those traffickers and bringing them to justice, for something that almost certainly will not happen. If it did happen, there is plenty of scope for that evidence to come forward through statutory instruments if necessary, but I do not believe that will be the case.
I am told endlessly that people will come and give false claims, but let me remind Members that referrals can be made only by official first responders who suspect that the person is a victim. In 2022, 49% of referrals were made by Government agencies— it is ironic that the Government themselves decided who were the victims. The idea that any person could come forward and suddenly say, “I’m a victim,” and therefore get lots of time, is not the case. The test of evidence is tough.
We should remember that our amendment is about those who are trafficked and abused here in the UK. That means that the evidence base will almost certainly be incredibly strong, because it is based around what we know to exist here in the UK. I understand that it is difficult when people are trafficked from abroad, but we are talking about people in the UK and their evidence is clear to all of us. Under the changes made to the national referral mechanism statutory guidance on 30 January 2023—which, again, we have yet to see the full effects of—the threshold for a positive reasonable grounds decision has been raised to require objective evidence of exploitation. This is an unnecessary element of the Bill because we have yet to see the effect of the previous Act, which I believe is already having an impact, as do the police.
Other Members want to speak, so I will conclude my comments by saying that we should proceed with caution when it comes to modern day slavery. I am deeply proud of what we did and what my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead brought through, because it deals with victims, who cannot speak for themselves and are being used and abused by others. We were the first country in the world to do so, and others have followed suit. We need to send the right signals. The problem with the Bill is that it unnecessarily targets a group of people who are not the problem. They will suffer and, ironically, we will fail as a Government in home affairs because the police simply will not be able to get those prosecutions. On every ground, it is wrong.
Government amendment 95 is a disastrous attempt to make it almost impossible for anyone in the country to feel confident before they give evidence. I ask the Government to make it clear at the end of the debate that they will take this issue away, genuinely look at the unintended consequences and make that case to us, before we vote on their amendment.
Alison Thewliss
I will speak to the amendments that stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends. It is interesting to follow the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). Given his concerns about the Bill, I hope that he will join us in the Division Lobby later, because I do not expect that he will get the assurances that he hopes for from the Minister.
The Bill remains an affront to human decency and to our obligations to our fellow human beings. It rips up hard-won international protections and is in breach of the European convention on human rights, the refugee convention, the Council of Europe’s convention on action against trafficking in human beings and the UN convention on the rights of the child. The Children and Young People’s Commissioner of Scotland has said that the Illegal Migration Bill
“represents a direct assault on the concept of universality of human rights and the rule of law.”
Organisations have lined up to condemn the Bill, from the UNHCR, Liberty, Amnesty International, trade unions and medical bodies. It seeks to turn ships’ captains and train drivers into border guards, and it creates a sub-class of people in immigration limbo forever.
This refugee ban Bill is based on myths, mistruths and the myopic pursuit of clicks and tabloid headlines. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the wild claims made by the Home Secretary and her acolytes. The Bill will not meet its stated aims, but it will cost lives. It fails to provide safe and legal routes, and it will cause untold suffering. It diminishes the UK in the eyes of the world and it yanks on the thread that will unravel refugee protections across the world.
The Bill delivers people who have been trafficked back into the hands of those who would exploit them. In his article published this morning in ConservativeHome, the Immigration Minister descended yet further, speaking of those with “different lifestyles and values” cannibalising compassion. That is not a dog whistle but a foghorn.
The process by which the Government have brought forward the Illegal Migration Bill is an insult to democracy and to the House. It has been rushed through without a full Committee stage or evidence sessions—no evidence whatsoever from the Government about the things they have put forward. Swathes of Government amendments have been brought forward today in haste, but there has not yet been an impact assessment, even at this very late stage. It is unacceptable that we are being asked to vote on something without an impact assessment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) has requested an impact assessment umpteen times in the House and via a freedom of information request, but nothing has yet been forthcoming. I know the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) has also been tirelessly pursuing an impact assessment of the Bill. It is testimony to the Government’s dogged evasion of scrutiny, not to their lack of effort, that that has been fruitless.
As Members of Parliament, we are guarantors of rights. The SNP’s amendment 45 seeks to hold the UK Government to their international obligations—how utterly bizarre and reprehensible that we even have to introduce an amendment to ensure that—and to attempt to have the provisions in the Bill line up with convention rights in the UN refugee convention, the European convention on action against trafficking, the UN convention on the rights of the child and the UN convention relating to the status of stateless persons.
Anyone reading the UNHCR legal observations on the Illegal Migration Bill can plainly see how far the UK Government are deviating from international norms. Those observations say:
“The Bill all but extinguishes the right to claim asylum in the UK…breaches the UK’s obligations towards stateless people under international law…would lead to violations of the principle of non-refoulement…would deny refugees and stateless people access to their rights under international law.”
They go on to say that the Bill violates article 31(1) and 31(2) of the UN refugee convention and international human rights law,
“puts at risk the safety and welfare of children”
and
“would increase the pressure on the UK asylum system”.
What an atrocious mess this Government are making.
Further to this condemnation from the UNHCR, the Council of Europe’s group of experts on action against trafficking in human beings stressed that, if adopted, the Bill would run contrary to the United Kingdom’s obligations under the anti-trafficking convention to prevent human trafficking and to identify and protect victims of trafficking, without discrimination.
The Home Secretary appears to misunderstand the very nature of modern slavery and human trafficking, as right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches have outlined. Perhaps that could be accounted for by the lack of an independent anti-slavery commissioner, as the post has now been standing vacant for a year. The previous holder of the post, Professor Dame Sara Thornton, gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee last week on how the national referral mechanism actually works. I suggest the Immigration Minister should have read that evidence before coming to the House with such proposals as he has today.
New clause 26 replaces the placeholder clause 51 and gives the Government the power to ignore interim measures from the European Court of Human Rights and remove people who would otherwise have not been removed. The clause hands powers to Government Ministers to unilaterally decide whether the UK should uphold its international obligations. Liberty has described this as a concerning shift of power away from Parliament and towards the Executive. Yet again we are seeing the stripping away of crucial checks and balances—another Westminster power grab that has become a hallmark of this Government.
I tell you what this is really about, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is about setting up a fight with the European Court of Human Rights. It is about setting out to breach international law. It is about sleight of hand and deflection from the Conservatives’ failure to get a grip on the immigration backlog that they created. They think that if the public are somehow distracted by judges in their jammies, they will forget about the incompetence of the Minister. I give my constituents and people up and down these islands more credit than that—their heids don’t button up the back.
One of the most egregious aspects of the Bill is its impact on children. The Children’s Commissioners are crystal clear about the harm that it will cause; the Minister should heed their calls. The Scottish National party is happy to support new clauses 2 and 3 on pregnancy, given the impact on both the mother and the child in the circumstances; amendments 2 and 3 and new clause 14 on safe and legal routes and family reunion for children; amendment 5 on unaccompanied children; and new clause 4 on an independent child trafficking guardian.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady recognise that it works both ways? I have a constituent who offered her home to a “17-year-old” asylum-seeking young man. He had all the benefits of being under 19, but then he revealed that on his next birthday he would be 24. We need to talk openly and fairly about the safeguarding issues, both for our own children and for children coming from other countries.
Alison Thewliss
The hon. Member makes an interesting point, but the fact is that the medical professionals just do not support the methods that the Government are suggesting to determine age.
Alison Thewliss
Is the right hon. Member going to disagree with the British Dental Association?
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Lady will know that I tabled an amendment in Committee which the Government have now refashioned and tabled on Report, precisely because there is a pedigree for such testing across European countries. Many European countries routinely use such testing to establish whether children are actually children and to avoid the eventualities that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Lia Nici) has just mentioned.
Alison Thewliss
The British Dental Association, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, and Unison’s experts disagree with the right hon. Member. These are professionals. [Interruption.] The Minister is laughing on the Front Bench and denigrating a trade union. Given the Government’s current position with respect to industrial disputes, I do not think that that is particularly wise of him. He might want to think about that.
I acknowledge Government amendments 134 and 136, but I am afraid I have real problems trusting the Government, because detaining children is wrong: that is the fundamental point here. The Government want to make regulations specifying the circumstances in which unaccompanied children should be detained, and further regulations on time limits. They do not have the courage to put those proposals into the Bill, and they know that we cannot amend statutory instruments should they deign to introduce them at some point in the future. We do not trust them to do the right thing here, because children are children, and it would be extremely harmful for them to be detained.
We tabled amendment 47 to try to humanise the Bill. Much has been said about hordes of people coming here and trying to claim asylum, but this, fundamentally, is about individual people, many of them fleeing circumstances that Conservative Members cannot even imagine. Accordingly, the amendment seeks to disapply the provision in clause 2 from people in a range of categories. The first, in subsection (a), covers
“a person who was under the age of 18 when they arrived in the UK”,
such as Shireen, whom I mentioned earlier, and many others like him.
Subsection (b) refers to a person from Afghanistan
“where there is a real risk of persecution or serious harm…if returned to that country”.
In Committee, I tried to personalise my amendments by putting a name to each of them. I could call this “Sabir’s amendment”, after Sabir Zazai, the chief executive of the Scottish Refugee Council. He came here as a child in the back of a lorry, but he would be prevented from so doing, criminalised and removed to Rwanda if the Government had their way. He makes an outstanding contribution to Scotland. He has two letters which he said he would put on the wall in his house. One is from the Home Office, saying, “You are a person liable to be detained and removed.” The second was sent on behalf of the royal family when he was awarded the OBE.
Subsection (c) specifies
“ a person who is a refugee under the Refugee Convention or in need of humanitarian protection”.
That would cover many people who are currently fleeing from Sudan. Earlier, the Minister failed to identify a proper “safe and legal” route—
Alison Thewliss
No, the Minister did not do that. What he has done is push this on to those at the UNHCR, who say that it is not their job. They have also said that the tiny minority, the 1%, who manage to gain access to its relocation scheme are not suitable, in that there is not enough in that very small scheme to replace a functional asylum system.
My constituent Ilios is a British citizen whose wife and son are trapped in Sudan and are unable to obtain their documents because the British Embassy staff are out of the country, although they now have the right to travel. Will they be able to come to the UK safely through some other mechanism? Will it be possible for people who happen to be in Sudan with refugee travel documents, perhaps with family members visiting there, to be evacuated by the UK forces? The position remains unclear.
Subsection (d) refers to
“ a person…where there is a real risk of persecution or serious harm on grounds of sexual orientation if”
that person
“were to be removed in accordance with this section”.
I recently had a call with LGBT rights activists in Uganda, which is introducing brutal laws to persecute LGBT people, up to the point of the death penalty. People are terrified over there. They are talking about mob justice, and of families being at risk as a result of even knowing that their loved ones are LGBT. If they were able to escape Uganda and come here, there would be no means under the Bill to prevent the Government from sending them back rather than protecting them, so we seek to put that protection into the Bill.
Subsection (e) covers
“a person who, there are reasonable grounds to suspect, is a victim of torture”.
In Committee I mentioned Kolbassia, who founded Survivors Speak OUT. I talk to people in my constituency surgeries who have been victims of torture. They deserve protection; they do not deserve this Bill.
Subsection (f) refers to “a Ukraine citizen”. There is no Ivan or Oksara who needs to come here in a boat, because there is a safe and legal route: they can come here perfectly legally, without having to resort to that. We should be making that route available to more people.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
I am listening closely to what the hon. Lady is saying. When I was the Children’s Minister, every single local authority in Scotland bar one was refusing to take any unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. Why?
Alison Thewliss
The right hon. Lady may not be as well-informed as she hopes she is. Every single local authority in Scotland took people under the Syria scheme and they were proud to do so. We took a greater proportion than the rest of the UK. We would be willing to take more people if the Home Office would only honour its side of the bargain. The Minister is looking at me askance, but the Home Office is choosing where people go. The Home Office is booking hotels. The Home Office is not working with local government in Scotland to do this properly, and I can tell him that it is not working properly with local elected Members. I am aware of plans to put an asylum hotel in my constituency—[Interruption.] The Minister asks me if I am opposing it. I would not know, because he has not given me the details of it. I have known about it since January, but he has not even bothered to get in touch with me as the local elected Member to discuss it. It is absolutely ridiculous.
Subsection (g) of amendment 47 relates to
“a person who, there are reasonable grounds to suspect, is a victim of trafficking or modern slavery”.
I mentioned at a previous stage of the Bill that this could be Eva’s amendment. She is a survivor who was helped and supported by the Trafficking Awareness Raising Alliance —TARA—in my constituency. She came here and ended up being trapped in sex work. Those people deserve particular help and support, but it will be denied to them under this Bill. Services such as TARA will find it difficult to operate once the Bill passes.
Subsection (h) refers to exempting
“a person who has family members in the United Kingdom”.
We could call this Ibrahim’s amendment. He is a constituent of mine who had family stuck in Iran. He has found it very difficult to get them here. People should not have to wait in situations of danger for the Home Office eventually to get round to processing their applications, because for many it is a situation of life and death. They cannot wait for the Iranian authorities or the Taliban to come and find them. They cannot wait to be persecuted or tortured or killed. People are fleeing for their lives and the Home Office’s very slow decision making puts people at risk.
Subsection (i) refers to a
“person who meets the definition of an ‘adult at risk’ in paragraph 7 of the Home Office guidance on adults at risk in immigration detention (2016), including in particular people suffering from a condition, or who have experienced a traumatic event (such as trafficking, torture or sexual violence), that would be likely to render them particularly vulnerable to harm.”
I have talked previously about Priya, a trafficking survivor who was detained in Yarl’s Wood when she was pregnant and unable to access the services that would have kept her safe. There are many people like that, and under this legislation we will see more women, including pregnant women, being locked up in immigration detention.
Government amendment 95 states that
“it is not necessary for the person to be present in the United Kingdom”
to give evidence regarding trafficking. Professor Dame Sara Thornton, the former Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, gave evidence on this to the Home Affairs Committee last week. She said that asking people to give evidence after they had been removed from the UK would be “astonishingly difficult operationally”, “complex and complicated” and “very challenging indeed”. I would question the very efficacy of this process, because there is no recognition of the difficulties that it would cause. Co-operation with people once they have moved away will be practically very difficult, as will dealing with police forces in other parts of the world. It is unclear what level of co-operation will be required to get some kind of exemption to this requirement to give evidence after removal. What will those “compelling circumstances” be? There is also no recognition of the trauma that this will cause to people.
Dr Katarina Schwartz of the Rights Lab presented evidence to the Home Affairs Committee this morning on the impact that this proposal could have on prosecutions. She said that
“if a survivor is heavily traumatised and being questioned by the police, they will not be able to give good testimony”.
She also said that
“the impact of decreasing support for survivors on both their own experiences of recovery and integration and on their inability to testify is enormous”.
She spoke about the benefits to the person, to the prosecutions and economically to the UK of doing it right and of having people come through a process and do well from it.
This is a dangerous, atrocious Bill. It rips up rights, it undermines our international obligations and it rides roughshod over devolution. It puts children at risk and it places those who have been trafficked more firmly than ever back into the hands of the exploiters, who will more easily avoid prosecution due to the measures in this tawdry Bill. It will not work. We will amend it, but we know that amendments are not enough to fix this unfixable Bill. We know in Scotland that better things are possible, and we wholeheartedly reject this Bill. We are appalled at its imposition against the will of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government. We on the SNP Benches say it loud and clear: refugees are welcome here. We reject this fascist, dystopian assault on human rights.
Mrs Theresa May
I will concentrate my remarks on amendment 4, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith)—I have also signed it—and Government amendment 95.
Before I do so, I want to say a word about evidence. The Minister has indicated again today that, in his view, there is evidence that the Modern Slavery Act 2015 is being abused. I apologise for doing this to him again, but he might wish to look at the evidence given to the Home Affairs Committee this morning by a representative of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, basically saying there is no evidence to support the claim that the national referral mechanism is being abused. On the contrary, the evidence is that there is a low level of abuse. They went on to say that the biggest problem with the NRM is not abuse but the big delay in finding an answer for victims, which is of course within the Government’s control because it is about the length of time that officials are taking to consider cases.
I am grateful to the Minister for meeting me last week to discuss the concerns I raised in Committee. I welcomed the Government’s apparent attempt to improve the Bill for victims of modern slavery, and their willingness to look at that, but then I saw Government amendment 95. Far from making the Bill better for victims of modern slavery, the amendment makes the Bill worse. I believe the Minister was talking in good faith, but it is hard to see Government amendment 95 as an example of good faith. It is a slap in the face for those of us who actually care about victims of modern slavery and human trafficking.
Equally concerning, Government amendment 95 suggests that those who are responsible for the Bill simply do not understand the nature of these crimes or the position of victims. The Minister wants to see an end to human trafficking, and he wants to stop the traffickers’ business model, as do many of us on both sides of the House, but the best way to do that is by identifying, catching and prosecuting the traffickers and slave drivers.
Government amendment 95, by making it an assumption that victims do not need to be present in the UK to assist an investigation, makes it much harder to investigate and prosecute the traffickers and slave drivers. It has been shown time and again that victims’ ability to give evidence is affected by the support they receive. They need to feel safe and they need to have confidence in the authorities.
As Detective Constable Colin Ward of Greater Manchester Police says:
“If we get the victim side right first, the prosecutions will eventually naturally follow, alongside us doing the evidence-based collection of that crime.”
Support for victims matters in catching the slave drivers. Sending victims back to their own country, or to a third country such as Rwanda, will at best make them feel less secure and, therefore, less able or less willing to give the evidence that is needed, and will at worst drive them back into the arms of the traffickers and slave drivers.
Again, the representative from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe made the point today at the Home Affairs Committee that the UK has been leading the world in identifying victims exploited by criminal activity. That tells us that these people are vulnerable, because they have been compelled by traffickers to engage in criminal activity. Disqualifying them from our ability to rescue them will mean the UK is no longer able to identify them, and it will leave them to the mercy of the traffickers. Far from helping, Government amendment 95 flies in the face of what the Minister and the Government say they want to do to deal with the traffickers and slave drivers and to break their business model.
The Government have previously used clause 21(5) to tell us that they are providing more support for victims of slavery. Government amendment 95 reverses that by making it even harder for victims to get the support they need, which I think would be a setback in the fight against the slave drivers and traffickers.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
My right hon. Friend is making a good speech. The reality is that amendment 95 poses a threat. Straightaway, its assumption is that someone goes, rather than that they have to prove anything; they go first and then somebody has to prove that they have to be here. What are they going to do when they look at that? They are going to say, “We’re off, so why would we give evidence?”
Mrs May
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. I hope that this is an unintended consequence of the Government’s amendment, but I fear, given that they tabled it, that they knew all too well what they were doing with this amendment, because they just want people to leave the UK. As he says, assuming that where somebody is identified they are going to have to leave the UK means that they are less likely to give evidence, and we will not catch and prosecute so many traffickers and slave drivers. Sadly, all too often those individuals will return to a country where they will be straight into the arms of the traffickers and slave drivers again.
The purpose of amendment 4 is simple: to ensure that victims who are being exploited, in slavery, here in the UK are able to continue to access the support they need, which will enable them to find a new life here or indeed in their home country. Not everybody who has been trafficked here for slavery wants to stay in the UK. Many of them want to return home, but they need to be given the support that enables that to be possible.
Amendment 4, if accepted, would ensure that it would be more likely that the criminals were caught. This Bill says, “If you are a victim of modern slavery who came here illegally, we will detain and deport you, because your slavery is secondary to your immigration status.” It has always been important to separate modern slavery from immigration status. Modern slavery is not a migration issue, not least because more than half of those referred to the national referral mechanism here in the UK for modern slavery are UK citizens here in the UK.
Modern slavery is the greatest human rights issue of our time. The approach in this Bill will have several ramifications. It will consign victims to remaining in slavery. The Government will be ensuring that more people will stay enslaved and in exploitation as a result of this Bill, because it will give the slave drivers and traffickers another weapon to hold people in that slavery and exploitation. It will be easy to say to them, “Don’t even think about trying to escape from the misery of your life, from the suffering we are subjecting you to, because all that the UK Government will do is send you away, probably to Rwanda.” The Modern Slavery Act gave hope to victims, but this Bill removes that hope. I genuinely believe that if enacted as it is currently proposed, it will leave more people—more men, women and children—in slavery in the UK.
As I have said, another impact of the Bill will be fewer prosecutions and fewer criminals being caught and put behind bars. I apologise to the Minister for bouncing him with the Greater Manchester Police evidence that I cited earlier, but it is very relevant and he needs to look at it. The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 already means that people who are in slavery—the figures on those who get a positive decision from the national referral mechanism show this—are not coming forward because of the evidence requirement now under that Act. That is having a real impact and it means fewer prosecutions of the criminals.
I wish to mention the impact on children, and I urge the Minister to listen carefully to the concerns of the Children’s Commissioner. Other Members of this House, including my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), have long championed, through the process of this Bill, the issue of children. My concern is particularly about those children who are in slavery in this country and being cruelly exploited, as victims need support.
The Children’s Commissioner has cited the example of Albin, a 16-year-old Albanian national who came to the UK in September via a boat. He was trafficked for gang and drug exploitation. It was clear to the Border Force that he was young and malnourished, and that he had significant learning difficulties. He was provided support, including from the Children’s Commissioner’s Help at Hand team, but the point the commissioner makes is that
“without the NRM decision…he would have not been processed through the immigration/asylum route as quickly and he would have not received the adequate support to meet his needs.”
Upon receiving the positive decision for the NRM, the social care team was able to transfer him to a suitable placement. That 16-year-old would otherwise have potentially been detained and deported by the Government.
It is important that we consider the impact on children who are victims of slavery. I put the arguments earlier about making it harder to prosecute the slave drivers, and that covers child victims as well, but there may well be an added element for the traffickers to use to keep children enslaved, by which I mean the situation in Rwanda. UNICEF said:
“In Rwanda, over half of all girls and six out of ten boys experience some form of violence during childhood. Children are usually abused by people they know—parents, neighbours, teachers, romantic partners or friends. Only around 60% of girls in Rwanda who are victims of violence tell someone about it, and the rate is even lower for boys.”
I recognise that that quote relates to children in Rwanda being abused by people known to them, but the environment is hardly conducive to the good care of children.
Amendment 4 would remove the problem by ensuring that those identified as being exploited into slavery here in the UK could still access the support provided under the Modern Slavery Act. We have led the world in providing support for those in slavery by what we have done here in the United Kingdom. The Bill significantly damages the operation of that Act. It is bad for victims, bad for the prosecution of slave drivers and bad for the reputation of the United Kingdom.
I was grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for saying from the Dispatch Box that he was willing to talk and listen to us to see whether we can find a way through this. I say to him quite simply that the best way to do that is through amendment 4. That is what removes the problem in relation to the victims of modern slavery, so I hope the Government will be willing to look very carefully at that amendment and to listen to what we have said. What we are talking about is not just what we say, but what those who are identifying and dealing with the victims of modern slavery are experiencing day in, day out. They worry that more people will be in slavery as a result of the Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. I will now announce the result of the ballot held today for the election of the Chair of the new Energy Security and Net Zero Committee. A total of 384 votes were cast, none of which was invalid. There were two rounds of counting. There were 362 active votes in the final round, excluding those ballot papers whose preferences had been exhausted. The quota to be reached was therefore 182 votes. Angus Brendan MacNeil was elected Chair with 188 votes. He will take up his post immediately. I congratulate him on his election. The results of the count under the alternative vote system will be made available as soon as possible in the Vote Office and published on the internet.
I now call Dame Diana Johnson, after whom I shall have to impose a five-minute limit on speeches.
Dame Diana Johnson
It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). I thank her for highlighting the evidence that we heard this morning at the Home Affairs Committee on the issue of trafficking and modern slavery, and I again pay tribute to the work that she did on that pioneering piece of legislation in 2015.
I think the right hon. Lady is right that the Government do not fully understand the law in this area of modern slavery and trafficking. I support what she said about amendments 95 and 4. I noted that, at the start of proceedings, the Minister said that it is important that we get the Bill right, and it is absolutely important that we do so. As we enter this final stretch for the House to have the opportunity to debate and amend the Bill,
I wish again to express my concerns about the lack of an impact assessment for the Bill. The impact assessment is now seven weeks late, and it is wholly unacceptable that the House is being forced to pass this very significant legislation with no firm analysis on whether it will work or what the cost will be. According to the Refugee Council, the Bill could cost as much as £9 billion over the next three years.
I again refer to the Home Affairs Committee report on small boat crossings, in which we were very clear about the need for evidence-based policy making. It is regrettable that this Bill is being forced through at breakneck speed with no time for pre-legislative scrutiny. I know the Minister has had to table a lot of Government amendments to deal with issues that perhaps should have been thought through before, and we have heard that he will reconsider issues around modern slavery and trafficking as well.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the amendments she has tabled and the work she does with the Select Committee. Does she agree with my constituents who have written to me, precisely on this issue, to say that the Bill risks our reputation internationally for providing a safe haven for those who are fleeing persecution, and that we must do all we can to ensure that that reputation is maintained?
Dame Diana Johnson
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Reputation is important in this area, and the approach taken on this particular point will hurt our country more than it helps us. For example, it will not help us to get a returns agreement with EU countries, which I think we all agree is necessary if we are to start to tackle irregular migration.
I welcome the fact that the Government are introducing provisions for legal aid in the Bill, which I think is a positive step forward, but I am concerned that they do not acknowledge that there are currently legal aid deserts across the country that leave genuine asylum seekers, refugees and victims of trafficking without access to legal advice. The sector is on the point of collapse and access to advice regulated by the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner is really hard to come by for the many people who desperately need it. I hope the Minister will set out how people will be able to access that legal advice and assistance.
On new clause 8 and amendment 11, I welcome the Government moving on the safe and legal routes. Again, that is in line with recommendations that the Home Affairs Committee made in its report.
At Committee stage, I raised several concerns with the Minister about the lack of consideration for vulnerable children within the Bill. The Bill creates broad powers to detain unaccompanied children, removing essential safeguards and time limits that had previously been enacted by this House.
I know the Minister said in his opening remarks that he was going to support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), and I am pleased to hear that. However, unfortunately, the Bill as currently drafted will still allow the unlimited detention of pregnant women, ending the current 72-hour time limit—a limit put in place by the Government in 2016.
The Bill also abolishes necessary safeguards for children who are accompanied, undoing the protection put in place by the Government in 2014. The Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Children’s Commissioner and the Refugee Council have all raised serious concerns about those proposed changes, and I agree completely with the issues that they have raised.
That is why I have tabled amendments 2 and 3 to uphold the existing detention limits for children, families with children and pregnant women. They were introduced by this House for very good reason and should be upheld. Limits on detention deliver essential safeguards for the most vulnerable people who arrive on our shores, ensuring that while we process their claims we keep them safe, we treat them with care and we do no further harm. The UK has been a stalwart of that decency, but these specific detention measures are a major step backwards for families, for children and for pregnant women.
I welcome Government amendments 134 and 136, and the support for the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, but even with those changes, the Bill does not extend the appropriate protection to children with families or to pregnant women. My amendments have cross-party support, including from the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West, and from the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes). I hope that the Minister will, even at this late stage, consider again whether anything can be done on the amendments. If he is not minded to do that, I will, if necessary, test the opinion of the House on that important issue.
I also welcome the Government’s change of heart on the ban on future citizenship for children born in the UK to parents who meet the conditions in clause 2. That delivers on at least half of my amendment 8. However, I firmly push back to the Minister that it still cannot be right that an eight-year-old child brought here by their parents would be forever barred from citizenship as an adult. I raised that point in Committee. It seems completely illiberal to punish a child for the actions of their parents or carers. Will the Minister look again at amendment 8?
I have tabled several other practical amendments underlining the protections and considerations for children, which I believe need to be addressed. Those amendments are all supported by the Children’s Commissioner, and some have foundations in the Home Affairs Committee report on channel crossings. I hope that the Minister will consider them in that vein.
The Government’s approach to tackling migrants in the Bill remains problematic in respect of children. There are several measures and amendments before the House that could be adopted while still allowing the Government to deliver—arguably more effectively and practically—on their stated aims. There are other, less headline-catching measures that will also uphold the essential safeguarding provisions that the House has put in place over the years to protect victims of trafficking and modern slavery, unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, asylum seekers and refugees.
Finally, the Home Affairs Committee has started an inquiry on slavery and trafficking. We were very fortunate to have had evidence from Baroness Butler-Sloss last week, and from the former Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, Dame Sarah Thornton, both of whom took the view that the Bill will not help victims of modern slavery and trafficking; it will do the exact opposite. I again ask the Minister to listen to the experts in the field. It is notable that two Conservative Members—the right hon. Members for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and for Maidenhead—made compelling arguments on why the provisions relating to modern slavery and trafficking need to be considered once again.
The other place may take further views, but does the Minister seriously want to make it harder for victims to come forward? If—as Dame Sarah Thornton said—a woman is trafficked into this country after 7 March, taken to a brothel and repeatedly raped, but manages to escape and seek help, does the Minister want to ensure that she is told that no assistance can be given and that she will be removed to Rwanda? Is that how we want to treat people like her?
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. Hon. Members will have noticed that we are endeavouring first to call those who have tabled amendments. After that, I or my successor will accommodate as many Members as possible.
Mrs Elphicke
I rise to speak to amendment 184, which was tabled in my name and supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and many other right hon. and hon. Friends.
The stop the boats Bill is important to my Dover and Deal constituency because it focuses specifically on the problems of small boat arrivals by dramatically reducing the pull factor that draws people to the United Kingdom—namely, that once people are here, it is very hard to remove them. The Bill cuts through all that. It says, plainly and simply: “If you’ve arrived here illegally, you won’t be allowed to stay.”
I have long said that the small boats crisis will end only when migrants and people smugglers alike know that they will not succeed. Stopping the boats is the right and compassionate thing to do. It will save lives that are being risked in the channel. The Bill and today’s amendments, particularly new schedule 1, will send a clear and unmistakable message to would-be channel migrants: “If you are thinking of breaking into Britain in a small boat, don’t bother. Save your cash and stay safe on land.”
Let me turn to the details of amendment 184. Clause 4, to which the amendment relates, sets out the circumstances in which human rights and other protection cases can be excluded. Put simply, if a person arrives through the small boats route, they will not be allowed to try to prevent their removal through endless legal appeals paid for by the British taxpayer.
The amendment focuses specifically on those who would put our public safety or national security at risk. This approach is in line with the UN refugee convention and the European convention on human rights, which has always allowed countries to protect themselves from those who would cause the most serious risk of harm to them and their countrymen and women.
The amendment would apply whether or not the country of origin can be identified—for example, if someone is undocumented, perhaps because they have eaten their identity papers or thrown their passport in the channel, or, as border officials tell me has shockingly been the case, if someone has taken razor blades to their fingers to damage and destroy their fingerprints to avoid identification.
At the frontline of my constituency in Dover and Deal, this is not a matter of open-borders fervour or pro-migration ideological dogma, as some of the contributions today have suggested; it is a matter that directly affects my constituency and our country’s safety, security and peace of mind. A key reason why the small boats Bill and amendment 184 matter is that when Dover and Deal residents raise matters of concern, the official Opposition do not back them and do not even believe them. When migrants ran amok and broke into a woman’s house, before being apprehended in a bedroom, the leader of the Labour group on Dover District Council went on TV to cast doubt on residents’ accounts, dismissing them as misreportings. He said that we should be “more generous” to illegal channel migrants.
The reality is that Labour’s new clause 15 is a smokescreen for allowing more legal challenge and more taxpayer costs —more potential loopholes to allow those who would wish our country harm to stay here. New clause 15(2) would require a Secretary of State to consider imposing TPIMs on illegal migrants who are suspected of terrorism, if they cannot remove them, but as the Minister has said, the Government are doing that anyway. The Government will always act to protect the country’s national security.
If Opposition Members want to ensure our country’s safety and security, they should back the Government’s “stop the boats” Bill and they should back swift removals. New clause 15 pretends to be tough, but in fact it would result in slower appeals than the fast-track process the Government have set out. In my constituency we see Labour’s true colours: it is an open-borders, pro-immigration party. It does not want to stop the boats. Just like Brexit, so on small boats: Labour cannot be trusted and does not listen.
I thank the Minister for engaging with us on amendment 184. I have had the reassurance that I sought, as have my right hon. and hon. Friends who support the amendment, so we will not press it to a vote today. I look forward to continuing to engage with the Minister to stop the boats.
Stella Creasy
Let us be very clear: demonising refugees will not tackle the cost of living crisis in this country, but it might create some local election leaflets, just like this piece of legislation. We know that this legislation will not survive the other place, thankfully, so the question for us today is: what messages do we need to send to our colleagues in the other House as they scrutinise and hold to account this Government, given that the Government have systematically failed to provide the time for scrutiny in this place?
Stella Creasy
The Minister has not explained why he has put forward that statutory instrument. People will still come because it is still better than the death that they face in the country they are fleeing from. We see that with the Sudanese. The Minister said earlier that he would listen to the UNHCR when it came to taking Sudanese refugees; in that case, he needs to tell us how many he will take because right now, there are people facing that very same situation. There are no queues in a war zone.
Stella Creasy
With the greatest respect, I have listened at length to the hon. Member for Stone and have yet to find any common ground on these issues.
Frankly, it is about time that we stood up for the importance of the international rule of law and helping people when they are facing these situations. There are no queues in a war zone, there is no administration or bureaucracy: there is fear, terror and persecution, and those people who are in Sudan now will be asking those questions. If the Minister wants to answer them and give those people hope that, if they make it to the border or to one of the refugee camps—they may find one of those UNHCR people who does not think that the UNCHR has that relationship with the UK but thinks the Minister is prepared to do that—we will take a certain number of people, that might stop them fleeing. This legislation will not do so.
More people will keep coming, including from Afghanistan, where the Government have failed to bring in a safe and legal route, and where they still fail to listen to those of us who have constituents who have been affected by that fact. They will come from Eritrea. They will come from the war zones and places of persecution—those people whose religion means that they are at risk. They will come because they see what we did with the Ukrainians; they see this country, and they know that there is a better way of doing it. The Lords will take this legislation on—that is probably the point of it for the Government—but let nobody be under any illusions: the Bill is just about 4 May. It is not actually about resolving the problem.
Tim Loughton
It is difficult to know in five minutes how to address the five amendments with my name at the top, including the two that have been leapfrogged by the Home Secretary. I have spent many hours cossetted with the Minister for Immigration and others to try to get some of the adjustments being made, and I am grateful for the time he has spent to try to get us to a better place. I certainly do not have time to respond to the extensive assurances that he aimed to give me from the Dispatch Box earlier.
I support safe and legal routes. I am glad we will now have them on the face of the Bill. We need a balance. I support this Bill, but if we are to be tough on the abusers of our immigration system, we also have to ensure we are open and generous to genuine asylum seekers, to whom we owe a duty of care. The amendments on safe and legal routes are also timely because we needed to address the question that I posed to the Home Secretary some months ago about how the 16-year-old orphan from east Africa with relations in the UK would make it to the UK. This week, that apocryphal scenario became a reality. The measures that the Immigration Minister will be bringing forward need to address that question.
It is essential that the Immigration Minister consults local authorities about capacity, but he also needs to consult refugee organisations and others about the type of schemes with which we will come forward. How will they operate? Who will qualify for them? How will people access them? Let us make sure that those schemes are in place sooner rather than later in 2024, although I would have liked them to be contemporaneous. We have a deal on safe and legal routes, but we need to see some real workable details in the coming months and as the Bill goes through the Lords.
I have no time to talk about amendment 181 on the return of children or amendment 182 on best interest and welfare checks. My real concern has been on child detention, so I was grateful for the assurances that the Immigration Minister gave me, because the measures as they stand do not differentiate between children and adults in detention terms. They ride roughshod through the safeguards on child detention under the Immigration Bill 2014, through which this Government specified the 24-hour limit, and the Government have not even offered to put the maximum detention times for children in this Bill. That is a must when it comes to any amendments that the Minister can bring forward in the House of Lords.
Edward Timpson
I very much agree with the points that my hon. Friend makes in support of children. Does he also agree that we need absolute clarity on the responsibilities under the Children Act 1989 in all circumstances where a child is on these shores, and in particular where the Home Office itself has some responsibility?
Tim Loughton
That is absolutely right. It is notable that three former Children’s Ministers are behind the measures we are trying to push today. It is essential that any child in this country, whether a refugee here temporarily or someone here for the long term, is covered by the welfare considerations of the Children Act. I am grateful that the Minister referred to the Children Act. As it stands, despite the measures that mean there will be a differentiation between children and adult detention—we do not know what yet—under the Bill a 12-year-old child claiming asylum could still be in a Home Office detention centre facility for 27 days. That is not a good look, and it must not happen.
Vicky Ford
I add my voice to the chorus of former Children’s Ministers on this issue. Does my hon. Friend agree that the period for which a child could be detained when they first arrive to find them suitable accommodation needs to be a matter of days, not weeks, and that that needs to be in the Bill?
Tim Loughton
That is what we put in the Immigration Act 2014 with the then Immigration Minister, now the Transport Secretary. What has changed between 2014 and 2023 that means apparently we have to detain children indefinitely? We need timescales in the Bill, as we had in 2014. I appreciate there are practical problems about age verification for those who are challenged. We may have to have a two-tier system, but certainly those children who are recognised generally as children should not be locked up in detention centres and Home Office facilities, and that has to be made absolutely clear when this Bill goes to the Lords.
We also need to know how and where the Government plan to accommodate those children once identified. The accommodation does not exist at the moment, and the Government have only a few months to magic it up if we want to get this legislation through in a matter of months. I share the Children’s Commissioner’s concerns. She said:
“The Bill is unclear on what the state of the accommodation will be for children while awaiting transfer to local authority care or removal from the country…What regulations will be in place for Home Office provided accommodation? If the accommodation is regulated which body will inspect them?”
There are a lot of questions to be asked. We are taking the assurances from the Minister on trust. We will not continue with a lack of detail when the Bill gets to the Lords, but for the moment we will not force it, because I trust the Minister to do the right thing before the Bill goes through its final stages.
Apsana Begum
I rise to speak to a range of amendments and new clauses seeking to protect people from the attacks on basic human dignity that are before the House today. I am supporting new clauses in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) about the ongoing human rights breaches that migrants endure, which have been happening for some time, but today I shall focus on how the legislation treats those who are pregnant, because not only will the Bill persecute and imprison people fleeing torture, war and oppression, but it will put the health of some of the most vulnerable of them—pregnant women—and the life of their unborn children at risk. That is why I have tabled new clause 2 seeking to exempt pregnant women and girls from provisions about removals. My new clause 3 seeks to require an independent review of the effect of the provision on pregnant migrants, and my new clause 7 is about a review of the effect of the measures on the health of migrants.
I am also supporting related amendments to prevent an immigration officer’s and the Secretary of State’s detention powers from being used to detain unaccompanied children, families with dependent children, or pregnant women, as tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson).
In order to cut through the dehumanising othering that too often plagues debates on migration—I note the awful nature of the comments made earlier today in response to the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) about the dental testing of young migrants, which I find dehumanising and an othering of different communities—I would like to draw the House’s attention to a real-life example to illustrate the human reality of what is being debated today.
Najma Ahmadi and her family fled from the Taliban and made 20 attempts to cross into Greece from Turkey—20 attempts. On two occasions, Najma nearly drowned, once while pregnant with her baby daughter. She finally arrived in the UK last July on a boat, her terrified one-year-old baby girl clutched against her. Najma and her family were entitled to asylum, which was granted last December, but we must not forget those pregnant women escaping persecution who have died seeking refuge. For example, Yohanna, an Eritrean woman thought to be about 20 years old, who gave birth as she drowned alongside many others, when the boat she was travelling on, trying to get to safety, capsized. And there are many other women who remain unnamed.
These women are not criminals, but this Government are proposing today to treat them worse than criminals, despite knowing that such women are in fact victims of foreign policy failures and the simple, indisputable fact that there were no safe routes for them. They are fleeing countries such as Afghanistan, which has barely had a mention today. As I said during the previous stage of the Bill, as of last month, 22 people had been granted asylum through the Afghanistan resettlement scheme. If that figure has changed, I would be more than happy for the Minister to address it in his closing remarks, but that is such a small number—unless of course the Government have changed tack and do not think there are women trying to escape the Taliban in Afghanistan and believe that they do not deserve safe routes through which to escape.
Not only will the Government refuse sanctuary to those who survive these horrors, but clause 11 will enable the Home Secretary to condemn them to indefinite detention. The Bill will therefore see migrant women who should have finally escaped persecution facing pregnancy and birth alone, without adequate medical support and with the fear of potential separation from their baby.
There is a wealth of information and evidence that the imprisonment of any pregnant women is wrong. We know that pregnant women in prison are almost twice as likely to give birth prematurely and are five times more likely to experience a stillbirth. Yet pregnant refugees are to be placed in circumstances worse than the already inhumane situation of pregnant women in UK prisons such as Manston, where there are outbreaks of illness and disease, reports of assaults and drug use by guards, and which last year was estimated to be detaining thousands of people arriving in Britain via small boats, some for as long as 40 days or more. No one should be detained in such places, never mind those who are pregnant.
The British Medical Association, the Royal College of Midwives, and Maternity Action have all raised that healthcare in immigration detention is often very poor. In 2014, some 99 women were locked up in Serco-run Yarl’s Wood detention centre while pregnant, and research by Medical Justice found they often missed antenatal appointments—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. The hon. Lady is out of time. I call David Simmonds.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
There are many things one could say about this Bill, and certainly my extensive backstory of dealing with asylum and migration issues means that there are many elements to which I think it is appropriate to draw the House’s attention. However, it is important to start by saying, as many colleagues have said, that we all share the aims this Bill sets out to achieve. We cannot allow a situation to continue in which, in the English channel, significant numbers of people are putting their lives at risk, and in some cases tragically losing their lives. We need to find a better, more robust and effective way of managing our migration process.
I would like to focus my attention in the short time available on a couple of issues of principle and a couple of practical issues that I hope Ministers will give attention to and that I am sure will be the focus of debate in the other place. I certainly commend the work that has been done by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), and I very much welcome the assurances that have been received in response to the work they have done.
I will start by mentioning age assessments, the impact of local authority duties under the Children Act 1989 and the need to ensure that, by the time this Bill completes its passage and gains Royal Assent, we have absolute clarity about what we expect of our local authorities and about how that process will interact with both this Bill and other legislation such as the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, which imposes specific responsibilities on local authorities in respect of all young people, regardless of their immigration status.
Those who have read what the interim Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee has said—its report has been published by the Home Office on its website—will be clear that the scientific methods proposed envisage at best a minimum age range that could be assigned to an individual. It envisages that the Merton-compliant local authority age assessment process will continue as necessary and required.
We need to ensure that we do not end up in a situation where a local authority or other public body is judicially reviewed for failing to carry out its duties under, for example, the Children Act or the Children (Leaving Care) Act, while seeking to be in compliance with its duties in respect of immigration under the Illegal Migration Act. I am pleased, having met the Minister on this issue, that he has said he will return to me on a number of those points, but it is important, if we are not to undermine public confidence in the effectiveness of this legislation, that we address that issue expeditiously.
The second issue of principle to which I would like to draw the House’s attention is the impact of the so-called rule 39 point—the interim relief provided by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The Brighton declaration some years ago was a recognition by the European Court of Human Rights of the concerns of a number of member states about areas where the actions of the Court had departed from some of the things perhaps originally envisaged in the treaty or specifically enshrined in law. Therefore, there is clarity that the Strasbourg Court and its judges recognise that there is concern about the operation of some of these matters.
However, it does seem to me concerning that the Bill envisages that the only circumstances in which such an interim measure would be relevant is where the Home Secretary considers it to be so. The default position is that we will always ignore our international law commitments unless we choose to follow them, and that is something that, as a party that seeks to uphold the rule of law in all cases and all circumstances, we should be concerned about.
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, in that on my next point, which is our links with other countries and in particular returns agreements, I have had the benefit of a lot of research support looking at the United Kingdom’s relationships with other countries. Clearly, if we are not to create a situation in which significant numbers of people find themselves, at very significant taxpayer cost, in detention in the UK for long periods of time, we need to go immensely beyond what is envisaged in the Rwanda agreement and establish returns agreements, particularly with EU neighbours and with other countries as well.
It is my understanding from the assurances I have received from Ministers and the Government that all of those points will be addressed during the passage of this Bill. In order to achieve that, which is a wish we all share, I will be supporting it tonight.
Sir Chris Bryant
I hate the crossings. I hate every single aspect of the crossings. For a start, it is a traffic that turns people, in particular extremely vulnerable people, into a commodity. I have heard stories that traffickers often deliberately buy dinghies that are more dangerous, because they are hopeful they will be picked up by other people. That is despicable. They are deliberately putting other people at risk. They are also a sign of a failure of international diplomacy in other parts of the world, most notably in Afghanistan, Iran and Syria. No doubt we will have people from Sudan in the not too distant future, too. They are chaotic and unregulated. There is no opportunity for justice or proper priority for those who are most in need, so I absolutely hate them.
Emotions run extremely high, most notably emotions on behalf of those who are being trafficked. They are in fear for their lives. They are terrified of being spat at, of being hated, of being in an environment they do not know and where they do not speak the language properly, and all the rest of it. Also, many people in this country watch with compassion that is mixed with anxiety and fear. That is why the language that we use is so, so important. I say very gently to the Minister that I really did not like it when, in a previous debate, he started using language about breaking into this country, and his using the word “cannibalise” today is very, very unfortunate. I know he is a decent man; I urge him to think about that language.
I do not, incidentally, buy the fundamental premise of the Bill either. If it really were trying to provide some kind of deterrent, it would have been thought through much more carefully. I do not believe that deterrent is really the matter of it. The push factors to the UK are far more significant than the pull factors in determining who ends up on a boat. Insofar as there is any evidence as to what the pull factors are, they are: that we speak English in the UK and lots of people are more likely to speak English than French, German, Italian or Spanish; that people already have family connections in the UK, so they think they might be able to base themselves here more easily; and that we have the rule of law. Those three things are not going to change.
I passionately dislike the Bill’s interaction with UK modern slavery legislation. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) said it far more effectively than I can, but I just look at Government amendment 95. It is the worst piece of gobbledegook I have ever seen introduced:
“The Secretary of State must assume for the purposes…that it is not necessary for the person to be present in the UK…unless she considers that there are compelling circumstances…In determining whether there are compelling circumstances…the Secretary of State must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”
She is going to be in endless discussion with herself! It is just preposterous and completely undermines the good efforts, made over many years, to try to ensure we really can crack down on the traffickers. The best person able to reveal a trafficking ring is a victim of that trafficking ring. Without willing co-operation from those people, we simply give more power to the traffickers.
I also dislike the interaction with our international commitments. The former Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox), made the point earlier that, in essence, the Bill is asking us to say deliberately that a Minister can breach our international commitments. As somebody who has probably been the longest standing critic of President Putin in this House and has been saying this for a very long time, I do not want us to be in a very small group of countries with Russia and Belarus who have left the European Court of Human Rights. That, in the end, would do a terrible disfavour to British prosperity in the world.
Sir John Hayes
What the former Attorney General said—I thought it an extraordinarily contradictory contribution to our affairs—was that these judgments were not compelling. We are not compelled to abide by them—indeed we did not in respect of prisoner voting—yet he complained that there was something wrong with saying in law that we are not compelled to do so. Either we believe we are obliged to follow the judgments or we do not. The truth is that we should not be following them.
Sir Chris Bryant
There are times when we want to disagree with a Court ruling. The Labour Government certainly did over whether prisoners should have the right to vote. There was a lengthy process, and I cannot even remember where we ended up. I am not opposed to a disagreement with the Court—that can sometimes happen—but the Bill, and especially the amendments in the name of the right hon. Gentleman and others, deliberately ask the Government to front it up with the European Court and the European convention on human rights. In the end, that will do us long-term harm. When we want to have a conversation with China about abiding by international rules-based order, it will be more difficult for us to do that when we are offending our own treaty obligations.
Labour MPs are often asked the perfectly legitimate question: “If you don’t believe in this Bill, what would you do?” As I said earlier, first, I want a comprehensive security treaty between the United Kingdom and the European Union. I think that was what we always wanted at the beginning of the Brexit process—the right hon. Member for Maidenhead was quite right to argue for it. I do not know why that is not on the table again now. It would solve many of the problems that we are seeking to address. Secondly, we should make it easier to arrest the traffickers. We need to devote more time, energy, money and international co-operation to making that happen. Thirdly, we need to process the backlog faster. The more people stuck in the backlog for months, the more the cost to the British people from hotels or whatever other arrangements are made. That is wrong.
Finally, I honestly do not think that anyone will be proud of this legislation in five, 10 or 20 years’ time. I hope that it will all be undone by a future Government. I do not even think that the immigration Minister will mention it in his memoirs.
Sir John Hayes
Edmund Burke said:
“Justice is itself the greatest standing policy of civil society; and any eminent departure from it, under any circumstances, lies under the suspicion of being no policy at all.”
Defending our borders and our ability as a sovereign nation to remove people who have no legal right to be here is a matter of justice—it is legally just and socially just. So is our right as a Parliament and a Government to say how many people should come here lawfully. I suggest gently to the Minister that he needs to look next at legal immigration—the record numbers of people coming here and the visa system that allows that. All that matters to my constituents. I humbly propose that it matters just as much to the constituents of Members of this House from Ruislip to Rhondda, and from Worthing to Walthamstow.
Every poll or test of public opinion says that the British people want to stop the boats crossing the channel. As the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) said, not only does that endanger the lives of the people in the boats, it offends the principle that I just set out that a nation is no nation if it cannot control its borders. Despite the rhetoric that we have heard, Opposition Members are paying lip service to immigration controls. I believe, as do the vast majority of the people I represent, that there has been too much immigration into Britain for too long. Immigration is a salient for them in a way that it is just not for many Opposition Members.
Outside this place, the shrillest opponents of this legislation and the fiercest critics of the Home Secretary include those who are deluded and those who are devious. They are deluded in refusing to accept the reality that many of the people arriving in the boats are economic migrants, gamed by dodgy interest groups and devious lawyers to support spurious claims exploiting the capricious perversity of European judges, who no one in my constituency chose and who are not accountable to anyone in this Chamber or this country. The trouble is that some people do not believe in the integrity of our borders because, in essence, they do not believe in the integrity of our nation.
Sir John Hayes
I will happily give way to my hon. Friend, who I hope does believe in the integrity of our borders and our nation.
Laura Farris
I do. I listened to what my right hon. Friend was just saying about the problem of European judges, but can he refer to a case from the European Court of Human Rights where those judges demonstrated a lack of respect for our immigration laws?
Sir John Hayes
I gave the example of a case that was not about immigration but about something as vivid as the issue of immigration: prisoner voting. Successive Governments—Labour and Conservative—opposed prisoner voting, and in the end the matter was dropped. That is a very good example of where the European Court of Human Rights was dismissive of the traditions and character of how we do things here.
Sir John Hayes
I will not because time does not allow.
The amendment I tabled in Committee, which has now been brought forward by the Government, will put in place scientific tests to establish beyond doubt the age of claimants.
Almost 90,000 people have come here in small boats in recent years. It costs £6 million a day to accommodate them in more than 300 hotels. The Government and this House must re-establish the faith of the British people that we understand their concerns. It is as simple as this: we must deliver the legislation because we must stop the boats.
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
I am interested to know whether I am part of the liberal establishment. As a working-class girl from Yorkshire, I am struggling a little with that concept. I wonder whether the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) is part of the liberal establishment that has been spoken about.
We on the Opposition Benches are clear that the tide of illegal migration to this country must be stemmed. We are also clear that the appalling rise in the number of people risking their lives in small boats to cross the channel is a damning indictment on this Government’s failure to secure our borders. Deflecting blame for their failure on each and every person who gets in a boat, at great risk to themselves, because they have no other option, is shameful and wrong.
I rise to support amendments 2 and 3, in the name of the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), in the hope that Ministers will recognise the inherent injustice in this blanket approach and that they will reflect on the need to address the issue on the basis of what works, not what they believe will reverse their poor poll ratings on immigration.
The truth is that people are sick and tired of hearing from successive Tory Prime Ministers and Home Secretaries that they are finally going to get tough and sort out the mess that they themselves have made of our immigration system. If we want to address the growing cynicism in the country about promises made from the Dispatch Box that turn out to be hollow, Ministers have to give up their addiction to divisive and dangerous language and headlines, and get serious about the issue of illegal migration.
Yasmin Qureshi
Is my hon. Friend as dismayed as I am by the Minister’s comment earlier today about cannibalism, referring to refugees?
Kim Leadbeater
I agree wholeheartedly. I sometimes worry, on many levels, about the language used in this place and its impact on the outside world. My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) has made that point very well. We all need to think about the language we use, the words we say and the impact that they can have on people outside this House.
What we need is a thorough, workable and deliverable plan. That is what the Opposition have put forward, as the shadow Immigration Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), has articulated brilliantly this afternoon. What distinguishes Labour’s plan is not only that it is practical and tough on the real criminals, but that it is rooted in justice and fairness.
I note that the Minister has described the Bill as
“the morally just thing to do”.
I beg to differ. There is absolutely nothing fair or just about detaining children, and nor will the Bill do anything to deter the criminal gangs. Equally, as we have heard, imprisoning pregnant women and those with dependent children undermines the moral basis of the policy without achieving any benefit. That would be true whether or not the Government had a good record of protecting vulnerable people, either in detention or in Home Office accommodation, which clearly they do not.
Justice and fairness cannot be cast aside lightly. They are at the heart of what makes us all proud to be British. They underpin our values. They should be the guiding principles behind everything we do in this House. Unless the system is both just and fair, it will fail, like every other so-called crackdown that has done nothing to stop the boats. Not only will it fail to work, but it will fail to convince the public that the Government are serious about stemming the flow of illegal immigration. I therefore urge the House to support our amendments.
Vicky Ford
As I said on Second Reading, I support the premise of the Bill. Too many people’s lives are put at risk on small boats, and it is important to break the model of the people traffickers. We are also spending millions of pounds—indeed, billions—of our aid money on hotels for tens of thousands of people in the UK. That money should be spent on helping millions of people elsewhere in countries such as Sudan. I have just met representatives of Save the Children from South Sudan, who told me of their expectations that children who need help will be coming across the border. Without help, such countries will become even more unstable. More people will be forced to flee their homes, so more people will try to get on the small boats.
The small boats route is also extremely unfair. No country has an unlimited capacity to support asylum seekers. Those who arrive by illegal routes reduce and limit our capacity to provide the safe and legal routes that will help the most vulnerable. As I said on Second Reading, the introduction of new safe and legal routes needs to go hand in hand with closing down illegal routes. I am extremely grateful to the Government for listening to that point, and I have co-signed new clause 8.
On the issue of how children should be treated, I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration for meeting me and my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and listening to our concerns. I know that the Minister takes the welfare and safeguarding of children very seriously. I understand that we must be careful not to create perverse incentives for people traffickers that force them to target even more children and send them on small boat crossings, but depriving a child of their liberty is a very serious issue.
We have very strict rules in this country regarding the protection of children. I am very proud of those rules, many of which were introduced by this Conservative-led Government. Depriving a child of their liberty can have a serious and long-lasting effect on their mental health, so there need to be very strict rules. That is why I am a signatory to amendment 183, which makes it clear that a child’s liberty can be restricted only for a very limited period.
I am grateful to the Minister for listening to my concerns on the subject and to those of other former children’s Ministers. I listened closely to what he said at the Dispatch Box. I thank him for his assurance that he will work with my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham to set out a new timescale on the deprivation of liberty issue. That timescale needs to be clear, and it needs to be set out in the Bill. It should be a handful of days, not a number of weeks. That is necessary to make sure that children are prioritised, because children are often those who are most at risk.
I agree that we need to be wary of the risk of creating an increased incentive for more adults to claim to be children. I recognise that some of those who claim to be claiming asylum are actually adults. However, roughly 50% of those whose ages are in dispute are children, and many of them will be very vulnerable. We need to ensure that there are short timescales for genuine, known children, but also that there is proper safeguarding for those whose age is disputed.
Another point of concern that has been put to me is that children who know they could be removed when they turn 18 may be at increased risk as they near their 18th birthday. They may be tempted to abscond from care, and may then fall into the hands of deeply worrying people and become subject to the modern-day slavery about which my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) speaks so eloquently. Members need to consider these risks, and to ensure that the Bill and the way in which it is implemented will not make vulnerable children even more vulnerable.
Liz Saville Roberts
New clause 1, which stands in my name, would give those detained under measures in the Bill the right to work in the UK after six months. I am pleased that it has received cross-party support and the backing of the Welsh Refugee Council. Words matter, and I hope to be as balanced as possible in my language, although there is much in this Bill that I find utterly abhorrent.
