Major Incident in Essex

Diane Abbott Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement.

The events in Essex are a tragic loss of life. All death is regrettable, but this was a particularly gruesome and grotesque way to die, and an horrific experience for the first responders. Many of us in the House will have seen the images in our media over the weekend of desperate communities who are frightened that their young people may have been in that lorry. Many of us will have seen the messages from people to their families on the verge of their own suffocation. One woman said:

“I am really, really sorry, Mum and Dad, my trip to a foreign land has failed”.

I would like to thank the Home Secretary for the information about the arrests and about how some progress has been made in identifying the victims. However, as the investigation is ongoing and criminal charges are involved, I will not say more about this specific case.

As the Home Secretary said, people traffickers are particularly ruthless and simply do not care about human life. I was in Lesbos last year looking at the people trafficking from Turkey across the Mediterranean to Greece. The people traffickers not only deliberately took large sums of money off desperate people, but put those people in completely unseaworthy rubber dinghies. They gave people fake lifejackets and did not care that—as inevitably happened—many of them died in the Mediterranean. The people traffickers are greedy, ruthless and unscrupulous, and they have a callous disregard for human life.

I would, however, like to ask the Home Secretary whether the Home Office will be looking at security at some of the small east coast ports. I do not want to pre-empt the police investigation, but it seems that these small ports are being used because there is less security than at ports such as Dover.

I also want to ask the Home Secretary about the current co-operation with the European police, security and justice agencies in investigating this case. Specifically, how closely are our agencies, police forces and National Crime Agency working with Europol in this investigation? Will she also indicate the level of co-operation with the European Migrant Smuggling Centre, which is an agency of Europol? How are our agents benefiting from co-operation with what is the most sophisticated agency of its kind in the world?

Will the Home Secretary further explain how that co-operation can continue under a no-deal Brexit or the Prime Minister’s deal? As things stand, we will lose the current level of co-operation, we will not have realtime access to EU agency databases, and we will lose access to a host of criminal databases and to the European arrest warrant. The House would therefore like to know what plans the Home Secretary has to maintain and, if anything, strengthen that co-operation.

This is a very tragic event. In some ways, it has humanised the issue of people trafficking for many people in this country. Of course we have to bear down on the people traffickers—they are ruthless and have no concern for human life—but we also have to look at issues such as how we make those eastern ports more secure and how we guarantee people the same level of co-operation with EU agencies that we currently have.

[Priti Patel]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her remarks. There are a number of points I would like to make.

First, the right hon. Lady is absolutely right about the first responders. They cannot unsee what they have experienced and seen through this awful crime. Secondly, she is right to recognise the scale of trafficking and the inhumanity—there is no other word that can describe it—of the perpetrators behind not only this crime but modern slavery, people smuggling and human trafficking.

The right hon. Lady specifically asked about checks at eastern ports. Those ports are not as vast as others and do not necessarily have the large amounts of freight coming through. She will have heard me remark in my statement that, with regard to Purfleet, Border Force will obviously now be increasing its presence, but it will also be working with Essex police on targeting and on the response it needs to the incident itself, providing further information about what has happened.

The right hon. Lady asked about security and the drivers in terms of working in co-operation and in partnership with other agencies. Of course, that is exactly what we are doing right now. The National Crime Agency is, rightly, taking the lead on this investigation. As I said in my statement, it is a complicated investigation, and we are working with a number of agencies across the European Union, and with others, because of the routes that have been taken. I have no doubt that, over time, we will hear much more, and a lot more information will come out in due course.

The right hon. Lady specifically asked about Brexit and security co-operation. I would just say to the House that the way in which we can absolutely ensure that we have the strongest possible co-operation is by having a deal. That is exactly the Government’s position and I would like the right hon. Lady and her party to support it.

On co-operation and security tools, there are no boundaries when it comes to our co-operation. The United Kingdom will remain one of the safest countries in the world, as well as a global leader on security.

Oral Answers to Questions

Diane Abbott Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware of the genuine concern among EU nationals, their families and their employers about the workings of the EU settlement scheme. He will also be aware, as will Members on both sides of the House, about the general problems with delays at the Home Office. For instance, the proportion of leave to remain applications taking more than six months doubled between 2014 and 2017. The Minister correctly said that more than 2 million applications to the EU settlement scheme have now been made, but 18% of them have not been resolved. The Minister caused concern recently when he said that EU nationals who fail to apply before 2020 could be deported. Will he give the House an assurance that every effort will be made to reach out to those who have yet to apply and that applications will be processed promptly?

