Unauthorised Entry to Football Matches Bill

Philip Davies Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 23rd February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Brennan]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We were all shocked that those events were able to take place at a relatively new flagship national stadium, so we must think about how stadiums are designed. Wembley has a particular feature—the long Wembley way, which goes back to when the stadium was originally opened in 1923. Traditionally, lots of fans approach in that direction in very large numbers.

One thing that my Bill does that might address my right hon. Friend’s concerns is to make it possible for the offence to be enforced not just at the turnstile but around the premises on private land, so an outer security cordon can enforce the offence that the Bill creates. That should help in a place like Wembley. As he says, it was shocking to see the number of people who were able to get past the stewards and rush entry into the ground.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I support the hon. Gentleman’s Bill and think he is right to introduce it, so I say this in the spirit of scrutinising legislation: he is using what happened at the Euros as a justifiable reason for his Bill—I go along with that—but by increasing its scope to include areas that the explanatory note seems to suggest include bars and car parks, it seems that he is making someone trying to blag their way into a car park the same offence as trying to tailgate their way into the semi-final of the Euros. Does he really think that those two things should be treated in the same way?

[Kevin Brennan]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. He is always assiduous in his scrutiny of legislation, and rightly so.

In isolation, it will not be an offence to try to get into a car park, but the Bill reflects the reality of the areas around football grounds. Cardiff City stadium, which is located in my constituency, was built a few years ago to replace the old Ninian Park stadium across the road. Like a lot of newer stadiums, it is in a slightly more out-of-town location, surrounded by car parks that specifically serve those attending matches.

In some instances, to enforce the intention of this new offence, it might be necessary to set up an outer cordon immediately outside the premises of the stadium itself, which is the purpose of the provision. There may be other hospitality settings close to the stadium but outside the turnstiles. In that instance, if another security cordon needed to be set up, my Bill could be enforced to prevent people who came along not with a ticket and with the intention of attending the match but simply to try to jib their way into the ground from doing so. Such actions compromise the safety of individuals and potentially tarnish the country’s reputation. The Euros are returning in 2028, and we cannot afford a replay of those events.

The current legal framework does not address the problem. Those caught entering a stadium without authorisation face no legal repercussions. Those attempting to enter are simply moved on, and often try to gain entry multiple times. There are no consequences for their selfish actions, which risk jeopardising matches and could recklessly endanger the safety and lives of others.

The Bill is intended to respond directly to those challenges by making unauthorised entry into football matches a specific offence. The aim is to deter people from attempting to enter stadiums without a valid ticket. Before the debate, I did an interview with, among others, Martin Keown—the former Arsenal footballer—on talkSPORT. There was a feeling in our discussion that the deterrent effect is a significant part of this measure. A fine of up to £1,000 might be a deterrent but, under the Bill, a conviction for this offence could lead to a court-imposed football banning order, under the Football Spectators Act 1989 and the Football (Offences) Act 1991, which would prevent a person from attending football matches for a specified period of between three and 10 years. That would be an even greater deterrent. This Bill seeks to address all forms of unauthorised entry, recognising the broad spectrum of tactics employed to gain illicit access to stadiums.

[Philip Davies]

That raises the question of why the Bill is designed only to apply to football. The same thing could apply to a Rugby world cup final at Twickenham, the Olympics—we might have them again in the future—or any other big sporting event. Is this problem unique to football? Is there any reason why the Bill should not apply to any major sporting event that might have the same problem?

[Kevin Brennan]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I have spoken to the Football Supporters Association about this Bill, and it is concerned about any legislation that singles out football in this way. The reality is that the current legislative framework includes a significant suite of legislation that applies particularly to football, born of the events of the latter part of the last century. We have moved on hugely, and I think we all thought that we had moved on permanently, from the sorts of scenes that were witnessed at the Euros final.

Because there have been problems at other types of event in recent years, I accept that there is a case for taking a wider look at the issue of gaining illicit entry to venues, whether for a music concert, a festival or another type of sporting event. The Government—and His Majesty’s Opposition, if they are to become the next Government shortly—should look further into the best way to achieve that outcome.

In the relatively narrow confines of my private Member’s Bill, when there is the opportunity to amend legislation already on the statute book and when significant football events are imminent, I think it is justified to bring forward a measure that applies specifically to football, but the hon. Gentleman’s broader point is absolutely valid.

The scope of the Bill extends across the top tiers of domestic football. We are not talking about the local park match. The Bill includes the premier league, the championship, leagues one and two, the national league, the women’s super league and championship, and the Cymru premier competition, as well as international matches in England and Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan). I am delighted that he managed to get “common sense” in before the end of his speech, because my wife would not have forgiven me if I had not mentioned common sense in my speech, and he gave me a perfect opportunity to do so, for which I thank him.

I rise to support the hon. Gentleman’s Bill, which is important and worthwhile, and to wish it safe passage through both Houses of Parliament. However, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I take my role on Fridays very seriously. The danger with private Members’ Bills is that they start with a worthy sentiment but end up going through both Houses with very little scrutiny because everybody agrees with that sentiment, so we end up with bad legislation and unintended consequences. I raised a couple of points with the hon. Gentleman earlier, and I want to test them and maybe another point or two a bit further. It will be interesting to get the Minister’s view when he responds, and the hon. Gentleman’s view when he winds up the debate, on whether or not—it may well be that the answer is “not”—any amendments may be considered in Committee or on Report to improve the Bill or take out something that was not intended. I do not intend to speak for long, which will be a huge relief to everybody, particularly on a Friday. I make my remarks genuinely and in the spirit of trying to be constructive and raise potential issues. It is important that they are considered, even if they are then dismissed.

The hon. Gentleman set out in his opening remarks why the Bill is important. It is about what happened at the Euros final, where it is estimated that 3,000 to 5,000 people without tickets gained entry. They did not just try to gain entry; they actually did it through mass forced entry at turnstiles. I do not think that they necessarily gained entry by tailgating; it was through the deliberate ploy of forcing their way into the stadium.

Of course, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the problems that such behaviour causes. It is unfair, because people might end up sitting in seats that others have legitimately paid for, and ticket holders cannot get to their seats. That is bad enough, but there is also a massive issue with safety and security. Tragically, we have seen in the past what can happen at football stadiums when things are not as they should be. On that basis, he is absolutely right to introduce the Bill, and I would not want to gainsay any of what he said.

Although I accept that my concerns are minor, they are genuine. I would not want to see rules that are designed to tackle very bad behaviour being applied excessively to people who I do not think the Bill is necessarily aimed at. I talked about people blagging their way into a car park, and I am slightly concerned about the way the Bill is written. I do not know what you think, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I have always considered the hon. Gentleman to be a bit of a cheeky chappie. He looks like the type of person who, before his political career—not today, as he is a serious politician—may well have tried to blag his way in somewhere. He just has that look about him.

[Kevin Brennan]

The hon. Gentleman is a very astute individual. I first attended Twickenham in 1978, when I was very young indeed, to go and watch Gareth Edwards win his 50th cap for the Welsh rugby team. I and three of my friends got into the ground by virtue of a £5 note, for which we were given £2 change, even though we did not have tickets. I was very young, but I should confess that, as he has raised it.

[Philip Davies]

I am sure we are all very grateful for that intervention. It is amazing what you find out on a Friday, isn’t it, Mr Deputy Speaker? It is like a confessional. Perhaps other Members will want me to give way so that they can declare their interest as well. We have probably accidentally found out why the Bill applies only to football and not to any other sport.

My point is that there is a world of difference between a group of people who have a deliberate strategy of engaging in public disorder to force their way into an event through sheer weight of numbers, causing all sorts of potentially serious repercussions, and people who are desperate to get into an event who do not have tickets and who cheekily try to blag their way in through one means or another. I think most people would accept that there is a world of difference between the two. What I would not want to see is the full weight of the law clamp down on the second group in the same way as it would on the first. My slight fear is that that that could happen, given the way the Bill is written.

A young person who tries to cheekily blag their way into an event could find themselves facing the same repercussions as others. I do not think that anybody would want that to happen. I am not sure whether there is a legal way to differentiate between those two things—it may well be that we say it is for a court to make that adjudication—but I would not want somebody who tried to cheekily blag their way into an event to find themselves treated as severely as a criminal making a forced entry with public disorder designs. It would be nice if we could at least think about how we could do that.

The explanatory notes make clear that the penalty is a fine “not exceeding” £1,000. We could argue, with justification, that the fine should be varied according to the situation, so that a minor offence would be reflected in the fine. However, the explanatory notes go on to state:

“A court must”—

not may, but must—

“also issue a football banning order following conviction for the offence”.

They go on to state:

“unless it considers that there are particular circumstances that would make it unjust”.

I accept that, but in effect they are saying that ordinarily, whatever the scale of the offence, that is what the court should do. It does not even say that it should do that, but that it must do so.

[Kevin Brennan]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that that is the way the legislation currently operates, but there is discretion available to the court not to issue a banning order in exactly the sorts of circumstances he describes, where somebody is not intent on causing serious disorder but what might be referred to colloquially as a cheeky bit of attempted jibbing. I would envisage that in those circumstances someone might at first get turned away, but that if they were persistent they could be subject to the offence in the Bill.

[Philip Davies]

I am very grateful for that clarification, which was genuinely useful.

