Detention of Vulnerable Persons

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Anne McLaughlin]

Absolutely. As I said, my personal experience of the Minister for Immigration is that he listens. He cannot be expected to know absolutely everything less than a year into the job. I hope that he will respond to that intervention and do as the right hon. Gentleman asks.

Immigration detention attacks and destroys the soul—it is soul-destroying. As many of the groups have told me—some of their members are here today—“If you are not particularly vulnerable when you enter detention, it makes you vulnerable.” And there are alternatives that work. That is the ridiculous thing. The Government agreed to look into the alternatives, but they have not done so yet, and I think they still need convincing. However, before I attempt to do that, let me look at what we all agree on: the recommendations—or some of the recommendations—of the Shaw review that the Government agreed to.

Most hon. Members will be aware that the review was published in January 2016. Its remit was to “review the appropriateness” of

“policies and practices concerning the welfare of those who have been placed in detention”.

Shaw begins his conclusion with a comment that hints at the frustration felt by many of the organisations that have worked on this issue over the years. He says:

“Most of those who have looked dispassionately at immigration detention have come to similar conclusions: there is too much detention; detention is not a particularly effective means of ensuring that those with no right to remain do in fact leave the UK; and many practices and processes associated with detention are in urgent need of reform.”

Mr Shaw’s 64 recommendations include a number that focus on vulnerable people. To their credit, the Government have made a bit of progress with some of the recommendations, but when dealing with a system as fundamentally flawed as the detention system, and working with people who are so vulnerable, there has to be both an urgency to the improvements and a recognition by Government that a handful of adjustments are just not enough.

I obviously do not have time to detail everything today—there were 64 recommendations—but I hope that other Members will talk about the particular issues for stateless people, pregnant women and transgender people, among others. Shaw called for the definition of vulnerable persons to be extended. He said that the presumption against detention should also apply to victims of rape and sexual violence, to those with post-traumatic stress disorder, to transsexual people and to those with learning difficulties, and he rightly includes people who have suffered female genital mutilation in those groups.

Many of the recommendations are said to be addressed by the introduction of the adults at risk policy, which is apparently intended to better identify and lead to the release of vulnerable people. But so far there is no indication that, despite those intentions, the policy is actually having that effect. Aspects of the policy are subject to litigation. Medical Justice and a number of other non-governmental organisations have raised concerns that instead of increasing protections for vulnerable people, the policy does the opposite—including by narrowing the definition of torture so that less vulnerable people will not be identified as torture survivors and protected. The policy states that survivors of sexual and gender-based violence should not be detained, but there is no proper mechanism for identifying them and no mechanism for monitoring whether they are being identified. Will the Minister agree today to introduce such mechanisms and, if so, when can we expect that to happen?

Recommendations 62 and 63 encourage the Home Office to further consider ways of strengthening the legal safeguards against excessive length of detention, and to investigate the development of alternatives to detention. Shaw, in turn, was influenced by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, who said:

“Pragmatically, no empirical evidence is available to give credence to the assumption that the threat of being detained deters irregular migration, or more specifically, discourages persons from seeking asylum.”

However, Shaw did note a broad consensus on the damaging effects of both lengthy detention and the threat of it, stating:

“The indefinite nature of detention was almost universally raised as making people more vulnerable and for its impact on mental health. There was strong support for a time limit for detention, starting at 28 days.”

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady knows that I was the vice-chair of a cross-party investigation into immigration detention that included the hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and for Bedford (Richard Fuller). There is a great deal of cross-party unity, which was reflected in a decision by the House of Commons on this specific issue of the impact of indefinite detention.

We heard evidence from people who said that such detention is worse than being in prison, because in prison people know when the sentence finishes. To take up the point made by the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell), that uncertainty and the indefinite nature are not only inappropriate for people with mental health challenges—but develop those challenges and create crises for people who have, in many cases, already suffered trauma.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Absolutely. It is very clear today that there is much cross-party consensus on this issue. On the length of time that people are held in detention, the Home Office’s own statistics show that migrants in detention are being held for longer since the publication of the review. That is astonishing. At the end of December 2015, the month before the Shaw review was published, 453 people had been detained for longer than four months. According to the Home Office, nine months later that number had gone up to 553.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this important debate, which gives the Minister a chance to get a taste of the cross-party concern that was amplified last year in the run-up to the Immigration Bill—now the Immigration Act 2016. Many hon. Members, from all parts of the House, made it clear that indefinite detention was unacceptable—that was the easy point to make—and that there needs to be progress, not least towards a statutory time limit. Through the passage of the Act, and through Stephen Shaw’s scrutiny and welcome report, it was accepted—some of us conceded—that the welcome recommendations, the broad thrust of which the Government accepted, could well lead to a reduction in the numbers being detained and for how long.

Stephen Shaw talked about the package of “adults at risk” policies, individual assessments for removal and reviews, and the welcome progress that was made on outlawing the detention not only of children, but of vulnerable people, such as pregnant women, unless there are exceptional, limited circumstances. We all recognise that that package might not be the only lever to deal with too many people being in detention for too long—there are also statutory time limits—but it might be successful. However, Stephen Shaw said he that he would revisit that tool if progress was not made. Time has now gone by and, sadly, we have not seen the steps that were promised to Parliament and Members, so it may need to be revisited. I say advisedly to the Minister that cross-party concern will grow, not least in terms of interest in the blunt instrument of a statutory time limit, unless we see further progress.

[Paul Blomfield]

The hon. Gentleman and I have worked closely on these issues, and I pay tribute to his work. He is right to highlight that the progress we appeared to be making seems to have stalled. However, does he agree that there are worrying signs that things may be going into reverse? The most recent report on an immigration detention centre was done by the chief inspector of prisons on Brook House, where the average length of detention has increased, rather than decreased. Does he share my concern that that is a worrying sign? Clearly, we hope that the Minister will listen to the cross-party concerns that the issue needs to be addressed.

[Mr Burrowes]

I agree. There are warning signs. We have seen the reports in the media and elsewhere on Yarl’s Wood and the scandals that have taken place. We do not want to be in that position. We want to ensure that the recommendations, which were broadly accepted, mean real results, but we are not seeing them.

In January last year, the then Minister committed in Parliament to safeguarding the most vulnerable, with a clear presumption that people who are at risk should not be detained. I want to talk about the victims of trafficking and the need for reviews and assessments relating to their removal, not least because Ministers have given assurances, as did the Prime Minister last July. She made it clear—rightly, given that she has championed the cause of tackling modern slavery—that the Home Office has taken the lead. The Home Secretary is leading the task force, bringing Whitehall together in regular meetings, in which I am sure the Minister is also involved, to ensure that we apply our full force in tackling the evils of modern slavery, so that we can, in the words of the Prime Minister on 30 July,

“get a real grip of this issue”,

and

“drive further progress in the battle against this cruel exploitation”.

The words of the Prime Minister are pertinent to today’s debate. She wrote:

“Vulnerable people who have travelled long distances believing they were heading for legitimate jobs are finding they have been duped, forced into hard labour, and then locked up and abused....These crimes must be stopped and the victims of modern slavery must go free.”

The victims of modern slavery must go free and not be in detention.

I will refer to an example given to me by Detention Action. It is about T, a trafficking survivor:

“Like many Vietnamese people in detention, he was trafficked to work in a cannabis farm.”

That was referenced by the Prime Minister.

“He has been left with long-lasting injuries and psychological trauma after being beaten by his traffickers. The Home Office accept that he is a torture survivor but have refused to release him. On the basis of limited information, the Home Office refuses to believe that he is a trafficking survivor. He has been detained for four months.”

Victims of modern slavery must go free.

I will refer to the Helen Bamber Foundation and a recent example this month about someone with a rule 35 report from a detention centre. The doctor noted extensive scarring that was in keeping with a history of torture. Sadly, though, there was a negative reasonable grounds decision that turned on the credibility of the applicant, as the trafficking claim was not raised when first questioned in the UK. We have made great strides in dealing with the issue of reporting referrals. Here is a clear example where no doubt the threats by the trafficker not to tell anyone of the exploitation at the time of initial questioning is something that is normal and not exceptional, but is not given any weight. There are also indicators that the individual had been re-trafficked after coming into contact with UK authorities initially.

I will draw on reports referred to by the Home Office. There are reasons why the claim of a torture survivor trafficking victim had not been properly maintained above issues around immigration. The vulnerability issue is the concern, but sadly it is weighed among immigration factors and the vulnerability concerns are downgraded. The Home Office report stated that entry into the UK took place

“in a clandestine manner”—

in other words, on the back of a lorry. That is not surprising for a trafficked victim:

“You have no close ties in the UK to ensure your compliance.”

Again, that is not surprising in terms of the indicators present. The individual had been trafficked. Here is an example from the Shaw report in relation to mental health:

“Whilst it is noted that you have encountered physical torture and are suffering poor mental health as a result of this, the doctor has not diagnosed any serious physical or mental health conditions that are likely to worsen within the detained environment during the duration necessary to effect your removal.”

Page 306 of the Shaw Review states:

“Together the literature, which spans a 25-year period and a number of legal systems, tells a consistent story of the harmful effects of detention on mental health.”

That is compounded in a victim of trafficking. What is going on here? We have the Shaw report referencing clear evidence of mental health aggravated by detention, not least among those who are victims of torture.

The report continues:

“When balancing your vulnerability against your negative immigration factors, the negative factors outweigh the risks.”

What is happening here to very vulnerable people? At the time of writing, despite the adults at risk policy, this individual has now been in detention for four months, with a further three and a half months being proposed to effect removal. It is not the will of Stephen Shaw, it is not the will of Parliament, and I do not believe it was the will of the Ministers and the Government during the passage of the Immigration Act 2016. We must do better.

I must press the Minister on his answer to my questions that followed up on the clear will of the Minister’s predecessor in response to the Shaw report. My question is about timescales for individual reviews and assessments for removal, which should take precedence over issues around detention. It is what immigration removal centres are all about: removal and ensuring that individuals are assessed for removal, which is there to supplement the adults at risk policy. There was a clear commitment that that would be in place by the end of the year.

The then Minister responded on 14 January by saying in response to the recommendation that

“the Home Office should examine its processes for carrying out detention reviews, the Government will implement a new approach to the case management of those detained, replacing the existing detention review process with a clear removal plan for all those in detention.”—[Official Report, 14 January 2016; Vol. 604, c. 28WS.]