[Brandon Lewis]

The short answer is yes. Just to give a bit of flavour to that, there are no delays with the EU settlement scheme; the right hon. Lady conflated two completely different schemes in her question. People’s status under the EU settlement scheme is decided very quickly, and 2.2 million people have now applied through that process. In the whole of the process, only two people out of the set of figures that she gave have been refused, on grounds of criminality, which is absolutely right.

Major Incident in Essex

Diane Abbott Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for early sight of her statement.

Any death under these circumstances is truly appalling. The fact that there are 39 reported deaths in this incident makes it a terrible tragedy—one of the worst of its kind. Each of the 39 will have partners, family and friends who perhaps even now do not know how their loved one died and in what horrible circumstances. I am sure I speak for the whole House when I say that our thoughts, prayers and wishes go out to the bereaved and all the loved ones of the victims.

I commend the emergency services for their work and share with the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) the horror that these emergency service workers will have seen sights that will live with them forever.

It is important to remember that these 39 poor, unfortunate people are the victims in this; they have been preyed on by the greedy, the unscrupulous and people with a wilful disregard for the lives of others. However, we should take account of the wider context. Nobody leaves their home on such a journey, with so much risk and fear, on a whim. They often do it because they are desperate; they can be the victims of economic privation, war, famine, catastrophic climate change. There are many adverse conditions that people flee from, but we should not lose sight of the fact that these people are victims.

I would like an assurance from the Home Secretary that the co-operation with the EU27 on people trafficking, which is vital to ensure that such events do not happen in the future, will not become harder or be imperilled by our leaving the EU.

It is important to raise the general conditions of refugees and asylum seekers. The Opposition have long argued that the Government should establish safe and legal routes for genuine refugees to make their way here. If they do not, I fear there may be further tragedies like this. When one thinks about the events of this incident, when one thinks about how these people died and how terrifying their deaths must have been, it should remind us that whenever we talk about migration, refugees and asylum, these people are people. There is an obligation on us to ensure that where people are moving legally, we provide safe and legal routes.

[Priti Patel]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her comments and reflections following the tragic incident this morning. She was, of course, right in a number of the points she made, such as about our emergency service workers who are dealing with the incident on the ground. We will work collaboratively with the investigation teams—not just with Essex police, but with the National Crime Agency, Border Force and many others—to further the investigation into this appalling incident.

It is important to emphasise a few other points. This is now a murder investigation. We are still ascertaining various facts, but given the sheer humanity that we all feel following the deaths of 39 individuals in such circumstances, some fundamental points arise: potential links to criminality, and also what we should be doing as a country to make sure we stand by those who really should not be trafficked in any way.

As a country, we lead the world in many of our ways of working internationally, on modern-day slavery and through our own legislation. Fundamentally, there is always the point of international co-operation and collaboration—we must never lose sight of that—whether it is with our EU counterparts, as the right hon. Lady said, or with other international counterparts through the many multilateral forums we work with to prevent upstream migration, illegal human trafficking and all the terrible things we want to stop and prevent. At the end of the day, we must do the right thing as a country and uphold the right kind of values, to ensure that particularly for those who are fleeing war zones, conflicts and some of the most horrendous situations we see in the world, we are able to give people asylum in the right kind of way, which is exactly what we do.

Public Services

Diane Abbott Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

I would like to begin by saying how pleased I am to speak from the shadow Front Bench in this important debate on our public services. Outside of time of war, there is no more important subject for our constituents. In fact, there is not much difference between the constituents of Members of all parties in what they want from their public services and the desired outcomes. The difference is in the how.

We should always remember, when discussing public services, that it will not be enough to try to score party political points. For our constituents, families and friends, it is at the most vulnerable time of their lives that they look to public services—illness, death, pregnancy, fire and flooding. However they vote, people look to the public services, so this is an important debate and I am glad to take part in it.

I would like to thank all the Members who have spoken in this excellent debate, and a few in particular. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Dame Louise Ellman) drew on her distinguished service in local government and reminded us that Liverpool has had a 63% cut in its funding since 2010. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) reminded the House that the Queen’s Speech is phoney and a fraud; I will return to that.

I would also like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds); my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi); my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch); my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes), who spoke from her personal experience in the NHS; my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams); my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who had very important things to say about support for victims; my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders); my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin); my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), with whom I entirely agree about trophy hunting; my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous); and my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karen Lee), who talked about cuts to the fire and rescue service.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) talked about issues to do with the Welsh people. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Lisa Forbes) spoke about school uniforms—[Interruption.] Members on the Treasury Bench are talking among themselves, but if people live on benefits, or do not have a big income and are unable to pay for proper school uniforms for their children, that is quite humiliating for the children, so my hon. Friend raised a serious matter.