The other point I want to spend very few minutes on, which I raised in my intervention on the hon. Gentleman, is about other events. If such unauthorised entry is an issue, it should not apply just to football matches. I would be very interested to hear what the Minister and the shadow Minister have to say about that. This country is renowned for hosting world-leading sports events across the piece: the rugby world cup, the rugby league world cup, the Olympics, athletics and so on. Most of those events have tickets that are very much sought after and oversubscribed—we are a sport-loving nation. The Bill has been brought forward largely as a result, as the hon. Gentleman said, of what happened at the Euros—the UEFA European Football Championship. Often in this place, we pass legislation as a result of something happening. Something goes wrong and we think, “Something must be done,” so we pass legislation reactively to deal with an issue that has already happened. To the best of my knowledge, what the Bill addresses has not happened—it may well have happened, but I am not aware of it; other people with more expertise will know—at the rugby world cup final or the rugby league world cup final, so nobody has brought forward any legislation on that.

It might seem unusual—I am unusual, before you get in there first, Mr Deputy Speaker—but rather than just always passing legislation reactively, perhaps we might sometimes have a crack at passing legislation proactively, and try to anticipate things that might happen and nip them in the bud beforehand. The hon. Gentleman has brought forward the basis of a Bill which we could use to do something a bit more proactive. Is there any reason why the provisions in the Bill could not apply to a range of other major events, in particular major sporting events, so that we do not have to wait for such things to happen before we do something about it? We could actually get in there first and try to stop them from happening in the first place, or at least make sure we have appropriate penalties.

The hon. Gentleman is renowned for his huge support for the music industry, and I commend him for everything he does for that industry. He is one of its greatest champions in the House. I am not an expert in the way that he is; I may be enthusiastic, but I do not possess the same expertise. However, as a layman, I should have thought that this would be more of an issue at music events than at sporting events. I could be completely wrong about that, but I suspect I am right. I will certainly bow to the hon. Gentleman’s greater expertise if I am wrong. There may well be existing legislation to deal with these matters at music events. I admit my ignorance in that regard, but it seems to me that legislation of this kind must be just as important for big music events such as concerts—which, by the way, are often held in stadiums and other locations that are also used for sporting events, such as Wembley—so why are we restricting ourselves to football? I genuinely do not understand why this is seen as just a football issue, although I suspect that it is because of the reaction to what happened at the Euros. Surely we in this place must be able to use our wit to say, “It has been a problem in this location”, while also anticipating that it could well be a problem at similar events, whether sporting or musical.

May I just ask the hon. Gentleman and the Minister, who I know will continue to take a great interest in all these issues anyway, and also the shadow Minister, to give this some thought? If we are so adamant that the Bill is necessary in this regard—and I think it is; as I have said, I support it, with a couple of reservations—I urge all those with far more influence than me to think about whether we could introduce similar legislation, if necessary, to cover other big sporting events and perhaps music events as well.

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) for introducing the Bill. He has done a great job in setting out the reasons for it, and I am happy to say that I support it. My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) asked a couple of questions, and I want to ask a couple in a similar vein, but let me first explain why I think the Bill is important.

People who aggressively try to enter events without tickets are not just putting their fellow attenders at risk, but potentially putting the stewards at risk. At the Euros, as we saw, extra security staff were drafted in. They are often people who have had only a basic level of training from their company, and when faced with tens if not hundreds of people, individuals who were trying to do the right thing and protect the establishment were put at risk during those events—apart from the potential risk to attenders posed by overcrowding. Let us never forget the tragedy that was Hillsborough, although, as we now know, it was not connected with the issue of non-ticketed fans. Large groups of people in small spaces are a frightening prospect, and can lead to a tragic loss of life. I want everyone to understand that we need to look out for those who are seeking to uphold the rules, as well as those who have paid for their tickets.

There are, however, a couple of exceptions that I hope can be explored in Committee. I do not think that either the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) or the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) subscribes to the Manchester United fan club, as I do. I suspect that the hon. Member for Nottingham North may even be a Manchester City fan, which probably explains his positive reaction to the—totally under control—Newport game that took place earlier in the season. Arguably, being a United fan in recent years has been a triumph of loyalty over pleasure or enjoyment. Just as an aside, let me say that, not so long ago, my father and I took my nephew to watch United at Old Trafford and we discovered that he was the fifth generation of Fletcher to do so. I can be accused of being very many things, but a glory supporter is not one of them.

United are experimenting with changing tickets from paper or plastic card to QR codes. Although this is happening only in the premier league, it is likely to roll down to the lower leagues. Quite famously, there was a problem with that ticketing system—Members can look back at the press reports. I will make a confession to the House, in the spirit of the admissions made by the hon. Member for Cardiff West. I was in possession of a valid ticket for that game, but the failure of the system led to a huge number of fans being locked out. There was a big press of people, so I, along with hundreds of others, hopped over the turnstiles. I did so partly in fear of the crush of people behind me. They could not hear what was going on and did not understand why people were not flowing through the turnstiles as normal. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that incident. I seek assurances that we will not criminalise people such as myself who, although in possession of a valid ticket, did not make the most legitimate entry to the grounds, but did so through genuine reasons of fear for personal safety—and a desire to watch United lose again. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to that and provide some assurance that that consideration will be taken on board should the Bill reach Committee stage, as I hope it does.

Finally, being a member of the Stretford End, I hear chats and noises. In particular, I have heard how people have been accidentally caught up in football banning orders. Let me just say this for the record: it is absolutely abhorrent when people go to football games to cause trouble, to have fights and to put people at risk. Football has transformed over my lifetime. In the past, children could not be taken to football because it was not safe for them, but that is no longer the case. It is now a family-friendly activity that people can enjoy. It has some edge to it, but I do not want to see that go. Football is almost the acceptable face of the Iron Age tribal system writ large. I think it was Arrigo Sacchi who said it is the most important of the not important things.

There have been instances of people who were just bystanders to trouble being sanctioned by clubs or given a football banning order. If we are seeking to extend those orders from people committing violence to people trying to get into grounds without a ticket, which I agree is important, are we confident that those who both evaluate and issue those football banning orders uphold the levels and standards of evidence that we would expect to see as part of a law? Who has the final say? What is the mechanism of appeal? We need some clarity on that. I understand the point that the hon. Member for Cardiff was making about including car parks, especially at out-of-town stadiums, but what threshold of evidence would be used? Is somebody hopping into a car park to get an autograph the same as somebody aggressively trying to knock down a turnstile? How do we make sure that we find the right level of justice?

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is making a very serious and a very good point. On a more humorous level, could it not be argued that, given the way that Manchester United have been playing in the past few years, a banning order would be a reward rather than a punishment?

[Katherine Fletcher]

When my hon. Friend next comes over to watch Manchester United at Old Trafford, we should make sure to check his passport as he comes over the top. Manchester United is one of the greatest and most important clubs. It is important to remember the Busby Babes and this year’s important anniversary of the Munich air disaster. However, I concede that future peaks are to be scaled by our magnificent team, and I will support them all the way. Let me give an honourable mention to Sir Jim Ratcliffe, who this week got final confirmation of his purchase and support of the club. On a serious note, how are Leeds doing these days?

[Philip Davies]

I’m a Bradford City man.

[Katherine Fletcher]

Never mind.

[Philip Davies]

Best left there.

[Katherine Fletcher]

I have always enjoyed the colour of the kit. Mustard is such an aggressive colour to go to battle in. Semi-seriously, my hon. Friend makes a very good point—football is about fun, banter and local pride. People seeking to aggressively get into grounds without tickets puts all that enjoyment at risk. I support this legislation, but perhaps we could get some clarity to make sure that the enthusiastic kid, as my hon. Friend says, or perhaps the overenthusiastic tourist, is not caught up by it. Crucially, if someone is caught by this law and wants to appeal, can we make sure that they get the right level of justice? Going to see Manchester United may not be the most edifying experience at the moment, but being accidentally banned for life would be a travesty, and we should make sure that does not happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Tugendhat]

One-nil. I believe Hughie Ferguson was the goal scorer—there you go; it’s amazing what you can get help with if you ask the right questions, isn’t it? That game was on St George’s day as well. How is that for a triple? It is absolutely true that football binds people together around the world. The number of conversations that one can have travelling and meeting Heads of State, Heads of Government, Ministers, officials—and, indeed, taxi drivers and folk around the world—is extraordinary, because football really does unite. That is why the Bill is so important.

I will start with one of the points raised by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) raised, when he asked, “Why does this apply only to football and not other sports?” The reality is that football is hugely dominant in terms of sporting appearances and interest in the United Kingdom. It is clear that, over the past few decades, football has dominated that sporting appeal for spectators. It has been so dominant and, sadly, that has caused problems. I do not want to blame fans—that would not be right—but when large crowds gather, there are challenges with managing those crowds. Sadly, other sports are yet to attract quite the same interest.

[Philip Davies]

I understand the point the Minister makes, but last year at the grand national at Aintree, we saw lots of people entering the racecourse without a ticket whose only purpose was to cause as much destruction and misery as possible, and it led to quite a lot of disorder. I could be wrong, but my understanding is that nobody has been punished for that particular outrage and carnage, which also led to animal welfare issues. I gently say to him that this issue applies to more than just football, and if he wants to look for another sport, horseracing—what happened at the grand national at Aintree last year and may well happen again this year—would be a good case in point.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point; I will certainly look into it. I will ensure that we have a proper scrub of other sporting events that might qualify. The point I was making was that the vast majority of such situations are football events, but he is right that there are standalone sporting events, like Aintree, that attract huge crowds as a one-off. I was delighted to be at the fantastic Market Rasen ground and at Lingfield not long ago, but the reality is that the crowds were not quite the same. It is not quite the same pressure that my hon. Friend describes, but I take his point and he is right to make it.

The hon. Member for Cardiff West has made an extraordinary effort to bring together hon. Members from across the House and to ensure that previous work is summarised into this short Bill to keep fans safe. I am very grateful that he has done that because, as Members have demonstrated, the words he has chosen have reached across the House and united people. When we think about our own sporting events, we know that those precious moments of family time can be threatened by individuals who might disrupt them.

