Misuse of Nitrous Oxide

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Chris Philp]

Yes, I think that is a very important point. Where the substance concerned has a psychoactive effect, it will fall under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, and where people are supplying it recklessly in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester just described, there is basis for action. If there is no psychoactive effect but the substance has some other adverse medical effect, that would obviously not fall within the purview of that Act, but such substances are regulated separately through the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency and other regulators, who can make regulations to restrict supply. If there is evidence that there is misuse of substances that are legal, either tightening that regulation or having them reviewed by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs is the right way to go. If my hon. Friend has particular examples, he should write to me and I would be happy to take them up.

I am conscious that time is pressing upon us.

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

It is always pressing.

[Chris Philp]

Yes, time does always press.

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

This debate can go on until half-past eleven, but not beyond, if that is the question the Minister is asking.

[Chris Philp]

Thank you. That is very helpful, Sir Christopher; that was the clarification I was seeking, alongside your more metaphysical point about the pressing nature of time in general.

I return to the questions on the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest eloquently and accurately put it, this matter was referred to the ACMD by the Home Secretary in September of last year, 12 or 13 months ago. We have not yet received its report. The Home Office has raised the matter. The ACMD is independent of Government so cannot be compelled, but it would be proper to draw its attention to this debate and the concerns that have been expressed from both sides on the issue, to make sure that it is aware of the strong parliamentary interest in this matter. That would be a proper and reasonable thing to do without trespassing on its independence. I agree with my hon. Friend that the issue needs to be looked at urgently.

Generally, the Government follow the advice of the ACMD because it has the medical expertise, although we are not obliged to do so. It is within that organisation’s power to make a recommendation on how the drug should be classified. If it were to give advice that it thought the drug sufficiently damaging, it would be open to the Government to reclassify and bring it within the remit not of the 2016 Act but of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, at which point it would become a prohibited drug and would fall into class A, B or C. The Government take the ACMD’s recommendations very seriously because it is the expert in this area.

Western Jet Foil and Manston Asylum Processing Centres

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Suella Braverman]

As I said, I am very happy to confirm—by reference to the timeline, effectively—that I have been aware of this issue for several weeks. I would love to be able to magic up thousands of beds overnight. Unfortunately, it is not that easy. As a result of my concerns, which I identified several weeks ago, we have put in place a whole operational command to try to increase the capacity of accommodation and ease the pressure on Manston, but it takes time.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Is not the reason why Sweden and Germany do not countenance asylum seekers from Albania the fact that those countries do not have laws against modern slavery that are being abused and exploited by Albanian gangs?

[Suella Braverman]

As I said, Albania is a signatory to the European convention on action against trafficking in human beings. That is the originating international convention, which underlines our modern slavery laws. There is absolutely no reason in law why an Albanian national cannot claim modern slavery protection in Albania.

Cross-Channel Migrants: Manston Facility

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

There is a range of reasons why the processing of asylum claims is taking longer than we would like, but it is a priority of mine, as the new Minister in the Department. I have already met the relevant officials, and we will be looking at ways in which we can improve their productivity as swiftly as possible. As I said in response to an earlier question, we do now have the right number of staff processing the claims. A thousand people are working on this. That is a good number of individuals tackling the issue so I hope that we can make swift progress.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

What is the target date for ending this farce? Will my right hon. Friend explain to us that in Manston the conditions, although far from ideal, are a heck of a sight better than the conditions in squatter camps in Calais or on those overcrowded, dangerous boats crossing the channel? So some of the people at Manston should probably be counting their blessings.

[Robert Jenrick]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that these individuals have chosen to make an extremely dangerous and perilous crossing. We have greeted them, and we are ensuring that they are treated humanely for a very short period of time while they make their initial asylum claim, if that is what they intend to do, and then they are taken to other and better accommodation. We have given them the food, the medical care and the clothing that they need, as befits a welcoming country, but this is not the long-term solution to the problem. We do not want to be receiving tens of thousands of individuals in small boats across the channel, and that is why we are taking all the steps we can to deter people from making this dangerous crossing in the first place.

HM Passport Office Backlog

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

Well, what I am happy to keep confirming is about the massive output, the hard work of HMPO, and the plans, which, I must say, were put in place long before Labour Members showed any interest in the subject at all—[Interruption.]. They shout, “It was predictable,” but they did not predict it.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

rose—

[Kevin Foster]

To let others speak, I need to come towards winding up, but I will give way briefly to my hon. Friend.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He has described the current situation. Will he accept that some people, through no fault of their own, have been suffering as a result of the chaos? Will he apologise to those people unreservedly?

[Kevin Foster]

Look, no one wants to be in a situation where we have a service level of 10 weeks. We would much rather be back at our traditional service level. However, we have had literally millions of additional applications coming in this year, and I have seen the service and the teams nearly quadrupling output in a couple of months—my hon. Friend and I could probably think of some examples of where we would love to see output quadrupled in a public service—so it is difficult to stand here and say that that is all wrong. We appreciate that there are issues and that work is needed to ensure that people do not go over the 10 weeks—unless there is an issue, such as someone making an application when they are not entitled to a British passport. In some cases, we will need to establish that the person is who they say they are—it is their photo, and they are a British citizen—which will inevitably take longer, but I hope my hon. Friend will accept that a lot of work is being, done and has been done for many months. Yes, in individual cases there will of course be difficult circumstances, but we will attempt to respond where we can.

I feel sorry for those on the Labour Front Bench in some ways. They were told to come up with something on passports. Having said “Yes, captain” to the request, the shadow Home Secretary got her team together to come up with some ideas. First, they tried to think of a better way of delivering the service, but had no alternative to what we have done already. Then they looked to see what ideas they had put forward last year, but realised they had not said a word—the claim that it was predictable rather contrasted with their own lack of prediction. Perhaps they wondered whether they could demand that passport staff be in the office, but then remembered that they already are and what they said when the Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) suggested that about other public services. Perhaps they could have demanded that the contractor who prints the passports be nationalised, but realised that that sounded a bit too much like Jeremy. Maybe they could have pointed to output being higher under Labour, but then they realised it was not, due to the record outputs now being achieved. Then, with a deflated sigh, one of them must have said, “How about we just have a pop at the Minister?” which they all agreed was the only thing they could come up with, hence their motion today.

