Minors Entering the UK: 1948 to 1971

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Monday 30th April 2018 Westminster Hall

[Lyn Brown]

It was your policy—2014.

[Ian Austin (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Lady keeps saying an awful lot of stuff from a sedentary position. Does my hon. Friend accept that the rewriting of history on such a sensitive issue is unhelpful to both sides of the debate and to moving this thing forward? For perfectly legitimate reasons at the time, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) referred not only to having a hostile environment but to seeking to flush out illegal migration. “Illegal” is the key word.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

I will not; I am just going to finish. Indeed, during her statement last Thursday, the former Home Secretary said “illegal” 23 times but did not even once say “citizen”.

This is not about illegal immigration. This is about British citizens, and frankly it is deeply offensive to conflate the Windrush generation with illegal immigrants to try to distract from the Windrush crisis. This is about a hostile environment policy that blurs the line between illegal immigrants and people who are here legally, and are even British citizens. This is about a hostile environment not just for illegal immigrants but for anybody who looks like they could be an immigrant. This is about a hostile environment that has turned employers, doctors, landlords and social workers into border guards.

The hostile environment is not about illegal immigration. Increasing leave to remain fees by 238% in four years is not about illegal immigration. The Home Office making profits of 800% on standard applications is not about illegal immigration. The Home Office sending back documents unrecorded by second-class post, so that passports, birth certificates and education certificates get lost, is not about illegal immigration. Charging teenagers £2,033 every 30 months for limited leave to remain is not about illegal immigration. Charging someone £10,521 in limited leave to remain fees before they can even apply for indefinite leave to remain is not about illegal immigration.

Banning refugees and asylum seekers from working and preventing them from accessing public funds is not about illegal immigration. Sending nine immigration enforcement staff to arrest my constituent because the Home Office lost his documents is not about illegal immigration. Locking my constituent up in Yarl’s Wood, meaning she missed her midwifery exams, is not about illegal immigration. Denying legal aid to migrants who are here legally is not about illegal immigration. Changing the terms of young asylum seekers’ immigration bail so that they cannot study is not about illegal immigration. Sending immigration enforcement staff to a church in my constituency that was serving soup to refugees is not about illegal immigration.

The former Home Secretary and the Prime Minister promised compensation. They have promised that no enforcement action will be taken. They have promised that the burden of proof will be lowered when the taskforce assesses Windrush cases. The Windrush citizens do not trust the Home Office, and I do not blame them after so much injustice has been dealt out.

I quote Martin Luther King, who himself quoted St Augustine, when he said that

“an unjust law is no law at all.”

I say to the Minister, warm words mean nothing. Guarantee these rights and enshrine them in law as soon as possible, and review the hostile environment that turns everybody in this country who is different into someone who is potentially illegal. Some 230 years after those in the abolitionist movement wore their medallions around their necks, I stand here as a Caribbean, black, British citizen and I ask the Minister, on behalf of those Windrush citizens, am I not a man and a brother? [Applause.]

[Ian Austin (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry, but we are not supposed to have applause. I understand how strongly people feel about this issue, but that is the rule.

Money Laundering

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

Is the hon. Gentleman asking about opening an investigation or prosecuting? As I said earlier, we are not commenting on what investigations we have live and open. That has been very clear: we cannot comment on whether or not an investigation is open into anyone. Whether it is a Russian oligarch, people who are alleged concerning Magnitsky, or someone under investigation in the hon. Gentleman’s local constituency, that is not how it operates in this country, because we protect the operational independence of the police.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

The best way to target Putin is to go after the people around him who enrich themselves to the tune of billions. It is estimated that people closely linked to Putin own property here in London worth more than £1 billion. The Minister could start by looking at the activities of Igor Shuvalov, who, as we have heard today, is reputed to own—just a few hundred yards from where we are standing now—flats worth £11.4 million, yet he earns just £112,000. That is clearly the result of corruption; what is the Minister going to do about it?

[Mr Wallace]

As the hon. Gentleman will have heard me say numerous times this afternoon, there are plenty of individuals who get pointed out to us and into whom we open investigations. What we cannot do is provide a running commentary on who is under investigation. As I have stated and as we have demonstrated in our legislation over the past few years, we on the Conservative Benches are determined to investigate and deal with overseas corruption and oligarchs putting money here. The best example I can give is the unexplained wealth order issued only a few weeks ago: it related to an overseas oligarch who was also a PEP and to £22 million of property in the south-east. We will continue to target such people because we think it is the right thing to do.

Hate Crime

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Monday 12th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

I have very much heard what the House has said. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the internet safety strategy was published last year. I will ensure that the sentiments of the House on anonymity are very much heard by the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

What makes you British is not what you look like, where your parents were from or how you worship, but the contribution that you make to our country. Nowhere has the contribution made by British Muslims been greater than in the west midlands, which is why I will be spending 3 April—it has been identified as a day of hate—visiting as many mosques and community centres across the region as possible to ensure that Muslims in the west midlands have my support and solidarity and to show them that I am on their side. I hope other Members of the House will be doing the same.

[Victoria Atkins]

The hon. Gentleman has set out beautifully the values that bind this House and our country together. I wish him luck on his visits across his constituency to the many mosques in the west midlands.

Proscription of Hezbollah

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Thursday 25th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

It is absolutely fantastic to see you back in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) on her speech, and I agree with every word. The speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) was superb, absolutely brilliant, and she should be commended for it.