The hon. Gentleman carefully made the point that automatic bans are not within the scope of the Bill. Such bans can be issued only by courts following a conviction for a football-related offence and are covered by other legislation. In reality, the Bill is constrained. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley said, the key to good legislation is to write it in a way that works—not so that it expands—and this is a tight piece of legislation that does exactly what it is supposed do.

The Bill will not do some of the things that were feared. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble raised a question about whether it would criminalise those who were in possession of a valid ticket, as she was in her leapfrogging days. It certainly will not do that. Those who are in possession of a valid ticket are free to enter a ground and should be able to access the ground. The fact that the turnstile does not work really is a test of her athletics, not of the law. I am delighted to say that I have no doubt that she would vault it again were the same situation to arise.

A question was asked about whether an offence is committed only if a person is attempting to attend a football match. The Bill does not cover those trying to get into pubs or car parks unless they are part of the controlled zone. As we all know, some football stadiums have a controlled zone; others do not. Anybody who has been to the Army and Navy rugby match will know that the car park is the most important part of that controlled zone. In fact, I have had the great privilege over many years of attending the Army and Navy rugby match—I have been on half a dozen to a dozen occasions—and in that time I am proud to say that I have watched 15 minutes of rugby in total. Although I should acknowledge that it is a security nightmare, it is the most extraordinary reunion and the car park of Twickenham stadium becomes a gathering of people who have not seen each other since Iraq, Afghanistan or wherever it might be. It is extraordinary how many formerly terrifying sergeants major or generals seem to be somewhat more friendly shortly before kick-off—I am sure it has absolutely nothing to do with extremely generous sponsorship of Pimm’s, Greene King or any of the other suppliers who ensure those events go with the passion and drive hon. Members would anticipate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

On a more serious point, the Minister has prompted me to think more about the subject of car parks. Maybe I am dwelling on this too much, but if somebody has a valid match ticket but does not have a valid car park ticket, would they be committing an offence? The Bill says that an offence is committed only if they do not have a match ticket at the time of entry, so it seems to me that they may have a match ticket but they could still be trying to enter a place that they are not entitled to enter. I just wondered whether that is by design or a problem in the Bill that needs to be ironed out.

[Tom Tugendhat]

At the risk of being corrected by officials, I am going to say that clearly this is about the match ticket, not about the car park ticket. The reason is that the match ticket allows access to the stadium—to the event—and that is what is being criminalised. The access to the car park, as long as it is not within the controlled zone or an area that would otherwise be impermissible without a match ticket, is not covered by the Bill. A car park ticket can usually, mostly, be bought later. In this circumstance, we are not seeking to criminalise that. We are seeking to make sure that the Bill allows those who have a valid right of access to the event to get into the event without allowing those who think they have grounds for disruption, tailgating or whatever it may be to exploit a loophole in the law to get away with jumping over a wall, pushing through turnstiles or whatever it may be.

[Philip Davies]

The Minister is being very generous, and his explanation makes a great deal of sense. But if he wishes to come to Bradford City on any match day, as part of his research for the Bill, he would be very welcome. I will let him come with me and I will make sure he has a valid ticket so that he does not fall foul of the legislation. What he would find at Bradford City is that there is limited car parking, which is often at a premium and people would very much like to take advantage of it. There might be an issue with lots of people trying to tailgate in and barge their way into the car parking. Even though they had a match ticket, it would still cause quite a problem, but they would not fall foul of the Bill because they had a match ticket.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I would be delighted to take up my hon. Friend’s invitation. I have never seen football played in Bradford—

Metropolitan Police: Stephen Lawrence Murder Investigation

Philip Davies Excerpts

Wednesday 12th July 2023 Westminster Hall

[Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) for securing this important debate.

It was an honour to be invited to attend the moving memorial service on the 30th anniversary of Stephen Lawrence’s murder in April, but it is simply staggering that we are still hearing about new instances of police malpractice. It is thanks to the determined and unflinching campaigning of Baroness Lawrence that two men were convicted of Stephen Lawrence’s murder, so I pay tribute to her for her hard work. We must not forget that she and her family were spied on by the special demonstration squad—an example of the suspicion with which the state treats black people who are pursuing justice against all odds.

Sadly, we know from Baroness Casey’s important report that black people still cannot expect to receive equal treatment from the Met compared with some of their fellow Londoners. A horrific example is the case of the police officers taking and sharing pictures of Nicole Smallman and Bibaa Henry after their brutal murders. Sadly, without real commitment to change, we will only see more and more families being let down and failed by the police, with their trauma exacerbated and, more importantly, nobody being held to account.

My hon. Friends have already spoken on this heart-wrenching topic. I want to lay three recommendations before the Minister. First, we need to see leadership from political leaders. Despite the report by Louise Casey, neither the Home Secretary nor the Met commissioner has accepted the labelling of the Met as institutionally racist. Unless they accept that the Met is institutionally racist, the work will go no further, nothing will happen and the Met will stay as it is. It is rotten to the core and needs to be looked at by people who are not in the Met police. Without such work, we as Londoners will only sit back in horror, knowing that another family will be put in the same position as Baroness Lawrence.

Secondly, it is essential that police officers face greater sanctions for misconduct. The absence of greater sanctions will only serve to breed more contempt in the police force. More importantly, police officers will know that nothing will happen to them if they treat Londoners with the same disrespect that they have shown on previous occasions and which is on record.

Thirdly, it is essential that we scrutinise the progress made on implementing all of the recommendations made by the undercover policing inquiry. The report needs to be brought to Parliament so that all parliamentarians can read it and question the Ministers responsible for it. Lastly, I support the creation of a national oversight mechanism to report on the Government making those changes. I hope that the Minister will address those recommendations when she winds up the debate.

[Philip Davies (in the Chair)]

I call Anne McLaughlin.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Davies Excerpts

Monday 20th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

It is concerning to hear of those examples, because there are clear standards and procedures for how passports are delivered: they cannot, for example, just be left in a communal area. We have engaged DHL, which is normally our international agent for domestic deliveries, and have also used Royal Mail to return documents. However, I should be interested to hear some specific examples from my hon. Friend, and I am grateful for his comment that he and his caseworker have noticed improvements in recent weeks.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I know that the Minister has worked hard to reduce the backlog, and I am grateful to him for that, but, as I am sure he knows, there are still some issues. Can he tell us what proportion of Passport Office staff are back in the office, and, while he is at it, can he help me with the case of Wendy, who is still waiting for a passport? Her father died suddenly abroad, and in order to attend his funeral she needs to have her passport today. After the Minister has finished his duties in the House, would he mind helping me to chase up Wendy’s case so that she can try to get to her father’s funeral?

[Kevin Foster]

As we have said a couple of times before at the Dispatch Box, people involved in the passport operation have been back in the office for some time. However, we are happy to expedite cases like that of my hon. Friend’s constituent, when there are reasons for travel that are both compelling and compassionate. I am very sorry to hear of the bereavement that Wendy has suffered, and will be happy to look into how we can get the passport expedited for her.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Davies Excerpts

Monday 17th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

6. What progress she has made on reducing the number of illegal small boat crossings in the channel.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

7. What steps she is taking to reduce the number of migrants crossing the channel illegally.

[Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)]

18. What progress she has made on reducing the number of illegal small boat crossings in the channel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why this Government are unapologetic for the fact that we now have the Nationality and Borders Bill and the new plan for immigration. We are operationalising these changes primarily because we need a system that is firm but also fair to those who need genuine help when fleeing persecution and claiming asylum. That is effectively what this Government are doing.

[Philip Davies]

If everyone is agreed that the channel crossings are so dangerous, we must clearly do whatever is necessary to stop them. Surely the quickest way to stop them is simply to turn the boats back and escort them back into French waters. I do not think it would take long for the word to get around that these crossings were futile. Has not the time come to do just that, on humanitarian grounds as well as to protect our borders from illegal immigration?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend will know that that is the policy of this Government. Border Force was commissioned to do this with the MOD, and through the hybrid ways of working that I have commissioned across Government, they will be doing exactly that. Routes have been tested and technology is being used, and the way in which boats can be pushed back has also been well tested, with the basis to do that. That is our policy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Davies Excerpts

Monday 22nd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

There are a number of factors in terms of why there has been slowing down in the processing of asylum claims. In particular, because of the covid pandemic last year, decisions were not made and we had to change our accommodation policies in the light of Public Health England guidance, which is well documented and well known. That has put pressures on the wider system. Of course, the hon. Gentleman will be well aware of the proposals in the new plan for immigration on not only processing, fast-track removals and the changes we are making in legislation, but the digitalisation of the system. We will move from paper-based decision making to digitalisation and that work is already in train.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Asylum seekers are given somewhere to live while their application is being processed, along with £39.63 per person to pay for food, clothing and toiletries. It says on the Government website:

“If you’ve been refused asylum”

you will still be given somewhere to live and still be given

“£39.63 per person…for food, clothing and toiletries”.

Why on earth is the state still providing accommodation and money for people who have been refused asylum? Surely that is when Government support should be turned off.

[Priti Patel]

If my hon. Friend has read the new plan for immigration and the Nationality and Borders Bill, it will be abundantly clear to him that changes will be coming forth that will absolutely put an end to that.