The role of Immigration Minister is never an easy one. It brings challenges. It is certainly a role where you cannot please everyone. But it speaks volumes when Labour Members have so little to offer that they resort to a motion attacking the person not the policy. That is not uncommon. We see it on a raft of issues in my brief, where the Labour party has no policy, only political points. From the immigration health surcharge to our migration and economic development partnership with Rwanda, it has no clear view. On the changes needed to tackle abuse of our immigration system and evil people-smuggling gangs, it offers nothing but criticism. For all the Labour shadows I have had since December 2019, and there have been a few, we have not seen one coherent plan come forward. [Interruption.] There have been four choices to change. In short, they are only left with the personal, in the absence of any policy alternative.

Members might wonder why I look happy in the face of today’s motion. It is because I am reminded of a quote by our greatest post-war Prime Minister:

“I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”

How right she was.

HM Passport Office Backlogs

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Tom Pursglove]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting in for this urgent question today and for the way that he approached his contribution.

I again thank HMPO staff for the tireless work that they are doing to issue passports as quickly as possible for people who have made those applications; in saying that, I am sure the whole House joins me. I can also confirm for the House’s benefit that the service I referred to in Portcullis House is now live and available for colleagues to access to get help with these matters. Of course, it is also worth pointing out that the Minister for safe and legal migration—the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster)—issued a “Dear colleague” letter yesterday that provided further detail on this issue.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned specifics in relation to contracts. Of course, what I must not do is get into contract-related deliberations on the Floor of the House today, but it is of course right to say that, where performance issues arise, candid conversations are had about performance and what interventions are required to improve performance, where necessary. I again reiterate for the House’s benefit that the key reality is that, between March and April 2022, Her Majesty’s Passport Office completed the processing of nearly 2 million applications. The vast majority of passport applications continue to be processed well within 10 weeks, with over 90% of applications issued within six weeks between January and March 2022. Less than 1.4% of the passports printed last week for UK applications had been in the system for longer than 10 weeks. Those are the facts. He asked for the facts. Those facts have been provided.

There is of course an expedited service available for individuals where passports have been in the system for more than 10 weeks, and I would certainly encourage people to avail themselves of that service if that is the situation they find themselves in. Of course, if there are Members of this House who have specific cases they wish to share with Ministers, we will happily take those away and look at them if colleagues make contact.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Can my hon. Friend tell us how many people employed in the Passport Office are still working from home, if indeed anybody is still working from home? It seems extraordinary that they may be. Can he also expand on the issue of the 10-week limit? If there is a 10-week guarantee, why should people in respect of whom that guarantee is not delivered have to pay a premium? Is not the consequence of all this that people are now panicking and applying for their new passports three or four months ahead, thereby adding to the burden on the Passport Office? Can he assure the House that the 10 weeks is a guarantee, and that anybody who does not get their passport within 10 weeks will get compensation for any consequences arising therefrom?

[Tom Pursglove]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. What I can say for the House’s benefit is that, on homeworking, it is fair to say that, as in society as a whole, business as a whole and Government, we are seeing staff returning to the office to work. Of course, people’s working arrangements are in accordance with the approach taken within the Government to these matters. There is the expedited process after 10 weeks for individuals who require it, where passport applications have not been processed within that timeframe. As I have said, 98.6% of passports are renewed within the 10-week timeframe. If he has specifics that he would particularly like to raise with Ministers so that we can take those away and look into them, we will very happily do so.

Ukraine Refugee Visas

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

The experience that I have had in Christchurch, where we have already welcomed some Ukrainians who have arrived, has been much more positive. I thank the Minister and his team for being so accommodating towards MPs who raise particular issues. Will he encourage individuals and families who want to take advantage of the schemes and are finding bureaucratic problems to contact their MPs? Everyone who has contacted me has had a satisfactory result.

[Kevin Foster]

I am pleased to hear of the results that my hon. Friend has been able to achieve for his constituents, as he always does. It is good to see people arrive and to see communities such as Christchurch stepping up and doing their bit. It is encouraging that we have seen offers coming in from throughout the UK, rather than just from areas that have had, let us say, more of a tradition of taking part in the local government-based resettlement schemes. It is very good to hear of my hon. Friend’s experience. I have had constituent contact, as I am sure other colleagues have. MPs from all parties are doing their bit to advance cases when they are contacted.

Support for Black Victims of Domestic Abuse

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Monday 28th March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I am grateful to the previous speakers, including the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare), who set out very eloquently why this issue matters and how we got here. I thank those in East Renfrewshire who signed the petition, and the more than 106,000 signatories overall. I particularly thank Sistah Space, which organised the petition so that we could focus our attention on Valerie’s law and why it is so important, and I am pleased that some of the organisation’s number are in the Public Gallery.

I have been struck by the power of the previous contributions, because they have focused on the real lived experiences of black women. The bottom line is that we need to listen to those experiences and be committed to upholding the fundamental human rights of women and girls. We need to recognise the lived experiences of black women and do our job, which is to make it possible for people to live their lives free from all forms of violence, abuse and harassment.

There is no doubt that there is a long history of systemic discrimination, which has led to real inequalities and disadvantage. If we are not willing to understand that, we will not be in a position to tackle it. I hope the Minister is able to explore some of that and talk to us about how UK Government policy can have an impact on gender equality and on this specific issue. If we recognise that there is a systemic issue, as undoubtedly there is here, it must be our priority to take action to deal with it.

The petition specifically asks for “specialist training” to be made

“mandatory for police and other government agencies that support black women and girls affected by domestic abuse.”

It is important that that is specified as culturally appropriate training, so that there is an understanding of the cultural needs and the potential backgrounds of these women. It is also important to recognise that the point made in the petition about too many women of African and Caribbean heritage not being afforded the same level of support in the past is true and has been illustrated very powerfully today. If we do not take the kind of action that is being sought, that will continue to be the case.