The following month in the Select Committee on Home Affairs, the then Immigration Minister, now the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, told me that the current system of detention review would be replaced by removal assessments by the end of the year. It has not happened. The current Minister responded to my question yesterday by saying that

“work continues on designing and implementing a more effective case management process to replace the existing method of reviewing detention. Case Progression Plans are intended to act as the single caseworking record for all individuals entering immigration detention. Wider rollout...is planned for later this year, subject to the findings from the evaluation of the pilot phase.”

Again, we must do better.

In conclusion, whether it is on that issue or publishing a plan for the whole of the estate that will be predicated on the Government’s commitment to reduce the numbers in detention, we must do better. At the very least, let us commit ourselves to follow through with what the Prime Minster said:

“the victims of modern slavery must go free.”

Police Grant

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax). Although we represent very different constituencies, he made a thoughtful contribution, which exposed many of the flaws in the Minister’s arguments about police funding and showed that it has not in fact been protected.

In the September recess each year, I hold a community consultation across my constituency. I make that point because, with about 1,000 people coming along to about 50 meetings and with 1,000 or more people completing surveys, it is a useful time—once a year, every September—to take the temperature on the issues causing people concern and worrying them about their communities. Each year since 2012, the impact of cuts on local policing has grown as an issue. In last year’s consultation, it came up even more forcefully.

Between 1997 and 2010, patient and properly supported work on developing community policing and building partnerships had a real impact on people in such areas. It reduced crime, enhanced community safety, made people feel positive about and proud of the areas they live in and built trust in the police. However, that patient, careful work has been incrementally eroded since 2010, and communities have felt the consequences.

South Yorkshire police have had their problems over the years, and we have had to confront a number of specific issues. I am grateful to the Home Office and the previous Home Secretary for their support in addressing some of the additional costs and related issues. We now have strong leadership with both an outstanding police and crime commissioner, Alan Billings, and a newly appointed and outstanding chief constable, Stephen Watson. However, like forces across the country, their ability to provide the policing that our communities need is severely undermined by the funding made available by the Government.

I want to pay tribute to all the men and women in the South Yorkshire force, who do a tough job on behalf of all of us who live in the region, often at enormous personal risk. Their tough job has been made tougher by the cuts that they have had to come to terms with. My hon. Friends have commented on the numbers, and numbers are key. In 2011, we had a force of 5,849 full-time equivalent staff. For 2017-18, we are looking at a force of 4,967. When we break down the numbers further, we see an 18% fall in the number of frontline police. We have lost almost one in five of the people serving us on our streets, which in its impact on the force across the region is roughly the equivalent of every police officer in Doncaster having gone or been wiped out.

The number of police civilian staff is also down—by 24%. Police civilian staff do not often get the attention that they deserve, but they play a critical role in supporting frontline policing in roles such as civilian investigators, intelligence analysts, radio officers, detention officers and many more critical roles. One in four of those posts have been lost to the force. Police community support officers have played such a vital role in previous years in building up the relationship between communities and the police, developing trust, and identifying the sources of crime and dealing with the situation before crimes happen, but we have lost 27% of them.

All that has an impact both on the communities that depend on policing and on those who provide the policing. Zuleika Payne, the acting chair of the South Yorkshire Police Federation, told me: “I represent a talented and committed group of people”—and she does—“who care deeply about the communities that they serve, but they feel increasingly that they’re doing their job with their hands handcuffed behind their backs.”

Not only that, but we are putting the police at risk. There is increasing reliance on single crewing where officers previously worked in pairs to deal with difficult situations. The Minister will be aware of the appalling and awful attack—a vicious axe attack—on Sheffield PC Lisa Bates. The whole community across South Yorkshire felt desperate about it. In that situation, Lisa was paired. As the Police Federation has pointed out to me, if she had been single crewing—that is increasingly what they face—she might now be dead. Such are the risks that cuts in numbers are creating not only for our communities, but for the people who serve them in our police force.

There are all the other issues that hon. Members have talked about—the Minister has acknowledged them—such as the growth in serious and organised crime and cybercrime. Other pressures have been caused by the cuts made by other arms of the Government to partner organisations that work alongside the police in trying to build safe and secure communities. The police are increasingly picking up the consequences of pressures on social services and taking on a greater role because of the crisis in mental health provision. The thin blue line in South Yorkshire, and across the country, is becoming the last line of protection in ever wider areas, and the situation is reaching breaking point.

[Andy Burnham]

The only service my hon. Friend did not mention in terms of the extra pressure being put on the police frontline is the ambulance service. I think that is the single greatest source of pressure on frontline policing and is actually putting police officers in very difficult situations that are beyond their training and competence. Does there not need to be an urgent review of the performance of the ambulance service, particularly of the pressure it is now placing on police officers on the frontline?

[Paul Blomfield]

My right hon. Friend makes a very important point and he is absolutely right to seek such a review. We have seen the pressures on the ambulance service in some frightening cases, including the case raised recently by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) on the Floor of the House in terms of response times. My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the combination of problems and pressures that have been created.

My right hon. Friend tried to pin the Minister down on funding levels. Judging by the Minister’s response, I am sure that he is going to argue that a rise in the precept to offset proposed cuts in grants will compensate the South Yorkshire force for the £2.5 million loss in funding we face in this settlement. That, however, is disingenuous and the Minister knows it. Even putting aside the political double dealing of forcing local tax increases to fund national tax cuts for those who do not need them, flat cash funding is not real protection for police budgets. He knows that is the case. To meet the increase in wages and other pressures in South Yorkshire, we will still be seeing cuts of about £7 million to the local force. Local residents are being asked to pay more for a further decline in services.

We have seen what short-sighted policies have done to our prison service, with the Government now scrambling to overcome the problems that they have created. Surely we cannot let that happen to our police service, too. We need the Government to recognise the scale of the problem, to recognise that the settlement does not address it and to persuade the Chancellor to take action before it is too late.

Immigration Rules (International Students)

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I am delighted to follow the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), who made a powerful case with which I know many Members of her party, and indeed many Members across the House, agree. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) on securing the debate and on the powerful case he made, too.

I rise to speak as co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on international students—a job that I share with Lord Bilimoria, who joined the Prime Minister last week on a mission to India. I think a lot of people on that mission learned something about the relationship between trade agreements and issues relating to students, after the Indian Government made it clear that our future relationship depended on our taking a different view on international students.

Our all-party parliamentary group draws support from both Government and Opposition Members in significant numbers. It was set up during this Parliament because of growing concern about the way in which we are at risk of undermining one of our most successful export industries: education. Clearly, we should not reduce the debate about international students to simple numbers—although some powerful numbers have been given.

International students enrich the learning environment of our campuses. In an ever smaller world in which we need to understand one another better, it is a huge advantage for British students to be learning in classrooms and laboratories alongside others from all over the world. International students add enormously to the research capacity of our universities, with benefits to local economies, as I know from talking to businesses in Sheffield that appreciate their contribution.

We can add to that the enormous benefits we get from the lasting relationships that are established through the experience of studying here. I was talking earlier this year to the high commissioner of one of our major trading partners and important allies, and he said to me, “Did you know that more than half our Cabinet went to university in the UK?” As the Higher Education Policy Institute points out, 55 world leaders from 51 countries studied in this country. That sort of soft power is the envy of countries around the world, with political influence and commercial contracts based on an affection that people feel for this country because they studied here. Of course, we also have to acknowledge the economic benefits, which the right hon. Member for Loughborough outlined.

Who would imagine that a Government would do anything other than celebrate that great British success? It has not been so. Throughout the last Parliament, to growing concern, the Government undermined our ability to recruit international students. I know that Ministers sometimes contest the claim about recruitment numbers—I anticipate that the Minister may do so today—by saying that they have broadly held level. With the exception of one blip in one year, that is true, but it is a growing market. Holding level is not good enough. It means we are reducing market share, to the benefit of our competitors.

In the last year for which figures are available, the number of international students was up 7% in the States and up 8% in Australia, and Canada plans to double its numbers. That is all at our expense, and it is because of the measures under the previous Parliament that made the UK a less attractive destination. Those measures were put in place by the Government to hit their net migration targets, and that is the problem; international students were viewed as part of the migration debate. That is not the way the public see them, as the right hon. Lady pointed out, and it is not the way that we in this place see them either. An unprecedented five Select Committees of the Commons and the Lords have called for change by taking students out of net migration targets and seeing them as valuable, not something to be restricted.

Instead, the Government are stepping up their action against international students. In her speech to the Conservative party conference last month, the Home Secretary put international students at the centre of her plans to cut migration. She introduced a new tool with which she plans to do that: linking visa approval to the quality of courses. It is perhaps no coincidence that the Government are introducing a teaching excellence framework for our universities, grading universities gold, silver or bronze. I hope that in his closing remarks, the Minister will confirm whether it is the Home Office’s intention to use that system of measuring quality to determine the new visa regime it has in mind. If not, will he confirm that the Home Office plans to introduce its own measurement of the quality of our universities? He will not be surprised to know that if he uses TEF, some surprising universities will lose out. University College London and the London School of Economics—both leading universities—would not necessarily get the gold measure.

These are challenging times for our country. Charting our place in the post-Brexit world presents real challenges. We need to win friends, not alienate them. Last week’s prime ministerial mission to India demonstrated that many of our friends will put access to universities at the heart of the discussion on our future relationship. Above all, we need to build on our successful sectors, to mitigate the economic damage of Brexit. In terms of export earnings, universities are a huge success, but that is put at risk by Brexit. It is not only the 185,000 EU students in the country but the 30% of non-EU students who said before the referendum on 23 June that they would find the UK a less attractive country if we voted to leave the European Union.

As the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East said, a sensible Government would look at those facts and say, “How can we strengthen our position in the world? How can we do better against our competitors? How can we up our game?” Instead, the Home Secretary is moving in the other direction. That is madness. There is no other sector in our economy to which the Government would be saying, “We want you to do less well.” I hope that the Minister will reflect on all the contributions today and all the concern outside this place and say that the Government are willing to think again, to up our game, to learn from our competitors and to celebrate winning more international students to this country as a policy objective.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

It is very important, throughout the whole immigration system, that people who have visas that allow limited work can be tracked. Certainly, using the tax system is one way of doing that. Another key point that I would like to draw to hon. Members’ attention, is that there remains no limit on the number of genuine international students who can come to the UK to study. We do not propose to cap or limit the number of overseas students who can come to study in the UK. As the Home Secretary recently announced, we will shortly be seeking views on study migration routes. I encourage all interested parties, which I am sure will include many institutions in the constituencies of hon. Members here today, to participate and ensure that every point of view is heard.

[Paul Blomfield]

The Minister is talking about the consultation and the Home Secretary’s statement and, in his earlier remarks, he talked about quality. Will he confirm or deny that the Home Office intends to use the teaching excellence framework as a measure for quality in relation to the visa regime?