Child Sexual Exploitation: Bradford

Philip Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 26th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Robbie Moore]

This is a very delicate subject and I am acutely conscious of that. I must admit that I am nervous talking about it, but we have to address these issues. Every community across the country is different, including mine, but we have to look at the common denominator. I want to be very clear that this is not about race or pitching communities against each other. It is about looking at the facts, so we can address them head on and move forward.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour for giving way. I commend him for bringing forward this debate and for all the work he is doing locally to shine a light on this issue. Does he agree that this is about the victims and ensuring they get the justice they deserve, and ensuring there are no future victims of this terrible crime? Does he agree that if Bradford Council and the authorities there will not bring forward a much needed inquiry—partly because, presumably, it will expose huge amounts of wrongdoing on their part—the Government should make sure that we have an inquiry, so that we can get to the bottom of what has gone wrong and make sure it never, ever happens again?

[Robbie Moore]

I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for making those points. We must never forget who is at the centre of this debate and who is experiencing these horrific, vile acts. I will come on to some of the alarming and horrific cases experienced by many young girls across my constituency and the wider Bradford district. We need to be absolutely clear that local leaders, Bradford Council and our new West Yorkshire Mayor should be using their position to call this issue out for what it is; be clear about taking these issues forward; and be wanting to get behind resolving these issues. My view is very clear: we need a Rotherham-style inquiry to address these issues. Finally, on his point about influence from a national level going down to local leaders, I very much hope to use this opportunity to encourage the Government to use their weight to put pressure on Bradford Council and our new West Yorkshire Mayor to do the right thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

I thank my hon. Friend for her kind intervention. As representatives, we are all elected to do the very best for our community and call out the difference between what is right and what is wrong. This is not a political issue; it is about doing the right thing to stand up for our communities.

This summer, a limited review, which focused on just five children who had been sexually abused over the past 20 years in the Bradford district, was published. It makes horrifying reading. Let me tell the House about Anna—not her real name—who is mentioned in the review. She was repeatedly sexually abused by gangs of men while she was in care. The review says that when she was 15, she had an Islamic marriage with her abuser, and her social worker attended the ceremony.

Ruby—not her real name—had a disrupted childhood, which included the death of her mother when Ruby was a very young child. At the age of 13, Ruby was identified as being at risk of child sexual abuse. Throughout her childhood, she experienced 14 different placements in looked-after care. She was sexually abused, and the report identifies that childcare services in Bradford

“did not keep her safe.”

The limited review published in the summer is only a 50-page document. To my mind, it reflects only the tip of the iceberg of what has been going on across the Bradford district. In 2016, a group of 12 men who committed serious sexual offences against two young girls from Keighley and Bradford were jailed for a collective 132 years. One of those girls was raped by five men in succession. Live cases involving grooming gangs are still working their way through the courts. Only last October, 21 men from Keighley and Bradford were arrested after being linked to offences that allegedly occurred against a young girl between 2001 and 2009.

Decisive action is needed if we are to deal with the issue. That is why we need a full, independent Rotherham-style inquiry into child sexual exploitation in Keighley and the wider Bradford district.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; I commend him for everything he says. Is it not shocking that the leader of Bradford Council, Susan Hinchcliffe, has said that we should not have a Rotherham-style inquiry in Bradford because it “won’t find anything new”? Is that not shocking complacency on the part of the leader of Bradford Council? If the council has nothing to hide, it would have nothing to fear from such an inquiry; we could all know once and for all exactly what has happened, satisfy ourselves that there is nothing to hide, and make sure that nothing like this ever happens again. Is her attitude not terrible and complacent? Does it not show complete disregard for the victims?

[Robbie Moore]

I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for his kind intervention. He eloquently makes a crucial point: the leader of Bradford Council is in a unique position to trigger a Rotherham-style inquiry. I do not understand what the council, or others such as our new West Yorkshire Mayor, should have to fear from being more open and transparent or from wanting to move things forward in the best interests of victims across our constituencies and the wider Bradford district.

How do we get there? How do we instigate a full Rotherham-style inquiry? As happened in Rotherham, Bradford Council can and should appoint an independent chair such as Professor Alexis Jay to conduct an independent inquiry into its handling, and associated agencies’ handling, of child sexual exploitation over the past 20 years.

We need to learn lessons locally to find out what has been going wrong with institutions such as Bradford Council, West Yorkshire police and Bradford’s child protection services. Believe me, they need addressing. Bradford’s children’s services department is in a state of chaos. In 2018 it was rated by Ofsted as inadequate, needing severe improvement. Only this summer the Government had to step in and put a commissioner in charge of the department to look at it, and only this week a further Ofsted report was released: it was incredibly damning, stating that no improvement was taking place at a sufficient pace.

[Philip Davies]

Is it not telling, given all these failings of children’s services at Bradford Council, that council leaders never take responsibility for those failings? There is a merry-go-round of children’s services directors being fired and hired, while the people at the top of the council never accept responsibility for the failings that occur on their watch.

[Robbie Moore]

Leaders of any organisation have a responsibility to do the right thing. It is unfortunate that Bradford’s children’s services department has been on the watch of not only the current council leader, but the same chief executive who has presided over those children’s services since 2015—yet here we are in 2021 with the Government having to step in and do the right thing.

In August, as I have said, a damning report was produced, and that is why Bradford Council needs to stop sweeping this issue under the carpet and launch a full, independent, Rotherham-style inquiry. I will settle for nothing less. As Anna—one of the victims I talked about earlier—said:

“What victims need is a full inquiry, if Rotherham had one, why are we denying it to the thousands of children here in Bradford.”

I have received endless pieces of correspondence asking why so little has been done to tackle child sexual exploitation over the past 20-plus years across the Bradford district. Since I was elected, less than two years ago, I have raised this issue repeatedly, both locally and here in the House. I am raising it again today, and I will continue to raise it. I will not let this issue drop. I was even told that by continuing to raise it I was stoking racial tensions, but that is the nub of this issue. It is not being dealt with. This has nothing to do with stoking racial tensions. It is about the difference between right and wrong, and fundamentally it is about protecting young children.

Those in positions of responsibility need to have the guts to take action. Too many people in positions of responsibility have ducked this issue for decades. Take my predecessor, John Grogan, who said: that an inquiry would not

“be in the best interests of young people.”

Our new West Yorkshire Mayor Tracy Brabin, the former Member of Parliament for Batley and Spen, is now in charge of policing in West Yorkshire. She is in a perfect position to show leadership and tackle this issue once and for all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. Her concern has been heard by those Ministers in Government Departments who are responsible for delivering on this. But I can also tell her that, in part of the work that we are doing in the violence against women and girls strategy, we are recognising the vital issue of communicating to people, including men, about how they need to behave towards women and girls because surely we cannot expect this problem to be solved by women and girls. It has to be solved by all people.

[Philip Davies]

I thank the Minister for her strong words earlier in her speech, saying that Bradford Council should have a full, Rotherham-style inquiry. I hope that has been heard loud and clear. The Government already know the failings of children’s services across the Bradford district and have felt the need to step in, so, in the continuing failure of Bradford Council to hold such an inquiry, may I urge her to play her part in ensuring that this Rotherham-style inquiry for Bradford takes place, with or without the support of Bradford Council?

[Rachel Maclean]

I expect nothing less from my hon. Friend than for him to ask me to strengthen my commitment and do everything that I can as Safeguarding Minister and part of the Home Office—no doubt, with the support of the Home Secretary—to make sure that Bradford Council does what it should be doing, what is its moral responsibility and what is in its power to do. As I have said and I do not mind saying again before I wind up this debate, my hon. Friend can be sure that I will continue to follow this vital matter with a huge amount of close interest, because we all have a moral duty to safeguard the victims, who have been voiceless for too long.

I sincerely thank all Members who have contributed this evening. We have heard contributions from the hon. Member for Rotherham, my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley (Philip Davies), for Telford (Lucy Allan), for Wrexham (Sarah Atherton), for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) and for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill). Forgive me if I have omitted anybody; I am sure the good people of Hansard will fill it in.

Madam Deputy Speaker, thank you very much indeed for allowing us the time for this vital debate on an utterly appalling crime that is taking place in our society. In my role as Minister for Safeguarding, I am determined to ensure that we confront these crimes wherever and whenever they occur, and whoever is perpetrating them. I once more put on record the thanks of the whole House to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley, for his commitment, courage and determination. I very much hope that people in Bradford are watching tonight’s debate and will consider the next steps.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Court Bill

Philip Davies Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 5th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

No, because I am very conscious of Madam Deputy Speaker’s coughing to remind me not to.

I also hope that the Government will accept amendments that provide greater safeguards for freedom to peacefully protest and strengthen the law on kerb-crawling, but I particularly hope that we will continue to work on much stronger protection for victims of domestic abuse and those who suffer from violence against women and girls.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I have five new clauses in this group. New clause 64 would ensure more timeliness of investigations of complaints against police officers and allegations of police misconduct. On new clause 70, at the moment a police officer has the power to tell somebody to stop their car, but not to shut off the engine. My new clause 70 would give them the power to shut off the engine as well, because not having the power to do that can put police officers in a dangerous position, and this would deal with that anomaly. New clause 71 would remove the word “insulting” from section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986. People should not be guilty of an offence for using insulting language, in my opinion. It would still keep threatening and abusive language as an offence, but the word “insulting” really should have no place in the law. New clause 72 would criminalise commercial squatting and squatting on land. The Bill addresses the issue of trespassers on land, but misses the opportunity to expand the current residential squatting offence to cover village halls, churches, pubs and so on, and is much needed in many local communities. New clause 84 would mean that non-crime hate incidents could not be recorded on the national police database. The police should be focusing their efforts on tackling crime, not non-crime incidents. I hope, by the way, that the Government will respond in detail with why they are not accepting my entirely reasonable new clauses, because I would be very interested to know why they cannot accept them.

