Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill
Holly Lynch ExcerptsMonday 18th May 2020
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 View all Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a real shame that we could not hear the rest of the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor). She chairs the APPG on no recourse to public funds, and I know that she has done a lot of really important work. We will have to hear the rest of her contribution on another occasion.
It is a pleasure to be back at the Dispatch Box on behalf of Her Majesty’s official Opposition on such an important piece of legislation—important not just because of what it will do but what it paves the way for. It is historic, in that it starts its passage through the House of Commons for the second time during a crisis that we know will shape this country, and what we need from legislation like this, for years to come.
With that in mind, as so many others have said, this country has never been more aware or more appreciative of the contribution of migrant workers to the UK. We can all agree with the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) that the efforts of key workers have been the stuff of legend. To those working in our NHS, care homes and research labs, and in our fields and factories, keeping food on the shelves—to all those working right across the key sectors—we are truly grateful for all that they are doing, and we need legislation that recognises that contribution. As we have said, we all go out and clap for our carers and our key workers every Thursday, but today the detail of the Government’s approach says to them that they are not skilled enough and not paid enough to be valued in their proposed new immigration system. It is not as though the Government are proposing to work with right hon. and hon. Members to shape a better policy. Instead, the Bill grants sweeping Henry VIII powers to Ministers, diminishing the role of Parliament and MPs.
I am incredibly grateful to all those who have taken part in this important debate. My hon. Friends the Members for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe), for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), and others, including the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), made important points about indefinite detention, and we will be looking to work cross-party with all MPs on amendments to address some of those concerns. My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) and for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) made the point that we are being asked to consider only half a Bill, with my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) and for Streatham and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) rightly saying that we cannot simply give the Government a blank cheque on immigration policy. They ask us to trust them on this, but the hostile environment is a very clear reason why I am afraid we simply cannot do that.
Several hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford, my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds East, for Streatham, and for Wirral South, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, and my hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) and for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green)—and so many others—have raised concerns about the delegated powers contained in the Bill. The previous version of this legislation, which failed to complete its Committee stage because of the snap general election last year, contained an almost identical clause 4. As the shadow Home Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), said in his opening remarks, the Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report on that Bill articulated very clearly its concerns about this clause:
“We are frankly disturbed that the Government should consider it appropriate to include the words ‘in connection with’. This would confer permanent powers on Ministers to make whatever legislation they considered appropriate, provided there was at least some connection with Part 1, however tenuous; and to do so by negative procedure regulations”.
The Committee expressed “significant concerns” about clause 4(5), recommending that it be removed altogether
“unless the Government can provide a proper and explicit justification for its inclusion and explain how they intend to use the power”,
as it
“confers broad discretion on Ministers to levy fees or charges on any person seeking leave to enter or remain in the UK who, pre-exit, would have had free movement rights under EU law.”
This is bad not just for parliamentary democracy, but for our public services and the economy. Parliamentary scrutiny is the most effective way for stakeholders to work with MPs to shape legislation to respond to the needs of the country. It is not just Labour Members who are concerned about the delegated powers in the Bill, but the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, the British Medical Association, London First, Universities UK, the National Union of Students, trade unions and the Children’s Society, as just a sample of the cross-section of organisations that share our concerns that a transfer of powers to the Executive is not the way to develop good-quality legislation. On that basis, we simply cannot sign off on this legislation.
So many others have said today that what we take exception to now more than ever is an approach that puts rhetoric ahead of the practical solutions that this country so desperately needs to find if we are to make it through the coronavirus crisis. Nothing is more important in this fight than the key workers in our NHS and in social care in particular. Given that some 29% of doctors working in our NHS hospitals and 12% of the overall health care workers in the UK are from overseas, the Bill has massive implications for the wellbeing and strength of the healthcare workforce.
The Government’s inability to address the systemic problems in the social care sector also extends, I am afraid to say, to their immigration policy. The Institute for Public Policy Research recently found that four out of five employees from EEA countries working full time in social care would be ineligible to work in the UK under the £25,600 salary threshold proposed in the Government’s immigration White Paper published in February. As much as hon. Members might talk about the ability to respond quickly through the shortage occupation list and the Migration Advisory Committee, special consideration for the social care sector in a future immigration system has already been ruled out, so how do the Government plan to respond to the shortage of workers, the impact of which we are already experiencing and which will only become more acute, given the demand for social care as a result of the crisis?