I thank all the people of Dudley who have written to tell me that they think Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation, that they think it should be banned in its entirety and that waving its flag is an incitement to terrorism and violence. As we have heard, the organisation has carried out terrorist attacks and racist murders in the middle east, in Europe and across the world. Its stated aim is the destruction of Israel, but it does not limit its attacks to people in Israel; it targets Jewish people anywhere and everywhere.

It is not true to claim that there is a political wing and a military wing. As has been said, Hezbollah itself does not make this distinction, and the supposed distinction undermines the fight against terrorism. That is why the United States, France, the Gulf Co-operation Council, Canada, the Netherlands and Israel have all proscribed Hezbollah in full, and why I cannot understand why our Government have not been prepared to do the same. I very much hope that that stance will change as a result of the debate this afternoon.

[Zac Goldsmith]

We have heard in the past that proscribing Hezbollah might somehow destabilise Lebanon and the wider region, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that by engaging in this pretence and indulging a terrorist organisation we are destabilising the many moderates in Lebanon who are determined to marginalise the terrorists, marginalise the extremists and marginalise Hezbollah?

[Ian Austin]

The hon. Gentleman is right about that. It is a point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North made when she opened the debate and that was made eloquently by the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee.

It is unacceptable to see Hezbollah’s flag waved on the streets of Britain, and it is disgusting to hear the virulently racist abuse and racist chants that accompany it. So I agree with many of the comments that have been made today, but I want to focus on three particular issues.

First I want to talk about Hezbollah’s role in the middle east and its impact on the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. We have debated that many times in this House, but we should be under absolutely no illusion about the difficult issues that will need to be confronted in the negotiations—borders, land swaps, the status of Jerusalem, settlements and so on. Let us be really honest about this; none of those issues remotely interest Hezbollah. It is not interested in the compromises that all sides will need to make to bring about a two-state solution. Its sole interest is the destruction of Israel. Hezbollah has made that absolutely clear. It declared in 1992 that the war is on

“until Israel ceases to exist and the last Jew in the world has been eliminated. Israel is completely evil and must be erased from the face of the Earth.”

That is why, when Israel unilaterally withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000, Hezbollah’s response was not peace but the murder and kidnapping of Israeli soldiers and an avalanche of rocket attacks just six years later. It is why, today, Hezbollah, thanks to its Iranian paymasters, threatens Israel by pointing 120,000 to 140,000 rockets at the country.

In October, Hassan Nasrallah, in just one of the Hezbollah leader’s many threats, urged Jews to flee Israel before it is devastated by war. Last February, he warned that there would be “no red lines” in any future conflict between the terror group and Israel. In April, he boasted of his organisation’s preparedness for war, and in June he spoke of the “hundreds of thousands” of Shi’a fighters from across the middle east who would rush to Hezbollah’s side when it next takes the fight to the Jewish state.

[John Woodcock]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent case, as he always does. Does he agree that it is also important to keep reminding people of the role that Hezbollah has played in training the Houthi rebels, who are causing such terrible carnage, destruction and death in Yemen?

[Ian Austin]

In Lebanon and Israel, in Syria and Yemen, Hezbollah is causing carnage. That is its stated aim.

[Jack Lopresti]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, as others have said, one of the best ways of defeating Hezbollah is to encourage and assist a stable, functioning Lebanese state?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Austin]

That is correct, and the point was made eloquently by the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee earlier. The hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) goes to the middle east a lot; he knows a lot of people there. He is an expert on the region and what he says is worth listening to. I hope that Ministers will be listening to the advice that they have just been given.

Analysts warn that the next conflict between Israel and Hezbollah

“will likely be the most destructive Arab-Israel war yet.”

Israel’s military believes that, in a future conflict, Hezbollah will be able to launch 1,500 rockets and missiles a day. Israel has increased its defensive capabilities, but Hezbollah is likely to target military facilities, important infrastructure and civilian population centres.

In the past, Nasrallah has threatened that Hezbollah will attack an ammonia storage facility in Haifa and a nuclear reactor at Dimona. The week before last, I was in Haifa, which is just over 20 miles from the border with Lebanon and is the site of Israel’s oil refinery, making it one of Hezbollah’s main targets. Imagine the carnage, devastation and civilians deaths that could result in a future conflict when Hezbollah start to rain down missiles on Haifa from just a few miles away, as it has done in the past.

Sadly, Israel’s experience in southern Lebanon was repeated in Gaza. Israel signed an agreement with the Palestinian Authority on movement and access to Gaza, which gave the Palestinians control over their borders for the first time in history, allowed imports and exports, and approved the construction of a seaport and discussions on an airport. Israel pulled out of Gaza but, just as in Lebanon, an Islamist movement, a terrorist organisation, a powerful armed militia—this time Hamas, also equipped by Iran and just as committed to Israel’s destruction as Hezbollah—launched a coup, banned elections, drove out Fatah, threw fellow Palestinians from the rooftops, summarily executed people outside mosques after Friday prayers and declared themselves the new rulers of Gaza, saying that they would use the strip as a base to destroy Israel. The unilateral withdrawal of 8,500 Israelis from Gaza was met not by peace but, after Hamas’s brutal takeover, by rockets and attack tunnels. When we look at the experience in Lebanon and in Gaza, we can understand why, whether or not people in this Chamber like it, the Israelis are very reticent about pulling out of the west bank.