[Mr Goodwill]

I think that the hon. Gentleman will understand from his time here that when one is in consultation, one listens to views and then comes to a conclusion. At this stage we are listening to points, including the ones that he has made. Indeed, one of the points that he made during his contribution was regarding the number of Indian students coming to the UK, and how we are going to prioritise recovering the number of Indian students entering the UK to study. May I point out that we issue more tier 4 visas to students from India than from any other country except China and the United States? The then Immigration Minister visited India in February 2016, and the Prime Minister herself has just returned, to ensure the message is clear that we welcome Indian students to our world-class institutions.

We have seen increases in the number of study visas granted elsewhere; China has gone up by 9% and Indonesia by 14% in the year ending March 2016, which shows that our immigration system allows for growth. The proportion of Indian students coming to study in the UK at a university increased from around 50% in 2010 to around 90% in 2015. This trend of smaller volumes of students with greater concentrations in higher education is likely to reflect the recent policy changes to clamp down on immigration abuse by non-genuine students and bogus colleges. In 2015, around 90% of Indian students who applied for a tier 4 visa were issued one; that is up from 86% in 2014, and 83% the year before that. The Indian student grant rate is higher than in our competitor countries. Indeed, the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) asked about the time it may take for visas to be processed, and I confirm that 99% of Indian tier 4 students received a decision within the 15-day target.

[Paul Blomfield]

I apologise for pressing the Minister on this point, but it is important. Next week will be the last time that this House considers the Higher Education and Research Bill, of which the teaching excellence framework is a central proposal. Can he simply deny or confirm that the Home Office intends to use the teaching excellence framework as a measure for quality in relation to the visa regime?

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Gentleman is very tenacious, but I will repeat the point that I have already made. We are in the process of a consultation, are listening to views, including those made during this debate, and will come to a settled view in due course.

Including students in the net migration statistics is a point that has been made repeatedly during the debate. The Office for National Statistics, which is the UK’s independent statistical authority, has today published a report that states:

“The net migration figures are used by ONS to calculate the size of the UK population in any given year and they include international students since they contribute to population growth. These population figures are used by national and local government to inform their planning and removing any key group would have consequences for this.”

This has been a very spirited debate. I conclude both by thanking all hon. Members for their contributions, and by reiterating that genuine students will continue to be welcomed to the United Kingdom. This country is fortunate to have world-class educational institutions with formidable reputations, and this Government will continue to help them to ensure that they can continue to bring in the best and brightest students from across the globe.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered immigration rules for international students.

Rights of EU Nationals

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

The Minister is now well established in his new role, but let me take this opportunity to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker). I look forward to working with him and the rest of the team in the years ahead.

I am grateful to the SNP for bringing this issue back to the House. For the avoidance of any doubt—if the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) were still in the Chamber, I would say that this applies particularly to him—I should make it clear that Opposition Members accept the result of the referendum. We simply want to ensure that our departure from the EU takes place on the best possible terms for the UK. As one of my colleagues said during last week’s Opposition day debate, the British people voted to come out; they did not vote to lose out. Providing guarantees for EU nationals now is part of securing the best deal for the UK. That is why we made it the topic of an Opposition day debate just two weeks after the referendum, and why we support the motion moved so ably today by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry).

Back in July, as now, it was clear that the Government did not have a plan. They had no plan for what Leave would look like, and no plan for the 3 million EU nationals who are living, working and studying in our country. During that debate, however, one of the leading leave campaigners rightly pushed for certainty on the issue. He said:

“I would like to put on record what I think has been said already—that countless times the Vote Leave campaign gave exactly this reassurance to everybody from EU countries living and working here, and it is very, very disappointing that that should be called into question. I think it is absolutely right to issue the strongest possible reassurance to EU nationals in this country, not just for moral or humanitarian reasons, but for very, very sound economic reasons as well. They are welcome, they are necessary, they are a vital part of our society, and I will passionately support this motion tonight.”—[Official Report, 6 July 2016; Vol. 612, c. 939.]

Let us give credit where it is due. After making that contribution, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) not only talked the talk but walked the walk, as did the overwhelming number of Members who voted for the motion to guarantee EU nationals the right to remain here. I hope that now that he is Foreign Secretary he is making the case even more strongly, because I guess in his new role at the Foreign Office he is learning the art of diplomacy. [Interruption.] Yes, he may have some way to go; I appreciate the Prime Minister is not yet entirely convinced. What he will know by now is that the way in which the Government have turned EU nationals living here into bargaining chips for the Brexit negotiations, or, as the Secretary of State for International Trade put it,

“one of our main cards”,

is not only deeply unfair to those concerned, but severely undermining our reputation with the very people with whom we want to be entering into negotiations next spring, not to mention the damage it does to our economy. Put simply, it is not in our national interest.

It is absolutely wrong for the Government to suggest that we cannot guarantee the status of EU nationals here—many of whom have been here for decades—without a reciprocal arrangement for UK nationals abroad. The Government are effectively asking people—doctors in our NHS, business owners and entrepreneurs, teachers in our schools—to put their lives on hold and wait until March 2019 to find out what their future holds. But many will want certainty for themselves and their families.

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

The following question then arises: if he were in the Government, what guarantees would the hon. Gentleman give to British citizens living in the EU regarding their rights? What possible guarantees or safeguards could he give them?

[Paul Blomfield]

By giving those guarantees to EU nationals living in this country, we set the marker, and we give the best guarantees to our citizens living in the rest of the EU by making that stand now.

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

Would it not therefore be better for Ministers to be out there negotiating and getting the reciprocal rights, rather than having to remain at the Dispatch Box for these futile debates that stop them getting on with the job?

[Paul Blomfield]

I think it would be much better if Ministers did not see EU nationals in this country as bargaining chips, but instead saw them as citizens contributing to our economy and society, as the Foreign Secretary said in the debate in July.

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Foreign Secretary and diplomacy, so may I ask a question that might test his? Does he agree with his party leader, and presumably his party’s policy, that Labour wants to continue having free movement even after we have left the EU? That is the position set out by his leader. Can he just confirm to the House, because we want clarity and certainty, if that remains his party’s position?

[Paul Blomfield]

The shadow Secretary of State made that very clear last week. The right hon. Gentleman misrepresents Labour’s position. I do not know whether he was present for the debate, but he might usefully read Hansard. Opposition Members accept that there will be adjustments to the arrangements and believe in reasonable management of migration.

[Keith Vaz]

I congratulate my hon. Friend most warmly on his appointment to his new post; I am sure that he will find it very challenging. The Opposition’s position is very clear, and it is the common-sense position, which is a double guarantee: we want to see British citizens keep their rights in the EU, and we want to give EU citizens their rights to stay here. No EU country has said that it wants British citizens to leave the EU. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Paul Blomfield]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is unfortunate that some of the cavalier comments by Ministers have put this issue on the table.

As I was saying, EU nationals want some certainty for themselves and their families, and, if we do not offer it, many of them will only find it by leaving the UK. That is unfair to them, but it is also a loss to our country.

The Opposition do not believe in cutting off our nose to spite our face. We want unilateral and immediate action from the Government to guarantee the status of EU nationals who contribute so much to our society, and we do not believe that that will undermine the Government’s ability to secure the status of UK nationals living in other EU countries, because we believe that they, too, are an asset to the communities in which they have set up home.

If the Government position is not playing too well with our partners abroad, it is not going down well here at home either. Polling for British Future conducted immediately after the referendum shows that an overwhelming majority of both leave and remain voters take the same view: EU nationals should be allowed to remain. Some 84% of people, including 77% of leave voters, want existing EU nationals to stay. A letter to The Sunday Telegraph back in July calling for guaranteed rights for existing EU nationals brought leave and remain supporters, Migration Watch UK and migrants’ rights groups together.

Last week this House made it clear that simply repeating “Brexit means Brexit” will not wash. It will not wash for this House, and it will not wash for people up and down the country. The uncertainty it is creating is having its impact on our economy. So we welcome the Government’s commitment to share their plan for Brexit with Parliament, albeit following pressure from both sides of the House, but there are some issues that cannot wait, and this is one of them.

People who have made their lives here deserve better. Withholding rights from EU nationals here until rights for UK nationals abroad are guaranteed sounds logical enough until we look into what it means in practice. It means that decisions to invest or expand businesses are being scrapped because EU nationals do not want to wait until 2019 to find out if they are welcome and public services are strained further as EU doctors, nurses and teachers uproot and move somewhere they are welcome and can plan for their future. In the meantime the status of UK nationals in other European countries is no more secure since Brexit negotiations are ongoing.

In his statement to the House last week the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union said that

“five out of six migrants who are here either already have indefinite leave to remain or will have it by the time we depart the Union.”—[Official Report, 10 October 2016; Vol. 615, c. 48.]

Leaving aside the arrogant assumption that EU nationals will just wait around and hope that they will be okay rather than go somewhere they know they will be welcome, what will concern EU citizens who heard that statement is that indefinite leave to remain is not handed out automatically on the basis of length of residency. It has to be applied for, and applying for it is costly and onerous, and there are no guarantees. Perhaps the Minister can today clarify whether that is really what our offer is to those helping run our public services and contributing to our economy—“Stick around for two years and you might be able to apply for indefinite leave to remain.” That is simply not good enough: it is not good enough for them, and it is not good enough for our country.

We are grateful to the SNP for bringing the issue back to the House, and we repeat the call we made in July, which this House endorsed, which is that the Government should provide immediate clarity to EU nationals who are taking decisions about their future now.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Oral Answers to Questions

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am happy to extend congratulations, as I am sure everyone in the House is, on the excellent work of the police in Leicestershire, under both the chief constable and the police and crime commissioner, Sir Clive Loader, who has done an excellent job but is sadly stepping down at the forthcoming election. I would like to thank him for the work he has done in his first term as police and crime commissioner.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

19. The main problem that the South Yorkshire police and crime commissioner faces is the shortfall in his budget, which will lead to 250 police jobs being lost in 2016-17 as a result of police cuts, but it is made worse by the lack of certainty about future budgets, which makes rational planning difficult. Does the Home Secretary agree that PCCs could do their job better if their budget was set for the remainder of this Parliament, and what will she do about it?

[Mrs May]

The picture that the hon. Gentleman has set out of the South Yorkshire force is not one that I recognise. We have protected, if we take the police precept into account, police budgets across the period of the comprehensive spending review. I should have thought that he welcomed that, given that his Front-Bench team proposed that police budgets could be cut by 10%.

