Immigration

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Many people come to see me in my surgeries about family visit visas. The hostile environment is extending to such a degree that people cannot bring their family members over for a visit, because there is a presumption that they will stay once they are here. The Home Office is so bogged down in its attitude towards anybody who wants to come to the UK that we are not able to make progress. Should there not be wholescale reform of the system?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

There should indeed be wholescale reform of the visit visas and related decision-making processes. Families find themselves in a particularly horrendous position because the family visa rules have been tightened so much that so many family members cannot come here permanently. But when they come to visit, they are then accused of coming here under false pretences in order to stay deliberately, so they are in a Catch-22 situation. I will return to family visas in a moment. The point I am trying to make is that if we do not learn the lessons from these disastrous mistakes, we are bound to repeat them, and there is a serious risk that the Government are going to do just that with the 3 million EU citizens.

As an increasing number of voices across the House—including the Home Affairs Committee—have said, the EU settled status scheme has a fundamental flaw at its heart. Even with the best will in the world and even with the Home Office pulling out all the stops to try to make the scheme work, hundreds of thousands of EU nationals in this country will not be aware of or understand the need to apply. They will lose their rights overnight and will be thrown even deeper into the hostile environment than the Windrush generation. The Government must therefore enshrine the rights of EU nationals in law, leaving them to use the settled status scheme as a means of providing evidence of status, rather than actually constituting the status itself. The Home Office must listen; otherwise this Parliament will have to make it listen to protect our EU citizens from the same disastrous fate as the Windrush generation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Monday 1st April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

Again, that is such an important issue, after the Christchurch massacre. The hon. Lady will know that we have already doubled the funding available under the places of worship programme. I have allocated £5 million for a three-year training programme, and I have also started a consultation. In addition, we are meeting many members of that community and hon. Members to see what more we can do.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

3. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the increase in right-wing extremism.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sajid Javid)]

As Home Secretary, I have been clear that far-right extremism has no place in Britain. The Government take this issue very seriously, and it is routinely discussed by Ministers. Earlier this month, the inter-ministerial group on safe and integrated communities, which I chair along with the Communities Secretary, discussed the threat we faced from extremism, including the far right.

[Alex Sobel]

On Friday, outside many of our offices, on a specially erected stage, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon addressed crowds, while many parliamentary staff were trying to get home. Staff were told to leave but at times that put them directly into that crowd. At the rally, there were Generation Identity activists and organisations that had received money from the Christchurch killer and a convicted leader of the Ulster Defence Association, and the media were physically attacked. Will the Home Secretary urgently investigate with the Met police how a convicted far-right leader and such groups were allowed to whip up hate right outside Parliament?

[Sajid Javid]

Sadly, as the hon. Gentleman points to, there have been many instances of abuse and intimidation of Members, especially in recent weeks. All Members should be able to go about their business with complete confidence—[Hon. Members: “Staff.”] Of course, all staff as well—everyone who works in the cradle of our democracy. It is important that the police, both the Met police and local police forces, and the House authorities work together, which they are doing. I had a meeting just last week with police, officials and others to see what more we could do.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Alex Sobel Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 28th January 2019 Commons Chamber

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

It is always nice to start with a note of consensus, so let me say that I agree that we need an immigration Bill and I welcome the one solitary clause in relation to Irish nationals. Sadly, that is where the consensus ends. Let me say unequivocally that the Scottish National party opposes the Second Reading of the Bill.

There is so much wrong with the UK immigration system that needs fixing, but this Bill will not fix anything; in fact, it will make things much worse. The UK immigration system is built on the flawed twin pillars of a ludicrous net migration target and an obnoxious hostile environment policy exposed in all its nastiness by the Windrush scandal. That scandal is yet to be adequately and fully investigated or resolved. Meanwhile, the chief inspector of borders and immigration points out that the Home Office makes no effort to measure the effects of the hostile environment, but we know that turning NHS workers, landlords and bank staff into border guards has had terrible implications for too many people. This Bill does not end the ludicrous net migration target or the hostile environment; instead it will see more people ensnared by both.