Those seeking asylum in the UK are currently effectively banned from working while awaiting a decision on their asylum claims. Permission to work is granted only in respect of jobs on the shortage occupation list, and then only after an asylum seeker has waited longer than 12 months for a decision, provided that the delay was not the fault of the asylum seeker. Once someone has been granted refugee status, that person has permission to work in the UK in any profession and at any skill level.
The Bill does not treat detainees as asylum seekers, and states that their asylum claims cannot be considered under the immigration rules. The spirit of new clause 1 is to do away with that false categorisation, and to recognise that these so-called detainees are asylum seekers. In doing so, it effectively removes the work restrictions that they would face if they were indeed classified as asylum seekers under the Bill. This builds on previous attempts to introduce a right to work after six months for asylum seekers, through proposed amendments in the other place to the Immigration Act 2016 and the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.
The present ban means that the majority of people seeking asylum in the UK end up living on £5.66 a day to cover almost all their needs, as they are excluded from mainstream benefits. That places them more than 70% below the poverty line. It cannot be right that asylum seekers are frozen in destitution while waiting for months, if not years, for a decision. Of the cases in the asylum backlog in December 2022, two thirds—nearly 110,000 people—had been waiting for more than six months, up from 44% of cases in December 2017, and that number will only grow as the Bill effectively freezes the asylum processing system altogether. If any Members present take issue with giving asylum seekers the right to work after six months of languishing in unsuitable accommodation and in poverty—that low, low-paid poverty—I say this to them: reject the Bill, and focus on rebuilding the asylum processing system so that people do not have to wait more than six months to receive an asylum decision.
We know that the majority of people who cross the channel will succeed in their claims to be refugees, and will eventually be able to work unrestricted once they have obtained their refugee status, provided that their asylum claims have been processed quickly and humanely. Asylum seekers have told me how the ban is affecting them. Seeye from Cardiff, for example, says:
“I am losing hope. All I want is a bright future. I am young, I can work. I am ready to start tomorrow and fund myself.”
Doesn’t he sound like a young Tory?
Overturning the ban has widespread public support, with a 2020 petition to the Home Office reaching 180,000 signatories and a 2022 poll showing that 81% of the public support people seeking asylum in the UK having the right to work.
Yasmin Qureshi
The right hon. Lady is making an excellent point. In fact, the Government should take this on board because we are told that one of the reasons for wanting to curb this is the cost to the public purse of maintaining people, but if they are allowed to work, we would not have to pay them to be in accommodation or pay them benefits. It is a win-win situation.
Liz Saville Roberts
Indeed it is.
We know that our economy is suffering from chronic labour shortages, and that is in part down to Brexit. Why can we not think out of the box? Why can we not stop looking at people as a problem and start looking at them as part of the solution? I know this because Ysbyty Tywyn in my constituency has closed its wards because it cannot get staff. I represent an area with an older demographic, and we cannot get carers. And yet we are a week away from the local elections in England and this is what we are talking about. We are not thinking sensibly in the 21st century. Meanwhile highly skilled asylum seekers are sitting idle in detention centres, eager to work and keen to contribute to our society but banned from doing so.
There are 1.2 million job vacancies in the UK. Businesses are crying out for workers, and 70% of businesses want to give asylum seekers the right to work after six months. New clause 1 would allow those people detained for six months or more to apply for permission to work, including self-employment and voluntary work. This could do so much; it could be such a boost for our economy when we are suffering after Brexit. The right to work is a fundamental human right and it is crucial for the wellbeing of asylum seekers and their integration into society. It is also beneficial for the economy, as businesses want to be able to access the skills and experience of asylum seekers.
I call on the Government not to look at asylum seekers as a political threat but to see this as the thing that the United Kingdom is proud to do well. We should be proud to do this well and proud to hold our heads up high within the global order. These people are always a potential, not a threat, and we should be working with that potential as best we can.
Laura Farris
I spent considerable time in the last debate addressing the European convention on human rights, and the House will be relieved to hear that I am not going to do the same thing again today, but I will just say one thing. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) is correct to say that we have no say on who sits in the European Court of Human Rights, but no MP has any say on who sits in the Supreme Court in this country either, and the reason that nobody can give me an example of the European Court interfering with a material change to our domestic immigration laws is because there isn’t one.
I want to congratulate the Government on reaching an agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) on new clause 8, which I think gives the Bill moral clarity. The aim of this Bill is to extinguish a route, not a right. The Bill says that if someone enters the United Kingdom by small boat or any other illegal route, they cannot claim asylum now or ever, but we are maintaining compliance with our legal obligations under the refugee convention only when we can say in parallel that there are safe and legal routes that they could and should have taken as an alternative. It is already clear that this was envisaged by the Bill because it is dealt with in the provisions in clause 53 in the context of annual quotas agreed in conjunction with local authorities. It is plain that this is the direction that not only the United Kingdom but all our European neighbours are moving in, faced with the mass migration flows of the modern day that simply could not have been envisaged when the refugee convention was drafted.
I also want to talk about new clauses 22, 19 and 23 to 25. My first observation is how closely they resemble laws that were tried but ultimately failed under the last Labour Government. That is not me scoring a political point; this is difficult stuff. A lot of this is in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 but it never really worked, and here is why I say that this is important today. I want to talk about identification documents, mobile phones and age verification, all of which I have experience of in immigration tribunals. All these things boil down to one critical principle: that he who asserts must prove.
I refer the House to the evidence of Dan O’Mahoney, the clandestine channel threat commander, to the Home Affairs Committee in September 2020. Asked about the number of small boat arrivals who have identification documents, he said:
“I can’t give you an exact figure, but I can tell you that it is almost none—very, very close to none. Generally speaking, encouraged by the facilitators, they will get rid of any sort of documentation …phones, SIM cards, anything…before they are intercepted by Border Force… They literally arrive in the clothes that they are wearing.”
I invite the House to contrast that with Operation Pitting. Every single person who left Kabul in haste in the summer of 2021 arrived in the United Kingdom with an identification document.
The lack of identification documents is a major problem, because it means the Home Office is entirely reliant on language tests and interviews to ascertain background facts. The best it can do is guess whether a claimant is genuine, which leads to a lot of economic migrants being given asylum when they probably would not have proved their case if they had documents. That has contributed to a huge degree of abuse in the system.
The same principle applies to mobile phones. In an era of mass technology, in which smartphones are as commonplace in sub-Saharan Africa as they are in London and in which 5 billion people use social media, it must be right that a negative assumption is reached about any individual who does not provide access to their phone as a way of establishing their identity.
I repeatedly dealt with age verification at the tribunal, the appeal tribunal and the High Court. It is not good enough to rely purely on a Merton-compliant test. Until very recently, we had no scientific method by which to establish a person’s age. Of course small children do not go through age verification, but the vast majority of children who arrive claim to be around the age of 17. We now have the technology to allow age verification, so it cannot be left as a matter of discretion or as an option for the applicant. If they say they are under 18, they must be obliged, as these new clauses require, to undergo proper age verification.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
Before I begin, I direct the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which outlines the support I received from the RAMP project.
I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) and for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson). These amendments attempt to mitigate the damage the Bill will do to some of the most vulnerable people, by requiring reports on how it will affect the pregnant, victims of modern slavery and the health and human rights of refugees.
New clauses 2 and 3 would safeguard pregnant women and girls from removal. I have spoken to people working on the frontline in detention centres who feel deeply uncomfortable and ill-equipped to deal with pregnant women in such settings, so these amendments are vital. In fact, every woman who arrives in a detention centre is given a pregnancy test because staff recognise that where they work is not appropriate for pregnant women.
New clause 4 would support young people under the age of 18 in their interaction with the asylum system. This stands in stark contrast to the Government’s obsession with trying to discredit and dehumanise children, either by proposing bogus scientific assessments to determine their age—I say that as a biomedical scientist—or by bizarrely claiming that granting safety to children is some sort of pull factor. Lobotomies were once widespread across the globe too, but that does not mean they were scientifically valid, accurate or moral. Just because someone else is doing it does not mean we have to do it here, especially when the evidence for the accuracy of these tests is so poor.
It is a damning indictment of this Bill that my hon. and right hon. Friends have needed to table this extensive list of new clauses. The protections they are attempting to introduce are outstripped only by the litany of rights that this Government are attempting to remove from some of the world’s most vulnerable people.
The Government’s contemptible proposals have been tabled for entirely cynical reasons. We all want to stop the boats. But when the Government say, “Stop the boats”, it is not because they want to end the crisis in the channel, because they want to have safe borders where people do not die on them or because they want to end the suffering of people who are trying to come here to claim asylum. It is not even because they want to end the horror of people drowning as they attempt to reach refuge in the UK. It is because they are intent on vilifying people who have survived some of the most harrowing and worst things human beings can go through. I know that because I have spoken to many, many refugees and asylum seekers who have come here on boats. The Government are taking this approach because on these big issues they have no answers, so they are resorting to scapegoats.
It is clear that that has been an agenda long before this Bill was presented and that the Government are being pushed around by a very small and extreme group within the Conservative party, as we see when we look at Government new clause 22. It shamefully bars UK courts from interim measures to stop someone from being deported if they bring a legal challenge. The Government claim that they are considering fairness and the rule of law, and that that is a key British principle and value, but this measure sheds that. The Government are only too keen to undermine these principles if it helps them in the scapegoating of the most vulnerable. They want to bypass the European Court of Human Rights and harm Britain’s standing in the world, eroding the foundations of the international refugee systems and the refugee convention, all to appease their Back Benchers and throw red meat to a small portion of their base.
Yasmin Qureshi
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Does she agree that part of this dog-whistle politics is about what the Conservative party deputy chairman said, which is that the next election is going to be fought on woke, culture and trans issues. Of course, stigmatising refugees is part of that.
Olivia Blake
My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is worth reflecting on the fact that in this week alone the horrifying news about Sudan has reached us and we have seen the horrific circumstances being faced by not only British and dual nationals, but everyone there. While Britain is working hard to evacuate our citizens, we are not talking about safe routes for Sudanese refugees or a homes for Sudan scheme, and there are no dedicated resettlement routes and no numbers confirmed in respect of what countries the UNHCR should be prioritising in trying to help with what the Minister was outlining earlier. Even with Government new clause 8, the best this Bill could offer is a commitment to a report on safe routes, but with no actual, tangible commitments to open new ones. What are people fleeing war and persecution in Sudan, or anywhere else, supposed to do with that? By the time anything comes from this report, it will be too late for them, they will be on their way.
The amendments I cited earlier have been tabled because no serious attempt has been made in this Bill to ensure that vulnerable people are protected. That has been outlined well in the discussion we have had on modern slavery, so I will not add to that. The purpose of the Bill is the complete opposite of providing safe and legal routes for people to claim asylum. At their core, these proposals are not about helping anyone or making anyone safer, and they are not about making our borders safer; they are simply about attacking the rights of refugees, for the sake of electoral expedience and managing unruly Government Back Benchers. At the centre of this is a paradox: how can someone claim asylum if they are not on UK soil and they have to be on UK soil to claim asylum? How can they take a safe and legal route if there is no safe and legal route that works for them or is available to them? How can they claim safety in the first country they get to if that country persecutes them because they are LGBT, or they have a disability or religion—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)
Order. I am afraid that the hon. Lady is out of time. I call Sir William Cash.
Sir William Cash
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wish to start by asking a big question: what is this Bill ultimately going to achieve? The European convention on human rights was introduced in the 1950s, and at that time I would have agreed with every word that has been said in respect of its application to the holocaust and to genuine refugees. However, what we have witnessed recently has been the phenomenon of this small boats problem, which does not just affect the UK. It also affects Italy, and Madam Meloni, whom I gather is coming over to see the Prime Minister tomorrow, is certainly going to have something to say about that. The problem is endemic and has to be dealt with.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Sorry—time’s up. I call Patrick Grady.
Patrick Grady
I am not sure I fully completed my hon. Member for Stone bingo card there, but we certainly got most of the greatest hits.
I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) is aware—I apologise to her if she was not—that a cross-party delegation of MPs visited the port of Dover last week with the Industry and Parliament Trust. We learned that in 55 BC illegal migrants from Rome, possibly led by Julius Caesar, were pelted from the White Cliffs with sticks and rocks. It is just as well that none of the Ministers from the Home Office was on that delegation, because it might have given them ideas for further amendments to the Bill, permitting the throwing of stones at craft attempting to land—or perhaps they would be instructing Border Force to seize the bronze age boat from Dover Museum in an attempt to track down any descendants of illegal migrants from 3,000 years ago.
We also learned about the Border Force processing facility in Dover. Despite the myths of an invasion of small boats washing up on beaches across the south of England, in reality most small boats are diverted directly from channel shipping lanes, where of course they are a major risk to larger vessels, and from there people are processed and sent directly to Marston or elsewhere. There is no invasion; there are no thousands of people prowling the streets. There are just human beings so desperate that they are willing to risk their lives to get here.
Although the provisions of the Bill are designed to be retroactive from 7 March this year, according to the Home Office website, there does not appear to be any significant change in the patterns of detections since the Bill was introduced, so if the Bill was supposed to have a deterrent effect, it appears to be failing from the start. However, that has not prevented the Government from doubling down on their hostile environment with the swathe of amendments they have tabled today.
In Committee, the Minister took issue with the number of amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), saying:
“At this rate, there will be more SNP amendments to the Bill than there are refugees whom they accommodate in Scotland. Instead of pruning the already excessive forest of legal challenges that we find, the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) proposes a Kafkaesque array of new ones.”—[Official Report, 27 March 2023; Vol. 730, c. 777.]
Yet now it is the Government who have tabled a forest of amendments, with an amendment paper running to 73 pages. Of course, if the Government had tabled just one amendment, that would be more than the number of asylum seekers they actually seem to want to accommodate in this country.
If people are looking for Kafkaesque amendments, they should turn to Government new clause 26 and its consequential amendments. Picking and choosing which parts of the ECHR they want to apply at any given time betrays the true agenda of the Home Secretary and her cheerleaders on the Tory Back Benches—to take us out of European, and eventually global, human rights frameworks altogether.
The same applies to the Government amendments, which will undermine their own previous legislation on human trafficking and modern slavery. Those measures will be counterproductive; as the Trades Union Congress has said, the proposals will mean that,
“modern slavery victims who are trafficked…for exploitation will first be denied refuge, then returned to their country of origin and almost certainly back to the criminal gangs who trafficked them in the first place.”
Where the Government have been forced into making concessions, they are nowhere near adequate. I have heard from many constituents in Glasgow North who want refugees to be welcomed here, to have the right to work so they can contribute to our economy and society, as Plaid Cymru proposes in new clause 1, and to be able to come here by defined, safe and legal routes that are established and workable—not a vague pledge to publish a plan for a review of a consultation in a few months’ time, as suggested in new clause 8.
In fact, what constituents in Glasgow North want to see is the Bill defeated at Third Reading and scrapped altogether. Failing that, the Government should adopt the wide range of amendments tabled by the SNP, which aim to bring at least a vestige of humanity into the system, as our amendment 45 would do by requiring courts to make sure the Act is interpreted in line with our international treaty obligations, and to ensure it still resembles an actual asylum process rather than deportation charter, which is why we have tabled amendment 46 to delete clause 2 in its entirety.
I have asked this in this House before, but how often have Home Office Ministers, or their Faragiste fanboys on their Back Benches, sat down with asylum seekers and people who have come here on small boats to listen to their stories? There is an open invitation to any of them—Front Benchers and Back Benchers alike—to come to Glasgow North and meet the inspiring members of the Maryhill Integration Network, who have come here fleeing war and persecution and who, despite being met by the most hostile of environments created by the Home Office, are determined to make a new home in Scotland and make our society a better place for everyone to live in.
That is what an effective asylum system should be designed to produce: people in genuine need being supported and welcomed to rebuild shattered lives and strengthen our society as a whole. The Government’s amendments today to an already inhumane Bill move us even further away from that ideal. However, it is an ideal that constituents in Glasgow North and across Scotland will continue to aspire to, and it will be the foundation of our own independent asylum and immigration system when Scotland too breaks free of the UK’s hostile environment.
Danny Kruger
I am very pleased to have listened to this interesting and useful debate. I rise to speak to new clauses 22 and 17, which clarify the means by which a suspensive claim may be made to stop a removal from this country.
In that context, I will reply briefly to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris), who made a good speech in Committee opposing the amendment that I had tabled to disapply the operation of the European convention on human rights as a means to prevent removals. Her point was that English law already includes protections that could be used in the same way as the ECHR. Of course, she is quite right: the jurisprudence of the UK has a set of remedies against unfair treatment, and they still apply. Indeed, they are clarified in the Bill.
In contradiction to what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) was saying, the remedies for a suspensive claim against a removal are clarified in the Bill, particularly the principle of non-refoulement, which is in our common law—we would have it even without European rights law. So this policy does not contradict that principle. Indeed, it strengthens it with a clear protection for people who would suffer harm by being returned to their own country or any country. Now that that relief is clarified in the Bill, we need to block the spurious use of other domestic remedies that are no longer necessary.
I thank the Minister and the team for their constructive engagement. I am very happy about where we have got to in the Bill. I will quickly explore the issue at the heart of the debate, which is not migration but the sovereignty of Parliament in making law, including laws about this essential issue. It has been established in recent times—particularly by the judgment in the case of Thoburn in 2002—that some laws in this country have more weight than others and, indeed, are not subject to implied repeal. They essentially have the status of constitutional documents. Of course, the European Communities Act 1972 had that status until Brexit. The other Act that has that constitutional status is the Human Rights Act 1998, which requires and enables the British courts to apply the ECHR. The doctrine of implied repeal does not apply to the 1998 Act either, and that Act requires the courts to follow the judgments made in Strasbourg.
I can live with anomalies. We do not want a hasty, destructive, ideological or populist rejection of the status quo in the legal arrangements of this country—that is not the British way; it is not the Conservative way. We can live with an eccentric inheritance from the post-war era. The problem is not when it is eccentric, but when it is deeply problematic, as it was in June last year, when the European Court put a stop on our removals policy. To respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, that was an occasion on which the European Court exercised an interference in our immigration policy.
I accept that that was just a rule of the court, which, in my view, we could have ignored, but the Government seemed to accept the legal advice that they were obliged to give immediate effect to that ruling. I am very pleased that new clause 26 will give the Home Secretary the power to disregard rule 39 interim orders from Strasbourg, but we remain subject to article 46 of the convention, which obliges us to comply with final judgments.
For me, there are two profound problems in our membership of the ECHR. First, we have an in-built ratchet with Strasbourg rulings and the treatment of the ECHR as a living instrument to be interpreted in the light of whichever cultural ideas are prevalent or appealing to the judges. Thanks to the Human Rights Act, those rulings form part of English law. At the same time, there is a willingness among lawyers in the UK to employ the ECHR to frustrate the will of Parliament and to refer the laws that we make to some higher authority—to an abstract morality rooted not in custom or the habitual allegiances that we have to each other as citizens of the same country, but in their own liberal fantasies.
I also believe in a higher authority that respects the dignity and value of every human being. Let us call it the natural law. I believe that that higher authority is the source of all our liberties and rights, and indeed of the ECHR and every other noble-sounding document in the west. It is the source of our morality, but the way in which that morality works in practice is not through abstract theorising from on high but through the accumulation of case law and the statutes passed in this place.
I do not propose that we come out of the ECHR now. I am suggesting that, if there is a further challenge to British sovereignty and the supremacy of Parliament—be it in Strasbourg or through the British courts applying the convention—we have no superior obligation to remain in the ECHR. The superior obligation is to our own sovereignty and the supremacy of this place. This debate has exposed a difference between those of us who believe in nation states and the customary laws of nations, and those who believe in abstractions to be interpreted by unaccountable judges—whether or not they are in their pyjamas. I am content with where we have got to with the Bill, which I support unreservedly.
Robert Jenrick
I thank and commend right hon. and hon. Members from all parties for what has been a measured and thoughtful debate over the course of this afternoon. The Bill before us is probably the most significant immigration Bill in my lifetime; for that reason, it is important that we get it right. Today’s debate has centred on a number of significant issues. I will not reprise all my earlier remarks, having spoken then for the best part of three quarters of an hour and taken many interventions, but I will touch on the five principal areas that were discussed by Members on both sides of the House and attempt to provide any further reassurance that is required.
The first significant issue was the removal of minors. As I said earlier, the Government’s approach in respect of children is one in which we take the interests of the child extremely seriously. These are morally complex issues, and I and all the Ministers involved in the Bill’s preparation have thought very carefully about how we can protect children, both at home and abroad, as we have produced the Bill and the scheme that underpins it.
I hope that the ways in which we will approach the removal of children are now clear, thanks to the work we have done with several right hon. and hon. Members, including in particular my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford). We will seek to remove unaccompanied children only in exceptional circumstances. As we have now made clear, the two principal purposes are for family reunion and for a child’s safe return home to the loving care of social services in their home country.
We have taken the issue of the detention of children extremely seriously, because we do not want to detain children. We will do so only in the most exceptional circumstances. The circumstances that we have now clarified in the Bill and in the debate, again with the helpful guidance and support of right hon. and hon. Members, are for the purposes of initial processing when children and families arrive irregularly in the United Kingdom in small boats or via other forms of clandestine entry, and then for the limited and defined purposes of removal from the country that I mentioned a moment ago. We understand the desire of many Members for there to be carefully thought through and limited time limits on detention. I hope that the amendment we tabled and my remarks today give reassurance that we will bring forward that regime and that it will be as short as practically possible.
There is a significant exception to that rule, which is, of course, for those cases in which there is a serious age-assessment dispute. In such cases, the undoubted desire to limit the amount of time for which a child is ever detained by the state has to be balanced against the equally important safeguarding issue of young adults posing as minors—indeed, not all so young, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) said earlier with regard to the recent allegation about a 42-year-old posing as a minor. We have to get the balance right so that young adults do not regularly pose as minors and create an enormous and very concerning safeguarding risk for our young people.
Sir John Hayes
I rise simply to say that the engagement we have had with my right hon. Friend and his Department throughout this process has been exemplary. It has been a model for how good scrutiny can improve legislation. I thank him and, in particular, the Home Secretary for the stand they have taken.
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and return the compliment. It is important that we in the Government listen to the expertise we have among Members from all parties. I hope Members will agree that that is the approach we are taking to these sensitive issues, of which age assessment is certainly one. I do not want to see a situation in which young adults are regularly coming into the UK illegally, posing as children, and ending up in our schools, in foster-care families and in unaccompanied-minor hotels, living cheek by jowl with genuine children. That is an evil that we have to stamp out, and the approach we are taking in the Bill will help us to do so.
The third issue that was the subject of debate and, again, a high degree of unity—certainly on the Government Benches, but perhaps more broadly—is the approach to safe and legal routes. We want to stop the boats; we also want to ensure that the United Kingdom continues to be one of the most respected countries in the world for the way in which we provide sanctuary to people who are genuinely in need. We are doing that already, as evidenced by the fact that since 2015, half a million people have come into our country legally on humanitarian grounds. We have safe and legal routes today, but I appreciate the views of a number of right hon. and hon. Members, including most notably my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham.
That has led us to the agreement that we will rapidly bring forward the consultation with local authorities that grounds the desire of this House to be generous with the reality on the ground in our communities and councils. Within six months, we will bring forward the report that will result from that consultation, and as soon as possible over the course of next year, we will set up or expand the existing safe and legal routes so that the UK can be an even greater force for good in the world. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) laughs at that—of course, Scotland could step up to the plate as well. Since she tempts me, I will just say that her and her colleagues asked for an extension to today’s debate, but as far as I am aware, only two spoke in it. Fewer SNP Members spoke in the debate than could fit into Nicola Sturgeon’s battle bus.
Alison Thewliss
Is the Minister aware of the fact that other SNP Members had put their names in for this debate because it was originally scheduled for Tuesday, but the Government changed the timing at the last minute?
Robert Jenrick
I find that rather unconvincing, given that so many were able to turn up earlier. It does rather reinforce the point that the Scottish National party’s approach to these issues is entirely performative: they talk the talk, but they do not act. On this occasion, we did not even get the talk.
Robert Jenrick
I will not give way to the hon. Lady.
The fourth serious issue that was raised, principally by my right hon. Friends the Members for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and for Maidenhead (Mrs May), was about our mutual desire for the good work they did in office to establish our world-leading modern slavery framework to live on, to continue supporting genuine victims—in particular, those victims of modern slavery who have been in the United Kingdom for a sustained period of time and who have been the subject of exploitation here, rather than in the course of their passage, whether in a small boat or otherwise. While it is clear that we will not be able to settle the matter today, I hope that my right hon. Friends —as they kindly said in their remarks that they would—will work with the Government throughout the continued passage of the Bill to ensure we get the balance right.
Robert Jenrick
I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman—sorry, he corrected me earlier: the hon. Gentleman.
Sir Chris Bryant
My intervention is very brief: can I just suggest that the Minister does not move amendment 95? I do not think the House is in favour of it, and it will end up being removed in the House of Lords. It would satisfy both the right hon. Members for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and for Maidenhead (Mrs May)—who are nodding behind him—if he just did not move it.
Robert Jenrick
I am not going to do that, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for the advice. The amendment to which he refers enables the Government to ensure that those individuals who are the subject of a police investigation, or are participating in a police investigation with the aim of bringing their traffickers to justice, can have that investigation conducted in the United Kingdom, or—if it is safe to do so—can have their contribution to that investigation conducted while in a safe third country, such as Rwanda.
Mrs May
My right hon. Friend has been generous in giving way, and I must apologise to the Home Secretary, because I think I referred to the Immigration Minister as Secretary of State earlier in the debate.
Amendment 95 does not say that people who are participating in an investigation can be here in the UK and enabled to continue to take part in that investigation and provide evidence; what it says is that the assumption must be that they will be removed from the UK, and it is only if the Secretary of State reads her own guidance on compelling circumstances that she will enable them to stay in the UK. The amendment reverses the original subsection (5) of clause 21. It goes back on what the Government originally said they were trying to do.
Robert Jenrick
My right hon. Friend does not, I think, agree that Rwanda is a safe place for those who are victims of modern slavery to be supported. The critical point here is that of course we want to support those individuals, and we have no intention of removing them, whether home to their own country or to a safe third country, unless that is a place where there are sufficient safeguards to ensure that they are protected. That is the nature of the agreement we have struck with Albania and the one we have struck with Rwanda, which was upheld by the High Court and we hope will be upheld by the Court of Appeal. It is natural, therefore, that in many cases individuals can go to those countries and participate in any law enforcement activity from there.
Robert Jenrick
I will not give way to the hon. Lady, but I thank her for her suggestions.
The last issue that was the subject of debate centred around the questions raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Sir William Cash) and for Devizes (Danny Kruger) and others about how we strengthen the Bill, particularly regarding the interim measures. I will say again, as I said in answer to the former Attorney General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox) that this ministerial discretion will be exercised judiciously and in accordance with our treaty obligations. We take international law and our treaty obligations extremely seriously.
I will not dwell on the Labour amendments today because, as in Committee and on Second Reading, Labour offers no credible policy to stop the boats. The truth is that tweaks to our system will not suffice. In an age of mass migration, only a significantly more robust approach can end the injustice of illegal migration. The totality of Labour’s policy on illegal migration is to accept more people into our country and as quickly as possible. That is weak, and it is also frankly dangerous. We have yet again seen today that Labour is decades behind when it comes to illegal migration. It is 20 years behind the views of the British public and 20 years out of date with its policy proposals. That perhaps comes as no surprise when the shadow Home Office team is being led by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), whose own colleagues say should have left politics 20 years ago. One briefed the papers that
“she knows where the door is”.
Given Labour’s record on immigration, we can assume it is an open door.
While Labour Members are fighting each other, the Conservative party tonight has been united. We are united in fighting the people-smuggling gangs. Only the Conservatives are taking the tough but necessary action to stop the boats, because it is only this party that is ultimately on the side of the British public. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings said, from Worthing to Walthamstow, the British people want to stop the boats. The only way to stop the boats is to sever once and for all the link between crossing the channel illegally and being able to live and work in the United Kingdom. That, at its heart, is what this Bill does. Nothing else will cut it; we have tried it all before. The British people demand that we stop the boats, and only the Conservative party will do so.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before I start putting the questions, maybe I can help with a little bit of process. I am anticipating five votes between 6 and 7 o’clock. The first vote will clearly take 10 minutes, but every subsequent vote will be eight minutes, so my strongest advice to everybody is to stay within the parliamentary estate in order that the votes can be taken as efficiently as possible. Owing to the number of votes, I will put the Tellers in place as quickly as I possibly can.
6 pm
Debate interrupted (Programme Order, 13 March).
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the clause be read a Second time.
Question agreed to.
New clause 17 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).
New Clause 19
Credibility of claimant: concealment of information etc
“(1) Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004 (claimant’s credibility) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3)—
(a) in paragraphs (a) and (c) for “a passport” substitute “an identity document”;
(b) in paragraph (b) for “passport” substitute “identity document”;
(c) after paragraph (d) (but before the “and”) insert—
“(da) failure to provide to an immigration officer or the Secretary of State, on request, any information or anything else required in order to access any information stored in electronic form on a thing in the possession of an immigration officer or the Secretary of State that—
(i) was found on the claimant, or
(ii) appears to an immigration officer or the Secretary of State to have been in the possession of the claimant,”.
(3) In subsection (7)—
(a) insert at the appropriate place—
““document” includes information recorded in any form;”;
““identity document” means any document that may be used (whether by itself or otherwise and with or without modifications) to establish, or provide evidence of, a person's identity or address;”;
(b) omit the definition of “passport”.
(4) In subsection (8) for “A passport” substitute “An identity document”.”—(Robert Jenrick.)
This new clause amends section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004 to provide for certain kinds of behaviour relating to an identity document or electronic information by a person who makes an asylum claim or a human rights claim to be taken into account as damaging the claimant's credibility.
Brought up, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 20
Legal aid
“(1) Schedule 1 to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (civil legal services) is amended as mentioned in subsections (2) to (4).
(2) In Part 1 (services), in paragraph 19 (judicial review)—
(a) after sub-paragraph (6) insert—
“(6A) Sub-paragraph (5) does not exclude services provided to an individual who is subject to removal to a third country under the Illegal Migration Act 2023, in relation to judicial review of a refusal of a human rights claim that—
(a) arises from Article 2 or 3 of the Human Rights Convention, and
(b) is made by the individual.”;
(b) in sub-paragraph (10) insert at the appropriate places—
““human rights claim” has the meaning given by section 113 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002;”;
““the Human Rights Convention” has the meaning given by paragraph 30 of this Part of this Schedule;”;
““third country” has the meaning given by section 37 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023.”
(3) In that Part, after paragraph 31B insert—
“Removal notices under the Illegal Migration Act 2023
31C (1) Civil legal services provided to an individual who has received a removal notice, in relation to the removal notice (including in relation to a suspensive claim relating to the removal notice, and an application under section 44(4) of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 as regards such a claim).
(2) Sub-paragraph (1) is subject to the exclusions in Parts 2 and 3 of this Schedule.
(3) In this paragraph “removal notice” and “suspensive claim” have the meaning given by section 37 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023.”
(4) In Part 3 (advocacy: exclusions and exceptions) after paragraph 16 insert—
“16A Advocacy in proceedings in the Upper Tribunal under any of sections 44 to 46 or 48 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023.”
(5) In regulation 11(9) of the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/104) (qualifying for civil legal services: cases in which merits criteria do not apply)—
(a) omit the “or” at the end of sub-paragraph (d);
(b) after sub-paragraph (e) insert “, or
(f) in relation to any matter described in paragraph 31C of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Act (removal notices under the Illegal Migration Act 2023).””—(Robert Jenrick.)
This new clause provides for the provision of legal aid in respect of certain matters.
Brought up, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 23
Electronic devices etc
“Schedule (Electronic devices etc) confers—
(a) powers to search persons liable to be detained under paragraph 16(2C) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (illegal migrants), and to search vehicles, premises and property, for things on which certain information is or may be stored in electronic form;
(b) powers to seize and retain such things, and to access, copy and use information stored on those things.”—(Robert Jenrick.)
This new clause, and the new Schedule it introduces, confers power to search for, seize and retain mobile phones and other things on which information is stored in electronic form, and to access, copy and use that information.
Brought up, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 24
Decisions relating to a person’s age
“(1) This section applies if a relevant authority decides the age of a person (“P”) who meets the four conditions in section 2 (duty to make arrangements for removal), whether that decision is for the purposes of this Act or otherwise.
(2) If the decision is made on an age assessment under section 50 or 51 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, P may not bring an appeal against the decision under section 54(2) of that Act.
(3) Subsections (4) and (5) apply if P makes an application for judicial review of—
(a) the decision mentioned in subsection (1), or
(b) any decision to make arrangements for the person’s removal from the United Kingdom under this Act which is taken on the basis of that decision.
(4) The application does not prevent the exercise of any duty or power under this Act to make arrangements for the person’s removal from the United Kingdom.
(5) The court—
(a) may quash the decision only on the basis that it was wrong in law, and
(b) may not quash the decision on the basis that the court considers the decision mentioned in subsection (1) was wrong as a matter of fact.
(6) In this section “relevant authority” means—
(a) the Secretary of State,
(b) an immigration officer,
(c) a designated person within the meaning of Part 4 (age assessments) of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022,
(d) a local authority within the meaning of that Part, subject to subsection (7), or
(e) a public authority within the meaning of that Part which is specified in regulations under section 50(1)(b) of that Act (referral of age-disputed person for age assessment).
(7) This section applies in relation to a decision of a local authority which is a decision within subsection (1) only if it is for the purposes, or also for the purposes, of the local authority deciding whether or how to exercise any of its functions under relevant children’s legislation within the meaning of Part 4 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.
(8) This section applies only in relation to a decision which is made after this section comes into force.
(9) The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 is amended as follows.
(10) In section 54(6) (appeals relating to age assessments)—
(a) omit the “and” at the end of paragraph (a), and
(b) at the end of paragraph (b) insert “, and
(c) section (Decisions relating to a person’s age) of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 (decisions relating to a person’s age).”
(11) In section 56(1) (new information following age assessment or appeal), for paragraph (b) (and the “and” at the end of that paragraph) substitute—
“(b) an appeal under section 54(2)—
(i) could no longer be brought (ignoring any possibility of an appeal out of time),
(ii) has been finally determined, or
(iii) may not be brought as a result of section (Decisions relating to a person’s age)(2) of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 (age assessments relating to removal under that Act), and”.”—(Robert Jenrick.)
This new clause makes provision about challenges to decisions about a person’s age where the person meets or may meet the conditions for removal from the United Kingdom under the Bill.
Brought up, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 25
Age assessments: power to make provision about refusal to consent to scientific methods
“(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations about the effect of a decision by a relevant person (“P”) not to consent to the use of a specified scientific method for the purposes of an age assessment of P where there are no reasonable grounds for P’s decision.
(2) The regulations may provide that, in the circumstances set out in the regulations—
(a) section 52(7) of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (refusal to consent to scientific methods to be taken to damage credibility) does not apply, and
(b) P is to be treated as if the decision-maker had decided that P was over the age of 18.
(3) In this section—
“age assessment” means an assessment under section 50 or 51 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022;
“decision-maker” and “specified scientific method” have the same meanings as in Part 4 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (see section 49 of that Act);
“relevant person” means a person who meets the four conditions in section 2 (duty to make arrangements for removal).
(4) In Part 4 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (age assessments)—
(a) in section 52 (use of scientific methods in age assessments), in subsection (7), at the end insert “(See also section (Age assessments: power to make provision about refusal to consent to scientific methods) of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 (power to make provision about refusal to consent to scientific methods).)”;
(b) in section 53 (regulations about age assessments), in subsection (1)(a)(iv), after “method,” insert “the circumstances in which a person may be considered to have reasonable grounds for a decision not to consent and”.”—(Robert Jenrick.)
This new clause contains a power to make regulations about the effect of a refusal, by a person to whom the Bill applies, to consent to the use of a scientific method in an age assessment. The regulations may provide that, in certain circumstances, the person may be assumed to be an adult. The Secretary of State will not exercise the power until satisfied that the scientific methods in question are sufficiently accurate to mean that applying the automatic assumption in cases of refusal to consent will be compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights (in particular Article 8 (right to private and family life)).
Brought up, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 26
Interim measures of the European Court of Human Rights
“(1) This section applies where the European Court of Human Rights indicates an interim measure in proceedings relating to the intended removal of a person from the United Kingdom under, or purportedly under, this Act.
(2) A Minister of the Crown may (but need not) determine that the duty in section 2(1) (duty to make arrangements for removal) is not to apply in relation to the person.
(3) A decision as to whether or not to make a determination under subsection (2) is to be taken personally by the Minister of the Crown.
(4) In considering whether to make a determination under subsection (2), the Minister may have regard to any matter that the Minister considers relevant, including in particular the matter in subsection (5).
(5) The matter mentioned in subsection (4) is the procedure by reference to which the interim measure was indicated, including in particular—
(a) whether the government of the United Kingdom was given an opportunity to present observations and information before the interim measure was indicated;
(b) the form of the decision to indicate the interim measure;
(c) whether the European Court of Human Rights will take account of any representations made to it by the government of the United Kingdom seeking reconsideration, without undue delay, of the decision to indicate the interim measure;
(d) the likely duration of the interim measure and the timing of any substantive determination by the European Court of Human Rights.
(6) Where a Minister of the Crown does not make a determination under subsection (2), a person or body to which subsection (7) applies may not have regard, in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (7), to the interim measure.
(7) This subsection applies to—
(a) the Secretary of State or an immigration officer when exercising a function under section 2(1) or 7(2), (4) or (5) (further provisions about removal),
(b) the Upper Tribunal when considering any application or appeal under this Act, and
(c) a court or tribunal when considering any application or appeal which relates to a decision to remove a person from the United Kingdom under this Act.
(8) No inference is to be drawn from this section as to whether or not a person or body mentioned in subsection (7) would otherwise have been required to have regard to the interim measure.
(9) Nothing in this Act requires the Secretary of State or an immigration officer to effect the removal of a person from the United Kingdom pending a decision by a Minister of the Crown as to whether or not to make a determination under subsection (2).
(10) In this section—
“decision” includes any purported decision;
“determination” includes any purported determination.”—(Robert Jenrick.)
This new clause provides that an interim measure indicated by the European Court of Human Rights does not affect the duty in clause 2 of the Bill to make arrangements for the removal of a person from the United Kingdom, unless a Minister of the Crown acting in person determines that it is to do so.
Brought up, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 22
Interim remedies
“(1) This section applies to any court proceedings relating to a decision to remove a person from the United Kingdom under this Act (whether the proceedings involve consideration of Convention rights or otherwise).
(2) Any power of the court to grant an interim remedy (whether on an application of the person or otherwise) is restricted as follows.
(3) The court may not grant an interim remedy that prevents or delays, or that has the effect of preventing or delaying, the removal of the person from the United Kingdom in pursuance of the decision.
(4) In this section—
“Convention rights” has the same meaning as in the Human Rights Act 1998 (see section 1(1) of that Act);
“court proceedings” means proceedings in any court (including, in particular, proceedings on an application for judicial review);
“decision” includes any purported decision;
“interim remedy” means any interim remedy or relief however described (including, in particular, an interim injunction or interdict).”—(Robert Jenrick.)
This new clause would restrict the granting of certain interim remedies by a court in proceedings relating to a decision to remove a person from the United Kingdom under the Bill.
Brought up, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 8
Report on safe and legal routes
“(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the relevant period—
(a) prepare and publish a report on safe and legal routes by which persons may enter the United Kingdom, and
(b) lay the report before Parliament.
(2) The report must—
(a) contain details of the safe and legal routes by which persons may enter the United Kingdom when the report is published,
(b) contain details of any proposed additional safe and legal routes which have not come into operation at that time,
(c) specify the routes within paragraph (a) or (b) which are or will be available to adults,
(d) specify the routes within paragraph (a) or (b) which are or will be available to children, and
(e) contain details of how routes within paragraph (a) or (b) may be accessed by persons who are eligible to use them.
(3) In this section—
“adult” means a person who is aged 18 or over;
“child” means a person who is under the age of 18;
“the relevant period” means the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”—(Robert Jenrick.)
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to prepare and publish a report on safe and legal routes for entry into the United Kingdom and to lay the report before Parliament.
Brought up, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 9
Accommodation: duty to consult
“(1) Section 97 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (supplemental) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (3A) insert—
‘(3B) When making arrangements for the provision of accommodation under section 95 or section 4 of this Act, the Secretary of State must consult with representatives of the local authority or local authorities, for the area in which the accommodation is located.
(3C) The duty to consult in subsection (3B) applies to accommodation including hotel accommodation, military sites, and sea vessels.
(3D) The duty to consult in subsection (3B) also applies to any third party provider operating within the terms of a contract with the Secretary of State.’”—(Stephen Kinnock.)
This new clause would add to the current law on provision of accommodation to asylum seekers a requirement to consult with the relevant local authorities when making the necessary arrangements.
Brought up.
Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
Alison Thewliss
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have just passed a Bill for which the Home Secretary is unable to make a declaration under section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998 that it will be compatible. Others have suggested that it will break the refugee convention, the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings, the United Nations convention on the rights of the child and the UN convention relating to the status of stateless persons. I seek your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sure that none of our constituents sent us to this place to break the law, and it seems to me that we have perhaps done so in voting for the Illegal Migration Bill. Given that we have a very special duty in this place to be guarantors of human rights in this Parliament, collectively and individually, can you advise what we might do?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order and forward notice of it. I can only respond to the bits for which the Chair is responsible, and I am content that the House has proceeded perfectly properly, but her comments are on the record.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Have you or Mr Speaker had any contact from the Leader of the House to indicate whether in future the Government intend to allow sufficient time for major pieces of legislation to be properly considered before being pushed through?
Mr Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I can only speak for myself—I have not spoken to Mr Speaker—but no one has been in touch with me.
Business without Debate
Syresham Truck Stop
Dame Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I rise to present a petition.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Syresham and surrounding villages (Crowfield, Pimlico, Biddlesden, Helmdon, Wappenham, Whitfield, Silverstone and Whittlebury),
Declares that the petitioners object to the construction of a Truck Stop with a fuelling station on land next to the A43 slip road for Syresham on the rural B4525; further declares that its construction would be detrimental to the community; further that it would cause dangerous traffic issues due to its close proximity to A43 slip road, alongside permanent ecological and environmental harm, including noise, air and light pollution; notes that this will create a worrying precedent for more industrial development on greenfield land in open countryside that is contrary to West Northamptonshire Council’s Local Plan; further notes that while residents understand the pressures endured by HGV drivers, they suggest that there are far more appropriate locations in the vicinity.
The petitioners therefore urge the House of Commons to work with the local residents to ensure this planning application permission be refused.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002827]
Asylum Seeker Accommodation: South Dorset
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in the House tonight, and I am delighted to see the Minister in his place, with whom I have had a few words. I apologise to him, because he has had a hard day already, but I am afraid it is going to get even harder in the next few minutes.
Stop the boats—stop the boats! Following today’s debate, the timing of my Adjournment debate could not be more apt and ironic. It is apt because I wholly support the Illegal Migration Bill and its intent, and it is ironic because before there is any chance of illegal migrants beings sent to Rwanda or anywhere else, they are being dumped on a barge in my constituency. To be fair—and I try my utmost to be fair—the situation is completely out of control and tens of thousands of illegal migrants have to go somewhere. However, where they go needs careful thought, consultation, preparation and execution. I regret to say that, in our case, none of these things has been taken into account—not one.
What has happened is this. Portland port is approached by the Home Office and sees a commercial opportunity. All negotiations are done in private and none of the statutory authorities is consulted. On 21 March, the Home Secretary rings me to say that a barge for 500 migrants will be placed in the port. The chief executive of Dorset Council has a similar call from Home Office officials. Please note that we were told the barge was coming; we were not asked, “What’s your opinion, how will you cope, what support do you need?” We were not told who will provide the healthcare, what extra funding will be available for the police, what responsibilities Dorset Council will have for the migrants, or what consideration has been given to the effect that such an influx of young men might have on a sensitive seaside resort—I could go on and on.
Instead, this contentious plan was imposed on us, with the Home Office now desperately claiming that it has consulted widely. It is true that, realising that it has gone about this in the wrong way, it is now calling Dorset Council, the health authorities and the police, but after the decision was made. None of these organisations supports the plan, and they have repeatedly made that very clear to Home Office officials, as I have to the Minister and the Home Secretary.
At the first multi-agency meeting, Dorset Council stated its clear position that it was opposed to the proposal, as did health representatives, who raised concerns with Home Office officials about the risk of an outbreak of infection on the barge, and the likely possibility of the severe mental health issues, including post-traumatic stress disorder, that some of these young men might have. They just do not have the resources to cope, and any effort now by Ministers to suggest that these organisations are supportive and helpful is not correct. Dorset Council and statutory organisations, which are polite and professional, are constantly challenging the Home Office for more information, which is frequently not forthcoming.
Let me ask the Minister a question. Who are these migrants, where are they from and can he guarantee that they have not committed any crime—robbery, rape, assault or whatever? I would be most grateful if, when he sums up, he could guarantee that none of the 506 young men coming to us has committed a crime.
I have now received the first answer to the many written questions I am submitting to the Home Secretary. I asked how long individual migrants would stay on the barge, whether they would have to be on the barge overnight, whether there would be a curfew and what would happen if they did not return. This is the reply I received:
“The site is self-contained, although those living at the site would be free to come and go. If an asylum seeker were not back on site by 11pm the team would make a call to check on their welfare. This would not be under curfew conditions; it would be based on following up on the safety and welfare of the individual.”
I am not sure that a migrant who wants to disappear is going to answer the phone. Does the Minister? Were they accommodated in a hotel, as many are now, I can see that an 11 pm deadline might just work, but the barge is located in a highly restricted port. The only way out and back in is via one checkpoint on a bus. How many migrants will be allowed out of the port at any one time, there being only one bus? Where will they be dropped in Dorset, or anywhere else? Who will monitor them? How much money will they have? In the summer, the beaches will be packed with families and young people. Have cultural differences been taken into account? What happens to the hundreds of other migrants still stuck on the barge? How long before there is trouble on the barge?
On the barge itself, can the Minister confirm that it is designed to accommodate 222 people? If so, as we believe is the case, how will it house 506 people? It must mean doubling up in the rooms, but that still leaves 62 people without one. Surely overcrowding only increases the risk of a disturbance? Is it realistic to expect 500 young men to meekly return to their quasi-prison—that is what it will be—at 11 pm?
Worryingly, the police and crime commissioner, my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder), who is here tonight, and I were told by Home Office officials that it was in the migrants’ interests to behave, as it would help their asylum applications. So, come to the UK illegally, be a good boy and you can stay! I hope I am not being cynical, but that is certainly how it came across. That is really going to deter those wishing to come here. We also heard from the Minister’s officials that they were considering private healthcare for the migrants. When my constituents struggle to see a doctor and hunt for a dentist, I am not sure they will understand why those who have come here illegally should have preference.
Although the port is no longer a naval base, it is still home to Royal Fleet Auxiliaries and accommodates visits from His Majesty’s ships and nuclear submarines. So I ask the Minister, to what extent has the Ministry of Defence been consulted on the impact of the barge, including on emergency planning arrangements under radiological protection legislation, evacuation measures and site security?
In a similar vein, where is the Home Office risk assessment that I assume the Minister and his team have completed? If so, where is it? The police, who do not support the barge either, have calculated that enhanced community policing will cost about £700,000 a year. Who will meet that cost? Dorset police already struggles financially, being the second worst-funded force in the country. As our police and crime commissioner, David Sidwick, said in a letter to the policing Minister:
“it is disappointing that there was an absence of community or stakeholder consultation prior to the site proposal being launched and I note the impact upon public trust and confidence resulting from that omission.”
He went on to say:
“This means that without prior knowledge of the intent there has been no planning at all in regard of policing resources.”
As the Minister well knows, Weymouth is a sensitive, family-based seaside resort. Hoteliers, bed and breakfasts, and other small coastal businesses rely almost entirely on the summer for their revenue. As far as I know, no thought—there is certainly no evidence of it—has been given to the impact that a large influx of migrants might have on them.
The Minister told me on Monday evening that the Home Office had consulted widely. His interpretation of consultation is very different from the council’s. I have asked the council for a schedule of meetings in order to check the facts. As I have said, the council and I were first told that the barge was coming on 21 March. On 27 March, the chief executive of Dorset Council, the chief executive of Portland port and Home Office officials had their first initial conversation about the proposal. That was 10 days after the port’s board gave the project the green light. At the first multi-agency meeting on 29 March, Dorset Council stated clearly that it opposed the plan, as I have said. Since then, there have been about 10 virtual meetings of one kind or another.
In response to all those meetings, Dorset Council said to me:
“As with all these meetings our attendance is in the main to seek to gain answers to questions that to date have either not been answered or have not been answered with enough details to be meaningful. Our attendance should not be characterised as taking a supportive position but one of enquiry to gain facts.”
It is clear that the Home Office made its decision before consulting with anyone other than the port. Now, bombarded by questions that it cannot answer and opposed by all the statutory bodies, the Home Office is trying to smooth troubled waters. Regrettably, diplomacy is not the Home Office’s strong point, and a lot of goodwill has been squandered. It has been handled in the most discourteous way, and I am afraid that the Minister has not exactly covered himself in glory, either.
I understand that a contract has been signed. We would like to know when. Officials told us that withdrawing from it now would be a breach of contract. The Home Office has dug itself a hole—and worse, given that Dorset Council has no option other than to consider taking legal action. We know that the contract is for 18 months. However, the Home Office website states that it will be kept under review, which is pretty open-ended. Bearing in mind the scale of the problem nationally, I fear that the barge could be in place for years.
The website also explained why Portland port was chosen:
“The site will create new jobs and will bring investment into the area.”
What jobs, Minister? What new investment? The likelihood is that it will bring trouble. I have received no information whatsoever from the Home Office, other than, “You’re getting a barge.” [Interruption.] Would the Minister listen rather than interrupting again? Back on 21 March the Minister offered a meeting, but I was in no position to accept the invitation without consulting all those that the Home Office had singularly failed to consult.
This is an unholy mess not totally of the Minister’s doing, but the way that the proposal has been forced on us certainly is. I only hope that our plans to deter illegal migrants can be enacted soon. Most importantly, it will save lives and counter the trafficking gangs who ply their vile trade. In the meantime, I advise the Government to start building secure reception centres, and fast, as this problem is not going away. Placing more barges in sensitive ports such as mine is certainly not the answer.
The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing the debate. I will come to the specific points he raised in relation to his constituency in a moment. There is an important local dimension to the matter. The Home Office is acutely aware of that, as I will set out, but at the outset it is important to briefly set out the national context.
The situation in the channel has placed the UK’s asylum system under unsustainable pressure. The rise of illegal, dangerous and wholly unnecessary small boat crossings has left us in the invidious position of having to accommodate over 48,000 individuals in hotels, at eye-watering expense to the taxpayer. It is simply wrong that British taxpayers are footing the bill of almost £2.3 billion per year to accommodate illegal migrants. Those hotels are valuable assets that have been taken away from communities and the situation is placing pressures on local public services. The public are quite rightly demanding that we grip the problem and end the use of hotels.
The enduring solution is to stop the boats, which is what we are focused on. We have introduced the Illegal Migration Bill, which goes further than any previous immigration legislation, to fix this problem, and we substantially increased illegal working raids and returns. We have elevated our co-operation with France to unprecedented levels in order to drive up interception rates and arrests. However, as I have said before, we must suffuse the entire system with deterrents, and that includes our national approach to how we accommodate illegal migrants.
In the short term, that means switching to cheaper and more appropriate forms of accommodation, such as disused military sites and vessels. Such measures are in keeping with action being taken across Europe, with France, Germany, Italy, Ireland and the Netherlands all taking similar steps. The UK cannot risk being left behind and becoming a magnet for millions of people who are displaced and seeking better prospects. These alternative sources of accommodation, including the one we will locate in my hon. Friend’s constituency, are therefore undoubtedly in the national interest.
The Home Office is determined to work closely with my hon. Friend and key local stakeholders to ensure that the site in his constituency at Portland Port is delivered in a way that minimises the impact on the local community. We understand entirely the concern that his constituents will feel and that he is articulating this evening, and we want to ensure that we allay those fears, wherever possible, in the weeks and months ahead, and certainly do as much as possible in advance of the arrival of the barge at Portland Port later this year.
When looking at proposals for new sites, the Home Office takes the impact on a local community into account, which is why we are working now with local partners, through the multi-agency forum that my hon. Friend referred to, and holding regular meetings with representative groups in the community.
Richard Drax
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I know that the debate is not easy for him, and I appreciate that. As he rightly said, the Home Office is now talking to all the bodies it should have been speaking to, but that is not the point. The point I am making is that all that should have happened before he imposed the plan on us. At least we could have then had an honest and frank conversation about whether it would be possible to cater for, look after and deal with all the issues associated with the migrant barge that I have raised in my speech. That has not happened.
Robert Jenrick
I hope that in the time I have available, which I appreciate is not a great deal, I can answer as many of his questions as possible.
As soon as it became apparent that Portland Port could provide the support required, and before a contract was signed or a decision made by the Home Secretary, Home Office officials reached out to Dorset Council and had an initial meeting with the chief executive on 21 March. The multi-agency forum, which we have both referenced, met on 29 March, and has met at least four times since then.
These forums are a way to bring together the public and community agencies, including the NHS, the police and emergency services, alongside elected officials, such as town councillors, and residents groups. We at the Home Office will do everything we can to ensure that process is as successful and constructive as possible, accepting that many of those stakeholders and residents will come to those meetings from a position of either strong opposition or a preference that we were not proceeding in the first place.
Richard Drax
The reason that people object is simply that we do not have the resources to cope with this. The Minister is putting a potential landmine into a highly restricted port, where young men will be trapped in a barge for many hours a day, with a few being let off God knows where. Where are they going to go, Minister? What are they going to do? What happens if they do not come back—a telephone call? I hardly think that that is going to work. It is just totally impractical, and the health services cannot provide the resources. For example, if an infection suddenly rages through the boat, as happens on big boats, the health services simply will not be able to cope. These are the sort of questions that should have been asked before the decision was made to put this boat, or barge, in the port.
Robert Jenrick
Perhaps I can answer some of those questions, because we do have answers and we did think carefully about each of those questions prior to making the decision to proceed with the policy and to apply it to my hon. Friend’s constituency.
With respect to healthcare, we have worked with the UK Health Security Agency. We have taken its advice to ensure that no infectious diseases can spread on the barge or, where they do, that appropriate steps are taken. My hon. Friend referred to the decision to provide basic primary care on or adjacent to the barge. That decision was not taken, as he suggests, to privilege migrants residing on the barge. Quite the opposite: it was to ensure that those migrants place the least possible burden on local public services and so that it is not regularly necessary for migrants to register with GPs or take the appointments at GP surgeries that his constituents rightly demand. Given that the cohort of individuals will be relatively young, it is unlikely that they will place significant pressure on the local NHS, but we are working with it and with the local integrated care board to work through those challenges.
My hon. Friend asked about the regime on the boat. Again, it is designed to ensure that there are as few issues for the local community as is possible within the confines of the current law, which states that the vessel has to be a non-detained one. That means that we will implement a regime that very strongly encourages the migrants to return to the vessel for 11 pm and not, as my hon. Friend suggests, to roam the streets of the area. There will be a secure cordon around the vessel, which, again, will discourage people from walking into the community. There will be a bus that takes the migrants to agreed places where they might spend some free time or go to a shop—again, to discourage them from making journeys throughout the community and to carefully control their movements as far as one can within the limits of the law.
My hon. Friend asked about the Ministry of Defence. We have worked with it; we sought its advice before proceeding, and we have considered the particular sensitivities of Portland port.
My hon. Friend asked about the police. We want to work closely with them. We have made it clear that we will provide a special grant to Dorset police that will cover the additional burden that this special national endeavour will have on their very limited resources, because obviously we want to ensure that the local community is reassured as much as possible. That means that there will be extra neighbourhood policing and further support for the police that is not coming out of the coffers of the local constabulary.
We have offered significant funding to Dorset council. It will receive at least £3,000 per asylum seeker residing on the vessel per year, which will enable it to provide extra resources and personnel to manage the project—albeit that we will not be placing many burdens on it, as the vessel will be managed by the Home Office and its suppliers. Wherever possible, we will pay for the services required for those individuals. So a significant proportion of that funding—which, as I have said, will run to millions of pounds—will be available to Dorset Council to do whatever it wishes. One would hope that it will choose to devote the lion’s share to the needs and desires of the immediate population, who will be most affected by this project.
Richard Drax
Can the Minister confirm that this Stockholm Biddy—I think that is what it is called—is designed to accommodate 222 people, as it is according to the internet, and will be taking 506? How will the barge be refurbished to accommodate these young men? How many rooms will be in fours, sixes or twos to accommodate that huge number?