Obviously, that being the situation, black women are at increased risk, and we know that that will be the case if we do not seek to take action. Lots of things underlie that, and I will not necessarily dwell on them. However, I gently ask the Minister to reflect on policy and on where the UK Government are suggesting that we should go on some of these issues. If we are not clear that there is a systemic issue, it is not possible for us to deal with it. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) was incredibly clear when she set out why black women do not report domestic abuse, why they are so worried about doing that, and the stark consequences of their not coming forward.

The hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead mentioned young black women, and it is right that we have touched on the shocking situation of the young schoolgirl who was recently strip-searched. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) rightly spoke of the additional complexity of women who have no recourse to public funds. I mention both things because they are examples of the need for the cultural competency that the petition asks for. Knowledge of the realities of these women’s lives must be an integral part of ensuring that change happens in a way that will actually make the difference that is needed.

The crime survey shows that as things stand in England and Wales, those in the “Black or Black British” and “Mixed” ethnic groups are significantly more likely than those in the “White”, “Asian” or “Other” ethnic groups to experience sexual assault. I think that we can read across from that some of the additional vulnerabilities. As we have heard, these women are also less likely to report or disclose domestic abuse to the police, so there is a double whammy for their safety and wellbeing. We need to recognise that, so that we can talk about what needs to happen next.

I was struck by a quote from Halima Begum, the chief executive of the Runnymede Trust, who was talking about the UK Government’s policy paper, “Inclusive Britain”. She said:

“We need our government to take a whole-of-government approach to tackling racial disparities in our society, which means recognising how all of its actions, including its ongoing legislative agenda, impact black and ethnic minority communities.”

That has to underlie everything that is done on this issue. I make a plea to the Minister to look again at the fact that the UK signed the Istanbul convention almost 10 years ago but is one of only a few European countries yet to ratify it and so is not bound by its provisions.

There are many things that the UK Government and Scottish Government are trying to do. I applaud them for their action, but what I am seeing from the UK Government at the moment will not be enough to deal with the systemic problems that we see. We have to be clear that none of us in any part of the UK is immune to the realities of discrimination. None of us is immune to conscious or unconscious discrimination. We need to accept that if we want to make a difference, and we need to reflect on what happens when we do not.

We have spoken about the scourge of domestic violence, but we have to recognise that all that is amplified—[Interruption.]

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Order. There is a Division in the House and therefore the sitting is suspended for 15 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

Order. The sitting is now resumed and we can continue until 7.45 pm.

[Kirsten Oswald]

Thank you, Sir Christopher. I am going to draw my speech to a close, but before I do so I want to speak a little more about Sistah Space, which has been so instrumental in moving us to a discussion of Valerie’s law. I had a look at the group’s website when preparing for the debate, and it was so eloquent in how it explored this challenging issue clearly. Despite the significant challenges that have been thrown their way, its members are making a marked and evident difference to lives.

It is important that we reflect on Sistah Space’s campaign for Valerie’s law and on why we are all here. The way that Valerie Forde is described on the website as a creative and community-focused woman is a real positive, and the way that the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) spoke about her told us of a loved and loving woman. That matters and we should keep hold of it, because what happened to Valerie should never be anyone’s story. We need to make sure that we listen to what we are told and press for this change, which will make a difference to the lives of black women who are impacted by domestic abuse. The best thing we can do today is hear those voices, recognise that we must do better and make sure that we take the opportunity to do better for black women and girls.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

I urge the hon. Lady to have a tiny bit of patience, because if the usual channels provide me with the time, I will come to the House to speak in detail about the domestic abuse plan and guidance, and the accompanying statutory requirements. However, she may be reassured to know that that guidance went out for consultation, and many organisations in the sector specifically fed back on the needs of the victims and survivors whom they represent—including black women and girls, but also those of other ethnic minorities and intersectionalities that many Members have referenced.

The guidance is an important part of our work, but it is not the only part. The Crown Prosecution Service also plays a vital role in this space. It will soon launch a consultation on its domestic abuse legal guidance, which will include information on the impact that domestic abuse can have on different groups of people, including black and ethnic minority victims and survivors. The CPS is also developing a new training programme through engagement with community groups and stakeholders, and is seeking to deepen its understanding of the issues that different groups can experience when trying to access justice.

Turning to the police and the training, which are at the centre of the debate, the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead will hopefully find it useful if I set out the current training landscape. The College of Policing has mandatory foundation training for those entering the service, including all the new officers being recruited as a result of the police uplift programme. That training includes substantial coverage of police ethics and self-understanding, including the effects of personal conscious and unconscious bias. It also covers hate crimes, ethics and equalities, and policing without bias.

Further training is then provided in specialist areas throughout an officer’s career. For example, training for those involved in public protection includes methods to raise officers’ self-awareness of their own views, stereotypes and biases.

The College of Policing has also developed specialist domestic abuse training, the Domestic Abuse Matters programme, which helps first responders develop the skills they need when first on the scene of an incident or report. A core thread running through it is that it specifically considers the needs and vulnerabilities of different victims, including black and ethnic minority women and girls. The training specifically covers responding to so-called honour-based abuse, which, though not the subject of today’s debate, is clearly of interest to many Members. That training has been delivered already to, or is in the process of being set up for, the majority of forces. We continue to work closely with the college to encourage further take-up.

The College of Policing issues authorised professional practice documents, which are the official source of professional practice on policing. The college’s guidance on domestic abuse clearly sets out that victims may have specific needs or issues relating to their cultural background or immigration status that should be considered when understanding the risk and vulnerability of the victim. The college has also produced advice for police officers to advise first responders and investigators on how to deal with cases of honour-based abuse, which disproportionately affects members of ethnic minority communities. Last week, the Government published their updated guidance on forced marriage, which includes a chapter for police officers.

I have heard clearly the passionate calls from many Members across the House and about the excellent work done by the Sistah Space charity. As a Minister who is relatively new to this role, I undertake to bring together Sistah Space with the College of Policing and the National Police Chiefs Council. I will facilitate that meeting to take place as soon as diaries can be synchronised, but I hope it will be within a relatively short period. I want the leaders in policing to hear directly from Members who are working with black and ethnic minority women and girls. I want them to explain the specific issues that have been discussed today, including that of bruising. Clearly, if there are gaps in police officer training, I know that they will be the first to put their hands up and say, “We want more information, because we want to protect our communities.” Every police officer I have worked with, bar one or two, has absolutely wanted to do their best, whatever the colour of their skin, to protect women and girls.