We have the disgraceful situation of being alone in Europe in insisting that indefinite detention is perfectly okay simply for immigration purposes. Report after report flags up the terrible effect it has on detainees, yet there is nothing in this Bill to fix it.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Gentleman is making excellent points about indefinite detention. Does he agree that one reason why the Government and Conservative MPs argue for indefinite detention is that they claim that otherwise there will be a pull factor and more people will come in? Actually, that has been disproved: academic studies show that there is no pull factor in this, so there is no need to have indefinite detention.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

There is absolutely no need for indefinite detention and the fact that we are the only country in Europe that has to have it shows that every other country manages perfectly well without it. Basically, it is an affront to democracy and the rule of law. It is a human rights disgrace and the Bill should be used to scrap it altogether.

We have among the most anti-family immigration rules in the world, splitting up partners, spouses and parents from children if the UK sponsor cannot meet the £18,600 financial threshold.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mrs Badenoch), who gave an impassioned and well-delivered speech, almost all of which I disagreed with.

This Bill has taken its time to arrive. And now that it is before us, it is a disaster waiting to happen. Right the way through, it is based on an assumption made by the Prime Minister in her Lancaster House speech that what 17 million people meant when they voted leave was that we needed to end freedom of movement, not just for EU citizens in the UK, but for UK citizens throughout the European Union. I am 100% certain that 100% of the 52% did not mean that, but the Government’s assumption that they did is essentially why the red lines set by the Prime Minister have left the Government in a position where they are incapable of delivering any form of Brexit that does not wreck the British economy. If the Prime Minister wanted more time to reconsider her position, reconsidering those red lines would be the wisest thing she could do. If she then reached across to the other side the Chamber, she might well find reasonable people on the Opposition Benches who are prepared to listen to her.

The Bill abandons freedom of movement. With a slash of a pen, the rights of people in this country will be drastically reduced. British people, young and old, will lose the right to travel freely, to study overseas, to make friendships in other countries and to build careers. I am afraid that the Minister and the Home Secretary are both young enough to live long enough to have history judge them very harshly for this Bill, and they should be warned in advance. There are people who have made their homes here, and 3 million of our neighbours and colleagues are being told, not very subtly, that they are not wanted here. Britain is surely much better than this.

[Alex Sobel]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that EU citizens living here who are trying to get settled status and do not have access to a computer can only apply on an Android phone? The Government cannot even make their software available for iPhones, which many people use. How can this give us any confidence for a future immigration system for EU citizens?

[Tim Farron]

I am deeply worried about that. The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point that I am just coming to. The settled status scheme has been rolled out just this month, and with it has come the grotesque sight of families who have built their lives in the UK being forced to register just to carry on with their lives as normal. As the hon. Gentleman has just stated, every glitch in the technology—every moment that the computer says no—will have a devastating effect on people who should feel welcome here. Research estimates that one in 10 EU citizens could fall between the gaps and never be registered at all. People will get the wrong status as a result, which means more problems for them and massive problems for the Home Office years down the line. Mark my word: this is the beginning of a Windrush mark 2.

What will replace freedom of movement? Well, this Bill does not even really tell us. We have to guess, and businesses will have to guess. The Bill is silent on the very issue on which it is supposed to be legislating. It just extends powers to future Governments to do as they please—any future Government with any intentions, without any security or scrutiny from this House. Are we really supposed to trust the Home Office, no matter its future leadership, to do whatever it pleases on this vital matter—the very Department that brought us the Windrush scandal, with British citizens kicked out of their jobs and homes, and even locked up in detention cells, and that brought us the hostile environment of harassing immigrants in their homes, workplaces and even when they went to their local A&E?

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Although I have spoken in more than 100 debates since I entered this House, none has been as important as this one, which will guide the future of this country for generations to come.

Many hon. Members have covered the security implications, but it is worth reflecting on the fact that the agreement makes no mention of Europol and says that the UK would be locked out of EU tools, including the Schengen Information System, European Arrest Warrant and the European Criminal Records Information System when the transition period ends.

The Police Federation, which represents 120,000 rank-and-file officers, said it has “no idea what the policing landscape will look like post 29 March 2019.”

This in and of itself is enough to reject the agreement as presented to us.

The Prime Minister’s deal merely pushes back decisions into the transition and does not even answer what sort of Brexit we will get, and the security arrangements are merely the tip of a Titanic iceberg.