Immigration Bill

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)]

As I have had cause to mention previously in the Chamber, immigration was the single most important issue for my constituents in Castle Point at the recent election and remains so. I am sure many hon. Members in all parts of the House find that to be the case. Having spent several weeks sitting on the Committee that considered the Bill, I fully support it as the Government have drafted it.

I shall speak in particular on new clauses 8 and 9, dealing with time limits on detention. Although I fully appreciate the thinking behind such amendments, I cannot support them because introducing a time limit on detention is, I believe, a poor approach to an important issue. I believe also that new clause 13 is premature as we await the results of several Government reviews of the whole system of detention.

The Home Office already has a policy to safeguard against unnecessary or arbitrary detention of individuals. Detention must be used sparingly and for the shortest period possible, and cases must be assessed on an individual basis.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I am conscious that we are covering ground that we covered in Committee. The hon. Lady will recognise that although that is the principle of the Home Office, there is powerful evidence that the Home Office is failing to achieve those objectives, as shown by the fact that many people are detained for months, and some for years. A statutory limit could therefore bring a culture change in the approach to the issue.

[Rebecca Harris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but the Home Office is undertaking three separate reviews of the process, which makes the new clauses premature while we await the results of much more detailed work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Part of the evidence built up in this Parliament, in case after case after case, is that what the Home Office says is the case is patently not the case, and examples from Yarl’s Wood are front and centre of that. Not only have we had cases where the guards’ procedures in Yarl’s Wood should have been of a certain type and clearly were not—that has besmirched many people who work in immigration and removal centres who do a very good job—but we know that procedures for the provision of care for pregnant women in detention centres are not followed either. My hon. Friend is therefore quite right that there is an issue about procedures, and that is why we are waiting to hear what the Minister is likely to say.

I want to sit down so that the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), a fellow member of the all-party group on migration, can contribute, but let me say first that I feel—and I hope—that the Minister has been listening to the work of the all-party group and the unanimous view of the House of Commons that change needs to be made along the lines of its recommendations. He has heard some eloquent speeches from the Scottish nationalists, from the Labour Benches and also from the Conservative Benches that reinforce that. I feel, however, that he is one step away from being able to reassure the House. I hope he will take that step—I alluded to that a moment ago. I understand that there are concerns about having time limits for individuals or even a category of people, but that is different from the intent behind the all-party group’s report, which seeks a recognition from the Home Office that the use of detention in immigration is overblown and to hear that he as Minister will seek to limit and reduce the overall amount of time in detention in this country. If we could hear that, hon. Members in all parts of the House would be reassured.

[Paul Blomfield]

I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), whose contribution represents the cross-party consensus on this issue, as does the breadth of support from both sides of the House for new clause 13.

I will severely reduce the remarks I was going to make because I am keen that the Minister should have the full opportunity to respond, but I want to underline the breadth of support for engagement in the inquiry—which I was privileged to be vice-chair of and which Sarah Teather led—to which the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) referred. We had Members from all parties and from both Houses, with a depth of experience that was reflected in the involvement of a former Law Lord and a former chief inspector of prisons. We were unanimous, having heard evidence over eight months, that the introduction of a time limit on indefinite detention was overdue. That was reflected, as other Members have said, in the will of this House when we debated the matter on 10 September.

--- Later in debate ---

When introducing this Bill, the Home Secretary stated as fact that our public services were being abused by illegal migrants. I accept that some people might be living here illegally, and the authorities should deal with them appropriately. However, the people I have spoken about today are not “abusing” the system. I have spoken about children of asylum-seeking families and youngsters leaving care. Those groups are not abusing the system; those are people who the system is designed to protect. They are vulnerable youngsters who are just looking for the best start in life, and I call on the Government to drop their harmful proposals.

[Paul Blomfield]

In view of the time and our keenness to hear the Minister respond, I will just raise a couple of brief points. Amendment 7 has not been discussed so far this afternoon, and it is unfortunate that it is being introduced at this stage, because we did not get the opportunity to consider the principles behind it in Committee. Those include fundamental principles about the removal of access to higher education for a significant cohort of young people. The amendment will prevent local authorities from providing funding to facilitate access to higher education for care leavers whom they are supporting but who have limited leave to remain.

In the explanatory notes, the Government say that that measure will be replaced by a requirement to qualify under student support regulations, which implies that that is an easy alternative route. However, they know that that is disingenuous, because under those regulations young people who have not been recognised as refugees qualify for such a loan only if they have had leave to remain for three years, or if they have lived in the UK for more than half their life. In effect, that measure cuts off access to higher education for a significant proportion of young people who will, in many cases, gain leave to remain in the UK and build their lives here. That is not only discriminatory, but it prevents young people at a crucial point in their life from developing the skills that will provide them with productive careers and an opportunity to give back to society.

The Government have also said that they are concerned about an undue burden on local authorities because people in that situation are required to pay overseas student fees. It would be easy to legislate to give them home fees student status, which would be another option for alleviating the burden on local authorities, and one that I am sure universities would be keen to embrace. I raise the point only because I hope that, when the Bill reaches the other place, this issue will be given proper consideration.

The removal of support from refused asylum seekers with families says a lot about the Bill as a good example of bad law making, with measures brought forward that fly in the face of evidence. As other hon. Members have made clear, all the evidence is that not only is it a harsh measure, but it will be counterproductive to the Government’s objectives. If we want to reduce expenditure on support for asylum seekers, the best way to do so is to conclude cases as quickly as possible. That does not require legislation: it just needs better resourcing and decision making in the Home Office.

In Committee, the Minister argued that asylum support rates are a pull factor for asylum seekers coming to the UK, despite the fact that our rates are significantly lower than those of most other countries in Europe. I challenged him to provide evidence that they were a pull factor, but he was unable to do so. I hope that now, having had the opportunity to consider the issue and to draw on the substantial support that he has, he might be able to provide the evidence that justifies the removal of that support. All the evidence that we received as a Committee suggests that it will drive the issue in the opposite direction to the Government’s objectives. It will make it more difficult for the Home Office to remain in contact with the people liable to removal and, ultimately, undermine efforts to promote voluntary departures. It will not tackle the issue: it will create destitution that will then have to be addressed by local authorities; it will create pressure on mental health services, something that we also heard; and it could leave people vulnerable to labour exploitation by pushing them into the hands of exploitative employers. For all those reasons, I urge the Government to think again on this issue.

[James Brokenshire]

Again, we have touched on several important themes in the Bill that were debated and examined in detail in Committee. We have also had additional items in new clauses that were not addressed in Committee, including those tabled by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). We understand the depth of feeling about the human suffering in Syria and the UK and we are obviously taking several steps to respond to that crisis. I recognise the contribution that she has made to highlight several issues and concerns relating to that. We do not believe, however—I will explain how this fits into what other European countries are doing—that widening the family reunion eligibility criteria is the appropriate response. We are focusing our efforts on humanitarian aid to help the majority of refugees who remain in the region, and working with international partners to find a solution to the conflict, as well as—of course—the issue of resettlement, including of 20,000 of the most vulnerable refugees over the course of this Parliament.

The right hon. Lady asked about Dublin, and it is important to underline that the UK has fully implemented the Dublin III regulation. Those in Calais are the responsibility of the French authorities, and anyone wishing to benefit from the family unity provision of the regulation must first lodge an asylum claim in France and provide details of their family in the UK. A request will then be made to the UK to accept responsibility for that claim based on the presence of close family members—as I think the right hon. Lady recognises. As part of our joint declaration with the French Government, we continue to work with the French authorities on the overall processing of asylum claims and ways in which we can continue to support their activities. Indeed, some of the numbers they are processing and seeing outside the camps are increasing.

It is also worth underlining that our family reunion policy is more generous than our international obligations require. As I hinted at, other EU countries impose additional restrictions in their lawful residence requirements. Countries such as Denmark, Sweden and Austria have recently announced they are amending their family reunion policies, while Germany has indicated it will review its policy.

The right hon. Lady asked me about compelling humanitarian cases, and indeed the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) gave another example. Where a family reunion application fails under the immigration rules, such as in the case of an 18 or 19-year-old applying to join their refugee parents in the UK, the entry clearance officer must consider whether there are exceptional circumstances or compassionate reasons to justify granting a visa outside the rules. I gave another example in relation to elderly parents, so there is that obligation on entry clearance officers. The hon. Gentleman is no longer in his place, but he also highlighted the specific issue of the Belfast harbour police. I am happy to reflect on his point, while recognising that it was established under separate legislation: the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847. Information-sharing powers exist, but I am happy to look at that in further detail.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) highlighted deportation. Our primary sanctions for immigration non-compliance are removal and civil penalties, which is why, in many respects, prosecution numbers are relatively low. Our focus is on removal, therefore, rather than prosecution, which can delay removal and is obviously costly. That is why we have taken this approach.

Immigration Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

The amendments would allow destitute refused asylum seekers to continue to receive the basic level of support.

On amendment 226, I should point out that what we mean by the basic level of support equates to only £5 in change a day and to housing being provided for those who have nowhere to live. I have to ask whether any of us could afford to live, to eat and to raise a family on that minimum level of support. I would think not. Amendment 227 aims to expand on that by ensuring that asylum seekers have the support they need to exist, although, again, providing only very basic support.

The oft-quoted 2005 Home Office pilot study concluded that the removal of, or reduction in, support provided to asylum-seeking families had no significant influence on removing people from the UK. In fact, the year-long pilot reported that the power to remove support from families

“did not significantly influence behaviour in favour of co-operating with removal…This suggests that the section 9 provision should not be seen as a universal tool to encourage departure”.

Therefore, even though the Bill in general has a poor evidence base, I would direct Members to the evidence that does already exist, which proves that removing all support from a family will have no impact on removing them any sooner from the country.

We have to ask why we are willing to leave people, including children, in such a perilous position. The Still Human Still Here coalition suggests that removing all support could have the opposite effect from the one intended, making it harder for people to be removed from the UK. Receiving continued support will encourage families to continue to stay in touch with the appropriate authorities. That point was expanded on during our evidence sessions by Judith Dennis, from the Refugee Council, who said:

“We think that the Bill is incompatible with the processes for families to engage with the Home Office if they want to return or have come to the end of the asylum process—these measures would not be compatible with that. The Bill will shift responsibility to local authority children’s services, which have a duty to support children in need. We do not think that it will achieve the desired outcome, partly because families will inevitably lose touch with the Home Office—there will be no incentive for them to keep engaging with the Home Office to try to resolve their situation.”––[Official Report, Immigration Public Bill Committee, 20 October 2015; c. 5, Q1.]