I thank the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead for bringing this matter to the attention of the House and for her work, and the many hundreds of thousands of petitioners who have signed and shared on social media.

I have a couple of other points to set out—I think I have some time left, Sir Christopher.

[Sir Christopher Chope (in the Chair)]

You have until quarter to eight.

[Rachel Maclean]

I will not detain you for that long, Sir Christopher, and I will allow the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead time to sum up.

The hon. Lady knows that we have a new full-time national police lead for violence against women and girls, Deputy Chief Constable Maggie Blyth. One of her key roles—I meet her regularly to discuss this and to ask her to ensure that she includes it—is to build trust and confidence in the police. Members have referenced various individual forces, but this wider piece of work is happening across all police forces in the country. That includes her working directly with charities that support black and minoritised women and girls, to make sure that the police are not overlooking their specific needs.

To finish, I will talk about domestic homicide, which is an utterly abhorrent tragedy. When it happens to women like Valerie, it is vital that we remember her legacy and that we learn lessons when such terrible crimes happen. We will continue to build our evidence base on domestic homicides through the domestic homicides project, which is now in its second year. That is built on the recognition that there is more to do in the case of domestic homicides to understand, to build that learning within the force and to ensure that the police improve their response to tackling domestic abuse, so that they can prevent more such crimes from taking place.

We are creating an online repository to hold all domestic homicide reviews in order to allow for more analysis of the patterns, trends and triggers for domestic homicide, and the data, as the hon. Member for Halifax mentioned, to allow us to prevent further tragic deaths.

Points of Order

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your assistance, because Mr Speaker has generously granted me the end of day Adjournment debate tomorrow on the effectiveness of the Vaccine Damage Payments Act 1979. In anticipation of that debate, I tabled a series of named day questions. As of today, seven of those have been outstanding for more than one week and one of them, which names the 1979 Act, has been outstanding for more than six weeks. That seriously inhibits my ability to properly hold the Government to account, because I need answers to those questions before the debate begins. What can you do to ensure that the Department of Health and Social Care delivers?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. What I can do is repeat yet again what Mr Speaker has said so often from this Chair, which is that when Members submit questions, they ought to be answered on time. There is simply no excuse for them not to be answered. I repeat most emphatically what Mr Speaker has said many times before, as indeed have all his predecessors and mine, which is that it is simply not acceptable that Departments, which have hundreds and hundreds of civil servants to do that job, do not answer the questions of Members of Parliament.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 7th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

I think everybody in this House wants to do the right thing by our own country and the right thing by vulnerable people too. I do not except anybody from that. What I am trying to do here is to let people know what will happen, before we are fixed with the system and then find ourselves defending something that may turn out to be indefensible. That is my real concern about this element of the Bill, and in my view, the biggest argument is on humanitarian issues.

Also, as Conservatives, we should think about the cost. By any measure, this will be eye-wateringly expensive. At the moment, we spend £1.4 billion annually on asylum costs. That is about £11,000 per asylum seeker. Australia has spent £4.3 billion on just over 3,000 asylum seekers. That is about £1.38 million per person. As an ex-Public Accounts Committee Chairman, I looked rather askance at that and went through it with a fine-toothed comb, and I can tell the House that it is right. If we applied that cost to our asylum situation, we would be talking about something like £34 billion or £35 billion, which is the size of the Government Department. Let us imagine that we were twice as effective as that: the cost would still be £17 billion. Are we really talking about doing something like that? The reason for this is, of course, that we would effectively have to bribe the country that would take the asylum seekers.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Is my right hon. Friend not overlooking the deterrent effect that this would have?

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear!

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

This Bill is literally inhumane: it dehumanises asylum seekers, puts lives at risk and turns people into criminals for simply attempting to exercise their basic human rights. But the UK Government are not going to let small matters such as fundamental human rights, the rule of law and natural justice get in the way of their hostile environment, and their attempts to exclude practically anyone who is not a tax-dodging billionaire from settling on these shores. We keep hearing, “The asylum system is broken” from those on the Government Benches. Well, how did that happen? The Government have been in power for 10 years, and the environment has only become more hostile. Perhaps a different approach is needed.

It is for that reason that I support the right to work outlined in new clause 45, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan). The right to work is a human right. It is in the universal declaration of human rights, and although it might be denied, it cannot be taken away. Lots of us heard that last week from people who had travelled from Glasgow and the Maryhill Integration Network to speak to us about the issue. They want to work, contribute and share their skills.

Instead of people being a cost to the system, we should let them contribute to the system. Instead of them receiving meagre, insulting support payments from taxpayer, we should let them become taxpayers, but that is not something that the Government are interested in. I do not know when a Government Minister last had to sit in a constituency surgery and look at a biometric card that says, “No right to work” or “No recourse to public funds”. It is one of the most heartbreaking things that Members of this House have to do, and it is a complete insult, because being able to work is a human right.

I also support new clause 9 on EU certification, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), because it would correct another historical wrong. I have constituents who have had emails saying, “Congratulations, you have your settled status. By the way, this email is not proof of your settled status.” Quite how they are supposed to prove that status if they do not have the documentation is beyond me, but it is all part of a Home Office agenda that does not want people to make the United Kingdom their home.

The Government want to close borders, shut down routes to citizenship and send a general message that says, “Unless you have lots of money, you’re not really welcome here.” How can the UK ever be the first safe country of arrival? We are surrounded by water. It is simply not possible. That approach would mean that practically everyone turning up here to claim asylum—whether on a ship or small boat or at an airport—would become a criminal. That is rejected by people in Glasgow North and across Scotland. I look forward to the day when we can have an open, generous, accessible pathway to asylum and citizenship, for those who want to take it up, in an independent Scotland.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

It is not just the asylum system that is broken; it is also the immigration enforcement system. Last year, the Public Accounts Committee reminded us that the immigration enforcement directorate has 5,000 staff and costs £400 million a year to run, but that every year for the last several years, there have been fewer enforced removals and fewer voluntary returns. In 2019—the last year for which figures were available—there were only 55 convictions for all immigration offences, yet we know that there are probably 1.2 million illegal immigrants in this country. I therefore ask the Minister: what is happening to the published aim of the immigration enforcement directorate, which is,

“to reduce the size of the illegal population and the harm it causes”?