As we have just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), the Iranian proxy Hezbollah poses a significant threat to security and stability in the middle east—explicitly the whole middle east, not just Israel. My second point is that Hezbollah has played a particularly pernicious and powerful role in the internal affairs of Lebanon. Its armed forces have been described as more effective than Lebanon’s army and its military power is occasionally used to pressurise the Lebanese Government, allowing Iran to exercise influence in the country. Once seen as a state within a state, Hezbollah’s growing influence in Lebanon threatens to draw Israel’s northern neighbour, and its army, into any future conflict.

My third point is that, as we have heard, Hezbollah’s so-called resistance against Israel is influenced by its deeply anti-Semitic ideology. The group’s leader Hassan Nasrallah has said that if Jews

“all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.”

He has also suggested:

“God imprinted blasphemy on the Jews’ hearts.”

Hezbollah’s deputy leader, Naim Qassem, has said that

“the history of Jews has proven that, regardless of the Zionist proposal, they are a people who are evil in their ideas.”

The late Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, one of Hezbollah’s most influential figures, peddled anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about Jews. He declared:

“The Jews want to be a world superpower…the Jews will work on the basis that Jewish interests are above all world interests.”

I have criticised the Government for not proscribing Hezbollah, but I also wish to address some remarks to my party. In 2009, at a meeting of the so-called Stop the War Coalition, which must be the worst or most inappropriately named organisation in British politics, the leader of the Labour party said that he had invited “friends” from Hamas and Hezbollah to an event in Parliament. Later, when asked why he had called them friends, he said:

“I use it in a collective way, saying our friends are prepared to talk.”

He also said:

“There is not going to be a peace process unless there is talks involving Israel, Hezbollah and Hamas”.

First, who would describe a racist, fascistic and terrorist organisation like Hezbollah as friends? Social democrats—indeed, all democrats—should always be crystal clear about how they describe totalitarian movements and Governments, whether that is Hezbollah or, for instance, the Iranian dictatorship that backs Hezbollah.

Secondly, the statements by the leaders of Hezbollah make it very clear that they have absolutely no interest in the negotiations and compromises that could lead to peace. The idea that Hezbollah is a partner for peace is utterly misguided. Its contribution to the Oslo peace process was to threaten to murder Jewish tourists and businessmen visiting Arab countries that normalised their relations with Israel. Even if we were to set all that to one side, I do not think that the leadership of our party has shown the same interest in speaking to the Israelis. Invitations to meet the leaders of Labour’s own sister party, who have repeatedly invited our leader to visit Israel and talk to them about their plans to bring the conflict to an end, have not been accepted.

The conflict between Israelis and Palestinians is enormously difficult and complex.There are no easy answers. If there were, they would have been found by now. However, some elements are clearer than others, and the case of Hezbollah is one of them. This is an anti-Semitic, racist terror group—acting at the behest of Iran—which wishes to drive Jews from the middle east and murder Jews around the world. Hezbollah is part of the problem; it will never be part of the solution. That is why this House and our Government should agree today to proscribe it in its entirety.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention. In a moment, I will give the House an example of an ex-soldier who has knowledge of the situation and whose position will become clear. Perhaps then, everyone in the Chamber will understand why we need and want this proscription.

Hezbollah leaders have openly stated that there is no separation between its component parts. The group in its entirety meets the criteria for full proscription under the Terrorism Act 2000. Its leaders have repeatedly encouraged terrorism and supported jihad and martyrdom. Hezbollah has been responsible for attacks on Jewish people across the globe, yet last year, as the hon. Member for Newark witnessed, people with Hezbollah flags marched down Oxford Street celebrating al-Quds day with complete disregard and with the AK-47 on their flags. If that is not provocative and illegal, I would like to know what is. Along with the flags and banners that day, we had all the associated inflammatory rhetoric because the purpose of the demonstration was to agitate for violent resistance and the destruction of the state of Israel under the euphemism of “liberating al-Quds”—Jerusalem. The context was militaristic, not political.

The domestic consequence of the current Government policy that the Minister will repeat in due course is a fabricated division that allows public support for a terrorist organisation and anti-Semitism to flourish freely on our streets. These actions are detrimental to social cohesion and damaging to community relations, and that is why Hezbollah must be banned. Many Members across the Chamber have made it clear that we have taken a stance against anti-Semitism. The Government have taken a stance against it, but there are others who need to be stronger when it comes to taking that stance, and we encourage them to do so.

Colonel Richard Kemp, to whom I referred a moment ago, is the former head of the international terrorism team at the Cabinet Office. I hope that we can all respect the fact that his credentials are impeccable as he explains his view of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s position. He says:

“The Foreign Office deludes itself that by appeasing Hezbollah it can influence the organisation. And that it will do its killing elsewhere. Instead this gives legitimacy to Hezbollah. Piling appeasement on appeasement, Britain and the rest of the EU hope to mollify Iran, the biggest state supporter of terrorism. They know designating Hezbollah would enrage the ayatollahs.”