Across sectors, but particularly in the NHS, it is not just the NHS surcharge that does not seem fair: the immigration skills charge is another problem. It is paid by employers who recruit migrants on tier 2 visas and, come 1 January, employers will also have to pay for staff to come from EU countries as well as non-EU countries. The immigration skills charge is also paid by NHS trusts which, if they cannot find clinical specialists here in the UK, have no choice but to find them from overseas. I asked my local NHS trust, Calderdale and Huddersfield, how much the Government take back from it in immigration skills charges. In the last financial year, the trust had to pay Government just short of £163,000 out of its annual budget in immigration skills charges. So because we have clinical skills shortages in many specialist areas in the UK, and in the absence of any Government strategy to respond to that domestically, the NHS has to hire from overseas. The same Government then punish trusts for doing so by demanding those fees, taking much needed cash back from their budgets. That seems grossly unfair. It indicates not only that our immigration approach simply does not work for the NHS and social care, but neither does our domestic skills policy.
A number of other important points have been raised in this Second Reading debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) spoke of his pride that Bradford is a city of sanctuary, and I share his pride as my constituency is part of a valley of sanctuary. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington, a great music lover, spoke in his typically passionate speech of the contribution that migrants and visitors to the UK make to the music sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) said that to assess a person based on what they earn is a blunt tool which masks their true value. My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton reminded us that the Prime Minister himself understands the value of migrants working in the NHS, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) made the powerful point that those who have died working in the NHS were from every corner of the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston is a passionate campaigner on the rights of children in particular and raised a number of important questions that we will return to in Committee.
In closing, I want to say to all those workers in the NHS who have had their visas extended for one year free of charge, it is not that the Government are doing them a favour—they are doing our country a massive favour by staying in our NHS and fighting on our frontline to save our lives. As others have said, we urge the Government to extend those visa extensions across the social care sector. We have heard the call from the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and we will very much play as constructive a role as we can in Committee, but we cannot support legislation that transfers powers to the Executive and away from Parliament alongside proposals that will only put even greater pressure on the NHS, social care and a number of other key sectors. That is why we will vote against the Bill this evening.
Policing (England and Wales)
Holly Lynch Excerpts(4 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
I join others in paying tribute to the three excellent maiden speeches we have heard this evening, but particularly that from the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Julie Marson). As a fellow daughter of a police officer, I was particularly moved by her speech, and I look forward to working with her on all matters relating to policing over the coming months and years. I also join others in paying tribute to our incredibly dedicated and brave police officers and police staff across the country, not least in West Yorkshire, under Chief Constable John Robins. They work incredibly hard to keep us and all our communities safe, and I pay tribute to them for the work they do.
The uplift in funding is incredibly welcome, not least because it is essential. Since 2010, West Yorkshire police has lost 1,200 frontline officers and 800 members of staff, which has undeniably had an impact on their ability to do the basics, let alone respond to the increased complexity of crime and the social challenges that are now the responsibility of the police. I have spoken at length in this Chamber about my experiences of being out with officers in my constituency and how one particularly harrowing experience led to the Protect the Protectors campaign. I welcome the investment in technology and advances in forensics that stand to make the police more effective, but I know that in almost every aspect of policing the number of boots on the ground really does matter.
West Yorkshire police is the fourth largest force in the country, taking in Leeds, Bradford, Calderdale, Kirklees and Wakefield districts. The Leeds district alone is bigger than 12 other police forces. As part of the police parliamentary scheme, I spent Friday night policing Leeds city centre, an area that regularly welcomes over 100,000 people on a night out, and I again pay tribute to the work that officers do there to keep us safe and maintain law and order over the course of a night. We have diverse communities and an awful lot to offer, but, sadly, that sometimes presents challenges with which many of us will be familiar. Our district encompasses a number of Prevent priority areas, and its socioeconomic characteristics and pockets of deprivation increase policing needs. It includes urban areas such as Leeds and Bradford, but also covers some of the sweeping rural areas that straddle the Pennines. The police grant must recognise the pressures that result from complex, evolving crimes such as cyber-crime and human trafficking, and the demands involved in preventing the sexual and criminal exploitation of children and conducting missing persons inquiries. That is why the review of the police funding formula will be so important. It was due in 2019, and the Minister said in his opening speech that it would take place in “years to come”. I urge him to get on with the process as quickly as possible.
In West Yorkshire, we also face challenges relating to firearms and serious and organised crime. Policing priorities have rightly changed to reflect increased awareness of exploitation in all its ugly forms, from child sexual exploitation—of which nearly 6,500 instances were recorded last year—to human trafficking and child criminal exploitation, but although the resources allocated to such exploitation have also increased, they have not yet increased sufficiently to meet the demand.
As we have heard from Members on both sides of the House this evening, a great many of the challenges facing the police relate directly to the pressures caused by cuts in other services. For example, West Yorkshire police responded to more than 20,000 cases of missing people in 2017, which is staggering and completely unsustainable. We have had a self-funded safeguarding uplift to meet that demand, but those officers have come from neighbourhood policing, so the numbers are down in all the vital neighbourhood policing teams with which I work so closely in my role as an MP—as we all do.