After the Prime Minister gave her statement to the House on 22 November, she said that the post-transition options for the future relationship with the EU were a spectrum. I asked the Prime Minister what her spectrum was and her response was,

“there is a balance between checks and controls and the acceptance of rules and regulations.”

Are any of us any clear on the Prime Minister’s spectrum? No, I can see that we are not.

I believe we have five basic options: a no-deal Brexit; the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement; a renegotiation of the withdrawal deal; membership of the European Free Trade Association and the customs union, or the so-called Norway-plus arrangement; and remaining in the EU.

Everyone understands no deal, in that we leave over 70 international trade deals and the all-Ireland electricity market ceases, with the potential to completely disrupt Northern Ireland’s power supply. The chaos around customs checks puts all goods coming into the country at risk, including food, medicines, fuel and machine parts. The Government’s technical notices make for grim reading, but after passing the amendment of the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve)—my former MP, in fact—last night, we are on the road to asserting the will of the House and avoiding a no-deal Brexit.

The Prime Minister’s deal means no immediate cliff edge. Instead, we would leave the EU and move into a transition period of at least 21 months where we would stay within and would need to update all EU rights and regulations. But what then? Well, the Prime Minister’s non-answer tells us all we need to know. The Government would negotiate a free trade deal that is

“a balance between checks and controls and the acceptance of rules and regulations.”—[Official Report, 22 November 2018; Vol. 649, c. 1131.]

Considering this is all the Government have managed in the last 20 months, I cannot write them a blank cheque. It might not even be a cheque made out to the current Prime Minister, so I cannot and will not support the EU withdrawal agreement when it comes before Parliament next Tuesday.

I have consistently said that I cannot support any option that does not protect jobs by preserving tariff-free, barrier-free, frictionless trade with the rest of Europe. Any option should retain current employment and consumer rights and environmental standards, and at least keep pace with Europe in the future. There should also be no hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, Gibraltar and Spain, and our sovereign territory on Cyprus and the Republic of Cyprus. Let us remember that the single market accounts for 25% of global GDP and represents Britain’s biggest trading partner. I believe that only the latter three options I outlined earlier can achieve this.

Yesterday we saw the Government lose three votes including, historically, on the contempt motion. The confidence is visibly draining from the Government, whose majority has always been built on a billion promises. If the Prime Minister cannot pass this “take it or leave it” deal, this House will call time on her. There is an opportunity for another Government to negotiate a deal built on adopting higher regulatory, environmental and labour standards. If we have higher standards and regulatory alignment, our deal will look totally different from the second-rate agreement that we have been asked to vote on.

For us to enjoy the same access rights and benefits of the European single market without having to negotiate a whole new treaty, we could apply for membership of the European Free Trade Association and be part of the European economic area. This could be completed in a fairly short space of time. However, there is no customs union for EFTA members. If we wanted seamless trade and no tariffs for goods originating outside the UK but being sold into the EU, we would need a new customs union. Given that it is not possible to be both in EFTA and the customs union, we would secure a derogation from the EFTA convention in order to facilitate the new EU-UK customs union. This honours the question in the referendum, which simply said:

“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”

Well, we will not be a member of the European Union if we are a member of EFTA.

Finally, we could simply remain in the EU. Consider all that we have learnt since 24 June 2016. We have learnt that negotiating a deal that is better than the one we have now is effectively impossible; that the queue of countries in Whitehall to ask for trade deals has been oddly missing; and that Vote Leave broke electoral law, overspending by hundreds of thousands of pounds, with Cambridge Analytica employees admitting they used illegal data harvesting techniques. Considering all that, should not people be given the chance to think again?

If there was another vote on whether to stay or leave, I would vote to remain, just as I did in 2016, because there is no better deal for the United Kingdom. I will vote to reject this agreement. If there is an opportunity to vote to renegotiate, join EFTA or have another vote on EU membership in the parliamentary procedures that we are going to undertake after we inevitably vote down the Prime Minister’s withdrawal agreement, I will vote for any and all of these. I will not vote for the Prime Minister’s blank cheque withdrawal agreement, and I will oppose a no-deal Brexit with every fibre of my being.

Police Employer Pension Contributions

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Wednesday 14th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr McFadden]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point.