[Ian Austin]

The hon. Gentleman is right to quote Richard Kemp. I refer him to Lord Dannatt, the former Chief of the General Staff, who has made exactly the same point. I am not calling into question the motives of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) or asking why he said what he did; I am just saying that Richard Kemp and Lord Dannatt both make the opposite point. I think that, if such intelligence existed, they would be aware of it.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and for putting on record that extra evidential basis. The Foreign Office position appears to be creating two delusions: first, that Hezbollah is not a single organisation and, secondly, that it will do its killing elsewhere. Colonel Richard Kemp’s column in The Times devastates another Foreign Office fable, namely, that we are not in danger. He says:

“During the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan, Hezbollah was involved in Iranian-directed bombings that killed well over 1,000 British and US servicemen. Despite this, in Britain and elsewhere in Europe Hezbollah can freely raise funds for terrorism. Its supporters flaunt their assault rifle-emblazoned flags on our streets. They maintain sleeper cells in this country: planning, preparing and lying in wait for orders to attack.”

I commend our security forces for their good work, which everyone in this House endorses and supports. Our intelligence services are the best in the world and we are very happy to have them.

When we hear such things, we say to ourselves, “What damning testimony there is.” I see you looking at me, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am coming to the end of my speech. Those in the Foreign Office who seek to appease, and who are fearful of offending the ayatollahs, are allowing people on our streets to celebrate an organisation that has been complicit in the killing of British soldiers. We have a responsibility to look after, nurture and care for our soldiers and their families, and the situation cannot be allowed to continue. It is past time that the Government did the right thing and banned Hezbollah. Members may ask what that will achieve. Let me quote Hezbollah’s Secretary General, Hassan Nasrallah, on that question:

“The sources of our funding would dry up, and the sources of moral, political, and material support would be destroyed.”

If we are looking for a good reason to proscribe Hezbollah, that has to be one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

First, I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to the application led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) and for allowing these important issues to be brought forward. While nobody in the House would deny the right to peaceful protest, we should of course debate in the House when offence and distress are caused by public displays, and we should also debate these important issues of proscription. I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Dudley North (Ian Austin), for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) and for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) for their contributions to the debate.

I want to deal with the issue of the displaying of Hezbollah flags, which, at least in the short term, is what led to this debate. Let me say at the outset that Labour Members unequivocally condemn support for violence and acts of terrorism, the likes of which have been described in the Chamber today. We are grateful to the police and to our security services for the work they do daily in keeping us all safe.

Many Members have spoken about the current position regarding proscription. It is of course correct that, in March 2001, the Hezbollah External Security Organisation —part of the military wing—was proscribed. In July 2008, that was extended to the whole military wing, including the Jihad Council. The then Home Office Minister, Tony McNulty—a former Member of this House—said in the House on 15 July 2008 that the proscription of Hezbollah’s military wing would not affect the role it played in Lebanon, but it would send out

“a clear message that we condemn Hezbollah’s violence and support for terrorism.” —[Official Report, 15 July 2008; Vol. 479, c. 195.]

It is, of course, the case today that Hezbollah forms part of the Parliament and the Government of Lebanon.

More recently, in December of last year, the Security Minister said: “Those organisations”—this includes Hezbollah—

“are not proscribed in their entirety. Their military wings are proscribed, but as Hezbollah forms part of the Government in Lebanon…the proscription applies only to the military wing.”—[Official Report, 19 December 2017; Vol. 633, c. 1008.]

It is for the Government to keep under review the organisations they proscribe. These are always careful decisions, and clearly, in difficult and volatile situations, there has to be a balance between making absolutely clear our abhorrence at the use of violence to achieve political ends and, at the same time, seeking to facilitate and encourage solutions to conflict through participation in the democratic process.

It is for the Government, on the information they have before them—not all of which, as the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) pointed out, may be in the public domain—to be vigilant in keeping the list of proscribed organisations under review. The statutory test is under the Terrorism Act 2000, and of course, as the Opposition, we will hold the Government to account on their application of the test, as we did just before Christmas in relation to a number of other organisations. I ask the Minister today for the assurance he has previously given that the situation is always kept under review.

I want to turn to the current position on proscription, but I want first to make an aside, if I may, because it is important. An internal document containing the position of those on the Labour Front Bench got into the public domain today. While colleagues may or may not disagree with it, there is an issue, in that the front of the document contains the work email address of a member of my staff. Before I came into the Chamber today, he had already received an email, as if he personally was responsible for the position of the entire Labour Front Bench, which clearly is not the case. I ask the organisations that are displaying that document on the internet and elsewhere to remove the work email address of my member of staff, so that he does not receive any more emails. It is for us in this House, not our staff, to take responsibility for our positions, and our staff do an excellent job for us.

For the displaying of a Hezbollah flag to be an offence under section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000—I was interested in the remarks made by the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) about that—it is correct that it has to be in support of the proscribed elements of the group. However, that does not mean that nothing can be done. I have not read the QC’s advice to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but I would be interested in a dialogue with either the Metropolitan police or other police forces from around the country on this matter. Law enforcement agencies on the ground judge the context and circumstances in which the flag is flown, but that of course relates to the 2000 Act. There are other, wider criminal offences in respect of public order, displays that cause harassment, alarm and distress, and incitement, all of which can be enforced on the streets of our country.

[Ian Austin]

My hon. Friend is completely right to say that his member of staff’s email address should not be displayed on the internet. I imagine that he is referring to the brief.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

indicated assent.

[Ian Austin]

My hon. Friend is completely right about that, but I am concerned about some of its contents. Given that he has mentioned the document, why does it not mention Hezbollah’s anti-Semitism? Why does it suggest that Hezbollah could be a partner for peace when it is absolutely clear that it has no interest at all in the peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

My right hon. Friend makes a valid point, but he must recognise that it is difficult to separate Hezbollah from the state of Lebanon. Hezbollah is in the Parliament and the Government, and that represents a different challenge from that which we find with many other terrorist groups.