Robert Jenrick
I am not sure of the source to which my hon. Friend is referring, but we will not be putting more migrants on the vessel than is safe and appropriate. I do know that barges of this kind can accommodate either one individual per room or, in many cases, two. That may be the explanation. In some circumstances, organisations making use of the barge, such as construction companies or offshore oil and gas businesses, might choose to accommodate one individual per room, but the barge itself can comfortably accommodate two or more. We will obviously abide by the relevant laws to ensure that the migrants are properly accommodated, but—this is relevant to my hon. Friend’s point—it is equally important for us to minimise the potential for disturbances on the boat that would have an impact on his constituents and the local police.
My hon. Friend may not appreciate this, but in each of the actions that we are taking, the choices we are making are guided by how we can reduce the impact of the barge on the local community. If he, or the stakeholders with whom we are engaging, can think of any further steps we could take, we will obviously consider them and try to ensure that we take them whenever possible, unless there is a very good reason not to.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend will know, my neighbouring constituency is in many respects—although not entirely—affected in the same way as that of my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax). I am grateful for the brief dialogue that I had with civil servants a couple of weeks ago, but I am keen to see the risk assessments that have informed the points that my right hon. Friend is making. I have been asking for them for a couple of weeks, and I should be grateful if he could tell me when they will be available and can be presented to my hon. Friend and me.
Robert Jenrick
I know that my hon. Friend met my officials, and I am sorry I could not be there as well; I was at a Cobra meeting to discuss the Border Force presence in Sudan this week. However, I think we will be meeting again soon so that my officials and I can discuss those points with my hon. Friend. We have considered the challenges, and will be pleased to answer as many questions as we can.
I see that there is only a very short time left, so let me draw my remarks to a close. We all appreciate that while this policy is undoubtedly in the national interest, it has a particularly serious impact on the community that both my hon. Friends represent. The Home Secretary, the Government and I stand ready to work with them to make this policy as successful as possible, to listen to the views of their constituents, and to mitigate the negatives as far as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset has our assurance that we will also do everything we can to stop the boats, and to stop this problem at source.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lee Rowley
My hon. Friend raises points about powers and in particular the disclosure of information. He references the local government transparency code of 2015. The code is a statutory instrument that contains two elements: a mandatory section and a section of recommendations. The requirement to publish invoices over £500 and to publish procurement card transactions is mandatory. Where that is not done, or where there is a concern that it is not done, we recommend in the first instance that the authority is contacted, following their complaints procedure, and then the monitoring officer of the principal authority is contacted.
[Official Report, 18 April 2023, Vol. 731, c. 92WH.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley):
An error has been identified in the response given to my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (David Morris) in the debate on Parish and Town Council Precepts.
The correct response should have been:
Lee Rowley
My hon. Friend raises points about powers and in particular the disclosure of information. He references the local government transparency code of 2015. The code is a statutory instrument that contains two elements: a mandatory section and a section of recommendations. The requirement to publish invoices over £500 and to publish procurement card transactions is mandatory for parish councils with sufficient turnover. Where that is not done, or where there is a concern about compliance, we recommend in the first instance that the authority is contacted, following their complaints procedure, and then the monitoring officer of the principal authority is contacted.
Westminster Hall
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Antisocial Behaviour in Town Centres
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of antisocial behaviour in town centres.
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey, in a debate on an important issue. Antisocial behaviour is a plague that haunts many of our town and city centres, our villages and our countryside. We all feel passionately about the issue, and I am sure we all receive much correspondence about it. Therefore, we all need to get on top of it. If we are to deliver real, positive change for our constituencies, it is important that we tackle antisocial behaviour in all its forms.
As Members of Parliament, we like to sing from the rooftops about the positives in our communities—how well our businesses are doing, how safe it feels to go around our town centres—but we need to tackle darker issues such as antisocial behaviour, fly-tipping and physical assaults taking place on our streets. I want to use the debate to outline some of the challenges that I unfortunately face in Keighley and in Ilkley, as well as some of the positive work that the Government are doing and further work that I would like them to do.
According to the Office for National Statistics, the police recorded 1.2 million incidents of antisocial behaviour in the year ending June 2022, which is a 16% decrease compared with the year ending March 2020. Antisocial behaviour, while decreasing, remains a problem for us all to face, and I want to describe some examples of antisocial behaviour in Keighley. There is a huge problem around the bus station. Young people are being approached and mobile phones taken off them. Assaults are taking place in the centre of Keighley where people are coming and going, and wanting to access businesses. Sometimes, the environment is intimidating and unsafe. I receive a lot of correspondence about that particular hotspot.
There are various hotspot streets, particularly around the Lund Park area of Keighley, and I have received correspondence about Westburn Avenue. The incidents that take place are localised micro-incidents. Nevertheless, they build the fear factor that we all associate with antisocial behaviour.
We have had some darker incidents as well, such as vehicles being targeted, and petrol being poured on vehicles and set alight. That happened only a couple of weeks ago outside a location in Keighley that I know well. We have also had speeding and the antisocial behaviour associated with it, extreme speeding and cars with loud exhausts going up and down particular streets in Keighley, such as North Street, Cavendish Street, Oakworth Road and Fell Lane. I have received a lot of correspondence about drivers purposely accelerating way beyond the speed limits that have been put in place. The police have been doing their level best to try to tackle those incidents.
Another issue in Keighley is cars being driven without insurance and parked cars that are way beyond having passed their MOT test. Some of those cars are parked at the roadside, particularly where drug drops and distribution take place.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a good speech and giving us an A to Z of road names in his constituency. Does he agree that tackling the list of problems he faces in Keighley, which I also see in south Devon, is about enforcement, police visibility and ensuring that young people have things to do—options and opportunities to go out and achieve?
Robbie Moore
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I want to paint a picture of the challenges that we all face as MPs and describe the nature of the correspondence that is arriving in our inboxes, whether it is about speeding, antisocial behaviour or physical assault. We have to get to grips with why such incidents take place. It is predominantly those of a younger age who are participating in them, whether because of boredom or a lack of activities on offer to them.
One of the things that I have been doing—I believe that my hon. Friend has been doing this as well—is engaging in dialogue in community meetings. I hold large constituency surgeries and invite the police along, so that the issues can be raised. It is always fed back to me that police prioritisation relies on data collection. How many meetings do MPs go to and hear that, while residents know that these issues are happening on their streets, they have not necessarily been reported via the 101 system or email, or to the community police station so that data is collected and police enforcement targeted in specific areas?
On the outskirts of Keighley, the Utley safer streets group holds regular meetings. It is organised at community level by local residents and provides me as the MP, district councillors and the local police with the opportunity to go along, receive information and provide feedback on what the local police forces do, while also serving as a means to hold them to account.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing today’s debate. A pub in Rutherglen in my constituency has faced awful harassment from teenagers who loiter and drink on the street outside, spoiling for a fight, and they have actually physically assaulted customers coming out of the pub. The pub has spent tens of thousands on preventive security measures, but the presence of a bouncer actually exacerbated the problem. The police have done a lot in this case, but a cross-agency approach is needed. Does the hon. Member share my concern about the lack of funding for these teams?
Robbie Moore
The hon. Member makes a valid point: street drinking is a big problem. It is one that we have in Keighley, particularly around the Church Green area, where groups hang around, causing issues for local businesses that want to grow, thrive and improve their customer base. However, street drinkers are putting people off going to those businesses. In my constituency, the police are doing a lot to try to alleviate the issues, including engaging in dialogue and correspondence. Sometimes it is up to the pubs and venues themselves to address the drink-related issues that spill out from them and the issues caused by some wishing to access their facilities. It is very much about having a joined-up approach, which I will come on to later in my speech.
Anthony Mangnall
My hon. Friend is being gracious in giving way again. I have set up a police hub initiative in my constituency where the police use local spaces to enhance visibility. That ensures that they can get out into the community more readily, rather than having to go back to HQ each time. It has been very effective in driving down crime and antisocial behaviour in local areas, at no extra cost to the state. Does my hon. Friend approve of that model?
Robbie Moore
It is an exceptionally good idea. Before I became an MP, the police station was in the centre of Keighley, but, frustratingly, our previous Labour police and crime commissioner decided to move it to an industrial estate just outside Keighley, which is not a good location. Everyone in Keighley knows that the police station is now out of the town centre as a result of that bad decision by the previous Labour PCC. I want that police station to be moved back to the centre of town.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
We all suffer from the closure of police stations. Will the hon. Member also condemn his own Government, who have overseen the closure of nearly 800 police stations across the country?
Robbie Moore
Our police station was not closed. The Labour PCC decided to move it out of the town centre to an industrial estate outside Keighley, making it less accessible to many of my constituents.
In addition, in the run-up to the 2019 general election, the then Labour PCC, the then Labour MP for Keighley and the Labour leader of Bradford Council gave false hope and false promise that the police station would be moved back to the centre of town. That false hope just happened to be announced in the run-up to the general election, but what happened? All those plans are now off the table as a result of our new West Yorkshire Mayor deciding that we cannot facilitate that move. I hope we will get an instruction, or as much help from the Government as possible, to move the police station back into the centre of Keighley, from which it should have never been moved in the first place.
On the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) made, police hubs are an excellent idea. In many rural parts of my constituency, facilities such as village halls have been used for community-wide engagement. A police officer, a sergeant or the neighbourhood policing team can go along and have dialogue with residents, and communicate and provide reassurance at a micro-local level. We can use such facilities across our constituencies to enable dialogue and better reporting of issues and concerns.
On drug taking, I am very pleased that the Government have taken a stance on nitrous oxide—laughing gas—cannisters, which I have been campaigning to ban since being elected. In the summer months, and particularly on bank holiday weekends, a lot of people get the train from Bradford and Leeds to Ilkley to sit at the riverside and enjoy the sunshine, but sometimes the area is used for antisocial behaviour, and that is not fair for Ilkley residents.
We all face many, many issues with antisocial behaviour. I will quickly touch on fly-tipping. I represent an urban fringe-type constituency, and we have a lot of fly-tipping, particularly in the Worth Valley ward, where Councillor Rebecca Poulsen has been fighting incredibly hard, working with the police, to deal with fly-tipping-related incidents. We must not forget that dumping used construction material, or whatever else it might be, in our beautiful environment is a form of antisocial behaviour in its own right. It was horrifying that, at the back end of last year, our Labour-run Bradford Council decided to close the Keighley tip—a ridiculous decision that would have resulted in more fly-tipping across the constituency. I am pleased to say that after I brought a petition to this House, signed by more than 7,000 people, which Laura Kelly and Martin Crangle heavily campaigned for, Labour-run Bradford Council finally listened and overturned that ridiculous decision. It has now decided to keep the Keighley tip open.
I very much welcome the Government’s plan to put more police officers on our streets. As a Conservative MP, at the last election I campaigned to get 20,000 police officers back on to our streets, and West Yorkshire police has recruited more than 1,000 since I was elected. I want to ensure that they are prioritised in dealing with the many concerns that my constituents across Keighley raise. I urge the Mayor of West Yorkshire, Tracy Brabin, to ensure that as many as possible of those police officers are on the streets of Keighley, Ilkley, Silsden and Worth Valley to tackle antisocial behaviour and give our neighbourhood policing teams the means that they need.
It is a complete myth that Labour is the party of law and order, and that it actually cares about clamping down and being tough on those who commit offences that cause harm to others and try to rule the streets through fear. I can categorically say that that is not the case at all. Labour will not pull the wool over the eyes of residents across Keighley and Ilkley. It was so determined to secure power in Keighley a couple of years ago that it actively selected as a candidate for Labour-run Bradford council Mohsin Hussain, who only seven years earlier had been given a 12-month sentence, suspended for two years with 250 hours of unpaid community work, after being convicted of an armed street assault in Keighley with a pickaxe handle, causing bodily harm. Another of his gang used a baseball bat. When that individual was released on bail, he was caught accelerating to 77 mph in a 30 mph zone in Keighley, driving through a series of traffic lights at speed and going around the wrong side of a roundabout. Those are the types of antisocial behaviour issues that I get contacted about time and time again. These are unfortunately the very issues that are still happening in Keighley today—physical assaults and extreme speeding. Yet Labour’s answer to all of that is to select and actively campaign for a candidate who a few years previously had been handed a two-year suspended sentence. What is worse is that our West Yorkshire Mayor, Tracy Brabin, who is in charge of implementing our local police and crime strategy, John Grogan, who wants to be the next MP for Keighley, and the current Labour leader of Bradford Council all came to Keighley to campaign, knock on doors and deliver leaflets to get that individual into power. And now, unfortunately, he is a district councillor on the Labour-controlled authority.
What does that say to the victims of antisocial behaviour, the victims of street crime, those who have to put up with physical abuse and those who live near the streets where extreme speeding regularly takes place? My view is that Labour does not care about implementing a strong and robust police and crime strategy. Labour will use any means possible to secure the votes to secure power, taking the votes of people in Keighley and Ilkley for granted.
I say to the Minister that I appreciate the work of the Home Secretary and her predecessors in taking a robust approach to antisocial behaviour. It is an issue that impacts all our constituencies time and again. It is probably one of the biggest issues to fill my inbox. We cannot sing from the rooftops about the good things in our constituencies and promote our businesses without tackling the plague that continues to haunt our town centres. On that, I will hand over to other speakers, as I know that many want to take part in this debate.
Esther McVey (in the Chair)
I remind Members that they need to bob if they wish to be called in this debate. I will not put a time limit on speeches, but be mindful that we will go to Front Benchers at 10.28 am, and that Robbie Moore will have a couple of minutes at the end to wind up.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
I wish I had prepared my contribution as a response to the hon. Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore), because some of the outrageous statements he made were frankly unbelievable. Anyone would think that the Conservative party had not been in office for 13 years. Is it just me, or would anyone think there is an election around the corner? He hit back at the democratic processes in his constituency about who is elected. It is the people who elect their representatives. The MP does not select councillors—it is the people who do that. Criticism of the people in his own constituency might not go down well.
However, I seriously thank the hon. Member for bringing this timely debate on a massive subject, though it is shame he used it simply to try to attack the Labour party. That is extraordinary, to be honest. His closing remarks were along the lines of, “Thank you, Minister, for the wonderful robust approach that the Government have taken to antisocial behaviour on the high street.” If they are doing a great job, what is there to debate? There is either a problem that needs to be dealt with, or everything is okay. He cannot have it both ways, I am afraid.
The common denominator to the huge issues that I describe as high street anarchy is that the Conservative party in 2010 reduced the police by 20,000 officers.
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) (Lab)
As always, my hon. Friend is making a powerful contribution. I was in Northfield Primary School in South Kirkby on Monday, where there is a serious antisocial problem. The policing is lacking because of the cuts that he just referred to. I do not think we should be demonising a whole generation of young people. The Tories cut £1 billion or more of funding for youth services, so there is no youth provision in the villages I represent—there are no youth clubs—and all sorts of other facilities simply closed down as a result of those cuts. Does he agree that the backdrop to this problem of antisocial behaviour is, first, inadequate policing because of poor funding and, secondly, cuts to services upon which so many people depend?
Ian Lavery
Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, because it is so true. Are these young people bored? Perhaps it is boredom, but the hon. Member for Keighley should recognise that it is because of the reduction in youth provision and the withdrawal of funding to local authorities, charities and lots of other organisations that used to fund youth networks right the way through our communities. They are gone. That does not mean to say that, because people are bored, they can create havoc on the high streets, because that is not acceptable at all.
If we look at Northumbria police, I have to place on record that the police in my constituency do a marvellous job—every one of them—and they know that they are really under-resourced. That is the real issue on the high street: the police are under-resourced, and they have to assess and deal with crimes as they happen in real time. Do the police go to where the assaults are happening, or do they go to where somebody is pulling plants out of flowerbeds on the high street? I do not want to trivialise what is happening on the high street, because it is very, very important. There is theft taking place in the shops. There is vandalism. There is antisocial behaviour, and there is unruly behaviour. We have also noticed in my constituency an increase in racist abuse.
I put a survey out to retailers in Ashington, Newbiggin, Morpeth and Bedlington asking them about antisocial behaviour, and I got a fantastic response. They all have huge criticisms, and they all have different issues. We then had a meeting with the police on Friday night, and the sad fact of the matter was that very few people turned up, because there is absolutely no confidence at all in the criminal justice system. There is a recognition that the police do what they can, but there is a bigger recognition that they are not doing anything that is addressing the huge issue of antisocial behaviour on the high street.
Let me give a few examples of what is happening in my patch. We have people going into the bigger stores on the high street—into Boots and Co-op—and stealing stuff, and they are basically stealing, first, items to sell on, and secondly, items to keep themselves healthy and clean. People never used to go pinching to keep themselves clean and keep their babies’ clothes well washed, but that is one of the things that is happening now. There are people walking into some of the bigger stores on a daily basis and just picking up what they want and walking out. The people there are instructed by the management, and rightly so, that they cannot stop people stealing, because it is not their role—and if they do, goodness knows what the consequences might be.
We had a situation in my constituency where someone was stabbed trying to prevent somebody else from stealing from the shop. We have security guards in the bigger stores, but then we have the smaller retailers. We had a chap who mentioned that somebody just walked in last week, picked 24 cans of beer up and just walked out. They rang the police, and they got a response four days later. The response was: “Well, can you explain which direction the gentleman went in?” That was infuriating. The police might have had good reason to ask such a question, possibly for CCTV, but if someone just walks into a shop—into someone’s else business on the high street, which they depend on for themselves and their family—pick something up and walk out, the owner will want some action, for heaven’s sake. They want the police to come, not to ring four days later.
I would imagine that, at the very same time, there were other crimes assessed by the police to be a priority compared with what is happening on the high street. We have all sorts of issues on the high street. They have mentioned racism. I live in a constituency that I think is roughly 99.1% white, and racism has never, ever been an issue, but it is becoming an issue. The people themselves are asking the police to deal with the racial abuse—and again, it is not a priority. I mentioned the 20,000 police being taken off the streets in 2010, and we should never forget that. It really galls me, by the way, when we hear the Conservatives, time after time, saying, “We are putting police back on the street.” They should not have taken the police off the street in the first place. Since 2010, Northumbria police has lost 1,000 police officers. Because of the inflationary crisis, next year it will have to find a further £12 million, which will cause extra pressures.
People do not just want their crimes to be recorded and for somebody to perhaps ring up and say, “We will look at this,” or, “We’ll look at that”; they want to see the police on the high street. I have seen videos—Al Vaziri, who has been a businessman in Ashington in my constituency for decades and a pillar of society, showed us CCTV videos only last month of young people throwing a brick at his window. Everybody knows who the individual was; it is on CCTV. We need convictions. Mr Vaziri took the decision to retire, because he cannot put up with it any more—racial abuse was also a contributing factor. He has decided that he and his wife will retire, away from what they see happening on the high street.
We must realise that the system is entirely broken. On one side, we have the retailers, the hard-working people and the businesspeople, on high streets in different towns and villages in the community, who are suffering as a consequence of this unruly anarchy from young people who think they can do whatever they want—because they can do whatever they want, because they are not being challenged at any stage. Then we have the many retailers who are being forced out of business. This fella told me, “They come in, Mr Lavery, pinch these things and walk out. It’s robbery—they’re robbing me and robbing my family.” It is just not acceptable.
Retailers and people on the high streets are suffering greatly from abuse, bad behaviour, unruly behaviour, theft and robbery, and it is the police’s job to remedy the situation and tackle these issues. I give full praise to the police in my constituency for the fantastic work they do, but they simply do not have the resources. They have not said this to me, but I feel that they understand that they are having to undertake a tick-box exercise. They realise how broken the system is, because they say that they have to prioritise other issues. A startling fact that the inspector told me on Friday night is that just above 50% of the call-outs in my constituency are connected to mental health issues. The police are not social workers; they are there to tackle the issues I have raised, which will surely also be mentioned in other contributions to the debate.
Is it too much to ensure that the police are properly resourced to walk through communities, so that people see them? We very rarely see police officers on the beat. Again, I am not criticising the force; the police have had to face under-resourcing from the Government. It isn’t any wonder that if we take 20,000 police officers off the streets, there will be an increase in crime—that is logical. It is not really difficult to come to terms with or understand. The system is completely and utterly broken. This is about how we put that right.
To conclude, I simply praise police officers. We have to think about how we can address the huge issues affecting small and bigger businesses on the high street, because they are facing a ridiculous situation. This is going to be very difficult, but we need more police, we need more youth provision, and we need people to be held to account for what is happening on our high streets. Only when that happens will we begin to see a reduction in antisocial behaviour.
Mrs Paulette Hamilton (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) for securing this important debate.
For many of my constituents, the sad reality of living in Tory Britain is that antisocial behaviour is increasing in our town centres, and there has been a loss of confidence in the police. The Government have hollowed out neighbourhood policing, allowed vulnerable young people to be drawn into crime, and let confidence in the police and the criminal justice system collapse. Criminals are being let off, and victims are being let down. In my constituency-wide survey, the main concerns raised were policing and tackling crime, which constituents tell me is a massive issue. We need more police on our streets to make us feel safe. Young people no longer have faith in the police, and one of my constituents told me that a lot of people do not report crimes because they do not think the police will even bother to come out.
Antisocial behaviour is increasing in my communities in Erdington, Kingstanding and Castle Vale. A constituent told me that Erdington High Street at times feels lawless. Another told me that his 70-year-old father carries a personal attack alarm when he goes on his morning walk. A third is scared to walk with his dog in the local park. It is shameful that, after 13 years of Conservative Government, anywhere we look in Britain, nothing is working.
Erdington High Street is the beating heart of my community. Last August, Birmingham City Council and I put in a bid to the Government levelling-up fund for £11 million, which would have totally transformed our town centre and gone a long way to reducing antisocial behaviour in our area. But the Tory Government let us down yet again, rejecting ours and the four other Birmingham bids. While Erdington will not receive a single penny from the Government’s £2.1 billion fund, despite ranking in the top 10% of deprived areas in the country, the Prime Minister’s own affluent constituency received £19 million.
At the same time, I have been campaigning relentlessly alongside local residents to oppose an application to open an eighth betting shop on our high street. Sadly, the Government decided to back the gambling bosses and overturn local wishes. I am helping thousands of constituents with casework; I am holding meetings with local retailers concerned about antisocial behaviour on the high street; and I supported two great bids to the Government levelling-up fund that Ministers shamefully rejected. Sadly, Erdington feels left behind.
Councils are committed to tackling antisocial behaviour in town centres, but it is essential that the Government adequately resource policing and community safety officers to enforce restrictions put in place. It is no good saying the Government have put 20,000 police back on the streets when, 13 years ago, they literally hollowed out those services. I am doing my bit. Can the Minister tell me why the Government are not doing theirs?
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
It is an honour to speak in this morning’s debate and serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I am not usually one for superstition, but I must say that this debate is incredibly timely. Sadly, only last weekend, my community was hit by a particularly violent bout of antisocial behaviour in our town centre of Pontypridd, while last night, another incident of unprovoked violence occurred in our town. At the time of preparing my comments for this debate, a distressing video of last Friday’s violent brawl is circulating online in which one individual can be seen laying on the floor literally having his head kicked in.
This is the sad reality of our high streets, but let me be clear: Pontypridd is not ordinarily a violent community. Antisocial behaviour is a blight on communities up and down the country—my area is not alone. Today’s debate is about an important national issue that our constituents rightly expect us to take seriously. But for me, this is also a persistent local issue, as my constituents are sick and tired of being intimidated by antisocial behaviour.
Last weekend, I was shocked and saddened to learn of such an incident taking place in a part of town that is usually—especially on market day—bustling with activity, as locals shop around for a bargain or enjoy a bite to eat at one of our many offerings. It is precisely because Pontypridd’s town centre is so often a vibrant place that I have my constituency office just seconds away from where the market traders set up their stalls.
Following recent events in Pontypridd, I want to place on record my heartfelt thanks for the swift actions of South Wales police and our local Pontypridd policing team, including Chief Inspector Helen Coulthard, Inspector Leigh Parfitt and Constable Liam Noyce among many others. South Wales police does phenomenal work to keep us safe, especially when much of its work happens thanklessly and tirelessly behind closed doors. However, the frustrating reality is that South Wales police is doing the best it can with extremely limited resources.
Embedded, preventive neighbourhood policing is such a vital part of keeping our streets safe. But let me be clear: after more than a decade of Tory budget cuts to policing across the UK, we have weakened our country’s capacity to deal with antisocial behaviour, both in a preventive capacity and, too often, when responding to it. I need not remind colleagues that this UK Tory Government have cut police officer numbers across the UK by thousands. Across the UK, charges have collapsed, antisocial perpetrators are getting away with their behaviour, and criminal damage and arson attacks have skyrocketed. We can, and we must, do better.
Proper neighbourhood policing is vital, but another important part of preventing antisocial behaviour is, of course, the adequate provision of youth services to get teenagers away from the streets. Shamefully, funding for those sorts of services has also been cut to the bone thanks to 13 years of Conservative rule in Westminster. Our communities up and down the country are facing undeniable funding pressures. Youth services have been completely slashed, which increases the chances of antisocial behaviour, and with neighbourhood policing on its knees, perpetrators are more likely to get away with their disgraceful behaviour.
I am proud to say that in Wales our Labour-led authority, despite the impossible challenge thrown at it by the UK Tory Government, is trying to make a difference for its communities. Indeed, we are fortunate that on Ponty high street, at the site of our old YMCA building, our town centre will soon boast an incredible £4.4 million arts and youth centre zone. The project will deliver true community spaces and provide much-needed youth services for a generation. I am also lucky to be well supported by a fantastic business improvement district. Pontypridd BID has been vital in championing antisocial behaviour prevention measures, where the UK Government funding has barely scratched the surface. But as with local authorities across the nation, it is overstretched and having to do more with less and less.
Colleagues will be aware that I am a proud and vocal champion for fair funding for Wales. The inadequacy of the Barnett funding formula is very much a topic for another day, but it is an important truth that the UK Government have a responsibility to support ASB-related projects across the UK. I put on record my thanks to the Welsh Labour Government, who with the limited powers available to them have committed to more police community support officers, and I look forward to welcoming the officers on the streets of Pontypridd this summer.
I also look forward to hearing the Minister’s responses to my points, and I sincerely hope that there is a strategy to tackle antisocial behaviour once and for all. We need an ambitious strategy to tackle it, but the Department has clearly failed thus far to act appropriately, which is having serious consequences for people across the UK. I sincerely hope that the Minister is listening and I look forward to her remarks.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) for leading it. In the short time that he has been here, he has had many Westminster Hall and Adjournment debates on similar issues to this one. They are critical issues—the issues that people contact us about most—so it is good that he has set the scene. I thank him for his commitment to bringing such issues to Westminster Hall and the main Chamber for consideration. He deserves credit for that.
I am pleased to speak in the debate, because I have—as others do; I am not different from anybody else—such pride in the town centres in my constituency; Newtownards, Comber and Ballynahinch are the largest towns there. I have mentioned before that my main constituency office is in the town centre of Newtownards, and the sense of community there is so real. It is an area where people learn to know everyone. Of course, the fact that I have lived in the area for all but four years of my life, and have had a fairly long life, means that I know it well. I know the people well and get to know the people who come in. I have become incredibly proud of the area’s reputation.
It is good to see the Minister in her place. She will not have to answer any of the questions that I will pose, because she has no responsibility for them. I always give a Northern Ireland perspective, if I can, because what I say replicates what others have said, and what those who will speak afterwards will say. In Northern Ireland, we are no strangers to having different rules and different council policy. One issue that has become prevalent in more recent years is the antisocial behaviour of youths in Newtownards town centre. We deal with issues of antisocial behaviour every week, unfortunately, and they are critically important for my constituents, be the issue under-age drinking or graffiti.
Margaret Ferrier
A problem that has recently resurfaced in parts of my constituency is sectarian graffiti. The perpetrators of a recent spate of graffiti were identified, and they were only teenagers. Does the hon. Member agree that that behaviour can often be generational, and that angle should be given greater consideration?
Jim Shannon
As always, the hon. Lady makes a very apt intervention and I thank her for that. In my town of Newtownards, on the Ards peninsula, we have recently witnessed gang warfare, for want of a better description, in which graffiti has been prominent. It has been specific to many people and has been unhelpful, dangerous, vindictive and cruel. She is right to highlight graffiti and the role that needs to be played. At times, we ask: who is responsible for removing the graffiti? It is a very simple issue, but one that crops us. We usually find that the building’s owner paints over it, or if the graffiti is specific and nasty, the council can come out and remove it. So that becomes an issue.
Other problematic issues in my constituency are loitering, loud music and, in some rare cases, drugs. There is absolutely no place for that in our local communities. There is a street in my constituency called Court Street where there are a few derelict houses. On most weekends, there will be youths inside those homes drinking and blasting out music until the early hours; not to mention that the glass in the properties had to be broken at some stage, so there is a real health threat to the young people, too. The police and local councils have boarded up the windows numerous times, as have the owners. A local councillor who works in my office has been contacted out of hours and rung the police numerous times to make them aware of what was happening, but there does not seem to be any strategy to tackle the issue. We need better co-operation between local councils and police to ensure a better response, first, on the issue of building control and who is responsible for making the building safe, and secondly, so the police can give appropriate warnings and take relevant action, should this not stop.
I wish to put on record my thanks to the Police Service of Northern Ireland back home for what it does and, in particular, to the community police officers who do such great work. They interact with community groups, organisations and individuals, and that interaction has been incredibly helpful; on many occasions, it addresses the antisocial issues, and it builds the confidence and the relationship between the general public and the police. It also gives the police a better idea of who is involved.
Another issue in the town that has proven to be a major problem is suspected under-age drinking and drugs in local parks and leisure centres, which is also potentially dangerous for young children. I have highlighted that many times back home. Discarded bottles and sometimes other items, for want of a better description, are left in the children’s playground. It can be a mess of broken glass, takeaway wrappers, litter, cigarette butts and other things, and can also be dangerous.
Lastly, I have no doubt that in some cases parents are completely unaware of where their children are. I am a parent of three boys. They are well grown up now and I have six grandchildren, but we are no strangers to the fact that our children, in the past, fabricated, or could have fabricated, their whereabouts and what they were doing, because sometimes they did not want us to know. Parents can play a huge role in ensuring that their children are responsible and, if they are out and about on weekends, not creating a risk for themselves or other people by behaving antisocially.
I have a great relationship with my local policing team, which will frequently carry out patrolling checks in hotspots to deter any antisocial behaviour. In an intervention, the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) referred to police hubs. That is one of the things we should look at. It was a wise and helpful intervention, which I think can make a difference. Could the Minister comment on that? I have mentioned before the relationship between councils and local police; there needs to be greater power for the two to work together. For example, councils should be able to renovate buildings that are being abused, and make real use of them to boost the local economy, forcing antisocial behaviour out.
I want to mention something that I think will be helpful for the Minister and which operates across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We have a very active street pastors group. I have been involved with them from the very beginning, when a lady called Pam Williamson came to see me. I had always had an interest in them. It started because all the churches came together to address a social issue. It is the sort of reaching out that I love to see—I know that you would as well, Ms McVey. The churches see that they can do something practical on the streets. It was a local group, but it expanded from Newtownards across to Bangor, and down the Ards peninsula to Comber and elsewhere. It is really active and it brings together so many good people with good intentions, who go out at night and reduce antisocial behaviour. The figures have dropped, and that is one of the reasons why. The Minister may wish to refer to that in her speech, and the hon. Member for Keighley, who introduced this debate, may wish to refer to it in his wind-up.
I have seen what the group do. They offer people a bottle of water or a pair of sandals. They help young people who are unfortunately inebriated and do not know what they are doing, and get them home safely. How critical that is for ladies, women and young girls! It is critical for people to have someone there when they are feeling emotionally vulnerable. How important it is to ensure that parents know where their children are! Those are the things that street pastors do. I am a great supporter of street pastors. I think that all Members present have street pastors in their area who do marvellous work. They are an instrument that we can all use, because they have a deep interest in the community.
Mrs Hamilton
I absolutely agree. I have street pastors in my constituency. This is not their fault, but the problem with street pastors is that, because we lack the police and people from other local agencies to work with them, it is becoming unsafe at certain times of the day and night for them to do their valuable work. Given the lack of police and other services on the high street, does the hon. Member feel that the environment is safe enough for street pastors?
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. It is difficult for me to answer that, because I cannot speak for other areas. I can speak only for mine, and I must say that in my constituency, the police are never too far away. The issue for street pastors is that they are not police. That is probably why they are approachable, which is one of their advantages. I know from my constituents that they have probably saved people from abuse and physical and other harm, and that they have got people home safely. Street pastors have a working relationship with the police, but they are not the police. They are there to help, and I think people recognise that; the street pastors’ years of involvement in this work on the streets of Newtownards, Bangor, the Ards peninsula, Comber and elsewhere in my constituency have shown that to be the case. The hon. Lady is right; street pastors need to be safe, but in my area, I think they are.
I conclude with this: these issues are prevalent in all constituencies across the United Kingdom. An antisocial behaviour plan has recently been introduced in England, which it seems will tackle the worst of antisocial behaviour in England. I am grateful to the Minister, for whom I have the utmost respect. What discussions could she have with our Department of Justice back home? I believe wholeheartedly that we can do things much better together, because this is a national issue. That is why the debate is important, and that is why I am speaking in it—not that I can necessarily add anything more for the Minister to reply to. I just wanted to let her know that we have some ideas in Northern Ireland. It is good to exchange those ideas, and thereby do better for everyone.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) on securing this important debate. I will not stand here and say that everything is wonderful in Scotland. We have already heard from the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier), and there are issues in my constituency, too, many of them linked to local housing issues. In North Lanarkshire Council, police and local housing officials work closely together to solve those problems.
In spite of that, the Scottish Government actually recognise how much antisocial behaviour can, as many hon. Members have said this morning, blight people’s lives. The Scottish Government remain committed to tackling all forms of antisocial behaviour via legislation, and fixed penalty notices for things such as littering, which is another bad antisocial behaviour issue. I am reliably informed that there is no Scottish equivalent to section 59 of the Anti-social Behaviour and Policing Act 2014, but we have our own Act—the Antisocial Behaviour etc. (Scotland) Act 2004—and some stringent operating procedures for police.
As in other parts of the United Kingdom, it is not always possible for police in Scotland to attend every incident of antisocial behaviour, because there is simply no capacity after 13 years of austerity. Importantly, according to the Scottish Community Safety Network, 12-year-olds living in the 20% most deprived areas, as measured by the Scottish index of multiple deprivation, are more likely than those in the 20% least deprived areas to have engaged in antisocial behaviour. As the hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) asked, is antisocial behaviour about boredom? In some cases, it is simply about not having a decent life chance because of poverty.
Those living in more deprived areas, socially rented housing and urban areas are more likely to think that antisocial behaviour and neighbourhood problems are issues in their area. However, perceived levels of antisocial behaviour differ from actual levels, and that is a real issue as well. There is a lot of perception about antisocial behaviour. What is antisocial behaviour for one person is not always antisocial behaviour to someone else, and we need to look at things differently in some areas.
I reiterate that the root of the problem is a lack of resources for police, local authorities and organisations that help. In my area of Scotland, there are still street football leagues. The police in Scotland act differently, it is fair to say. They are much more community-based; there is a much wider sense in which they use consent to police their areas, and they work much more closely with local authorities. However, some of the great work they have been doing has been affected by real-terms cuts to funding, which is a huge pity.
In spite of the UK Government’s austerity cuts, Scotland still has a higher number of officers with better pay than at any time during the last Administration, and more police per head of population than England and Wales; that is a priority for the Scottish Government, and will continue to be. We have increased the number of police officers in Scotland, and they get paid about £5,000 more per annum as a starting salary. Also, fewer police officers resign voluntarily in Scotland because their conditions are better. The UK Government should look at that.
It is important that people look to not just the police to solve antisocial behaviour issues, but proper local organisations that work with police and other agencies. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about street pastors; we know what good work they do across the UK. Churches in my area are also involved in that good work. The whole thing comes down to money. I am probably the oldest Member present. I can remember when there was a zero-tolerance approach to any crime in New York; I believe it was in the 1980s. I think we all recognise, as we should, that small crimes can lead to larger crimes. We should not simply label that as antisocial behaviour at the outset. As well as providing support for victims, we need to provide outlets for younger people, who are mainly, but not always, the ones exhibiting antisocial behaviour. We need to look at what we do, take a zero-tolerance approach, and work with organisations to try to prevent such behaviour.
The hon. Member for Wansbeck was right to say that boredom leads to a lot of antisocial behaviour, but we cannot tackle antisocial behaviour at its root without adequate Government funding. Government funding in England will lead to Barnett consequentials for Scotland, so will the Minister talk about how the Government will improve funding to help to fight this scourge across the United Kingdom?
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey, and I am delighted that the hon. Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) was able to secure this debate on an incredibly important topic. Perhaps we can forgive him for some of his colourful attacks on his Labour party colleagues because sometimes there is a direct correlation between an MP’s majority and the scale of their exaggerations against their opponents. However, the hon. Gentleman made some good points, and I agree 100% that antisocial behaviour is a plague that haunts many of our communities.
It is a shame that the Government have only recently woken up to the challenges of antisocial behaviour. I have attended debates at which Ministers have described antisocial behaviour as low level and not something they had chosen to prioritise in the past, and if Members look at the strategies that the Government have published in recent years, they will see that antisocial behaviour barely got a mention. The Labour party takes antisocial behaviour seriously. It is not low level; it is ruining lives.
Robbie Moore
I note that the shadow Minister says the Labour party takes antisocial behaviour extremely seriously. I am interested in her views on the selection of Labour party candidates for local elections. Does the Labour party think it appropriate to select candidates with previous convictions, such as a two-year suspended sentence, to stand for election to positions of responsibility?
Sarah Jones
I do not know about that particular case, but I do not think it acceptable that over the past 13 years the Government have not taken antisocial behaviour seriously and that the lives of people across the country have been ruined as a result. The hon. Gentleman is perhaps sad that he did not become a police and crime commissioner when he stood for election—I am sure he would have done an excellent job—but he cannot deny, and did not deny in his speech, the damage that has been done to our town centres and our communities over the past 13 years.
People across the country know exactly what antisocial behaviour feels like. They know what changes in their neighbourhood when community respect is worn down, and they know what broken Britain feels like. Parents worry about their children playing in the park or being targeted online. Pensioners worry about scams. Small businesses worry they will be targeted by thieves or vandals. Knife crime plagues communities, women feel less safe on the streets and antisocial behaviour ruins lives without consequence.
Labour’s driving mission is to deliver safer streets. If a family does not have a big house with a garden, the kids play on the streets, or hang out in the parks or the town centre, and it is vital that people feel they are safe enough to enjoy their local area. Criminal damage to shops, schools, leisure centres and businesses has increased by more than 30% in the past year alone. That is an extraordinary figure. There are 150 incidents of criminal damage to non-residential buildings a day. Antisocial arson went up 25% last year. Knife possession is up 15% on pre-pandemic levels. More than 6 million Brits are witnessing drug deals on their streets. That is 6 million people seeing drug dealing and drug taking on our streets.
Some town centres have been particularly hard hit by vandalism, harassment and abuse. Do not be fooled by the Government’s announcement today that they have met their arbitrary police recruitment target of 20,000. The Tories should hang their heads in shame that they decimated policing. Replacing some of the officers cut by the Government is not a victory. A press release will not suddenly make the public see police officers on the streets who are not there. Nobody will be fooled.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) made a powerful speech about how people just want to see action; they want something done when a crime is committed. He rightly paid tribute to the police in his area. They are trying to do the right thing, but they do not have the resources. How insulted will they be when they hear the Home Secretary say in her speech today that the police need to stop concerning themselves with political correctness and get on with basic policing? It is nonsense that the police are not doing the things we want them to because of the way they approach their job. They are trying but they are massively overstretched. We have seen such cuts that it is very difficult for them to do the things that we all demand of them. They will not praise the Home Secretary for what she says today.
In her shocking 300-page report on the Met, Louise Casey made it really clear that visible neighbourhood policing is crucial to restoring confidence in police. Neighbourhood policing has been slashed. There are 10,000 fewer neighbourhood police and PCSOs on our streets today than there were eight years ago. The population has also increased, so we have fewer officers per person in this country by some margin than when the Tories came to power.
Charge rates are plummeting, victims are dropping out of the process in record numbers, the Conservative Government scrapped the major drug intervention programme that the last Labour Government had in place, and support services for kids have been decimated. YMCA says that £1 billion has been taken out of youth work across the country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck mentioned, the police spend hours, if not days, dealing with mental health cases, simply because there is no one else to pick up the pieces. Community penalties have halved and there is a backlog of millions of hours of community payback schemes, not completed because the Government cannot even run the existing scheme properly.
Far from punishing perpetrators of antisocial behaviour, the Government are letting more and more of them off. The Conservatives weakened Labour’s antisocial behaviour powers 10 years ago, and brought in new ones that are barely used. They got rid of powers of arrest, despite being warned not to, and they introduced the community trigger, which is sadly something most people have not heard of. When polled, the public say there is no point in investing in improving the community if it is just going to be vandalised by criminals. It is impossible to level up without tackling crime.
Labour announced months ago our action plan to crack down on antisocial behaviour that blights communities. Respect orders will create a new criminal offence for adults who have repeatedly committed antisocial behaviour and are ignoring warnings by the courts and police. Labour will introduce new town centre patrols, and a mandatory antisocial behaviour police lead for every local neighbourhood, as part of our neighbourhood police guarantee, with 13,000 extra neighbourhood police and PCSOs.
We should, of course, pay tribute to the Welsh Government, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) did, for committing more PCSOs, because they are the eyes and ears on antisocial behaviour and can stop things escalating. They can find out the problems, they know people’s parents, they know where people live, and they can go round communities to stop antisocial behaviour escalating. The hon. Member for Keighley’s force, West Yorkshire police, has the second highest proportion of PCSOs by population in England, which I am sure he is pleased about.
We will bring tough action against town centre drug dealing, with tough powers for the police to shut down crack houses, and local neighbourhood drug teams to patrol town centres and lead data-driven hotspot policing targeted at common drug-dealing sites. We will introduce a national register of private landlords, and a duty for local partners to tackle antisocial behaviour, with mandatory antisocial behaviour officers in each area.
Under a Labour Government, if somebody wants to commit vandalism or dump rubbish on our streets, they had better be prepared to clean up the mess. We will bring in fixed-penalty cleaning notices and tough penalties for fly-tippers, and establish clean-up squads, where offenders will clear up litter, fly-tipping and vandalism that they have caused. The next Labour Government will not let another generation of lost boys and girls grow up without hope. That is why Labour will introduce full prevention and diversion programmes, with new youth mentors for the children and young people most vulnerable to crime, and access to mental health professionals in every school.
What are the Government proposing to do about the 13 years of neglect? Recently they called for hotspot policing, faster community payback, and stronger powers of arrest. That sounds familiar—because it is exactly what Labour has been calling for, and is already in Labour’s plans. However, the Government have left out the most important part, which is putting our neighbourhood police and PCSOs back on the streets. They are not investing in that. Labour’s plans to support victims have also been neglected. On the community trigger that is not working, the Government have decided to rename it, and they have re-announced plans on youth support that the Levelling Up Secretary announced more than a year ago.
The Government have said that 500 young people will get one-to-one support. There were 1.1 million incidents of antisocial behaviour last year. Supporting 500 people just will not cut it. The Government are still not changing their weakened enforcement powers on antisocial behaviour, and neighbourhood policing is not even mentioned in their action plan. The Minister knows that hotspot policing cannot be a replacement for neighbourhood policing. Neighbourhood teams made up of officers, PCSOs and specials are the eyes and ears of our communities. They are the Catherine Cawoods of policing. They know what is going on in their communities, and are trusted to understand and fix problems.
I hope that the Minister can answer a few questions. What is the plan for the police workforce now that the uplift programme has finished? Will she back Labour’s plan to put 13,000 more police officers, PCSOs and specials back in our neighbourhoods? Will she support Labour’s respect orders, so that the police can have the powers that they need to arrest and deal with persistent antisocial behaviour, and can she confirm whether cutting the number of PCSOs by half was a deliberate policy measure or just an accident of no planning?
Where the Conservatives have dismantled neighbourhood policing, Labour will bring it back. Where the Conservatives have weakened antisocial behaviour powers, Labour has a tough new plan to tackle it. Where the Conservatives forgot about our young people, Labour will prioritise them. Labour will revive the reassurance that if you are a victim of a crime, something will be done.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Sarah Dines)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore) for securing the debate. He knows, as we all do, that these issues matter to a great many of our constituents in all parts of the country. Antisocial behaviour is a menace that must be reckoned with. It causes untold distress, concern, frustration and fear. It ruins people’s enjoyment of public spaces, and at worst it destroys lives and gnaws at the fabric of communities. It is totally unacceptable.
Town centres should be bustling and energetic, but they should also be safe. My hon. Friend mentioned Keighley bus station. Transport is crucial. People should be able to walk to get a bus or train, and his work in that area is really important. The Government are committing a large sum of money—an extra £2.5 million—for a pilot to extend transport safety officers. Conservatives feel very strongly about such issues.
No one should feel threatened when walking alone at night or during the day. Nor should they have to dodge litter or drug paraphernalia on the streets, endure persistent unruly behaviour or excessive noise, or see their local areas disfigured by graffiti and vandalism. Those are just a few of the many examples Members have raised of how antisocial behaviour manifests. Different areas have different problems, as is clear from Members’ contributions, but a recurring theme is the harm done to the physical environment and the impact on decent, law-abiding citizens, who suffer as a result of the actions of a selfish minority. Antisocial behaviour affects lives.
Miss Dines
I will make a little more progress first. Antisocial behaviour is not low level or minor, and I do not accept the characterisation that the Government view it as somehow petty. That is an unfortunate narrative. I am sure that we all agree that antisocial behaviour is very impactful on people’s everyday lives. We need to attack it head-on.
In relation to the police uplift, today’s debate is obviously very timely, for two reasons. At 9.30 this morning, just as my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley was rising to start his remarks, the latest statistics on the police uplift programme were published. Let me confirm to hon. Members what those figures tell us. I am delighted to say—we should be proud—that from the end of March 2023, 20,951 additional police officers have been recruited from funding from the police uplift programme. That brings the current police officer head- count in England and Wales to 149,572, an increase of 3,542 compared with 2010.
The upshot is that there are now more police officers in England and Wales than at any point in history. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), is inaccurate in saying that that is not the case. We will have more police on the beat to prevent violence—more police out about in their communities, solving burglaries and, yes, tackling antisocial behaviour on the ground. It is of course for police forces to determine how they use their own money and the additional officers at their disposal. Let me say in response to some of the contributions we have heard that West Midlands police has closed 20 police stations and chosen to spend £33 million of its money refurbishing a head office. But there is no doubt that the police have a crucial role to play in tackling antisocial behaviour. A responsive and visible police presence can have a strong deterrent effect as well as helping to provide reassurance for communities.
This debate is timely for a second reason: it was only at the end of last month that the Government published their bold and ambitious action plan to tackle antisocial behaviour. The difference between our plan and Labour’s is that ours actually has some depth, narrative and detail. The hon. Member for Croydon Central will remember that detail and figures are really important.
As has been made clear today, constituents all over the country are sick and tired of antisocial behaviour. The Government hear their concerns and we are determined to step up the response. Our action plan will give police and crime commissioners and local authorities and their agencies the tools to stamp out antisocial behaviour across England and Wales. It targets the callous and careless few whose actions ruin public spaces and amenities on which the law-abiding majority want to depend.
Alex Davies-Jones
The Minister mentioned the impact of antisocial behaviour on communities and she also mentioned transport. A big problem that we have is the antisocial noise from the exhausts of modified cars racing up and down our bypasses and through our town centres. Last April, the former Transport Secretary, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), announced a pilot of noise cameras to capture that antisocial behaviour, but we have heard very little since. Will the Minister go back to the Transport Secretary to find out what is happening with the noise cameras and see whether they can be rolled out across the UK, because that antisocial behaviour is a major problem in Pontypridd and Taff-Ely?
Miss Dines
I am certainly willing to do that. Anecdotally, there are similar issues in my constituency of Derbyshire Dales, and I have written to the Transport Secretary myself in that regard. There are pilots, and I think there is a consideration as to whether there should be more.
The Government’s action plan outlines a radical new approach and is split across four key areas. There will be stronger punishment for perpetrators. The Opposition say that the Government have disregarded that, but that is not the case; the Government are going to bring forward stronger punishment for perpetrators. The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) mentioned experiences of zero tolerance in the USA. There are historical and academic reasons why that is of interest and why it works in some areas and not in others, but the Government will introduce stronger punishment for perpetrators in this country.
We are cracking down on illegal drugs, making offenders repair the damage that they cause, increasing financial penalties, and evicting antisocial tenants. Drugs are harmful to health, wellbeing and security, and they devastate lives. That is why we have decided to ban nitrous oxide, known as laughing gas, which is currently the third most used drug among 16 to 24-year-olds. How many of us have stumbled across the canisters broken on the ground? That really is antisocial behaviour. The Government will put an end to the hordes of youths loitering in parks and littering them with empty canisters.
Furthermore, under our new plan, the police will be able to undertake drug testing of suspected criminals in police custody for a wider range of drugs, including ecstasy and methamphetamine—medical testing is moving onwards. They will test offenders linked to crimes such as violence against women and girls, serious violence, and antisocial behaviour. We will ensure that the consequences for those committing antisocial behaviour are toughened up. Our immediate justice pilots will deliver swift, visible punishment for those involved. Members who have contributed are right that we need to see more officers on the street, and the Government are delivering that.
Offenders will undertake manual reparative work that makes good the damage suffered by victims. I am pleased that the Opposition agree with that plan, which is part of their own plan. Communities will be consulted on the type of work undertaken, and the work should start swiftly—ideally, within 48 hours of notice from the police. Whether it is cleaning up graffiti, picking up litter or washing police cars while wearing hi-vis jumpsuits or vests, people caught behaving antisocially will have to make swift reparations to the community.
The upper limits of on-the-spot fines will be increased to £1,000 for fly-tipping, which I know is a scourge for many Members present, including my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley. Another notable absence from the Labour party’s plan is proper figures. Facts and figures are really important, so we have announced that the fine for fly-tipping will be increased to £1,000, and to £500 for litter and graffiti. We will support councils to hand out more fines to offenders, with the money going back into local authority investment on activities such as cleaning up and enforcement, which is essential.
Nobody should have to endure persistent antisocial behaviour from their neighbours, which is why we plan to halve the delay between a private landlord serving notice for antisocial behaviour and eviction. We will also broaden the scope of harmful activities that can lead to eviction and make sure that antisocial offenders are de-prioritised for social housing.
Secondly, we are making communities safer. We are funding an increased police and other uniformed presence focused on antisocial behaviour in targeted hotspots where it is most prevalent. Initially we will support 10 trailblazer areas, before rolling out the hotspot enforcement across all forces in England and Wales. Hon. Members have mentioned their areas. Northumbria, West Midlands and South Wales police and crime commissioners will be piloting the enhanced hotspot response in 2023-24.
We will also replace the 19th-century Vagrancy Act with tools to direct vulnerable individuals towards appropriate support, such as accommodation, mental health or substance misuse services. We will criminalise organised begging, which is often facilitated by criminal gangs to obtain cash for illicit activity. We will prohibit begging where it causes blight and public nuisance, for example, where there are cashpoints, in shop doorways or when people are approached directly by someone in the street. We will also give police and local authorities the tools to address situations where rough sleeping is a public nuisance, such as the obstruction of doorways or the build-up of debris and tents, while ensuring that those who are genuinely homeless are directed towards appropriate help. We will build local pride in places by giving councils stronger tools to revitalise communities, bring more empty high street shops back into use, and restore local parks.
Youth have been mentioned by the hon. Members for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) and for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), and prevention and early intervention is of course important. It is an issue on which we can all agree. We need to have young people properly engaged to steer them away from crime, which is why the Government have committed to the third strand of our plan: prevention and early intervention. Around 80% of prolific adult offenders begin committing crimes as children.
We are funding 1 million more hours of provision for young people in antisocial behaviour hotspots and expanding eligibility for the turnaround programme, which will support 17,000 children—not just 500, as has been suggested—who are on the cusp of the criminal justice system. Our £500-million national youth guarantee also means that, by 2025, every young person will have access to regular clubs, activities and opportunities to volunteer. It would be useful if all Members, including Opposition Members, read the Government’s antisocial plan, because it addresses many issues raised by all parties. Because we are funding 1 million more hours of provision for young people, that really is going to be a turnaround for them. We are working with youth offending teams, the Probation Service and local authorities to intervene very early on behalf of children at particular risk.
Fourthly, we will improve accountability. A new digital tool will mean that members of the public have a simple and clear way to report antisocial behaviour and receive updates on their case. We have also launched a targeted consultation on community safety partnerships, with the aim of making them more accountable and effective.
I am particularly interested in the points made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) from a Northern Ireland perspective. He is always insightful. Although the Government are putting such a lot of money into making streets safer, that is only possible with the assistance of the community. Sometimes the state is not very good at it, but the community is. It is only with the assistance of those working in the community—such as street pastors, who were mentioned by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mrs Hamilton)—that we can move forward.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley for securing the debate and everyone who has participated. We can all agree that antisocial behaviour is a scourge, but it is all about how best to address it. I suggest that the Government, in a properly costed and thought-through way, have addressed the issue. It has been underlined again today just how enormously important tackling antisocial behaviour is to people up and down the country. The Government hear and understand those concerns, and we are acting on them. As I have set out, we are implementing a very wide-ranging, carefully thought-out plan that is backed by proper statistics, thought and planning. It is also backed by £160 million of funding, and it will bring benefits to every part of England and Wales, including town centres. As ever, our focus is on doing what is right for the decent, hard-working and law-abiding majority. We will do everything in our power to protect them from harm and to deliver them the safe and peaceful streets they deserve.
Robbie Moore
I thank all hon. Members who have participated in this important debate. Like them, I thank my local neighbourhood policing team. We all know how hard those teams work on the ground and that they face many challenges across our town centres, cities and villages.
It is very good to hear from the Minister that today we can announce that 20,951 extra police officers have been recruited since 2019—an uplift of 3,542 since 2010. I also thank the Minister for recognising the challenges that I have faced in Keighley bus station. I know that she will follow that through with interaction with West Yorkshire police in working out how to get to grips with some of those examples and other challenges that we all face. Without a doubt, it is important that the Government are being strong by introducing increased penalties, tougher sentences and swifter interaction between arrest, conviction and sentences coming to fruition.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for mentioning policing hubs, the importance of engaging police officers with constituency meetings, and a community buy-in and community partnership approach that works with our local authorities. Some antisocial behaviour issues are related to challenges that partnership-led approaches can deal with. I thank them for mentioning that, and I also thank the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) for mentioning the specific issue of street drinking.
Of course, the hon. Members for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) and for Birmingham, Erdington (Mrs Hamilton) all have Labour police and crime commissioners. It is disappointing to hear that the Labour PCC for the West Midlands is spending £33 million on refurbishing the office at Lloyd House rather than protecting 20 police stations. I see that in my constituency as well: a lack of prioritisation of what police officers should be focusing on because of a lack of direction and approach from our West Yorkshire Mayor, who does not have the right strategy.
It was disappointing that the Labour spokesman, the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), could not answer my question about whether political party candidates’ previous convictions should be properly referenced. It is disappointing that the Labour party is putting up candidates who have previously had suspended prison sentences. On that note, I thank the Minister very much for her time in this debate on an important issue that we all want to raise.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of antisocial behaviour in town centres.
Abingdon Lodge Hill Junction and Local Infrastructure
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Abingdon Lodge Hill junction and local infrastructure.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I start by sincerely thanking the Minister for coming today. I am delighted to have secured this debate, because Lodge Hill junction is infamous among local people in and around Abingdon, but I rather expect less so in Westminster. For the uninitiated, I will explain why this is important.
Lodge Hill junction is between Abingdon and Oxford on the A34. The A34 is part of the strategic road network; it connects Oxfordshire to both the south and the north. Currently, the junction only has north-facing slips. That means that all the traffic from the north of Abingdon wishing to travel south to places such as Didcot, Newbury and Southampton has to pass through the centre of the town to the next junction that has southern-facing slips.
For well over 30 years, local people and politicians have been calling for the completion of the junction with south-facing slips. In that time there have been many promises made and broken by Governments. Frankly, local residents have all but lost hope that this is going to be completed. However, I am confident that today we can give them some hope.
The issue is primarily to do with funding, but before we get to that, I will set out why the scheme is vital to Abingdon and its surrounding areas. Abingdon-on-Thames is a delightful town. It is the oldest continuously occupied settlement in England, with a charming town centre and river frontage. I would encourage anyone to visit, if they have not already done so. However, residents are plagued by the sheer volume of traffic clogging up the town’s central arteries.