I also want to talk about new clauses 31 and 90. As somebody who spent 12 years working for Asda before I became an MP, I feel very strongly about the issue of violence against shop workers. These are often very low-paid people who are expected by the Government, in effect, to enforce the law—whether it is on age restrictions or, in recent times, about covid rules and restrictions, face mask wearing and social distancing—and the only thanks that many of them have had for keeping the nation fed during the covid restrictions, and for going out to work every single day to make sure that happened, was to see the number of assaults on them double over that period. It is an absolute disgrace.

The Government say that the courts can already use this as an aggravating factor if necessary, but the law to charge people with assaulting an emergency worker was introduced even though that could already be used as an aggravating factor if necessary. New clause 90 is better because it covers not just shop workers, but all people who are on the frontline and providing a service to the public. I hope the other parties will reflect on that and support new clause 90.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Philip Davies]

I am not going to give way, because so many people want to speak and there is not much time. I hope the right hon. Lady will forgive me.

New clause 90 is much better, and I hope hon. Members will support it. I will support new clause 31 as well, but new clause 90 is much better. These workers deserve our support. They have done so much for us over recent years. Surely the least that they can expect—the least that they can expect—from this House is for them to see that we are on their side, respect the job they have done and understand the terrible abuse they get, often, as I say, for very little reward, at the hands of their customers. We should be there to protect them.

This will just give the Crown Prosecution Service and the police an extra tool in their armoury to make sure that those who assault frontline workers and shop workers are brought to justice and to make sure that those shop workers and frontline workers get the justice they deserve. This House should be on their side, and I very much hope the Government, at this late stage, will reflect on this and accept new clause 90. It only uses the same wording as the Sentencing Council uses when it considers whether this should be an aggravating factor. It is well-used terminology to describe people who are providing a service to the public, including shop workers. This is a really important moment for the Government, and I hope that they will show they are on the side of our shop workers and frontline workers to whom we owe so much, particularly over the last 15 months.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

As we will have to suspend the debate for the statement at 5 o’clock, after the next speaker I am going to put on a time limit of four minutes just to help guide colleagues.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Philip Davies Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 5th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Hayes]

Politics is about values. It always has been, actually, but in the modern age too many politicians —perhaps timid of inspiring or of their capacity to do so, or frightened of causing contumely—have retreated into a drear, dull, mechanistic discourse. Tonight, this Bill and these amendments are a chance to break free of that—a chance to change—because the Government are at last responding to the will of the people who, for a very long time, have believed that the criminal justice system was not weighted in favour of victims or law and order, but too heavily weighted in favour of making excuses for those who commit crime.

The world is a dangerous place. In fact, unimpeded, evil men and women will impose their cruel will upon the innocent. C. S. Lewis said that in living the reality of human imperfections,

“the art of life consists in tackling each immediate evil as well as we can.”

Law-abiding Britons do their everyday part in keeping the fire of social solidarity burning bright, yet too many with power appear to have forgotten how to tackle the evil that seeks to snuff out civilised order. Instead, those who see crime as an ill to be treated have held too much sway for too long. Evil too often receives a slap on the wrist, a stern telling off, and the public’s desire for retributive justice goes unheeded.

We must never forget, as was said earlier, that we serve here at the pleasure of our constituents. Public order and faith in the rule of law depend on popular confidence in the justice system—a confidence that must be earned. People’s sense of right and wrong has changed little over the decades. In 1990, four out of five Britons thought sentencing was too lenient. Today, four out of five Britons think the same. With the number of custodial sentences for sexual offences, theft and criminal damage all falling, it is time for this place to listen. Our constituents despair of having violent deviants freed to hurt again, of seeing non-custodial sentences for yobs and thugs, and of halfway automatic release for some of the most violent people in our society. Many gentle, peaceful people are appalled at all of this. Soft sentencing allows rapists, paedophiles and violent offenders to walk free having served only half their sentence. Given the pain of victims, that is an insult to decency.

This Bill, in seeking to ensure that the most despicable criminals face their just deserts behind bars, is welcome. That may shock the liberal establishment, filled by doubts and fuelled by guilt, but it is much yearned for by the silent majority of Britons and it is long overdue. Shame on those who wish to use the Bill for narrow ends. However, I will not go into the amendments on abortion because you would not let me, Madam Deputy Speaker, but you know what I mean.

Disraeli said:

“Justice is truth in action.”

That is not a relative individual truth but an extension of absolute virtue that people intuitively understand and to which this Bill gives life. Amendments to tackle the wicked scourge of pet theft affirm that truth, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) made clear.

The Bill before us today begins to signal that the Government are no longer distracted by the plight of the guilty. It proudly declares that we are devoted to the cause of the innocent and to the pursuit of justice. We must never be timid about being fierce in defence of the gentle, for in being so we stand for the majority of law-abiding Britons. I commend the amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), which, in laying down the truth that I have described, further reinforce a good Bill. It is a start: the beginning of a fightback on behalf of the silent majority.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for his support.

I have 16 new clauses in this group that deal with issues such as extending the time limits for appealing unduly lenient sentences, including for assaulting an emergency worker, under the unduly lenient sentence scheme; limiting the use of fixed-term recalls, ensuring that there is no difference in sentencing between using a knife in a murder in a home compared with taking a knife to murder someone elsewhere; and a sentencing escalator ensuring that people who repeatedly commit the same offence must get a more severe penalty each time they do so, which has a huge amount of support from the public. I hope that the Secretary of State will write to me with his response to each of my new clauses.

In the limited time available, I want to focus on new clause 75, which would ensure that there was no automatic early release of prisoners who assault prison staff while in jail. I would like to see an end to all automatic early release, as alluded to by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings. However, as it seems that the Government are not quite with us on that just yet, my new clause would send a clear message to those who assault hard-working and dedicated prison officers and other staff in our prisons that they would have to serve the whole of their sentence in prison if they indulged in that kind of activity rather than, as at the moment, so many people being automatically released halfway through. If jailed criminals attack a prison officer, surely they should lose their right to automatic early release and serve their sentence in full.

Far too many prison officers are being assaulted. They do a very difficult job and we are not giving them sufficient support. We should be doing our bit to prevent these assaults from happening. Clearly, if people knew that they would have to serve the entirety of their sentence in prison, that would be a good deterrent. At the moment, they can assault prison officers and prison staff with near impunity because they know they are still going to be released halfway through their sentence. The number of extra days—I repeat, days—that are given to people when they commit the offence of assaulting a prison officer is derisory. We owe a duty of care to prison officers and should make sure that they are as well protected as possible when they are doing their public service.

That also ties in with the spirit of what the Government have been trying to achieve on attacks on emergency workers. I certainly agree with what the Government are doing in this Bill and I look forward to the Secretary of State bringing forward his proposals to deal with attacks on shopworkers when the Bill goes to another place. I think that showing we are on the side of prison officers, hard-working public servants, in this way would be a very welcome step forward. I imagine that most common-sense members of the public would be surprised to know that this is not the case already, to be perfectly honest.

I have not had any indication from the Government that they are planning to accept my new clause 75. I would love to hear from the Secretary of State why he thinks it is perfectly reasonable for criminals who assault a prison officer not to have their automatic early release stopped and why he thinks it is absolutely fine for them still be released early from their prison sentences. I am pretty sure that lots of prison officers would like to know the same, too. I would like to hear from him on that when he winds up, but I would prefer to hear that he was accepting my new clause 75, which I think the vast majority of people in this House would like to see, prison officers would like to see and the public would like to see.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

This is a Bill that shows us that the Government have yet to understand the value of debate and discussion. As a result, they are missing out on some key amendments, many tabled for discussion in this debate and many for the earlier debate, that could have made the Bill a moment of progress on issues that many of us agree on. Instead, by the way in which the Attorney General, the Lord Chancellor and the Government are approaching the Bill, we see exactly where their priorities lie. Every single time proposals have been put forward to keep women safe, they get kicked into the long grass, with the suggestion that they go to the Law Commission. Yet the Government think it is simple and easy to define what is “annoying” when we all know that is a very difficult one. In the last few weeks alone, we have seen the value of deciding what the difference between protest and harassment is. Surely that should be something that went to the Law Commission.

Instead, in my short time this evening, I want to challenge the way in which the Government are approaching amendments that have come from across the House and which bring us many ideas on how we can improve confidence in our criminal justice system. I want to put on record my support for the amendments tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who has been a diligent activist for human rights all her life and whose ideas about rape should not be let go again. My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) spoke courageously to identify an anomaly in our law, where the women in Northern Ireland now enjoy better reproductive rights than women in England, Wales and Scotland. The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) to help to support our children and keep our children safe are vital. There is cross-party support for action against assault on retail workers and for action to address pet offences, which have been coming up in the pandemic.

I urge the Government to listen to the message coming so clearly from women across the country about new clause 30, which has been tabled in my name but has been part of the work I have been doing with my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith). I pay tribute to his constituent, Julia Cooper, a valiant woman who was simply feeding her baby in a park when a man decided it was acceptable to take photos of her breastfeeding without her consent. When she sought the support of the law, the law said it was perfectly legal for the man to do what he was doing. Take a moment to think about that. We can simply and easily decide that we want to protect statues, but on that most natural and beautiful thing for a mother to do to feed her child the Government are saying no to protecting those women. Again, they are kicking the issue into the long grass.

I served on the upskirting Bill. At the time, we raised concerns that, frankly, it only went below the knee, but we now need to make sure that the law ensures full coverage. I urge Ministers tonight: whether it is in the other place or now, please do not leave the women of this country feeling that you do not understand the lives they lead. We have the lowest rates of breastfeeding in Europe and it is not hard to understand why, if women feel they are going to be shamed or attacked in public.