The reason why I tabled new clause 18—I much appreciate the support of the 17 colleagues who have signed it—it is that it would make it clear that it is a criminal offence to be in the United Kingdom illegally. Most people find it amazing that it is not already a criminal offence. It is a criminal offence to watch a television without a television licence, but not to be in this country without authority. My new clause would change that and address the issue of all the people who are here unlawfully.

Sky News has suggested that there may be about 87,000 new illegal immigrants coming in each year. Very few of those, relatively speaking, are failed asylum seekers. There is a much bigger problem of clandestines—those arriving without documents—and there is a very large number, estimated to be 66,000, of people who stay beyond any visa entitlement. We have to deal with the wider issue of illegal migrants and enforce it properly.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Registers of Births and Deaths Bill

Christopher Chope Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 26th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Saqib Bhatti]

My hon. Friend makes a good point and I would certainly welcome our looking into that at a later stage. It makes sense that the Bill could bring some environmental benefits.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that many of these registrations of deaths during covid have inaccurate information on them? They say the death is caused by covid or with covid, when the nearest and dearest of the people who have died often say there was no covid involved at all. There is a lot of inaccuracy. How does his Bill address that?

[Saqib Bhatti]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and I recognise that he has always been a doughty champion of parliamentary scrutiny. I do not share that concern in reference to my Bill because the reason for the deaths is stipulated by the coroner, which is outside the scope of the Bill.

[Saqib Bhatti]

I thank the Minister for that clarification.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

But does that not highlight the difficulty that, if somebody registers a death on the telephone, they may not have access to the death certificate and may find that the death is registered with inaccurate information from the death certificate?

[Saqib Bhatti]

I think that is transmitted directly to the registrar, who is of course independent. That creates a check and balance in the process, from my perspective.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

My hon. Friend says the information that comes from the death certificate is transmitted directly to the registrar. That is right, but if the person who is the nearest and dearest does not know what is contained in that death certificate and is concerned about its accuracy, the death could be registered with information that the nearest and dearest disagreed with.

--- Later in debate ---

[Saqib Bhatti]

I thank the Minister for further clarification on that point.

I mentioned that I spoke to the National Association of Funeral Directors, and I am sure the whole House will pay tribute to the funeral industry, which, like many parts of our community, has worked incredibly hard over the past 12 to 18 months due to covid. I certainly pay tribute to funeral directors for their hard work.

Registering a death has traditionally been a paper-driven process and has often been hindered by delays in the system, which serve to increase the gap between the death and the funeral. In fact, a survey of NAFD members in 2021 confirmed that 82% of funeral directors felt that processing the forms digitally was working either well or very well, and almost 80% of respondents confirmed that they rarely or never experienced delays in the registration of deaths.

But I would go further: if we have the chance today to ease the pain of any individual who is grieving, we ought to take that opportunity. That is the opportunity I believe this Bill presents. The last thing anyone who is grieving wants to do is to make that journey—sometimes a very long journey—to the registrar to register a death. Being able to do so electronically may provide some relief in an otherwise difficult time. I reassure my hon. Friends that, as has already been mentioned, this Bill does not make any changes to the information that is to be recorded in an entry, such as who can act as a qualified informant. That remains the same in the case of a birth or a death.

A further change that clause 1 makes to current procedure relates to how information is given to the superintendent registrar. Currently, registrars are required to submit copies of all the birth and death entries that they have registered in the last quarter to their superintendent registrar through a system of quarterly returns. When received from the registrar, the superintendent registrar certifies all the entries as being true copies of the birth and death entries in the registers, and forwards them to the Registrar General. The Registrar General holds a central repository of all births and deaths registered in England and Wales, which is then completed electronically using the electronic system.

My Bill removes that administrative burden, because the move to an electronic register would make the system of quarterly returns unnecessary. Following the registration of a birth or death in the electronic register, the entry would immediately be available to the superintendent registrar and Registrar General without having to complete the quarterly return process from the paper registers.

I turn briefly to the clauses. As already explained, clause 1 removes the duplication of processes and no longer requires the upkeep of a paper register. Instead, all registrations of births and deaths will be processed on to the electronic register. The clause also ends the administrative burden of quarterly returns, as I have stated, as the electronic register will make birth and death entries available to the Registrar General and the superintendent registrar immediately.

Clause 2 makes arrangements for the equipment and facilities to be maintained by local authorities. It makes it clear that all local authorities must provide and maintain the relevant equipment and facilities that the Registrar General deems necessary for all register and sub-district register offices.

Clause 3 introduces a new power that amends the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 and allows the Minister to bring before the House new regulations in respect of non-paper registration. Where someone complies with specific requirements, such as the provision of identification, they will be treated as having signed the register in the presence of the registrar.

Crucially, if passed by the House under the affirmative procedure, provision may be made to include the signing of something other than the register, so that a wet signature would not be required and an electronic one would be acceptable. Those requirements would have to be put to the House in further legislation. The clause makes it clear that the Government can do so only under the affirmative procedure, which means that the provisions must be laid before and approved by both Houses of Parliament.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Can my hon. Friend explain how that fits with the provisions of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981?

[Saqib Bhatti]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I admit that I am less au fait with that Act; I know that he was instrumental in helping to make some of the provisions originally. The provision will be considered further in Committee, where I would welcome his input if he were so inclined.

Clause 4 deals with the treatment of the current paper records, which date back to 1836. It requires the registrar to keep and maintain all registers in paper form. Clause 5 brings the schedule into effect. Clause 6 provides the power to make further consequential provisions, including any changes to primary legislation which, to reiterate, would be done through the affirmative procedure only. Clause 7, the commencement clause, comes into effect the day the Bill is passed. It is also worth noting that the Bill does not require a money resolution or a Ways and Means resolution.

In conclusion, the Bill modernises our registration system and makes it more efficient. I hope that we can look back on this debate in years to come as the moment when we collectively made our constituents’ lives more convenient at a time of their lives that can often be pivotal—a moment of happiness or, in the case of deaths, of great tragedy. I urge hon. Members to support the Bill and commend its provisions to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sally-Ann Hart]

My hon. Friend raises a valid point and I absolutely agree.