Lifelong Abingdon resident, Jim, told me:
“Abingdon is at breaking point with traffic and it’s only going to get worse”.
Another resident, Victoria, said:
“The traffic in this town is out of control! It makes shopping in town very unpleasant at certain times and it’s difficult for elderly residents to safely cross the road. It puts people off coming into town!”
The air pollution can be dangerous when traffic along Stert Street or Ock Street becomes gridlocked. The solution is clear to everyone involved. As my constituent, David, put it:
“Anything that can be done to stop cars having to come through town in order to get to the A34 will make Abingdon a safer and more attractive town for residents, and therefore better for businesses."
The scheme will also help boost active travel. The one- way system is usually at standstill during rush hour, which does not make for a pleasant cycle or commute to school or work. Local resident, David, told me:
“We try to walk around town whenever possible but the atmosphere is unpleasant and unhealthy with stationary traffic and exhaust fumes.”
Another constituent, Mary, said:
“As a cyclist I feel that there are already far too many cars in Abingdon and it worries me that there will soon be even more.”
Supporting active travel is a key part of local Liberal Democrat policy for Oxfordshire. Our councillors have worked tirelessly to ensure that the plans for Lodge Hill include cycle lanes and pedestrian crossings. Less traffic flowing through the town centre will encourage more people to cycle and walk into the town, and the changes to the junction itself will improve connections with surrounding villages. I know that residents in Sunningwell and Kennington are concerned that the completion of the junction will lead to their roads becoming a rat run. I want to assure those residents that I am working with the county council to ensure that that does not happen.
The issue where Lodge Hill is absolutely critical is building. An unpopular local plan, adopted by the then Conservative-led district council in 2017, planned for 1,100 homes to be built in north and north-west Abingdon, with an additional development of 1,200 homes planned at Dalton Barracks. That was part of a wider plan to build 100,000 homes across Oxfordshire, which was pushed very hard by the Government. Local Liberal Democrats raised concerns at the time, and a major part of those concerns was that local infrastructure needed to be improved before the large housing developments were completed. That is what the Conservatives promised residents at the time, but sadly it was not delivered. After a huge community campaign, plans for the developments in north Abingdon included, on the planning application, a Grampian condition stating that no more than 400 homes could be occupied before this junction is improved.
The houses have started to go up. If people come to Abingdon, they will see that we have diggers everywhere. That is causing its own problems, but the houses are happening—they are coming. Residents in the area look on, and see more and more houses springing up and being occupied, but we are not seeing improvements to the infrastructure. Carol, who lives in north Abingdon, said:
“I am very much in favour of housing in my backyard but am worried there is…little in the way of infrastructure”.
I think she speaks for many. Another resident, Patricia, said:
“I did not think the noise and disruption would have begun so early and before the construction of the new slip road! As far as I understood the negotiation process, this was a condition of the ‘Deal’”.
Should the Lodge Hill scheme be delayed, the proposed development of 1,200 homes at Dalton Barracks would also be in trouble, and so would the other 700 homes proposed for Abingdon. That is 1,900 more homes in the local plan that are reliant on this scheme. The Minister knows very well what happens when we fail to meet targets set by local plans. I hope that, with her help today, we can avoid any more delay, because that is critical.
More important is the intense frustration felt by the whole community about the broken promise to deliver infrastructure ahead of the development. I do not blame residents for that frustration—frankly, I share it—because if we look at the history of the funding announcements in particular, it has been a story of overpromising and underdelivering. Back in 2017, the Government did commit £9.5 million of funding from what was then the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. At the time, and notwithstanding our wider concerns about infrastructure, I and my Lib Dem colleagues of course welcomed that commitment, but we expressed a level of scepticism about the funding materialising. The then Conservative leader of Oxfordshire County Council said in response:
“It won’t fall through. A lot of people are being very disingenuous saying that.”
But sadly we were right, and fall through it did.
Last year, the Department dropped the funding, apart from the £1.87 million that had already been spent. I nearly cried, because as soon as I was elected in 2017 I made it my top priority to help to deliver this scheme—it was in my maiden speech. Since then I have raised it in relation to countless issues—in debates on infrastructure and the Oxford to Cambridge expressway, in oral questions, in countless letters to many different Secretaries of State and in numerous written questions asking for updates and pressing for funding. I have attended every available ministerial surgery that I could, sent countless emails and had meetings with Highways England. I pressed, year on year, for Government to bring forth the money. I am sorry to say that, while I was doing that, the county council seemed to give up.
It took an historic change in Oxfordshire—May 2021 saw the Lib Dems at the helm of the county council—for the project to again become a priority locally. I am pleased to report that, in October 2022, thanks to the hard and persistent work of local Lib Dem councillors, a planning application for the scheme was submitted to the county council. A decision is expected in June this year—it is just a few weeks away. This is the furthest that Lodge Hill junction has ever progressed. In a recent meeting, county council leader Liz Leffman confirmed that the council is literally shovel-ready and raring to go, so if the rest of the funding is not secured by June, it will be the Government holding up the process, and I am confident that that is not what they want to do.
I will break this down. The scheme costs £33 million in total. Some £6.5 million of section 106 money from the developers is now secured. As I mentioned, we already had the £1.8 million-odd from the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and that has been spent. We also have £12 million of funding allocated as part of the growth deal; that is theoretically in place, and I hope the Minister will release it to the county as soon as possible. But there remains a £13 million gap. The county council is in discussion with Homes England about unlocking that piece. I was disappointed to see in the response to my written questions this week that the Secretary of State has not engaged—yet—with Homes England on the issue. My ask of the Minister is to please help me do that, although if she could do it herself, that would be even better. Imagine—over 30 years of promises would be fulfilled if we delivered this.
It may feel like this is just a junction, but it is not; it has become an allegory of why we cannot trust Government to deliver for people. Today we have an opportunity to change that for thousands of people. This proposal has been talked about, cross-party, for years. Local people are tired of their voices being ignored, and frustrated at promises being broken, but the Minister can help to fix that today. It is high time that this Conservative Government listened to the people of Abingdon, made good on their promise to release the funding for Lodge Hill and delivered the infrastructure that will make the lives of the residents and businesses of England’s oldest town better.
The Minister of State, Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Rachel Maclean)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey, and to listen to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) as she ably sets out her case on Lodge Hill junction. She has been an assiduous representative, and I am happy to work with her. I will set out the position, as she said, and provide a little more context.
I am grateful for the chance to talk about what the Government are doing to back these ambitions through significant funding for local leaders of all parties in Oxfordshire. The hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon sketched out a little of the landscape and the political colours involved, and it is fair to say that everybody needs to work together in these times to deliver these significant infrastructure projects, which have such a huge impact on her constituents. The Government stand firmly behind local leaders, in Oxfordshire and elsewhere, through upcoming measures such as legislative changes supporting sustainable housing growth.
I think the hon. Lady started from 30 years ago, but I will not go quite that far back—I will go back just to 2017. Oxfordshire has long been pivotal to the UK economy, with nationally significant assets and world-leading strengths in science and innovation. That was underlined by the critical role played by its university and research facilities in the development of the covid-19 vaccine. Its success is central to cementing our whole country’s reputation as a science superpower, which is one of the Prime Minister’s key priorities, and our wider ambitions to level up innovation and opportunity throughout the country.
We agree with the hon. Member that a lack of affordable housing could make it harder for the area to attract and retain talent when competing in a global market. That is why the Government have gone to such lengths to drive housing and growth in Oxfordshire. In March 2017, the Government agreed a £215 million housing and growth deal with Oxfordshire councils to deliver 100,000 homes, including more affordable housing, as well as infrastructure improvements to support sustainable development across the county. That underlines our commitment to championing local leaders, who are rightly elected to represent their local communities and dedicated to tackling the challenges facing their areas. It is right to put those local communities in the driving seat when it comes to making decisions about how best to allocate taxpayer resources that have been allocated to them from central Government.
That deal is just the start. Oxfordshire is also benefiting from £107 million of housing infrastructure funding for the A40 smart corridor scheme and £35 million of local growth funding for the Oxford science transit project, which will unlock substantial infrastructure investment along the key corridor west of Oxford. I do not think anybody can claim that this Government are not backing Oxford’s ambitions for its local economy.
I will turn specifically to the Lodge Hill junction, which the hon. Lady discussed in a lot of detail. She is absolutely right to highlight the concerns of local residents, who rightly want to see infrastructure delivered. In the main, they do support housing, because they understand the need for it, but they make the case every time that the infrastructure must be there. That is also the position of the Government. The project that the hon. Lady talked about is to deliver an upgraded interchange on the A34 trunk road north of Abingdon-on-Thames—a new, grade-separated dumb-bell junction. I am not a transport expert, but I am sure people listening to the debate will know exactly what I mean when I say that. It is a junction over the A34 on the A4183 Oxford Road, with new south-facing slip roads on and off the A34. That is required, along with pedestrian, cycle and traffic-calming works and a lay-by on the A34.
The existing Lodge Hill junction provides northbound on-slip and southbound off-slip only, which means that all residents of north Abingdon who commute to and from major employment centres including Didcot, Milton Park science and technology park, and Harwell science and innovation campus, or to the M4 and beyond, travel through Abingdon’s historic town centre to the Marcham interchange to the south to access the A34, causing congestion and delay. I understand the frustration of the hon. Lady’s residents, which she has described.
This long-standing strategic highway project has been included in successive local transport plans and is supported by Vale of White Horse District Council. The responsibility for delivering the scheme lies with Oxfordshire County Council, subject to technical approval from National Highways. Oxfordshire County Council—as you might be aware, Ms McVey, and as I understand it—is run by a coalition involving a working arrangement between the Liberal Democrats, Labour and the Green party.
In autumn 2022, my Department asked Homes England to explore whether the funding shortfall that had emerged could be funded from the brownfield, infrastructure and land fund. The latest is that the business case for that brownfield, infrastructure and land fund programme is expected to be submitted shortly to the Treasury for final approval.
It is right to pause for a second to reflect on what we are talking about. May I gently correct the hon. Lady? This is not a question of the Government blocking funding. Funding is required beyond the initial business case. That needs to be met from somewhere, and we all understand, as we have seen it across the country, that sometimes infrastructure projects are delayed for covid or other reasons, and costs go up. When that happens, naturally, and as we would expect, a responsible Government and a responsible Department must undertake discussions around the business case. After all, we are talking about taxpayers’ money.
If we were to find a shortfall for a project in the hon. Lady’s area, the money would have to be taken from a project somewhere else. No doubt the residents of that area would ask why £13 million, or whatever the figure, had been taken from their project, which they, too, desperately needed, and been allocated to a project in the hon. Lady’s area. It is right that the Treasury and the Government take a responsible view.
Those discussions are taking place and, as I understand it, there are cost estimates in the project plan. I am happy to have further meetings with the hon. Lady on that point because I understand that there is an awful lot of detail involved and it is not possible for us to get into it here. We do not have the time to consider the detail of a project of such long standing.
The hon. Lady referred to Homes England, which is continuing to engage with Oxfordshire County Council and Vale of White Horse District Council to achieve some of the clarifications required to develop the business case. That involves, as I think she said, agreeing an approach to grant recovery via developer contributions and clarifying other elements of the scheme.
The hon. Lady is right to point to the link with the housing project, because the funding for the junction unlocks further funding for the houses that are required to be built. There are wider transport and economic benefits, and we do not want much-needed future housing to be blocked for any reason, least of all with respect to important transport infrastructure.
I will draw my remarks to a close unless the hon. Lady wants further clarification in the time remaining.
Rachel Maclean
The hon. Lady is indicating that she does not seek further clarification. Therefore, I thank her once again.
I am happy to have a meeting in the Department with the relevant people so we can see what else we can do. I would encourage the hon. Lady to work with her local partners—lots of local authorities are involved in this process—because they bear a responsibility to do their part and to get the much-needed business cases in place so we can all work collaboratively.
Question put and agreed to.
Artificial Intelligence and the Labour Market
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential impact of artificial intelligence on the labour market.
It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Maria. I am grateful to all hon. Friends and Members who have taken the time to participate in this important debate. It is a particular pleasure to see my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) in his place. I wish to draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
The rapid advance of artificial intelligence technology poses a severe threat to the labour market and to workers’ rights. The negative effect of AI on the workforce cannot be ignored, as it has the potential to displace jobs, lead to economic inequality and erode the rights of workers. AI has the capability to automate jobs and various industries, which could result in widespread unemployment and exacerbate existing socioeconomic disparities. Low-skilled workers, who are already vulnerable to exploitation, are likely to be the most impacted, leading to a growing divide between the haves and the have-nots.
Furthermore, the implementation of AI in the workplace could result in the violation of workers’ rights such as privacy, autonomy and fair pay. The use of AI to monitor and control workers could lead to increased exploitation, discrimination and the creation of a toxic work environment. If left unchecked, the rise of AI could lead to a future where workers are replaced by machines, and human dignity is sacrificed for the sake of corporate profits. The deployment of AI in the workplace must be accompanied by strong regulations and policies that prioritise the wellbeing and rights of workers.
Governments and companies must take responsibility for the harmful impact of AI on the labour market and take immediate action to prevent its negative effects. Failure to do so would result in an irreparable loss of jobs, economic inequality and a violation of workers’ basic rights.
For Members who have heard me speak before in this House, that introduction must have felt unusually stilted, or perhaps uncharacteristically eloquent. That is because it was written entirely by ChatGPT—one of a number of increasingly sophisticated AI chatbots that have become readily accessible in the past few months. At this point, let me reassure my parliamentary researcher, who is watching this debate, that he does not need to worry about his P45—yet. The unusual distinction of being the first Member of Parliament to openly read AI-generated text into Hansard belongs to the hon. Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans). Like him, I have chosen to turn to one of the most widely used AI-powered technologies to illustrate the rapid advances taking place in the field of artificial intelligence, and the potentially devastating consequences that this could have on workers in every sector of the economy.
Of course, the impacts of this AI revolution will be felt far beyond the labour market. Information is an increasingly valuable commodity; it is also a potential weapon of war. The danger is simple: technologies such as ChatGPT and DALL-E could be used to proliferate dangerous misinformation and subvert our already compromised democracy. We need further and extensive scrutiny of the risks and of the steps that we need to take to better protect our constituents’ data privacy.
I have chosen to use the limited time available today to look at the impact of artificial intelligence on the labour market, and particularly on workers’ rights. That is not only because I have spent my adult life fighting for workers’ rights, but because it is in the labour market that that change is happening most rapidly, and it is in the everyday experience of work that the disruption of AI is being most keenly felt.
We have heard much in recent years about how we stand on the edge of a fourth industrial revolution. That revolution is now well under way; its effects will be profound and far-reaching. Every part of our public life will be transformed. I want to be clear: I am no enemy of progress. We should embrace the potential of AI to change our lives for the better, whether by improving diagnosis and treatment of disease or by driving sustainable economic growth that can benefit us all. Just as the first industrial revolution brought about an era of unprecedented wealth for an elite few but condemned the British working class and colonised people across the world to a life of precarity and poverty, the AI revolution will create again—if we allow it to do so—a world of winners and losers.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making an impressive speech and extremely good points about the welfare of workers. As a union rep, I agree that we must have safeguards around AI developments. Does he agree that in order to make this new technology available to all, we should seek to level up across the UK and ensure that coding opportunities and the jobs of the future are available to young people in all areas, including deprived areas?
Mick Whitley
The hon. Member makes a good point. When it comes to AI, all workers need protections.
Research by PricewaterhouseCoopers suggests that AI will be responsible for 46% of the UK’s long-term output growth. It promises job creation in sectors such as health, education, and science and technology. At the same time, it threatens devastating job losses in sectors such as manufacturing, transport and public administration. Some 7% of all UK jobs could be automated away within the next five years, and as many as 30% could disappear within 20 years.
The last time we experienced systemic economic displacement on anything like that scale was during the deindustrialisation of the 1980s and 1990s. The architects of that policy believed that nothing should be done to support those communities that carried the cost of the economic and social fallout, the legacy of which my constituency of Birkenhead continues to live with to this day. They followed the ancient mantra that the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must. We must not repeat that mistake again. I have called today’s debate to make an urgent plea for a rights-based and people-focused approach to artificial intelligence, and for a process that puts the voices and interests of workers at its heart. In this new machine age, we must assert more than ever the fundamental right of all people to a basic level of economic security and dignity at work.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, much of which I support. It is not controversial to suggest that the NHS would benefit from more doctors or that digital tech has the potential to improve people’s lives. The Health and Social Care Committee has been looking at both of those issues. As part of one of its inquiries, the Committee went to San Francisco about a month ago to look at how AI can help in medicine. We found that computers can be taught to read mammograms of breast screening tests. That means that, rather than having to be read by two independent doctors, the mammograms can be read by one doctor and one computer. Apparently, the process is more accurate than one involving two computers or, indeed, two doctors. Therefore, AI has the potential not just to cause the workforce issues raised by the hon. Gentleman, but to benefit areas with workforce shortages.
Mick Whitley
I thank the hon. Member for those points. I have already said that we must embrace AI and what it does for us. We are not here to stop progress, but my point is that the Government need to build in regulatory rights and protections.
The benefits of this new technological revolution must be shared by everyone, not just an elite few. I do not claim to have the answers to a challenge of such enormous magnitude—I look forward to hearing hon. Members’ thoughts in a few moments’ time—but a starting point must surely be guaranteeing support to those sectors and communities that will be most affected by the threat and reality of economic displacement. That means strengthening our collective social security net and seriously considering the role that a universal basic income might play in ensuring a decent standard of living in a labour market increasingly characterised by job scarcity. It means investing in skills and lifelong learning, ensuring that workers whose employment is lost to AI have the opportunity to find well-paid and similarly rewarding work.
In any democracy we have to recognise that technology is never ideologically neutral. Every technological system reflects the interests and biases of its creators and funders. Our challenge is to ensure that AI technologies reflect a multiplicity of voices, including those of workers, and not just in their application but in their conception and design as well. I hope we will continue to discuss how we can achieve that.
A people-focused approach to AI must also mean doing more to guarantee the rights of those workers who are already working alongside artificial intelligence and related technologies in their workplace. The AI working group set up by the Trades Union Congress surveyed thousands of workers in producing its report on the worker experience of AI and associated technologies. It shows vividly how workers are increasingly managed by machines, how their rights and autonomy are being steadily eroded, and how automated processes often perpetuate human prejudice when making decisions on employees’ performance, hiring and promotions.
The Government’s response was set out in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology’s recently published AI White Paper, which advocates a light-touch approach and effectively leaves the market to regulate itself. Although Ministers have devised five fundamental principles that should inform the adoption and use of AI in workplaces, they do not intend to place those principles on a statutory footing. Instead, the implementation of those principles will be left to underfunded and overstretched regulators, such as the Information Commissioner’s Office and the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
That contrasts starkly with the models adopted by other developed economies. The European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act is likely to be one of the most comprehensive pieces of legislation ever passed on this subject, while California—the very centre of global technology innovation—is preparing to implement measures to protect the privacy and civil liberties of workers. These measures include a new office for AI, with the authority to guide the development of new automated systems, as well as statutory restrictions on the use of automated decision making in the workplace.
The proposal set out by the TUC’s AI manifesto, copies of which I have brought to Westminster Hall for Members today, involves taking a very different position from that taken by the Government. Building on the existing framework of equalities legislation, it calls for a rights-based approach to manage the transition to AI that would strengthen equality protections, guarantee workers the right to human contact and require a human review of high-risk decisions that have been automated, and protect the right to disconnect for all workers. It is also absolutely right to acknowledge the need to listen to workers—their voices and their experiences—in managing this transition. It is essential that we recognise and value the role of trade unions as a vehicle for getting those voices heard.
It is for those reasons that the manifesto proposes a statutory duty for employers to consult trade union representatives before adopting AI and associated technologies. It is also why the manifesto urges employers to agree collective agreements with unions to govern the use of AI in the workplace.
Last December, when I questioned the then Business Secretary—the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps)—on the merits of introducing a statutory duty to consult, he expressed interest and offered to meet me to discuss it further. I think the Minister present today will remember that, and I am interested to hear whether he and the new Business Secretary share the right hon. Gentleman’s interest.
Finally, the manifesto emphasises the fact that workers’ participation can be achieved only if workers understand the processes and technologies at work. In environments in which decisions are increasingly dictated by machines, people need to know, more than ever, what data is being held on them and how it is used.
I am aware that time is short and I look forward to hearing other hon. Members’ contributions. I will conclude my remarks by saying that on 17 May I will introduce a ten-minute Rule Bill that builds on the TUC’s important work and which I hope will bring us a bit closer to the rights-based approach I am advocating and which we urgently need. I ask any colleagues interested in supporting that Bill to speak to me after this debate.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Dame Maria, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley), both on securing this very important debate and on his excellent speech.
Artificial intelligence is an enabling technology. It is driving the digital age, but it is based on a series of points of data that are gathered by computer systems and processed in order to make decisions. It still requires a huge amount of human intervention in determining what data will be drawn on and therefore what decisions should be made. Consequently, there has to be a level of human responsibility, as well.
We can see already from the development of AI that it is not just question of computer systems learning from existing patterns of behaviour; they are also effectively thinking for themselves. The development of AI in chess is a good example of that. Not only are AI systems learning to make the moves that a human would make, always selecting the perfect combination and, therefore, being much more successful. When given the command to win the game, AI systems have also developed ways of playing that are unique, that the human mind has not thought of or popularised, and that are yet more efficient at winning. That is very interesting for those interested in chess. Perhaps not everyone is interested in chess, but that shows the power of AI to make autonomous decisions, based on data and information it is given. Humans invented the game of chess, but AI can learn to play it in ways not thought of by humans.
The application of AI in the defence space is even more scary, as touched on by the hon. Member for Birkenhead. AI-enabled weapons systems can be aggressive, make decisions quickly and behave in unpredictable ways. The human strategist is not able to keep pace with them and we would require AI-driven defence systems to protect ourselves from them. It would be alarming to live in a world where aggressive technology driven by AI can be combatted only by AI, with no human intervention in the process. It is scary to think of a security situation, like the Cuban missile crisis in the 1960s, where the strategies are pursued solely by AI. Therefore, we will have to think as we do in other areas of warfare, where we have bans on certain types of chemical weapons. There are certain systems that are considered so potentially devastating that they will not be used—there are moratoriums on their use and deployment. When thinking about AI in the defence space, we may well have to consider what security to build into it as well. We also need to think about the responsibility of companies that develop AI systems just for their commercial interests. What responsibility lies on them for the systems that they have created?
The hon. Gentleman was right to say that this is like an industrial revolution. With industrial revolutions comes great change. People’s ways of living and working can be disrupted, and they are replaced by something new. We cannot yet say with certainty what that something new could be. There are concerns, which I will come to in a moment, about the regulation of AI. There could be amazing opportunities, too. One can imagine working or classroom environments where children could visit historical events. I asked someone who works in education development how long it could take before children studying the second world war could put on a headset, sit in a virtual House of Commons and watch Winston Churchill deliver one of his famous speeches, as if they were actually sitting there. We are talking about that sort of technology being possible within the next decade.
The applications for learning are immense. Astronauts who practise going to the international space station do so from metaverse-style, AI-driven virtual spaces, where they can train. At the same time as we think about the good things that it can do, we should also consider the fact that very bad spaces could be created. In our debates on the Online Safety Bill, we have been concerned about abusive online behaviour. What if such abusive behaviour took place in a video chatroom, a virtual space, that looks just as real as this room? Who would be responsible for that?
It is beholden on the companies that develop these new technologies and systems to have responsibility for the output of those systems. The onus should be on the companies to demonstrate that what they are developing is safe. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was right to set out in the Budget statement last year that the Government would fund a new AI sandbox. We have seen AI sandboxes developed in the EU. In Washington state in the United States, AI sandboxes are used to research new facial recognition technologies, which is particularly sensitive. The onus should be on the developer. The role of the regulator should be to say, “There are certain guidelines you work within, and certain things we might consider unsafe or unethical. You develop your technologies and new systems and put them through a sandbox trial. You make it easy for the regulator to ask about the data you are drawing from, the decisions the system you have put in place is making, the outcomes it is creating and whether they are safe.”
We have already seen that learned behaviour through data can create unfair biases in systems. There was a case where Amazon used AI to sift through CVs for recruitment. The AI learned that it was largely men hired for the roles, and therefore discarded the CVs of women applying for the position because it assumed they would not be qualified. We should be concerned about biases built into data systems being exacerbated by AI.
Some people talk about AI as if it is a future technology—something coming—but it exists today. Every one of us experiences or interacts with AI in some way. The most obvious way for a lot of people is through the use of apps. The business model of social media apps is driven by recommendation, which is an AI-driven system. The system—Facebook, TikTok, Instagram or whatever it is—is data profiling the user and recommending content to keep them engaged, based on data, and it is AI driving those recommendation tools.
We have to be concerned about whether those systems create unfair practices and behaviours in the workplace. That is why the hon. Member for Birkenhead is right to raise this issue. If a gig economy worker—a taxi driver or a delivery courier—is paid only when they are in receipt of jobs on the app, does the app create a false incentive for them to be available for work all the time? Do they have to commit to being available to the app for most of the day, because if they do not it drives the work to people who have high recommendation scores because they are always available? Do people who cannot make themselves available all the time find that the amount they can earn is much less, if they do not get paid for waiting time when they use such apps? If that becomes the principal way in which a lot of tasks are driven, AI systems, which are built to be efficient and make it easy for people to access the labour market, could create biases that favour some workers over others. People with other jobs or family commitment, in particular, might not be able to make themselves available.
We should consider not just the way the technology works but the rights that citizens and workers have if their job is based on using those apps. The employer—the app developer—should treat the people who work for them as employees, rather than as just freelance agency workers who happen to be available at any particular time of the day. They have some sort of working relationship that should be honoured and respected.
The basic principle that we should apply when we think about the future of AI and its enormous potential to create growth and new jobs, and build fantastic new businesses, is that the rights that people enjoy today—their rights as citizens and employees—should be translated into the future world of technology. A worker should not lose their working rights simply because their relationship with their employer or their customer is through an app, and because that experience is shaped by the collection and processing of data. Ultimately, someone is doing that processing, and someone has created that system in order to make money from it. The people doing that need to be responsible for the technology they have created.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
It is a privilege to speak in this debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) for securing it. I wanted to apply for it myself—he beat me to the chase, which is a wonderful thing.
Before I became an MP, one of my final clients was in the AI space. It dealt with artificial intelligence and psychology—I believe that my first entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests was my final bit of work for it—so I have seen this technology evolve over many years. We often talk about technology revolutions, but this has been an incredibly fast evolution.
We are seeing Moore’s law, which related to the size and scale of technology, affect society. The scale of what is happening right now is both inspirationally amazing and terrifying at the same time. It will absolutely shape the job market and the type of jobs that come through over the next few years. It will shape how people interface with their co-workers, with technology, with society and with politicians. It will affect every aspect of our lives.
I am particularly concerned about the use of artificial intelligence for deception. I have long said—not necessarily in the Chamber, so I put it on the record now—that there should be in law something that I would call the Turing clause. It would mean that when technology is used to deceive somebody into believing that they are talking to a real person or engaging with a real business, whether for entertainment or for any other purpose—for instance watching a deepfake, which is perhaps for entertainment purposes—it must be crystal clear to them that they are being deceived.
I will give some examples. I was recently speaking to somebody who works in the entertainment industry, running studios where they record sound, voiceovers and music. They said—I should declare that I do not know the scale of this issue and have not looked into the numbers—that lot of the studios are often being used to record voiceovers for AI companies, so that the AI can learn how to speak like a real person. We all know about fraud and scams in which somebody gets phoned up from a call centre and told, “Your insurance is up,” or by someone pretending to be from the Government. We saw, awfully, during the covid crisis how those horrible people would try to scam people. Doing that requires a number of people in a space.
Now imagine that AI can pretend to be somebody we know—a family member, for instance—and imitate their voice. It could call up and say, “I need some money now, because I am in trouble,” or, “I need some support.” Or it could say, “This is somebody from the Government; your tax affairs are an issue—send your details now.” There are a whole load of things going on in society that we will not know about until it is too late. That is why a Turing clause is absolutely essential, so that we are ahead of the curve on deception, deepfakes and areas where technology will be used to fool.
One incredibly important area in relation to the labour market that is not often talked about is the role of AI in creativity. DALL-E 2 is one of the tools, and there are many others popping up now. They can create artwork and videos almost at the speed of thought—typing in a particular phrase will create amazingly beautiful pictures—but they are pooling those from places where real artists and real musicians, with particular styles, have contributed. That is then presented as AI creativity. That could kill the graphic design industry. It could prevent people who are in the early stages of life as an artist, in both the visual and music worlds, from ever having an opportunity to be successful.
Just recently, Drake and the Weeknd—if I have those artists correct—had a song that was put online. I think that it even went on Spotify, but it was definitely on some streaming services. Everybody thought, “Gosh, this is a fantastic new collaboration.” It was not. It was AI pretending to be both of those artists with a brand new song. Artificial intelligence had created it. It was not until after the fact, and after the song had been streamed hundreds of thousands of times, that the big music companies said, “Hang on—that isn’t real. We need to stop this.” Then it was stopped.
In the case of social media, it took us many years to get to the fantastic Online Safety Bill. I was very fortunate to be on the Draft Online Safety Bill Joint Committee. Its Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), is in the room today, and he did a fabulous job. Getting to that point took 10 or 15 years. We do not have 10 or 15 months to legislate on AI. We probably do not have 10 or 15 weeks, given where we will be in a matter of days, with the new announcements and tools that are coming out.
Dr Cameron
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making those extremely important points. Just last week, we had the Children’s Parliament at the all-party parliamentary group on the metaverse and web 3.0. The children were excited about the opportunities of AI and the metaverse, and we were told on the day that the World Economic Forum predicts that technology will create 97 million new jobs by 2025 alone. But like the hon. Gentleman, they were also very concerned about what is real and what is not, and they were concerned about the mental health impact of spending much of the day in an altered reality setting. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need much more research into the mental health impact on staff and young people who are engaged in AI?
Dean Russell
I thank the hon. Member for her comments. Mental health is a passion of mine—I had a ten-minute rule Bill about ensuring that mental health first aiders are in the workplace—and I agree wholeheartedly. We saw that in evidence given to the Draft Online Safety Bill Joint Committee; Rio Ferdinand talked, including in his documentary, about the fact that what is said online can affect a person’s real life. The challenge with artificial intelligence is that it will not just be able to say those things; it will probably know precisely how to do the most harm, how to hit the right triggers to make people buy things and how to fool and deceive people to ensure they hand over money or their rights.
I will move on because I am conscious of time. I know we have quite a long time for this debate, but I do not intend to use it all; I promise. I think that the creativity part is absolutely essential. A few weeks ago, I predicted in Parliament that, in the next year or so, a No. 1 song will be created by artificial intelligence for the first time. I have no doubt that a No. 1 bestselling book will be written by artificial intelligence. I have no doubt that new songs in the voices of artists who are no longer around, such as Elvis Presley, will be released, and that actors who are sadly no longer alive will play starring roles in new films. We are seeing this already on a soft scale, but it is going to become more and more pervasive.
It is not all negative. I do not want to be a doomsayer. There are great opportunities: Britain—this wonderful country—could be the home of identifying and delivering transparency within those industries. We could be the country that creates the technology and the platforms to identify where artificial intelligence is being used; it could flag up when things are not real. It could, for example, force organisations to say who they are, what they are doing and whether they have used artificial intelligence. I think that will create a whole new world of labour markets and industries that will stem from this country and create all the jobs that we talked about earlier.
I am also concerned that we do not often talk in the same breath about artificial intelligence and robotics. In the industrial world, such as in warehouses and so on, there has been a rise in the use of robotics to replace real people. Office jobs are changing due to artificial intelligence. The role of accountants, of back-office staff and of both blue and white-collar workers will change.
As was stated earlier, the challenge with robotics is on things such as defence. Artificial intelligence is being used in robotics to get way ahead of the scale of where we are now. We really need to take that seriously. ChatGPT was probed. People tried to catch it out on different aspects of its response. When asked how it would steal the nuclear codes, it outlined how it would do it. I am not trying to give any bad actors out there any ideas, but it explained how it would use AI to control drones, and how they would be able to go in and do certain things. Hopefully, it got it all wrong. However, if AI is in not just our computers and mobile phones, but in drones and new robots that are incredibly sophisticated, incredibly small and not always identifiable, we need to be really wary.
There are many positives, such as for detection in the health sector and for identifying things such as breast cancer. Recently, I have seen lots of work about how artificial intelligence could be layered on the human aspect and insight, which was mentioned earlier, and enable the identification of things that we would not normally be able to see.
There is huge positive scope for using data. I have said previously that, if we were to donate our health data to live clinical trials in a way that was legitimate and pseudonymised, artificial intelligence could be used to identify a cure for cancer and for diseases that have affected our society for many centuries. In the same way that it has found new ways of playing chess, it might find new ways of changing and saving lives. There is great opportunity there.
Many years ago, I wrote an article called, “Me, Myself and AI”. In it, I commented on areas where AI is dangerous, but I also mentioned opportunities for positives. I would like to make one final point on this: we must also make sure that the data that goes into the AI is tracked not only for things such as royalties in creative industries, but for bias. I wrote an article on that a while ago. If we take a sample, say within a health context, and take that data based on only one ethnicity or demographic, the AI will develop options and solutions for that group. If we do not have the right data, regarding diversity, going into the analysis, we risk not being able to identify future issues. For example, sickle cell disease might get missed because the data that the AI is using is based only on clinical trials with white people.
There is a wide-ranging issue about what is being fed into the systems around AI and how we ensure that we identify where AI is being used—hence my point about a Turing clause when it comes to deception. We also need to know where it is being used, including in Government. We need to look at the opportunities, too: whole new industries around how we monitor AI, apply it and use the science of it.
AI is already there in the spelling of “Great Britain”. We have a great opportunity to be ahead of the curve, and we need to be because the curve will be moving beyond us within a matter of weeks or months—and definitely within years.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Dame Maria, and to take part in this particularly timely debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) on securing it.
I begin by declaring a rather tenuous interest—a constituency interest of sorts—regarding the computing pioneer Alan Turing. The Turing family held the baronetcy of Foveran, which is a parish in my constituency between the north of Aberdeen and Ellon. Although there is no evidence that Alan Turing ever actually visited, it is a connection that the area clings to as fastly as it can.
Alan Turing, of course, developed what we now know as the Turing test—a test of a machine’s ability to exhibit intelligent behaviour equivalent to, or indistinguishable from, that of a human. One of the developments to come closest to that in recent times is, of course, ChatGPT, which several speakers have mentioned already. It is a natural-language processing tool driven by AI technology, which has the ability to generate text and interact with humans.
The hon. Member for Birkenhead was a bit braver than I was; I only toyed with the idea of using ChatGPT to produce some of my speech today. However, I was put off somewhat by a very good friend of mine, with an IT background, using the ChatGPT interface to produce a biography of me. He then shared it with his friendship group on Facebook.
I think it is fair to say that it shows up clearly that if ChatGPT does not know the answer to something, it will fill the gap by making up something that it thinks will sound plausible. In that sense, it is maybe no different from your average Cabinet Minister. However, that does mean that, in subject areas where the data on which it is drawing is rather scant, things can get quite interesting and inventive.
Damian Collins
The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point. When AI systems such as that are asked questions that they do not know, rather than responding, “I don’t know,” they just make something up. A human is therefore required to understand whether what they are being showed is correct. The hon. Gentleman knows his own biography better than ChatGPT does, but someone else may not.
Richard Thomson
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. He has perhaps read ahead towards the conclusion of my speech, but it is an interesting dichotomy. Obviously, I know my biography best, but there are people out there, not in the AI world—Wikipedia editors, for example—who think that they know my biography better than I do in some respects.
However, to give the example, the biography generated by AI said that I had been a director at the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, and, prior to that, I had been a senior manager at the National Trust for Scotland. I had also apparently served in the Royal Air Force. None of that is true, but, on one level, it does make me want to meet this other Richard Thomson who exists out there. He has clearly had a far more interesting life than I have had to date.
Although that level of misinformation is relatively benign, it does show the dangers that can be presented by the manipulation of the information space, and I think that the increasing use and application of AI raises some significant and challenging ethical questions.
Any computing system is based on the premise of input, process and output. Therefore, great confidence is needed when it comes to the quality of information that goes in—on which the outputs are based—as well as the algorithms used to extrapolate from that information to create the output, the purpose for which the output is then used, the impact it goes on to have, and, indeed, the level of human oversight at the end.
In March, Goldman Sachs published a report indicating that AI could replace up to 300 million full-time equivalent jobs and a quarter of all the work tasks in the US and Europe. It found that some 46% of administrative tasks and even 44% in the legal professions could be automated. GPT-4 recently managed to pass the US Bar exam, which is perhaps less a sign of machine intelligence than of the fact that the US Bar exam is not a fantastic test of AI capabilities—although I am sure it is a fantastic test of lawyers in the States.
Our fear of disruptive technologies is age-old. Although it is true to say that generally what we have seen from that disruption is the creation of new jobs and the ability to allow new technologies to take on more laborious and repetitive tasks, it is still extremely disruptive. Some 60% of workers are currently in occupations that did not exist in 1940, but there is still a real danger, as there has been with other technologies, that AI depresses wages and displaces people faster than any new jobs can be created. That ought to be of real concern to us.
In terms of ethical considerations, there are large questions to be asked about the provenance of datasets and the output to which they can lead. As The Guardian reported recently:
“The…datasets used to train the latest generation of these AI systems, like those behind ChatGPT and Stable Diffusion, are likely to contain billions of images scraped from the internet, millions of pirated ebooks”
as well as all sorts of content created by others, who do not get reward for its use; the entire proceedings of 16 years of the European Parliament; or even the entirety of the proceedings that have ever taken place, and been recorded and digitised, in this place. The datasets can be drawn from a range of sources and they do not necessarily lead to balanced outputs.
ChatGPT has been banned from operating in Italy after the data protection regulator there expressed concerns that there was no legal basis to justify the collection and mass storage of the personal data needed to train GPT AI. Earlier this month, the Canadian privacy commissioner followed, with an investigation into OpenAI in response to a complaint that alleged that the collection, use and disclosure of personal information was happening without consent.
This technology brings huge ethical issues not just in the workplace but right across society, but questions need to be asked particularly when it comes to the workplace. For example, does it entrench existing inequalities? Does it create new inequalities? Does it treat people fairly? Does it respect the individual and their privacy? Is it used in a way that makes people more productive by helping them to be better at their jobs and work smarter, rather than simply forcing them—notionally, at least—to work harder? How can we be assured that at the end of it, a sentient, qualified, empowered person has proper oversight of the use to which the AI processes are being put? Finally, how can it be regulated as it needs to be—beneficially, in the interests of all?
The hon. Member for Birkenhead spoke about and distributed the TUC document “Dignity at work and the AI revolution”, which, from the short amount of time I have had to scrutinise it, looks like an excellent publication. There is certainly nothing in its recommendations that anyone should not be able to endorse when the time comes.
I conclude on a general point: as processes get smarter, we collectively need to make sure that, as a species, we do not consequentially get dumber. Advances in artificial intelligence and information processing do not take away the need for people to be able to process, understand, analyse and critically evaluate information for themselves.
Dean Russell
This is one point—and a concern of mine—that I did not explore in my speech because I was conscious of its length. As has been pointed out, a speech has been given previously that was written by artificial intelligence, as has a question in Parliament. We politicians rely on academic research and on the Library. We also google and meet people to inform our discussions and debates. I will keep going on about my Turing clause—which connects to the hon. Gentleman’s point—because I am concerned that if we do not have something like that to highlight a deception, there is a risk that politicians will go into debates or votes that affect the government of this country having been deceived—potentially on purpose, by bad actors. That is a real risk, which is why there needs to be transparency. We need something crystal clear that says, “This is deceptive content” or “This has been produced or informed by AI”, to ensure the right and true decisions are being made based on actual fact. That would cover all the issues that have been raised today. Does the hon. Member share that view?
Richard Thomson
Yes, I agree that there is a very real danger of this technology being used for the purposes of misinformation and disinformation. Our democracy is already exceptionally vulnerable to that. Just as the hon. Member highlights the danger of individual legislators being targeted and manipulated—they need to have their guard up firmly against that—there is also the danger of people trying to manipulate behaviour by manipulating wider political discourse with information that is untrue or misleading. We need to do a much better job of ensuring we are equipping everybody in society with critical thinking skills and the ability to analyse information objectively and rationally.
Ultimately, whatever benefits AI can bring, it is our quality of life and the quality of our collective human capital that counts. AI can only and should only ever be a tool and a servant to that end.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dame Maria. This has been a thoughtful and engaging debate on an important subject, and the contributions have raised very important issues.
I particularly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) for introducing this debate. I thought his opening remarks about me were uncharacteristically generous, so I had a suspicion that it did not all come from him—if he wants to blame the computer, that’s fine! As he did, I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. My hon. Friend has a long history in the workplace and has seen how automation has changed work—particularly the kind done at Vauxhall Motors in Ellesmere Port—dramatically over many years. What we are talking about today is an extension of that, probably at a greater pace and with greater consequences for jobs than we have seen in the past.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead said there will be winners and losers in this; that is very important. We must be cognisant of sectors affected by AI where there will probably be more losers than winners, including manufacturing, transport and public administration. My hon. Friend hit the nail on the head when he said that we must have a rights-based and people-focused approach to this incredibly complicated subject. He was right to refer to the TUC paper about the issue. We cannot go far wrong if we hold to the principles and recommendations set out there.
The hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) made an excellent contribution, showing a great deal of knowledge in this area. He is absolutely right to say that there has to be a level of human responsibility in the decision-making process. His references to AI in defence systems were quite worrying and sounded like something from the “Terminator” films. It sounds like dramatic science fiction, but it is a real, live issue that we need to address now. He is right that we should ensure that developers are able to clearly demonstrate the data on which they are basing their decisions, and in saying that the gig economy is a big part of the issue and that the intervention of apps in the traditional employment relationship should not be used as a proxy to water down employment rights.
The hon. Member for Watford (Dean Russell) also gave a very considered speech. He summed it up when he said that this is both amazing and terrifying. We have heard of some wonderful things that can be done, but also some extremely worrying ones. He gave examples of deception, as well as of the wonderful art that can be created through AI, and encapsulated why it is so important that we have this debate today. Although the debate is about the potential impacts of AI, it is clear that change is happening now, and at a dramatic pace that we need to keep up with; the issue has been affecting workers for some time now.
When we survey the Government’s publications on the impact of AI on the market, it is readily apparent that they are a little bit behind the curve when it comes to how technologies are affecting the way work is conducted and supervised. In the 2021 report, “The Potential Impact of Artificial Intelligence on UK Employment and the Demand for Skills”, and the recent White Paper that was published last month, there was a failure to address the issues of AI’s role in the workplace. The focus in both publications was the bigger picture, but I do not think they addressed in detail the concerns we have discussed today.
That is not to downplay the wider structural economic change that AI could bring. It has the potential to have an impact on demand for labour and the skills needed, and on the geographical distribution of work. This will be a central challenge for any Government over the next few decades. As we have heard, the analysis already points in that direction, with the 2021 Government report estimating that 7% of jobs could be affected in just five years and 18% in 10 years, with up to 30% of jobs over 20 years facing the possibility of automation. That is millions of people who may be displaced in the labour market if we do not get this right.
I will focus my comments on the impact on individual workers, because behind the rhetoric of making the UK an AI superpower, there are statements about having a pro-innovation, light-touch and coherent regulatory framework, with a desire not to legislate too early or to place undue burdens on business. That shows that the Government are, unfortunately, content to leave workers’ protections at the back of the queue. It is telling that in last month’s White Paper—a document spanning 91 pages—workplaces are mentioned just three times, and none of those references are about the potential negative consequences that we have touched on today. As we are debating this issue now, and as the Minister is engaged on the topic, we have the opportunity to get ahead of the curve, but I am afraid that the pace of change in the workplace has completely outstripped the pace of Government intervention over the last number of years.
It has been four years since we saw the Government’s good work plan, which contained many proposals that might help mitigate elements of AI’s use in the workplace. The Minister will not be surprised to hear me mention the employment Bill, which has been promised on many occasions and could have been an opportunity to consider some of these issues. We need an overarching, transformative legislative programme to deal with these matters, and the many other issues around low pay and chronic insecurity in the UK labour market—and we need a Labour Government to provide that.
With an absence of direction from Government, there is already a quiet revolution in the workplace being caused by AI. Workers across a broad range of sectors have been impacted by management techniques derived from the use of artificial intelligence. The role of manager is being diluted. Individual discretion, be it by the manager or worker, has in some instances been replaced by unaccountable algorithms. As we have heard, such practices carry risks.
Reports both in the media and by researchers have found that workplaces across a range of sectors are becoming increasingly monitored and automated, and decisions of that nature are becoming normalised. A report on algorithmic systems by the Institute for the Future of Work noted that that is ultimately redefining work in much narrower terms than can be quantified by any algorithm, with less room for the use of human judgment. Crucially, the institute found that workers were rarely involved in or even consulted about these types of data-driven technologies. The changes have completely altered those people’s experience of work, with greater surveillance and greater intensification, and use in disciplinary procedures. Members may be aware that there is now a greater use of different varieties of surveillance, including GPS, cameras, eye-tracking software, heat sensors and body-worn devices, so the activities of workers can be monitored to an extent that was hitherto unimaginable.
Of course, surveillance is not new, but the way it is now conducted reduces trust, and makes workers feel more insecure and as if they cannot dispute the evidence that the technology tells people. Most at risk of that monitoring, as the Institute for Public Policy Research has said, are those in jobs with lower worker autonomy, those with lower skills, and those without trade union representation. The latter is an area where the risk increases substantially, which tells us everything that we need to know about the importance of becoming a member of a trade union. The news today that the GMB is making progress in obtaining recognition at Amazon is to be welcomed in that respect.
Increased surveillance and monitoring is not only problematic in itself; it can lead to an intensification of work. Testimony from workers in one study stated that they are expected to be conducting work that the system can measure for 95% of the working day. Time spent talking to colleagues, using the bathroom or even taking a couple of minutes to make a cup of tea will not be registered as working, and will be logged for a manager to potentially take action against the individual. That pressure cannot be conducive to a healthy workplace in the long run. It feels almost like automated bullying, with someone monitoring their every move.
Many businesses now rely on AI-powered systems for fully automated or semi-automated decision making about task allocation, work scheduling, pay, progression and disciplinary proceedings. That presents many dangers, some of which we have talked about. Due to the complexities in the technology, AI systems can sometimes be a trusted black box by those who use them. The people using them assume that the outcome that emerges from the AI system is free of bias and discrimination, and constitutes evidence for the basis of their decisions, but how does someone contest a decision if they cannot question an algorithm?
As we have heard, there is potential for algorithmic bias. AI technology can operate only on the basis of the information put into it. Sometimes human value judgments form the basis of what is fed into the AI, and how the AI analyses it. As the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe mentioned, there are some famous examples, such as at Amazon, where AI was found to be systematically disconsidering women for particular job applications because of the way the algorithm worked. There is little transparency and a lack of checks and balances regarding how the technology can be used, so there is a palpable risk of AI-sanctioned discrimination running riot without transparency at the forefront.
I would like the Minister to commit to looking at how the technology works in the workplace at the moment, and to making an assessment of what it is being used for and its potential to discriminate against people with protected characteristics. The Data Protection and Digital Information (No. 2) Bill will create new rights where wholly automated decision making is involved, but the question is: how will someone know when a fully automated decision has been taken if they are not told about it? Is there not a risk that many employers will slot into the terms and conditions of employment a general consent to automated decision making, which will remove the need for the person to be notified all together?
A successful AI strategy for this country should not be built on the back of the poor treatment of workers, and it is the Government’s role to create a legal and regulatory environment that shields workers from the most pernicious elements of these new technologies. That cannot be fixed by introducing single policies that tinker at the edges; it requires a long overdue wholesale update to our country’s employment laws. As the Minister will know, our new deal for working people will set out a suite of policies that address that. Among other things, it will help to mitigate the worst effects of AI, and will introduce measures that include a right to switch off, which will guard against some of the egregious examples of AI being used to intensify people’s work.
As the organised representation of the workforce, trade unions should be central to the introduction of any new technologies into the workplace. Not only will that enable employers and their representatives to find agreeable solutions to the challenges raised by modern working practices, but it will encourage more transparency from employers as to how management surveillance and disciplinary procedures operate. Transparency has been picked up a few times and it is key to getting this right.
Artificial intelligence’s impact is already being felt up and down the country, but the Government have not been quick enough to act, and its worst excesses are already out there. The need for transparency and trust with technology is clear, and we need to make sure that that has some legislative backing. It is time for a Labour Government to clear that up, stand up for working people and bolster our labour market so that new technologies that are already with us can be used to make work better for everyone.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
I am grateful to be called, Dame Maria, and it is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley) on bringing this timely subject forward. I thought it would be appropriate to type his question into ChatGPT. I put in, “What is the potential impact of AI on the labour market?” It said, “AI has the potential to transform many aspects of the economy and society for the better. It also raises concerns about job displacement and the future of work.” That is it in a nutshell. It did not say that it was time for a Labour Government.
Justin Madders
Did the AI tell the Minister that the Conservative Government have got everything right?
Kevin Hollinrake
I have not actually posed that question, but perhaps I could later.
This is an important debate, and it is important that we look at the issue strategically. The Government and the Labour party probably have different approaches: the Labour party’s natural position on this kind of stuff is to regulate everything as much as possible, whereas we believe that free markets have had a tremendous effect on people’s lives right across the planet. Whether we look at education, tackling poverty or child mortality, many of the benefits in our society over the last 100 years have been delivered through the free market.
Our natural inclination is to support innovation but to be careful about its introduction and to look to mitigate any of its damaging effects, and that is what is set out in the national AI strategy. As we have seen, it has AI potential to become one of the most significant innovations in history—a technology like the steam engine, electricity or the internet. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) said exactly that: this is like a new industrial revolution, and I think it is a very exciting opportunity for the future. However, we also have key concerns, which have been highlighted by hon. Members today. Although the Government believe in the growth potential of these technologies, we also want to be clear that growth cannot come at the expense of the rights and protections of working people.
Only now, as the technology rapidly improves, are most of us beginning to understand the transformative potential of AI. However, the technology is already delivering fantastic social and economic benefits for real people. The UK’s tech sector is home to a third of Europe’s AI companies, and the UK AI sector is worth more than £15.6 billion. The UK is third in the world for AI investment, behind the US and China, and attracts twice as much venture capital investment as France and Germany combined. As impressive as they are, those statistics should be put into the context of the sector’s growth potential. Recent research predicts that the use of AI by UK businesses will more than double in the next 20 years, with more than 1.3 million UK businesses using AI by 2040.
The Government have been supporting the ethical adoption of AI technologies, with more than £2.5 billion of investment since 2015. We recently announced £100 million for the Foundation Models Taskforce to help build and adopt the next generation of safe AI, £110 million for our AI tech missions fund and £900 million to establish new supercomputer capabilities. These exascale computers were mentioned in the Budget by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. These developments have incredible potential to bring forward new forms of clean energy, and indeed new materials that can deliver that clean energy, and to accelerate things such as medical treatment. There are exciting opportunities ahead.
If we want to become an AI superpower, it is crucial that we do all we can to create the right environment to harness the benefits of AI and remain at the forefront of technological developments. Our approach, laid out in the AI White Paper, is designed to be flexible. We are ensuring that we have a proportionate, pro-innovation regulatory regime for AI in the UK, which will build on the existing expertise of our world-leading sectoral regulators.
Our regulatory regime will function by articulating five key principles, which are absolutely key to this debate and tackle many of the points that have been made by hon. Members across the Chamber. Regulators should follow these five principles when regulating AI in their sectors: safety, security and robustness; transparency and explainability; fairness; accountability and governance; and contestability and redress. That feeds into the important points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell), who held this ministerial position immediately prior to myself, about deception, scams and fraud. We can all see the potential for that, of course.
Clearly, right across the piece, we have regulators with responsibility in those five areas. Those regulators are there to regulate bona fide companies, which should do the right thing, although we have to make sure that they do. For instance, if somebody held a database with inappropriate data on it, the Information Commissioner’s Office could easily look at that, and it has significant financial penalties at its disposal, such as 4% of global turnover or a £17 million fine. My hon. Friend the Member for Watford made a plea for a Turing clause, which I am, of course, very happy to look at. I think he was referring to organisations that might not be bona fide, and might actually be looking to undertake nefarious activities in this area. I do not think we can regulate those people very effectively, because they are not going to comply with anybody’s regulations. The only way to deal with those people is to find them, catch them, prosecute them and lock them up.
Damian Collins
The Minister talks about safety, but does he agree that that has to be safety by design, and not just having response mechanisms built into the system so that a victim can appeal? I know he has looked at fraud a lot in the past, and there is a presumption that all will be done to combat fraud at its known source, rather than just providing redress to victims.
Kevin Hollinrake
That is absolutely right. We will not deal with everything in the world of AI in this respect, but there needs to be overarching responsibility for preventing fraud. That is something we have committed to bringing forward in another legislative vehicle—the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill, which is passing through Parliament now—but I agree with my hon. Friend that there should be a responsibility on organisations to prevent fraud and not simply deal with the after-effects.
Our proposed framework is aligned with and supplemented by a variety of tools for trustworthy AI, such as assurance techniques, voluntary guidance and technical standards. The Centre for Data Ethics and Innovation published its AI assurance road map in December 2021, and the AI Standards Hub—a world-leading collaboration led by the Alan Turing Institute with the National Physical Laboratory and the British Standards Institution—launched last October. The hub is intended to provide a co-ordinated contribution to standards development on issues such as transparency, security and uncertainty, with a view to helping organisations to demonstrate that AI is used safely and responsibly.
We are taking action to ensure that households, public services and businesses can trust this technology. Unless we build public trust, we will miss out on many of the benefits on offer. The reality is that AI, as with other general-purpose technologies, has the potential to be a net creator of jobs. I fully understand the points raised by the hon. Member for Birkenhead—of course, we do not want to see swathes of people put out of work because of this technology. I hasten to add that that has never been the case with other technologies. There have been many concerns over the ages about how new technologies will affect jobs, but they tend to create other jobs in different sectors. The World Economic Forum estimates that robotics, automation and artificial intelligence will displace 85 million jobs globally by 2025, but create 97 million new jobs in different sectors, which I will discuss in a second. I think the hon. Member for Birkenhead asked in his speech whether I would be willing to meet him to discuss these points; I am always very happy to do that, if we can convene at another time.
The hon. Member also raised the point about how AI in the workplace has the potential to liberate the workforce from monotonous tasks such as inputting data or scanning through documents for a single piece of information. I will address the bigger concerns he has around that, but in the public sector it would leave teachers with more time to teach, clinicians with more time to spend with patients and police officers with more time on the beat, rather than being behind a desk.
As was raised in a salient point by my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe, AI also has tremendous potential in defence and national security. That is absolutely critical. It was interesting that leading people in the world of technology, led by Elon Musk, recently wrote a letter asking for a six-month pause while we look at how we can properly moderate the impacts of AI. I am not sure that that is a good idea, because I am not sure China and Russia would play that game. It is important that we stay ahead of the curve, for exactly the reasons pointed out by my hon. Friend.
Damian Collins
The Minister is exactly right. That initiative also suggests that AI is not yet here but, actually, the issues we have discussed today exist already. We can look at them already; we do not need a six-month pause to do that.
Kevin Hollinrake
That is absolutely right. There is an opportunity but also a potential threat. It is important that we continue to invest, and it is great that the UK is ahead of the game in its investment, behind only the US and China, which are obviously much bigger economies.
The key thing is that we take action on skills, skilling up our workforce in the UK to take advantage of the potential of AI. Clearly, a good computing education is at the heart of that. We have overhauled the outdated information and communications technology curriculum and replaced it with computing, and invested £84 million in the National Centre for Computing Education to inspire the next generation of computer scientists. Our national skills fund offers to do just that, with free level 3 qualifications for adults and skills bootcamps in digital courses, including coding, AI and cyber-security, available across England.
On that point, as well as the opportunities in AI, we need to look at the new opportunities in the new economy. Some jobs will be displaced, so we need to ensure that we are skilling up our workforce for other opportunities in our new economy, be it data science or green jobs with the green jobs taskforce. Recently, in Hull, there were 3,000 new jobs in the wind turbine sector with a starting salary of £32,000, which illustrates the potential for green jobs in our economy. So although jobs might be displaced, others, hopefully better-paid jobs will replace them. We want a higher-wage, higher-skilled economy.