As someone that this has happened to myself, I ask the Minister to think about what he would feel if it was happening to a member of his family: if somebody was taking photos or a video for their own gratification and he could not stop them. By resisting new clause 30 and saying that this has to go back to the Law Commission, when it is clear what could be done to make it a criminal offence, he is sending a very clear message to women, as he has done on rape, as he has done on domestic homicide reviews, as he has done on child protection, that their concerns are complicated and difficult, but statues and protests are not. I ask him to think again about the message that he is sending and to say, “We will make laws in this place that will support everyone to lead their lives without fear”, because it is fear that someone will feel if they think that somebody is following them with a camera when they just want to feed their baby. Minister, let us not just stick up for the unborn children; let us stick up for those who are newly born, too.

Oral Answers to Questions

Philip Davies Excerpts

Monday 7th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I remind those on both Front Benches that topical questions are meant to be short and punchy, so we do need to get on. I have quite a list.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I am sure that the Home Secretary must share my frustration and that of my constituents about the volume of migrants coming across the channel by dinghy, often being escorted here in the process. Can she assure my constituents when real action will be taken to stop this flow, and will she introduce a regime whereby people who try to claim asylum, and who come here from an already safe country such as France, will be automatically deported and sent back there? That will make a big difference in stopping them coming here in the first place.

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is already making the case for a Bill that has yet to be introduced in Parliament, which contains the new plan for immigration. The date is coming for its introduction and Second Reading. He is absolutely right: the British public are fed up and demoralised by what we have been seeing. I have been very clear to my Department over the last 12 months about operational activity from Border Force, and I have now asked the Department to urgently investigate the circumstances behind the incidents at the weekend that have been reported on. My hon. Friend makes a fundamental point, which is that people who are seeking to claim asylum should claim asylum in the first safe country. They should not be making these dangerous crossings, which, as we have heard today, have led to catastrophic and devastating loss of life too many times.

Support for Asylum Seekers

Philip Davies Excerpts

Tuesday 27th April 2021 Westminster Hall

[Philip Davies (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements. Timings of debates have been amended to allow technical arrangements to be made for the next debate. There will be suspensions between debates. I remind Members participating, physically and virtually, that they must arrive for the start of a debate in Westminster Hall and are expected to remain for the entire debate. I must remind Members participating virtually that they are visible at all times, both to one another and to us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should email the Westminster Hall Clerks’ email address. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and before they leave the room. I remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the effectiveness of asylum accommodation and the dispersal scheme in providing support for asylum seekers.

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests for the support that I have received, for research capacity in my office in relation to my work on asylum seekers, refugees and migrants, from RAMP, the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project, which I thank also for supporting the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) and me in seeking this debate. It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Davies.

Let me start with some more thanks to all colleagues, across almost every party, who have backed the debate, and to all those organisations that not only have briefed for this debate, but work on this issue day in, day out, supporting some of the most vulnerable people across our country. I thank all my constituents who have messaged me to bemoan the awful system imposed by the Home Office, and all those out there who retain faith in the UK’s historic contribution to shaping international law on asylum and our equally historic contribution in not just settling asylum seekers in our country, but benefiting from the contribution that they have made to enrich our country’s economy and culture over very many decades.

Some people seek to cloak themselves in our flag, but wish to sidestep or even ignore our traditions and our historic sense of duty in always being there to support people in need—and people are in need in growing numbers across the globe, which is why an effective and efficient policy is so important. The world remains a dangerous place—from armed conflict, from growing resource and climate conflict and from growing aggression and human rights abuses in China, Russia and other countries, putting even more people at risk. Despite those growing risks, I am unsure whether there is another area where Tory rhetoric on global Britain clashes more harshly with the reality of this Government’s policies, given the planned cuts to our armed forces and the massive reduction to our international aid budget, despite manifesto commitments.

Many of the people in need will reach our shores, and when they arrive, we have responsibilities—legal duties. It is essential that we live up to our responsibilities—responsibilities to asylum seekers and responsibilities to the British public, who want to see an effective system that not only weeds out the tiny, minute, fraction of bogus claims fast but, equally quickly, resettles the overwhelming majority of genuine asylum seekers at the best price for the UK taxpayer. Sadly, that is in no way what we have currently. Instead, we have a fragmented system, badly mismanaged by the Home Office and, at the very start of the process, getting even the basics wrong. The British Red Cross has reported that 81% of asylum seekers do not even receive information in their own language. They are not told what is happening and will happen to them; and two thirds did not get health screening, even during the pandemic.

Then the Home Office shunts people into short-term asylum accommodation while their eligibility for support is assessed. Usually, people should then be moved to dispersal accommodation across the UK, where they will live until a decision is reached on their full application —often after a lengthy delay. During that period, people are prevented from working. They have no choice over where or how they are housed, and they are provided with just £39.63 a week to support themselves. That is a far cry from the £150,000 a year that the Prime Minister gets, and he is apparently still reliant on someone else to cover redecorating bills.

This is a crumbling, pernicious system, which has directly contributed to covid infections, crime and chaos, but it is overseen—ironically—by the Department with overall responsibility for tackling crime and disorder in the UK: a Department that has been warned so many times about this inhumane, inefficient and expensive system, which the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee have laid bare. The National Audit Office reported last July that the system that the Government have adopted caused costs to escalate by 28% to £568 for each accommodated asylum seeker, and saw a 96% increase in short-term, more expensive accommodation. In November last year, the Public Accounts Committee warned of a system in crisis and recommended:

“The Home Office should, within three months, set out a clear plan for how it will quickly and safely reduce the use of hotels and ensure that asylum seekers’ accommodation meets their individual needs.”

I look forward to hearing from the Minister today, six months later, how that is being delivered.

Understandably, the Minister will say that covid is responsible for some of the rising costs and inefficiencies of his Department’s policies. I hope he will outline when those costs will fall and the strategy adopted in response to repeat NAO and PAC concerns. I also hope he will acknowledge how Home Office policies go back to before covid. There were more than 1,000 people in hotels in October 2019, before covid was identified in China, let alone before it began to be responded to by a Government headed by a Prime Minister whose own delayed decisions contributed to covid deaths in the UK. I will not repeat his sickening comments about piling up the bodies, as they are so raw for the 127,000 families who have lost loved ones.

I think the level of interest in this debate is due in part to the dramatic rise in hotel and other inappropriate accommodation use. At the end of February, almost 8,700 people were living in hotels across the UK, according to the Refugee Council. It is important to remember that the increased number of people living in contingency accommodation is due not to a rise in applications, but to a Home Office backlog. Also, these are hotels where people might stay for a short stop en route, not for a holiday or extended break, as they are often on the edge of towns, far from amenities and certainly far from the healthcare services needed by people who have been through trauma elsewhere, and who in some cases have acute mental health needs.

In London, more than 6,000 asylum seekers are in hotels, and roughly 1,200 are children, some unaccompanied. Again, this is not a holiday; it is isolating, lonely, and also exposed. “Line of Duty” has made more people familiar with the term OCGs. As a direct result of Home Office policy, organised crime groups have targeted asylum seekers in Home Office-funded premises to engage them in illegal work and other crime, including drug trafficking. Vulnerable people are made worse off by the Home Office, with criminals benefiting from Home Office policy. The fact that the Department oversees law and order policy in the UK is a joke when it cannot even ensure that the premises it funds are off limits to OCGs.

The people in hotels were originally scheduled to be moved out by March 2021. In February, the Home Office announced its intention to move people out of hotels again, through Operation Oak, but the process has yet to be completed, and the Home Office has said that it simply intends to complete it by the summer. I hope the Minister will today confirm the new date, full plans and staging post for delivery. The fear is that this is still “Operation Acorn”.

Of course, some costs in the system are avoidable if the decisions are made quicker. The Home Office website still claims, ludicrously, that someone seeking asylum will “usually” have a decision within six months. That is simply untrue and has been for some time. More than 64,000 people are awaiting decisions, according to the Refugee Council, and the British Red Cross says that 72% have waited more than six months. Perhaps the Minister will update us on the average time today. I will be amazed if colleagues can stay in their seats both here in the room and at home, given the previous claims and the average delays that we see for our constituents.

I will give two examples from Bermondsey and Old Southwark. I have raised the cases of an Eritrean woman and a Mongolian man seeking asylum since 2017. Not only do they not have a decision four years later, but the Home Office cannot even give a timeframe for when their cases will be concluded. Perhaps the Minister can tell us today when and how the Home Office will cut the horrific backlog that his Government have created.

The vast majority of asylum seekers have their claims upheld—more than 90% for many countries—so the delay is a needless burden that affects the asylum seeker and also imposes massive cost penalties on the taxpayer: first, in expensive, avoidable temporary accommodation; secondly, because the Home Office prevents people from working; and thirdly, because of the avoidable and lengthy delays to decisions and eventual settlement and work.

At the end of September 2020, there were 3,621 Sudanese, Syrian and Eritrean nationals who had been waiting longer than six months for a decision on their application. The grant rate across those three countries at initial decision was 94% in the year ending March 2020. It could be faster, but it requires a focus from the Home Office that simply has not been there, and that I suspect we will not see from the Minister today.

The system was bad enough before covid, but covid has brutally exposed the inadequacies of the asylum process, with routine delays, inflated costs, needless waits, and prevention from work, even for the one in seven asylum claimants who have a professional background in health and social care. People that this country could have desperately done with working in our services to support people through the crisis were prevented from doing so by Government policy.