The amendments aim to correct that by proposing that people be given basic support—and let us be clear that amendment 227 would only increase support from just over £5 a day to just over £6 a day. However, it does set a baseline of 60% of income support, which will, we hope, ensure that families receive the necessary support, but also that they continue to engage with the Home Office.

As a father, I do all I can to ensure that my kids have whatever they need, and I am sure all parents in the room and beyond feel the same. We would not accept our kids losing support, so why should we be content for the children of failed asylum seekers not to receive, at the very least, the basic level of support that we would want and demand? When it comes to children, we should not care where they are from or what their immigration status is—we should just help them when they need our help.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the evidence we received was unanimous on this issue? That was the case right through to the supplementary evidence we received from Lord Green, of Migration Watch UK, who said:

“As regards to the treatment of failed asylum seekers with children, we are clear that they have no right to remain in the UK and should leave but, where children are involved, we believe that the process should take this into account.”

Unless the amendments are accepted, we will not be taking them into account.

[Gavin Newlands]

Absolutely. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I think I referenced Lord Green’s evidence on children in an earlier sitting.

If the clause is left unamended, it will see us punishing children for their parents’ actions. If pursuing the goal of removing all forms of support is intended to cut the costs to the Government, the clause also fails on that account. We have received countless pieces of evidence suggesting that removing all support will see us simply pass the costs from central to local government. That was articulated during an evidence session by Stephen Gabriel, who said:

“if the Home Office stops supporting those families, that will potentially have a negative impact on the local authority. That could be a challenge for the local authority.”––[Official Report, Immigration Public Bill Committee, 20 October 2015; c. 71, Q162.]

Liberty has further made the point that, despite assurances from the Government, it seems inevitable that

“some costs will be transferred to local authorities because the…removal of accommodation and support, from children in particular, risks violations of the Article 3 prohibition on inhuman and degrading treatment.”

Given all that, and given the strength of feeling evidenced in a number of contributions to the debate, I hope Government Members will give the amendment serious consideration.

[James Brokenshire]

We have obviously had a wide-ranging debate on the amendments. In many respects, it has repeated some of the in-principle issues Opposition Members highlighted in respect of schedule 6. I therefore do not intend to spend a huge amount of time repeating the arguments we debated last week.

Amendment 226 seeks, in essence, to maintain the pre-existing arrangements. Under the current provisions in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, failed asylum seeker families continue to receive Home Office support as though their asylum claim and any appeal had not failed, with the onus on the Home Office to demonstrate non-compliance with return arrangements before support can be ceased. The amendment would maintain that position. We believe that is wrong in principle and would send entirely the wrong message to those who do not require our protection. It would also continue to undermine public confidence in the asylum system.

The current position needs to change. Failed asylum seekers are illegal migrants. Our focus should be on supporting those who have not yet had a decision on their asylum claim and who may need our protection, rather than on those who the courts have agreed do not need our protection and should leave the UK. Instead of indefinitely supporting failed asylum seekers because they have children, we need a better basis of incentives and possible sanctions. We, together with local authorities, can then work with these families in a process that secures their departure from the UK, and schedule 6 to the Bill will deliver that.

Home Office support will, of course, remain available if there is a genuine obstacle to the family leaving the UK. Opposition Members sought again to highlight the 2005 pilot, but I have already indicated the differences between these arrangements and the pre-existing arrangements. We have reflected carefully on those experiences and taken account of them, in order to provide a different approach. If failed asylum seekers decide to remain here unlawfully rather than leaving voluntarily, they should not automatically continue to receive Home Office support simply because they have made a failed asylum claim. We need a better basis of incentives, and we believe the Bill will deliver that.

[Paul Blomfield]

I am listening carefully to the Minister’s response to points made by Opposition Members. Does he accept there is a real risk that this measure will leave some families in destitution and therefore open to the sort of exploitation that part 1 of the Bill seeks to avoid?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for that clarification, because he had not given that clarity initially and it is important to understand the different regimes that operate for those with refugee status and for someone who has come here and claimed asylum. It is helpful that he explained his intent. That is why I said what I did about how asylum support rates are intended to operate for all nationalities of people claiming asylum in this country.

I come on to the second point about the amount of cash, having already indicated to the Committee all the other support mechanisms provided to those seeking asylum fairly and appropriately. The cash amount is provided with reference to a specific legal test set out in section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The allowance is there to cover what is described as “essential living needs”.

The Home Office reviews the level of the cash allowance each year but the way that review is conducted changed in 2014. Following a judicial review, the Home Office put in place a new assessment methodology designed to give full effect to the findings of and the valuable guidance given by the court. It is important to understand how the rates are set in the context of what the court said and the guidance that it provided. First, a careful assessment is made to identify all needs that are essential and not covered through some other part of the package.

The needs identified in this way are: sufficient food to eat healthily, adequate clothing, provision to cover toiletries, household cleaning items and non-prescription medicines, sufficient provision for travel and communications for everyday purposes and to maintain interpersonal relationships and a minimum level of participation in social, cultural and interpersonal relationships. That is a term of art and an essential need identified by the court. Having identified all these particular needs, an assessment is made of how much money is required to meet each of them. This is done through a mixture of market research into the cost of the particular items and analysis of Office for National Statistics data about expenditure on the items by people in the lowest 10% income group of the UK population. This approach resulted in the allowance for a single asylum seeker being set at £36.62 per week in 2014, rising to £36.95 per week from April 2015. In 2015 we also decided that providing £36.95 for every person in the household—in other words for the asylum seeker and each dependant—would be sufficient to cover the essential living needs of all family groups. This is because of the economies of scale available to large households and is an approach taken by other European countries as well.

I recognise that many organisations representing asylum seekers and children disagree with the changes, but none of these groups has provided detailed evidence to show that the findings of the review are wrong.

[Paul Blomfield]

The Minister referred to ONS data in his justification for the formula that the Home Office uses. He will acknowledge that the Home Office deliberately reduces the sum calculated as essential by the ONS in several key respects, for example for clothing. How does he justify that?

[James Brokenshire]

I am looking at a letter sent out in July at the time of the consideration of the review and there are some adjustments. I am looking at an adjustment in relation to food and non-alcoholic drinks which was set under ONS expenditure data in 2013 but was increased after reasonable adjustment. So there is no mindset of trying to adjust down, but of seeking a fair and appropriate approach in respect of the attributable costs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

The Minister’s point about food is of course right. Clothing goes in the other direction. If we look at all the essential living needs, the ONS data would suggest that a level of £40.47 was appropriate, which the Home Office has downgraded to £36.95. Is that not the case?

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Gentleman was seeking to impute that there was a preordained mindset to adjust everything down. I have already given him an example where there has been an adjustment up. It is that fair assessment, subject to reasonable adjustment, based on the twin tests of ONS data and market research data on costs, which produces the figure. I say to him again that concerns have been expressed by various groups representing asylum seekers and children, but none has provided detailed evidence to show that the findings of the review are wrong. We will continue to assess, we will hold a further review of the allowance levels for 2016 and we would welcome detailed evidence and submissions about the level of the allowance. That is the right forum to address any perception that the allowances are not adequate.

We also do not consider that seeking to apply this to a level under income support is appropriate. It is not referencing the essential living needs test. This was debated by the other place on 27 October, when a motion to annul the regulations that implemented the findings of the most recent review was rejected. I recognise that there are differences of view on this but, on this detailed analysis, on some of these specific items, I would welcome further submissions to show whether the evidence that has been presented to us needs further reflection. Obviously we would consider that in setting the levels for 2016, but I urge that the amendment be withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

A great deal of attention has been given to the administration of asylum claims, to the extent that the Government made a public commitment to decide all straightforward asylum claims lodged before 2014 by 31 March 2015, and all straightforward claims lodged after 1 April 2014 within six months. We have met that commitment. We have changed the approach. We are actually dealing with straightforward asylum claims in a more efficient manner, so that they are not languishing and being extended, and about 85% of cases are straightforward.

[Paul Blomfield]

If that is the case, presumably the amendment presents no risk or significant worry to the Government. Does the Minister accept that the longer somebody is out of the labour market, the more difficult it is for them to integrate—to get back into the labour market, to contribute to society and so on? Is there not an assumption of failure or refusal underlying the Government’s position, when in fact a very large number of asylum applicants are successful and we all share the objective of seeing them successfully integrate into the labour market?

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Gentleman makes the point that I was underlining about the need to see that asylum claims are processed as efficiently and effectively as possible. However, I do think that the amendment would blur the lines and might well lead to spurious or inappropriate asylum claims being made, perhaps by people already in this country coming to the end of their stay, whether they came as visitors, students or via other routes. That is a real challenge. The amendment would undermine the integrity of what we all believe in: providing protection to those who are fleeing persecution, ensuring that we have a system that is efficient, effective and focused on making those decisions and seeing that people receive support as recognised refugees at the earliest opportunity. It risks more claims, of whatever character, being made.

We also have to bear in mind the resident labour market. It is argued that if you give an asylum seeker the right to work, you are, in essence, denying a job to someone who is already living in this country lawfully. Because of the implications of that we judge that it is right to have a system that recognises that if there is delay—we judge that 12 months is the right period—people can work, but they should not be seeking to frustrate or delay the system; that test has to be captured as well. It is about shortage skills, those that are needed. That is why the focus is there, otherwise we get into a blurring of issues in relation to economic migration. We must do our utmost to ensure that people in this country who have the skills and the ability are able to access the job market.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

The Minister was intervening on me. I take that intervention; I have no quarrel with it in any way, shape or form. This is an important point, because there is a real fairness and justice in allowing people to work if they want to work, rather than surviving on £5 a day. Most people would agree on that. The concern expressed by the Minister is that if the period is too short, it can have adverse consequences, which is a serious point that needs to be debated.

[Paul Blomfield]

My hon. and learned Friend will note the enthusiasm with which the Minister is intervening on him. Does he share my hope that the Minister might intervene to provide some more evidence regarding the pull factor? In his earlier comments, the Minister said he would outline exactly why the Government thought that was not the case, but he has conspicuously failed to do so. Now would be a good opportunity for him to do that.

[Keir Starmer]

In fairness, knowing the Minister, I think that if there was a sound evidence base, he would have referred to it already and the fact that he has not speaks volumes. There has obviously been a discussion about the migration crisis this summer and the impact—

Immigration Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Thursday 5th November 2015 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

We now move to a new part of the Bill, part 5, which deals with support for certain categories of migrant. Some detailed amendments have been tabled to schedule 6, and clause 34 is almost like a bookmarker to insert schedule 6 into the Bill’s substantive provisions. It might help the Committee in its consideration of those amendments when we debate schedule 6 if I set out the Government’s overall intentions in introducing the measures and explain how they are intended to operate.