The Government are also supporting 16 centres for doctoral training, backed by an initial £100 million, delivering 1,000 PhDs. We expanded that programme with a further £117 million at the recent launch of the Government’s science and technology framework. Last year, we invested an additional £17 million in AI and data science postgraduate conversion courses and scholarships to increase the diversity of the tech workforce, on top of the £13 million that has been invested in the programme since 2019-20. We also invested £46 million to support the Turing AI fellowships to attract the best and brightest AI talent to work in the UK.
The point about protections for workers’ rights was raised by many Members in the debate, not least the hon. Members for Gordon (Richard Thomson) and for Birkenhead; the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders); and my hon. Friends the Members for Folkestone and Hythe and for Watford. It is important to see the Government’s position on workers’ rights here. We are bolstering workers’ rights, raising the national living wage, with the highest increase on record—a near 10% increase—and six private Members’ Bills that increase workers’ rights, including on flexible working and other issues. There is also the Employment (Allocation of Tips) Bill, which is the favourite Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Watford, who was its sponsor prior to becoming the Minister.
On the concerns many raised about workplace monitoring, we are committed to protecting workers. A number of laws are already in place that apply to the use of AI and data-driven technology in the workplace, including in decision making, which was raised by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston. The Equality Act 2010 already requires employers and service providers not to discriminate against employees, job applicants and customers. That includes discrimination through actions taken as a result of an algorithm or a similar artificial intelligence mechanism. Tackling discrimination in AI is a major strand of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s three-year strategy. Existing data protection legislation protects workers where personal data is involved, and that is one aspect of existing regulation on the development of AI systems and other technologies.
Reforms as part of the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill will cast article 22 of the UK GDPR as a right to specific safeguards, rather than as a general prohibition on solely automated decision making. These rights ensure that data subjects are informed about, and can seek human review of, significant decisions that are taken about them solely through automated means, which was a point raised by the shadow Minister. Employment law also offers protections. The Employment Rights Act 1996 provides that employees with two years of continuous service are protected from unfair dismissal, which would encompass circumstances where employees’ article 8 and UK GDPR rights have been breached in the algorithm decision-making process that led to the dismissal.
Of course, all good employers—by their very nature—should use human judgment. The best way we can help employers in any workplace is to have a strong jobs market where employers have to compete for employees. That is the kind of market we have delivered in this economy, despite some of the difficulties that surround it.
I once again thank the hon. Member for Birkenhead for tabling this timely and important debate. To be clear again, we have a strong ambition for the UK to become a science and technology superpower, and AI is a key part of that. However, the Government recognise the concerns around these technologies and appreciate that, as with all new technologies, trust has to be built. We will continue to build our understanding of how the employment rights framework operates in an era of increasing AI use. AI has the potential to make an incredibly positive contribution to creating a high-wage, high-skill and high-productivity economy. I very much look forward to seeing the further benefits as matters progress.
Mick Whitley
I thank Members for their contributions this afternoon, which were eloquent and well put. It is good that we are bringing this issue to the seat of power—the seat of Government—so that Ministers understand our fears. While we embrace AI, there must be built-in protections for people because not all employers are good employers. There are some bad employers about who will take advantage of AI. We need safeguards for workers and people being replaced by machines. At the end of the day, this issue is coming down our street, so we will need to revisit it again and understand it better.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the potential impact of artificial intelligence on the labour market.
Rail Services: Carshalton and Wallington
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Dame Maria Miller (in the Chair)
I will call Elliot Colburn to move the motion, and then I will call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the normal convention for a 30-minute debate.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered rail services in Carshalton and Wallington constituency.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Maria. This is not the first time that I have had to raise rail provision in the Carshalton and Wallington constituency, and I am sure it will not be the last. First of all, I thought it might be useful for me to outline the situation that my constituents currently face when it comes to local public transport provision. Being situated in a London borough—the London Borough of Sutton—many people will assume that Carshalton and Wallington is incredibly well-connected in its public transportation. However, if anyone looked at my own casework inbox, they would see that that is far from the case.
Broadly, the borough has an average public transport accessibility level, or PTAL, of just 2, with parts of my constituency ranking at level 1 or even zero. What is more, Sutton continually ranks at the bottom of connectivity surveys and is the only London borough not to have access to an underground, overground or Crossrail station. As you can imagine, Dame Maria, that puts enormous strain on the existing public transport network, especially the rail service, which is not helped by the limited bus system.
The strain is felt across all four local train stations: Carshalton, Wallington, Hackbridge and Carshalton Beeches. It is not just the gap at Hackbridge station—I will talk more about that later—that my constituents have to consider, but the gap in overall service. That is because trains running through these stations take commuters north to central London, particularly London Bridge and Victoria, and south to Sutton, Epsom, Dorking, Horsham and further afield. Even before the pandemic, many of the peak services would already be at capacity by the time they reached one of our local stations, and well before they reached their intended destination. I had not been in this place for long before lockdown, but emails from constituents attested to cramped and uncomfortable journeys. I had experienced such journeys myself, as someone who used to commute from those stations. Indeed, I now commute every day to this place.
Fast forward to today, and post pandemic the situation is largely unchanged, just with fewer trains. Despite the return to user levels reminiscent of pre-lockdown levels—at least, that seems to be the case—commuters in Carshalton and Wallington still have to face very cramped peak-time trains.
I have met representatives from Govia Thameslink Railway—the parent company of both Southern and Thameslink, which operate in our four stations—and from Network Rail, and I have brought up the need for more trains to call at Carshalton and Wallington stations during peak times. I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on the work the Government are doing to hold rail providers to account and bring back a full return to pre-pandemic services, and indeed to build upon them.
There are other issues that affect rail provision and the ability to boost the number of trains that can run effectively and on time, or even at all. For residents of Carshalton and Wallington, the train timetable tells one story, but the reality on the station platforms tells a very different one. Our lines are bedevilled with cancellations because of broken trains, a lack of drivers or signalling faults; at least, those are the reasons we are given. I hope that the Minister can shed some light on the work that the Government are doing to tackle those issues.
The other thing I find slightly confusing is that a reason that is often given for not reinstating peak service train timetables in the morning is that more people use the rail service at the weekend, and yet many of my constituents say that at weekends they cannot get a train and have to use replacement bus services, because engineering works are taking place. That becomes incredibly difficult, and I find it very confusing why engineering works cannot be done more efficiently.
I want to touch on infrastructure in a bit more detail. Much of the existing infrastructure is outdated and unreliable, which often means that trains that are scheduled to run are unable to do so, or that there are slower turnaround times for those that can run. Indeed, the infrastructure on the railway network in south London is preventing what is known as the metroisation of suburban rail services in London—the “turn up and go” service that we experience on the London overground. I know that there is an ambition to bring that to some national rail services, particularly in suburban London. With the infrastructure as it is, it is just not possible to achieve that.
I know the Government are already doing a number of things to try to ensure that not just Carshalton and Wallington residents, but the whole country, can reach its connectivity potential. Those things include electrification, digital signalling and better co-ordination between operators and Network Rail, the latter of which would hopefully alleviate many of the problems that we face with frequent service disruption. I would be grateful for an update from the Minister as to where we are in better fulfilling those connectivity challenges through advancements and improvements.
One of the biggest problems preventing us from having a more regular rail timetable is congestion on the railway line. That all comes down to the Selhurst junction—the so-called Croydon bottleneck. Network Rail has drawn up the Croydon area remodelling scheme to try to alleviate congestion at that junction, which is the main junction of the Brighton main line and suburban south London. Not only will the knock-on effects allow more trains and more frequent and reliable services on the Brighton main line, but suburban south London, including Carshalton and Wallington, will be able to run more trains, and more effective and longer trains. If finally implemented, the bottleneck scheme could not only unlock capacity in the south but improve economic output. I would be grateful if the Minister gave an update on the Government’s position on the Croydon bottleneck scheme and what can be done to reignite its potential.
While I fully accept that solutions to some of these issues may take some time to implement, some issues can be dealt with a lot more quickly. Even if more trains appeared on our timetables overnight, there would still be the issue of the trains calling at our stations, particularly Hackbridge and Carshalton Beeches stations. I have spoken to the Minister about this before, so I hope he will forgive me for repeating it. Hackbridge station has two main problems. First, it can only accommodate seven cars, when most of the trains that go through it at peak times have eight cars or more. If the platform were extended to accommodate at least eight cars—preferably 10— it would mean more safety for commuters waiting on that platform, particularly in the morning when the northbound platform towards central London can get very cramped.
Secondly, the southbound platform at Hackbridge has a very serious safety concern at the front end, where the gap between train and platform is so big that it has led to a number of accidents involving constituents falling in that gap, and stalling the rail network as a result. Thankfully, GTR and Network Rail have agreed to lower the level of the track to make it safer. However, they have not committed to completing that work until 2027. I do not think that is fast enough, because this is a very serious safety concern. The gap is so big that even a ramp is an unsafe alternative for those who have mobility problems. I am concerned about someone really hurting themselves by falling down the gap. That has happened already; we have avoided something incredibly serious, but it is not beyond the realms of possibility.
At Carshalton Beeches station we have connectivity problems, because the southbound platform does not have step-free access. I have applied many times to the Access for All fund to try to make that right. Those who are travelling back to Carshalton Beeches from central London or other parts of the rail network have to carry on through to Sutton, change platforms and then come back to Carshalton Beeches to disembark safely. As someone who passionately believes that the rail network should be accessible to all, I do not think that those with mobility problems should be subjected to that. What opportunities might there be to apply for the funding to finally make all four of my local stations completely step-free, both northbound and southbound.
In a debate about public transport in my constituency, it would be remiss of me not to mention the ultra-low emission zone. Although it is not directly related to rail services, there is a problem here connected to public transport provision. My constituents are faced with the real possibility that in August they will have to pay £12.50 a day just to use their vehicles in Carshalton and Wallington, as will people planning to visit the local area. The retort of, “Just get on public transport” does not work if we consider the state of the public transport network, as I have set out. The lack of rail services and other public transport infrastructure, and the unreliability of the service that does exist, further adds to the headache my constituents face when going about their day-to-day business.
I reiterate my call to the Mayor of London to scrap plans to expand the ULEZ. My call is backed by the Liberal Democrats and the Green party, and I hope the Minister will join me in it, too. This is the wrong time, and the plans will not work. I sincerely hope that I have the Government’s support on that. Yes, there are issues holding up full restoration of pre-pandemic peak services, but there are a number of solutions, too. These vary in implementation length, depending on the work needed to put them in place. However, solutions will free up capacity, increase usage and unleash unrealised potential across Carshalton, Wallington and further afield.
I sincerely hope that we can hear some Victorian-level ambition for our railway network from the Minister today. Rail does not have to be a relic of a bygone age. It can help super-charge our local economy and unlock new growth, not just for my area but for the rest of south London and the UK. The potential of a well resourced, well built and well serviced railway is exponential—so long, of course, as the Government’s rail plans remain on track.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Huw Merriman)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Maria. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for securing this important debate on rail services in his constituency. He is right that, at every opportunity since I was appointed six months ago, he has got hold of me to champion the rights of his constituents. As he says, he is a constituency Member who has a lot of constituents who rely on rail. I am keen to work with him to make their service better.
I will start by setting the context, and talking about covid and changing demand. I am conscious that over the months, my predecessors and I have talked about the challenges, but I want to be more optimistic about the future for rail. I believe it has a great future. Over the past few months, there have been encouraging signs that passengers’ confidence in our railway is beginning to be restored. Nationally, passenger numbers show signs of improvement, and have come close on several occasions to levels seen in equivalent weeks in 2019. There has also been some improvement in the revenue generated across the industry; in some weeks, it averages around 90% of what was generated in that week in 2019.
I believe there is a great future for rail. It is the greener way to travel, and we have a railway heritage. The great people who work on it deserve our support and thanks. I am keen to entice as many people as possible back on to the network, so that we can continue to improve it. However, the pandemic has caused unprecedented change in passenger travel habits. Many people now adopt a hybrid approach, working from home some days of the week, and travelling at different times of the day to avoid the peaks. That means it is quite difficult to make like-for-like comparisons with 2019.
In the light of that, my Department has been working with operators to ensure that they provide rail services that respond to new passenger travel patterns, are fit for the future, and carefully balance cost, capacity and performance. As has often been remarked, the Government have earmarked £16 billion of funding for rail services since the start of the pandemic. That is money from the taxpayer. That is clearly unsustainable in the long term. I am sure you would agree, Dame Maria, that it is unfair to expect taxpayers to subsidise services that continue to exceed demand, and on which there are empty spaces, considering all the costs that over-provision would entail. We must ensure that services are balanced to meet the challenges.
In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington, off-peak and peak passenger use remains below pre-pandemic levels. The September 2022 timetable change saw the Monday to Friday off-peak and weekend service from Carshalton to London Victoria via Mitcham Junction reduced from four trains per hour to two. Those changes were made in response to our requirement for operators to balance capacity and demand. The weekday peak service remained at four trains per hour. There are no timetable changes in May 2023, but the Epsom to London Bridge route via Carshalton Beeches and Wallington service will now predominantly run as a four or five-carriage formation off-peak on weekdays and weekends, reflecting demand. Weekday peak services will continue to operate with eight or 10 carriages, to meet higher demand.
Let me turn to the performance of the operator. After some significant challenges in December, which were associated with continued driver availability constraints and high levels of annual leave, I am pleased to see that cancellations have reduced significantly this year, especially in recent periods. GTR retains a considerable focus on continuing that improving trend and delivering the reliability that customers expect and deserve. My Department is working closely with GTR, and as my hon. Friend might expect, closely monitors levels of short-notice cancellations and service delays. Any decrease in performance in those areas can negatively impact the management fee that the train operator receives.
My hon. Friend rightly expects closer working between the operator and Network Rail. GTR and Network Rail collaborate on plans for future investment, maintenance and operation of the railway in the area. Indeed, since I have been appointed, I have insisted on having meetings with both Network Rail’s regional director and the head of the train operator, so that I can hear about their integration at first hand. The Department actively encourages closer working to improve the overall experience for passengers.
My hon. Friend rightly asked about infrastructure upgrades, including the Brighton main line upgrade programme. Of course, I understand the desire for an update on the Croydon area remodelling scheme, which seeks to address capacity constraints in the Croydon area. As he will be aware, following the autumn statement and the more recent Budget, we are reviewing the rail network enhancements pipeline, which is our programme for investment in future rail. In the economic context, it is more important than ever that the enhancement schemes that we take forward are affordable, and respond to the changes in demand for travel that I described. We are taking the proper time to ensure that schemes in the portfolio reflect those priorities. We will make the outcome public once the work is complete, thereby confirming the status of schemes across England and Wales, including the Croydon area remodelling scheme, so I ask my hon. Friend to give us a little more time before we update him.
My hon. Friend also asked about digital signalling, which I am very excited about. A programme is being rolled out on the London North Eastern Railway, on the east coast. I have seen the work that has been undertaken, and have worked alongside those who are delivering it. The efficiencies that it will bring are incredibly exciting. Network Rail is considering conversion to digital signalling on the Brighton main line as part of its renewals process for control period 7; I will bring him further news on that front as and when we have it.
My hon. Friend rightly talks about how we can help those with mobility issues to access the railway. We want a railway network that provides disabled people with improved opportunities for work and leisure travel. Indeed, we want to help all those who struggle to get on the railway, including parents with children in buggies, so that the railway, rather than the car, is a choice for them. The Department is very proud to support the Access for All programme, which has provided step-free accessible routes at over 220 stations, and smaller-scale access improvements at 1,500 more stations. All available Access for All funding has been allocated to projects until March 2024, but we are assessing over 300 nominations with Network Rail for stations for future awards. I am pleased to say that those include a nomination for Carshalton Beeches station, in anticipation of further funding becoming available beyond 2024. I expect to make an announcement regarding successful schemes later this year. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear with us as we assess his scheme, and I wish him well in that regard.
With respect to the larger-than-usual gap between the platform and the front of the train at Hackbridge station, which my hon. Friend mentioned, I can report that Network Rail is actively considering a full renewal of the platform, which would come in a few years hence. That would reduce the gap. I hope to bring him more news, and I thank him for bringing that to our attention. I can assure him that we are looking at the issue with Network Rail.
Finally—this is not in the rail portfolio, but it is right for me to respond for the Department for Transport—my hon. Friend made his views on the ULEZ expansion clearly known. I thank him for bringing the matter to Parliament and to the attention of the Government. All I would say is that if I were Mayor of London, which would be unlikely given that I am an East Sussex MP, I would not expand the ultra low emission zone, particularly given the financial impact on drivers and visitors to London, as my hon. Friend said. I will continue to use my role to work with him, and across Government, to ensure that the Mayor of London is held accountable for any decision that he makes. I am aware, as I know many Londoners and many people just outside London are—I am one of them, as I have mentioned—that cash barriers around London will have an impact on London as a whole and businesses in London. My hon. Friend makes the point well.
I hope that my hon. Friend has been reassured by the information that I have been able to give him, and that he can see the Government’s ambition to improve journeys for passengers and create a better, more modern railway industry that delivers good value for money. He is a real champion for his constituents, so I am sure that he will continue to engage with me, stop me to talk to me at every opportunity, and hold further debates. I thank him for this debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Office for Students
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the Office for Students.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Maria. Higher education is unanimous in recognising the need for effective regulation. The UK has an international reputation for the quality and strength of our higher education sector. Everyone involved in the sector I have spoken to or corresponded with understands the role that effective and proportionate regulation has to play in improving standards and maintaining that reputation. I thank everyone who has been in contact since they saw this debate timetabled.
The Office for Students was created in 2018 with the aim of ensuring that higher education in England delivers positive outcomes for students. Its mission statement is:
“to ensure that every student, whatever their background, has a fulfilling experience of higher education that enriches their lives and careers.”
However, there are increasingly concerns that it has become overly bureaucratic, imposes increasingly high costs on providers, takes an inconsistent view on what does and does not affect the quality of student education, and has become more concerned with extending its areas of oversight to meet the desires of the Government of the day than the needs, experiences and views of the students for whom it is supposed to exist.
Regulation is vital for any sector, but it comes with financial and resource costs that must be proportional to the risk, and must represent value for money. The cost of regulation for providers should be an important concern for the OfS, as ultimately that cost is felt by the students. The HE sector has to contend with regulatory overlap; there are multiple regulators in the HE, further education and technical education sectors, as well as multiple subject-level, professional, statutory and regulatory bodies.
The Government’s own regulatory code outlines the principle that regulators
“should collectively follow the principle of ‘collect once, use many times’ when requesting information from those they regulate.”
It also says that regulators should
“share information with each other…to help target resources and activities and minimise duplication.”
It says:
“Regulators should avoid imposing unnecessary regulatory burdens through their regulatory activities”,
and
“should choose proportionate approaches to those they regulate, based on relevant factors including, for example, business size and capacity.”
Is the OfS adopting that approach? In the past few years, it has spent a great deal of time continually revising its regulatory frameworks and processes, including the B conditions of registration on quality and standards, the access and participation regime and the Teaching Excellence Framework.
In 2022, there were a number of significant consultations running simultaneously, and major consultations were run with very short response periods. For example, the consultations on quality and standards, B3, TEF and underpinning data all ran at the same time. The supporting documents for those consultations ran to a total of more than 700 pages, and the sector had just eight weeks to respond to all of them. That approach results in a very high cost to institutions, and risks undermining the quality of data submitted due to the compressed timetable. For example, one Universities UK member had 10 full-time equivalent staff supporting regulatory compliance at an approximate staff cost of £444,000. Another institution estimated the cost of regulatory activities to be £1.1 million in 2022-23.
Such demands place a higher relative cost on smaller providers, which not only lack the resource of the larger providers but tend to offer a wider range of education, including higher education, degree apprenticeships—the Minister’s favourite—further education and other industry-specific continuous professional development. That means that they must deal with a large number of regulators in addition to the OfS, including the Institute for Apprentices and Technical Education, the Education and Skills Funding Agency and Ofsted. Unfortunately, that does not just mean reporting for some students to one regulator and for others to another. Degree apprenticeship students have to be reported to both the OfS and IFATE in significantly different ways. GuildHE reported that one provider needed separate data teams for the two bodies.
On average, the cost of regulation for a student studying HE in a FE college that has only a small HE provision is £289, compared with £14 for a student studying at a large HE institute. That cost is even more pronounced in the light of the lower tuition fees charged by many colleges—£6,165, in contrast with the higher education fees of £9,250.
In the same report on regulation in smaller universities and specialist colleges, GuildHE said:
“Overly-legalistic language in communications, delays in meeting their own deadlines, short consultation periods, consultations’ outcomes that rarely listen to the views of those consulted and political capture”
were regular complaints from their members. Those complaints are repeated in the results of the OfS’s own survey, “Report for the Office of Students: Provider engagement”. Its executive summary said:
“Providers are confused by the complexity of some OfS processes, communications and consultations, and related tasks require high levels of resource by providers.”
It went on:
“Providers would like a more transparent, collaborative, and consultative relationship with the OfS with a shared focus on student outcomes, including opportunities to contribute and share good practice.”
Specifically on smaller providers, it concluded:
“Small providers felt that the OfS was geared towards large established universities and didn’t acknowledge their different levels of resourcing and experience.”
Furthermore, the report read:
“Smaller and further education providers feel that their different circumstances and student audiences are not recognised by the OfS and that the regulator failed to adapt their approach accordingly.”
Those complaints go to the heart of the student experience. HE students are not a homogeneous group and a diverse HE ecosystem is required to meet their needs, but the OfS seems to be operating an overbearing, one-size-fits-all approach. It appears that that approach suits no one, as the report also said:
“Established providers felt they should be treated differently from newer providers and that communications they received didn’t reflect their low-risk track record.”
In the guidance for condition B4, all registered providers are now expected to retain—this is ridiculous—five years of all student assessment. Conservative estimates from Universities UK of what digitalising and storing work on such a scale might cost an institution resulted in figures of between £270,000 and more than £1 million a year. That does not include the environmental cost.
The requirement also poses difficulties for subjects such as art, design, performing arts, and medical and veterinary subjects. Such subjects use a range of approaches to assessment, including continuous assessment based on a series of exchanges. To digitally record all those exchanges would be inappropriate and would entail GDPR issues. The retention of students’ work in the arts presents difficulties over intellectual property rights, which return to students on graduation.
I am not alone in being particularly concerned about the recent announcement that the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education will no longer be the Secretary of State for Education’s designated quality body. That means that it will no longer be responsible for assessing quality and standards in English higher education to inform the OfS’s regulatory decision making. The QAA has relinquished its role because the work it was being asked to undertake in England on behalf of the OfS was no longer compliant with recognised quality standards, namely the European standards and guidance that are monitored by the European Quality Assurance Register for Higher Education.
As the Minister will be aware, the QAA has been in existence for over 25 years. The system it has established is regarded by many countries as the gold standard in quality enhancement and benchmarking and it is still in operation in Wales. Its withdrawal in England is entirely due to the conditions that the OfS has insisted on how their reviews are undertaken.
Among the issues that led to non-compliance were the OfS’s refusal to publish reports on providers, ending the cyclical review of all providers and the insistence that student representatives—remember that this is the OfS—should no longer be part of review teams. The sector is still waiting for clarification on how the OfS would replace the QAA’s role in terms of breadth and activity beyond investigations. Will the OfS now become the regulator, the enforcer and the assessor of quality? If that is the case, how can there not be a conflict of interest?
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a fine speech. I apologise for missing the beginning, because the debate started surprisingly early. She made a really important point about the QAA. Does she not agree that it is rather extraordinary that the QAA is no longer providing that role on the basis that it wanted to provide student voice, significantly? The gold standard she described requires the presence of student voice within the regulatory framework. Does that not go to the heart of the problem with the OfS at the moment? I recall, in a Public Bill Committee, discussing with the Minister at the time the fact that the OfS was set up with too small a student voice. That voice has become consistently more marginalised through its life.
Emma Hardy
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I shall speak in more detail about how the voice of students has been marginalised. It seems fairly ridiculous that the Office for Students wants to exclude students when its whole core purpose and mission statement is to represent and promote the needs of students. There is a serious disconnect. I think we should be slightly ashamed of the fact that the QAA is moving out of that role within English institutions.
Although only 6% to 7% of higher education is taught in English FE colleges, they make up around 37% of providers registered with the OfS, and there are more FE colleges on the OfS register than universities. The Education and Skills Funding Agency and the Department for Education are the chief regulators for FE colleges, and several agencies have funding, regulatory and inspectorial roles in the FE. OfS requirements on quality and standard of teaching, student support and wellbeing and financial sustainability overlap with those in many instances.
Large institutions are not unaffected. Universities UK provided an example of one member reporting a total of 99 data returns being required for the 2022-23 academic year across not only the OfS, which represents only a small proportion of this number, but also professional, statutory and regulatory bodies, the Student Loans Company and the Office for National Statistics. That is being supported by a team of seven full-time staff members. Indeed, concerns about multiple and potentially duplicate data collections were recognised by the DfE in the creation of the higher education data reduction taskforce in 2022. I am hoping the Minister will be able to feed back with progress on that.
It has been argued by some that the focused remit for the OfS, as set out in the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, was already quite wide-ranging and too broad, with 25 conditions of registration. Over the past five years, the OfS has expanded its responsibilities to include as priorities unexplained grade inflation, harassment and sexual misconduct, mental health and wellbeing, freedom of speech, diversity or provision, modular provision, transnational education, partnership and franchise provision and non-OfS-funded provision such as additional teacher training and degree apprenticeships. With the withdrawal of the QAA, we must now assume quality assurance is a priority. Where is the compelling evidence for this expansion of OfS priorities beyond its original remit in HERA?
In 2022, the Higher Education Policy Institute’s student academic experience survey showed that the majority of students were comfortable about freedom of speech and showed a recovery in several aspects of students’ wellbeing, with the life satisfaction, life feeling worthwhile and happiness categories all increasing. Tackling harassment and sexual misconduct is of course crucial, but is that really the role of the OfS regulator? It is already covered by legislation. The Government’s summary of HERA suggests that the OfS’s primary aim was to make it easier for new higher education providers to enter the market and raise teaching and quality standards. What has driven the OfS to move so quickly into these other areas, bringing increased financial and resource costs for both regulator and regulated?
It seems that the OfS is disproportionately influenced by ministerial pressure. We have just heard of how the increased OfS burden increased regulatory scope, but providers are paying for that twice—once through the extra costs of data collection and administration, and again through a 13% increase in OfS fees to cover its own costs of moving into these extra areas, as announced in December last year. It is worth noting that the OfS was due a review of its fee model two years after its establishment, but that is yet to happen.
However, this is not an increase the OfS wanted in September 2020 when it committed to a 10% real-terms reduction in registration fees over two years. Then came guidance from the Secretary of State for Education and the Minister for Further and Higher Education in March 2022 advising that the fee reduction was not necessary in view of the priorities the OfS was being asked to pursue. This is neither the first nor the last incident of the priorities of the OfS not being set by the sector or, crucially, by the students, who it was set up for, but by the Government.
In November 2021, the Secretary of State and the Universities Minister write to the OfS requesting that it start requiring universities to work with schools to drive up academic standards. Three months later, the OfS puts out a press release saying that it will work with universities to
“put their shoulder to the wheel”
to increase attainment in schools. In March 2022, the Universities Minister writes to the OfS asking it to conduct on-site inspections. Two months later, the OfS puts out a press release saying—guess what?—that it will conduct on-site inspections. In March 2022, the Secretary of State and Universities Minister write to the OfS asking it to set conditions of registrations in relation to sexual harassment as soon as possible—and it goes on to do just that.
The OfS does not appear to be an independent regulator, driven by the needs of the student; it appears to be a regulator driven by the desires of the Government of the day. But it is not even when the OfS is directly required to do something, which I can understand. If the Minister just happens to mention that something is important, the OfS jumps to. In April 2018, Universities Minister Sam Gyimah is in the news announcing that he will keep a “laser-like” focus on vice-chancellors’ salaries. Guess what the OfS does two months later, without even being asked to? Two months later, it publishes a new requirement forcing universities leaders to justify their salaries.
In April 2021, the then Universities Minister, the right hon. Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), is in the news for announcing that she is “appalled” by inclusive assessment practices that do not mark down students with incorrect grammar. Again, there was no direct request of the OfS, but guess what? Two months later, the OfS launches a review of inclusive assessment practices. In February 2022, the same Universities Minister is in the news, calling for universities to end all online learning. The next month, the OfS launches a review of blended learning.
Where is the regulatory independence that holds students at its very core? The Government do not even need to write to the OfS to get it to do what they want. They just need to issue a press release, and now they have a member of the Conservative party, who chooses to retain the party Whip, sitting in the House of Lords who is the chair of the OfS. As the Minister is aware, Lord Wharton had no previous experience in higher education. He did, however, run the leadership campaign for the man who appointed him.
Last year, while chair of the OfS, Lord Wharton spoke at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Budapest, Hungary. He endorsed the recent victory of the Hungarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán, a man who had been widely criticised for a host of restrictions on human rights and democratic practices—specifically, for attacks on academic freedom including, infamously, shutting down the independent Central European University. Lord Wharton said that CPAC was a
“great chance to pick up new ideas…reconnect with friends across the world”
and
“fight for the values that we all hold dear”.
I am not even going to quote the remarks of another speaker who attended the conference—Zsolt Bayer, a television talk show host in Hungary—because the language he used is not something I wish to repeat. Lord Wharton wrote an apology to staff, saying that he did not know who else was speaking and had never heard of Bayer, but that is hardly reassuring. The rest of the world can see and hear this. What conclusion does the Minister imagine it is drawing about our supposedly independent OfS?
So the OfS listens and responds to Government, but does it listen and respond to students? We have already heard that HEPI’s most recent student survey suggests a different set of priorities for students from those pursued on their behalf by OfS. The OfS will no doubt say that it has its own avenues to hear from students, but we only get answers to the questions we ask. In the most recent consultation on the national student survey, 90% of respondents told the OfS that they wanted to retain the summative question, “Overall, are you satisfied with your experience?” But out it went anyway. The majority told the OfS that they did not see the value of a question about freedom of expression, but in it went anyway.
With or without those alterations, the NSS only captures the views of final-year students—something that has contributed to both the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office concluding that the OfS has an “incomplete picture” of student satisfaction. That dovetails with the evidence given in a hearing for the ongoing Lords Industry and Regulators Committee inquiry, when members of the OfS student panel said that the panel was threatened with a reassessment of its future if they continued to express views on inclusive curricula that did not conform to those of the OfS staff. Former panel member Francesco Masala said:
“we felt quite often that we were there potentially more as a tick-box exercise rather than genuinely providing active challenge”,
and that if
“you are…a representative of students, there will still be someone in a boardroom who is going to tell you what you really think and what you really want.”
Their opinion was that the OfS made decisions that were opposite to the advice and views gathered through student surveys and consultations and that it then buried the outcomes of those consultations by rolling student feedback in with feedback from all other stakeholders. That was particularly the case on freedom of speech, which they felt was a Government priority and not a student priority. Add to that the OfS’s insistence that the QAA removed students from advisory teams and we might be forgiven for asking, “What does the s in the OfS stand for?” It is unclear to many in the sector whether the OfS has sufficient expertise or capacity to meet its ever-expanding duties and operations. To make matters worse, while expanding its reach into areas where it is not needed, it appears to be falling at monitoring areas that are core to its mission.
Both the Public Accounts Committee and the National Audit Office have found that the OfS lacks an integrated system for assessing financial risk. These risks come from a multitude of external pressures on universities’ financial sustainability, such as rising pension costs, inflation in the face of frozen tuition fees, the impact of the covid-19 pandemic and the risk of Government policy or geopolitical events affecting international student recruitment. The OfS does not focus on assessing the level of risk that these systematic risks pose to the sector or our students, despite the fact that the proportion of providers with an in-year deficit, even after adjusting for the impact of pension deficits, increased from 5% in 2015 to 32% in 2019-20. Some 26% of universities forecasted at the end of 2020-21 that their cash balance would fall below 30 days’ net liquidity at some point in the next two years. Financial stress is not confined to one part of the sector: the 20 providers that have had an in-year deficit for at least three years range in size from 200 students to 30,000 students.
Universities UK has raised a number of issues with the way investigations are being undertaken, including a lack of clarity on the basis for the investigation, limited information on what a provider needs to do to comply with the investigation, the scope changing during the investigation, inconsistent methodologies when investigating similar issues within different providers, and the absence of an expected timescale with short deadlines for providers to supply large amounts of information, with delays in response to that information from the OfS. I was given one example where a single query requesting a range of data and information required 8,070 hours of staff time at a cost of £48,000, including external legal advice and a number of examples of requests for large volumes of information followed by changes in the focus of the OfS inquiry. This is undermining trust in the regulator when these requests have been felt to be fishing exercises and, of course, that adds to the time cost and burden of the work.
To conclude, we have heard from all areas of higher education, large and small, that the regulatory burden is too large and expensive. What steps will be taken to reduce it? For example, will the higher education data reduction taskforce be reconvened to assess and address data burdens across OfS and other relevant regulators, including the OfS counterparts in the rest of the UK? Fees are increasing by 13% with disproportionately higher costs for smaller institutions. Does the Minister believe the OfS provides value for money? Will the DFE consider working with the OfS to make specific provisions for smaller institutions by being less rigid in its data requirements, reforming its fee structure to reflect the number of students at an institution and improving two-way communication with the sector. As I know the Minister cares deeply about degree apprenticeships, will he look specifically at the amount of regulatory overlap required for that?
We have a political placeman as chair, constant ministerial direction of the OfS and an OfS no longer compliant with recognised international standards. How will the international standing of the UK HE sector, as one of the high academic standards of excellence free from political interference, be maintained? This country has a higher education sector that is internationally regarded as maintaining the highest academic standards and being free from politically motivated Government interference. It needs and deserves a regulator to match. I do not believe we have it yet.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) for leading it. She gave a credible, comprehensible introduction—no one could doubt the knowledge she put forward today, and I congratulate her on that.
Higher education is so important for England, and indeed for all of us in the devolved Assemblies, where we have the ability to direct our different ways of doing things. Although the Office for Students does not apply to Northern Ireland—we have a different system back home—the Department for the Economy at the Northern Ireland Assembly has fantastic guidelines and direction in ensuring equality and diversity for every student. As I always do, I will give a Northern Ireland perspective to this debate—not because the Minister has responsibility for Northern Ireland, but to add another perspective, which will complicate what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle has put forward.
I want to honestly say what a joy it is to see the excellent and knowledgeable Minister in his place, and I very much look forward to his contribution. When we go to vote, I hear people from all parties saying that he is a really good Minister. There is consensus of support across the Chamber, which comes from the way he deals with the questions put to him. It is quite an achievement, and I congratulate him on that.
I am also very pleased to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), in his place. He brings a wealth of knowledge on this subject, and I look forward to his contribution as well.
In Northern Ireland, the higher education division formulates policy and administers funding to support education, research and related activities in the Northern Ireland higher education sector. Unlike other parts of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland has no higher education funding council; the Department for the Economy fulfils the roles of both a Government Department and a funding council. In Northern Ireland, 77.8% of school pupils will go on to study in some form of higher education setting, whether that be through a regional college, university or education-based apprenticeships.
I have a very good working relationship with my local technical college and Ken Webb, its chief executive; we talk regularly about these matters. I understand that the students the college produces are excellent, and their potential to gain jobs is also there, so there is good continuity from education to employment. Within the higher education division in Northern Ireland, there are many sectors that fall into this category, including the student support branch, student finance branch, research and knowledge branch, and many more.
I am minded, as I often am when I talk about education—the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle referred to this, and I am sure others will as well—that the students of today, after all, are the leaders of tomorrow, whether they be politicians, teachers, business leaders or, as in my constituency, farmers. The opportunities are there. We need to encourage and assist the next generation and give them help along the way. That is important.
The Office for Students and other bodies aim to do their best to represent the individual student on many issues: student finance, employability opportunities—I am glad to say that I see evidence of just how good those are—careers advice, which is also excellent, partnerships, collaboration, and much more. Support for higher education is crucial, as it encourages pupils to stay in university and complete their course. According to the Education Data Initiative, around 40% of undergraduate students each academic year leave or drop out of their chosen university course. Those figures are crazy. It is so important that these opportunities are not wasted for others who have been dying—a word I often use—to go to university to gain the opportunity to do better educationally.
I am here to support the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle. I want to conclude by saying that this subject is so important and this debate has been vital. The hon. Lady has illustrated its importance in all aspects of higher education, and I am pleased to add my contribution. I thank the Department for Economy back home for all the work it does in this sector. I know that the Minister always responds to these things, so I have only one question for him, which hopefully he can respond to here. Will he ensure that discussions are undertaken regularly with all the devolved Administrations, in particular the Northern Ireland Assembly, so that we can keep our support for him and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle at what is already an all-time high?
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Maria. As has been mentioned, the Office for Students, which is the independent regulator for higher education providers, is a relatively new addition to the regulatory landscape in the UK and was formed back in January 2018. I think I am right in saying that this is the first opportunity that MPs have had to debate the regulator since the passage of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017. Here we are five years on, with this well-timed and possibly well overdue debate about what is happening in the landscape.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) not just on securing the debate, but on her absolutely comprehensive and thorough dissection of the issues, which ranged from the burden of bureaucracy, the concerns about consultation and how it is handled, the questions about the future measurement of quality across the sector, and many points in between, which I will elaborate on. I thank my friend, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for his contribution and for reminding us of some of the distinct characteristics of higher education provision in Northern Ireland.
Before I build on some of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, I want to stress the importance of good, fair-minded, proportional regulation, which is needed in any sector, especially the higher education sector. For a sector that benefits from £30 billion in income from public money, educates over 2 million students and contributes £52 billion to our GDP, supporting more than 800,000 jobs, the need for regulation is clearly self-evident. To that end, the Higher Education and Research Act lays important foundations for the inception of the Office for Students. It is important to stress that almost no one I have met working in the sector has ever questioned the need for regulation. Indeed, as Universities UK says:
“we support the objectives of the OfS and believe its statutory duties are clear and appropriate”.
However, five years on from HERA, four of the main representative groups—MillionPlus, GuildHE, University Alliance and the Russell Group—have felt compelled to write to the Chair of the Education Committee, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), expressing
“growing concerns that the OfS is not implementing a fully risk-based approach, that it is not genuinely independent and that it is failing to meet standards we would expect from the Regulators’ Code.”
The establishment of any regulator, especially one that so markedly departs from the role of the previous funding agency, is bound to have some teething problems. But when we have reached the point at which stakeholders are joining forces to raise concerns that the House of Lords Industry and Regulators Committee has launched an inquiry into, and when MPs feel compelled to raise the issue in Westminster Hall, then something has clearly gone awry. The question is: what?
Regulators are most successful when they are able to exercise a proportionate degree of authority over the sector they regulate. Authority stems from trust, which in turn reinforces the authority of the regulator. The two go hand in hand; they are mutually reinforcing. In part, this issue stems from the structure of the OfS—for example, in not having adequate avenues to allow stakeholders to offer feedback on its own performance as a regulator. The OfS’s provider refresh strategy is therefore broadly welcome, but part of the mistrust stems from a perception—and I think it is a perception—that the regulator is too easily at the beck and call of Ministers, stretching the epithet “independent regulator of higher education” to its very limit.
Most obviously, as we have heard, the chair of the Office for Students, Lord Wharton, is seen as a plainly political appointment, having little experience in the sector while maintaining the Conservative Whip in the Lords. The potential conflict of interest is plain. That he has visited only five universities since his appointment may suggest that his interest lies less in the promotion of the sector and more in occupying a public office to shape the sector to his party’s wishes. Certainly, his failure to declare an interest as a significant donor to Ben Houchen’s campaign to be the Tees Valley Mayor when interviewing and appointing Rachel Houchen as a non-executive director supports that hypothesis.
They say that a fish rots from the head down—incidentally, the last time that I used that expression in this House was in relation to the Government of the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson). There is a perception that the OfS is straying too far into the political fray at several levels. Take the student panel, for example, which was mentioned earlier. Last week, the former student panel members gave evidence to the Lords Committee. They claimed that
“an acute focus on free speech in regulatory activities was politically motivated rather than being based on the concerns of the student body”,
and strongly indicated that the student voice, as expressed by panel members, was “actively suppressed” when trying to counter aims and policies that appeared to be political in nature.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) talked about the student voice being marginalised. I have frequently thought that the Office for Students is a misnomer. Surely, if it was truly a regulator for students, they would be given greater priority in decision making and greater oversight, and they would turn to it more often and would feel that their priorities—such as the cost of living, student mental health, and sexual harassment and violence on campus—were being given the utmost priority. Given the seriousness of the accusations that have been made, I would welcome the Minister’s personal commitment that he will ensure that the student panel and voice are fully respected within the OfS structure and the regulations that it makes, as schedule 1 to HERA demands.
Another common theme emerging from my conversations around the sector concerns the regulatory burden. Under HERA, the OfS is required to ensure that ongoing registration conditions are proportionate to the OfS’s assessment of the regulatory risk posed by the institution. The OfS has termed this “risk-based regulation”. That is an eminently sensible approach to take, but unfortunately it is one that belies reality.
As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, data gathering is being massively duplicated. To give some anonymous examples, as we have heard earlier, I am informed that, for the 2022 Higher Education Statistics Agency data return, one member reported having to provide 59,000 student records, which equates to 7.2 million individual data fields—an increase from 4.5 million in 2019. We have heard that another provider has 10 full-time equivalent staff supporting regulatory compliance, at a cost of £440,000. Another has estimated that the total cost in regulatory activities equates to £1.1 million in the year 2022-23. So the burden is both concentrated and widespread, particularly when taking into account the reporting requirements of other regulatory bodies.
When it comes to degree apprentices, as we have heard, apprenticeship providers are often subject to four, or possibly five, separate regulatory bodies and demands: the OfS, the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education or IFATE, the Education and Skills Funding Agency, and Ofsted. The effects on smaller institutions are clearly greater, as these absorb more and more resources to the detriment of the student experience. Over a year ago, the Minister’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), launched the HE data reduction taskforce, which of course is very welcome, to tackle this very issue. I would be grateful if the Minister updated us on when the taskforce last met, when it next plans to meet and what steps he is taking to ensure that new initiatives, most importantly lifelong learning, do not bog down providers in an even greater regulatory quagmire.
In raising these concerns, I do not intend to discredit the important work that the regulator has done in some areas. The recent work on access and participation plans, for example, and the launch of the equality of opportunity risk register could prove transformational in improving the experience of higher education for students from a widening range of backgrounds. Likewise, a good deal of work has to be done behind closed doors by necessity; managing the financial sustainability of providers is the clearest example. To that end, I was pleased to read the case study note provided by the OfS yesterday about how it is managing financially precarious institutions, which are increasing at an alarming rate under the current Government. I should not need to remind the Minister that the proportion of providers with an in-year deficit increased from 5% in 2015-16 to 32% in 2019-20.
In conclusion, the need for regulation is absolutely obvious; indeed, good regulation is needed to generate confidence, trust and investment in the sector from domestic students, international students, businesses, government and research bodies. However, the relationship between the OfS and the sector is at an all-time low. It did not start at a particularly high level. Trust and confidence is crucial in a regulator, and I am afraid that there are profound concerns across the piece. I have met with the OfS, and I appreciate that moves are afoot to try and reset the relationship and restore confidence. I very much welcome that. Trust and authority are hard-won and quickly lost. To that end, I would welcome the Minister’s response on the following points, as well as those I raised earlier.
What steps is the Minister taking to reassure the sector that the era of heavy-handed political involvement in the regulator is at an end? What plans does he have to raise the registration fees to accommodate additional duties on the OfS? What assessment has he made of any increase on institutional financial sustainability and the student experience? Finally, what assessment has he made of whether the OfS provides value for money, judged against the objectives that Parliament legislated for it, and by comparison with peers in the regulatory sector?
The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education (Robert Halfon)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Dame Maria. I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) on securing this debate. It feels a bit like groundhog day, because we served together on the Education Committee. I have the highest regard for her work, not just on higher education but on special educational needs and disabilities, mental health and post-16 education. I am very happy to be debating the important matter of the OfS with her. I have had the privilege of visiting Ron Dearing University Technical College in her constituency, which is doing an incredible job in transforming the lives of thousands of students.
Before following through on the OfS issues, I want to begin by setting out how I see higher education, because it very much forms the architecture of what we are talking about today. Higher education of course plays many important roles in our society—developing people’s education and academic talents, academic knowledge, and world-class research and innovation, which are absolutely important—but for me the three key things are meeting the skills needs of the economy, providing high-quality qualifications leading to excellent, well-paid jobs, and advancing social justice. What I mean by that is ensuring that everyone, regardless of their background, can not only access high-quality education, but complete their studies and get good skills and knowledge, and jobs at the end. The OfS is essential to upholding the quality and ensuring the success of the higher education system and the aims that I have suggested.
Before I turn to the OfS specifically, it is important to briefly highlight the fact that we have an ambitious skills agenda, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle pointed out, with £3.8 billion of extra investment over the Parliament. We are using that to expand and strengthen both higher education and further education. We are investing an extra £750 million in the HE sector up to 2025, to support high-quality teaching and facilities, particularly in science and engineering subjects, and to support NHS and degree apprenticeships. The hon. Member’s university, the University of Hull, is receiving more than £10 million in the strategic priorities grant, so I hope that she is pleased about that.
There is also, of course, the money that goes to UK Research and Innovation, which is £25 billion over the spending review. That is £6.2 billion for Research England, which funds our higher education institutions. The latest estimate shows that the income of English higher education providers in 2021 from tuition fees in education was £21.6 billion, which was 55% of the total income of £39.77 billion.
I was going to talk about the Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill, as I thought it would come up, but we have plenty of time next week when we discuss the Bill on Report and Third Reading. The Bill will be very important, because the lifelong loan entitlement will provide everyone with a loan of up to £37,000 to do flexible and modular learning. There will be level 4, level 5 and level 6 provision, and it will start with level 4 and level 5. The OfS and the new register of FE colleges will provide the LLE, and those owners will have an important role.
Let me turn to the OfS and its vital work to support the Government’s priorities. I commend the activity of the OfS, for the most part, over the last five years to put in place the regulatory framework and to register providers. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle talked about the cost, which boils down to just under £13 per student. She also talked about regulation, and I completely get that. I am not a believer in small or big Government; I believe in good Government. I am not a believer in loads of regulation or low regulation, but in good regulation. To be fair to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), he said that as well.
Of course, I recognise that regulation creates a burden for those being regulated, but it is important that the benefit of regulation outweighs the burden. Seeking to minimise the regulatory burden is a key focus. It is set out in the strategy to 2025. I wanted to go as far as possible in doing so. The OfS has already taken significant steps to reduce the data burden it places on providers. In 2022, it removed the need for all providers to send monitoring returns for access and participation plans. It significantly reduced its enhanced monitoring requirements, which are now less than a quarter of what they were in 2019. It has published its intention to become increasingly risk-based in the way it monitors compliance. It also plans to vary further the regulatory requirements placed on individual providers according to the risks they pose, which will affect the impact of its regulation on those that pose the highest risk.
In terms of the regulation of small providers, of course the OfS does apply the same requirements for all types of providers. Whatever provider they go to, students should expect the same quality of education outcomes, protection and support to complete their courses. I accept that the regulatory burden should be minimised, including for small providers, and the OfS has a plan to minimise it. When it does so, it must have regard to the regulation code principles on determining general policy. The regulation code is less relevant to the work of the OfS when carrying out individual investigations and taking enforcement action, but it does take compliance very seriously.
OfS fees are tiered by student numbers, so providers with fewer numbers, such as FE colleges, will pay less in fees. In response to the question from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, we are reviewing the high cost per student for smaller providers when we consider the fees for 2024-25. We are considering those general fees at this time.
On the important point about the QAA, it chose to withdraw consent for designation. If the English system is not in line with the European standard, it is because we do not have cyclical reviews, which we consider disproportionate in terms of regulation. As the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle highlighted, the OfS will take on the quality assessment role in the interim, while consideration is given to a permanent arrangement. I have met university stakeholders to discuss those issues.
Robert Halfon
I will in a minute. I have a fair bit to add and want to make the following point, because the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is so kind and comes to a lot of these debates on education and skills, as well as many other debates. I will have dialogue with the regulatory bodies. I was planning to visit them when visiting for the anniversary of the Northern Irish agreement, but unfortunately my slip was withdrawn because I had to vote in the House of Commons. Otherwise, I would have been there and visited universities and colleges in Northern Ireland. I very much hope that I will be able to make that visit. I note that at Queen’s University Belfast, 99% of the research environment is world leading and internationally excellent. I think it is No. 108 in the world, so congratulations to Queen’s University.
Robert Halfon
I have a lot more to day, but I will give way to the hon. Member for Sheffield Central now.
Paul Blomfield
I thank the Minister for giving way. I agree with the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that the Minister is widely respected for his work on education and his appointment to this job was welcomed. But I want to return to my earlier point about the OfS’s regulatory approach. When I debated the establishment of the OfS in Bill Committee with the Minister’s predecessor, I argued that we had a reasonable regulatory framework—the Higher Education Funding Council for England. The Minister at the time argued that it was important to put students at the heart of regulation. That is why it was called the Office for Students. Does the Minister agree that, if it is to live up to that name, it should do what it says and give a much stronger voice for students in the whole process of regulation? He does not agree with my concern that students have been marginalised, but will he set out how we could give students a stronger place in the OfS’s approach to regulating the sector?
Robert Halfon
That is an important question, and the hon. Gentleman is one of the key higher education spokesmen in the House of Commons. I am absolutely supportive of student representation. The student panel is incredibly important. I made a decision as a Minister to interview one of the members of the student panel. I did not have to do that—I could have just ticked the submission and said that Mr X or Ms X is fine—but I took proactive interest, because it is incredibly important to do so.
I met the student panel, and I want it to have a voice. I went to an OfS event in the House of Commons a couple of weeks ago. I spent time chatting to the student panel, which is essential in this. As long as it is used properly and listened to, it is the best conduit for ensuring that student voices are heard. The student panel has teeth. I will keep a watch over it, even though the OfS is independent and I do not have operational control. It is a bit like the police: the Mayor of London might have a say over the chief constable, but he does not necessarily tell them what to do day by day. Nevertheless, the student panel is incredibly important, so I accept what the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) says.
The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston asked me about the taskforce. It last met in full in June 2022, and there has been a subsequent meeting of arms-length bodies, separately, to discuss progress and to identify areas of work to take forward.
There is plenty of evidence to suggest that higher education is preparing students for high-quality employment: three quarters of graduates from full-time first degree courses progressed into high-skilled employment or further study 15 months after graduating in 2020. But more must be done to tackle the pockets of poor quality that persist, and the OfS is committed to doing that. The OfS has revised its registration conditions in relation to quality and standards to ensure that they are robust, and it is rightly now taking action to investigate and enforce those conditions.
We want to ensure that students see returns on their investment in higher education. The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that the net lifetime return from an undergraduate degree is £100,000 for women and £130,000 for men, but it should be noted that the IFS has also found that 25% of male graduates and 15% of female ones will take home less money over their careers than peers who do not get an undergraduate degree. I think that graduates should be achieving outcomes that are consistent with the qualifications that they have completed and paid for.
To give an opposing example, it is a testament to the genuinely excellent teaching and leadership at the University of Hull that nursing and midwifery students experience the highest progression rate—98%—compared to all other OfS-registered HE providers with available progression data, and that the university has performed above the OfS threshold for continuation, completion and progression. I say those things to highlight not just the brilliant work of the University of Hull but the important work that the OfS is doing. Without the work of the OfS, we would not have that kind of information.
I talked about social justice, which is very important to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle and to me. I want to ensure that no student is excluded from higher education because of their background. A wider point has been made about us putting extra burdens on the OfS, but it has recently launched the equality of opportunity risk register to highlight key risks that can impact negatively on disadvantaged and under-represented student groups across the whole of the student lifecycle. That is an extra thing for the OfS to do, but I want it to happen. I am delighted with that. I do not like the name “risk register”, but nevertheless the principle is really important. It will empower higher education providers to develop effective interventions and support at-risk students, helping them not only get in but get on. I have a lot more to day about Hull University. It really is doing some remarkable things, and I hope to be able to go there one day and see it.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle cares deeply about mental health. We have allocated £15 million from the strategic priorities grant to the OfS for mental health support. That is another OfS duty and its purpose is to support students’ wellbeing when they transition to university, and to create opportunities for partnerships between providers and the national health service. The OfS has a role to play in funding Student Space, an online platform for mental health and wellbeing resources. The OfS also runs a mental health challenge competition with Northumbria University. It has supported projects to ensure that mental health needs are identified by providers. That is another important role for the OFS. Yes, the OfS has increased its role, but it is doing really important things that will make a difference to many students’ lives.
I knew that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle would bring up degree apprenticeships. I have some sympathy with what she says; there is too much regulation, and all I can say to her is to please watch this space. I am looking at it very carefully to see what can be done. Of course, we also have to maintain quality, because if we do not have quality, I will have the shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, get up in Education questions and ask why apprenticeship provision is so poor. The hon. Lady will be pleased that over the next two years we will increase from £8 million to £40 million—£16 million in the first year, and £24 million in the second—the funding to promote degree apprenticeships among providers. I know she will support that extra funding.
A House of Lords inquiry has criticised the OfS registration fees for being too high. As I have mentioned, however, in the light of the Government’s commitment to funding skills over the Parliament, the OfS registration fees offer value for money. It is currently around £26 million a year, which is less than £13 per student. I do not think that feels like a high price to pay to ensure that we have a high-quality system working in the interests of students.
In conclusion, the work of the Government, which I have outlined, and of the OfS regulator will continue to deliver on skills, jobs and social justice. I accept that there is over-regulation—the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle highlighted some unnecessary regulation that I will look at with officials at the Department for Education. However, we have a world-class higher education sector. I am not complacent about it. I acknowledge that there is not enough in some areas, and that some graduates are not getting good, skilled jobs, but many—in fact, most—higher education providers deliver a top-class education and equip students with the skills they need to get excellent jobs. I am clear that a robust and fair regulator—a good regulator—is vital to ensuring that our higher education sector remains world leading and protects students and the taxpayer.
I think that the OfS has achieved a fair bit in the first five years of its existence. It has registered 400 providers. It has also registered the new Dyson Institute, which is—
Robert Halfon
Very good. I have been to that university. I met James Dyson some years ago when I was the Chair of the Education Committee. It was extraordinary. I hope that there will be many more examples of universities like that one. The Department will work closely with the OfS to ensure that we continue supporting a world-class higher education system. As I said, I remain committed to delivering on skills, jobs and social justice. The OfS will be an absolutely crucial part of that.
Matt Western
I was hoping that the Minister could cover the three questions I raised at the end.
Matt Western
There was one about political interference, which may be difficult for the Minister to answer. Could I go back to the second question? It was about whether he had any plans to raise registration fees. I also had a question about an assessment of the value for money that the OfS represents, particularly in the context of other regulators.
Robert Halfon
I am happy to answer. I think I said that we are considering OfS registration fees and that I will come back about that matter in due course. I do not recognise any political interference. Since becoming a Minister, I have had meetings with the OfS chief executive and chair, and we have literally just discussed what needs to be done to make sure that the organisation continues its work and that we continue to have a world-class university system.
I beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon—what was the third point?
Robert Halfon
Ah, yes. I think the OfS is providing value for money. First, as I mentioned, the cost to students is just under £13, which represents value for money. More importantly, what are the outcomes? If we have great universities, as we do, and we are meeting the country’s skills needs, promoting degree apprenticeships and acting further on mental health and other areas, including social justice, to make sure that disadvantaged students have the right outcomes, as we are, then the OfS will absolutely be providing value for money.
Emma Hardy
I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate. The Minister knows how to charm me: he talked about how good Hull University is, and of course I agree. That brings me to my favourite fact about it: there are more graduates from Hull University in the Houses of Parliament than from any other university, partly because of its internship programme.
Nobody minds bureaucracy and paperwork if their purpose is seen as improving outcomes for students; as a teacher, I never minded that. The core of the issue is that although some OfS bureaucracy does make a difference—I share the Minister’s thoughts about the equality risk register—so much of it does not improve outcomes for students. In fact, it has a detrimental impact as it drives resources and energy away from the necessary focus on students. I welcome the fact that the Minister is going to look at some of my examples.
On the issue of the chair of the OfS, I should say that the Minister and I served together for a few years on the Education Committee—he cares about education, as does everyone in this room. I just believe that we deserve an OfS chair who genuinely cares about education as much as we all do.
Dame Maria Miller (in the Chair)
Before I put the question, I offer a sincere apology to the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). I started the debate six minutes early because I knew that we would fill every moment, but I could see that he had made every effort to be here by 4.30 pm. I hope he will understand that, in starting early as we did, we gave the debate an extra few minutes—including an extra few minutes’ scrutiny of the Minister, which I am sure the Minister appreciated.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the Office for Students.