My hon. Friends the Members for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury), for High Peak (Ruth George), for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) and for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) made valuable contributions. My hon. Friends the Members for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) talked about crime. Last but not least, my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Thelma Walker) talked about education and her baleful gaze swept the Chamber, showing the headmistress she once was.

At the heart of the debate is what a Government are for. The Opposition believe that the answer is not playing tricks on the public or embarrassing the monarch by getting her to deliver a party political broadcast on behalf of the Tory party. The programme of governance should not be a Santa’s wish list of soundbites to please some of our less thoughtful tabloids. The purpose of a Government should be to offer a vision and a detailed set of proposals, but this Government have done none of that. They have presented a Queen’s Speech that is all about electioneering. They want power without responsibility.

Almost none of the announcements in the Queen’s Speech will be delivered. Its authors do not even intend them to be delivered. It is not even clear that the Queen’s Speech will win the support of the House. Furthermore, Conservative Members refuse to take responsibility for the actions of a Government that most of them have been members of since 2010. Conservative Members wringing their hands about the need for more police officers when they have been part of a Government who cut the numbers of police officers, and voted for that policy, is the grossest hypocrisy.

[John Redwood]

Will the right hon. Lady tell the House which of the many good Bills in the Queen’s Speech Labour Members do like in principle?

[Hon. Members]

Trophy hunting!

[Ms Abbott]

Trophy hunting—I have already said that.

It is clear from the Queen’s Speech and, possibly more important, the media briefing about it, that the Conservative party intends to run in the forthcoming election as a law and order party. Who said satire was dead? The Government have tried to ignore Parliament. The Prime Minister’s principal political adviser has been found to be in contempt of Parliament. The International Trade Secretary has been obliged to apologise three times for illegal arms sales to Saudi Arabia. Let us not forget that the Government as a whole—all Ministers, including the Prime Minister—were found to have acted unlawfully by no less an authority than the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision. However, the Conservatives tell us that they are the party of law and order.

The Government slashed more than 20,000 police officers, and it is no good Conservative Members pretending that it is nothing to do with them—they voted for it. Furthermore, the Government made cuts to the courts, so cases come to trial sometimes years after the offences. Is that the action of a law and order Government? That is not justice. It is not as if the number of arrests and charges are increasing, even for the most serious offences. There were almost 60,000 police-recorded rapes in England and Wales in 2018, but fewer than 2,000 convictions. Is that the record of a Government of law and order?

I would argue that the Conservative party is not the party of law and order. Tell the victims of crime throughout the country that it is the party of law and order. Tell that to people who wait an hour, perhaps longer, just to get a police officer to come to the site of a crime. Tell it to the police officers who have lost their jobs or all those who are feeling stressed and overworked. Tell it to the court officials and judges who sit at home on full pay because the Government close the courts to save money. Tell us again how you are the Government of law and order.

The Opposition have always argued that austerity was unnecessary, that growth through investment was the answer and that cuts have terrible consequences—We have heard about some of them this afternoon, for example, the crisis in magistrate recruitment. The truth is that if police numbers, community policing and youth services are slashed, if school exclusions are increased, and mental health services are cut, the consequences are predictable and were predicted—you cannot keep people safe on the cheap.

[Mrs May]

I have listened very carefully to what the right hon. Lady has been saying about consequences. If that is what she believes, perhaps she could explain why in 2015-16, when Conservatives in government were protecting police budgets, the Labour party’s position was that police budgets could be cut by 5% to 10%.

[Ms Abbott]

I have a great deal of respect for the right hon. Lady, and I would have hoped that she would do better than that. It was not enough money. That is why we did not vote for that measure, and we have said that over and over again. I must say that I am a little surprised to hear Government Members talk about a new broom at the Home Office, someone who is going to really stand up for the police; I think that in a way that dismisses the right hon. Lady’s record.

The Prime Minister told this House on Monday, channelling a former Prime Minister whom I knew, that he was going to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. I have to ask how, coming from him, that can be taken seriously. The Prime Minister has no intention of making good all the public services that Tory or Tory-led Governments have slashed—and of course we have not forgotten the role of the DUP and the Lib Dems, who facilitated Tory austerity, but the organisers of this entire failed project were the Tories.

The Government talk tough on crime, but that is all talk. They made all the causes of crime worse and cut all the public services trying to tackle it. Let us take the Domestic Abuse Bill. There are good things in the Bill, and Members on both sides of the House worked hard on it. But where is the money? Where is the funding for the police, NHS workers and social workers, and the funding to improve their training? Where is the funding for women’s support groups, information campaigns and women’s refuges? The Government have cut all of them. The money simply is not there. Without the funding, however good the text or the wording of the Bill are, they are just another wish list.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Ind)]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Ms Abbott]

I need to make progress, because I must leave time for those on the Treasury Bench.