The starting point should be the basic policy that we are seeking to advance. We say that it is not appropriate for public money to be used to support illegal migrants, including those whose asylum claims have been found to be without merit, who can leave the UK and should do so. That is the starting point for understanding how schedule 6 will apply. It will restrict the availability of such support, consistent with our international and human rights obligations, and will remove incentives for migrants to remain in the UK when they have no lawful basis for doing so—I stress the latter point. In doing so, the Bill addresses long-standing issues with the system of asylum support.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

If I may, I will finish this point and then give way.

The system that Parliament legislated for in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to discharge our international obligations towards those seeking asylum in the UK is too often used to support those whose asylum claim has failed and who have no lawful basis to remain in the UK. On 31 March this year, we were providing support to an estimated 15,000 failed asylum seekers, their dependants and others. In 2014-15, such support cost an estimated £73 million.

[Paul Blomfield]

The Minister said a moment ago that the Government’s intention for this measure is to remove the incentives for people to stay in the UK. Does he acknowledge that the Home Office’s pilot, among a wealth of other evidence, demonstrated that there is no indication that this measure will succeed in helping the Government to achieve that policy objective?

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Gentleman, in his normal, sage way, has pre-empted me. I intend to address the 2005 pilot directly. I will explain to the Committee why we judge that the arrangements in schedule 6 are different and why they are appropriate. In some ways, we have learned from the provisions that applied under the previous Labour Government.

Let me return to my principal point about providing support for those whose appeal has been analysed by the court and who have, as the lawyers would say, exhausted their appeal rights in relation to asylum and article 8 and have not made further submissions—we will discuss a detailed amendment to schedule 6 that pertains to further submissions. We believe it is wrong in principle to provide support in those cases, because it sends the wrong message to people who do not require our protection and seek to exploit the system. It also undermines public confidence in our asylum system.

Under the current system, failed asylum-seeking families continue to receive Home Office support as though their asylum claim and any appeal had not failed. The onus is on the Home Office to demonstrate non-compliance with return arrangements for support to be ceased. We believe we need a better basis on which to engage with those families, with local authorities and others, and a process that secures more returns. Our judgment is that schedule 6 will support that aim. We should focus on supporting those who have not yet had a decision on their asylum claim and who may need our protection, not on those who the courts have agreed do not need our protection and should leave the UK, subject to certain caveats in relation to proposed new section 95A of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which we will debate in detail.

Schedule 6 makes two key changes to the existing support framework. First, those who have children with them when their asylum claim and any appeal is rejected will no longer be treated as though they are still asylum seekers. They will cease to be eligible for support under section 95 of the 1999 Act. Secondly, section 4 of the 1999 Act will be repealed, and support will be provided to failed asylum seekers and any dependent children only if there is a genuine obstacle that prevents them from leaving the UK. I appreciate that those changes raise important issues, as our public consultation highlighted. We have provided members of the Committee with a copies of our response to the consultation and the policy equality statement on these measures. I look forward to discussing many of those issues when the Committee debates the amendments to schedule 6.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion]

I, too, want to speak in support of amendment 222. Throughout the Bill, the Government propose various measures to remove the right to appeal against Home Office decisions. Reading the Bill, one cannot but conclude that the Government are fundamentally opposed to their decisions being challenged in anything approaching an independent manner.

The consequences of the decision to deny support are potentially catastrophic. A migrant who is denied support has no right to work and no right to rent. Their bank account is closed and their assets are frozen. The choices that people in that position face are bleak. The Bill acknowledges the need to support refused migrants who have genuine obstacles to leaving the UK, but it has not been made clear what a genuine obstacle will be, even though my Opposition colleagues have been pushing for clarity. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields has just raised the matter yet again. What is clear, however, is who decides whether the obstacle exists. It is the Home Office, without scrutiny, oversight or effective challenge. That is bad practice in any process, but in the light of the Home Office’s frankly miserable record of making the correct decision the first time, it will be disastrous.

There is currently a right of appeal on decisions made about section 4 support. Statistics from the asylum support tribunal should make for uncomfortable reading for the Government, because 62% of appeals between September 2014 and August 2015 were successful. The claims were allowed, sent back to the Home Office for a fresh decision or withdrawn in acknowledgement of a flawed decision.

The Home Office has a similarly poor record in assessing destitution. In 2014-15, the Asylum Support Appeals Project represented 168 asylum seekers whom the Home Office had denied support on the grounds that it did not believe that they were destitute. Of those decisions, 70% were overturned on appeal. Such figures cannot but lead us to the conclusion that there is a serious problem with Home Office decision making. During the Committee’s evidence sessions, witnesses offered various explanations for those failings, from inadequate training to overly complex immigration regulations, and Ministers have given other examples. Whatever the reasons, however, when nearly two thirds of decisions are being overturned on appeal, something needs to be done to address the problem.

The Government’s solution in the Bill and in previous immigration legislation is indeed novel: simply abolish the right to appeal. That will certainly result in far fewer Home Office decisions being reversed, but it is hardly a solution that will in any way contribute to better decision making. Children and families will be badly affected by the loss of appeal rights. Section 95 support will no longer continue for families with children at the end of the asylum process. That poses a serious risk of leaving children destitute with no judicial oversight, as was clearly detailed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields.

Given the high proportion of Home Office decisions that will be overturned by the tribunal, the lack of appeal rights will inevitably transfer the responsibility for supporting destitute children to local authorities. We have heard from the Minister that the Department is in good consultation with local authorities, which is great, but the reality is that children who should be being supported by the Home Office will instead have to rely on overstretched local authority budgets to meet those most basic needs.

Much has been said of the need to ensure that our immigration system is one in which the public can have confidence. However, the way to achieve that confidence is not to pander to sensationalist headlines, but to ensure that most of the time the Home Office gets it right first time. Abolishing the right to challenge poor decisions and forcing people into the most abject poverty will not in any way contribute to achieving a goal that I am sure we all share.

[Paul Blomfield]

I am pleased to have an opportunity to contribute to this debate. I will not repeat the woeful statistics that others have mentioned in relation to successful appeals, but I think that all those points should draw the Committee’s concern to the appropriate response, which must be about getting the process right, as opposed to abolishing people’s rights, because the net effect of the proposals will be that people who could otherwise win appeals will be left destitute.

The Minister talked at length about the dialogue between the Home Office and local authorities. I would like to share some concerns that local authorities in the region that I represent have expressed. They come together in an organisation called Migration Yorkshire, from across the entire county. They are anticipating that the impact of the provisions will be to leave significant numbers of refused asylum seekers destitute. They make a point, which is worth bearing in mind when the Minister says that measures such as this are about encouraging people to return: they ask, “Return to what?” We are talking about people who, in many cases, come from unstable and dangerous states. In their evidence, they cite Eritrea, Iran and Sudan. The choice of returning, or being destitute in Britain might not be a hard choice to make for many people, actually. Destitution in the UK is probably better than going back to a war zone and being destitute there.

It is clear that, under this policy, more refused asylum seekers will become destitute without the right to appeal. The local authorities’ concern is that the amount will increase in several towns and cities across Yorkshire, with all the related health and cohesion issues that will disproportionately affect some of our bigger cities, where we already face problems with the rise in rough sleeping and wider destitution. They are worried that local agencies will lose contact with refused asylum seekers, who will have very little incentive to stay in touch. They are concerned that unsupported, refused asylum seekers will feel compelled to use illegal forms of accommodation —to be in overcrowded, unhealthy conditions, potentially putting their friends in breach of tenancy agreements—and that they will feel compelled, in conflict with the Government’s policy objectives, to undertake illegal forms of employment to survive, opening themselves up to exploitation and abuse.

In Committee so far I have cited the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary; now I will turn to the thoughts of another member of the Cabinet. The comment is not contemporary, but arose from a 2008 study by the Centre for Social Justice, which, incidentally, stated:

“Making refused asylum seekers homeless and penniless is hugely counterproductive: it makes it much more difficult to work with them to encourage voluntary return or to ensure timely removal, and in driving them underground makes it harder to keep track of them.”

The foreword to the report was provided by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), now the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who has provided inspirational guidance to the Government in a number of areas. We should pay serious attention to his words. He said:

“It also appears that a British government is using forced destitution as a means of encouraging people to leave voluntarily. It is a failed policy…still driven by the thesis, clearly falsified, that we can encourage people to leave by being nasty.”

I rest my case.

[James Brokenshire]

I will respond to each of the points made by Labour Members. The points made by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central undermine the appropriateness of the various measures in the Bill to confront illegal working, including the extension of the right to rent scheme to ensure against abuses. We are joining up enforcement against rogue landlords and those who are abusing their position in that way.

Furthermore, the immigration system in operation in 2008 was in a poor condition under the previous Labour Government. It was in need of significant change and reform to get it to do the job in hand. That is why I emphasised the coalition Government proceeding to scrap the old UK Border Agency and putting in a different form of administration, which we judge to be improving the system, rather than making it worse.

I will also respond to some of the statistics proffered in support of change, because that might paint a slightly different characterisation from the one we have heard thus far.

[Paul Blomfield]

rose—

[James Brokenshire]

First, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who was trying to catch my eye.

[Paul Blomfield]

Indeed I was trying to catch the Minister’s eye. I think he would recognise—as I hope he will now—that the comments made by the now Secretary of State for Work and Pensions were not related to the particular forms of administration or organisation at the time. They were made about the principle of pushing people into destitution in order to create an environment that might encourage them to leave, which was one of the objectives that the Minister present said were behind his policy.

[James Brokenshire]

What I have said is behind the policy is a question of a firm and clear approach on the options and on the process that I outlined in the preceding debate.

I am sorry if the hon. Member for South Shields thought that I was trying to be pedantic in some way; I was not. There is an important distinction between those who are claiming asylum but have not had their rights assessed—it is appropriate to support them, but I am sure we will come on to those issues generally—and those who have had their claim assessed by the courts and determined to be not valid, or not grounded. In that context, therefore, if those families and people decide to remain here unlawfully, rather than leaving voluntarily, they should not automatically continue to receive Home Office support simply because they have made a failed asylum claim.

That is the principle. It is not about being “nasty”, as the hon. Member for Sheffield Central pejoratively sought to characterise things. It is about fairness, confidence and clarity in the system. That is the approach that we are setting out in the Bill and, as I hope he will understand, the approach that I have sought to annunciate in the manner in which I have put forward the proposals.