[Ian Austin]

The Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), dealt eloquently with the point about Hezbollah being a single organisation. As the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones) has said, Hezbollah’s political affairs official, Ammar Moussawi, stated:

“Everyone is aware of the fact that Hezbollah is one body and one entity. Its military and political wings are unified.”

That is what they are saying; it is not what we are saying. That is the point that the Government should consider.

[Mr Wallace]

With all due respect, I disagree with my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee. I visited Lebanon in June last year to meet the Government, the Lebanese armed forces and other agencies, including the United Nations, to discuss the future of Lebanon and the United Kingdom assistance to it. I disagree with that view about engaging with the Lebanese Government and what barriers could or could not be removed to that.

Health, Social Care and Security

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Wednesday 28th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Ms Abbott]

I need to make some progress.

When the Home Secretary accuses people of scaremongering, she should explain why every stakeholder in policing is saying that there is an increasing problem with Government cuts to policing.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

Can my right hon. Friend tell me whether the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey), who just got up to complain about police cuts, is related to the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton who was in the coalition Cabinet that reduced the number of police officers by 20,000?

[Ms Abbott]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention, and I ask the House to focus on the information he has brought forward.

After seven years of Tory government, there are 20,000 fewer police staff, 10,000 fewer firefighters and 1,000 fewer Border Force guards. When the Conservatives came to office in 2010, they immediately cut Security Service personnel by 650; now they expect plaudits when they pledge an increase.

All ordinary public sector workers have faced pay freezes and pay caps, which have made them worse off. Between the coalition’s coming into office in 2010 and May this year, inflation has seen prices rise by more than 15%. In reality, whatever figures the Government want to throw around, public sector workers have had effective cuts to their pensions and seen large-scale job losses because of inflation. They have been asked to do more with less.

The Opposition say that asking the security services, and public sector workers generally, to do more with less is unfair, unworkable and counter-productive. It has led to low morale, difficulties in recruitment and retention—particularly in parts of the country where house prices are spiralling—staff shortages and gaps in services. Those public services are among the most important that any civilised society offers. In his remarks, my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) will highlight the effect of austerity and Government cuts on our NHS. The cuts in vital services—the police, the fire services, the Border Force and the security services—have been serious, and they come in addition to the cuts that have already forced out more than 20,000 police staff.

I turn to the counter-terrorism strategy. Labour welcomes the considered approach outlined in the Queen’s Speech; too often, the knee-jerk reaction of Governments has been further legislation. We believe that it is right to review what is happening in relation to the evolving terrorist threat and its many and varied sources and purposes, but the terms of the counter-terrorism review are crucial. Labour believes that the following questions must be addressed. Are there sufficient resources and are they properly directed? Are there gaps in the legislation, or is it catch-all and ineffective? What is the role of community policing in gathering intelligence? Sometimes, Ministers seem to think that community policing has no role in combating terrorism, but we believe that it does.

Is there a danger that communities are being alienated by Prevent, although good work is done under the Prevent badge? Should we review Prevent? How can community engagement be increased, and could we immediately take basic precautionary measures, such as installing barriers to cars and trucks? Should terrorism prevention and investigation measures, or TPIMs, be used more frequently, as Max Hill, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, says? If so, should they be subject to better due process?

We believe that some of the answers to these questions are self-evident. If the Government announced today that they were going to introduce more barriers to trucks and large vehicles along some major thoroughfares, we would support them. Advice could be issued immediately to all elected officials not to remove existing barriers, as the Foreign Secretary did when he was Mayor of London. If the Government announced that they were going to halt and reverse the police budget cuts this year, we would support them.

The Government have announced a commission to tackle extremism. We welcome such a commission in principle, although some have suggested that it is being set up because the Government cannot make good on their repeated promises to introduce anti-extremism legislation. We note that there are already laws against incitement, conspiracy and murder. We are told that some perpetrators were known to the authorities.

I was at the Finsbury Park mosque with the Prime Minister, and more than one of the faith leaders raised the importance of a review of the Prevent strategy. In common with many members of the communities involved, we believe that, despite the good work that has happened under Prevent, the strategy needs to be reviewed. It needs not to run the risk of alienating communities; we have to work with all communities. The terror threat confronts us all, and we must all confront it together. If the Government want to discuss with us how we can help engage all communities in the fight against our common threat of terrorism, we will be only too happy to help.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amber Rudd]

I am going to make some more progress.

We also legislated in the previous Parliament to strengthen our response to terrorist financing with the Criminal Finances Act 2017. We have protected overall police funding in real terms since 2015, and we have funded an uplift in the number of armed police officers.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

Last Friday, I and a group of MPs from the west midlands met the chief constable and the police and crime commissioner, and they told us that funding for the police in the west midlands has been cut by £145 million, or 27%. That has resulted in the number of officers being reduced by 2,164, which is a quarter, and the number of PCSOs being reduced by half. It has also resulted in the closure of Dudley’s police station. Will the Home Secretary allow me and a group of my colleagues to come to talk to her about the terrible level of cuts her Government have imposed on west midlands police?