The reason for these cuts in numbers, which I have read out to the House, is a steep cut in Government funding to the police. In this financial year, police forces around the country will receive 30% less, in real terms, in Government grant than they received in 2010-11. In total, taking into account the local precept, police forces’ funding has been cut by 19%.

Those cuts do not fall in a uniform manner, because some forces are more reliant than others on Government grant, and some get more help from the precept. For a force such as my own in the west midlands, where Government grant income comprises a very large part of the police budget, the impact of the cuts is even sharper than would otherwise be the case. That has resulted in the West Midlands police force losing more than 2,000 officers since 2010.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Police officers in West Yorkshire police have said to me that, given the cumulative effect of the pay squeeze, funding cuts and resource constraints, the pensions issue is the straw that broke the camel’s back and they are considering voluntarily leaving the police force for what they consider to be better employment. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this might be the straw that broke the camel’s back?

[Mr McFadden]

I think it is tragic if the state spends money training good police officers who end up, for the reasons that my hon. Friend has set out, leaving the force and embarking on another career.

Asylum Accommodation Contracts

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Wednesday 10th October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) on securing this important debate.

There are so many horror stories about asylum accommodation in the UK and so many reasons why we need independent oversight that it would be impossible to cover everything in the time I have, but I hope that what I do share gives an understanding of how outsourcing companies acting like vultures are failing our most vulnerable. I hope these contracts can be delivered better locally by those who have the interests of the residents at heart.

G4S holds a contract in the giant north-east England, Yorkshire and Humber region. It has a home for 14 mothers and 14 babies in my constituency. I was first contacted about the property by the manager of a local children’s centre, who described a multitude of issues and the unwillingness of G4S to act. On visiting the house, the first thing that struck me was the stickiness underfoot and the smell of urine. That was the result of an earlier rat infestation, which was reported to G4S and ignored.

Although the local church stepped in and blocked the rats’ entrance to the bedroom, the carpet remained coated in rat urine. A toddler crawling over the carpet had a skin infection. Her mother told me, “There is nowhere else for her to go.” That was not strictly true. Her baby could have crawled in the hallway, where a missing baby gate left a steep set of stairs exposed—something of which G4S had been informed months before. Or perhaps the child could crawl around the kitchen, where rat poison was left on the floor and mould covered every wall.

There are other issues in the property, including a lack of cleaning and cooking equipment, which G4S should have provided. After writing to G4S in exasperation, I met the landlord of the property, who stepped in and provided what G4S did not. That was in addition to the maintenance requests that G4S had failed to pass on, increasing its profit margin at someone else’s expense.

Vermin is a common theme in these properties. Another woman living with a young child reported a mice infestation, caused by holes in the walls of the property. G4S refused to be held accountable. Instead of dealing with it, it sent the woman on a training course in kitchen hygiene. After six months of complaining, and with multiple open wounds caused by mice biting her face, she went to Leeds City Council, which acted swiftly to solve the problem. That cost should have been covered by the asylum accommodation contract. However, the public sector had to step in, subsidising the private sector. It is not only G4S that is failing. I heard about one young woman who moved into Serco-run accommodation only to find human faeces smeared on her bedroom wall. She cleaned it up, but the cockroaches and rodents were more persistent.

These stories represent the dark side of Conservative ideology—a disturbing faith in privatisation and outsourcing, no matter the human cost, and the growing of private profits at the expense of the public and the vulnerable. These contracts underline the unwillingness and inability of the private sector to provide safe, habitable accommodation to some of the most vulnerable in our society.

My experience of working with those 14 mothers in my constituency shows the neglectful regime of G4S, compared with the generous and loving nature of the city of Leeds and our Labour council. I thank our children’s centre, which worked unpaid to support those mothers, as well as the church, which did the jobs the private sector could not, the landlord, who stepped in, and my staff and local party members, who helped to provide basic items that G4S would not.

[Karen Lee (Lincoln) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, in cases such as this, local authorities ought to be empowered to take over these contracts and oversee them, because this situation clearly is not acceptable?

[Alex Sobel]

It is absolutely not acceptable. I was just coming on to those points, which I thank my hon. Friend for raising. As she said, it is not up to individual and local groups to step in. These contracts cost millions of pounds in public funds, but struggling local authorities step in to prevent homelessness when the private firms cannot fulfil their contracts. Our councils are expected to bail out these companies, but they are not granted any oversight of the delivery of their contracts. That is both insulting and impractical. It has created a system lacking in democracy and dignity.