The Bill removes the requirement for paper registers to be held and stored securely in each registration district, and with records already stored electronically there is no need for on-paper storage. This will save space and eliminate the cost of that extra storage, as explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden. As paper comes from trees, going paperless by utilising electronic document management systems helps cut down on deforestation and pollution, leaving more trees to absorb carbon dioxide, helping to mitigate climate change.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

My hon. Friend is rightly concerned about hacking down trees unnecessarily but will she address her remarks to the problem of hacking electronic records?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart). I hope to be able to share with her a cautionary tale about the consequences of putting blind faith in digitalisation. Before I do so, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti) on introducing this Bill, which I think was a presentation Bill rather than a balloted Bill. However, I think he made the wrong choice about the topic for debate, because, as he has said, this proposal was debated and was the subject of a balloted Bill in the last Session of Parliament.

At that time, our right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) promoted it, brought it before the House for a Second Reading debate for about three quarters of an hour and kindly offered to let me serve on the Committee, although that offer never materialised. My right hon. Friend told me, in a very courteous letter, that he thought that it was because of covid, but I think that it was just because the invitation never materialised. If it had materialised, I would have been more than happy to serve on the Committee. As I was not able to serve on that Committee, I tried to amend the legislation on Report, but unfortunately there was only one minute for my speech on 12 March.

[Saqib Bhatti]

I reiterate my invitation to my hon. Friend to join me on the Committee. We can address any concerns that he may have at that stage.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am grateful for that offer and shall certainly take it up, because a lot needs to be amended in the Bill. When I tabled amendments on Report last time, they were set out on the amendment paper on 12 March, but we were not able to make much progress. It disappoints me that my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden has so far shown no willingness to take on board any of the suggestions put forward in those amendments, the essence of which was to try to ensure that we still have physical, hard copy registers alongside e-registers, so that we do not facilitate fraud and corruption in our registration service.

There has been a lot of talk of those of us who believe in having a hard copy record being backwards, and those who believe absolutely in modern technology and electronic records being the great modernisers, but let me share with the House a current live constituency case, about which I have written to the Home Office, as will become apparent in the course of my remarks.

The case is of a Ghanaian citizen, who has a Ghanaian passport. He came to this country about 20 years ago and now wishes to become a British citizen; he has indefinite leave to remain, and a driving licence, national insurance number and all the rest of it. His Ghanaian passport and his driving licence correctly identify his name, which consists of one forename and two surnames. I am not going to shout out his name in the House now, because I still hope that we will get a satisfactory answer out of the Department without the need to name and shame it publicly. He applied for British citizenship on 5 May 2021, and that was approved, subject to him attending a citizenship ceremony to receive his certificate. The certificate was issued correctly with his full name—his first name and his two surnames—so he thought that everything was fine. He then applied for a British passport and the Passport Office informed him that his surname did not match his citizenship certificate because only one name had been recorded as his surname. Subsequently, he spoke to the Home Office customer service team and was advised to fill in a form and post the certificate, with any proof of his correct name, to the Home Office. He sent off all that material—including his Ghanaian passport, his driving licence and, as the Home Office instructed, his cut-up indefinite leave to remain card—at the beginning of August.

The website said that corrections to citizenship certificates take 24 working days. After three months had elapsed, he contacted me and I contacted the Home Office. On 26 November, perhaps in anticipation of this debate, I received a reply from UK Visas and Immigration that sets out a whole lot of facts that we already know and I have shared with the House, and that the requested amendment is still outstanding. It says:

“Please be assured that this is being processed…In the meantime, an application can be expedited”.

I had already explained that the lack of his documents was preventing him from being able to start work as a van driver. That remains the situation.

[Mrs Drummond]

My hon. Friend is demonstrating very well why we should have electronic records: they can be passed forward and backwards much quicker than paper copies, which can also be lost in transit.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

The point is that there was an inaccurate translation. When he got his citizenship certificate, somebody mistransposed the full names and put just one surname on his certificate rather than two surnames. That is an example of what happens when we rely on electronic records rather than the actual records, because he is now having to prove to the Home Office—and it is taking a long time, as I have been explaining—that his name is as it is set out on his driving licence and in his Ghanaian passport. He is fortunate that he still had his original records, which we assume have not been lost in the post.

[Suzanne Webb]

That is just one example; I would like to see far more examples of digitalisation having gone wrong in computer records. As someone who spent more than 29 years in a business that was very technology-driven—I started in 1989 in a company that was all about technology and computerisation—I assure you that such instances are few and far between. I can guarantee you that it is more than likely that an error would be made in a handwritten record, not through digitalisation.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, you have a lot to answer for.

Handwritten errors can be identified and corrected. If there is fraud in handwriting, that can be subject to prosecution under the Forgery Act; if a digital record is inaccurate, either through accident or by design, it is very difficult to prosecute under the Forgery Act—in fact, I am not aware of any way in which it could be.

[Tom Randall]

Let us return to the subject of the debate, which is the births and deaths register. The two systems have been running in parallel since 2009; does my hon. Friend have any evidence to adduce that there has ever been any mistake that would have been corrected had there been a paper record rather than an electronic one?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I do not have any evidence on that either way. The whole purpose of the 2009 regulations was that we would still have the hard-copy back-up system. Now, having put those regulations through on the basis that there would be a hard-copy back-up system, the Government say 11 or 12 years later that we do not need one, and can rely on the electronic system. That, I think, is playing fast and loose with the House. Why did the Government introduce regulations in 2009 to amend the system while still assuring the House that hard-copy records would be retained, and why, all these years later, are they seeking to abandon them? I am very concerned about that, but let me now finish the story about my constituent.

As I said earlier, I received a reply on 26 November saying that if my constituent required the return of his documents urgently he could submit a request, but I had already submitted a request for the return of his documents to the Home Office on his behalf. The letter made no reference at all to the fact that while this delay continues, and this muddle continues unresolved, he is unable to work. It is outrageous.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Suzanne Webb) said that this was just one example. I do not want to detain the House with a whole lot of other examples, but we do know that the hacking of computer records is prolific. It is widespread. It has led to large public companies, and indeed Government Departments, suffering severe fines, penalties and reprimands because of their inability to keep accurate data and protect themselves against hacking processes.