But no one could have been prepared for the horrors of the Napier barracks—a cross-party issue on which, I think, 45 questions have been asked since January from all parts of the House. The interest was because Napier exposed the worst excesses of this system, which fails people fleeing torture, genocide, war and persecution, but also fails the taxpayer, our historic contribution and the British tradition of not passing by on the other side of the street. The Napier barracks issue is likely to result in further costs to the taxpayer, with legal cases resulting from this inhumane system imposed on people fleeing to the UK for help, but forced to live in accommodation that public health bodies had said was unfit for use and likely to increase the risks of infection.

The Government claimed a few years ago that the Home Office was reviewing the hostile environment, but it was proved to be only too alive and kicking during the pandemic, perhaps inevitably under a Home Secretary who proved to be the most hostile of bosses. Will the Minister update us today on where that review is, or if it even still exists? Napier shows that, at the same time as wider Government was telling the public to stay home, isolate where possible and protect the NHS, this bit of the Government, the bit that solely determines where asylum seekers live, chose to accommodate people in dormitories of 28: communal, unhygienic spaces that contravened Government guidance and public health recommendations—a shameful episode.

The shadow Minister for Immigration, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), wrote to the Government in December calling for a review of covid safety in all establishments being used for accommodation. In a response at the end of the year, the Home Office claimed it was committed to upholding statutory duties, including providing safe covid-compliant accommodation to those who need it, but failed to undertake that review. Does the Minister have an answer or explanation for that failure today, or better still an apology to the people put in those horrific circumstances?

Sadly, instead of learning from this hideous mistake, which rightly caused public outrage, Ministers planned to extend the use of communal rooms, with proposals for cabin-style accommodation on former MOD land in Barton Stacey. The indications are that Ministers have learned nothing, but I hope we will hear today that Napier will be no longer used and other proposals will be dropped.

I asked for this debate not just to highlight the issue of short-term, costly and dangerous asylum accommodation, but to look at the wider problem that the Government have created surrounding long-term housing through the dispersal scheme, introduced under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which was designed to try to ensure an even spread of support across the country. However, under that scheme, local authorities reach voluntary agreements with the Home Office to accept asylum seekers, and the Home Office has not negotiated well.

Many local authorities have no agreement with the Home Office at all. In Scotland, only Glasgow City Council accommodates asylum seekers. At the end of last year, 223 local authorities throughout the UK were taking no asylum seekers. The system is simply not working. I hope the Minister will explain how the Home Office is delivering the Home Affairs Committee recommendation that it should pursue the commitment he made to a more equitable and sustainable system by expanding the areas participating in dispersal.

Resources are, of course, part of the issue. Councils stress that after a decade of cuts to their budgets, there is no incentive to participate. The costs to local authorities supporting asylum seekers come from social care, homelessness services and other additional support needs. There appears to be no strategy or plan from the Home Office to address this issue to work with local authorities or better support asylum seekers moving out of contingency accommodation and into communities.

The ICIBI report in March stated that there was little focus on helping residents to prepare for next steps and next to zero focus on driving up the quality of the accommodation provided. Despite promises that improvements to accommodation be made, there is increased use of inappropriate emergency sites without wraparound support.

The 10-year contracts the Home Office is using are valued at £4 billion, but information about how these services are performing remains closely guarded. Perhaps Government secrecy is unsurprising when it comes to admitting failings or trying to improve services.

I hope the Minister will tell us his plans to address these issues today and when that plan might start. There is currently no sustainable plan. The only prospect is more of the terrible same, or worse, as numbers continue to rise and costs continue to escalate for emergency temporary accommodation for asylum seekers and costs to the taxpayers.

There are, of course, options on the table. The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government might be better placed to provide some supported accommodation. Local authorities are often overlooked by this authoritarian, centralised Government. The need for a place-based, more equitable approach to dispersal has been consistently raised by the Local Government Association, which resulted in the Home Office and Local Government Chief Executive Group, co-chaired by the LGA, with representation of each region and devolved Administration, established in 2019 to develop a 10-year plan for a more equitable distribution of support. I hope the Minister will give us an update on that equitable distribution today.

Others suggest a local authority public health-driven approach. Incidents in hotels and barracks in recent months have highlighted the importance of advance notice, engagement and the sharing of data, so that local services are aware of who is in their locality and what their health needs are.

Sadly, as things stand, the Local Government Association states that the dispersal structure has been abandoned during covid. It is unclear how it will return or what is in place for when the pandemic ends. Partnership is needed on this issue. Will the Minister tell us how relations will be rebuilt? How will the Government address local authority concerns and deliver a more affordable system to the taxpayer, in partnership with the communities that will provide the ultimate long-term address for asylum seekers? At a minimum, I hope the Minister will today explain plans, if any exist, for how the Home Office will move away from its over-reliance on emergency accommodation and improve information sharing with councils and health bodies.

I end by quoting one of the amazing organisations that I thanked at the outset, the British Red Cross, whose report “Far from a home: why asylum accommodation needs reform” is out today. It is based on the real experiences of people living in asylum accommodation, including barracks and finds that

“too many asylum-seeking women, men and children in the UK are living in unsafe, unsanitary and isolated accommodation. This falls far short of expected standards, for months and even years at a time. These issues have been compounded by mounting backlogs in asylum application decisions in recent years, the failure to secure enough community dispersal accommodation and more recently, the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic.”

Worryingly, the report also suggests that:

“Far from addressing these issues, the UK Government’s New Plan for Immigration…includes plans to house people seeking asylum in reception centres.”

It goes on:

“As we have witnessed in the use of military barracks, institutional-style accommodation can have significant negative impacts on people’s mental and physical health, as well as isolating people seeking asylum from wider communities, ultimately reducing social integration and cohesion…We believe this would be a mistake.”

I wholeheartedly agree with the report’s findings. I hope the Minister will give an initial response to the report in his comments, reassure us that the Home Office will no longer run a dangerous policy that puts people at risk of ill health and exposed to organised crime, and explain how he will seek to restore our proud tradition of being there at times of need.

[Philip Davies (in the Chair)]

I am going to have to impose a time limit, beginning at four minutes and rapidly dropping to three minutes for people further down the list.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) [V]]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Davies. I commence, like the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), by drawing the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a principal of the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

It is vital to put today’s debate into its context. The hostile environment and a move away from treating asylum seekers as simply part of the wider welfare system began in the early 2000s, as the Blair Government recognised the political toxicity of the public perception that people newly arrived in the UK would be able to potentially jump social housing waiting lists. True or not, that was a serious political concern that they faced at the time.

In the mid-2000s, Andy Burnham, then the Immigration Minister and now the Mayor of Greater Manchester, signed off on the implementation of dispersal, creating a new route for asylum seekers, whereby they were placed in parts of the country where local authorities, recognising that there was a surplus of housing locally, offered to accommodate them and to provide them with support in those local communities. Subsequently, the Home Office looked to economise on the cost of delivering those services, by delivering through a set of national contracts with private companies.

Hard as it is to believe for those of us in London constituencies and city constituencies with lengthy housing waiting lists, there are parts of the country, such as Stoke-on-Trent, that were proactive in seeking to be dispersal areas because they recognised the benefits to their communities of bringing in new people who could revitalise the schools and other public services on which their communities depended.

The other significant factor remains the distribution of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, which is not a matter for the Home Office but sits with the Department for Education, under the Children Act 1989. It means that local authorities that have ports of entry—airports or sea ports where people arrive into the UK—bear significant responsibilities. The Home Office’s national transfer scheme has been a step towards addressing that distribution.

The other big part of that picture is that refugees, once they are granted that status in the UK and have the right to asylum, often do not stay in the communities where they are placed through dispersal. That is why we see very large numbers of refugees living in London and the south-east of England, for example. They have not been placed there by the Home Office, but have moved there under their own volition.

It is very clear from my engagement with contractors who have administered the scheme that the new set of Home Office contracts has represented a significant improvement on what was there before. The funding that is available, the flexibility and the volunteering of new local authorities that are keen to be dispersal areas have all helped to ease some of the pressure.

However, we recognise that there are remaining issues with the system. In particular, as the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark alluded to, there is a very clear desire, first, to ensure that asylum seekers are not competing with local people to access social housing where that is in short supply; by definition, that means that people are being placed in parts of the country that do not already have a significant housing waiting list. Secondly, we need to ensure, given that around two thirds to three quarters of people who apply for asylum in the UK are granted it, that asylum is the start of a path to integration.

So, my ask today of the Minister is fairly simple—it is a shopping list of things that we need to do better and that we can consider as part of this wider consultation. First, we need to think about how dispersal is part of a path to integration, given those figures about people being granted asylum. Secondly, we must ensure, regarding things such as move-on period and the recognition that most people who come for asylum in the UK will remain, that we are realistic about how we support them to integrate. Thirdly and finally, and this is the most important point, there must be real consideration of how Departments work together. The challenge for local authorities and communities often arises because the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Education are not aligned with the Home Office. So, I ask the Minister: can we please ensure that the approach to this issue is joined up across Government so much better than it is today?

[Philip Davies (in the Chair)]

I now have to drop the time limit to three minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

Thank you, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) for securing this debate.

The Government are now presiding over the worst asylum accommodation shortage in history, and the result is that almost a fifth of all supported people seeking asylum are currently living in hostels and other large, full-board facilities. We can thank the Home Office and their extreme mismanagement of contract providers for that. In Leeds, like many other parts of country, asylum seekers have been living in hotels round the city. Contrary to what the Daily Mail would have you believe, the conditions make them completely unfit for short-term emergency accommodation, let alone the months many have endured.