Everyone deserves a safe and secure home in this country. These contracts must be revisited. Councils and charities must have a central role in ensuring that the safety of asylum seekers is the priority in delivery. There must also be independent oversight of these contracts to ensure that people come before profit.

Refugee Family Reunion

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Thursday 21st June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

This is the 65th anniversary of the signing of the European convention on human rights. One of the fundamental rights guaranteed under article 8 and enshrined in UK law is the right to family life. The article states:

“Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.”

My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) has already mentioned the UN convention on the rights of the child. Unfortunately, the UK is out of sync with its own law by not applying the right to family life to refugee children.

As we have heard, the Refugees (Family Reunion) (No. 2) Bill, promoted by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), seeks to amend the law so that child refugees are allowed exactly the same rights as adult refugees, as well as legal aid to make their application. I support his Bill.

I emphasise that that only applies to children who have been processed and have lawfully acquired refugee status, and who therefore have the legal right to be in this country. I am sure that anybody with children of school age still worries a little when their children go on a school trip, even if it is only for a day. Imagine those children having to flee their home after witnessing the ravages and horrors of war and to make dangerous journeys over thousands of miles alone, having left their family behind. It is not something that any parent would wish on any child, let alone their own. Then imagine that, having made that journey and reached a safe haven, that child cannot be reunited with his or her parents or siblings. Imagine the mental trauma that the child has to go through alone. It is inhumane to prevent any child from having access to their family.

There is an EU directive on family reunion, which has been adopted by 25 out of the 27 EU members. Article 10 of the directive specifies that unaccompanied child refugees are entitled to be reunited with their family members. Two countries chose not to opt in. Ireland has introduced its own domestic law right to allow child refugees to be sponsors for their family members, so that they can join them. Only Denmark and the United Kingdom are out of step with the rest of the EU.

[Alex Sobel]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that, when the Prime Minister says “Brexit means Brexit”, this is what she means—that refugee children will not be able to be reunited with their families? Does not our international reputation potentially suffer in the same way that the United States’s has this week if we adopt such policies?

[Bambos Charalambous]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He is right that, given the uncertainty about what will happen post Brexit, we cannot be sure of anything, and these issues need to be spelled out and confirmed as soon as possible.

Why would anyone want to deprive these child refugees of the right to be with their parents and families? These are vulnerable children, some suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, dealing with the bureaucracy of being a refugee, having difficulty accessing support, in a culturally different environment and now lacking the support network of their family. Why heap that unnecessary cruelty on a child when it is obvious that a child refugee will do so much better in all areas with the support of their family?

The UK has already failed in its promise to accept 480 children from the Calais camp, which is shameful, and it is only thanks to the phenomenal work of charities such as Help Refugees that some of the Calais children living in the woods are alive today. I hope that hon. Members at least have the humanity to do the right thing by supporting the children who are already here.

Having looked at the first part of the Bill, I will now focus on the second part, which relates to legal aid. Legal aid was made unavailable for refugee family reunion cases following the passing of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. It is difficult enough for adults to navigate the myriad complex legal procedures and forms that need to be completed. With family reunion applications, there is an additional requirement: family members have to attend the closest British embassy, which will necessarily mean travelling through conflict zones. In some cases, there is a need for DNA tests, and documentation gathering is also a necessary part of applications. The British Red Cross highlighted the complexities of applying for family reunion in its report “Not so Straightforward”.

As child refugees have no other way of accessing the legal support they need because of the bureaucracy created by the Government, it is only right that they should have access to legal aid to help them to navigate this process. If the Government want to reduce the cost of the Bill, perhaps they should look at making the process of family reunion easier and therefore cheaper. Since the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act came into effect in 2013, there has been a cut of more than £600 million in the legal aid budget, which is over and above the savings that the Treasury was demanding of the Ministry of Justice. The Act is due to be reviewed this year. I am not aware of how much progress has been made on that front, but the Bill gives the perfect opportunity for the Ministry of Justice to examine the impact of the legal aid cuts, particularly in the field of family reunion, and to put some money back where it is needed.