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Gentleman puts it so kindly—I am so keen to have a talk on that topic. I assume that the figures he is looking at are from 2010; I have been referring to the figures from 2015, which have been protected in cash terms and in real terms. I would welcome a visit from him—perhaps to my police Minister—so that we can go through the figures and reconcile his thoughts with mine. [Interruption.] I do not think we are going to do that across the House right now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

Let me begin by thanking the great people of Dudley North for sending me here to speak up for them. I promise them that I will work as hard as possible to represent them and speak up for them for the duration of the current Parliament, and that I will keep the promises that I made before the election, including a promise to speak up for patients and staff in Dudley.

Today I want to set out my concerns about a new £5.5 billion contract to provide health services in Dudley for the next 15 years. This proposal is completely unprecedented in the NHS. On Friday 9 June, Dudley’s clinical commissioning group issued a contract for what it calls a multispecialty community provider, which will be worth between £3.5 billion and £5.5 billion. It will provide a range of services, including community-based physical health services, some existing out-patient services, primary medical services, urgent care and primary care out-of-hours services, adult social care services, mental health services, learning disability services, end-of-life care, and activities currently carried out by the CCG. The closing date is as soon as 19 July, and the new contract will run, incredibly, from April 2018 until 2033. What sort of organisation issues a contract for 15 years? A contract of this size and length has never been tried anywhere else in Britain. It is being advertised abroad, and I understand that anyone can bid for all or part of it.

I have tabled 60 parliamentary questions, asking the Secretary of State—I am delighted to see that he is present—to meet me, and people from Dudley, to discuss the proposal. I plan to send a survey to local residents to find out their views, because I do not think that the consultation carried out so far has been in any way adequate.

I definitely want to see an NHS that focuses on patients, and makes it simple for patients and their families to find their way around. I think that the present NHS is too fragmented, and confusing for patients and their families and carers. Far too often people are told to speak to someone else, or to consult another department or organisation, and there are obvious difficulties for older people moving from hospital to social care. However, it worries me that what is being proposed has not been tried anywhere else, and I should like to know more about the risks associated with such an approach.

For example, how is it possible to predict what will happen over the next 15 years in the light of all sorts of issues—the impact of new healthcare technologies, new drugs, workforce changes, public spending, and three general elections? I want to know how local people will be involved in the new organisation. What say will they have in healthcare in Dudley over the next 15 years? How will staff be affected? Will they all be transferred to the new organisation? Will the organisation that wins the contract be able to sell it on after a few years, and what would happen to the staff if it did? Could healthcare businesses such as UnitedHealth Group or Virgin Care bid for part or all of the contract? I am also worried about the impact on our local hospital, Russells Hall. What would happen if another provider won a major part of the contract? Could that undermine the other services provided at the hospital, given that hospital finances are so interwoven?

I am asking Ministers to answer the questions that I have tabled as a matter of urgency, so that local people have all the details before the deadline falls in just over a fortnight. I am asking the Secretary of State to meet me, and people from Dudley, to listen to our concerns about what I think is an absolutely unprecedented proposal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hunt]

I agree that all women, in all parts of the United Kingdom, should have the same rights to access healthcare. I note that a consultation on this matter is about to happen. The most important thing is that the voices of the women of Northern Ireland are listened to in that consultation.

We had powerful speeches on mental health, in particular from my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) and the hon. Members for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) and for Makerfield (Yvonne Fovargue), but also from many others. Mental health is a very big priority for the Government, particularly children and young people’s mental health, because half of all mental health conditions become established before the age of 14. It is particularly important to have better links between the schools sector and the NHS if we are to crack this problem. We have a Green Paper coming up later in the year that will seek to address that.

We also had a number of important speeches on the workforce and morale, including from my hon. Friends the Members for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) and for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), a doctor and a nurse respectively, who spoke with great authority. We also heard from Opposition Members, including the hon. Members for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock), for Halifax (Holly Lynch), for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson) and for Halton (Derek Twigg), who touched on issues around GP recruitment. On pay, all Members will recognise that whichever party is in power, we have to do the right thing for the economy. People will recognise that in the very difficult period that we have just had, it would not have been possible to increase the number of doctors by nearly 12,000 and the number of nurses in our wards by nearly 13,000 if we had not taken difficult decisions on pay. What I can say is that we will not make our decision on public sector pay until the pay review body has reported. We will listen to what it says, and to what people in this House have said, before making a final decision.

I want to mention what my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) said about his battle against sepsis. Everyone in this House, on all sides, is totally delighted that he won that battle, but how typically selfless of him to use his speech to talk about the 44,000 people every year who do not win their battle against sepsis. We will look carefully at what he said about a national sepsis registry. I also thoroughly agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) said about leadership in the public sector and the NHS. I look forward to more discussions with him about that.

On security, the shadow Home Secretary basically tried to turn an argument about public safety into an argument about austerity. However, I would gently say that for a shadow Home Secretary to protest about austerity in policing when she herself wanted to cut MI5 and the Met’s special branch, and when her leader wanted to cut the armed forces, is patently absurd. What she never mentioned is why we got into austerity in the first place: a global financial crash, made infinitely worse by profligate spending and a failure to regulate the City of London by the last Labour Government.

The shadow Health Secretary, the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), spoke eloquently about the NHS.