The Government need to understand just how disappointed and frightened the Windrush victims are. It is almost as if, because they are an elderly cohort, the Government feel that if they string this out—[Interruption.] That is what they feel; go and meet some of them—[Interruption.] The Home Secretary is not dealing with it quickly enough, and I think that only a Labour Government will give justice to the Windrush generation.

I was interested to hear the Home Secretary talk about protecting our borders, because if we leave the EU we will lose the European arrest warrant and access to some very important databases of criminals and missing persons, as well as the level of co-operation we get as members of the EU. I would not talk so much about protecting our borders when we are losing some of the elements and instruments that would help the Government keep the people safe.

Before I conclude my remarks, I want to say a word about the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign, because I am a WASPI woman—I was born in the 1950s, and I was very disappointed that there was nothing about the WASPI women in the Queen’s Speech. We spent most of our adult lives assuming that we got a pension at the age of 60, and when these women understood that they would not, for most of them it was too late to change their working arrangements and arrange their pensions and their insurance. You have left a cohort of women who helped to build this country helpless and frightened, and I think that is a shame.

In conclusion, it is not enough to make wish lists of what you want to do with the public sector, because the public will find you out. The public know how long it takes to get a hospital appointment. The public know how long it takes to get a policeman to come to the site of a crime. The public know about the public sector and what the result of the statements from the Government are, because it is part of their lived experience. You will be found out. You will be—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The right hon. Lady must not say you; will she please just say they?

[Ms Abbott]

The Government will be found out. It is because I am confident that the public will understand how they have been failed on public services that I am confident Labour will win the forthcoming general election.

Immigration Detention: Victims of Modern Slavery

Diane Abbott Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab) (Urgent Question)]

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on immigration detention and victims of modern slavery.

[The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)]

Modern slavery is an abhorrent crime, and the Government are determined to stamp it out. In my role as Immigration Minister, I am especially aware of the shocking exploitation of vulnerable individuals from overseas who are duped by the promise of a better life in the UK, only to be trafficked and sold into modern slavery. Identifying and protecting victims of such crimes is a priority. In October 2017, we announced an ambitious package of reforms to the national referral mechanism. As well as improving the support on offer, these reforms are intended to provide quicker and more certain decision making, in which victims can have confidence.

I must make it clear, however, that being recognised as a victim of modern slavery does not automatically result in being granted immigration status in the UK. There may be victims of modern slavery who have no lawful basis to remain and for whom support is available to leave the UK voluntarily. It is important that we recognise the important role of our immigration policies. Although we are committed to supporting individuals to leave voluntarily, including with reintegration support, there may be occasions when they have exhausted all options and are refusing to leave, and we are faced with the difficult decision of detaining people to secure their return.

I want to reassure the House that we do not take these decisions lightly, but it may be necessary to detain individuals, even if they are vulnerable, to effect their removal. When that is the case, we seek to keep the period of detention as short as possible and place their welfare and safeguarding at the heart of what we do. The Home Secretary made clear his commitment to going further and faster with reforms to immigration detention, including by reducing the number of people we detain, increasing the number of voluntary returns and working with partners on alternatives to detention. We have made real progress in delivering these commitments. A number of women who would otherwise have been detained are now being managed in the community. Other pilots will begin later this year.

As we approach the first anniversary of Stephen Shaw’s second independent review of immigration detention, it is important to take stock of how far we have come, while acknowledging that there is much more to do to ensure that our approach to immigration detention is fair and humane.

[Ms Abbott]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. On 19 June this year, the Immigration Minister provided a written answer on the possible immigration detention of persons who are in fact victims of slavery. The written answer read as follows:

“there is no central record”

of such persons, and

“The Home Office therefore does not collate or publish the data requested”.

However, we now learn from a freedom of information request by The Independent that that is not the case: 500 victims of enslavement or trafficking were held in immigration detention. I have myself visited Yarl’s Wood detention centre and met such persons.

In response to an earlier written question on 20 December last year, the Immigration Minister said:

“in cases in which it has been found that there are reasonable grounds to believe that an individual may be a victim of trafficking or modern slavery, the appropriateness of their being detained, or of their detention continuing, is governed by the Home Office’s modern slavery policy. This means that such individuals will not be detained”.

How many people who are victims of trafficking or modern slavery have been held in previous years? How many such people are currently held? Are the Government not in breach of their own stated policy on detention? How many of the 400 detainees were assessed as being a threat to public order and on what grounds? Does the Minister accept that when she responded to the written question saying that no data was available, she was in fact misleading the House?