Rural Crime and Public Services

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Wednesday 6th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

I wonder, then, if the hon. Lady could help with the fact that her constabulary, as of March last year, had reserves of £32.2 million—20% of funding. It may be that the police and crime commissioner has plans for how those reserves are to be spent, but that is a decision for the PCC. We need to be careful. The whole point of police and crime commissioners is that they are democratically accountable to local people. They are elected by local people to set policing priorities. Decisions on how money is spent must be made by local police and crime commissioners. We gave those powers to police and crime commissioners precisely because we thought it was better for local people to make those decisions, working together with chief constables, rather than bureaucrats in Whitehall trying to decide policing priorities across the country.

As I said, taken together, public investment in policing has grown from £11.9 billion in 2015-16 to £13 billion in this financial year. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made it clear that he will prioritise police funding at the next spending review, again demonstrating this Government’s commitment to providing the police with the resources they need.

Community policing is obviously very important in our rural areas.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

There is a lot of talk about rural areas. Geographically, over half of my constituency is rural and we have rural crime, such as fly-tipping and the theft of agricultural equipment. The West Yorkshire police and crime commissioner is perceived as being an urban PCC. Does the Minister accept that even in supposedly urban areas there are large numbers of rural crimes?

[Victoria Atkins]

Absolutely. I do not claim there are boundaries when it comes to criminal behaviour. Indeed, we have heard from across the House how some criminals deliberately exploit county and constabulary boundaries, because they hope that that will cause investigations and so on to be more difficult for the police. We are very clear that we need the police to work together better. In fairness, I think they are doing that. There have been huge changes in the way police forces talk to each other and share information. On county lines for example, there is a great deal of work going on to co-ordinate and share intelligence, and we see this with the regional organised crime units.

The reformed policing landscape and the introduction of police and crime commissioners by the Government has supported community policing. We have enabled police and crime commissioners to work with local people to set priorities for their areas. They are the ones best placed to make decisions with their communities, rural or urban, based on their local knowledge and expertise.

The National Police Chiefs’ Council is also transforming its role and presence in dealing with rural crime. The NPCC recently published its rural affairs strategy, which, following a period of consultation with rural stakeholders, sets out operational and organisational policing priorities in respect of tackling crimes that particularly affect rural areas.

The strategy recognises that rural areas experience the range of crimes faced in our urban areas—the threat of modern slavery, for example—and also identifies specific rural threats, including poaching, fuel theft, theft of farm machinery and types of antisocial behaviour such as fly-tipping. We welcome that strategy.

Grenfell Tower Inquiry

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Monday 14th May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) for presenting this important debate.

Grenfell Tower was quite simply an horrific tragedy that will doubtless have an effect on all of us for the rest of our lives. As someone who served as cabinet member for regeneration on my local authority, I am keen to have concrete answers as to how it was allowed to happen, who must be held accountable, and what will be done to prevent it from happening again.

I am sure that none of us here or anywhere else across the country will ever forget waking up on that Wednesday morning to see those terrible images of that blazing inferno in the heart of our capital city. Lives were lost that should never have been lost, and lives were also changed for ever. It could all have been avoided. That is why I welcome the findings of the Hackitt review’s interim report that calls for a culture change within the construction industry, which should take on much greater responsibility for what is built and how it is built.

The interim report also highlighted several broad areas for change, including improvements to the process, compliance and enforcement of regulations, as well as providing and creating a quick and effective route for concerned residents’ voices to be heard.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

In the interim report, Dame Judith stated that she would not recommend detailed changes to the technical requirements. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with groups, including the Royal Institute of British Architects and the Local Government Association, who have repeatedly called on Dame Judith to recommend bans on combustible materials on tower blocks and on so-called desktop studies? Does he not agree with me that the only solution is to ban combustible cladding?

[Giles Watling]

I absolutely agree that we must ban combustible cladding. It should never have been used in the first place. We must move on and that is why I was talking about how the construction industry must take on greater responsibility for what is built and how it is built.

I am pleased that the Government will consider any recommendations made by the review and how they will interact with the requirements of the construction product regulations. That is a step forward, but we still have many steps to take, including the work that Ministers have been doing with local government officials and organisations to provide support to the victims—both in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy and in the long term. The autumn Budget 2017 also committed £28 million of additional community support to victims. It is right that we do all we can to support victims and to ensure that such a tragedy never ever happens again.