Written Statements
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Post Office Horizon Compensation
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)
On 23 March my Department launched its compensation scheme which aims to ensure that postmasters affected by the Post Office Horizon scandal who were part of the “GLO” High Court case get compensation on a similar basis to other postmasters.
To ensure that postmasters get fair, consistent and rapid compensation, the GLO Compensation Scheme Guidance and Principles document identifies the characteristics of moderate, serious and severe losses in some categories of compensation, including reputational damage and stigma, and gives figures indicating the likely range of awards. In the light of media comments on those figures I asked the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board to consider the matter. The group includes the right hon. Member for North Durham (Kevan Jones) and Lord Arbuthnot as well as two senior academics.
A report of the Board’s discussion is now available on the Department’s website. It recommends that the GLO Compensation Scheme’s guidance and principles should be amended to make it clear that:
The bands are not limits but indicative guidance to claimants, their lawyers and the Independent Panel.
Each case will be decided on its merits.
The GLO Compensation Scheme expects to find some cases where the facts of the case demand awards significantly higher than the upper figure for the top band.
If a claimant’s compensation cannot be agreed through the Alternative Dispute Resolution process, they have the right to have it considered by the Independent Panel including a KC and other experts.
As for other aspects of compensation, where the guidance and principles set out bands, decisions will be taken by DBT and the Independent Panel based on the facts of each case looked at “in the round” and guided by considerations of fairness.
I am happy to accept these recommendations. My Department will publish a revised version of the guidance and principles in due course.
[HCWS742]
School Funding
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Schools (Nick Gibb)
Mainstream Schools Additional Grant
Today, the Department will publish the school-level allocations of the mainstream schools additional grant.
The autumn statement announced additional investment of £2 billion in each of 2023-24 and 2024-25, over and above funding announced at the 2021 spending review for schools in England. This means funding for both mainstream schools and high needs is £3.5 billion higher in 2023-24, compared to 2022-23.
Of the additional £2 billion provided at the autumn statement, £400 million is being allocated to local authorities’ high-needs budgets. The rest is being allocated to schools through a new grant for mainstream schools, the mainstream schools additional grant, and by increasing pupil premium funding rates.
The grant represents a significant funding increase for schools, worth an average 3.4% per pupil in 2023-24, on top of the allocations based on the schools national funding formula announced in July 2022. Through this new grant, a typical primary school with 200 pupils will receive approximately £35,000 in additional funding, and a typical secondary school with 900 pupils approximately £200,000.
National Funding Formula
Today the Department will also publish the Government’s response to the consultation on implementing the “direct” schools national funding formula.
Once the direct national funding formula is fully implemented, the Department will determine funding allocations for schools directly, without adjustment through local authorities’ funding formulae. The introduction in 2018-19 of the national funding formula for mainstream schools was a crucial step towards a fairer funding system. The changes set out in the Government’s response to the consultation will make the system fairer still and support the transition to the direct national funding formula.
The Government response summarises views raised by respondents to the consultation, and confirms two reforms that will commence in 2024-25, as part of the transition towards the direct national funding formula.
First, we are reforming funding for schools which operate across more than one site through a national formulaic approach to split sites within the national funding formula. This will ensure that funding is allocated consistently and fairly across England, and that all eligible schools attract funding towards the additional costs they face. This replaces the current system whereby only some of these schools receive additional funding, depending on local funding arrangements.
Secondly, we are making funding for schools which see significant increases in their pupil numbers more consistent across the country, by setting minimum levels of additional funding that every eligible school will receive.
I will place copies of the Government response on the national funding formula consultation in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS744]
New Decade, New Approach: Third Update
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Heaton-Harris)
During the passage of the Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Act in the House of Lords, the Government committed to making a written ministerial statement every six months setting out the commitments in New Decade, New Approach (NDNA) we have delivered on to date. The first of these statements was published on 23 March 2022 and the second on 20 October 2022. This is the third statement.
The NDNA agreement facilitated the restoration of the devolved institutions in January 2020 after three years of hiatus. It is deeply disappointing that Northern Ireland once again is in a period of political stalemate. Since the last statement, the UK Government have delivered the Windsor Framework, which fundamentally amends the text and provisions of the original Northern Ireland Protocol. This agreement delivers free-flowing trade within the whole United Kingdom, protects Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom and safeguards the sovereignty for the people of Northern Ireland. It is now for the Northern Ireland parties to move forward and deliver the strong, accountable devolved institutions that those who elect them expect and deserve.
The UK Government will always work to uphold the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement and support political stability in Northern Ireland. To that end, we have continued to implement the commitments we signed up to in NDNA. Since January 2020, the UK Government have:
published four reports on the use of the Petition of Concern mechanism;
passed the Northern Ireland (Ministers, Elections and Petitions of Concern) Act to implement the institutional reforms agreed in NDNA;
passed the Internal Market Act 2020;
held a meeting of the Board of Trade in Northern Ireland;
announced an £18.9 million investment in NI’s Cyber Security industry, supporting NI’s development as a global cyber security hub and the target of achieving 5000 cyber security professionals working in Northern Ireland by 2030;
renegotiated the Protocol and restored the free-flow of trade from Great Britain to Northern Ireland through a new green lane, ensuring that Northern Ireland remains an integral part of the UK internal market;
ensured that Northern Ireland can access the trade deals the UK is striking across the world;
invited representatives of the Northern Ireland Executive to all meetings of the UK-EU Joint and Specialised Committees;
changed the rules governing how the people of Northern Ireland bring their family members to the UK, enabling them to apply for immigration status on broadly the same terms as family members of Irish citizens;
appointed Danny Kinahan as the first Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner in September 2020;
passed the Armed Forces Act which further enshrines the Armed Forces Covenant in law; conducted a thorough review of the aftercare service, the purpose of which was to consider whether the remit of the service should be widened to cover all HM forces veterans living in Northern Ireland with service-related injuries and conditions;
marked Northern Ireland’s centenary in 2021 with a £3 million programme of cultural and historical events, including the delivery of the Shared History Fund and schools planting project; brought forward regulations to ensure designated Union Flag flying days remain in line with those observed in the rest of the UK;
recognised Ulster Scots as a National Minority under the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities;
provided £2 million in funding for NI Screen’s Irish Language and Ulster Scots Broadcast funds, which support a range of film, television and radio programming;
established a new hub—Erskine House—in the heart of Belfast, increasing the visibility and accessibility of UK Government Departments in Northern Ireland;
reviewed the findings of the Renewable Heat Incentive Inquiry Report to consider its implications for the use of public money in Northern Ireland; and
continued to foster closer ties and better collaborative working across sectors such as tourism, sport and culture, including through the joint UK and Ireland bid to host the 2028 European Championships.
The UK Government have provided a total financial package of £2 billion for New Decade, New Approach. This financial package includes a £1 billion Barnett-based investment guarantee for infrastructure investment and £1 billion in funding across key priorities as set out in the deal. Of the £1 billion in funding, over £769 million has been spent towards such outcomes as:
bringing an end to the nurses’ pay dispute in January 2020;
securing additional funding for the Executive in the 2020-21 financial year;
the creation of a new Northern Ireland Graduate Entry Medical School in Londonderry;
supporting the transformation of public services;
supporting low carbon transport in Northern Ireland, enabling the Department for Infrastructure to commit to ordering 100 low-carbon buses to be deployed in Belfast and Londonderry; and
addressing Northern Ireland’s unique circumstances through projects and programmes that tackle paramilitarism, promote greater integration in education, support economic prosperity, and support linguistic diversity.
We have investigated options for the Connected Classrooms and Homecoming programmes and concluded that there is no viable delivery route for either programme that meets the key requirements of regularity, propriety, value for money and feasibility. Delivery of these programmes will, therefore, not be pursued at this time, although this will be kept under review.
Finally, in the absence of Executive progress on the matter, the UK Government passed the Identity and Language (Northern Ireland) Act in order to progress NDNA commitments relating to identity and language. This Act includes provisions to support the establishment of the Castlereagh Foundation.
The Government will continue to deliver their commitments and look forward to working with a restored Executive on the opportunities ahead.
[HCWS743]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes, as I am sure your Lordships know.
Flags (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Caine
That the Grand Committee do consider the Flags (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.
Instrument not yet reported by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Caine) (Con)
My Lords, the regulations before your Lordships today seek to align flag-flying days in Northern Ireland with the rest of our United Kingdom. A number of changes have recently been made to designated flag-flying days across the UK, following the sad passing of Her late Majesty the Queen in September last year.
The updated list of designated flag-flying days for 2023 was published by DCMS on 9 February. It states that all dates related to Her late Majesty the Queen are removed and several new entries relating to His Majesty the King are added, including the Coronation Day on 6 May, a week on Saturday. There will be a new flag-flying day for the birthday of the Queen and the date of the Prince of Wales’s birthday will be amended.
The Flags Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000 provided that on certain designated days the union flag and, in certain circumstances, other flags must be flown on government buildings. For the purposes of these regulations, a Northern Ireland government building is one that is occupied wholly or mainly by members of the Northern Ireland Civil Service. The 2000 regulations also set out a number of so-called specified buildings at which the union flag must be flown on the designated days in question. Those buildings were chosen as they are the headquarters of Northern Ireland government departments. In 2002, the provisions were extended to court buildings in Northern Ireland. A number of noble Lords will recall that the New Decade, New Approach document of January 2020 contained a UK Government commitment to align flag-flying days across the whole United Kingdom.
The regulations before your Lordships today will align flag-flying in Northern Ireland with this updated DCMS guidance and the policy followed across the rest of the UK. Prior to publishing the list of designated days, DCMS consulted a range of interested parties and individuals; I can confirm that the updated designation days reflect the wishes of the Palace. Last year, some noble Lords voiced their disappointment that the number of designated flying days was being reduced. These new dates will increase the number of flag-flying days in Northern Ireland by two, bringing the total to 10.
Our approach to flag flying in Northern Ireland through the flags regulations has consistently sought, as I have set out on a number of occasions, to reflect Northern Ireland’s clear and unambiguous constitutional status as an integral part of our United Kingdom, as well as the reality of the different political aspirations that exist across society. The Secretary of State referred the draft regulations to the Assembly on 17 February, as he is required to do, but as the Assembly is not currently sitting, Members have been unable to report back in the usual manner. Taking this into consideration, the Secretary of State has committed to laying the Assembly’s report in Parliament should it be drafted at a later point. In addition, the Secretary of State wrote to all Northern Ireland political leaders to allow a further opportunity for elected representatives to express their views on this issue. I am pleased to report that no concerns were raised.
The flags order of 2000 also requires that consideration be given by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to the Belfast agreement when making or amending the regulations. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is satisfied that these regulations have regard to the Belfast agreement and treat flags and emblems in a manner that is respectful of Northern Ireland’s particular circumstances. The Government will continue to ensure that our approach to flag flying reflects the sovereignty of the United Kingdom in Northern Ireland, and our overall commitments under the Belfast agreement. I look forward to hearing contributions from noble Lords today, I commend this instrument to the Committee and beg to move.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I have to say that of course flags are always a real difficulty in Northern Ireland. I am delighted that the Minister referred to the Good Friday agreement and the fact that this order should not in any way contravene the principles behind it of parity of esteem. I am also delighted to hear that, on consultation, no political parties in Northern Ireland offered any objection to this. Nor should there be. We on this side of the Committee will support the statutory instrument and do so willingly. It means that we can reflect, of course, on what the late Queen and the present King thought about Northern Ireland issues and how much they were involved in them.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
I apologise to your Lordships for jumping the queue; apparently, I should have been at the end rather than at the beginning. I particularly apologise to my very good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Rogan. I have known him for 26 years and this is the first time that, although we have not quite fallen out, something went wrong with our relationship.
I shall not keep your Lordships long; I shall simply say two things. Her late Majesty took a deep interest in the future of Northern Ireland. Interestingly, of course, she visited the Republic of Ireland in 2011 and made a huge impact not just there but in Northern Ireland. She was particularly interested in the peace process, as, of course, is His Majesty the King. From my experience, he would host dinners and other events at Hillsborough Castle on a number of occasions, and he took a deep interest in Northern Ireland, the peace process, and many other issues. It is fitting, having heard that no party has objected to the change to these regulations, that the King should know that there is unanimity in Northern Ireland about his position.
I have one point about the consultation. The Minister said that his Secretary of State has consulted the political parties in Northern Ireland, but, of course, he could not consult the Assembly because there is no Assembly. Last week, the Minister and I, and others, were in Belfast to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the Good Friday agreement. I hope that it is a matter of weeks or months —definitely not years—before we see the restoration of the institutions in Northern Ireland. I know that the King himself would be very much in favour of that, to see that there is stability and peace in Northern Ireland. He obviously does not comment on political issues in Northern Ireland, but all of us want some sort of settlement there. I hope that happens fairly soon.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, the flying of the union flag in Northern Ireland can sometimes be a contentious issue, but it should not be so. This month has seen a series of high-profile events in the Province to mark the 25th anniversary of the signing of the Belfast agreement. Friday 10 April 1998 is a day I remember well and with a certain degree of pride. As my late noble friend Lord Trimble said in his lecture when accepting the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo in 1998, the Belfast/Good Friday agreement
“showed that the people of Northern Ireland are no petty people. They did good work that day”.
Indeed they did, but as current and former Presidents and Prime Ministers have rightly insisted in different lectures over the past few weeks, the Belfast agreement was about mutual respect. It was also about not being petty. As such, I see no reason why anyone should object to the flying of the union flag in Northern Ireland, which the Belfast agreement enshrined as an integral part of the United Kingdom.
As we know, the regulations before us are being brought forward following the passing of Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II. She was a great friend and servant to Northern Ireland. The 19 year-old Princess Elizabeth first visited the Province of Ulster in 1945 as part of the victory tour after the Second World War. She was accompanied by her father, King George VI, and her mother, Queen Elizabeth. Two further visits followed before she ascended the Throne.
In all, she made 22 visits to Northern Ireland as our monarch. Her final trip, in June 2016, included a visit to Bushmills, where she unveiled a statue of local man Robert Quigg, who had received the Victoria Cross for gallantry in the face of the enemy in the Battle of the Somme. The royal visit and the unveiling of that monument was a proud day for a fiercely proud and loyal village in Portrush. After civilian service in the Army, Robert returned to Bushmills and was presented to Queen Elizabeth II when she visited Coleraine on her Coronation tour in 1953. That fact feels particularly poignant, given the reason we are debating these regulations today.
Looking at the detail of the regulations, it is understandable why the dates relating specifically to the life of Her late Majesty are being substituted for those relating to His Majesty King Charles III. However, surely it would have been appropriate to keep at least one of these dates in the calendar for the union flag to be flown in Northern Ireland in her glorious memory—either the date of Her late Majesty’s accession or her birthday seem most appropriate.
Noble Lords will have noticed that, while six dates are being removed from the regulations, they are being replaced by only five. I ask the Minister: would it not have made more sense for Monday 8 May, which will be a bank holiday in celebration of His Majesty’s Coronation, to also have been included? I see no logical argument against it and respectfully invite the Minister to try to prove me wrong.
While I have his attention, I also ask him for an assurance that these regulations will apply to Erskine House, with the union flag flying proudly above it on designated days as an absolute minimum. It defies comprehension that the headquarters of His Majesty’s Government in Northern Ireland does not currently fly the national flag. I hope that the Minister will confirm that it will now fly.
I am privileged to have been invited to attend the Coronation of His Majesty King Charles III next week. I am very much looking forward to it. I also look forward to the union flag flying from government buildings in Northern Ireland, including Erskine House, on 6 May, His Majesty’s Coronation Day, for many years to come. Long may he reign.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, there is nothing in these regulations that one could disagree with, so I am pleased to support them. As the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, said, the flying of flags and displaying of emblems in Northern Ireland can be, and is, an extremely contentious issue among Northern Ireland’s unfortunately divided community. In the past, we have seen it lead to civil disturbance; I hope those days have long passed. To reiterate what my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Rogan, said, in Northern Ireland government buildings are legally restricted to flying these flags on designated days, unlike the rest of the United Kingdom which has the option to fly the flag every day.
I too have a question for the Minister, who I know will be able to answer it well because he has had considerable experience in the Northern Ireland Office. It is over a year since the Northern Ireland Office relocated to its very fine building, Erskine House, in the centre of Belfast, which is eight storeys high. It is my understanding that Erskine House is not bound by these regulations. Can the Minister say whether the department has made any decision on whether to fly the flag every day, on the designated days, or not at all?
On the visit of the President of the United States to Belfast, which people welcomed, many have commented that his official state car did not display the union flag, which I understand is the normal protocol when a head of state visits. Perhaps the Minister can update me on what the protocol is.
Finally, for the celebrations of the Coronation, I am sure that those who wish to display the union flag will fly it with dignity and respect.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, it has been an interesting short debate. I too shall be brief because, clearly, the Liberal Democrats also support the regulations that we are debating today.
As other noble Lords have said, the debate is perhaps an opportunity to remember the late Queen Elizabeth II and all that she did to strengthen the United Kingdom and our relations with Ireland during that extremely historic visit.
I hope the Minister may recall that when we last debated designated flag days last September, I asked him whether further consideration had been given to adding to the number of days through commemorating the Battle of the Somme. Several noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, gave their support to the idea. Have the Government reached a view on adding that battle to the designated flag days?
While I support the regulations, I think it vital that we repeat the importance of respecting how people feel about the flag and its symbolism. I also support what the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, said about hoping that the Northern Ireland Assembly returns as soon as possible.
I sincerely hope that the Coronation goes smoothly and enjoyably, and that the festivities go well in Northern Ireland as well as elsewhere in the United Kingdom and the wider world.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to those who have contributed to this short but well-informed and important debate on the regulations before us. As seems customary on these occasions, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, with whom I concur on virtually everything he said. He and other speakers, including the noble Baroness, my noble friend Lord Rogan and the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont, rightly paid tribute to the legacy of Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth. Like other noble Lords, I was privileged to be present at some of those historic occasions; for example, the handshake in the Lyric Theatre in 2012 during the Diamond Jubilee tour of Northern Ireland. Like my noble friend Lord Rogan, I was also present at Bushmills on that day in 2016 when Her late Majesty unveiled the statue of Robert Quigg. It was a poignant and moving ceremony.
I agree also with what has been said about His Majesty the King and his deep commitment to Northern Ireland. Without in any way going into private conversations, I think we can all be confident that His Majesty will do everything to maintain the marvellous legacy of his late mother, whose ability to bring people together from across the community divide in Northern Ireland was a remarkable achievement. I am sure that will continue under His Majesty.
I also agree, of course, with the comments from the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, about the need to get the Assembly back up and running and this being an absolute priority. My noble friend Lord Rogan referred to the events of 25 years ago, with which he was intimately associated—as was the noble Lord who chaired strand 1 of the talks. He referred to the fact that we were together at Queen’s last week for some events to mark the 25th anniversary. It reminded us how important it is to get these institutions back up and running as quickly as possible so that we can start to build a Northern Ireland that works in the interests of the whole community there; that is the surest foundation for Northern Ireland’s position in the United Kingdom.
Code of Practice on the Recording and Retention of Personal Data in relation to Non-Crime Hate Incidents
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Murray of Blidworth
That the Grand Committee do consider the Code of Practice on the Recording and Retention of Personal Data in relation to Non-Crime Hate Incidents.
Relevant document: 35th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
My Lords, I begin by acknowledging that non-crime hate incidents have attracted a significant amount of controversy, particularly in this place, due to concerns relating to free speech. I am grateful to all those who expressed their views on this topic during the passage of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. The Government fully understand the strength of feeling on this matter, both within this House and among the public more widely, which is precisely why we laid this code before Parliament on 13 March.
Let me first explain that the collection of non-crime hate incident information is a key legacy of the Macpherson inquiry into the murder of Stephen Lawrence. This information pertains to incidents which are not crimes and provides the police with the means to understand tensions within communities or cases involving particular individuals before they can escalate into serious harm. In this respect, this data is vital for helping the police build intelligence to understand where they must target resources to prevent serious crimes or harms which may later occur.
This Government are absolutely clear that vulnerable individuals and communities must continue to be protected. However, non-crime hate incidents must never be used to inhibit lawful debate, and we must also be very careful about what information is kept on an individual’s record. This balance has unfortunately not always been struck, and this issue is precisely what the code is designed to address.
Free speech is a cornerstone of our democracy. This code addresses concerns that those who express views which some consider offensive but are not against the law are at risk of becoming the subject of a non- crime hate incident report, and that this may result in their personal data being stored on a policing record. It addresses those concerns by introducing new safeguards to ensure that personal data may be included in a non-crime hate incident record only if the event is clearly motivated by intentional hostility and where there is a real risk of escalation causing significant harm or a criminal offence.
To be recorded as a non-crime hate incident or NCHI, the police must judge that any perception of hostility is valid; the complaint must not be irrational, trivial or malicious. This will ensure that the police record NCHIs only when it is absolutely necessary and proportionate to do so, and not simply because someone is offended. The code also provides detailed guidance on freedom of expression. Clear case studies to illustrate how this fundamental right should be considered in practice by the police are also set out.
We are confident that the content of the code fully reflects the Court of Appeal’s judgment in the case of Harry Miller v College of Policing, which was handed down in December 2021. The court found that the recording of these incidents is lawful but must be subject to more robust safeguards to ensure that such recording is proportionate and protects free speech. As I have mentioned, this is exactly what the code provides. I particularly thank the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the College of Policing and senior police officers, who have engaged with Home Office officials throughout the drafting process to ensure that this code will work from an operational standpoint.
The College of Policing is also currently updating operational guidance for police on the recording of such incidents to ensure this guidance aligns with the new code. The college will also roll out the requisite training for police officers to ensure that the principles within the code are fully understood and embedded within everyday policing practice. This will ensure that the code is applied consistently by forces across England and Wales.
To reiterate, by taking these steps, we are protecting the vital changes that have been implemented by policing since the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. We continue to recognise the need to record intelligence that enables the police to intervene to prevent serious harms and future crimes, and we are determined to support the police in protecting the public. However, we have listened to the concerns raised in relation to the fact that this recording has at times gone too far, and we have acted on them. This code will better protect people’s fundamental right to freedom of expression, as well as their personal data, while still ensuring that vulnerable individuals and communities continue to be safeguarded. By bringing forward the code, we have also ensured that the process is subject to much-needed democratic scrutiny. With that, I commend the draft code to the Committee and beg to move.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I must begin by acknowledging the role of my noble friend Lord Moylan, who sadly cannot speak in this debate today. My noble friend moved amendments, which I supported, to the then Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill in the autumn of 2020. We sought to make the Secretary of State responsible for determining five things in particular: first, the basis on which the record of the incident is to be kept; secondly, how those sensitive records are to be kept; thirdly, for how long they are to be kept; fourthly, what provisions there would be for review; and, fifthly, to whom and on what basis the information on them might be disclosed.
I remind the Committee that, until now, there has been no formal basis to ensure a proper system for selecting and recording what is to be logged, what personal data are to be kept, or when, if ever, the matter is to be reviewed. Nor was there any consistent basis as to when the subject would be given the opportunity, if at all, to respond. This code of practice, made pursuant to what is now the Act, is therefore the first such code of practice on this important matter. Having read it with care, I commend it to the Committee and believe we should approve it. It addresses all our core points and it is good to have it on a proper statutory basis.
Looking forward, however, there are a number of things. We must keep the code of practice’s application under review. I understand that the number of reports which are now on record runs well into six figures—a very large number. Remember that the subjects have committed no crime, but in many cases their names have been recorded and remain recorded.
Lord Strathcarron (Con)
My Lords, I too pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Moylan for tabling the amendments that have enabled the Home Secretary to issue this new draft code. I repeat how much he regrets being unable to be with us today.
The need for reform of non-crime hate incidents is clear on many levels, one of which is that an estimated quarter of a million of these have been recorded, which works out at about 70 a day. One can only imagine the amount of non-crime police time this has used up. It is worth remembering that nothing illegal has been done during all this police time. The police have taken it upon themselves to monitor our thoughts and opinions, and if they do not like what they find they record against us. This is no trivial matter, as recordings will show up in DBS checks in perpetuity.
This use of resources was first highlighted when Amber Rudd, then Home Secretary, was reported by an Oxford professor for something she said during the Conservative Party conference. But I suspect what really brought everyone to horrified attention were the NCHIs recorded against four young schoolboys in Wakefield, one of them autistic, for accidentally dropping and scuffing a Koran, even though the head teacher found that there was no evidence of any malicious intent. The publicity around this case also brought to light the fact that NCHIs, unlike actual crimes, will not automatically be deleted from the young boys’ records when they reach the age of 18.
Not content with issuing non-crime hate incidents against the schoolboys, we then saw the chief constable appearing to promote the idea of blasphemy law and the public humiliation of the autistic boy’s mother. This is where we find ourselves when we start to police hurt feelings and not crime. So, while I very much welcome this new draft code of practice, my welcome comes with alarm bells ringing about the College of Policing’s reaction to it. It is worth remembering that the whole programme was an invention of the college in 2014 and that it has resisted every attempt at reform ever since, even spending an estimated £350,000 losing a Court of Appeal case against an ex-policeman who had been anonymously denounced for legally tweeting his opinion. At the end of the case, Mr Justice Knowles compared the police’s action to the Cheka, the Gestapo and the Stasi, and reminded the court:
“We have never lived in an Orwellian society”.
Now we have both the Home Office’s draft code of practice and the College of Policing’s interpretation of it, which raises the obvious question of why they are interpreting it at all. Surely, the intention of the Home Office was for this new code of practice to be adopted by the college as its operational guidance, not interpreted in its own way. This matters because the police act on guidance from the College of Policing and not on instruction from the Home Office.
The Home Office provides clear definitions of what constitutes a hate incident, including the requirement that there must be evidence of hostility and not just a vague and often anonymous impression that there has been some hostility. It also focuses on criminality, emphasising that not all incidents that may be perceived as offensive or hurtful should automatically be recorded. Importantly, it also clarifies how the data should be integrated into UK GDPR. To support all these clarifications, it provides 11 case studies as examples of how the new code would work in practice, predicting, as far as possible, real-life experiences that might be faced by officers. So far, so good. In fact, Stephen Watson, the Chief Constable of Greater Manchester, welcomed the guidance, saying:
“It is not automatically unlawful to say or do things which can be unpleasant, hurtful, distasteful or offensive. This guidance is replete with sensible provisions to safeguard victims of hate crime and better distinguishes between that which should involve the police and that which, in a free country, should emphatically not”.
As I said, so far, so good, but then comes the College of Policing’s interpretation of what the Home Office intended. In the Home Office’s code, these 11 examples recommended that in 63% of cases the police are explicitly advised not to record the hate incidents. In its interpretation, the college provides just eight examples and if their advice is followed, only 12.5% would not be recorded. In other words, we will be going back to the status quo ante if the police adopt the existing college code of practice, part of which has already been declared illegal by the Court of Appeal as it disproportionately interfered with free expression. The conclusion can only be that the college clearly believes that there should be stricter limits on free speech than Parliament has voted for, and so has invented new limits for itself and imposed them on us.
Quite why the College of Policing has become a law unto itself is unclear. Recently, it made headlines when it urged 43 different forces to decolonise their training materials and advised them to introduce gender-neutral facilities and become Stonewall champions to make themselves more attractive to transgender applicants, even though the most recent census showed that only 0.6% of the population is transgender. Meanwhile, the police in England and Wales last year solved just 5% of burglaries. No wonder the public are disillusioned with policing and could easily feel that everything seems to be policed except crime.
In conclusion, we should insist that the College of Policing follows the Home Office code in particular and, beyond that, concentrates far more on preventing and solving actual crime. I also suggest that the time is right for an inquiry into the college’s purpose and effectiveness, but that is for another time.
The Earl of Leicester (Con)
My Lords, I too commend the draft code of practice. The Home Office team has done an excellent job on it. My concern, like that of my noble friend Lord Strathcarron, is to do with the interpretation of the code of practice by the College of Policing.
To add further to what my noble friend was saying, seven of the eight scenarios in the College of Policing’s new guidance, its authorised professional practice, were found in the old guidance, which the Court of Appeal, in the Miller case, subsequently found to be unconstitutional because it had a chilling effect on freedom of speech. The police will not be schooled in the Home Office guidance once the college’s APP comes out; they will be schooled in the guidance given by the College of Policing. This means that we will be exactly where we were before.
The Home Secretary’s intention could not have been clearer—she wants officers to stop policing our tweets and start policing the streets—but the College of Policing now seems determined to thwart her. I ask the Minister whether the College of Policing is allowed to do this and, if so, what he and the Home Office can do to make it follow the guidance. Will they review the college’s own APP now that it is out and make sure that the college redoes it? Paragraph 11.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum sets this out very clearly:
“As set out in paragraph 6.2, operational guidance (known as APP) relating to the recording and retention of NCHIs is published by the College of Policing. An updated version will be produced when the code is approved by Parliament”.
I assume we are doing that today. It continues:
“This operational guidance will ensure that the principles provided by the NCHI Code are operationalised, thus creating consistency across all polices forces in England and Wales”.
I hope that the College of Policing will be required to do that.
I have a point to add on training. Following a freedom of information request to police forces in England and Wales on how many had conducted training on free speech, 78% of the police forces that responded said that they had done no training on Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights or on the free speech protections in our own common law. Conversely, 56% of the responding police forces said that equality, diversity and inclusion training was inextricably embedded in their training.
I absolutely commend this Government’s recruitment of 20,000 new police officers, which was a pledge made by Prime Minister Johnson a number of years ago, but it adds to the training issue. I understand that 38% of police officers have had less than five years of service. Training in freedom of speech is a real issue for the Home Office to address because it is really important that police officers understand how important it is to uphold the foundational values of freedom of expression in the democratic and liberal society in which we live.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, at the outset, I declare my interests as in the register. I am a member of the British Transport Police Authority but, for the avoidance of doubt, none of my comments is aimed at the British Transport Police, its officers or the authority.
I welcome this draft code of practice which, as we know, was legislated for in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. I too pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Moylan for his single-mindedness and persistence in pursuing this issue.
I was brought up in south-east London. I can absolutely understand the horror as a result of the tragic murder of Stephen Lawrence. The Macpherson inquiry was needed at the time. I sincerely believe that we have made huge progress in the way we treat all our citizens. Although the Metropolitan Police has had its issues recently, we have come a long way since that tragedy in 1993.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, I certainly do not want to oppose the adoption of this code but, as the Minister said, it is important that we look at it in a proportionate way, because it is important that these statistics are available to the police and to ensure that we have good communal relations. At the time of the terrorist attacks in Manchester, London and elsewhere it was extremely important that these statistics were available. I would not want—I am sure that noble Lords would not either—a message to go out today that this is to scrap the process of looking at non-crime hate incidents. It is important that we build up a picture and that we say, as my noble friend Lord Jackson just did in relation to Stephen Lawrence and the Macpherson inquiry, that it is recognised how important this is as the basis for acting. There is broad agreement across the country about that, and among police forces.
I do not want to have a pop at the College of Policing—I do not know the substance of what is alleged—but it is important that we preserve the sense of proportionality that is at the essence of this. It is easy to characterise something as Orwellian, but let us dig down to the truth of what is actually happening out there and the importance of keeping this information-gathering in communities up and down the country—communities perhaps not like the ones in which many of us live. Of course, freedom of speech is important, as is the point about not characterising people as criminals. I fully support that, which is why I think that these regulations and the code that we are looking at are so important.
I have a couple of questions for my noble friend the Minister. First, what is the cost of this whole exercise? I appreciate that he might not have the answer to that, so perhaps he can come back to me if he does not have the figures. Secondly, as my noble friend Lord Jackson mentioned, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee was critical of the process of consultation with regard to these regulations, on two, or possibly three, bases. Why was there not a formal consultation? With regard to the consultation that—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
My Lords, there is a Division in the Chamber. The Committee will adjourn. We understand that there are two back-to-back votes so, for the convenience of the House, we will reconvene in about 20 minutes, after both votes have taken place.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, this feels a little like that quiz programme, “Just a Minute”: I have now got the subject back and am trying to remember where I was.
I think I had made the point that there were criticisms of the consultation process by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which said:
“These Regulations are drawn to the special attention of the House on the grounds that there appear to be inadequacies in the consultation process which relates to the instrument”.
My noble friend Lord Jackson also raised this point. My points were, essentially, first, why there was not a thorough and full consultation; secondly, given that there was consultation with some bodies, why there was no feedback from that so that we had the benefit of the views of those bodies that were consulted; and thirdly, why those bodies were consulted and not others. We would have benefited from a fuller consultation and, given that there was not a fuller one, from better feedback in relation to those bodies that were consulted and responded.
With that, and bearing in mind what I said about the cost, I hope the Minister will be able to deal with those points.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is taking part remotely. I invite her to speak.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, in the Explanatory Memorandum, the Government say that they have consulted, although not formally, with “key policing stakeholders” but, as others have said, the Secondary Legislation Committee says in its 35th report that it asked the Home Office whether they had consulted more widely,
“for example, free speech advocates, those representing victims or data protection interest groups—and, if not, why was this not considered appropriate”.
The Government’s response worries me. They said:
“Given the democratic scrutiny that the code will be subject to and the comprehensive policing input received, the Government did not consult more widely”.
I will focus on how some of the other stakeholders might feel with the introduction of this. Parts of it are certainly welcome. My worry is about the boundaries between what are and are not non-crime hate incidents and other offences. I will come on to that.
At this point, I should declare that, as a disabled person who has used a wheelchair for a decade, I have been on the receiving end of hate crimes, non-crime hate incidents and, I am sorry to say, threatening behaviour and even assault. Some 15 years ago, I was also the victim of a harassment and stalking campaign sustained over a period of two years in which 100 incidents of escalating crimes—that is, nuisances then crimes—were committed, even though the initial incidents were not. So, as I read the code of practice, the boundaries between these different categories—especially in some of the examples, which are key to the education of officers in how they will assess what is and is not a non-crime hate incident—have raised questions.
The additional threshold test for the recording of data is helpful, especially if—as noted in paragraph 22 of the code of practice—the person
“who has experienced the incident is considered to be vulnerable”.
The existing guidelines on recognising vulnerability are extremely helpful and sensible, and to be commended. I ask the Minister: is the reference to vulnerability in the code strong enough, with only a passing reference to the guidelines then a need to click on a hyperlink?
This raises another concern: the examples focus on hate incidents, whether crime or non-crime, and ignore other considerations that police officers should perhaps address. In example D on page 15 of the code, which concerns a resident’s report of a number of NCHIs occurring in a dispute between neighbours, the wording in the box focuses entirely on whether or not to record these incidents as NCHIs. My issue is that other flags should be also raised about the neighbours’ dispute because of the volume of incidents reported. This certainly begins to look like harassment but the focus in the code is on the decision of whether to record.
The problem with harassment, especially that type of harassment, is that it escalates, often in a worsening pattern of behaviour. The early decision on whether or not to record is now weighed with the freedom of speech issue only. Part III of paragraph 31, on page 15 of the code, says:
“All recording authorities have a duty to balance the right to free expression … and/or a real risk that a future criminal offence may be committed against individuals or groups with a particular characteristic(s). All efforts should be made to avoid a chilling effect on free speech (including, but not limited to, lawful debate, humour, satire and personally held views)”.
My concern is with the phrase “all efforts”. The focus of that entire paragraph is free speech. Can the Minister assure me that the issues around an already visible pattern of behaviour—some criminal, some not—in a matter that might be, or progress to be, a crime of, say, affray, assault or harassment, are being considered only in terms of the narrow issue of crime/non-crime hate incidents and in relation to freedom of speech?
My next area of concern relates to two different points, one in paragraph 34 and one in example J, on pages 18 to 19 of the code. First, example J says:
“An individual who uses a wheelchair reports to the police that a man approached her during a house party and threatened her in circumstances that could amount to a crime under section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986. In doing so, the man also made derogatory comments about her disability. A police officer is of the view that this incident would have been recorded as a disability hate crime had this occurred in a public place given the demonstrable threat and hostility that was evident”.
The response to the scenario then focuses entirely on the Public Order Act not being enforceable in a private dwelling, therefore making the incident a non-crime hate incident, but says that, because of the threatening language and the possibility of future escalation, it should be processed and recorded.
I am horrified by this example. Assuming that threatening behaviour that could have amounted to a crime occurred, this is not just a Public Order Act offence. It could also be affray, assault or harassment, all of which are crimes. It also might not be a private event—as in a domestic one, implied by the use of “private dwelling”—even if it is in a private dwelling. If I went to a large party and was threatened—the word used at the beginning of the example—including with disability abuse, I as a victim would not understand why the Public Order Act negates my complaint. My concern would be about what just happened to me. Someone saying, “Sorry, madam, it just happened in the wrong place”, is not going to make me feel safer.
That is part of the problem with the lack of consultation with victims and community groups: this code is written for the police, with no understanding at all of where individual citizens and what happens to them fits in. Example J also illustrates a wider point for disabled people about how this code of practice will be viewed and operated, but it could equally apply to anyone with a protected characteristic.
About six years ago, I was waiting to exit through the wide ticket barriers at Euston. The woman in front of me was shouting down her phone and then, completely randomly, started to shout at me, complaining about my wheelchair being in her way and disabled people in general. This escalated into her trying to use a kick-boxing kick at me; fortunately, she missed me and hit the wheelchair, which I think left her worse off. Everyone else stood back until she ran off and then, too late, came to my aid. I had not said one word during this. I have to say that I was in shock. The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, will be pleased to hear that the British Transport Police was very helpful and supportive. The police found the CCTV and were absolutely clear that this was an attempt to assault me—the combination of shouting directly into my face and then the kick. They were also convinced that she targeted me because I was an easy target and disabled, so it was also recorded as a hate crime. But now the emphasis is on free speech.
As I read Example J, officers will spend their time focusing on whether it is or is not a hate crime incident or a non-crime hate incident and whether it needs to be recorded, rather than the highly abusive behaviour in which that woman used hate language to threaten me and attempted to physically hurt me. Can the Minister say how officers will be reminded that the priority must be to look at every incident as a whole, including other potential crimes, rather than solely to look at the code of practice?
Secondly, on the issue of reporting, I, along with many other disabled travellers, am on the end of abusive verbal incidents on trains. It happens regularly. Comments such as “People like you shouldn’t be allowed on the train during rush hour” or “Why are people like you taking up space where I want to sit?” are regular. They can and do also use abusive language, right in your face—“cripple”, “retard” or even worse. It may be a generic statement and fall under the Home Secretary’s definition of free speech, but the delivery of it leaves the recipient in no doubt that it was intended to be personal. It is personal, and train conductors say that they repeatedly see the same people behaving badly. The ability to record these incidents as NCHIs is therefore important, because it means that a pattern of behaviour can be tracked and followed, as needed. My concern is that police officers, always under pressure, might ever look only at the one incident in front of them; then, if they decide not to record it, there is no trail of consistent abusive behaviour.
Finally, the chair of a hate crime panel in the south-east said to us that they are concerned that this instrument will impact negatively on confidence in reporting. We know that confidence in the police is already low in some communities and these Benches are very concerned about it. For these reasons, starting with the lack of proper consultation as highlighted by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report, and the unclear narrative in the text and examples about how this fits into broader incidents and crimes, and where the boundaries are, I give notice from these Benches that we may well want to bring this matter to the full House.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, this new Draft Code of Practice on the Recording and Retention of Personal Data in relation to non-crime hate incidents has been created following the ruling of the Court of Appeal in 2021 in Miller v the College of Policing. The court found that the recording of non-crime hate incidents was lawful, but must be subject to more robust safeguards to ensure a better balance between responding to hate incidents and protecting freedom of speech. The Labour Party supports this revised code.
The code puts a lot of weight on using common sense, but I do not believe we should rely on that phrase too much to ensure its fair and uniform application at an operational level. What is common sense to an experienced officer may not be to a new recruit having to apply these rules for the first time. It also opens the code up to being abused. A number of noble Lords have talked about the importance of the education and training of officers.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for participating in this very interesting and important debate, particularly for the supportive and constructive atmosphere in which it has taken place. I reiterate my gratitude to the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs’ Council, and to senior police officers who helpfully have ensured that the code was fit for purpose. Its introduction will be another step forward in our effort to embed common-sense policing across the system, while ensuring personal data and the fundamental right to free speech are better protected.
I will begin by responding to the various points raised by noble Lords and commence with those raised by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. I thank him for his support for the code. On his request relating to forces reporting NCHIs, it is important to avoid creating additional burdens on the police. As I said, NCHIs are vital for building community confidence and ensuring that significant harm and future criminal offences can be averted. The key thing is to ensure that this recording is properly regulated and that personal data is recorded only when it is necessary and proportionate to do so. This is precisely what the code does.
I also want to be clear that we will not ask forces to delete all existing records because valuable police intelligence would be lost and, fundamentally, it would not be a proportionate use of police resources to undertake a review of all existing records. However, where these records exist and if in any context they are reviewed—for example, during general policing inquiries for the purposes of an enhanced DBS certificate or when a person makes a subject access request—the code makes it clear that particular care should be taken to review the record before considering disclosure. Part of the consideration will include deciding whether, applying the threshold and processes set out in the code, the record should have been created in the first place. If not, the record should be deleted. Individuals can also seek removal of data held by forces via subject access requests. In addition, any records which no longer have a policing purpose and are older than six years will automatically be deleted in line with force record retention practices.
To address the final point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, in relation to family courts, if a non-crime hate incident meets the threshold to be recorded it might be disclosed to the family and other courts by the police in accordance with the Family Procedure Rules and the Civil Procedure Rules in the usual way.
Various noble Lords raised particular cases in the course of their speeches. I am sure noble Lords will appreciate that it would not be appropriate for me to comment on particular incidents, but I can say that the new code is designed to ensure that the police record NCHIs only when it is absolutely necessary and proportionate to do so, not simply because somebody is offended.
In his speech, my noble friend Lord Strathcarron raised issues on the role of the College of Policing. I empathise entirely with much of what he said, and his points were echoed by other noble Lords in the Committee. The Home Office is working very closely with the College of Policing to ensure that its authorised professional practice accurately reflects the contents of the new code. Much of the content of my noble friend’s speech was correct.
In the same vein, I welcome my noble friend Lord Leicester’s speech supporting the code of practice. To be clear, the college will publish operational guidance documents for the police on how to deal with the many different types of crimes and incidents, which will be known collectively as the authorised professional practice. It will be considered the official source of professional practice for policing. As it is vital to forces and will cover a number of technical matters, it important for the college to determine how best to operationalise the content set out in the code. However, we are clear that the college’s guidance must be consistent with the provisions and principles in the code before the Committee today, which will have statutory effect once it is approved by Parliament. That means that when the police are taking relevant decisions, they must give due consideration to what the code says.
The college has recently consulted on the draft updated version of the APP, which has been amended to ensure that it aligns with the principles set out the code. It is currently considering the responses received and will make any necessary changes before the code comes into effect. The college will then publish the final, updated version of the operational guidance, once the code is approved by Parliament, which will take account of the points raised during the consultation.
On my noble friend’s point about training for officers, the College of Policing is responsible for determining the training requirements for forces and has developed an e-briefing pack which will be made available one week before the updated guidance enters into effect. The College of Policing will also communicate with forces, via chief constables, about the changes prior to the code and the updated operational guidance coming into effect.
I will take away the point raised about Article 10 training and raise it with the college.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I turn to the speech of my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough. Of the issues he raises, I will just address the question of how the code interrelates with DBS checks. This code does not prohibit disclosure of non-crime hate incident personal data as police information on an enhanced criminal record certificate issued by the Disclosure and Barring Service—the DBS. This is for two main reasons. First, NCHIs are simply one form of police intelligence that sits alongside many others—missing persons data, anti-social behaviour, unproven allegations of sexual assault and so on. They exist in line with the police’s common law powers to prevent crime. There are circumstances where police non-conviction information of various kinds will be considered for disclosure in enhanced DBS checks used in relation to roles which involve close working with vulnerable adults or children. Maintaining this regime is essential for safeguarding the rights of others, particularly the most vulnerable.
Secondly, the rules surrounding disclosure of this type of data are already governed by statutory disclosure guidance produced by the Home Office. Non-crime hate incident intelligence is not an exceptional form of police intelligence; it is simply a type of non-crime incident data, collected by the police to prevent crime, hence why it is covered in the same statutory guidance. This statutory disclosure guidance has been tested by the courts, and assists chief officers of police in making fair, proportionate and consistent decisions in determining when local police information should be included in enhanced criminal record certificates. Singling out this category of police data for non-disclosure would be inconsistent with the principles set out in the statutory guidance and probably unnecessary and disproportionate.
The safeguards in the statutory disclosure guidance are very robust. Should a chief officer consider that information is relevant to the purpose for which the check is sought, it ought to be disclosed in line with the guidance and the applicant invited to make representations. Only in cases where there is no room for doubt that the information should be disclosed should a decision to disclose be taken without first giving the applicant an opportunity to make representations. Should the decision to disclose be confirmed following any representations, that information will be included on the certificate that is sent to the applicant only. The applicant also has a right to appeal that disclosure through the independent monitor who considers cases where an individual believes that information disclosed within a DBS enhanced criminal records certificate is either not relevant to the purpose that the check is to be used for, or that it ought not be disclosed. The safeguards therefore balance the rights of job applicants and those of vulnerable people they might have contact with.
Alongside the existence of this strict statutory disclosure guidance, I can reassure your Lordships further. DBS records suggest that, in any event, it is rare for non-crime police information of any sort to appear on an enhanced criminal records certificate supplied to a potential employer. This type of information featured in only 0.1% of the 3.9 million enhanced checks issued by the DBS between April 2019 and March 2020. It is imperative that we do not set an unhelpful precedent by legislating in a way that undermines the police’s ability to build intelligence on possible offending and risks to life more broadly.
The first of the two questions raised by my noble friend Lord Bourne was in relation to the cost of this scheme. Information is published in the economic note on the code on the GOV.UK website. At paragraph 19, there is an explanation of the costs:
“Costs related to this are estimated at £9,200 in the central scenario and cover 10 per cent of chief inspectors and 1 per cent of sergeants being required to read the update”.
My noble friend will see that paragraph 21 states:
“The range of estimated costs vary from the central estimate of £9,200 with a low estimate of £3,500, and a high estimate of £0.4 million”.
A careful analysis has been made of the potential costs and the time taken to consider the code. I hope that that addresses the cost question.
During the debate, my noble friend Lord Bourne and a number of other noble Lords raised a question about consultation. This, of course, is the issue that was raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. As I mentioned earlier, the Government consulted relevant policing stakeholders, including the College of Policing, the National Police Chiefs’ Council and senior police officers. The code is designed to be used by the police on a day-to-day basis, so it is right that we consulted them. Let me be clear that extensive legal and operational nuances were considered during the drafting of the code. These nuances were worked through with experts in the policing, data protection and legal fields, and the Government are confident that this is the right approach for such a specialised code.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
I accept what the Minister said and thank him for it, but I was keen to find out why the feedback was not published.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I will make inquiries in relation to that and write to my noble friend.
I turn to the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. We were all shocked and saddened by the offending to which she was exposed that she described to the Committee. It is the Government’s view that the code takes particular care in relation to vulnerable individuals. The examples it gives are designed to be examples of non-criminal offences. The matters which were described by the noble Baroness were criminal offences, and the police will follow other guidance if an actual crime has occurred. The incident at Euston which she described sounded to me like an offence of assault at the very least.
The scope of the code is limited to non-crime hate instances. The examples in the text are hyperlinked and are used to illustrate non-crime hate incidents. The code states that,
“where the behaviour of the subject falls short of criminal conduct but may later be evidence of a course of criminal conduct”
the threshold to record a non-crime hate incident may be met. I hope that provides some reassurance to the noble Baroness.
I believe I have addressed the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. I commend the draft code to the Committee.
Motion agreed.
Pension Protection Fund and Occupational Pension Schemes (Levy Ceiling) (No. 2) Order 2023
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Davies of Brixton
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Pension Protection Fund and Occupational Pension Schemes (Levy Ceiling) (No. 2) Order 2023, given the impact of current increases in the cost of living on pensions payable by the Pension Protection Fund.
Relevant document: 30th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
My Lords, this order is routine and has little practical impact on the PPF. The levy that is currently payable is only 16% of the cap set by the order. However, having it before us provides an opportunity to discuss the operation of what is becoming—a bit under the radar—one of the country’s biggest financial institutions.
I have a particular interest as I like to think that the PPF, or at least the name, was my idea. Back in 1995, following the Maxwell scandal, I drafted a paper for the TUC that proposed, among other things, that there should be a central discontinuance fund that should be called—wait for it—the Pensions Protection Fund, or PPF. Of course, the proposal was not accepted at that time, but it was introduced subsequently in the Pensions Act 2004.
Before getting to the focus of my speech, I have a couple of questions. First, the Minister should provide the Committee with some explanation of the error that was made with this order. I am not trying to embarrass anyone, but it surely suggests excessive pressure on DWP staff, so the question is: has the situation been rectified?
Secondly, as was raised in the 30th report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, can the Minister tell us where we have got to in following the recommendations in the departmental review? I will highlight two recommendations from the review. First, recommendation 2 is that
“the DWP and the PPF work together to understand the implications of the PPF’s funding position in light of expected future developments in the population of Defined Benefit (DB) pension schemes and plan well ahead for any legislative changes that might be needed; for example, to address what happens to any funding which is surplus to requirements”.
It is worth noting that the current legislation says nothing about what should happen to any assets that, in the event, are not needed to pay members’ benefits. Given the PPF’s policy of building up a substantial buffer that, even on its own figures, is unlikely to be needed, the question needs to be addressed.
Any money that is left over cannot go back to the employers, because things will have moved on and employers will have moved on. It also seems wrong that it should go to the Government. The only just solution is for it to be used, as far as possible, to provide benefits for members. In practice, this means that the buffer should not be excessive. In these circumstances, where there is no residual legatee, bigger is not necessarily better. It might be unjust, and its level therefore becomes not just a technical issue but an issue of fairness to members.
Recommendation 6 states:
“The PPF should consider how the Board could hear more directly about the member perspective to inform its deliberations”.
It should be a matter of concern that currently there is no formal procedure to reflect the interests of members. So what thought are the Government giving specifically to these two recommendations in the context of the review?
These two recommendations also bring me to focus on the central issue of my remarks: the impact of high rates of inflation on pensions in payment from the PPF and the scope for the fund’s assets to be used to protect their real value. The problem is that the limits on annual pension increases are severe in current circumstances: none at all for benefits accrued before 1997 and only 2.5% per annum for benefits accrued thereafter. Until recently, the PPF operated in a period of relatively low inflation. The problem of inflation has always been there, but it has become more salient now we have moved into a period of materially higher rates of inflation—most obviously in the current year, but the issue is not going to go away.
The net effect of these limits is that the real value of members’ pensions has been cut significantly. Pre-1997 benefits have already been cut by up to one-third, while benefits accrued after that date have fallen by up to one-sixth. It is important to understand that these are reductions so far; they are going to continue. There is bound to be another cut next January, which will be based on the level of inflation this coming May. It is potentially another 7% if we believe the OBR’s forecasts. In the longer term, I am a relative pessimist about inflation —but even optimists do not expect a return to CPI increases of 0% or even 2.5%. So the need to protect the real value of members’ benefits will only increase.
The reductions in the real value of members’ benefits must be seen in context: the funding position of the PPF, in its own words, is “strong”. As a result, the PPF levy has, quite rightly, been reduced and there are plans to reduce it further. I have no problem with that. According to the PPF’s latest annual report and accounts, the scheme held £39 billion in assets as at 31 March 2022. At that point, the PPF estimated that, of that figure, £11.7 billion—almost £12 billion—was in excess of what it needed to pay every current member and their dependants their compensation for life. This represented a funding ratio of 137.9%. I think that would be broadly recognised as going a bit beyond “strong”.
Given the experience of the last 12 months, it is likely that the position this March will be materially stronger. It also needs to be understood that these figures are already being calculated—I presume—on a prudent basis. The general practice is to undertake these valuations on a prudent basis. Unless the PPF advises me otherwise, I assume that this is the case here, so we have prudence placed on top of prudence.
The problem with all this is that PPF members have not shared the benefits of this strong funding position. Indeed, it is the reduction in the real value of their benefits that has been one of the contributing factors to the strong position. This situation is wrong and should be remedied as soon as possible. This will probably require legislation because the board of the PPF has limited ability to pay compensation over the levels set in the Pensions Act. The lack of increases for compensation in respect of pre-1997 service is devastating for the members who are affected, especially during the current cost of living crisis.
As well as the size of the impact, it is also important to appreciate the differential effect on various groups of members. Information released to the trade union Prospect through a freedom of information request shows that the lack of inflation protection for pre-1997 service disproportionately impacts women and older members. There is no rational justification for this discriminatory treatment. Ministers have sought to justify the discrimination by saying that there was no statutory right to increases before 1997—true, but there was no statutory right to have an occupational pension at all. The idea that the initial pension is the real benefit and the increases are an optional extra is fundamentally wrong.
In practice, the majority of pre-1997 scheme members were either accruing benefits to which they were entitled through RPI increases, typically capped at 5%, or were in the many schemes funded on the basis that such increases were going to be provided and members had a reasonable expectation of receiving them. In other words, such increases were part and parcel of the package of scheme benefits, and their effective exclusion from protection must be open to legal challenge. Such a challenge becomes more likely as higher rates of inflation persist. So we should, first, provide higher rates of protection to better reflect modern rates of inflation and, secondly, eliminate the arbitrary and unfair difference in treatment for compensation in respect of pre-1997 and post-1997 service.
On a Brexit note, it is a matter of much regret that the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill does not provide for the retention of the minimum levels of compensation established in the Hampshire and Bauer cases. When that Bill was debated in the Commons, a Minister even went so far as to state that the Hampshire case
“is a clear example of where an EU judgment conflicts with the United Kingdom Government’s policies”.—[Official Report, Commons, Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill Committee, 22/11/22; col. 169.]
To conclude, is it the Government’s intention to cut the potential benefits that members might receive from the PPF to below the level to which they are entitled at present? I beg to move.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, the PPF provides real support to some 295,000 pension scheme members who have entered it, including through the £1.1 billion paid out in compensation each year. It provides security to those in current DB schemes who may need to call on it in future. Add to those figures the Financial Assistance Scheme, which covers a further 150,000 members and, following the Pensions Act 2004, is administered by but not funded through the PPF, and we are providing a blanket of considerable security to heading for half a million people.
It is very important to remember that, before the 2004 Act, members could lose all or much of their pension savings when employers became insolvent or simply walked away from their liabilities. When the Labour Government created the PPF, there were many doomsayers who predicted that it would not be sustainable. In fact, the PPF has defied those doubters: it is financially resilient, has been well run, and has weathered the various economic storms that have occurred over the past 15 years.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Davies, on securing this debate; it is an important one. At the outset, I say that I believe that the Pension Protection Fund has done and is doing an excellent job, and member experience in the PPF seems to be very positive—for me, that is one of the big tests of whether this is working well. The administration is very efficient, and the amount of compensation being paid is reaching those who need it, and are entitled to it, well.
I also congratulate the noble Lord on his foresight in 1995. I recall first becoming involved with Allied Steel and Wire and the various other pension schemes whose members had lost their entire pension very close to the point at which they were expecting to start receiving it, together with all their other life private savings —in those days, if you wanted to have any extra pension contributions you had to put all of it into your employer’s pension scheme. I remember reading about the proposals for a central discontinuance fund and thinking, “If only”. It informed my conversations with the No. 10 Policy Unit, the Treasury and the economic advisers to the Prime Minister at the time as to which way we needed to go to improve the situation the country faced. Over the subsequent two to three years, more and more pension schemes failed, and more and more members started losing their pensions; it was a serious and heartbreaking time. Members, having been told that they were fully protected, would have expected that all their money was safe. They were told that, regardless of what happened to their employer, their money was safe and that their pension was protected—but it turned out not to be the case.
Instead of the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Davies, of a central discontinuance fund, we got the actuarial profession’s minimum funding requirement. Unbeknown to members—and, indeed, to most pension professionals outside actuarial circles—that was designed to deliver only a 50:50 chance of people receiving their full pensions, and yet members, trustees and employers were told that, on that basis, their fund was fully funded or in surplus. Unfortunately, what happened subsequently, around the end of the 1990s, with the market crash, was that those surpluses melted away. It looked as though the benefits had been secure but, suddenly, the market crash made that position unsafe. We saw that those so-called surpluses were in fact buffers against bad markets, rather than real surpluses—you could judge that only with hindsight in the end.