[Paul Blomfield]

Specifically on the point about fairness in the system—which we would all agree with—why is fairness assisted by removing the right to appeal?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I think the hon. and learned Gentleman is seeking to frame this in a slightly different way. The figures that I referred to related to the system as was. Obviously we are contemplating changes. The point I have made to the Committee is about the nature of the decisions—the very fact-based approach that in our judgment should be clear as to whether there are those barriers to removal. It is on that basis that we judge the formal right of appeal. That is not to say that the person would not make representations to the Home Office—or, through the regular contact that we would have, that assessment could be made—but it is on that basis that we have formed that judgment.

[Paul Blomfield]

I would like the Minister to respond to statistics that have been cited. He made a powerful case and cited a report in favour of the effectiveness of the system, but by doing so sought to invalidate the suggestion of a 62% success rate in the appeal system. He will know, I think, that the Asylum Support Appeals Project receives the statistics from asylum support tribunals and analyses them. Does he recognise that the figure cited of 62% was based on that analysis, between September 2014 and August 2015, where, of the 2,067 applications for appeals against a Home Office refusal of asylum support, 44% were allowed by the tribunal and 18% were remitted—sent back—to the Home Office for it to take the decision afresh or withdrawn by the Home Office as it acknowledged its decision making was flawed? That 62% is therefore robust, is it not?

[James Brokenshire]

No. As I think my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General has highlighted, our judgment is that appeal statistics are not a good indicator of the quality of decision making. That is why I referred to the ICI’s report, in which he does the audits of performance. That obviously gives us oversight. Those figures do not, for example, take into account the fact that many appeals are allowed, as my hon. and learned Friend said, or remitted, because the appellant provides the necessary evidence of their eligibility to receive support only at a later stage. It is therefore important to contextualise this properly.

I recognise that there is a fundamental difference of opinion. We can continue the debate in the same manner, but our judgment is that, on the basis of the measure—ultimately, we are debating this particular amendment on appeals—and on the basis of my characterisation of how the system is intended to operate and how the administrative arrangements will function, the amendment is not needed. I therefore ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw it.

Immigration Bill (Ninth sitting)

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Keir Starmer]

I will happily do that. Sensibly, the law has been set up in such a way that the landlord gets a High Court enforcement officer with powers of a constable to carry out the eviction if necessary. That is to prevent landlords from resorting to violence in the premises—that is why that change was made. The presupposition is that the eviction is lawful, but in order to regularise the process, the landlord gets a court order and then a High Court enforcement officer exercises the powers of a constable to enforce it. The whole point was to stop families being put on the street without due process and to avoid the violence that was happening when a landlord resorts to self-help and changes the locks and boots someone on to the street. That is why “with the power of a constable” is included. That is what happens now, but what is proposed here is radically different and I have seen nothing to justify it.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I guess that, like me, my hon. and learned Friend was pleased to hear the Minister a moment ago cite the expert evidence of Crisis in support of Government amendment 69. Crisis is a highly respected organisation doing extraordinary work to help sections of homeless young people. Does he therefore hope, like me, that the Minister will take note of Crisis’s view on the eviction routes that are being created by this Bill, which is that they should be completely opposed because they will make tenants much more vulnerable to rogue landlords?

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention, and I ask Government Members to take notice of that evidence. I also ask them not to just nod this change through. This is not just a provision in an immigration Bill in 2015; this will turn the clock back 40 years in landlord and tenant law against a practice that everybody recognized served great injustice. That law does not mean that there cannot be an eviction; it means that there must be due process and it avoids self-help, and self-help by landlords is a very bad idea.

There is no appeal, and I would again like to hear from the Minister, on the record, whether his answer to that point is that there should be a judicial review of the issue of the notice by the Secretary of State in order to challenge the eviction. I want that to be clear, because it would introduce a costly—much more costly—prolonged process than going to the county court in the ordinary eviction process under landlord and tenant law. If not, and there is either no remedy or appeal, what if the notice by the Secretary of State is wrong? Is that to be appealed by way of judicial review? Is that the only prospect? If that is the prospect, why is it better than going to the county court in the usual way, where it could be challenged in the eviction process?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

My hon. and learned friend is making the point extremely powerfully and, like him, I hope that Government Members will give consideration to it. Is he also concerned about proposed new section 33E of the 2014 Act, which allows the landlord to terminate the tenancy if one of the tenants no longer has the right to rent but others do? It provides a summary eviction route of the sort that he describes for people who actually do have the right to rent.

[Keir Starmer]

I am concerned about that provision but, in fairness to the Minister, I think there is a relationship between that and the amendment that he moved earlier this morning. I think that was the effect of the amendment he moved, so would he please clarify that—in other words, that the notice applies to all the occupants? If I am right about that, I hope it does not detract from the other points I am making. I am trying to make them powerfully because this is an important point of principle. The Committee needs to know what it is doing if it votes for such a provision, which is an historic first.

Immigration Bill (Seventh sitting)

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[James Brokenshire]

I am happy to consider the narrow point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman on the normal legal definitional drafting issues surrounding the use of “and” and “or”, which he will understand from all sorts of legal documents that he has undoubtedly read. I am content to look again at the provision and see whether any further clarification is needed. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, sitting alongside me, is shaking his head, but in fairness to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I am happy to reflect further on the narrow point that he has raised and consider it carefully.

I underline the general point that in those rare cases—it is for a limited period as well, just 24 or 48 hours—where a mistake is made and the issuance of a notice does not proceed to an order, any loss that may crystallise is likely to be small, because the period of closure is short. However, I do not make any judgments on that, given the nature and size of the businesses that might be involved and so on. In those circumstances, if it turns out later that illegal workers were not in fact employed at or in connection with the business operating on the premises, paragraph 15 does not prevent an affected employer, owner or occupier of the premises from applying for compensation. I hope that that is a helpful response.

The hon. and learned Gentleman drew some comparisons involving the time periods, and rightly highlighted the process and steps that must be gone through. The concept is modelled, as I have indicated, on other forms of legislation with which he will be equally familiar; I refer him to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. I can think of other circumstances, such as under licensing laws, in which temporary closure notices may be granted to the police or a licensing officer in certain circumstances. The concept of a short-term mechanism is understood.

Equally, that addresses the point made by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North about whether it is appropriate for the Executive to have such a power. Yes, it is, in the constrained way that the power is structured within the schedule. It provides an appropriate system and process, as well as judicial oversight in the fact that the court must assess, confirm and validate the power. As we have just said in the discussion on compensation, if the officer gets it wrong, compensation can be awarded through the courts.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

In terms of objectives, we are on the same page in seeking to ensure that repeat-offending employers are dealt with robustly. A moment ago, in his response to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras, the Minister said that the orders would be used in a constrained way. Does he understand the anxiety, given that the schedule does not explain that constrained way, or can he point me to something that I am missing?

[James Brokenshire]

I can, if the hon. Gentleman looks at the triggers for the use of the power in paragraphs 15(3) and (5), and the reasonable grounds that would need to be satisfied. I would highlight the second condition in paragraph (5):

“the employer, or a connected person in relation to the employer...has been convicted of an offence under section 21...has, during the period of three years ending with the date on which the illegal working closure notice is issued, been required to pay a penalty under section 15 of the 2006 Act, or...has at any time been required to pay such a penalty and failed to pay it.”

In other words, it is not trying to look for first offenders. Because of the two conditions in paragraphs (3) and (5), it is trying to get at some of those businesses and employers who are not doing things properly and who have already had some form of sanction applied to them.

I mentioned phoenix companies in my opening comments. We have dealt with the concept of a connected person in paragraph 8 of schedule 2. It is important. We know of circumstances in which people will seek to try to subvert the law by creating a new company to try to get round the rules and requirements. They might say it is the first time because they are not able to pierce the corporate veil. So we have considered this measure carefully and we judge that it is appropriate to have such safeguards and that it has that element of the court being able to intervene for compensation or for confirmation of any extended period. This is an important tool to support and take action against businesses that are acting inappropriately.

I say to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North that the matter is about the impact and consequences. I do not think that he would tolerate a business that employed people illegally on a serial basis, because people who are in his constituency and in this country lawfully should have the jobs, rather than the people who are not here lawfully and are staying here illegally. We are seeking a balanced approach and we judge that the manner in which this measure is constructed, and on the basis of experience in other spheres, it is appropriate in terms of the operational benefit that it provides as well as the safeguards contained within it. For those reasons, I will oppose new clause 5. I hope that hon. Members will be minded to see that clause 11 stands part of the Bill.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

I accept that proposition, but it does not take us much further. There are different forms of discrimination. Some measures are directly discriminatory, but can be justified in certain circumstances; others are not intended to be discriminatory and do not cut across other protections against discrimination, but have a discriminatory effect. Concern about that was one reason for setting up the pilot and for making an assessment of discrimination in the evaluation.

We are dancing around the issue. Everyone accepts that if the scheme has a discriminatory effect it should not be rolled out. That was part of the reason why there was an evaluation—there were others, of course. However, that is why all the evaluations of the scheme have focused on whether it has had any discriminatory effect.

[Paul Blomfield]

The Prime Minister’s observations at the Conservative party conference this year on unintentional discrimination were illuminating on the point that my hon. and learned Friend is making. The Prime Minister rightly highlighted that, although there is a range of law that seeks to prevent discrimination in employment, unintended consequences nevertheless lead to real discrimination. Is it not that lesson, which the Prime Minister was seeking to draw in the context of employment, that concerns us now in the context of letting?

[Keir Starmer]

I agree with my hon. Friend.

There have been two evaluations of the scheme, one by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants and one by the Home Office.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

The sample was small, and the findings in that evaluation—I will move on to the Home Office evaluation in a minute—are clear: 42% of landlords said that the right to rent requirements made them less likely to consider someone who does not have a British passport. More than 25% said that they would be less likely to rent to someone with a foreign name or foreign accent, and checks were not being carried out uniformly across all tenants. Opposition was uniform, in the sense that 69% of landlords surveyed said that they did not feel that they should be required to undertake the checks, and 77% said that they were not in favour. They were the landlords surveyed in that evaluation.

Before we move on to the Home Office evaluation, as I said, Richard Lambert told us that he anticipated 1 million to 1.5 million new tenancies a year. The Home Office sample was based on 114 responses from landlords in the pilot area, which is a very small sample, given that more than 1 million new tenancies are created each year. It is a tiny sample. In addition, 67 responses came from tenants, but 60 of those 67 were students, so it is difficult to argue that it is a representative sample. That percentage does not in any way reflect a cross-section of the sorts of tenancy that will be caught by the provisions. It is predominantly student tenants.

[Paul Blomfield]

To underline that point, does my hon. Friend agree that the Home Office itself has acknowledged the inadequacy of the sample? It says in the evaluation that the survey

“should be read as primarily reflecting the views of the student community, rather than being generalisable to the wider tenant group.”