I call on all my colleagues to support the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation and Liability for Housing Standards) Bill, introduced by the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck). It is a truly cross-party endeavour. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government helped to draft the Bill ahead of its publication. It will ensure that everyone is entitled to a decent home and that all properties should be free from potential risks to the health and safety of occupants. That really should go without saying. We can all agree that provisions must be put in place to ensure that that can happen everywhere. Having read the Bill, I agree with Shelter that it would help to achieve that aim by enabling meaningful action to be taken on poor and unsafe living conditions for renters.

The Bill will build on a raft of policies introduced by the Government aimed at driving up standards in the private and social rented sectors. Those include empowering local authorities to fine failing landlords up to £30,000. From April, local councils will also be able to issue banning orders to put the worst offenders out of business altogether. Passing the Bill would be another positive step towards ensuring that such a tragedy never happens again.

Although we have done some good work, I am conscious that questions remain unanswered, so it is right that we are having this very important inquiry and that the inquiry panel was expanded. Those we are seeking to provide answers for must feel certain that the inquiry is working for them. An expanded panel will provide that certainty, and all Members of the House must now allow the inquiry to proceed without its being used as a political football. In the face of such tragedy, we should all work together.

I do not say that the issue is not political—everything is political, from planning decisions to housing—but we need rational and responsible politics if we want to do right by the people who lived in that tower and by the countless people who live in other such towers across the nation. By doing that, we may well be left with the type of reasonable, thought-provoking and evidence-based political debate that uncovers all the aspects of Grenfell and moves us towards a better policy for all people in such housing in the future.

Refugee Children: Family Reunion in the UK

Alex Sobel Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2018 Westminster Hall

[Hugh Gaffney]

Yes, I agree. That is the whole point of what we are trying to achieve.

Many Members will remember the horrific and devastating image of that lifeless little boy, Alan Kurdi. He was a child, three years old, who was found lying down on a beach in Turkey. Why? Because he was attempting to reach Greece. Why? Because he was trying to be part of the European Union. He was trying to reach a safe and secure home. This was in the 21st century; it should shame and disgrace us all.

The decision of the British people in 2016 to leave the European Union is one that I regret, but I respect it none the less. I mention it because our membership encouraged us to play a role, on a pan-European level, in doing the right thing. I do not want us to stop doing the right thing when we leave the EU. It is important to note that the Government’s announcement of a new strategy comes after an amendment in Committee to the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill that sought to ensure that refugee children could continue to be reunited with their families after we leave the European Union. For me, that is a given.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Even if we leave the European Union on the Government’s own terms, we could still be covered under Dublin III. Under Dublin III and through the work that Lord Dubs has done, we have committed to taking 480 children. Does my hon. Friend agree that we are not bringing those children over quickly enough, and that for a country of nearly 70 million people, 480 children is just not enough?

[Hugh Gaffney]

I respect those words, and that is exactly my fear—that if we leave the EU, we will forget that we still have a job to do as world leaders. I am an internationalist. The border does not stop at Carlisle for me, and it does not stop at Calais. I do not want us to become little Britain over the coming years, which is why that role is important.

I would like to share a brief story from back home in North Lanarkshire. In 2015, before I became an MP, my friend Angela Feeney and her daughter Maria were at home, drinking a glass of wine and watching the horrific news of the refugee crisis unfold on the TV. Sitting there, they decided to do something; they decided to be good citizens and act. Their original idea was to fill a car with clothes and drive from Wishaw to Calais to make a small contribution to the humanitarian effort. I was then the secretary of the North Lanarkshire Trade Union Council, and the Feeneys asked me for help and support for collections for their car and covering costs.

Soon after Alan Kurdi was found—the little boy on the beach—the original plan of taking a carload was no longer possible. By the time the news of little Alan had spread, interest was so great that we ended up sending trucks with two full warehouses’ worth of clothes and other necessary things, and thousands of pounds in donations, which were sent to people not just in Calais but around the world. I thank people in Scotland once again for the passion and the commitment that they showed to the Wishaw to Calais appeal.

I have some specific questions for the Minister to answer when she winds up this debate.