Like my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), I have been taking part in the police service parliamentary scheme, which is an incredibly insightful experience—especially as we look forward to debating, I hope imminently. the police powers and protection Bill—and I urge all MPs to do the same. During the recess last week I participated in two night shifts, one with PC Andy Barron, who deals with road policing in West Yorkshire, and one with Inspector Katie Woodmason, when I saw how people on a night out in Leeds city centre are kept safe.
I am sorry to say that the rhetoric in the Minister’s statements seems a world away from the reality of the conversations and experiences that I have had on the frontline. When I shadowed out-of-hours mental health service workers, I spent all night with two police officers who were unable to leave someone who had been detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. They could not leave a young nurse on her own with a gentleman who did not agree that he should have been detained, and who was becoming increasingly aggressive. West Yorkshire police saw a 33% increase in the number of mental health-related incidents in 2018, which meant that they were required to respond to an additional 5,000 incidents.
Having started the Protect the Protectors campaign after shadowing single-crew police officers, I know that reduced numbers mean that officers themselves are particularly vulnerable to assaults when they are out on their own. I hope that the Minister is revisiting some of the resulting legislation, and will consider using any or all measures in the police powers and protections Bill to ensure that officers are kept safe. I also hope that the Minister who sums up the debate will tell us when we can expect the introduction of that Bill.
I know that the Government are looking into a number of complicated police pension issues that have been mentioned this evening. Perversely, owing to the changes in the thresholds at which public sector workers start to pay tax on their pension contributions, some senior officers are beginning to receive annual tax bills that are greater than their annual salaries. Unlike doctors, police officers cannot reduce their hours or withdraw their service to mitigate the impact of such bills. I understand that the Treasury is conducting a review of the issue with a view to shaping the next Budget. I ask the policing Minister to look specifically at how those perverse tax disincentives can be reformed, not least because it seems that police forces themselves are paying tax bills for individuals, who are reimbursed by the Home Office, which is reimbursed by the Treasury, to square off contributions to HMRC. In order to pay back the money in the long term, officers are realistically having to hand significant chunks of their pensions back on retirement in order to settle all the accumulated annual allowance taxes. There must be a better way of structuring police pensions to avoid that financial merry-go-round.
Police pension arrangements need to be much clearer, both for officers themselves and for the public purse. More importantly, we need to ensure that we do not haemorrhage experience and leadership in policing at a time when we can least afford it if we are to reach anything like the recruitment targets set by the Government.
The uplift in numbers reflected in this grant is incredibly welcome, but the settlement is for just one year, and does not reflect the increased complexity of crime in areas such as West Yorkshire. The grant provides for no inflationary increases, and core funding has increased only by the uplift funding. Therefore, all pay rises and non-pay inflation must be met by existing budgets. With that in mind, I hope very much that we will see the review of the police funding formula sooner rather and later, so that our police officers can do what they do best—keeping us and our communities safe.
Policing and Crime
Holly Lynch Excerpts(4 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
It is an opportune moment to be having this debate. I am particularly proud to take part following two exceptional maiden speeches this afternoon.
I welcome a number of the decisions this Government have taken recently. They have listened to communities and to chief officers and delivered a significant uplift in spending on policing. However, it is not unrealistic to say that this demonstrates nothing short of a complete U-turn in their approach to policing, given the Government’s conduct between 2010 and 2019. We have lost 21,000 police officers and 600 police stations have closed across England and Wales. One of those stations is in my constituency: Sowerby Bridge police station, where “Happy Valley” was filmed. The building was sold off at a time when the West Yorkshire police force was doing all it could to generate the cash needed to keep funding boots on the ground. That station simply is not coming back.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making an important point about the closure of police stations, which we have also seen in Hounslow. Such closures contribute to the feeling of greater distance between the police and our communities. Does she agree that that is part of the reason why there has been a reduction in people’s confidence in the police, both in terms of dealing with crimes and achieving the detection rates that we need?
Holly Lynch
I thank my hon. Friend for making that very important point. She is quite right that, as those 600 police stations have closed in our communities and the numbers of officers has declined, people are feeling that that access to justice is further away from them than ever before, and that is contributing to that lack of confidence in the ability of our police officers to secure the results that we so desperately need in our communities.
In addition to reductions in officers and police stations, there have been changes to officer recruitment and training. I do not necessarily disagree with those changes, but they do mean that the new officers promised by the Prime Minister will not be operational until 2023. We have a long way to go before we start to the feel the change in approach from this Conservative Government towards policing on our streets and in our communities.