This is my concern about the Pension Protection Fund. I absolutely want to try to ensure that anyone who has a pension insured by the Pension Protection Fund receives as much as possible. If there were a secure way of ensuring that they did not fall behind while we are suffering this cost of living crisis, I would be the first to support it. My thinking has perhaps been coloured by my experience during those dreadful years, before we got the Financial Assistance Scheme sorted out in 2007—it started around 2008—of seeing people who thought that their pensions were in surplus and that their position was secure finding that, because markets had moved suddenly and unexpectedly and in a way that had never been properly forecast, their pension had disappeared.
I also believe that, although the PPF looks as though it is in surplus now, we need to address what happens should there be a severe economic dislocation causing some of the huge pension schemes, which currently seem safe—and even some of the open schemes —to fail and fall into the same problem. This is an insurance policy rather than a pension, which, for me, is an important distinction.
I would love the Government to find a way to underwrite more generous increases for the Pension Protection Fund. I am particularly mindful of the fact that, before 1997, benefits had no inflation protection at all, yet many schemes—but by no means all—offered full inflation linking, or at least up to 5%. In that pre-1997 period, the older the member was when their scheme failed, the more pension they lost as a result of the failure, because they would have had more accrual.
I support the concept that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, is promoting: that in a time of economic difficulty, with inflation roaring away, we do not want to leave pensioners behind. It is clearly the case that the Pension Protection Fund is, to some degree, leaving pension members behind in real terms. To some degree, it was modelled on the American PBGC, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. Generally speaking, in America there is no inflation protection at all on these DB schemes, so the UK has always been a little unusual in that regard. Having said that, it makes sense to look at the structure of the levy and I echo the questions for my noble friend about plans for the future management of it.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken, especially my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton for giving us this opportunity to reflect on the role and operation of the Pension Protection Fund.
My noble friend Lady Drake was right to remind the Committee of the huge value of the PPF to the thousands of members of DB schemes—both those who benefit directly from the £1 billion-plus of compensation it pays out every year and those who are happily sailing in calm pension waters but benefit from the security of knowing that the lifeboat is there, should they find they need it. Certainly, every day is a school day. I have learned a certain amount of history today, for which I thank noble Lords who have spoken, including the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and my noble friends on this side. They reminded me that the PPF was created by the Labour Government to protect the hard-earned pension savings of workers. It is important that we never take it for granted and that we, in our time, do all we can to keep it sustainable.
The Pensions Act 2004 requires the DWP to make an annual order to increase the PPF levy ceiling in line with the growth in earnings. As my noble friend Lord Davies noted, this year we have had two orders, as the first draft omitted the relevant figures in favour of “X”s. I do not want to make life harder for whichever poor person found that they had done that by accident, but I have to note that it is not the first error in recent times that we have had in a DWP order. When I was a non-exec on boards, we were always told that if an error is reported, the question to ask is: is it systemic? Clearly, one error is not systemic, but this is not the first. Can the Minister tell the Committee whether he is confident that his department is sufficiently well resourced with the people whose job it is to draft legislation and make sure that it is checked before it goes out?
The levy ceiling was set in primary legislation to be uprated annually in line with the growth in average weekly earnings, the rationale being that this would allow the increases in the ceiling roughly to track the increases in the pension liabilities of DB schemes, which are, in turn, linked to members’ earnings. In its 30th report, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee asked whether the policy of annual increase by the growth in earnings is still producing a sensible outcome, or whether it is far outstripping actual usage. It highlighted the gap between the levy ceiling and the actual levy. As we have heard, in 2023-24, the levy will be 16% of the ceiling, compared with 33% in 2022-23 and 43% in 2021-22.
The answer provided to the committee in that 30th report was that
“PPF investment performance has consistently performed ahead of target and combined with the PPF’s levy collection and risk reduction strategies, has resulted in a reserve of £11.7 billion and assets of £39 billion (as of 31 March 2022)”—
as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Davies. It was this which enabled the drop in the levy. The recent PPF funding review concluded that
“the PPF’s financial position has significantly strengthened in recent years, driven principally by strong investment performance, and a changed risk profile. As a result, the PPF is making a step change in its approach and entering a new phase where the focus will shift from building to maintaining its financial resilience”.
As somebody who likes the Janet and John version, I think that means that it has been building up reserves steadily and feels that the time has come to build them up more slowly in future.
The challenge for the PPF is that it has to tack a course between levying enough for its likely needs in the year ahead while ensuring that it is still able to bring in enough additional revenue if it suddenly faces large claims or a significantly riskier environment. Since it can increase the levy by only 25% a year, the decision on the levy can never just be a short-term consideration with a 12-month horizon. Is the Minister confident that the PPF has landed in the sweet spot?
I am also interested to hear the answers to the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and my noble friend Lady Drake about the consideration that is being given by the department and the PPF as to whether there is a need for more flexibility in the way that the levy is set and constructed.
Clearly, if the PPF is deemed to have more reserves than it needs, it can do one of two things: reduce the levy or spend more. My noble friend Lord Davies has come down clearly on one side of that, namely that it should choose to spend more. He rightly pointed out that this is a time of very high inflation and, therefore, the impact of the 2.5% cap on indexing is being felt particularly acutely at the moment. Clearly, that has put pressures on all pensioners, including those who rely on PPF payouts. My noble friend’s proposal has attracted support in principle from the committee. The obvious question to the Minister is: has any modelling been done on the cost of removing or raising the cap and, if so, what can he share with us on that—what did it show?
My noble friend Lord Davies also raised two of the questions from the independent review of the PPF. Can the Minister tell me whether the Government have responded to that review? I could not find it, but that may just be because of my search skills. Perhaps he could let us know.
I add another question that had been raised. The costs of administering the PPF are borne by the PPF administration fund and amounted, I gather, to £13.3 million last year. The independent review recommended folding the administration levy into the general PPF levy. Did that proposal find favour?
I am interested to hear the Minister’s take on this delicate balance facing the PPF, especially as it matures. It has been suggested that is in a healthier position than ever, but also that, as more schemes prepare to move into buyouts, the environment could get riskier in future than it has been in the past. It is perhaps time for more of the workings to be made manifest so that there is more clarity for all stakeholders—pension schemes, savers and pensioners—as to the balance of decisions that are being taken. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Viscount Younger of Leckie) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, for providing this opportunity to discuss the Pension Protection Fund and Occupational Pension Schemes (Levy Ceiling) (No. 2) Order 2023. This order enables the board of the Pension Protection Fund to raise a pension protection levy that is sufficient to ensure the safe funding of the compensation it provides, while providing reassurance to business that the levy will not be set above a certain amount in any one year.
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. As ever, I am somewhat daunted by the level of expertise, bar none, in this Committee. A good number of questions have been raised and, as ever, I will endeavour to answer them all—mostly at the end of my remarks, just to manage expectations.
I emphasise the Government’s continued commitment to supporting pensioners and protecting their hard-earned retirement savings. Ensuring that those who have worked hard all their lives receive a retirement income that provides them with dignity and financial security is one of our core objectives, and so it should be. We recognise that recent increases in the cost of living have placed particular pressure on pensioners’ household budgets, so we are taking action to target support specifically at pensioners. Around 12 million pensioners in Great Britain will benefit from the 10.1% increase to their state pensions from this month, fulfilling the Government’s manifesto commitment to apply the triple lock. More than 8 million pensioner households across the UK will receive an additional £300 cost of living payment this winter. To aid the most vulnerable, the pension credit standard minimum guarantee has also been increased by 10.1%.
As the Committee will know, combating inflation is one of the Government’s top priorities. Forecasts indicate that inflation is still likely to fall sharply by the end of 2023, in line with the Prime Minister’s pledge to reduce it by half by the end of the year.
I will return to the Pension Protection Fund in a moment, but first I will take a step back to consider the wider context of the schemes it protects. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for all that he has done; I was interested, pleased and perhaps not surprised that he had such a hand in the naming and setting up of the PPF—I am not sure of the precise date—back in the 1990s. With around £1.7 trillion of assets over 5,000 schemes and supporting nearly 10 million members as of March 2022, the defined benefit sector is critical for the UK population.
Set against this backdrop, the PPF’s £39 billion in assets under management as of March 2022, including £11.7 billion in reserves, certainly seem proportionate to the scale of its task. As of March 2022, since its inception in 2005 the scheme has stepped in to protect close to 300,000 members who might otherwise have received a greatly reduced retirement income. The noble Baronesses, Lady Drake and Lady Sherlock, referred to the success of this.
Despite the strength of its financial position, the PPF continues to face risks, the biggest being future claims for compensation and increased longevity. It uses its stochastic modelling tool, the “long-term risk model”, to help determine the funding it requires to protect against these future risks. Like other major financial institutions, the PPF protects against risk by holding reserves. The size of its reserve should therefore provide reassurance not only to existing members of the PPF but to members of all eligible pension schemes.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies, asked about the Pension Protection Fund’s reserve of £11.7 billion and asked whether that could be shared with its members—I think that was the gist of his question. It enables the Pension Protection Fund to protect financial security for current and future members. As I said, despite the strength of its financial position, the PPF continues to face a number of risks, the biggest being future claims to compensation and increased longevity, so there is a balance that I am sure the noble Lord could tell me much about.
The compensation provided by the PPF makes it a critical partner in delivering on the Government’s objective of ensuring financial security for pensioners. The PPF provides a crucial safety net to members of eligible pension schemes who are at risk of losing their pensions because of the insolvency of their employer. This safety net could not be more important in these challenging times.
I reiterate, however, that the Pension Protection Fund is therefore a compensation scheme; I know that my noble friend Lady Altmann defined it as an insurance scheme, which is fair enough. As such, it seeks not to replicate the benefits of underfunded pension schemes but rather to ensure that members are compensated fairly and sustainably. A balance must be struck between the interests of those who receive compensation and the levy payers who fund it. It is only by striking this delicate balance, perhaps, that the long-term stability of the PPF can be ensured.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
I appreciate that there is a lot out there, but there are three elements: the scope for raising the levy, the compensation levels and the resilience of the PPF over time. Clearly, there is a sort of inflection point for revisiting and managing that. It was just about understanding that and getting more transparency around it.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
Absolutely. That plays well into what I said in that I will reflect on what I and the noble Baroness have said, and there may well be a letter coming to add to the one that I will send to my noble friend.
I will address a couple more questions before I wind up finally. The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked whether the PPF is right to build reserves at a slower pace than it has been doing. It is a fair question but that is, as the noble Baroness will expect me to say, very much a matter for the PPF board.
On whether there will be an update on the levy discussions, I may have alluded to this earlier—it was raised not only by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, but by my noble friend Lady Altmann and indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock. I will certainly happily make inquiries, and that will be an addition to the letter which is growing bigger by the moment. There may be some other questions that I have not answered, but I will certainly look very closely with my team at Hansard.
To conclude, again I thank the noble Lord, Lord Davies, for providing us with this opportunity to discuss the UK’s flexible and robust regime for funding and protecting defined benefit pensions, which, as was mentioned, is an important subject. This regime has enabled most schemes to weather the severe economic downturns following the crash in 2007-08—the financial crisis, I should better call it—and the Covid pandemic, as well as the prolonged period of historically low interest rates. In fact, the aggregate scheme funding position on a Pension Protection Fund basis improved from 83.4% on 31 March 2012 to 113.1% on 31 March 2022 —an interesting statistic to reflect on. These improvements to scheme funding mean that fewer and fewer members of DB schemes will require the safety net of the PPF. That is of course good news for members, who are increasingly likely to receive their full pension entitlement. This is progress indeed but there is more to do, although of course we cannot eliminate all risk. When employers become insolvent, the PPF continues to stand by as a well-funded and responsibly managed safety net.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his detailed and considered response to what I have certainly found a useful debate. I just need to say that I do not think that the issue will go away. As I suggested, the attrition of members’ benefits will continue, and pressure to do something will get stronger. It would be useful if a meeting could be organised—it is probably just as easy to do it directly with the PPF, but Ministers and officials might like to be involved in it as well, so I will write and suggest that. I thank the Minister again for his attention to this important topic.
House of Lords
Life Expectancy: Pensions, Health and Insurance
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rooker
To ask His Majesty’s Government how changes in life expectancy as measured by the Office for National Statistics have affected planning for pensions, health and insurance.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Markham) (Con)
The Government consider a range of metrics when determining our approach to pensions, health and insurance, including life expectancy where relevant. We are committed to improving health life expectancy by five years by 2035 and to reducing the gap between areas where it is highest and lowest by 2030. Our major conditions strategy will focus on health conditions that contribute most to morbidity and mortality.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
I thank the Minister, but is he aware that Office for National Statistics figures show that life expectancy, which is a key indicator of national health, has stalled in the UK since 2010 for the first time in 120 years? Is he aware that one consequence of this is that over half of families in England cannot get a funeral in less than three weeks, and 17% cannot get one for over a month? Funeral directors are running out of storage space because of what is happening. There are far too many early deaths under this Government, as shown in the report from the Government Actuary’s Department, placed in the Library last week, which states that before the pandemic the UK had the lowest life expectancy of any major European country.
Lord Markham (Con)
I am aware that there has been a similar phenomenon across all the G7 western nations. Life expectancy has been plateauing for the last few years, and the only country to buck that trend is Japan. A lot of this is to do with obesity, which I know noble Lords regard as a very important issue. While we are improving issues such as alcohol intake, the impact of obesity on healthy lifestyles is an important factor that we will need to tackle.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, as well as falls in overall life expectancy, there have been significant falls in disability-free life expectancy, as shown in the recent ONS figures. Can the Minister describe the steps his department is taking to understand why more people are acquiring long-term conditions earlier in their lives, and to ensure that health and social care services are geared up to meet that extra demand?
Lord Markham (Con)
This goes very much to our strategy of improving healthy life expectancy by five years by 2035. “Healthy” is a key component of that, taking the major conditions strategy and looking at the six major causes of death—cancers, heart disease, respiratory issues, dementia, and mental health and musculoskeletal issues—and what we can do on each one to improve lifestyles.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, considering inflationary pay demands in the health service, has my noble friend given enough emphasis to the benefits provided in the form of final salary index-linked pensions? Is there not a conflict between being concerned about inflation and knowing that you will be protected? How long is it possible to sustain such a system?
Lord Markham (Con)
I know that my health brief is broad but including pensions and insurance in it is quite a challenge. Like other noble Lords, I am very aware of the impact of inflation on the final salary scheme and on lifestyles, and of the fact that not many employers can afford the schemes any more—apart from, dare I say it, government. That has an impact. However, I am happy to meet my noble friend to go through this in further detail.
Lord Winston (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have made a pledge that they know perfectly well they cannot keep. There is no way that this massive morbidity will be reduced: obesity is not the answer. If he looks carefully, he will see what the Science and Technology Committee—chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, who may want to comment—showed: that it is clearly due to deprivation in poorer parts of the country, which leads to a much shorter life. The Government need to deal with this holistically; it is not the problem of the Department of Health and Social Care but a much wider issue.
Lord Markham (Con)
As ever, there are multiple factors at play. That is what the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities is all about: making sure that we are tackling this in exactly the holistic way the noble Lord mentioned, going back to all the major conditions that are causes of death and tackling each one by one. The 10 million cancer screenings save 10,000 lives a year, and our breast cancer screenings save 1,300 lives. There is a lot to do but a lot that we are doing already.
Lord Patel (CB)
My Lords, in his introductory remarks, the Minister quoted the Government’s ambition to extend healthy life expectancy by five years by 2035. Can he put some numbers to it? What age are we talking about?
Lord Markham (Con)
My understanding is that people are predicted to live a healthy life until around age 63. It is about looking at that aspect as well; it is not just about the length of life but how well we live it.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, last week, the Institute for Government issued a paper that said that every obesity strategy since the first one, in 1992, had failed. It also pointed out that taxes would have to rise to deal with the epidemic in obesity and type 2 diabetes. Can the Government bring together a decent strategy to help all the people who are overweight, so that they live longer and we have a healthier society?
Lord Markham (Con)
My noble friend is correct: it is a key issue. There have been successes such as the sugar tax levy, which has reduced sugar consumption by about 40%. But clearly, you need only to look at the statistics to see that all western nations, including the UK, are facing this problem. It is a challenge that we have to attack. We can learn a lot in this space from Japan, where employers and the whole society are very much involved in the healthy lifestyles of their workers and people.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, life expectancy for those with a learning disability is particularly shocking: only four in 10 live to see their 65th birthday, nearly half of their reported deaths are avoidable, and those living in the north-west and the Midlands are at greater risk. What action are the Government taking to address the specific barriers faced by people with learning disabilities in getting access to the timely, quality healthcare which could perhaps extend their life expectancy?
Lord Markham (Con)
As noble Lords are aware, we have been putting significant investment into mental health; from memory, there has been a £2 billion-plus increase over the last year. In recognition that learning disability is an issue we particularly need to tackle, as the noble Baroness is aware, we are putting investment into schools so they can identify it early on. Some 35% of schools now have the right educational leads in this space, and the figure will rise to 50% next year. It is a big improvement, but do we need to do more? Absolutely.
Baroness Cumberlege (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that for many years, the UK has enjoyed increases in life expectancy but now we are getting reports that the rate of increase is declining. What plans—I have given my noble friend notice of this question—do the Government have to reverse this trend?
Lord Markham (Con)
My noble friend, whom I thank for that question, has characterised this issue in exactly the right way. Life expectancy is still increasing, but not at the rate it was. That is why the major conditions strategy was launched. I can give one example: cancer is one of the six major killers, and we are seeing 20% more cancer patients this year than we were pre-pandemic. So there are improvements in this space, and that is what the major conditions strategy is all about; but clearly, the record investment we are putting in needs to show that sort of output.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, the Minister’s ambition to increase life expectancy is not being helped by the current wave of doctors strikes, with extended waiting lists certainly bringing down life expectancy rates in some quarters. Can he tell the House why he and other Ministers will not get round the table now, with no preconditions, to discuss how this might be brought to a speedy end?
Lord Markham (Con)
The noble Baroness is absolutely correct: any strike action is regrettable, and we have a part to play, as do the unions, in trying to make sure that we reach a sensible place. We feel we have done that for nurses and ambulance drivers with the Agenda for Change, and clearly, we want to do the same for doctors. I think all noble Lords can agree that we do not want the impact on patients and healthy outcomes that strikes cause.
Performing Arts: GCSE and A-level Qualifications
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Wilcox of Newport
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the decline in the number of entries to GCSE and A-Level qualifications in the performing arts over the last decade.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, this Government remain committed to pupils receiving a high-quality cultural education, including in music, dance and drama. GCSE entries in arts subjects as a proportion of all entries went from 11.8% to 9.7% between the academic years 2011-12 and 2021-22, while A-level entries in arts subjects over the same period went from 13.1% to 11.2%. Over half of pupils in state-funded schools currently enter for at least one arts GCSE or technical award.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that Answer and I will give her some figures back. There has been a reduction of 25% in entries for GCSE music, 30% for drama and, significantly, 60% for performing arts, with similar figures at A-level. Are any steps being taken by the department to ensure that this trend is reversed in future and, specifically, have the Government considered the merits of reimagining publicly funded performing arts provision, as is being done, for example, in Wales? Is it not time the Government guaranteed access to arts, music and drama clubs for every child, irrespective of background and wealth?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The noble Baroness cited a number of statistics, but I would say in response that, since 2016, uptake of the speech and drama vocational technical qualification has more than doubled, as has uptake of the music VTQ. My understanding is that the performing arts GCSE no longer exists, but the broader point the noble Baroness makes is being addressed through our cultural education plan and the national plan for music education, which aims to reach just the children the noble Baroness refers to.
Lord Storey (LD)
The Minister will be aware of the importance of the creative industries to our national economy. She will also be aware that the EBacc does not include creative subjects. She will also be aware that schools are under great financial pressure, so to save money why would they have creative subjects if pupils do not have to enter exams as part of the EBacc? Is it not time to realise the damage that the EBacc is doing to the creative subjects in our education system? Might the Minister not consider being more relaxed about how schools face GCSEs and A-levels and not be hidebound by an EBacc?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I do not accept either that the EBacc is damaging entries and activity in relation to creative subjects or that it is wise to judge the value of the EBacc only in relation to creative subjects. It is clear from all research and evidence that our children in need a broad grounding, which the EBacc offers.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm whether discussion of the national curriculum and of accountability measures will be within scope of the cultural education plan, to which she has just referred? These matters are clearly vital, as the present discussion demonstrates.
Baroness Barran (Con)
More of the details on the cultural education plan will be published shortly, but my understanding is that it will highlight the importance of high-quality cultural education and the important role that wider cultural institutions can play, working with schools. I know that my noble friend Lord Parkinson recently visited West Bromwich and saw an example of that, where the Shireland Academy and the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra are opening a new school with a particular focus on music education.
The Archbishop of York
My question is about the variability of access. I think we all recognise that the statistics quoted are going the wrong way. What we observe particularly is that it is far worse in some parts of the country than others. That is something I particularly observe in the north, where I serve. The DCMS Committee’s report last year spoke about how the creative industries themselves are saying that there is a shortage of the skills that we need. What is being done about this and, particularly, how do we know about the situation? In about 2014, Ofsted changed the way its inspections investigated the arts. For instance, dance was looked at as part of PE. Does the Minister think that this lack of joined-up thinking has had an impact on where we are now and, in particular, on the way that some parts of the country are suffering much more than others?
Baroness Barran (Con)
The most reverend Primate is right that there are currently differing levels of engagement, take-up and opportunity in relation to the creative industries around the country. I respectfully disagree with him on the fact that we are not joined up. Actually, a great deal of work is going on between DCMS and the Department for Education in relation to the creative industries sector vision and the cultural education plan, to which I referred. In relation to Ofsted, it did a deep dive into a number of cultural and arts subjects in 2019 and highlighted their importance within the curriculum.
Lord Cormack (Con)
As my noble friend may know, our noble friend Lord Parkinson very kindly attended a dinner which I hosted last week for the Royal School of Church Music. He was of course wearing his arts and heritage hat. Has the Minister had a chance to talk to the Royal School of Church Music? It is bringing music of a very high quality to many who go to primary schools where they hardly have the opportunity to learn any music. We all ought to be working together on this one to bring quality music to children throughout the whole of the United Kingdom.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My noble friend is right that we absolutely should be working together. I thank all the charities and voluntary organisations, which are so varied and bring so much richness to our children’s lives, including the Royal Society of Church Music.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
On that point, will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the extraordinary work being done by many arts organisations across the whole country in engaging with schools and the education system? However, often what they are doing is filling a gap, and their ability to engage is very dependent on individual head teachers’ willingness to make time and resources available for what they have on offer to be delivered to their young people. Will she acknowledge that at the moment the deficit that is being discussed in this Question is being filled largely by arts organisations, which are themselves under enormous pressure?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I just do not fully accept the deficit that the noble Baroness describes. I absolutely agree with her that arts organisations bring an important, valuable and different perspective, but schools themselves are also doing an extraordinary job. As we can see from our incredibly successful creative industries, we are getting something right.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has given responses that say, “Yes, we like the things outside the formal GCSE structure”. Will the Government go a step further and identify those who are interested in arts activity—that is, performing—and positively channel them towards those who are doing it outside? If you are not going to give exams or structure, you must at least help people get to those who will do it voluntarily.
Baroness Barran (Con)
If I may, the Government like “both/and”. We have the arts clearly in the national curriculum and over half of children in schools are doing either GCSE or a vocational technical qualification —but, in terms of the richness of children’s education, the opportunity to engage outside brings a great deal of added value.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, when might we see the arts premium that was promised in the Conservative Party manifesto?
Baroness Barran (Con)
I was hoping the noble Baroness might ask when we were going to see the cultural education plan, which I know she is keen to get on with—and I take this opportunity to thank her for agreeing to chair the expert advisory panel for that. We absolutely remain committed to cultural and music education and the arts but, with the impact of Covid on children’s learning and the importance of focusing on their recovery, sadly we have had to reprioritise education recovery within this spending review period.
Corruption
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are committed to the fight against corruption. Corruption and illicit finance undermine national security and global stability. They impede global prosperity and erode trust in institutions while harming their victims. Since 2010, the Government have led international efforts to combat corruption through the delivery of the United Kingdom Anti-corruption Strategy 2017-2022, and we will continue to build on this with the new anti- corruption strategy that is currently under development.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, in that case, why has the UK slumped to its lowest ever score in Transparency International’s latest global corruption index, falling sharply to number 73—a 10-place tumble from eighth to 18th over the last 10 years in its global rankings? Is it because of a collapse in government standards, or the recent scandalous government reversal of their previous admirable decision to suspend Bain & Company from UK Government contracts after Bain was found by a judicial commission to have been up to its neck in state corruption in South Africa? Are corruption and money laundering not now a real UK problem, and should not Ministers be utterly ashamed?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I cannot improve on the words of the Prime Minister when he was asked about this subject. He pointed out that there has been
“widespread recognition and support for the UK’s approach to transparency and tackling corruption. … the most recent report from the Financial Action Task Force commended the UK for the steps it had taken”,—[Official Report, Commons, 1/2/23; col. 334.]
and those steps are significant. Obviously, a number of Bills going through your Lordships’ House and the other place at the moment deal with some of these issues. As for the specific question about Bain, I note that Bain has agreed to a period of rigorous monitoring for a minimum of two years during which its continuing compliance will be assessed. The UK arm of Bain has agreed that it will engage further with the Cabinet Office to provide evidence that its governance, organisation and internal processes are now working. I could go on, but I think that is enough.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, would it not be evidence of the seriousness of the Government in combating corruption if the agencies concerned with it were adequately staffed? Is not one of the fundamental problems of the Government’s approach to corruption and economic crime that the NCA and other agencies concerned with it are inadequately staffed to deal with this?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that this subject has come up in discussion during the passage of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill. The agencies are adequately resourced. The funding for the SFO is rising —gradually, but it is rising—and I know that people are being recruited into these operations.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, can I remind my noble friend that there are in Hansard two Written Answers which list over 50 Home Office officials between 2005 and 2018 who were convicted of misconduct in a public office? Many of them were sent to prison—several for very long terms. Is this not a most disturbing figure?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
It is a most disturbing figure. Public sector integrity is certainly a feature of the Transparency International downgrade of the UK, but that is being dealt with, as noble Lords will be aware.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, it has been well over a year, as many of us remember, since the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, resigned in this House from that Dispatch Box. Noble Lords will remember that he did it over a government decision to write off £4.3 billion in fraudulent Covid loans. He went on to accuse the Government
“of arrogance, indolence and ignorance”—[Official Report, 24/1/22; col. 21.]
in dealing with fraud. What has improved since then?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness will be aware that the publication of the new fraud strategy is imminent. As I referred to in my earlier Answer, the second iteration of the anti-corruption strategy is also being worked through at this moment. There will be a lot more to say on that in the very near future.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, may I push the Minister on resources, as 41% of all crime against the individual is fraud and 1% of law enforcement resources are applied to it? Is that really sufficient?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
When put in numbers like that, no. However, as I have just said, the fraud strategy is due to be published next week. That is a multiagency approach to tackling fraud. It will be outlined in considerable detail.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister answer the question put by my noble friend Lord Hain? Why has the UK slumped to its lowest ever score in Transparency International’s global corruption index? How has that happened and what are the Government going to do about it?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I think I have already said what the Government are going to do about it. In terms of analysis, the data indicated that the drop is likely due to two factors. The first is heightened criticism on issues of public sector integrity, which I have already dealt with. The second is criticism of the public procurement processes during Covid. As the noble Lord will be aware, the Procurement Bill currently on Report is dealing with many of those issues. I could go on at significant length about PPE and so on if he wishes.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, one of the key parts of the Government’s anti-corruption policy was the register of beneficial ownership. Could my noble friend give us an update on how it is being brought in? It seems that it is still possible to hide true ownership behind companies and third parties.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am unable to answer that question. I will have to write to my noble friend.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
Further to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Pickles, a key element in fighting corruption is transparency around offshore companies which own property in the UK. Could the Minister supply to the House two figures? What is the number of offshore companies which own property in the UK, and what is the number of those which have failed to register their ownership details with Companies House, as they should have done by the end of January 2023?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Again, I am afraid I am going to have to write on this.
Network Rail: Funding and Reliability
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Randerson
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of reports of analysis by Network Rail that the funding plans for the next five years are insufficient to maintain current levels of reliability.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, the Government published funding objectives for Network Rail for control period 7—2024 to 2029—on 1 December 2022, placing the highest priority on punctuality and reliability. The funding provided £44.1 billion—a real-terms increase of 4% above the current settlement. This demonstrates the Government’s continued commitment to the railway.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, from a leak from Network Rail itself, we now know that funding is so bad that basic infrastructure cannot be repaired and that we should expect more delays and more accidents. We need to know what the Government are planning to do to reverse this downward spiral in our railways. Can the Minister promise that no more train operators will be rewarded for failure with new contracts? Can she specifically guarantee that, at last, there will be legislation in the King’s Speech to create Great British Railways with the independent power to reform this ailing industry?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Baroness referred to the source of her Question being a leak in the Independent. It was not really a leak, because we are not even half way through the process of the business planning, and, as I said, the real-terms increase in funding is up 4%. In fact, it was some slides prepared by a mid-level National Rail employee presenting the industry with some ideas for different funding scenarios for CP7—so never believe everything that you read in the newspaper. On contracts for TOCs, we look at each TOC on a case-by-case basis, and I am aware that another contract will be up for consideration in due course. Legislation for rail reform will arrive as soon as parliamentary time allows.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I would like to know what the Minister considers to be the current levels of reliability. I commute from Oxford. The main line from Oxford to Paddington is closed until at least June, because of a broken bridge which should have been fixed ages ago. The main road from west Oxford to the station is closed at the end because another bridge is being repaired. Without any co-ordination, it is almost impossible to leave the city. Should it not be a human right to be able to get in and out of one’s own city?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
The noble Baroness raises some very important points, which demonstrate exactly why we need this uplift in funding. However, it is not always about just funding; it is about how we make the necessary repairs and how we do maintenance. She mentioned bridges, which are incredibly important, as there is a bow wave of older assets which need to be maintained. However, by using box structure flyover bridges to replace old flyovers and bridges, one could do that at a vastly reduced cost. Those are the sorts of modernisations we need to get into our maintenance regime.
Lord Haselhurst (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that, if a list of the major projects awaiting attention were published, this might attract support from industrial sources and local areas? The additional station in Cambridge is a case in point.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right that there are many sources of funding for improving our transport sector. The discussion today around the £44.1 billion of funding does not even include enhancements—that would be in addition. Those projects will be set out in the RNEP, the pipeline of public sector projects, but there is also the opportunity for local government and the private sector to get involved.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
The Minister cautions me not to believe everything I read in the paper. Recently, I read in the paper that Avanti West Coast was rewarded with over £4 million in taxpayer-funded bonuses and that the payout was awarded for a
“period in which Avanti was UK’s worst train operator for delays”.
Should I believe that?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
Funnily enough, I do not wholly recognise those figures, but all the contracts and the rationale behind them are set out and published. All the performance information that goes into the award of any financial returns is assessed by an independent evaluator, and discussions are made on that basis. The contracts are prepared well in advance, and we must abide by them.
Lord Wigley (PC)
The Question refers to the maintaining of “current levels of reliability”, but is the Minister aware that the current levels of reliability on the Holyhead to London line are totally unacceptable? In the recent past, we have had trains going the other way, from Euston to Holyhead, turning round at Chester and leaving the passengers to their own devices to find connecting trains. Only this week, trains from Holyhead to London were advertised as fully booked and not available for that reason. Is not that totally unacceptable, and what are the Government going to do to improve the service?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I completely agree with the noble Lord. I am not content with current levels of reliability. That was obviously in the Question, and it would not have been in any response that I have given. We are aware that, despite 10% lower passenger demand on our trains at the moment, and slightly fewer trains running, performance is unacceptably low. The causes of that are many. Industrial action has had a huge impact on the performance of our railways, but we are working with the industry, and we would like to improve our relationship with the unions such that everybody can work together to give us the reliable and modern railway that we need.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the Minister in responding to my noble friend Lady Randerson’s supplementary question said, “Don’t believe what you read in the press”, and that this was not a leak, simply some work-in-progress from a mid-ranking official. Could she then confirm to the House that it is the view of His Majesty’s Government that Network Rail has sufficient funding for the next five years to maintain the current levels of reliability? If not, what will it do to improve things—and, if it does, could it consider improving reliability?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
If I may, I will explain to the noble Baroness what the process actually looks like. It is one that goes on for the whole of the year. The statement of funds available has been set and the Secretary of State has set out very high-level objectives. That is then given to Network Rail, which spends the process of the year doing the business planning. It does not do that in isolation; it does it under the scrutiny of the independent Office of Rail and Road. There are two determination periods—one that will happen in June and one that will happen by the end of the year, by when we will see how the £44.1 billion, which is quite a lot of money, will be spent, and what the performance outcomes will be.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
Has Network Rail really run out of money, or have some of the new projects been paused—or has all the money been put into HS2, leaving nothing for the rest of the railway?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, over the past few months, passengers across England have continued to suffer from really unreliable services, as we have heard this afternoon. Fares have increased by 5.9%. Between October and December last year, 4.5% of all trains were cancelled—the highest rate since 2014. Can the Minister therefore explain why the FirstGroup franchise and Govia Thameslink have recently reported dividend payments of £65 million and £16.9 million respectively in their annual accounts for 2022, despite their continued failings? Does the Minister not agree that that would be better invested in the future of railways?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, once again we shall address the notion of dividend payments, because it is really important that we are clear about it. The dividend payments declared during the financial year 2022 related to periods far preceding that 2022 period, and therefore were earned by the train operating companies under contracts that were in existence at that time. One cannot retrospectively go back and take away money without completely tearing up the contracts and starting again. Maybe a Labour Government would do that, but we will not. We will stick to the contract and work with the industry, and we will get improvements to our rail system that way.
Lord McLoughlin (Con)
Can my noble friend reassure the House of the vast importance that the Government attach to the whole rail industry, and the fact that it is incredibly important to our economy? To get that investment, we also need to see levels of service, which is the responsibility of the train operators but the rail unions too. To make the case for investment, we have to have good services.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My noble friend is absolutely right. Sometimes it saddens me greatly how some of the unions are potentially undermining the long-term future of our rail sector. ASLEF train drivers withdrew, without warning, their rest-day working agreement. I now understand that a new rest-day working agreement was agreed, which would have vastly improved services on the TransPennine Express. However, within 24 hours, ASLEF then withdrew again on an entirely unconnected matter. Once again, we are left without rest-day working. There is a very easy way to improve services, which is to encourage the unions to reach an agreement with the TOCs, particularly on rest-day working.
Service Police (Complaints etc.) Regulations 2023
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Goldie
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 23 February be approved.
Relevant document: 32nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 19 April.
Co-operatives, Mutuals and Friendly Societies Bill
Wednesday 26th April 2023
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Co-operatives, Mutuals and Friendly Societies Act 2023 View all Co-operatives, Mutuals and Friendly Societies Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 30 November 2022 - (30 Nov 2022)
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Public Order Bill
Wednesday 26th April 2023
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Public Order Act 2023 View all Public Order Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 131-I Marshalled list for Consideration of a Commons Reason - (25 Apr 2023)
Lord Sharpe of Epsom
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 6H and 6J to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 6K.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their engagement throughout the passage of this Bill. As I have already said, the Bill has undoubtedly received the scrutiny that the British people would want and expect, and it is only right to acknowledge that, through the scrutiny of this Chamber, important compromises have been made along the way.
I do not wish to detain noble Lords for longer than necessary. We have debated the contents of this Bill scrupulously and there remains just one disagreement. It is still the Government’s position that we do not support the changes proposed by your Lordships to Clause 11 on the power to stop and search without suspicion. This has been reiterated by the other place, which voted to disagree with your Lordships’ Motions 6H and 6J. Our position has been, and remains, that these changes are unnecessary.
As I mentioned in the previous debate, I remind noble Lords that a legal framework already exists for all stop and search powers. Section 3.8 of PACE Code A requires an officer conducting a search to give the following information to the person being searched: that they are being detained for the purposes of a search; the officer’s name and the name of the police station to which the officer is attached; the legal search power that is being exercised; the grounds for the search; and that they are entitled to a copy of the record of the search and can ask for this within three months from the date of the search. I have already committed, as has the Policing Minister in the other place, to amending PACE Code A to further improve transparency of the use of all stop and search powers. We will make it a requirement to communicate the extent of the area authorised for the suspicionless stop and search, the duration of an order and the reasons for the order where it is operationally practical to do so.
There is a good reason for these changes to be made to PACE Code A and not to the Public Order Bill, which is consistency. We want these changes to apply across the board to all stop and search powers, not just those being debated today. Placing them in the Bill would create one rule for stop and search for protests and another for stop and search for other purposes. This would inherently complicate officers’ training, increasing the chance that these powers are misused. I am sure that all noble Lords agree that this is something we must minimise.
I would also like to reassure all noble Lords that amending PACE Code A does not deny these changes to the principle of stop and search-appropriate scrutiny. Changes to the code require a full consultation with external stakeholders, such as the APCC, MOPAC, the NPCC, the Bar Council, the Law Society and others on the proposed changes and must be brought back to the House for us to consult upon before they are enacted into law.
Finally, on the requirement for a charter, it remains our view that this would be unnecessarily burdensome. The legislation already makes it clear when these powers can be used, and this is bolstered further by the additional requirements for the use of stop and search contained within PACE Code A. This will provide the right balance between tackling these disruptive protesters and protecting the rights of each citizen when these powers are used, so I call on all noble Lords not to insist on their amendments and to pass the Bill as presented. I beg to move.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, the Minister said that there is only one disagreement remaining. He was, of course, referring formally to what the House as a whole disagrees about; but we on these Benches have opposed police stop and search in relation to protest from day one, as any stop and search power will have a chilling effect on those wishing to exercise their rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. These are fundamental human rights that are even more important to those who feel excluded from the parliamentary process, such as black and other minority-ethnic people. These groups are less likely to be registered to vote, less likely to have the correct form of voter ID even if they are registered to vote, and more likely to be stopped and searched by the police. Black people, for example, are between seven and 17 times more likely to be stopped and searched by the police than white people, depending on whether the power used is with or without suspicion. That is despite the legal safe- guards the Minister referred to.
The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, in response to the Baroness Casey Review, accepts the fundamental need to reset relationships between the police and the public, especially on the back of the findings of racism, misogyny and homophobia. Sir Mark Rowley acknowledges the past tendency of the police to impose tactics, rather than collaborate with, listen to and engage with communities. That is exactly what the noble Baroness, Lady Casey of Blackstock, said needed to happen, and the wording of the Lords amendment that we should insist on today is taken exactly from the Baroness Casey Review.
On the one hand, we have the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and the noble Baroness, Lady Casey of Blackstock, both pulling in one direction, wanting stop and search to be based on collaboration, listening and engaging. On the other hand, we have this Government pulling in the other direction, rejecting the Lords amendment that would require police forces to draw up a charter on the use of stop and search, in consultation with local communities. This House should insist on the implementation of the recommendations of the Baroness Casey Review and not reject them.
I understand that some noble Lords have been concerned about the precise wording of the amendment. But as the commissioner has found to his cost, not accepting the exact wording of the Baroness Casey Review can result in diverting attention away from actually getting on and doing things instead of debating the meaning of words. However, with other important votes to come this afternoon, and without the support of the Labour Opposition, we appear to have reached the end of the road.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and many others for the detailed scrutiny and the way this Chamber has tried to hold the Government to account. To be fair, the Government have made one or two changes with respect to suspicionless stop and search, and I will go to them in a moment. But before we do, it is important to reiterate that the Bill is about giving powers to the police that the Government say they need, where—I think it is worth repeating—many of us believe they have the powers necessary to deal with the protests that have caused such alarm in government and beyond over the last few months.
In the last couple of months, it has come down to stop and search without suspicion—for the avoidance of doubt, to deal with protest rather than knife crime, terrorism or serious offences such as those. I welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has agreed to in the amendments to PACE Code A: to require, where operationally practical, to communicate the extent of the area authorised for suspicionless stop and search, the duration of the order and the reasons for it. I think the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said that this would be important to include in any change to the PACE code, so I thank the Government for listening and including it, as well as for placing data collection in the legislative framework of PACE Code A and therefore including a breakdown of suspicionless stop and search by age, sex and ethnicity. Can the Minister confirm my understanding of the changes that the Government are proposing?
While it is welcome, it is to say the least a missed opportunity, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, to respond to the Casey review. If noble Lords refer to page 22 of that review when they return to their offices, they will find that the amendments we put forward, which were supported by the House, are a complete lift from what the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, recommended. My contention is that, given their significance, it was and should have been a real necessity for the Government to put them in the Bill. If things were working with respect to PACE Code A, why was she so insistent that, to restore trust and confidence in the police, this needed to be placed in the Bill? The Government have rejected that, saying that it is fine because of what is in PACE Code A.
Let me share the view expressed on Monday in the other place by David Davis MP:
“why should it not be on the face of the Bill? After all, that would broadcast in clear terms what we want to happen”.
Many noble Lords said this, including the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and I. That was precisely the point: not to tuck it away in regulation but to say clearly that, such is the significance of suspicionless stop and search related to protest, the Government would put it in the Bill and demonstrate to everyone what they believe should happen. They rejected that for what I consider to be no good reason. It was not only David Davis; Wendy Chamberlain MP said that, in line with the Casey review,
“we need this provision on the face of the Bill”.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/4/23; cols. 550-51.]
The Government say that they absolutely agree with the Casey review and accept its recommendations. Why then do they choose to ignore what the noble Baroness believes is one of the most important things that the Government need to do to restore trust and confidence in the operation of suspicionless stop and search? It is a real missed opportunity and chance for the Government to demonstrate how serious they are about the use of this power and the need to restore that confidence.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships by repeating my profound concerns about this Bill at a time when peaceful protest is under attack all over the world, and policing is in such a parlous state in our own country. I must thank all noble Lords who supported the modest improvement that includes some protection for journalists who report on protests, without fear or favour. It is a small but vital protection, and came about because of the biggest defeat of the Government in this House, by about 100 votes that included many incredibly senior and distinguished Conservative noble Lords. I am grateful to everyone who supported that provision, which will now pass into law as a result of this otherwise terrible Bill. I must thank the Minister for the way he has engaged inside and outside the Chamber, and for perhaps helping the Government to see a little sense on that vital protection for journalists.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Just for the record, I am absolutely furious about the Bill. I think the Government have panicked. It is unworthy of any Government who think freedom of speech is important. Shame on you all.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank almost all noble Lords for their contributions to another fruitful debate. As I have already said, there is no doubt that the Bill received the scrutiny it deserves. I will not go on at great length, but noble Lords have raised the subject of the Casey review. To remind the House I point out that the review said that, as a minimum, Met officers should be required to give their name, their shoulder number, the grounds for the stop and search and a receipt confirming the details of the stop. As I outlined in my opening remarks, it is fairly clear that our amendments to Section 3.8 of PACE Code A go beyond that. I accept the point the noble Lord made about the face of the Bill, but PACE codes are statutory.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked about the data that we will collect. I refer to a previous debate and reiterate what was said then:
“The Home Office already publishes an annual statistics bulletin which analyses the data from forces across England and Wales. We will also amend PACE Code A to place data collection within the legislative framework. This will include a breakdown of both suspicion-led and suspicionless searches, cross-referenced with protected characteristics such as age, sex and ethnicity”.—[Official Report, 28/3/23; col.131.]
The British public are rightly sick of the disruption that has been caused by a very selfish minority and expect the Government to act. That is what this Bill does, and it is time for it to become law.
Arrangement of Business
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, I now call the Report stage of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill—Lord Callanan?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the House adjourn for five minutes.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, arrives in the House very quickly.
Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill
Wednesday 26th April 2023
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 View all Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL 97-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (24 Apr 2023)
16:19 - Division on Amendment 1 - Ayes: 221 / Noes: 197 - Amendment 1 agreed.
17:24 - Division on Amendment 4 - Ayes: 232 / Noes: 201 - Amendment 4 agreed.
17:37 - Division on Amendment 5 - Ayes: 220 / Noes: 196 - Amendment 5 agreed.
18:10 - Division on Amendment 7 - Ayes: 213 / Noes: 184 - Amendment 7 agreed.
Lord Fox
“(5) The powers conferred by this section must not be exercised unless a consultation on the potential impact of their use has been carried out, published, and reviewed by a committee of each House of Parliament whose remit includes either the wider UK workforce and industrial relations, or the sector to which the regulations in question relate.(6) Such consultations must—(a) be carried out by the Secretary of State and involve representatives of any relevant unions, employers and other interested parties,(b) include an assessment of the potential impact of the minimum service regulations on the rights of workers to strike, the effectiveness of the relevant services, and the impact on the wider public,(c) consider services in all categories listed in subsection (4), and(d) include reference to respective service levels outside of strike action.(7) The results of the consultation and the reviews by committees must be published in a report, and the Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require a consultation to be carried out and reviewed before the powers in section 234B can be used.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister to his chair.
Amendment 1 is in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Collins. This amendment is agnostic about what is thought about the legislation’s purpose; you might support its intentions or you might reject them, and there are groups coming up after this one that will give your Lordships a chance to have that debate. This amendment revolves around what you think of Parliament and its role in making important laws that affect people in a big way. I will explain that briefly.
The central focus of the Bill is to establish legally binding minimum service levels for a range of services, some of which are delivered via the state and some of which are delivered via private companies. You will hear arguments later about how this is designed to work, but suffice to say the key element of the Bill is what constitutes a minimum service level that should be expected during a strike. The nature and quantum of this is critical to determining how many workers are effectively compelled to go to work on a strike day. The service levels are critical, and yet Parliament is effectively sidelined in the process of their development.
In the Commons, that celebrated supporter of the labour movement, Jacob Rees-Mogg, called the Bill “badly written” and an
“extreme example of bad practice”.
He criticised the lack of detail and said that it should instead
“set out clearly what it is trying to achieve”.
He added:
“This Bill is almost so skeletal that we wonder if bits of the bones were stolen away by wild animals and taken and buried somewhere”.—[Official Report, Commons, 30/1/23; cols. 89-92.]
Your Lordships will have seen the less colourful response from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which makes a similar plea for more detail in this primary legislation.
Despite this being a Bill that deals with minimum service levels during strikes—that is what it says on the cover—there is nothing in it to say what those minimum service levels are, or indeed the nature of what a minimum service level is. That is left to the Secretary of State. The vital details will follow the enactment of the Bill, when the Secretary of State makes regulations. The DPRRC describes this as “small comfort to Parliament”. The Government say that the detail required to set the level of service for each relevant service is not appropriate for primary legislation. However, the DPRRC notes that
“the Memorandum does not explain why setting out any detail on the face of the Bill would be inappropriate. Parliament”—
as we know—
“is not allergic to matters of detail, particularly where it relates to an important matter such as the right to strike”.
Instead, the process of adding flesh to this skeleton is left to as yet unspecified regulation. The additional irritant to the scrutiny of the Bill has been the absence of a coherent or comprehensive impact assessment.
This amendment seeks to bolster Parliament’s oversight. It would require a consultation to be carried out and reviewed before the powers in new Section 234B for the Secretary of State to specify minimum service levels can be used. The amendment would insert three new conditions. First, proposed new subsection (5) would mandate proper consultation on the potential impact of the use of minimum service levels to be carried out, published and reviewed by a committee of each House of Parliament. Next, proposed new subsection (6) would ensure that the consultation includes all those involved; covers the potential impact of the minimum service regulations on the rights of workers to strike and the effectiveness of relevant services, and the impact on the wider public; and takes into consideration service levels outside of strike days. Finally, the amendment would insert new subsection (7), which would ensure that the results of the consultation and the reviews by the committees are published in a report, and that the Secretary of State lays a copy of it before Parliament. The Minister will say that extensive consultation is under way, but it is non-binding and bypasses Parliament.
In conclusion, this is a modest amendment that in no way impedes the purpose of the Bill. It is about democratic process—something your Lordships have often had to defend. Amendment 1 seeks to bring Parliament back into this process at the expense of undemocratic executive action. I beg to move.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, very briefly, I support this amendment. It seems to me that we have seen Bill after Bill in which this Government have chosen to bypass Parliament and leave too many decisions to Secretaries of State. Therefore, for me, as a former member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, the most important aspect of this amendment is the requirement, following consultation, to present these matters to committees of both Houses of Parliament. I do not want to say any more; the case has been made very clearly. However, I would like it noted that I support this amendment very strongly.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I too will be brief in strongly supporting this amendment. Whatever your Lordships’ views about the state of industrial relations in this country, we should all agree, across this House, that a rushed process which puts power over making laws into the hands of Ministers without proper parliamentary scrutiny and oversight is simply not right. I appeal to all Members of the House to support Amendment 1.
As the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, said in the debate on his committee’s report,
“when laws are passed without proper parliamentary scrutiny, they cease to be just technical, as they threaten the rights and freedoms of the individual”.—[Official Report, 12/1/23; col. 1532.]
That is absolutely true when it comes to this Bill. There is no clear understanding of the form that minimum service levels are likely to take or of the impact on workplace relations and services to the public.
I draw noble Lords’ attention to the excellent briefing from NHS Providers, which is responsible for managing the NHS and 1.4 million staff. It says that the Bill
“risks damaging relationships in the NHS between trust leaders and their staff, and between trust leaders and local union representatives at a particularly fraught time, without addressing any of the issues underlying current strike action or providing a useful alternative approach to managing service provision during periods of strike”.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for keeping the House waiting for the start of the debate; the previous business finished much earlier than everyone expected.
I am grateful to those who have contributed to this debate, although clearly we have repeated a lot of what was discussed in previous debates. The House will be unsurprised to hear that my position is similar to what it was in Committee. As I did then, I resist this amendment relating to consultation requirements, parliamentary scrutiny and assessment of impacts of the legislation.
As I made clear in Committee, it is my firm view that sufficient checks and balances are already built into the legislation before regulations can be made. This includes the need to carry out consultations—indeed, we are undergoing consultations at the moment on some draft regulations—which, of course, relevant parliamentary committees are able to and almost certainly will contribute to, as well as the requirement that regulations must be approved by both Houses before they can be made. Impact assessments will also be published for all subsequent regulations on minimum service levels.
Key stakeholders, including employers, employees, members of the public, trade unions and their members are all encouraged to participate in the consultations—some of which, as I said, are live even now—and have their say in the setting of the appropriate minimum service levels, and all that will happen before the minimum service levels come into effect, and only then if they have been approved by Parliament.
I am therefore of the view that this approach is both appropriate and in line with the normal way in which secondary legislation is made. As such, the Government believe that the amendment adds unnecessary duplication into the process, and therefore I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their support for this amendment. The Minister is right that much of this debate has been had before in Committee. He is also right when he describes this as the normal way. I am afraid it has become the normal way that this Government operate to shunt as much power as possible to the Secretary of State and marginalise Parliament as often and as broadly as they can. This is a highly skeletal Bill—it is almost impossible to get one that is smaller. For that reason, I would like to test the will of the House.
Lord Callanan
“(a) whether the person is or is not a member of a trade union,(b) whether the person has or has not—(i) taken part in the activities of a trade union, or(ii) made use of services made available to the person by a trade union by virtue of the person’s membership of the union, or(c) whether or not—(i) a matter has been raised on the person’s behalf (with or without the person’s consent), or(ii) the person has consented to the raising of a matter on the person’s behalf,by a trade union of which the person is a member.(6A) In subsection (6) “a trade union” includes—(a) a particular trade union, and(b) a particular branch or section of a particular trade union.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for additional matters that an employer must not have regard to in deciding whether to identify a person in a work notice.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 2 in my name. The House will know that the Government were clear at the introduction of the Bill that employers must not have regard to a person’s trade union status when producing a work notice. Employers should identify the workers who are best placed and most appropriate for each role, so that that minimum service level can be achieved. In our view, a person’s trade union status has no place in this process.
I thank the Joint Committee on Human Rights for its report on the Bill and for its feedback, as well as feedback from the debates in Committee on protections from trade union discrimination in relation to work notices—including from the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, who was particularly vocal on this point. I hope the noble Lord will agree that this amendment addresses his concerns in full.
Through this amendment, employers must not have regard to whether a person has or has not taken part in trade union activities, made use of their services or had issues raised by a trade union on their behalf. Employers must also not have regard to whether a person is part of a particular trade union or a particular branch or section of a trade union. This also ensures a greater level of consistency with existing sections within the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992, such as Sections 146 and 152.
As I said in Committee, the activity or services that a trade union member may have been involved in are connected to whether they are a trade union member, and therefore, even under the clause as it stood, an employer must not have regard to such matters when producing a work notice. While I still believe this to be true, I hope that the amendment provides further reassurance to the House, in addition to trade unions and workers, putting the issue of trade union discrimination in relation to work notices beyond doubt. I beg to move.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, very briefly, it is appreciated that the Minister has done this and that the Government have understood that there was ambiguity. In a sense, it is a shame that the Minister has not taken all our advice, but we thank the Government for taking this particular piece.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, it would be churlish not to acknowledge that we appreciate what this amendment will do.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, noble Lords have broadly welcomed this and clearly want to move on to another section, so I do not think I have any points to raise in response.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd
“234CA Work notices: further provision(1) In the event that the Secretary of State makes minimum service regulations under section 234B—(a) no obligation is imposed on any employer to give a work notice under section 234C;(b) no person may direct any employer to give a work notice under section 234C.(2) If an employer determines that they will not give a work notice under section 234C—(a) no liability whatsoever shall attach to the employer or to any other person in respect of that decision;(b) no proceedings may be brought in any court in respect of that decision.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause is intended to make clear that the decision to issue a work notice is entirely within the employer’s discretion. The employer is therefore under no obligation to give a work notice and, if the employer determines that they will not give a work notice, the employer is under no liability to anyone and the decision cannot be challenged in court.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I will move an amendment on a very short point and I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Allan of Hallam. The schedule to the Bill sets out the procedure for giving a work notice and the Explanatory Notes say that it is intended to show
“how work notices are to operate”.
Subsection (7), for example, requires consultation with the unions. However, the critical point which emerged in Committee was the nature of the obligation on an employer to give a notice. Did the employer have to issue a notice? Was it entirely voluntary or was there something subtle in the middle? It all turns on the meaning of “may”—a good point for a lawyer possibly to take.
It is accepted that “may” does not mean “must”, although sometimes courts interpret “may” as meaning “must”. The question arose as to whether it meant that an employer was free to decide voluntarily what to do, given the impact it might have on his relations with the staff, or whether the position was more complex. I drafted Amendment 3 to make it clear that it was to be entirely voluntarily and sent it to His Majesty’s Government. Their response on “may” was clear. The Government’s letter said:
“The Bill does not place any direct obligation on an employer to issue a work notice. Rather, it gives employers a statutory discretion whether … to do so. This is right given that they are closer to the day-to-day operation of their services”.
It went on to explain the complexity, saying that
“where an employer is a public authority, they will need to consider their overarching public law duties. Employers will also need to consider if they have any contractual or other legal obligations that they need to comply with”.
There is no point in debating whether His Majesty’s Government are right in the interpretation of “may”; that must be for the courts to decide. But let us assume they are. There are a number of consequences. First, there is a process to be gone through by the employer—although it is not in the Bill, despite what the Explanatory Notes say. Secondly, if an employer has contractual obligations, it will have to examine what those are. If an employer is a public body, it would have to consider its public law duties, spelled out in legislation and government directions. As regards public law, it would no doubt be prudent to consult the relevant Government.
The employer would then have to weigh up the damage the notice might cause to staff relations and the provision of services in the future. There might be other considerations. It will be a difficult decision for employers in England and they might be pressurised, either by an injunction or a judicial review. We must emphasise that the courts are now likely to come into this.
In Wales and Scotland—assuming the Bill applies to them—there would be a further layer of uncertainty because they would be subject to Welsh and Scottish primary legislation and the views of their Governments. How could it be expected that public bodies in those two nations and devolved areas should be responsible for working out what their duties were?
I had hoped for one of two things: either the Government would accept my amendment—but it is plain they will not—or they would set out the considerations and put them into the statute. But they have not done that either.
I will therefore move this amendment, but I do not intend to seek the opinion of the House for two reasons. First, if His Majesty’s Government are right on the meaning of “may”, there really are contentious points of law for the courts in defining the employer’s obligations in the different contexts of hospitals, teachers and railways. This is most unfortunate. Secondly, the Bill should be clear and spell out the decision in the way the Explanatory Notes said it should be done but, as I said in Committee, this Bill is the epitome of legislation first, policy second—a total reversal of the proper policy. I beg to move.
Lord Allan of Hallam (LD)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, to which I have added my name. A benefit of the Committee stage in this House is that it allows us to identify concerns that may not have been apparent when a Bill was first introduced. It is through that process of analysing how legislation will work in practice, informed by the experiences that noble Lords bring to this place, that we can flush out those unintended consequences. On a good day, the House having flagged something that is a reasonable area of concern, the Government will provide us with clarifications that show that our fears are misplaced and that all will be well. On a really good day, a Minister will acknowledge that we have identified a genuine problem and set out a path to fix it. We have just had an example of that on the previous amendment.
I believe we have done our job and identified a real gap here between the Government’s rhetoric that employers will not be mandated to issue work notices and what may happen in practice, yet the Government have so far failed to provide either a clarification that our concerns are unfounded or an acknowledgement that we have identified a real issue that they intend to fix before the Bill becomes law. In this amendment we are presenting a way to demonstrate the kind of fix that we think is needed, not to undermine the Government’s intentions in respect of the legislation writ large, but rather to ensure that it works as they themselves have said they wish to happen.
My concern is quite specific. It is that employers will be advised that they expose themselves to significant legal risk if they do not issue work notices, even where they feel that they would be counterproductive to their efforts to negotiate with their employees. The circumstances under which they may feel this compulsion are not fantastical but all too apparent if we look at broader trends in litigation. We do not have to stretch our imagination too far to see somebody suing an NHS body that chose not to issue work orders, alleging that their treatment could have been delivered if it had; a student taking action against an educational institution on the basis that it did not order teaching staff to turn up during strike days; or businesses suffering disruption as a result of transport strikes going after train operators, claiming that more service could have been provided.
Some noble Lords may have sympathy with this approach and think, “Good; if employers feel compelled to issue work orders, the Bill is working”, but the Government have said repeatedly that the work order should be voluntary and that this is not what they intend. If they wish to make work orders compulsory, they should have the honesty to say that in the Bill. They would be de facto mandated because of the threat of litigation, and if the Government do not wish that to happen, they should agree to our amendment to make that clear to employers.
It seems far from ideal to leave this confused, with the extent of compulsion in practice decided on the basis of an assessment of the threat of legal action. I fear that the Government will argue, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, has already indicated, that this is an acceptable state of affairs and that they do not intend to change the legislation, but I hope that noble Lords will see the force of our arguments and will support Amendment 3.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, many people in this House will know that I have a firm belief that the best industrial relations are conducted by two parties that are trying to achieve objectives in common and are not clashing with each other. This amendment basically helps that to happen because it says that an employer will not be under an obligation to give a work notice if it does not want to. Surely the reason it would not want to is because it would worsen the industrial relations within the company or body concerned. That cannot possibly be a good objective to pursue.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for his constructive engagement on this matter. He wrote to us about it and has had a reply, so he knows the Government’s position. We believe that the current drafting of the legislation strikes the right balance so that, while employers have the statutory discretion to issue a work notice, they also have to consider any other existing legal duties that they may have—for instance, contractual, tort or public law duties. My concern is that the amendment would enable employers to act without due consideration to such duties, as it effectively seeks to remove any legal consequences for not issuing a work notice.
The decision to issue a work notice should be objective but, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Allan, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, have said, the amendment would then enable subjective, and potentially political, factors to influence that decision.
It would be likely—and I suspect this is the intention of the movers—to lead to many fewer work notices being given where they were needed, leading to minimum service levels not being met in more cases, but the reason for this legislation is that the Government do not believe that is in the best interests of service users or the public. I therefore maintain the position that I took in Committee and resist the amendment on that basis. I hope the noble and learned Lord will withdraw it.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
It is disappointing that the Government will not put in the Bill what the position is. The word “may” is too ambiguous. I am afraid we may be back to the kind of thing that happened 50 years ago, as we are seeing a large number of disputes go to a successor—the ordinary courts, this time—to the National Industrial Relations Court, and that was not a happy outcome for anyone. But the Government have taken their stand. I do not wish to press this to a Division and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“234CA Protection of employees (1) A person is not subject to a work notice if the person in question has not received a copy of the work notice.(2) It is for the employer to prove that an individual received a work notice.(3) Failure to comply with a work notice is not to—(a) be regarded as a breach of the contract of employment of any person identified in the work notice, or(b) constitute lawful grounds for dismissal or any other detriment.(4) Having regard to subsection (3), failure to comply with a work notice is deemed to be—(a) a trade union activity undertaken at an appropriate time for the purposes of sections 146 (detriment on grounds related to union membership or activities) and 152 (dismissal of employee on grounds related to union membership or activities), and(b) participation in industrial action for the purposes of sections 238 (dismissals in connection with other industrial action) and 238A (participation in official industrial action).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would prevent failure to comply with a work notice from being regarded as a breach of contract or constituting lawful grounds for dismissal or any other detriment.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to the amendment in my name and the names of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and the noble Lord, Lord Fox. This amendment would ensure that an individual employee named in a work notice cannot be sacked or sanctioned if they do not comply. In short, it would avoid the risk of a shameful and ultimately self-defeating spectacle of nurses and other key workers, whom not so long ago we all clapped, being sacked.
Employees are currently protected against unfair dismissal for the first 12 weeks of a lawful strike. In Committee, there were strong concerns around the Committee that this Bill, as currently drafted, unilaterally removes that protection from individual key workers named in a work notice who do not comply, and that this is not compatible with the UK’s obligations on human and labour rights. No other European country with minimum service levels gives employers the power to take away the livelihoods of workers in these circumstances —not one. This would make Britain an outlier in Europe and would constitute a gross infringement of an employee’s individual freedom.
The scope of the sectors covered by the Bill so far means that an estimated 6 million workers could see their employment contracts unilaterally changed in this fundamental way—and all by secondary legislation. Most of these workers are women. In sectors such as health and transport, as we have heard, they are disproportionately black and ethnic minorities. It would not matter that there has been a democratic vote, or that a union has successfully overcome the many draconian obstacles to mounting a lawful strike.
Every worker is vulnerable, because individual workers who have lawfully voted for strike action would be entered into a P45 lottery. If they are unlucky enough to be individually named on a work notice and disobey for reasons of sincerely held belief, they could be lawfully and instantly sacked. This Bill does not even require an employer to prove that they ensured that the worker concerned received a copy of the work notice. Instead, employers are given the power to effectively requisition individuals under threat of losing their livelihood. Most right-minded people find that disproportionate, dictatorial and fundamentally unfair.
Not so long ago, the Government agreed. When the railways minimum service levels Bill was announced in the Queen’s Speech in 2019, the Government promised that sanctions would not be directed at individual workers. This amendment seeks to redress the balance and address that injustice. It would ensure that the freedoms and livelihoods of individual workers are protected. It would prevent the creation of a P45 lottery. It would reassure many unions and employers, including NHS employers, which say that the threat to sack strikers, even before this Bill is enacted, is poisoning industrial relations and making difficult situations much worse.
After all, dismissing key workers would do absolutely nothing to tackle the blight of public service staff shortages and backlogs on the country. Since the Minister confirmed that employees named on work notices who call in sick on the day cannot be sacked, it would avoid the potential chaos of making emergency cover much more difficult to plan and deliver. At Second Reading, the Minister stated unequivocally that
“This legislation is not about sacking workers”.—[Official Report, 21/2/23; col. 1563.]
This amendment would ensure that the Minister’s commitment is met.
The Lord Bishop of Guildford
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 4, to which my friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London has signed her name. Bishop Sarah sends her apologies that she cannot be here, but we both strongly support the amendment, not least given reports that many important voices across the healthcare world, including the Royal College of Nursing and NHS Providers, are similarly supportive.
The basic principles and urgency of the Bill are understandable, given the events of the past months. At the same time, those events themselves reflect the very low levels of morale and trust across many of our essential services, and an overly robust approach at this point would only exacerbate the situation further— in effect, pouring fuel on the fire. The idea that the failure to comply with a work notice should be regarded as a breach of contract or grounds for dismissal, thereby removing existing protections for the employee under the 1992 Act, would seem to reflect that overly robust approach. Were this amendment to be passed, the relevant trade union would still hold some liability, ensuring that this would still remain a useful and functioning Bill.
My friend the right reverend Prelate is understandably concerned about this from a healthcare angle, particularly given her former role as the youngest ever Chief Nursing Officer. From that perspective, passing the Bill without this amendment would seriously damage the co-operation and good will required for successful local negotiations in the somewhat febrile atmosphere in which we find ourselves. NHS Providers points out that, were individuals to go on strike contrary to a work notice and then be fired, unions could, and most likely would, take other action, either through work to rule or calling in sick en masse. Both would undermine the Bill’s primary and laudable purpose to provide safe levels of care. So, if that purpose is at the heart of the Bill, supporting this amendment seems to me to be essential.
Lord Woodley (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 4, and I also support Amendment 5.
Amendment 4 covers the issue of protecting workers from being forced to cross their own picket lines under threat of the sack; it is a fundamental issue which strikes at the heart of trade unionism. The Bill, as it stands, gives bad bosses the power to target and victimise trade union activists by issuing work notices. Although I accept that minor concessions have been made, there are still no sanctions on bosses behaving badly, and we know, unfortunately, that some will do so, given the opportunity. The only way to protect workers fully is to make it absolutely clear that, if a striking worker refuses to cross a picket line during lawful industrial action, they will not lose their legal protections and will not be subject to dismissal. That is why the amendment is so important. Nobody should be forced to make the agonising choice between betraying their trade union principles of solidarity and standing together as workers and potentially losing their job.
Let us dispel the myth that this proposed law follows only what most of Europe already does—what absolute nonsense. This week, over 120 elected politicians from around the world, including from France, Germany, Italy and Spain, have called on our Government to abandon the Bill, pointing out that
“The UK already has some of the most draconian restrictions on trade unions anywhere in the democratic world … Despite this, the UK Government is set on further rolling back worker protections and freedoms”.
On Amendment 5, just as trade union members must be protected from being forced to act against their own interests during a legally organised dispute, so must the trade unions themselves.
This proposed law would, without a doubt, poison industrial relations and victimise workers and their unions. That is why I urge all noble Lords to support both amendments, and particularly Amendment 4.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, why did trade unions come about? Because there were bosses who would pick off one person after another to undermine the workforce. This amendment says that it is worth protecting this principle. We will bring back chaos if the Bill allows an employer to say to an individual who has not been given a notice that they have breached their contract. Of course, collective bargaining, at the heart of it, means that the whole body tries to agree—and that is why the noble Lord said that the best resolution comes from people being together at a table and talking, and not from having this kind of legislation.
I support this and the following amendment for the simple reason that every worker has a right to a fair wage for a fair day’s work, and every worker has a right to withdraw their labour if they think matters are unfair. You cannot bring in legislation which simply gets people back to work because conversation or discussion has not happened.
We should think of why the trade unions were born, and not go back on that—noble Lords should support the amendment. I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, did not press his amendment to a Division; I would have supported it, simply because it would have given clarity. The law at the moment is unclear—and we are going to be in trouble at some future time because he was too gentlemanly to press it.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I support Amendments 4 and 5. The issue Amendment 4 addresses is a bit odd, as it creates a situation of servitude for key workers. That slightly puzzles me, because I am sure that the Minister clapped for nurses and the NHS during the lockdown and supported them then—so why not now? Perhaps he can explain that to me. It looks to me as if the Tories are taking a bad situation of their own creation and making it worse. This amendment is extremely important. I hope that the Minister, when he clapped for those nurses, realised just how important they were.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, this amendment really shows what a ludicrous Bill this is. The clause that we are dealing with is unworkable. As noble Lords know, I have to declare an interest as an executive honorary president of the British Airline Pilots’ Association. I have talked in this House before about the fact that this Bill allows the Minister for Transport, our good and noble friend Lady Vere, to identify a pilot and order him, a week before the plane takes off, to fly to Washington. That is ludicrous. If you live in the real world of aviation, you will know that a plane is not cleared for take-off until the pilot certifies that it should take off, something like two hours before it leaves. You have to consider weather and whether the level of staffing is correct—and then the pilot is the captain of the plane, responsible for ensuring that the alcohol levels of the staff are not breached. Unless you let people make a decision, you are just running yourself into trouble.
Aviation is about 70% unionised. Is the employer going to identify some people who are not in the union and tell them to go to work, rather than people who are in the union? You have the same group of people, and some of them are in and some are out. How are you going to decide that, and how will you decide matters such as illness? What happens if someone rings up and says, “I think I’ve got Covid”? Are you going to be able to withdraw their protection from unfair dismissal? Of course not.
This clause, above everything else, demonstrates the weakness and stupidity of the Bill. The idea of naming people in a work notice could come only from the desk of someone who has never had to do it, frankly.
I want to look at Amendment 5. The reason put forward in a note to me for the proposal in the Bill was that the minimum service levels would be far less likely to be achieved as trade unions may attempt to persuade workers not to comply with work notices. That is fairyland. Trade unions spend more of their time and money on our friend the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and his colleagues in the law than is probably sensible. At every stage, they look at the law and say, “We must not break it”.
In my experience, the executive of a trade union, and particularly the local branches, will spend more time persuading the hotheads not to do stupid things than they will encouraging them to do so. It is, for instance, a regular occurrence that a number of British Airways staff believe that they can take actions that are clearly in contravention of the law. It is the job of the executive to say to them, “You will damage the union”; it is not the job of the executive—it never has been—to say, “Behind the scenes, do you think you could do this?” That is not the way that trade unionism works.
I say that as someone who has been involved in trade unionism, for my sins, for over 60 years. It is 60 years since I first became a branch official. Throughout a lifetime of serving in different trade union branches, executives, and now as president of a TUC union, I have always been impressed with how the workers we represented wanted to get it right. They have often had very good reasons for feeling annoyed with the employers, but the job of the union, as a structure, has been to canalise the dispute in such a way that it is within the law and is a compliant dispute that attempts to achieve the objectives that the workforce is looking for. One reason we have trade unions in this country is to provide a bit of balance.
The Bill is not even sensible. It will not work. I hope that, when it goes down the corridor, our new Prime Minister will look at it and say, “For God’s sake, let’s just bury it”. There are far more important challenges facing Britain today than passing an unworkable Bill to annoy one section of the population—not to mention the 1.5 million trade unionists who voted for the Conservative Party at the last election. They will probably vote for it again because they do not vote according to their union; they vote according to their class interests. Most of my union members vote for the Conservative Party.
Let us be aware that this is not a matter where a Conservative Government have to stand up to the unions—they are standing up to their own supporters. Ordinary members of trade unions have worked hard to help the country become the prosperous country that it is. This sort of legislation is just the sort of damn nonsense that people look at and say, “My God, they just do not understand, do they?” They do not say that the Government are trying to do something. The general reaction to this Bill, I am afraid, among my trade union friends is that the Government do not understand what they are doing. I urge the Minister to send it back down the corridor and ask them to bury it in a nice big box somewhere.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thought that I had better interject and speak to Amendment 5 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Fox.
I reiterate what my noble friend Lord Woodley said. The Minister has said on every occasion that we have considered the Bill that this is not about banning the right to strike, which is a fundamental right. I have no doubt that the Minister will repeat that when he responds to this debate. We face in this country some of the most onerous processes and procedures in order for people to exercise that right through their trade union. The statutory ballot requirements are pretty rigorous and, as the noble Lord has said previously, they can be challenged in court. Unions are very concerned to make sure that they do not breach the law, that they act within the law and that strikes are lawfully conducted.
Here we have a situation where a clause in this Bill could place trade unions in a position where they would be asked to ensure that the members who vote for industrial action—who go through that rigorous process—do not take part in that action. That is not the responsibility of a trade union. A union could face an injunction or be forced to pay damages if it is deemed not to have taken “reasonable steps”.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, talked about the definition of “may”. Well, what is the definition of “reasonable steps”? What situation are we putting trade unions in with this vague requirement that could result in them facing legal action? If a union is deemed not to have followed the legislation, the strike could be regarded as unlawful and the protection for striking workers, such as automatic unfair dismissal protection, could be removed from all striking members, including those not named in the work notices. So, employees will not know before participating in the strike action whether they have protection, and unions do not know what amounts to “reasonable steps”, as no detail has been provided in the Bill. I think that is an unacceptable situation. We should not be passing laws that put individuals and trade unions in that position.
Of course, this is not simply my view. The Joint Committee on Human Rights concluded:
“We find it hard to see how it is compliant with Article 11 ECHR to expose any participant in industrial action to the risk of dismissal simply because a trade union fails to take unspecified ‘reasonable steps’ required in respect of those subject to a work notice. In our view, the Government has not provided sufficient justification for this consequence or explained why the minimum service scheme could not be effective without it”.
I think those are the words—I do not need to say any more. I hope the House will support Amendment 5.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to both these amendments, which have my name. There might be an argument that the ends justify the means, but this does not deliver the ends. This false promise does not work. The means we are discussing here will poison industrial relations. The means we are discussing here will make recruitment into public services much harder, because working conditions will be made worse. The means we are talking about here will also remove predictability when we have a workplace dispute, because, as has been noted, people will go off sick and refuse to do overtime, and that will make the job of managing through a strike much harder.
The last group talked about protecting employers from this unwanted Bill. This group talks about protecting workers and unions from this unwanted Bill, and I ask your Lordships to support both these amendments.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 4 and 5. I will be brief and speak only about Amendment 5. The purpose of the proposed new Section 234E is objectionable, for all the reasons my noble friend Lord Collins has spelled out: the ethical objection to requiring a union to undermine its own otherwise lawful strike. There is a more fundamental point here; this is an elephant trap. The purpose of this provision is to enable employers to get injunctions to prevent unions conducting a strike that has been balloted.
I am reminded that, 44 years ago, I stood at the Bar of this House as junior counsel in a case called Express Newspapers Ltd v McShane and Ashton. Since then, I must have done dozens of strike cases. I know what my learned friends will say, representing employers in the sort of case where this issue arises; they will say that the union has failed to take reasonable steps. The union will produce a witness statement setting out all the steps it has taken, and the employers will say, “Ah, but there’s one step you didn’t take”, and they will say what it was.
This Bill does not say what the reasonable steps are or what factors are to be taken into consideration. That is in contrast, for example, to Section 238A of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992; in dealing with dismissals during a strike, it set outs the words “reasonable steps” and says expressly what factors a court is to take into account in determining whether reasonable steps have been taken or not.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. Before I address the terms of the amendments, I will first address the frankly ridiculous exaggerations from the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, and the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, that the UK is some kind of international parasite or outlier in considering this legislation—
Lord Callanan (Con)
My apologies—I thank the noble Baroness. I meant “pariah”. In terms of being an international outlier, many other countries have minimum service levels. I will give the House some examples. In the USA, ambulance workers are in most circumstances prohibited from taking any action; it is the same in Australia; in Canada, there is variation by province; Spain and France have statutory minimum service levels in ambulance services; Belgium has statutory MSLs. All these requirements are laid down in law.
In the USA, Australia and Canada, for fire services action is prohibited completely by law. Nobody in the UK is suggesting that we go that far. I accept that noble Lords opposite will not mind the example of the USA, but, last time I looked, Australia and Canada both had centre-left Governments. Yet they ban strike action completely in fire services. So the UK is not an international outlier in considering these MSLs. Spain, France and Belgium have statutory MSLs in fire services. I have no idea who is in government in Belgium at the moment—there is normally some sort of 20-party coalition—but nevertheless these are not hard-right Governments with complete freedom of action against workers. It is not unusual in international terms to consider MSLs.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
I thank the Minister for answering an allegation that was not made by my noble friend. His point was that we were an outlier or pariah not because we had minimum service levels but because we were the only country with minimum service levels that was applying the sorts of terms and conditions that are objected to in the proposed amendments. That is quite a different thing from the argument about minimum service levels.
Lord Callanan (Con)
I do not think it is a different thing at all. If action is prohibited completely, as it is in the three countries I mentioned—let us take, for example, fire services—there is no provision for workers to take any strike action at all. If they do so, they are in breach of their contracts—presumably they can be dismissed, in those countries. I think the comparison is completely valid.
I turn to the amendments. To achieve a minimum service level, employers, employees and trade unions all have a part to play, in our view, and the Bill makes it clear what those respective roles are. The amendments in this group would remove key parts of the legislation, which we believe are necessary to make it effective, and I suspect that is the aim of those who tabled them. As such, I take the same position as I did in Committee and resist these amendments.
Amendment 4 seeks to remove the consequences for an employee who participates in strike action while being identified in a work notice. The approach taken is both fair and proportionate. It enables employers to manage instances of non-compliance with a work notice in exactly the same way that they would manage any other unauthorised absence. I repeat the point for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Collins: this is not about sacking workers, nurses or anyone else. An employee loses their automatic protection from unfair dismissal for industrial action if they participated in a strike contrary to a work notice, as indeed they would lose their unfair dismissal rights if they participated in any other form of strike action that was not in accordance with the law, just as failing to attend work without a valid reason does not necessarily mean that they will be dismissed. It simply enables employers to pursue disciplinary action if they believe it is appropriate, but it is ultimately at their discretion whether or not to do so.
Amendment 4 also provides that individuals identified in a work notice are not subject to the work notice unless they have been given a copy of it, and the employer must prove that the individual has received it. However, under the current drafting, employees lose their automatic unfair dismissal protection for going on strike in contravention of a work notice only if the employer notifies them that they are required to work under a work notice and of the work that they must carry out. I believe that this additional requirement is both unnecessary and duplicative; it could also be inappropriate as workers could be given a work notice which identifies thousands of other workers.
Amendment 5 seeks to ensure that unions have no responsibility for ensuring that their members do not participate in strike action and attend work instead if they have been named on a work notice. It also ensures that there are no consequences for failing to meet that responsibility. I suspect this is an attempt to disrupt the balance between the ability to strike and the rights and freedoms of others to go about their lawful business, which is ultimately at the heart of the Bill.
If employees are not incentivised to attend work on a strike day when they have been identified on work notice, or if a trade union has no responsibility to ensure that its members comply, the effectiveness of this legislation will be severely undermined. I suspect noble Lords opposite know that their amendments will do exactly that, and I am sure it is therefore no surprise to them that I cannot support them on this occasion. Given the direct disruption that these amendments will have on the ability of the public to go about their normal, lawful business, I ask noble Lords—without too much optimism—to feel free to not press their amendments.
Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that response, but Amendment 4 is about the individual freedoms, dignity and livelihoods of workers. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Collins of Highbury
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the section that removes protection from Unions.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister suggested that Amendment 5 undermines the Bill. Actually, the provisions that this amendment addresses undermine the democratic role of trade unions, which is why we have tabled it. This is not about minimum service levels; as we have said previously, these are properly and better addressed voluntarily. If this provision remains, it will simply undermine the role of trade unions. It has to go, and therefore I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd
(6) This section does not apply to—(a) an Act or Measure of Senedd Cymru, or(b) an Act of the Scottish Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would mean that the power of United Kingdom Ministers to amend primary legislation does not apply to Acts of the Scottish Parliament or Senedd Cymru.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to both Amendment 6 and Amendment 7— Amendment 7 being the more important. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Randerson and Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, for supporting these amendments. I have tabled these amendments because this Bill, in its application to Scotland and Wales, is impractical, undemocratic and will make the services there worse. Let me briefly explain each of those points.
First, on impracticality, the main services—that is health, education and ambulance services—are all devolved. It simply is not practical for the Secretary of State for Health or the Secretary of State for Education, as advised by their departments in England, to deal with the position in Wales and Scotland. They do not deal at all with health and education in Wales or Scotland. They are run differently, on a basis of very different legislation to that in England. Let me explain why by reference to Wales.
As to health, under Welsh legislation it is the Welsh Ministers who give direction to the employers—the local health boards and trusts—about their functions. It is Welsh Ministers who have a role in setting pay and conditions in accordance with Welsh regulations and directions and the priorities of the Welsh Ministers.
As to ambulance services, these are run in Wales under the direction of a joint committee of health board chief executives, which has commissioned the Welsh Ambulance Services NHS Trust to run the services for the whole of Wales. Those same health board chief executives are appointed by Welsh Ministers, who are of course accountable to the Senedd. How can an English Minister set minimum service levels for Wales and interfere in this structure when the Minister and the department have no basis whatsoever for doing so, no interest in the policy, no interest in the priorities and do not really understand either the demographics or geography of Wales.
As to education, in Wales it is the local authorities that, with the governors, employ the staff. There are substantial differences in structure: there are no academies in Wales; funding, unlike in England, is not hypothecated; and minimum qualifications for teachers are different. Pay and conditions are set by the Welsh Government for the needs of the curriculum in Wales which, quite apart from bilingualism, is different to that in England. How can a Minister who knows all about education in England, yet has not been able to work out a policy for minimum service levels, set minimum service levels for education in Wales, about which the Minister knows absolutely nothing?
Overall, the position of the employers who have to decide whether to give a work notice in Wales and Scotland will be different to that in England. I have already set out the difficulties in dealing with Amendment 3. They will have to take into account different public law duties under different legislation, and the views of the Governments of Wales and Scotland, who have the power to give directions. Again, one can see a wonderful field day for lawyers.
Secondly, in my view, it is wholly wrong and contrary to basic democratic and constitutional principles for this to apply in Wales and Scotland. The responsibility for dealing with these services is not that of the UK Government but the Welsh and Scottish Governments under the legislation applicable in those nations. The Governments there were elected to run these services and are wholly responsible and accountable to the electorate for them. The English Government—the UK Government—are not accountable. It is therefore wrong in principle to undermine that accountability and democratic choice.
This is underlined by the refusal yesterday of the Senedd to give legislative consent. His Majesty’s Government will argue that the refusal is irrelevant, as it is not a matter for the Senedd or the Scottish Parliament because the Bill concerns a reserved matter, industrial relations. With the utmost respect to government lawyers, that is nonsense: the Bill is not about industrial relations but about devolved services. As has been explained, there is a fundamental failure to understand what the Bill is about. Secondly, the Senedd is the body democratically accountable for services, not the UK Government. Therefore, unless amended, this will be another piece of legislation where the Sewel convention is ignored. I have spoken of this before, but it is now being ignored at the heart of devolution, in services that have been run in Wales and Scotland for a very long time.
Thirdly, it will make matters worse for the people of Wales and Scotland by undermining the ability of the Welsh and Scottish Governments to manage their own relations with their staff and employees. The management of those relationships is different from, and has generally been more successful than, that of the Government responsible for England. Applying the Bill to Wales and Scotland is effectively taking away power from those who have responsibility for the management of the relationship, for the negotiations and for the setting of pay and conditions. It will undermine their ability to do this successfully. It is simply an arrogation of powers in matters over which the Government in England have no responsibility. Power without responsibility is a recipe for disaster for the people of Wales and Scotland, for which the Government, in respect of these services, have no responsibility at all.
In summary, the UK Government, which are under the law responsible only for health, ambulances and education in England, should not be interfering in areas for which they have no responsibility in Scotland and Wales. It is impractical, wrong in principle and makes no sense. The real problem is that this is yet another attempt to undermine devolution and give strength to those who wish to see the union weakened.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has spoken very powerfully and comprehensively on this, and I am delighted to offer my support on both these amendments, which reflect how badly written this Bill is. It reflects a Government in a temper tantrum in the face of a period of determined and effective trade union action. I can hear government Ministers stamping their feet in a fit of rage and the result is this badly drafted Bill.
The report of the Select Committee on the Constitution condemns the Bill for being “skeletal” and declares that the concept of minimum services levels is insufficiently specified. This problem is particularly acute in relation to the devolved Administrations, because it is surely up to them to decide what minimum service levels should apply in their own countries in their own circumstances.
I will give two very concrete examples. First, in relation to health services, ambulance response times might quite reasonably be very differently specified in Wales and Scotland because in the Highlands of Scotland and rural mid-Wales the distances travelled are massive. Secondly, if you look at Welsh-medium education, dare I say it, it is unlikely that a UK Minister would even understand the minimum service levels they would have to specify. It is totally inappropriate that it should be in their hands.
At the heart of these amendments is the fact that most of the services specified are, of course, devolved and have a close impact on devolved services at the very least. Education, health, fire and rescue and most transport services are in the hands of the devolved Administrations, which are democratically accountable for the running of those services, yet the UK Government want to intervene in that relationship. That intervention will inevitably sour employer-employee relationships and inevitably mean worse services for the people of the countries concerned.
It will create a seriously muddy situation. Minimum service levels should be down to the democratically responsible Governments concerned, and in these services that is the devolved Governments. The muddy waters will be even more troubled by the information referred to earlier in Amendment 3 from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, that in practice employers will have to issue work notices in order to avoid being sued.
So, we have employers in devolved Administrations working to the devolved Governments which are going to have to act in response to UK Government actions. This is not practical, so for all these reasons I believe the Government need to draw a halt to their many steady and determined attempts to undermine devolution, and this Bill needs to apply only to England.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I support both these amendments, speaking, if I may, from a Scottish point of view. I endorse entirely what has been said by my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd and by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson.
I would like to come back to the point about legislative consent, because I very much regret the fact that the Government have not sought that from the devolved legislatures. It is pretty obvious that it would have been withheld, but the fact that they never did that itself tells one a great deal about the Government’s attitude to devolution.
The fact is that almost all the services that we are concerned with—health, education and so on—are devolved. It follows that industrial relations in relation to these services are in the devolved area. We see this in Scotland day after day. Discussions about pay and conditions for nurses, junior doctors, ambulance workers and so on are dealt with in Scotland by the Scottish Government because they are dealing with devolved areas. Therefore, industrial relations in relation to these services really are within the devolved area and should have nothing to do with Ministers in Whitehall. There is a basic misconception about the approach the Government have taken in the Bill in relation to these devolved areas. Without elaborating on the other points that have been made, it is because of that very basic misconception that has misguided the Government from the start that I support these two amendments.
Lord Wigley (PC)
I am glad of the opportunity to support these amendments and to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for introducing them and noble Lords for the supporting arguments that have been put forward so far.
Wales has a long and honourable tradition of trade unionism. It has been constitutional trade unionism. There has been an interesting situation over the past 20 years where mainly Labour-led Governments have had to negotiate with trade unions in Wales. Of course, there have been differences of opinion, and give and take, but generally the attitude and the atmosphere have been positive. The last thing we want is to see legislation from Westminster or anywhere else cutting across that and becoming an excuse for things that then go wrong. We want the responsibility for these matters to lie with our Senedd in Cardiff and no doubt likewise in Edinburgh. For that reason, I very much hope these amendments will be passed.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I point out that Scotland and Wales have separate trade union organisations. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, would like to tell us of some of the divisions, difficulties and challenges that she faced within the TUC in getting a common position. One should not underestimate the fact that both these countries have a separate tradition and, importantly, a separate structure. So if orders are going to be given and trade unions are going to be disciplined, they are going to have to be disciplined in more than one jurisdiction. I would be very interested to hear from the noble Baroness the difficulties that she sees in trying to make this work, when quite rightly the trade union movements in Scotland and Wales have separate structures, often separate policies, which may be congruent but are separate, and separate ways of existing and negotiating.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
Speaking as a Scotsman and a unionist, I strongly support the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. It seems to me that if one is to maintain the union, it is important to maintain the devolution settlement. This Bill undermines the devolution settlement.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I want to make a few brief points. Of course, the noble and learned Lord is absolutely right that defining and managing service levels is a devolved matter. It is how you manage and define them. So when it comes to defining minimum service levels, who has responsibility? It is not the Government. It is actually going to be the responsibility of the devolved institutions and devolved Governments. Let me say this: this is not about devolving employment rights. Employment rights are in a single market and they are clearly defined. This is about service levels. We had debates in Committee about how to define service levels on non-strike days. The devolved Governments are going to be responsible for that, and that is the democratic accountability. That is why it is really important that we support these amendments.
Lord Callanan (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 6 and 7 relate, as has been said, to the devolved Governments. Amendment 6 seeks to remove the power for the Secretary of State to make consequential amendments to primary legislation made by the Scottish Parliament or the Senedd Cymru. This amendment was previously tabled in Committee, and no one will be surprised to know that the Government’s position remains unchanged.
As I have previously stated, the powers in Clause 3 can be exercised only to make amendments that are necessary to give effect to the Bill; they are therefore truly consequential. Employment rights and duties and industrial relations are reserved in respect of Scotland and Wales. It is therefore right that the Secretary of State has the power to make consequential amendments to primary legislation made by the Scottish Parliament or Senedd Cymru, if required, to ensure that the new legal framework operates in a coherent way across the whole of Great Britain. As always, the Government will engage with the devolved Governments as appropriate should consequential amendments be required to Acts of the Scottish Parliament or the Senedd Cymru.
Amendment 7, meanwhile, seeks to limit the territorial application of this Act to England. The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, tabled a similar amendment in Committee, and the Government continue to resist this change for the same reasons that I set out then.
As has been said numerous times in this debate, once regulations for minimum service levels are in force for a specified service, if a trade union gives notice of strike action, it is then the employer’s decision whether to issue a work notice ahead of the strike, specifying the workforce required to achieve the minimum service level for that strike period. If the employer is the Scottish Government or the Welsh Senedd, it is their decision whether or not they use this legislation. Of course, we hope that all employers will want to do so where needed —as was said in relation to the amendments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, employers must consider any contractual, public law or other legal duties that they have—but the Bill does not contain a statutory requirement to do so. No one is forcing them to use this legislation.
We will, as we have done throughout this legislation, continue to engage with the devolved Governments as part of the development of minimum service levels in those areas and the consultations that would be required that are informing these decisions. The Government have a duty to protect the lives and livelihoods of citizens across Great Britain. The disproportionate impacts that strikes can have on the public are no less severe in Scotland or Wales, and the people there have every right to expect the Government to act to ensure that they can continue to access vital public services, which they pay for, during strike action.
I hope—again, perhaps without too much optimism—that noble Lords will therefore feel able not to press their amendments.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I considered whether to press both amendments to a Division, but it seems to me that the critical one is Amendment 7. If the Act is not applicable to England, Amendment 6 is, in effect, consequential and falls away. I therefore intend to withdraw Amendment 6 but will ask to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 7.
There are two fundamental reasons for that. First, it is essential that we do not undermine devolution. The devolution Acts give the responsibility for services to the devolved Governments. If the devolved Governments fail to deliver those services, they can be booted out at the next election. That is democracy, which I had hoped this Government believed in.
Secondly, the argument that the Minister has put forward—that the Governments in Wales and Scotland are the employers and can themselves determine whether the notices should or should not be given—is misconceived. As I sought to say, they are not the employers. The employers are the trusts and the local authorities. Probably wrongly, I did not press Amendment 5, but the Government now have to bear the consequence.
If they had agreed to my amendment, the point the Minister made might be a good one—but they did not. The consequence is that it is not up to the Governments of Scotland and Wales. They will have interests and points to make, just as no doubt the UK Government will have to the English authorities. But, ultimately, it will be for the employers. Therefore, this is an outright interference in the running of services in Wales and Scotland. They are at the heart of devolution. This, if anything, proves that what this Government want to do is undermine devolution and thus weaken the union. I will therefore press Amendment 7 in due course, and in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 6.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would limit the application of this Act to England.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
I wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 7.
Sudan
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I start by paying tribute to the bravery and professionalism of our Armed Forces, who have been involved in the operation, first, to evacuate our British diplomats and, now, to start to evacuate British citizens from Sudan. In supporting our nationals in escaping the violence, we should remember that this conflict is not of the Sudanese people’s making. The responsibility for it lies squarely with a few generals, who are putting personal interests and ambition above the lives of fellow citizens. In those circumstances, it is important that the international community, including our partners, sends a clear and united message that the generals cannot secure any future through the continuation of violence. They need to understand the importance of stopping—and stopping now.
I have a number of questions for the Minister. I appreciate that, tomorrow, there will be an update report presented to the other place, and I hope that next week we will have an opportunity to review that. In the meantime, I ask what support is being offered to the African Union mediators—has the AU made any specific requests to us? How are UN efforts towards a ceasefire being collated and joined up so as to facilitate progress on the African Union IGAD plan for mediation? It is vital that we focus on that.
There are issues around the numbers evacuated, the numbers remaining and the timescales for the remainder of evacuation flights. In particular, is there a time when the Government expect that control over Wadi Seidna airbase will end? Certainly, working with other partners is their responsibility. Will the responsibility be transferred to other nations that seek to evacuate their own citizens? If the ceasefire deteriorates, how will we prevent people being left behind who are so desperate to escape?
After reading the reports on the ground and listening to the radio, it would be good to hear from the Minister what we are able to do to support the British nationals who remain there at the moment. Are there any reports of British nationals being attacked on their way to the airport following the escape routes recommended to the FCDO? What is the most up-to-date number of those registered with the FCDO as British nationals and dependents? We heard in the Statement originally that the minimum number was 2,000 but, from my informal discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, it looks as if the number could be more than 4,000. At the rate so far of eight flights with 75 people per flight —so 600 people per day—it would take two more full days to get 2,000 out. If the number is 4,000, it means a much more extended period.
Does the department recognise that any errors have been made in its communication over the last few days? We have seen reports of people hearing the message with no concrete plan for further evacuations on Monday and then making their own plans for the dangerous and very lengthy journeys to Port Sudan or the Egyptian border. It seems now that, with the clear plan for flights, that might be resolved, but it would be good to hear the Minister’s assessment.
There have been reports in the media of sexual violence. What steps are we taking to support survivors and, in particular, to support evidence gathering by specialists to make sure that the accountability that is so necessary is maintained? We are also having to think about the humanitarian response and what will be possible. Water, food and all the basic essentials for the people of Sudan are being affected—and they were badly affected before. This will add huge pressure. I hope that we are thinking about how, working with our partners, we can address this.
I conclude with a couple of points about external players’ involvement in the conflict. As I mentioned in a previous debate on this, we have had reports of the Wagner brigade being involved in facilitating RSF activities, which have been increasing. When I raised this matter before, I asked what we were doing to step up investigations into corrupt and illegal activity around arms smuggling and, particularly, illicit finance resulting from gold mining, which may well have fuelled the conflict and helped with the supply of arms. Are the Government actively considering any potential use of sanctions, perhaps on mid-level figures linked to atrocities or illegal activity in the run-up to the conflict? The UK’s role as a penholder makes our engagement in working with others on this question very important. I appreciate that there will be updates tomorrow, and I hope we can have further discussions when we return next week.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, I reiterate my entry in the register of interests and declare my interest, in having visited Sudan on a number of occasions, most recently during the Easter Recess and in March, when I met Generals Burhan and Hemedti separately. I thank officials and the UK special envoy to Sudan and South Sudan for being open to engaging with me and responding in a personal way. I also commend the officials and staff, as well as our military and Armed Forces, who have worked very hard to ensure the safety of British nationals, as well as of our diplomatic staff, who are now re-establishing diplomatic channels from outside Sudan.
What is the Government’s estimate of the capacity of the current means by which we are evacuating British nationals? Are we both sharing other countries’ resources and co-ordinating that? There has been a number of differing figures from partnering countries as to how many nationals have been evacuated for seeking refuge. How are we co-ordinating that number? Having been to Sudan on a number of occasions, and having asked our embassy during previous visits how many nationals and joint nationals there are in Sudan, I understand the complexity. It has been, in a way, a positive in the past that we have never counted people in and out. I have a degree of understanding of the complexity of the operations, but what is the estimate, and for how long do we anticipate the ability to have evacuations? I will return to the need for expanding the 72-hour temporary cessation of hostilities to a longer term in a moment.
Will the Minister provide the House with an update on British Council staff? British Council staff had to shelter in place within the British Council offices. Are all British Council staff accounted for? What is the status of local Sudanese staff who worked in our embassy and in the British Council? What is the status of the local staff who supported the work of the UK Government there, who also require our support and assistance? What is the Minister’s assessment of where they are?
The need to extend the 72-hour cessation is now of paramount importance. I endorse the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Collins, with regards to IGAD and those working for it. I know the IGAD representative, the former Foreign Minister of Somaliland, who had been doing good work there. I believe that there is an opportunity to try to refocus some of the work, if we can secure a further humanitarian window. What is now the Government’s primary aim with regards to securing the extension of the 72 hours which has been brokered by the United States and the Saudis? I believe it is now vital that the 72 hours becomes a further 72 hours, and that we focus not only on bringing people out but on getting humanitarian assistance in. There is little point in sending empty planes to Sudan to bring out foreign nationals if we have an opportunity to get medical assistance in. That means that any extension of the ceasefire should be monitorable, and that there should be warnings that there is no impunity for those who would break such a humanitarian corridor, should it be established.
I believe very strongly that such an extension would aid the worry for British nationals; if there is no reliable safe route to the area from which they might be evacuated, they have to take their own risk to get there. What is the UK doing with our partners to ensure a whole network of safe routes that can become reliable and trustworthy? There is real fear from people in Omdurman and Khartoum who have contacted me just today that the two combating forces are reassessing their strength and waiting until the end of a humanitarian window in order to recommence work. We must prevent this happening. If the Minister can update us on initiatives for that, I would be very grateful.
Can the Minister say what advice and support we are providing to the immediate relatives of British nationals, as well as to those who have sought access to the UK through existing visa applications? Are we working with the UN on humanitarian papers and access for those categories of people?
What is the Government’s advice to those in the UK, both from the diaspora community and elsewhere, who wish to donate or provide medicine or other equipment? How can they do that and get it to the people who need it? Equally, we need to ensure that the warring parties cannot replenish their munitions and supplies, so what work are we doing with our international partners to ensure that those forces, whether governmental or non-governmental, that have offered assistance for replenishment of arms are warned in the strongest possible terms that they may be contributing to war crimes?
Finally, I am travelling to Nairobi tomorrow, where I will engage with former Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok to try to scope where there may be an opportunity for some form of civilian dialogue that can offer reassurance or hope for the people of Sudan that, in the medium and long term, there will be a civilian and then democratic Administration in that country. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that this is not the Sudanese people’s war, nor their fault. Some hope should be provided at this time of great horror. I am grateful for the Government’s support for that initiative. If the Minister can respond to my other points, it would provide some reassurance to people to whom we owe a great debt of support.
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for this opportunity to respond to questions and provide an update on the increasingly troubling situation in Sudan.
Ten days ago, fierce fighting broke out in Khartoum. It has since spread to Omdurman, Darfur and other Sudanese cities. As noble Lords will know, a violent power struggle is ongoing between the Sudanese army and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces. The UK unequivocally condemns that violence and welcomes the 72-hour ceasefire agreed on Monday. Like the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and everyone else in this Chamber, we would welcome an extension of it, but it would be risky to base our plans on the assumption that those discussions would succeed. We call on the Sudanese armed forces and the Rapid Support Forces to ensure that this ceasefire holds—the previous one did not.
The situation is grave. More than 427 people have been killed, including five aid workers, and over 3,700 people have been injured. Before this violence began, the humanitarian situation in Sudan was already deteriorating. We now estimate that approximately 15.6 million people—a third of the Sudanese population —are in need of humanitarian assistance. These numbers, I am sorry to say, will continue to rise.
Given the rapidly deteriorating security situation, the Government took the difficult decision to evacuate all British embassy staff and their dependants to fulfil our duty as their employer to protect our staff. This highly complex operation was completed on Sunday. It involved more than 1,200 personnel from 16 Air Assault Brigade, the Royal Marines and the RAF. I am sure noble Lords will join me, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, did earlier, in commending the brilliant work of our colleagues in the Ministry of Defence and the bravery of our service men and women in completing the operation successfully, in enormously complex and dangerous circumstances. I also pay tribute to our international partners for their ongoing co-operation in aligning our rescue responses and to the crisis centre in the FCDO, where more than 200 officials are working tirelessly and seamlessly across government to co-ordinate the UK response.
The safety and security of British nationals continues to be our utmost priority. We began supported departures on Monday, prioritising British passport holders and their families. Our support for British nationals has not been impacted by the relocation of British embassy staff, who continue to operate around the clock from a neighbouring country alongside staff here in London working 24/7 to support British nationals and promote a peaceful resolution. We are asking all British nationals in Sudan to register their presence with us. In response to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Collins, I say that our latest figures are that 2,500 people are already registered and now receiving at least daily updates by text and email. That helps enable us to remain in contact and monitor their well-being while we find a safe passage from Sudan in highly complex circumstances.
Despite the ceasefire, the situation remains highly volatile, and movement around the capital is extremely dangerous. No evacuation options come without risk to life and, in most cases, serious risk to life. Khartoum Airport is out of action, energy supplies are disrupted, food and water are becoming increasingly scarce, and internet and telephone networks are becoming difficult to access, with levels of 2% in some parts. We continue to advise all British nationals in Sudan who do not have departure plans to remain indoors where possible. We recognise that circumstances will vary in different locations, so we are asking people to exercise their own judgment about whether to relocate as we initiate an evacuation plan during this unpredictable ceasefire.
We are following closely reports of independent convoys departing Khartoum for Port Sudan. The British embassy has no involvement in those convoys so I emphasise that joining them would be at British nationals’ own risk. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, asked how many British nationals, other than those working for the Government, had been evacuated; as of 6 am today, that number was 231.
Ending the violence is the single most important thing we can do to guarantee the safety of British nationals and, of course, everyone in Sudan. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Defence have all been in continuous contact with international allies and key regional partners since this outbreak of violence, to agree a joint approach to both evacuation and de-escalation of violence. Over the weekend, the Prime Minister spoke to his counterparts, including Egypt’s President Sisi. The Foreign Secretary was in contact with the Kenyan President, the US Secretary of State, the Foreign Ministers of France, Germany, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Djibouti, Sweden, Turkey and Cyprus, and the EU high representative for foreign and security policy. The Defence Secretary has engaged with counterparts in Djibouti, as well as in the US, France and Egypt. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Collins, that the Minister of State for Africa has spoken to the African Union and the Prime Minister in exile of Sudan, upon whom so many hopes had rested. Further escalation of this conflict, particularly if it spills into neighbouring countries, would clearly be disastrous. As we continue to make clear, this must a be a genuine and lasting ceasefire.
To conclude, the Government are working round the clock to ensure the safety of our nationals, and to support and encourage all parties to maintain this current ceasefire. A peaceful political transition to democracy and civilian governance is still possible in Sudan, but while the fighting continues, we expect those casualty numbers that I cited earlier to rise. Government departments and military personnel are working hand in glove to initiate a safe evacuation for our nationals in incredibly complex and challenging circumstances. The Government undertake to keep the House informed and, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, mentioned, there will be an update tomorrow.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, given the background that my noble friend has described, I add my congratulations to all those involved in the evacuation. My noble friend has set out the challenges of communication, given the circumstances. How would he advise British citizens to best communicate with the Foreign Office to get an update, if communications are as challenging as he says?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
There is no perfect answer to that question because the communications infrastructure is so patchy. We are doing our best to encourage as many—ideally, all—British nationals to register with us so that we can keep them informed as much as is practically possible. As I said earlier, 2,500 British nationals have registered but we need that number to grow.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend have anything in his brief he could share with us on the presence and role of the Russians in this situation? He has confirmed that it is already having major international repercussions and he will recall that the Russians were negotiating with the then Government, a few months ago, for a major port development in the Red Sea. There is no doubt that they are probably playing a thoroughly unconstructive role. I do not know whether we have any record of it, or could raise it with the Russians, but if the Minister has anything, can he share it with us?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid I do not have anything that I am able to share with the House on that point—it is key. I think the question was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, about the Wagner Group, who have been incredibly disruptive across the continent. But I am afraid there is nothing specific that I can add to that. It may be possible for the Minister for Africa to elaborate more on this point tomorrow in the update—I hope that is the case.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, the Minister will already know that this is not a new situation. He will also know that this morning a report from the All-Party Group on Sudan and South Sudan was published, examining progressive genocide over 20 years in Darfur and elsewhere.
I do not minimise the importance of evacuation— it is very important to evacuate all your friends and relations in these crises—but the Sudanese themselves tend to get overlooked in the media. I will put one thought in the Minister’s mind: NGOs are still working through this crisis. I know that the FCDO has a strong connection with many of these NGOs, but more relationships could be developed over the coming weeks. I will give him an example. We know that there is a great shortage of food and water, but for all sorts of obvious reasons we do not know so well how communications have suffered and whether people are communicating with each other on mobiles. Is that an area that can be explored? We also have an opportunity in the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans’s debate next week to amplify this.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble Earl for his intervention, his suggestion and his question. He is right to identify the often extraordinary work done by NGOs in incredibly dangerous circumstances, to pay tribute to them and to suggest that the FCDO should work very closely with them. That is unavoidable. As I said earlier, it is now estimated that 15.5 million people are in a position where they are becoming, or have already become, dependent on humanitarian assistance. We know that Governments cannot always deliver that level of assistance without the help and support of the networks created and nurtured by those NGOs, so we will have to work very closely with them.
In relation to the point on evacuation, it has to be a priority for any Government to evacuate their nationals when the conditions determine that it should happen. This has been and remains a top priority for us, in addition to those people who are working for us and to whom we have legal obligations.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, what are the Government doing with our international allies on the situation that has arisen whereby people who were waiting to face an international war crimes court have escaped from prison—in particular, the guy who led most of the massacre in Kordofan? The prison has been overrun and they were seen rejoicing that they were going to escape justice. What are we doing with our international allies on the ground to address this?
I support the noble Lord on his point about NGOs. I am chair of Christian Aid, which has already been working hard in South Sudan—there are now a lot of refugees coming out of Sudan into South Sudan—and it is handicapped because the Government’s reduction of international aid has left it without the necessary tools. Is this the moment at which the Government are going to revisit their reduction of international aid?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for his comments in relation to Christian Aid, and I agree with him. I hope that when the dust begins to settle and the immediate crisis begins to be alleviated, we will be able to work together and co-operate internationally to ensure that those responsible for undoubtably grotesque crimes are held to account. I cannot tell him more than that, unfortunately, because it is such early days. It would represent a failure of global systems that we have in place were that not to occur, so I very much hope that becomes a priority at the appropriate time.
I also agree with the noble and right reverend Lord’s comments about the need to restore our aid budget as soon as possible; I have made the point many times in response to comments by people across the House.
Finally, our priority has to be to pursue now, not just in the immediate aftermath of the outbreak of violence involving evacuation, every single diplomatic avenue to end the violence and to de-escalate tensions. We are working with our friends and allies across the world, including across the continent of Africa, to try to help facilitate the environment and conditions in which peace will be possible. But at this stage it is incredibly difficult because, as the noble and right reverend Lord knows, we are in the heat of the violence as we speak.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, feel grateful for the opportunity to ask some of the questions which have been highlighted by this extraordinary extraction operation we have been involved in over the last two weeks. On the whole, it has been very successful, which I think is largely due to the extraordinary qualities of our service men and women, who are prepared to show cool courage in the face of adversity. They do not let us down, and their existence is a great national asset, in my view.
The Government say—the Minister said it just now—that they are working with friends around the world to try to solve some of these problems. Anybody who looks at this operation from a relatively objective point of view, trying to ensure that lessons are learned for the future, would be above all struck by the fact that we have been attempting to do all this entirely on our own. However, it is quite obvious that there are other countries which are willing to take on some of the risks and costs involved in the extraction operation, and which can in some cases supply useful bases, such as Djibouti—of course, we could supply Akrotiri—or a lot of materiel, aircrafts and so forth, which are necessary for this purpose.
So it is a rather sad fact that we are not collaborating with our partners and allies around the world on this particular matter; we are trying to do it all ourselves. I think that is characteristic of the post-Brexit mentality and the feeling of the Government that we do not want to become associated too much with other people, multinational organisations of different kinds and, above all, any operation that has called itself European at some point. That is a great mistake. I hope it will be corrected, because it is quite clear that other extractions of this delicate nature will be required from time to time, and we must be in a position to make the contribution that we need for the sake of people’s lives and for the sake of world peace.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
First, I echo the noble Lord’s remarks on the bravery of our service men and women. I made that point in my opening remarks, but it is absolutely right that it should be amplified. I extend that to staff in the FCDO who have been working around the clock for the staggering commitment they have shown in recent days and weeks.
I do not recognise the approach that the noble Lord has just conveyed. Our post-Brexit position in the world does not translate, and has never translated, into isolationism in the way that he implies. We recognise that challenges such as this cannot be solved by the UK working alone. We have been working across the board, with allies across the European Union and beyond, and will continue to do so.
Lord Oates (LD)
What discussions are the Minister and his colleagues having with colleagues in the Home Office regarding the issuing of visas to immediate family members of British nationals? We hear reports that British nationals are unable to leave because very close relatives, such as mothers, are being refused visas by the Home Office. Could he urge his colleagues in the Home Office to take a compassionate approach and to act urgently, given the urgency of the situation?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I personally have not had discussions with the Home Office. Undoubtedly, the Minister for Africa will have done so, but I will make sure that the noble Lord’s message is fed back to the Home Office. He makes a valid point.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I return to the first question asked by the noble and right reverend Lord. I think he was referring to Ahmed Haroun, who was among those being held in Kobar prison and facing charges from the International Criminal Court. He was indicted in 2007 for his alleged role in the atrocities in Darfur, including 20 counts of crimes against humanity and 22 counts of war crimes, with charges that include murder, rape, persecution and torture. There are, I believe, clearly correct reports that Mr Haroun is now out of prison, free and appearing in the local Sudanese media.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, referred to the issue of impunity in the current circumstances. Clearly, we have a huge problem around the world, in Sudan and elsewhere, in that people have got away with, and continue to get away with, hideous crimes. Will the Government look to do whatever they can to support the work of the International Criminal Court to continue to pursue people facing charges such as this in Sudan? Will that be part of the ongoing work?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, as it stand today, our priority has to be to continue with the programme of evacuations of British nationals. We completed an operation for those working for government, but there are more people to be saved from this situation. We are committed, as a priority, to trying to extend the 72-hour ceasefire, for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, identified very clearly in his remarks. We may not succeed in that but it is our duty to try to extend it, and ideally even to turn it into something more lasting. The circumstances today are incredibly difficult, and it is unlikely that the kinds of concerns that the noble Baroness identified would be top of the list in these circumstances. However, there can be no doubt about the UK Government’s support for the ICC, or of our commitment to ensuring that people who engage in what are unarguably crimes against humanity are held to justice. We will do whatever we can to support that process but we have to maintain our sight on the clear priorities of today.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, the Minister suggested that communications on the ground in Sudan were difficult. That is obviously right. However, one of the issues with the evacuation of people from Afghanistan two years ago was that family members in the UK and their MPs—and indeed Peers—could not connect with the Foreign Office; it was impossible to find out what was happening on the ground. Could the Minister reassure us that, this time round, the Foreign Office is better equipped to be able to respond at least to MPs talking about their constituents? Surely we ought to be able to do that.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
The noble Baroness makes an important point, and of course we have learned lessons from Afghanistan, as we strive to from every event that involves the UK and the FCDO, including on things such as evacuation planning, consular assistance, and so on. However, this is a very different situation, in the UK’s capabilities and the overall context, as well as the risk to British nationals. That is not to say that comparisons are invalid—they are absolutely valid—but it is a very different situation.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, the Minister may be aware that two dioceses in this country, Salisbury and Leeds, have strong links with Sudan and South Sudan. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds has regular contact, particularly with the Primate in Sudan. The people in those two dioceses absolutely understand the total focus on bringing British citizens out but they are also concerned for the Sudanese on the ground, particularly those in the churches; the Church there is quite fragile and relies quite a lot on the support that comes from western diplomats, and so forth. They are asking what they can do to support their Sudanese friends in churches and in other communities who are not going to be rescued. There may not be an immediate answer, but perhaps the Minister would consider what advice might be given to people who want to support the Sudanese in the coming weeks and months.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
My Lords, I have no doubt that people not just in Salisbury and Leeds but across the country will want to provide support where they can—particularly those people with links and connections, but even those who do not. I do not believe there is yet an agreed and accepted pathway for that support—such things tend not to happen in the immediate aftermath of the outbreak of violence—but I will certainly convey that message to the FCDO and the Africa Minister. I imagine we will see the same sort of generosity as we have on so many other occasions in the past few years.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, following on from the intervention of the right reverend Prelate reflecting the concerns of British-Sudanese communities, the Guardian quotes Nadir Bhanda, a British-Sudanese community organiser, who said that people in Sudan felt “frightened” and “abandoned” by the international community. Irfan Nour said:
“Historically, Sudan is a former British colony and the British government has got a big influence in Sudan. But we feel as though the British government has let us down—there has been no major effort to stop the war and the human situation in Sudan looks very scary”.
I acknowledge the Minister’s earlier comments, but what would he say to Mr Bhanda and the broader community, who are so fearful for their friends and relatives and the communities from which they emerged, about what the British Government are doing?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)
I certainly would not want to dismiss, disparage or devalue those sentiments, because people in Sudan are, unfortunately, right to be afraid. It is a very unstable and dangerous time for everyone, no matter where they come from, who is caught up in this conflict. But I do not accept those remarks about the UK. We have been at the forefront of international diplomatic efforts: first, to help try to create the conditions in which peace has a chance; and, secondly, to evacuate those people for whom we have a particular responsibility. There is no doubt that, as one of the most generous donors in the global context, notwithstanding the cut from 0.7% to 0.5%, we will be committing ourselves to helping the process of rebuilding lives when circumstances allow.