[Caroline Nokes]

I reassure the right hon. Lady that I certainly was not misleading the House: there is no central record of those who have received a positive, conclusive grounds decision and are detained under immigration powers. While that information may be obtainable from the live Home Office case information database, otherwise referred to as CID, the information would be for internal management only. For example, some data may be incomplete and freedom of information requests are heavily caveated as such.

Releases of data from CID are always caveated and sometimes it is possible the data is not always accurate; there may be instances where individuals are counted twice. It is standard practice in parliamentary questions that we do not provide information that does not form part of published statistics. CID will show only those individuals who have been referred into the NRM from immigration teams and would not cover those referred to the NRM from other first responders, such as the police, social services or, potentially, medical practitioners.

The right hon. Lady asks specifically about the 507 individuals referred to in the After Exploitation report. I want to be very clear on this point: those were not 507 individuals detained after getting a positive reasonable grounds. As stated very clearly in the freedom of information response, the figure relates to people who had a positive reasonable grounds when entering detention or while in detention.

Further analysis of the figures shows that, of the 507 people in question, 479 received the positive reasonable grounds decision during a detention period—and of those, 328, or 68%, were released within two days of the decision and in total 422 were released within a week. Of the 57 detained for eight days or more following a positive reasonable grounds decision, 81% were foreign national offenders.

Oral Answers to Questions

Diane Abbott Excerpts

Monday 15th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

May I thank the right hon. Gentleman, as I said, for the work that he and his colleagues did on the review? It was an extraordinary piece of work and very thorough, and I know that he was pleased that we were able to accept the majority of its recommendations. We absolutely accept the point about the public sector, and he will know that the Prime Minister recently made an important announcement to confirm that Departments will make modern slavery statements to ensure that their supply chains are free from slavery. As for the further details, I will write to the right hon. Gentleman in due course.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

We on the Labour Benches appreciate the progress that has been made on modern slavery thus far, but the House will be aware that there was recently a shocking case of agricultural slavery. A fresh produce supplier to major US supermarkets was using slave labour in its supply chain. Does the Minister accept that consumers who are conscious of issues such as organic production and sustainable food production will not appreciate unwittingly purchasing fresh food with slave labour in its production? Will the Government act more swiftly? We need faster action than she is suggesting to get proper business compliance with their modern slavery legislation.

[Victoria Atkins]

I am delighted that this is one of those issues that enjoys the support of Members from all parts of the House. The right hon. Lady will know from the announcements last week on our response to the independent review that we are very much seeking to toughen the regulations and requirements for the largest businesses. For what it is worth, some 75% of businesses that are in scope have set down a modern slavery statement, but we want to make it easier for civil society and others to judge how effectively businesses are doing, which is why we are looking into setting up a central Government registry to help that happen. We are conscious, too, of the role that non-governmental organisations can play in this space. Only last week, Oxfam released its new behind the barcode supermarket scorecard, which shows how the sector as a whole needs to step up activity to identify and rectify labour exploitation risks. I am delighted that many UK supermarkets have signed up to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sajid Javid]

I very much agree with the right hon. Lady about the need for more police. That is why we had a record settlement this year, which included, for example, more than £28 million extra for her local police force, which is leading to more police officers and more police staff. I have said that we need to go further, and we are discussing that internally in Government to see what more can be done. I hope the right hon. Lady recognises, though, that it is about more than just police; it is about early intervention and understanding some of the underlying causes of crime. I have always recognised the need for more resources and more police.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary referred to the new public health duty. The Opposition agree that it is a good idea in principle, but does the Home Secretary agree with the Children’s Commissioner for England, Anne Longfield, who has said that the change is not enough on its own and who is calling for the next Prime Minister, and perhaps his Chancellor, to ensure that preventive services such as youth services have the right resources? Will the Home Secretary tell us how often the Prime Minister’s knife crime taskforce has actually met?

[Sajid Javid]

The right hon. Lady has mentioned an important partner in tackling serious violence, and the Children’s Commissioner is part of the serious violence taskforce and we listen to her important views regularly. Of course, the Children’s Commissioner is right that this issue requires action on many fronts. There is no one single answer—we have talked about resources, new powers, early intervention and, of course, the public health approach—which is why we are working across Government. We have institutionalised that in Government in many ways, including with the taskforce that the Prime Minister set up, which has already met once and is meeting again today.