[Ian Austin]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Mr Hunt]

I am going to make some progress. The shadow Health Secretary talked about underfunding of the NHS. He did not, of course, mention the new £43 million emergency floor at Leicester Royal Infirmary, which opened in April and is benefiting his constituents. There are indeed funding pressures in the NHS as we deal, like all countries, with the pressures of an ageing population, but they would be a whole lot worse if we had followed the advice of the Labour party in 2010 and cut the NHS budget; or followed the advice of the Labour party in Wales, which did cut the NHS budget; or followed the advice of the Labour party in 2015, when it promised £5.5 billion less than the Conservatives. The difference between this side of the House—

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2016 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

1. What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on the effect of unskilled migration on levels of employment.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amber Rudd)]

The latest labour market statistics show that more British people are in work than ever before, the unemployment rate is at its lowest level for over a decade and nine in 10 people in jobs are UK nationals. However, the Prime Minister has been clear that as we conduct negotiations to leave the European Union, it must be a priority to regain more control of the numbers of people who come here from Europe.

[Ian Austin]

There is no point in national London politicians lecturing people in places such as the black country with national statistics, because this has different impacts in different communities. Why are low-skilled migrants still coming here when we have hundreds of thousands of unemployed people in Britain? Why have the Government not stopped companies from just advertising jobs abroad or using workers from overseas to undercut wages here? And why do the Government not require large firms to train up local apprentices if they do have to hire someone from abroad?

[Amber Rudd]

It is a little rich getting that sort of lecture from a Labour Member, because the Labour party failed to put controls on in the 2004 enlargement and most of its Members who were in charge then have admitted what a mistake that was. There are no lectures coming from my party—only hard answers. The answer is that we will be restricting immigration when we move to leaving the EU.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

I wish briefly to ask in this debate why the Government still have not banned, and have not included in today’s order, Hizb ut-Tahrir. Around the time of the 7/7 attacks, the current Prime Minister—if he is still in office as we speak—said:

“We think it should be banned—why has it not happened?”—[Official Report, 4 July 2007; Vol. 462, c. 951.]

In 2009, he attacked his predecessor in very strong terms for not banning that organisation. In 2010, the Conservative party manifesto said:

“A Conservative government will ban any organisations which advocate hate or the violent overthrow of our society, such as Hizb-ut-Tahrir”.

My point to the Minister is simple: why have the Government, after all these years—after six years in government and all the work they have been able to do on all these issues—still not banned Hizb ut-Tahrir, as they promised to do on so many occasions?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. If the Minister of State wishes briefly to respond, he is at liberty to do so, but he is under no obligation to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

With the Policing and Crime Bill that is going through the House at the moment, we intend to instil that confidence in the IPCC not just by changing its name, but by strengthening its role. It is absolutely imperative that the public have confidence in the police, as the vast majority of them do a fantastic job.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

Will these reforms help solve unsolved crimes? Nobody who grew up in Dudley will forget the shocking murder of 13-year-old paperboy Carl Bridgewater, and no one who watched last night’s documentary on the case will believe that the new evidence it revealed should not be looked at. Will the Minister and the Home Secretary ask the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to review the new evidence to see whether this case can finally be solved and whoever was responsible be brought to justice?

[Mike Penning]

No one will forget that terrible case, no matter how long ago it was, and our thoughts are still with the parents. It is not the role of the IPCC to instruct the police how to investigate, but we will look at the case and at the ongoing evidence. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I could meet to discuss it further.

Policing and Crime Bill

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Monday 7th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise that issue. It is a matter that I have discussed with the College of Policing in the context of its leadership work and with Sara Thornton of the National Police Chiefs’ Council. It is not new to have a small number of people applying for chief constable posts. That is one of the things that happens in policing; people tend to work out who they think will get a job and often do not apply if they think that somebody else will almost certainly get it. That has been the practice over the years, but we have seen a number of cases in which there have been single applicants, which is a cause for concern. That is why I have been discussing the matter with bodies responsible for considering leadership in policing to see whether steps can be taken to change that.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

Will the Home Secretary give way?

[Mrs May]

I will give way one further time, then I will make some progress.

[Ian Austin]

We in the West Midlands are delighted with the appointment of our new chief constable, Dave Thompson, who we think will do a remarkable job, but can the Home Secretary explain to me why he and his colleagues have had to deal with that police force losing 25% of its budget, compared to Surrey, which has lost just 10% or 12%?

[Mrs May]

May I, too, commend Chief Constable Dave Thompson in the West Midlands? I and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), were aware of the work that he did in relation to gangs, which he was doing with the Home Office for a number of years. Once again, the Labour party seems incapable of recognising the settlement that has been given for policing over the next four years, and the fact that we have given that stability to police financing over the next few years.

I return to the topic of collaboration between the emergency services. Where a local case is made, the Bill will enable a PCC to take this one step further by integrating the senior management teams of the police force and the fire and rescue service under a single chief officer. This single employer model will allow the rapid consolidation of back-office functions without the complexities of negotiating collaboration agreements between the PCC, the chief constable and one or more fire and rescue authorities. I should stress that under these reforms police officers and firefighters will remain distinct and separate, as set out in law, albeit supported by increasingly integrated HR, ICT, finance, procurement, fleet management and other support services.

In London, we intend to strengthen democratic accountability by abolishing the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority and bringing the London fire brigade, managed by the London fire commissioner, under the direct responsibility of the Mayor.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend raises a case that, as I know from our discussions and correspondence, he has taken very seriously and acted on for some time now. I recognise the issue that he has raised. There are questions around this case that relate not just to the IPCC and the police but to the Crown Prosecution Service, and I know that he has taken those up. I will reflect on the point that he made.