I look forward to the police powers and protections Bill which, as I understand it, will legislate for the creation of a police covenant; like the hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley), I am very much in favour of that. It will also allow special constables to join the Police Federation and allow another look at the legality of emergency driving, to ensure that all police officers know where they stand when tasked with driving in an emergency situations. I know that all such measures will be welcomed by both the public and the officers themselves.
I am currently taking part in the police service parliamentary scheme, which I recommend to all colleagues, particularly our new colleagues. It offers a truly insightful frontline experience of what is going on right across policing. Having had to call 999 from a police car for urgent back-up for a single-crewed officer whom I was shadowing on the front line, I decided to start the Protect the Protectors campaign, which finally resulted in law changes introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) in 2018.
The Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 created a new offence of “assault against an emergency worker” with the maximum penalty increased from six months to 12 months. The Act also created a statutory aggravating factor within a raft of other offences including sexual assault, actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm and manslaughter, which means that the judge must consider the fact that the offence was committed against an emergency worker as an aggravating factor, meriting an increase in the sentence. I was reassured but somewhat taken aback to hear the Minister in his opening remarks talk about the Government’s plan to double sentences for those who assault police officers. Although the 2018 Act was very much a step in the right direction, I cannot stress enough how hard we had to fight Ministers to secure the increase from six months to 12 months; they rejected our initial proposals for 24 months. We very much welcome that step to double sentences, but it is hard to describe how hard we had to fight for it. We had our proposals rejected by the then Government just 18 months ago.
While we make the laws in here, we ask the police to uphold and enforce them out there, and we certainly agree that to assault an emergency service worker is to show complete disregard for law and order. It is a breakdown in our shared values and in democracy itself, and that must be reflected in sentencing, particularly for repeat offenders. It saddens me to say that the changes in the law are having a minimal impact. There were over 30,000 assaults on police officers in England and Wales in 2018-19, as well as a 13% increase in attacks classified as assault without injury on a constable, and a 27% increase in assault with injury on a constable, compared with the previous year. There were 1,897 recorded assaults last year in West Yorkshire alone—the highest figure in England and Wales outside the Met area. Will the Minister reopen this issue as part of the police powers and protections Bill, and look at minimum sentencing, enhanced penalties for repeat offenders and the abolition of suspended sentences for such crimes?
The other element of the “Protect the Protectors” Bill that we were not able to nail down in statute related to spitting. I have shared horror stories on several occasions in this Chamber about emergency service workers having been spat at, and the anxiety of having to wait up to six months for test results to determine whether they have contracted a potentially life-changing communicable disease, having to take antiviral treatments as a precaution, and on occasion having to adhere to restrictions about interacting with close family and friends, based on advice given by medical professionals. We initially wanted to introduce a new law to require someone who spits at a police officer or any other emergency service worker to provide a blood sample in order to determine whether they have a communicable disease. Such a measure would give the victim some clarity about whether antiviral treatments would be required. The new law would have made it a crime for the perpetrator to refuse to provide a sample.
Advice provided by the NHS at the time argued that the chances of contracting such diseases were so low that any such testing was not necessary, as contracting the disease from being spat at or bitten was almost impossible. The problem is that even today the advice given to frontline officers presenting at A&E having been spat at is a course of antiviral treatment and six months of testing as a precaution. Will the Minister agree to have another look at this issue with colleagues in the Department of Health, to ensure that we are removing as much stress and anxiety from the situation as possible for dedicated police officers and their colleagues across the emergency services who have been subjected to such vile behaviour in the line of duty?
I want to take this opportunity to highlight the issues of recruitment and retention in police leadership. Last summer I invited doctors from Calderdale to meet the then Health Minister to discuss how the annual lifetime allowances on their pensions were affecting them. Although the Government have found a temporary sticking plaster for this issue for clinicians, the same problem persists right across the public sector—not least in policing. In a letter to the chair of the Police Pension Scheme Advisory Board sent just this week, the Policing Minister argued that although he is open to the reform of police pensions, the case
“does not demonstrate evidence of recruitment and retention problems and a resulting impact on operational service delivery”.
Having recently taken part in the police service parliamentary scheme, I can tell the Minister that, anecdotally, this is certainly discouraging officers from seeking promotion to the higher ranks, and senior officers openly tell me that this is the case.
Research undertaken by the National Police Chiefs’ Council shows that the number of applicants for chief officer jobs is declining, as is the length of tenure in those roles. My own force, West Yorkshire police, had just one applicant on the previous two occasions it needed to fill the post of chief constable, and Northumbria police force recently had to open recruitment for a chief constable three times. Will the Minister have another look at the issue, given that, perversely, senior officers are receiving bizarre yearly tax bills that are greater than their annual salary?
I very much welcome some of the decisions taken, but there is certainly a long way to go for the Government to win back trust from communities and from within policing.