Around 40 people recently took part in protest in one such hotel, drawing attention to the poor living conditions, lack of nutritional food and mistreatment by hotel staff. One man was on hunger strike for nine days. With the help of my office, I have pursued complaints about the standard of the accommodation and care provided in Leeds, and we discovered a worrying picture. Residents are subject to strict rationing for the most basic supplies such as soap and toilet paper, both of which are often unavailable. Many people to whom I have spoken have also been denied access to hygiene facilities. Some asylum seekers only have one set of clothes, and are unable to wash them. One resident reported that he had not been given clean bedsheets for a month. Complaints have been made about insufficient and unhealthy food. Residents did have fresh juice and milk for months, but after complaining about other elements of their living conditions that was removed by the hotel manager: a punitive measure that sent a clear message to asylum seekers telling them not to complain.

Worryingly, there have been severe difficulties in accessing dental and medical care, and legal help. Many residents have no phone credit or do not speak much English and so cannot call for help themselves, and yet staff fail to assist them. In one case, a resident was in severe pain because of a broken foot yet his prescription was not collected for a week. It appears that the regional contract handling of the coronavirus crisis added to the misery of those living there. On more than five occasions, residents were forced to isolate with no explanation.

In many areas, racist far-right activists—no doubt emboldened by the hateful rhetoric spewed by the media and, I am saddened to say, certain Members of the House—visited the hotel to intimidate those living there. Unfortunately, it is not just far-right thugs from outside who have racially abused asylum seekers in hotels. One hotel manager told a man, “If you don’t like it, go back to your own country.” Another resident claimed that the same man said, “I am a citizen of this country and I have a right to do whatever I can. You don’t have the right to complain.” A further two people said that they heard the manager say that if they are not happy they can be deported. That is the tip of the iceberg. The stories I hear in my surgeries are a tiny fraction of what is happening in Leeds and across the country.

In 2018, I spoke physically in Westminster Hall about the poor condition of housing for asylum seekers in Leeds. That continues to persist without any improvement. My colleagues describe similar shocking conditions in constituencies around the country. G4S lost its contract and another private sector company made promises, but the same problems persist. It is time that these contracts were run by public, not-for-profit providers that are not driven by profit—

[Philip Davies (in the Chair)]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab) [V]]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. Let me start, as others have, by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) and the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) for securing the debate, for their outstanding opening contributions and for their leadership on asylum and migration issues. I also want to thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating the time for the debate. It is often said that debates are timely, but with just a week to go before the end of the incredibly short consultation on the Government’s new plans for an immigration policy statement, ahead of the sovereign borders Bill, it could not be more timely.

There are pre-existing weaknesses in the asylum accommodation and dispersal scheme, combined with the pressures of the pandemic, which we accept have been significant. Added to the direction of travel under this Government, outlined in the policy statement, that creates a pretty toxic outlook.

On contingency accommodation, we recognise the increased need for accommodation, with the early, welcome pause on negative cessations taking the numbers in the asylum system from around 48,000 to around 60,000. Inevitably, that would have brought logistical challenges, and we were sympathetic to that, but over 12 months on, there are no justifications for the shocking conditions that persist in asylum accommodation and the questionable motivations behind Home Office decision making. Contingency accommodation has become far more widely used as the norm than it ever should have been.

The Minister may have read the Refugee Council’s report published last week on the use of hotel accommodation. It outlines just how difficult life has been for people who have been confined to the same room for days and weeks on end and for those who arrived without basics, such as shoes and coats, and who simply were not provided with any. People had insufficient access to drinking water, and there were widespread failures to register them with GPs so that they could access healthcare. In some instances, as we have heard children were not enrolled in schools for months.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) and for Reading East (Matt Rodda), who shared with us the contributions of their local charities and communities. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for Reading East for introducing me to a number of his local organisations that support those accommodated in hotels.

The Government have said that the use of hotels will end as part of the new plan for immigration. That is incredibly welcome, but what is the plan? Where will those people be accommodated instead? The Home Office provided a quote to The Guardian on Friday, saying:

“As part of our New Plan for Immigration, the use of hotels to accommodate new arrivals will end and we plan to introduce new asylum reception centres.”

I understand that Operation Oak sought to move people out of hotel accommodation and into more appropriate dispersed accommodation, as should be the process. However, that Home Office spokesperson seems to suggest that those currently housed in hotels will instead be housed in reception centres.

At the end of February, an estimated 8,700 asylum seekers were accommodated in more than 90 hotels across the UK. Some were there for months. What exactly will these new reception centres be for? My hon. Friends the Members for Bermondsey and Old Southwark and for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) have stressed how unhappy we are about the proposals. I hope the Minister will explain just how many centres he envisages will be required, how long people will be required to stay in them and what the terms of their stay will be. That quote suggests that the centres will be a form of initial accommodation, but everything else we are hearing sounds much more comparable to detention than initial accommodation. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) made it clear why that would be a disaster. My fear is that this is a policy choice from this Government—a point already made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and others.

Although I have outlined just some of the problems with hotels, it is clear that there has been a deliberate attempt to conflate initial accommodation with immigration detention, with the use of disused barracks to accommodate asylum seekers. I made a number of these points in last week’s debate. As with the use of hotels, the Government initially claimed that the use of barracks at Penally and Napier was due to the unprecedented pressures of the pandemic. Yet, the equality impact assessment we have seen, which was conducted by the Home Office in September, revealed that use of that particular type of accommodation was born not out of necessity but out of political choice. It suggested that providing nothing but the absolute bare minimum to those seeking asylum is in the interests of community relations. It reads more like a hard-line right-wing manifesto than any equality impact assessment from a Government Department ever should.

The Government’s reluctance to provide anything deemed beyond what is necessary has led to people with conditions such as leukaemia, diabetes or tuberculosis being housed 28 to a dorm and sharing limited toilet facilities, with communal areas cleaned only once a week, during a pandemic.

On 8 March 2021 the then independent chief inspector of borders and immigration published initial findings from site visits in mid-February to Penally camp and Napier barracks with Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons. They confirmed that, given the

“cramped communal conditions and unworkable cohorting at Napier”

a large-scale outbreak of covid was virtually inevitable, which is exactly what happened. There were 197 positive cases of covid at Napier barracks between 1 January and late February. We secured the Kent and Medway clinical commissioning group’s infection prevention report undertaken at Napier through a freedom of information request, and that also confirmed that the site does not facilitate effective social distancing. The CCG report also made it clear that the Home Office had a disregard for the wellbeing of not only those accommodated at Napier, but the staff working on the site. At the time of the inspection there had been nine positive cases among staff members. The report also found that all staff took breaks at the same time and that, unbelievably, staff were being asked to sleep three to a room at the site.

The ICIBI report raised serious safeguarding concerns about those who were most vulnerable at Napier, stating:

“There was inadequate support for people who had self-harmed. People at high risk of self-harm were located in a decrepit ‘isolation block’ which we considered unfit for habitation.”

In evidence provided to the Home Affairs Committee last month the Government claimed that they had been

“following guidance in every single way”.

My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) spoke of the simply untrue assurances that she was given about the quality of the accommodation. The CCG and ICIBI reports could not be clearer that at no time were such assurances true. On leadership and management, the latter report concluded:

“The Home Office did not exercise adequate oversight at either site and Home Office staff were rarely present. There were fundamental failures of leadership and planning by the Home Office.”

That was not someone else’s failure. It was the Home Secretary’s failure, and those barracks must close immediately.

The wider failures of the system and the nature of dispersal are now putting local authorities under enormous pressure, and there is a sense that the Government are just not listening, which is pushing the system to breaking point. I have seen a letter that was sent to the Home Secretary at the end of March from the leaders of the asylum dispersal areas for the west midlands. They are keen to stress that they recognise their responsibility as a region to contribute to the UK’s asylum and immigration challenges, and they have supported the dispersal scheme since 1999, but they feel they have no choice other than to suspend their participation.

They clearly state that, despite their attempts to engage Government in finding solutions to the challenges they face,

“the absence of any strategic plan has meant we lack confidence on the next steps around engagement to resolve the range of complex and serious challenges we face. What we do know is that the current position is untenable and that we simply cannot continue to support in the same manner going forward.”

When Government’s biggest partners are walking away from dispersal, they have to come back to the table and work constructively to find solutions. Has the meeting sought in the letter happened—with leaders from not just the west midlands but all dispersal areas—to work through the challenges? The former Minister, the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), made a characteristically powerful contribution, inviting the Minister to work with the Local Government Association to find the solutions we all want.

The letter also makes the point that the use of hotels has been a reality of initial accommodation since the new contracts were agreed in 2019, so any sense that they are used because of the pandemic alone is nonsense. It says that their use

“feels more like an unsatisfactory business as usual arrangement rather than short term contingency.”

That point was made clear in the Red Cross’s report, published today and mentioned already by a number of hon. Members.

The Minister knows that in rule changes made in December the Government gave themselves the ability to deem claims inadmissible if someone arrives in the UK outside of a resettlement scheme, regardless of whether asylum should be granted, and without any agreements having been struck with European partners on returning anyone to anywhere else. Over the weekend, May Bulman at The Independent newspaper broke the story that Belgium, France and Germany have all ruled such an agreement out:

“Belgium’s asylum and migration secretary…said the country had no intention of negotiating unilateral readmission agreements with the UK and that he had already explained his position to the immigration minister”.

The German embassy in London told The Independent that

“no negotiations between Germany and the UK on return arrangements had taken place”,

indicating that bilateral returns deals are simply not on the cards. France echoed those remarks, with a spokesperson saying:

“We will naturally continue our operational co-operation to prevent departures and fight against smuggling networks. With regards to readmissions, asylum is a European subject, which calls for a European response.”

[Philip Davies (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the flow of the hon. Lady, but to give the Minister a fair amount of time, can I ask her to bring her remarks to a conclusion?