Tier 5 Religious Worker Visas

Diane Abbott Excerpts

Thursday 4th July 2019 Westminster Hall

[John Howell]

I am tempted to say that if it is not just a Catholic problem, perhaps it is a Scottish problem.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s argument. Does he accept that the issue that we should be debating is whether the changes are right in principle? They might not affect every single religious grouping to the same degree, but the question that we parliamentarians should talk about is whether the changes are right in principle.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) on securing this important debate about religious workers’ visas.

For some time, the House has heard about the hostile environment, which would appear to be a hostile environment for religious ministers. The Government have cast the change as a matter of regulatory tidiness and of ensuring that religious ministers can speak English, but as the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) points out, why would a congregation that routinely conducts its services in English try to bring across a priest who did not speak English?

Religious ministers have been removed from tier 5 visas and are now obliged to apply for tier 2 visas, for which an English language proficiency test can be included in a successful application. Ministers must know, however—and have received representations to this effect—that the change is unwieldy, costly, bureaucratic and discriminatory. Ministers must have been made aware by representatives of a range of faith communities that the measures are a blockage to faith communities, to the religious ministers they need to lead them, whether temporarily or for a little longer, and to good community relations. Yet here we are with a Minister defending a policy that many in the community question.

In fact, Ministers announced this change to long-standing policy towards the end of the parliamentary Session last year. Can the Minister tell us what consultation was conducted prior to that change? What were the results of that consultation, and what risk assessments were done for Ministers by Home Office officials before the decision was taken and the policy announced? Do Ministers understand that Catholic priests, rabbis, imams and many others need holidays and cannot be on call 365 days a year, or that they have to visit loved ones or go abroad for further study? They might even get ill, and they need people to stand in for them as occasion arises.

As we have heard, the shift to tier 2 is costly, time-consuming, bureaucratic and unnecessary. We have heard about the issues with English language at tier 2, and about the fact that tier 2 visas are much more expensive than tier 5 visas and put a considerable financial burden on faith communities. As a whole, tier 2 visas are also subject to a numerical cap, which is surely folly. It means that people who we need for our economy and public services may be refused a visa solely on the grounds that the number has already been met, and religious ministers have to compete in that total.

In explaining the change of policy, Ministers have stated that:

“This change will prevent migrants from using the tier 5 Religious Worker route to fill positions as Ministers of Religion, and instead direct them towards the appropriate”—

the Opposition would query that appropriateness—

“category of tier 2…The ‘cooling off’ period will ensure tier 5 Religious workers and Charity Workers spend a minimum of 12 months outside the UK before returning…This will prevent migrants from applying for consecutive visas”.

So, there you have it: this whole discriminatory rigmarole is an effort to prevent people, of whatever religious faith, from using what Ministers seem to think is a loophole to come into this country on a permanent basis. I hope that, having listened to Members from across the House, the Minister recognises that no one is talking about a loophole but about the very real needs of faith communities. Maybe he will tell us how many people he thinks sneak their way into the country under a religious cloth. A handful? Dozens? What evidence can Ministers provide for that outlandish proposition?

We pride ourselves—or used to—on being a religiously tolerant society, but these measures do not seem religiously tolerant to those of us here today or to the wider community. This discriminatory policy is causing distress in faith communities of all types across the country. It should be a matter of concern for those of all faiths and none. In 30 years in the House, this is not the first time that I have seen immigration measures brought in willy-nilly to target a specific community—for example, the Muslim faith—but catching all sorts of faiths. If the Home Office has a particular ill in mind, it needs better drafted legislation and better conducted administration.

We should not dictate to anyone who their faith leaders should be. We should recognise and honour the contribution that faith communities make to our society. The Government should take note of the debate, meet hon. Members from across the House and—I sincerely hope—change policy as a result.

Violent Crime

Diane Abbott Excerpts

Monday 17th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for the experience that he brings to the House from his shadow portfolios over the years. We have always said that stop and search is a vital tool for law enforcement. We are all conscious in this House that a few years ago there was a real problem regarding the trust that certain parts of our society felt in relation to stop and search, and we wanted to try to reassure communities. That reassurance is now there, particularly with the introduction of body-worn cameras. Victims’ families and others I speak to welcome the intelligence-led targeting of stop and search, as well as the section 60 search powers for moments when police action is necessary and needs to be immediate.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

Another blood-stained weekend in the capital, and this morning four families will have woken up having lost a son, a brother or a father. The Minister is correct to say that there is no single answer, and we congratulate the Met police on its work over this horrible weekend that we have endured, but does she accept that any strategy to combat rising crime must include hiring more police officers?

I note that the level of complaints about stop and search has dropped, which is very important. As the Minister intimates, that is to do with the use of body-worn cameras, because there is no question but that in the past, indiscriminate stop and search undermined communities’ confidence in the police and therefore undermined the fight against crime.