In part 3, for the first time, we will create a list of core police powers that may be exercised only by warranted officers, such as powers of arrest and stop and search. Police powers that do not form part of this reserved list can be conferred by a chief officer on a member of police staff or a volunteer, provided that they are suitable and capable of carrying out the relevant role and have received the appropriate training. This will ensure that chief officers have the flexibility and freedoms to make best use of the skills, experience and training of their workforce, whether they are warranted officers, police staff or volunteers.

As Members of this House are aware, volunteers have much to offer policing. Over 16,000 special constables regularly give up their time to help keep our communities safe. However, forces are missing out on opportunities to use those with specialist skills, for example in IT or forensic accountancy, who would be prepared to volunteer their time but do not want to become a special constable. It makes no sense that a chief officer can vest all the powers of a constable in a volunteer, but lacks the ability to confer on a volunteer a narrower set of powers relevant to a particular role. The existing law also puts unnecessary constraints on a chief officer who wishes to maximise the operational effectiveness of police staff. The Bill removes these barriers while strengthening the role of warranted officers. It confers on chief officers the ability to designate police staff and volunteers with those policing powers appropriate to their role.

I am committed to ensuring that the police have the powers they need to protect the public and to prevent, detect and investigate criminal offences, but we should continue to keep the coercive powers of the state under regular review to ensure that the rights of the individual are properly balanced against the need to keep our communities safe.

[Ian Austin]

rose—

[Mrs May]

If I may, I will make a little more progress on this issue. In two instances—pre-charge bail and detention under the Mental Health Act 1983—we need to take action to ensure we get the balance right. Part 4 therefore contains a number of important reforms to police powers. In the case of pre-charge bail, it is apparent that a significant number of individuals have spent an inordinate amount of time on bail only to end up not being charged or, if charged, found not guilty. Of course, the police and prosecution need time to assemble and test the evidence, particularly in complex cases, before coming to a charging decision, but we need to recognise the stress caused when people are under investigation for prolonged periods, and the disruption to their lives where they are subject to onerous bail conditions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy Burnham]

That is an interesting proposal, but it is the view of the Labour party in Wales. It is not yet the view of the party at UK level, but we will give it serious consideration.

Let me be clear: welcome as many of the measures are, the Bill falls short of providing what our emergency services need. It does not add up to a convincing vision for the reform of emergency services that is equal to the scale of future challenges or the threat we face as a country. Right now, our police and fire services are halfway through a decade of real-terms cuts. The Home Secretary began by claiming that her record was one of reform. The reform we are seeing is in fact the demise of the successful neighbourhood policing model that she inherited from the previous Government. She has presided over worryingly low morale across police and fire services, as is also the case—on the Health Secretary’s part—in the ambulance service. That low morale needs to be addressed.

[Ian Austin]

We all know that savings have to be made, but no one will be impressed by the Home Secretary’s complacent answers when such points were made earlier. Is my right hon. Friend aware that West Midlands police has lost 1,538 officers or 18% of the total, compared with Thames Valley police—her area—which has lost just 90 officers or 2% of the total? Is he aware that West Midlands police is set to lose another £10 million of funding, the biggest cut for any force outside London?

[Andy Burnham]

My hon. Friend makes precisely the point I was coming on to make. Whatever Ministers claim, 36 of the 43 police forces face cash cuts in the coming year, while all of them face real-terms cuts. As he has said, West Midlands police will lose £10 million in real terms—the precept does not cover that—and my own Greater Manchester police will lose £8 million. At the same time, he needs to consider the cuts to fire services, because West Midlands fire service will have a cut of 45% in its budget over the decade. In effect, the budget will halve, and the same is also true for Greater Manchester. [Interruption.] It is true. Ministers seem not to know that fire services are being cut in half. I put it to the Home Secretary and her police and fire services Minister that that prompts this question: can they be sure that their cuts to police and fire services are not exposing our big cities to unacceptable levels of risk? What assessment have they made of their capability to deal with a major incident or a Paris-style attack? Experts in the fire and rescue service would argue that their cuts have already gone too far.

Litvinenko Inquiry

Lord Austin of Dudley Excerpts

Thursday 21st January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Successive Governments, including this one, have wanted to try to get to the truth behind this issue, but it was not until 2011 that the coroner decided that the trial was unlikely to take place, so that an inquest could go ahead. That inquest was started, and at the time we felt that the most appropriate form in which these matters should be assessed was through that inquest. It then became clear through a decision of the divisional court that certain evidence was necessary and not available to the inquest. At that stage, in order to ensure that all evidence was available and that all matters could be considered, I decided to turn the inquest into a statutory inquiry.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

Well, they’ll be quaking in their boots in the Kremlin today, won’t they? Putin is an unreconstructed KGB thug and gangster who murders his opponents in Russia and, as we know, on the streets of London, and nothing announced today will make the blindest bit of difference—nothing at all. We need much tougher measures to target Putin and the people around him, and those calling for a US-style Magnitsky Act are completely right. We need to target the crooks and murderers who have been involved in murders and corruption, and prevent them from coming to the UK, from keeping their money in British banks, and from buying property here in London.

[Mrs May]

I say once again to those who think that the creation of a Magnitsky Act and a list of people who are excluded will, in some sense, add to the strength of measures that we already have that it is already possible for us to exclude people from the United Kingdom. I repeat: we want those individuals who came to London and committed this act on its streets to be brought to the UK to face trial, so that justice can be done.