Even in the corridor just outside my office in this wonderful building, there is a great big poster—I think it is the only poster up there—about how we in this place are under continuous cyber-attack. If we are indeed under continuous cyber-attack, why are some of my colleagues so relaxed about it? I see no grounds whatever for being relaxed, and I think we should be very vigilant and protective of our paper record system.

[Mr Bone]

The crux of the matter, it seems to me, is that there must be some great injustice in the current system if it needs to be changed. If the only reason for changing it is modernisation, we as Conservatives should not be supporting it—but perhaps my hon. Friend knows what the problem is with the current system.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

That takes me on to the question of how we got to where we are now. For those interested in the background to this, let me explain that one of the former Members for the Christchurch constituency, George Rose, proposed a Bill to overhaul the registration system. He did that in 1812, and Hansard reported at the time:

“It must, he thought”—

this refers to my predecessor—

“be universally allowed, that parish registers were of great importance to all ranks and classes of people from the nobleman to the peasant; and it was highly desirable they should be regularly entered, and safely deposited. At present, instead of being kept in the house of the clergyman of each parish, they were kept in a very slovenly manner in the dwelling of the parish clerk, and he had found, as Treasurer of the Navy”—

in those days you could double up these jobs—

“numberless instances of the widows of seamen, who, from this culpable negligence, were not able to prove their marriages.”

The legislation was passed, and proved to be inadequate. That ultimately led to the 1875 Act, which is the core of our current system. Under our current system, almost all the people who are born have their details recorded. I think that, according to the latest information available, there are about 20 cases a year in which people are born without having their details accurately recorded.

Fundamental to the issue is that it is a basic legal requirement to have a birth registration, and birth registration—I hope the Minister agrees—is one of our most fundamental human rights. The United Nations convention on the rights of the child acknowledges that every child should be registered immediately after birth. We now say that should be six weeks, and we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and others that it can be very burdensome for someone to go off and get their child registered.

All I can say is that my daughter gave birth to a little baby girl about a fortnight ago, and she and my son-in-law are much looking forward to going to the district register office in Lymington to record the details, including the name, of their daughter. Whatever happens, that record will be on paper as well as being an electronic record. How sad that it seems to be the intent of the Government that, in the future, people who are lucky enough to have children will not be able to have the privilege of a proper written birth certificate—a hard copy holograph birth certificate. I think that that is quite an unnecessary restriction on those fundamental freedoms.

[Kevin Foster]

To be absolutely clear, that is not the Government’s intent. The law will still provide for hard-copy birth certificates.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

What my hon. Friend is referring to is like saying, “When I print off an email, it’s a hard copy.” It is not a hard copy; it is emailed and printed off. The Minister is talking about an electric record that can be reproduced in hard copy form. If we are talking about hard-hard copies, then, as I asked earlier, how does that fit in with the Forgery Act? Obviously, hard copies depend on having holograph signatures, and we hear that in this Bill there is the power for people to be able to register births without having to provide any signature at all unless they can send their signature by electronic means to the registration district. This is a very serious issue.

Without dwelling any more on the history of the Act, let me just say that throughout the mid-19th century, the only blip on issues relating to birth registrations, which were increasing the whole time, was the Vaccination Act 1853, which tied compulsory vaccination of all infants to their registration and gave powers for parents to be fined for non-compliance. As always happens with the law of good intentions, it ended out quite differently because as it was the local registrar who informed parents of their legal obligation to vaccinate their children, parents who feared vaccination avoided the registrar. Plus ça change, as they might say, in the context of today’s attempts to try to require compulsory vaccination for everybody in this country even if it means depriving them of their right to work in a care home or in the national health service.

The Bill itself contains a number of provisions about which I raised concerns with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield when he brought it forward originally. One of those is the fact that there are lots of regulation-making powers in the Bill. I said to him that I thought it was desirable that those regulations or orders should be available in draft at Committee stage so that they could be properly examined in Committee. He said that he thought that was a really good idea. However, when we got to Committee, no such draft regulations were available.

I presume, because the Government attach urgency to this Bill and more than a year has elapsed, that those regulations and draft orders are available. I look forward to the Minister confirming that they are, but if they are not, why not? When will they be available? Why can we not see them before the Bill goes into Committee? These draconian measures give great power to the Government to set out regulations and change the existing law. It seems bad practice that people should be expected to go through a detailed Bill such as this in Committee without having any inkling of what the Government are hiding away in the regulations that are held in the relevant Department and are not being openly disclosed. I fear that that total lack of transparency is almost endemic in so much of what the Government do.

My next concern about the Bill is that under clause 1(3), section 28 of the 1953 Act, in relation to the custody of registers, would be repealed. That would remove any requirement for registration officers to hold registers. As a consequence, the hard copies that so many people look at when they examine their family history would not be available and accessible. Clause 4 states that such a repeal of section 28 would not affect the requirement that every superintendent registrar should keep records that were already in existence, provided that that did not cover records issued between 2009 and the day when this Bill comes into effect.

I was assured by my right hon. Friend and the Minister, who responded to the debate on the previous Bill, which is on identical terms, that the requirement to keep existing—or what might be described as old—records would not be affected in any way. However, when one looks at clause 6 of this Bill, one sees that the Government are taking the power to make further consequential provisions on any provision of this Act, including clause 4, which is meant to be a safeguard. That power

“is exercisable by statutory instrument”.

It includes the powers

“to make different provision for different purposes”

and

“to make transitional, transitory or saving provision”,

and it

“may, in particular, be exercised by amending, repealing or revoking any provision made by or under primary legislation”—

in other words, this is a Henry VIII clause writ large—

“passed or made before, or in the same Session as, this Act.”

Under the powers in clause 6, all the assurances and guarantees on the operation of clause 4 and the safeguards under what is now section 28 of the 1953 Act are completely worthless. We, as a sovereign Parliament, do not have the power to bind our successors, but we do have the power, if we so choose, not to make it too easy for our successors to change the rules against the wishes of the people. That is why I think it is outrageous that the Government should be taking powers to change by regulation the guarantees that they say are in existence in clause 4 of this Bill. That is just the sort of issue I would like to address in Committee, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden will be able to give me some indication that he will accept amendments facilitating those safeguards for existing registers and records.

Another concern I have about the Bill, which my hon. Friend alluded to in introducing it, is the way regulations could be amended to change the requirement to actually sign the register. Those provisions, set out in clause 3 of the Bill, amend the 1953 Act by inserting a new section 38B after section 38A. An extraordinary lack of information is attached to what the Government intend here. It has been alluded to in the speeches of some of my hon. Friends, who seem to think it is really desirable that we should simplify what has been a solemn and historic process of registering births; I will come on later to the issue of registering deaths.

The proposed new section says:

“Where any register of births or register of deaths is required to be kept…otherwise than in hard copy form, the Minister may by regulations provide that—

(a) a person’s duty…to sign the register at any time is to have effect as a duty to comply with specified requirements at that time, and

(b) a person who complies with those requirements is to be treated…as having signed the register”.

In other words, somebody who has not actually signed the register will be treated as having signed it. Are we seriously going to legislate to create the pretence that somebody who has not signed the register has signed it and is deemed to have signed it, that, in the case of a duty to sign the register in the presence of the registrar, they are deemed to have done so in the presence of the registrar, and that accordingly in such a case the entry in the register is to be taken for the purposes of the Act as having been signed by the person when it has not been? Why are we allowing that?

What is one of the biggest safeguards of the integrity of our births register and our deaths register? It is the sanction against forgery. A sanction against forgery is nugatory if we do not require holograph signatures. My hon. Friend who so ably introduced the discussion on the Bill seems to be slightly poleaxed—I think that might be the expression—by the references to that. We have not yet had any help from the Minister on how the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act fits into this, but maybe the regulation-making powers under clause 6 of this Bill will be able to change the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act so that it applies not to actual forgery as we would know it, with people using pen and ink to change something, but to something that is deemed to be pen and ink.

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Will he tell me what happened during covid? Unfortunately, I was involved in registering a death during the covid period and it seemed to me that this was all done electronically, with no signatures required. In the case I was involved in, that did not work particularly well. Does he have any views on that?

[Sir Christopher Chope]

When we were discussing earlier the issue of registration of deaths, I drew my hon. Friend’s attention to the fact that I have had lots of constituents—he probably has the same situation—raise with me the fact that their loved ones were given death certificates that inaccurately reflected their covid status. In a sense, the Government are hoist with their own petard on that, because it was all part of what has been described as a “scaremongering propaganda campaign” to make it seem as though more people were dying from covid than were actually doing so by saying that they may have had covid within the 28 days before their death. Extraordinarily, if one asks questions about whether people have died within 21 days or 28 days of having received a vaccine against covid, the Government get very coy about that. I do not know why that might be, because I think that the more transparent the Government are, the more they will be able to counter the vaccine hesitancy that is an increasing problem in this country as people find out that some things relating to the vaccines are being suppressed if not fully exposed to public view. I will not go on about that, but I referred in this House a few weeks ago to my Covid-19 Vaccine Damage Bill and I do so once again, without going into any more detail about it.

There is a real problem if the Government put provisions in a Bill and then are not willing to spell out all the implications. What do the explanatory notes say about clause 3? Obviously, in the absence of anything else, one looks at the explanatory notes, but they do not help, because the notes on clause 3 just repeat the content of clause 3 without explaining what the Government have in mind. Why are we in that situation? Why has no cost-benefit analysis or regulatory impact assessment been published in respect of this Bill? We know that the requirement to do this does not apply to private Members’ Bills, but if such a Bill is, in essence, a proxy for a Government Bill, is there any reason at all why those things should not be published? Again, the Government are intent on bringing this measure forward, but wish to do so without sharing with the House and the public all the implications that flow from it and the Government’s thinking about what might happen.

[Mr Bone]

I have been thinking long and hard as the debate goes on. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill does appear to be a Government Bill but not in Government time, so it does not have an impact assessment? For that reason alone, when we vote later, I urge hon. Members to reject it to make sure that the Government bring it forward properly for proper scrutiny in Government time.

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s suggestion and it would be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say in response. [Hon. Members: “Hurry up, then!”] If the Minister wishes to intervene, I shall happily give way.

It is the Government’s prerogative to bring forward their legislation to the House. When they do so in the normal way, a Bill has a regulatory impact assessment, a cost-benefit analysis and so on. The Government should not avoid that system, and avoid the need to be transparent, by using the proxy system whereby a loyal Back Bencher takes on a Bill as a handout Bill.

My hon. Friend the Minister is a man of absolute integrity who has participated in almost as many Friday debates as I have over the years. In all those debates, I have not once found him wanting in terms of dealing straightforwardly with the subject matter under discussion. It is open to him to say that he will bring forward a regulatory impact assessment before we get to Committee so that we can examine it and we know the Bill’s full implications.

There is obviously no discipline or requirement on the Government to publish the impact assessment if they think that they have a majority of 80. I imagine that the Government will now bring forward the Bill as a Government Bill because my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and I are expressing concerns about it and it is not making progress in the House as quickly as they might wish. If they do that, there will be a proper Second Reading, Committee and Report, which is fine.

I hope that we will then have the regulatory impact assessment in front of us and we will be able to assess what the Government have in mind and what they are hiding from us. Having had the experience in the previous Session of being told one thing in the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) about what would happen when we got to Committee, and those promises, or certainly expressions of intent, not materialising, I am very suspicious about the Bill.

People up and down the country will wonder why we are spending so much time discussing the issue of removing proper paper records of births. What will we do about all the people who will be adversely affected by that? I have another example of a constituent who is a South African citizen whose child was born in the United Kingdom and is therefore entitled to United Kingdom citizenship. To take his child to South Africa, he has to provide a hard-copy, holographed birth certificate. How will he do that in future if those hard copies do not exist?

That is another practical example of how the Bill’s provisions will adversely affect people of foreign citizenship who have children born in this country for whom they wish to have an old-fashioned birth certificate rather than one that has been put on a—