In relation to the President of the United States implying that the Mayor of London is responsible for the rise in violent crime, the Mayor must be held to account like any other politician, but in 30 years in Parliament I have never heard a President of the United States reference a London Mayor at all. It is hard to escape the conclusion that President Trump may be singling out Sadiq Khan because he is of the Muslim faith. Does the Minister accept that if that were true, many people would find it distasteful?

[Victoria Atkins]

I welcome the fact that the right hon. Lady welcomes our action to ensure that stop and search has the trust of more people in communities. We see it as a vital tool within the portfolio of tools that police officers and others have. If she does not mind, I will decline to respond to the point about President Trump, for the simple reason that, as I know from the urgent question, we all have at the forefront of our minds today the four families who have been affected in the most terrible way this weekend. I hope she will forgive me if, today of all days, I do not dive into the political pool.

Oral Answers to Questions

Diane Abbott Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

It is important to reflect that roughly half the individuals affected by Windrush had a negative impact pre-2010 under the previous Labour Government. We are determined to put right all those wrongs and ensure that wherever people have come from—people from a wide variety of countries, not simply the Caribbean, have made contact with the Windrush taskforce—they are given the support to go through the process of getting the documentation they need. Well over 4,000 people have secured British citizenship as a result, and over 6,000 people have the documentation they need to prove their right to stay in the UK.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

The Minister has to begin to acknowledge communities’ grave concerns about the Windrush compensation scheme as it stands. They think that it is not working. She also needs to bear in mind that this is an ageing cohort, who will probably need more support on average than a cohort that is more mixed in age. The Home Secretary told the House in April last year that we

“will do whatever it takes to put it right”.

He continued:

“We have made it clear that a Commonwealth citizen who has remained in the UK since 1973 will be eligible to get the legal status that they deserve: British citizenship.”—[Official Report, 30 April 2018; Vol. 640, c. 35.]

What progress has been made on those promises?

Will the Minister reconsider some of the worst aspects of the current scheme? It will currently not compensate those who may have been wrongly deported. I quote from the document:

“It is difficult to determine whether inability to return to the UK is a loss”.

Of course someone being deprived of their home, job, family and community is a loss. How can Ministers say that it is “difficult to determine” whether there is a loss?

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. It is absolutely because we acknowledge that people have been wronged that, in the last week, I personally have attended two separate outreach events for people who wish to understand the compensation scheme. It is why there are dedicated helplines. It is why we have put in place the scheme with Citizens Advice, so that it can provide advice. I reiterate that 6,470 individuals have been granted some form of documentation and 4,281 have been granted citizenship. As I said, there are 13 different heads of claim, including not only deportation, but loss of ability to work, loss of benefits and so on. We are absolutely determined to make sure that we compensate the individuals affected in a timely manner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hurd]

The answer is yes, and I congratulate Steve Mold and the leadership in Northamptonshire on what they have done to show what can be achieved through really creative collaboration. This is not just about saving taxpayers’ money; it is also about exploring the opportunities to deliver a better service to the public.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

We are approaching the third anniversary of the Grenfell Tower tragedy, which, as Members will know, happened overnight. The Grenfell residents had complained about their treatment by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and had specifically highlighted the fire risks, but they were ignored. What steps have the Government taken to ensure that similar warnings from those who know most—the residents themselves—are heeded and acted on?

[Mr Hurd]

I think the right hon. Lady meant to say that it was the second anniversary, but of course the point she makes is a fundamental one that will be addressed in the statement that follows on the Government’s response to the fire, not only on future arrangements for social housing and the regulation of that, but to ensure that the voice of tenants is a louder one and a respected one.

Illegal Seaborne Migration

Diane Abbott Excerpts

Tuesday 4th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

I am sorry, Mr Speaker, but this might be a somewhat lengthy response. I reassure my hon. Friend that gold command still meets on a weekly basis and continues to do so, because we have always been conscious that the summer months may well bring better weather that would further incentivise people to make what is an incredibly risky journey.

My hon. Friend talked about Dublin returns, but I am very conscious that in many cases, these people have fallen prey to organised crime gangs. Their journey through Europe is incredibly rapid. There is very little evidence of them being in any camps around the Calais area before they seek to make a crossing, and there is simply no hit on the Eurodac system to demonstrate that they have been in another EU country before they arrive here. Under those circumstances, one cannot use the Dublin regulation to return them because they have simply not been recorded in another EU member state. More returns are in the pipeline—there have been 30 so far. We continue to work with not just EU member states but countries of origin to make sure that we can make progress in returning people to their home country.

My hon. Friend said that surveillance equipment and resources provided to the French were not doing the job and were cosmetic, but far from it. We have provided significant surveillance equipment, including drones, night vision goggles and high-powered wharf lights, to enable the French to redouble their efforts on the beaches. It is important to reflect that the coastline is very long—120 km—and has many sandy beaches and small tracks that enable vehicular access.

The French disrupt about 40% of attempted crossings before they leave the beaches, which is absolutely where the disruption should be taking place; it should not be taking place in the middle of the channel, which is incredibly hazardous for the lifeboat crews, the Border Force cutters, the coastguard and the migrants themselves, who put themselves at incredible risk. We will continue to use our best endeavours to deny the crossings the opportunity to launch, because once they are mid-channel, it must be about preserving life. I do not want to see in the English channel repeats of the scenes in the Aegean, where people have lost their lives in significant numbers, so I make no apologies for making sure that the efforts in the channel are about rescue.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

I query the framing of the urgent question, which talks about “illegal seaborne migration”. We cannot know whether these people are genuine refugees until we have had the opportunity to examine their cases. I am glad the Minister mentioned the risk to life in the busiest sea lane in the world. We all agree that it is tragic that these men and women are the victims of organised crime and people traffickers. I have visited Calais, and although many of these people do not come directly from there, the people one meets in and around Calais are hugely exploited and vulnerable, and Members should show a bit more concern for the risk to life and the vulnerability of these persons.

We need to be careful not to be unduly alarmist. We are not being invaded. There is no comparison to D-day, or whatever flights of imagination some of our media resort to. When the issue of asylum seekers crossing the channel last arose, back in February, the Home Secretary was roundly criticised for his comments. He questioned whether the people apprehended were genuine refugees, and he added:

“If you somehow do make it to the UK, we will do everything we can to make sure you are ultimately not successful because we need to break the link”.

That is not correct. It does not conform to international law. As I said, no one can possibly know whether every one of these cases is not a genuine claim for asylum. That decision must await the application itself and its examination. What the Home Secretary should have said is that we will do everything to uphold the law, and that means not making assumptions about the people crossing the channel but examining all applications impartially, granting asylum where it is justified and denying it where it is not. Each application must be judged on its individual merit, irrespective of how that person reached this country. That is the law. As I said, I query the framing of the urgent question. The Minister seemed to accept it. Does she accept that she cannot be sure—that no one in the Chamber can be sure—whether the people arriving here are doing so illegally until their cases have been examined?

On the wider issue of migration and asylum seekers, commentators and some Members appear to believe that more naval patrols can resolve the issue. That has been tried and has failed spectacularly and tragically. The mere existence of a naval patrol will not deter desperate people. According to the Missing Migrants Project, there have been 543 deaths in the Mediterranean this year alone. A maritime policing approach—let alone just turning back people who might be in British waters—does not work. It is a stain on our humanity and is shameful.

I am sure that the majority of Members understand that these deaths are terrible and unacceptable and that we should do everything we can to reduce their number. The Opposition support the right policies—the legal policies: policies that work, preserve our humanity and uphold human dignity, wherever people are from and however they came to this country. We have long supported the policy that works: the establishment of legal routes for asylum seekers and refugees. This is what all responsible stakeholders propose and meets our obligations under international law. We cannot assume that because of the way in which someone enters the country, that person is necessarily an illegal migrant. We should not dismiss the risk to the lives of people who, as I have said, are crossing one of the busiest sea channels in the world. We want to arrive at a sustainable solution that does not involve suspicion of people because of the way in which they cross the channel, and that means each case is dealt with on its merits.

This is a difficult situation, not least for the people who are so frightened, so desperate and so exploited that they seek to make the crossing in unseaworthy craft. However, we do not want to hear more reactionary grandstanding.

[Caroline Nokes]

I hope the right hon. Lady is content that she has not heard reactionary grandstanding from me this afternoon, and that I have sought to focus on the efforts that are being made to save the lives of—she used this term herself—exceptionally vulnerable people, who are vulnerable before they take to the water in small and unsuitable craft, and much more vulnerable once they are in the midst of a very busy shipping lane. I hope I can reassure her that members of this cohort are treated no differently from others on receipt of their asylum claims. We study them in relation to our convention obligations under the human rights charter and, of course, EU regulations and directives.

When we have ascertained that Eurodac hits show that people have previously claimed asylum in another country, we will, of course, seek to return them under the Dublin regulation. As I have said, there have been 30 such cases so far, and there are many more in the pipeline. But the important point, which the right hon. Lady also emphasised, is that these are people in a vulnerable position, and it is absolutely our duty under maritime law to ensure that they are safe at sea.