[Keir Starmer]

Yes, I do. Those are the Home Office’s words. It is all very well to pick holes in the JCWI evaluation on the basis that it is a small and unrepresentative sample, but when the Home Office itself says, “The sample that we used was not representative of the wider tenant community,” it raises the same questions in relation to the Home Office’s evaluation. [Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

I seek a second piece of clarification for when a token payment is made. If a room is given to someone, the heating will be on when it might not otherwise have been. There could be very generous people who just cannot afford to give the room for nothing and to pay the increased bills. If organisations and charities match up destitute people with homeowners and give them a token amount to cover their increased costs, will they be covered by this legislation or will they be exempt?

[Paul Blomfield]

I want to take the opportunity to look at the wider concerns behind the group of amendments and the clause itself. I want to return to the Prime Minister, who always seems a useful reference point. I thought his speech at the Conservative party conference was moving and significant. He said:

“Picture this. You’ve graduated with a good degree. You send out your CV far and wide. But you get rejection after rejection. What’s wrong? It’s not the qualifications or the previous experience. It’s just two words at the top: first name, surname. Do you know that in our country today: even if they have exactly the same qualifications, people with white-sounding names are nearly twice as likely to get call backs for jobs than people with ethnic-sounding names? This is a true story.”

He went on to elaborate one example. I thought that was a telling description of how discrimination operates in the workplace, and a passionate appeal for us to take care not to create those conditions. We should be seeking to mitigate and prevent the occurrences he highlighted.

As in the workplace, so in the relationship between landlords and tenants.

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Gentleman is making an important point about discrimination more generally. That concern would be shared across the Committee, in seeking to confront and combat discrimination in all its forms. He and I share the same stance on that. To follow the logic of what he and his hon. and learned Friend have said, does he think that the right to work checks were a mistake by the previous Labour Government? Because that appears to be where his logic is taking him.

[Paul Blomfield]

That is an interesting intervention from the Minister. He, I and everybody on the Committee surely share the objectives of ensuring discrimination does not take place. We could have a useful and reflective discussion on the lessons we could learn from the previous Labour Government, but I guess the Chair might rule that a diversion. It is more important that we focus on the issue before us today.

[Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)]

I am sorry to intervene because I am a great admirer of the hon. Gentleman’s oratory. Does he agree that the obligatory checks for landlords may actually reduce any discrimination that already exists in society, in that landlords could already be discriminating against people? Actually, as the mystery shopper exercise showed, it may have led to more people of ethnic-minority origin getting the accommodation. That was also a point reflected by the housing officer Mr Gabriel in the evidence session.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

I am happy to take the hon. Lady’s intervention and I respect her views on these issues. We worked closely together in the previous Parliament on the Select Committee on Business, Innovation and Skills; it was a fruitful engagement. If we look at the totality of the Home Office evaluation, which I will move on to, it highlights more the risks than the benefits that she seeks to identify. If she will bear with me, perhaps we could come back to that later.

It was, I think, Mr Bone—sorry, Mr Owen. What a terrible mistake; I do apologise. It was quite telling in the witness stages of the Committee that Members were quick to discredit the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants study, saying that the area that was subject to the evaluation was small and limited. I gave some credence to the criticisms of the sample and was, therefore, expecting, when the long-awaited evaluation by the Home Office was published, that we would see a study of substantial size and depth that would enable us to draw real conclusions.

It was, therefore, a real shock when we discovered how limited that survey was, in terms of both the number of landlords and the number of tenants. About 67 or 68 tenants were surveyed and, of those, 66% were white. So the sample group in which discrimination was likely consisted of 23 people. I am not sure that that gives us a depth of understanding of the way in which discrimination operates or the issues related to it, or is sufficient to enable us to agree to the Government’s proposals on the relationship between landlords and tenants.

As my hon. and learned Friend the shadow Minister has pointed out, this was a very short pilot, at what landlords and others have pointed out was a quiet time in the rental market. The area considered is very different from the one that I represent, certainly from the capital, and is much less competitive. It is a very different sort of rental market. One would have expected that an evaluation to provide information for legislation that would affect all parts of the country might have been drawn more widely.

As we pointed out earlier, even the Home Office itself acknowledged that the sample group was not typical of the rental market as a whole—of the wider tenant group. We are dealing with some fairly flawed evidence from the Home Office. Notwithstanding that, 15% of the tenants expressed concern, even within the Home Office’s own sample, that they would be treated unfairly under the right to rent scheme, and 9% expressed concern that they would be unable to secure accommodation because they did not have the correct documentation.

One landlord expressed the view that if applicants were white and had a Brummie accent, they would not need to put them through the process. We can already see from the Home Office’s own study of how things might work the sort of impacts that are possible.

Furthermore, some of the landlords in the focus groups made it clear that they would not rent to potential tenants with limited—as opposed to permanent—leave to remain in the UK. A focus group of letting agents produced evidence that some landlords had instructed their agents not to let to non-EEA nationals or to any what they described as “foreigners”—probably the sort of people with foreign-sounding names whom the Prime Minister referenced in his speech to the Conservative party conference.

We are beginning to see, from the Home Office’s own evaluation, albeit limited and flawed, a picture of exactly how discrimination would operate. We have every reason to be concerned about the trajectory of policy. I urge the Government to think carefully before they put into legislation something that will create the traps that the Prime Minister himself identified to his colleagues at the Conservative party conference.

[The Chair]

Before I call the Minister, I remind the Committee that amendment 89 to clause 14 is grouped with the amendment that we are discussing and that there will be no opportunity for the shadow Minister to speak to it when we reach clause 14. He has the opportunity now.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

It is our judgment on the tools that are necessary for immigrant enforcement. The hon. and learned Gentleman will recall the debate that we had on illegal working and sanctions, and how the escalation of a civil penalty regime for dealing with negligence was appropriate, but how, when someone has knowledge or reasonable cause to believe, a criminal sanction was appropriate to deal with those ingrained circumstances for those who deliberately turn a blind eye. If he looks at the language in new section 33A(3), it states:

“knows or has reasonable cause to believe”,

so this provision reflects the approach that we have previously taken in the Bill, which has been approved as we have gone through the Bill, on the different escalations. That is the basis upon which we judge that a separate criminal sanction alongside the negligence approaches in the civil scheme would operate. Again, this measure is not an attempt to catch out the unwary, but the element needs to be satisfied in the second condition attached to the offence. That is why I framed my response in the way that I did.

I want to come back to what the hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Member for Glasgow North East said. I want to emphasise the intent behind the measure. I will reflect carefully on the contributions that they have made, because the intent is not to try to catch out and to act in a deliberate way to seek effectively to say, as a consequence of the issuance of the notice, that someone is committing a criminal offence. In fairness to the hon. and learned Gentleman and the hon. Lady, and to the Committee, I will reflect on what they have said because of the intent that we have in respect of the measure, on which I have just responded. I could say that, as he knows, it is for the CPS to make those sorts of decision, but, in fairness to both Members, I will reflect further on what they have said and my intention and that of the Government as regards whom the measure is aimed at and the manner in which we seek the offence to be advanced. I hope that that is helpful to the Committee.

We judge that amendment 72 is unnecessary. An agent who is a co-tenant would fall liable for prosecution only where they are the party that is responsible for any right to rent checks. This is the approach taken in the right to rent scheme and reflects the incidence of sub-letting found in the private rented sector. In such instances, a landlord may not be aware that another occupant has moved into the rented property and it is inappropriate that they should then fall liable for the offence.

The Immigration Act 2014 does provide for instances where an agent is involved: an agent acting on behalf of a landlord as a normal part of their business. In essence, that is where the responsibility has been transferred. In such instances, the landlord and agent should agree in writing where the responsibility for the right to rent checks should lie. There may be instances where a landlord is happy that a tenant may take in another occupant in a sub-letting arrangement. In such circumstances, the landlord and existing tenant should agree where the responsibility for right to rent checks should lie. So we are looking back to the operation of the original Immigration Act 2014 on where responsibility lies and that transfer of responsibility to the agent, as provided in the Act. I think hon. Members can understand the circumstances in which professional agents act on behalf of landlords, and it is understood, as part of the other checks and validation, that the agent should bear such responsibility.

[Paul Blomfield]

I want to be absolutely clear, because, as the Minister knows, I represent a constituency with a considerable number of students: more than any other Member in the country. I want to be clear on the position that co-tenants might be in, for example. In the ordinary run of things, if someone drops out of a house, the onus is on the co-tenants to find somebody to fill the vacancy. Does the Bill place any liability on co-tenants that might end up with them facing prosecution?

[James Brokenshire]

If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly and if he is referring to what might be regarded as an agency, we are looking more at the formal agency structure under the Immigration Act 2014 that I have referenced. He will know about the exceptions and provisions regarding halls of residence and the formalised arrangements involving universities and other academic institutions regarding property used for student accommodation. I will take his specific point about students, because my understanding is that that should not be the case. Given that the point about co-tenancy is quite technical and narrow, if I am unable to come back to him—we are running over into the luncheon period—during my response to the debate, I will certainly seek to do so separately.

On amendment 85, the offences do not apply retrospectively. The criminal behaviour for which a landlord may be liable to prosecution would be their behaviour in renting to someone disqualified from renting or their failure to notify the Home Office that someone is disqualified from renting after the point when the offence came into force. A landlord can be prosecuted, however, for renting to someone disqualified from renting when the tenancy agreement was entered into before the offence came into force. The burden would be on the prosecution to prove that a landlord knew or had reasonable cause to believe that they were renting to a disqualified person. The amendment would serve to put any rogue landlord who could establish that a tenancy started before the offence came into force beyond the reach of prosecution.

I return to my general point about the intent behind the provisions. It is about that element of knowledge involved here, hence the escalated emphasis behind this and what the prosecution would need to prove. Therefore, if an appalling landlord whose properties were in dreadful condition was renting to someone illegally, it would not necessarily be right to say, “Action should not be taken, because that tenancy did not arise in respect of the original right to rent scheme.” I appreciate that there may be differences of opinion on that, but in such an egregious situation where we might say that the tenancy did not arise until after the scheme was rolled out, I am not sure that hon. Members would feel that we were doing the right thing. Indeed, I do not think that we would necessarily be doing the right thing in such circumstances, which is why the offence is framed in the manner that it is. I understand why the hon. and learned Gentleman tabled the amendment and sought to ally it firmly to the right to rent scheme, but considering such egregious cases is an important part of the approach and is why we have framed our statements about why this is necessary around repeat offenders and rogue landlords.

We have one minute left before we break for lunch, but I will give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman.