Corrosive Substance Attacks

Afzal Khan Excerpts

Wednesday 20th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in Westminster Hall at any time, but especially so after the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown). She compassionately, directly and consistently puts forward her point of view. We have had Adjournment debates in the main Chamber and we have discussed the matter with Government in the past. We all feel very strongly, which is why I want to add my contribution.

It is nice to see the new Minister in her place—I wish her well—and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), in hers. I hope we can look forward to a contribution from us all that is of one mind and one voice, and I hope that the Minister’s reply will be of that one voice. We look forward to that.

The issue of corrosive substance attacks is one that seems foreign to me, to be honest, and I cannot understand for a minute the things described by the hon. Member for West Ham. She has had direct experience through her constituents, but it seems a bit like “The Twilight Zone”, happening somewhere else and not real—but it is real. That is what the hon. Lady has described.

I cannot begin to understand how anyone might think of going out with acid, intending to throw it at someone. I cannot fathom that evil or understand how anyone can feel in any way that that is what they should do when the after effects are so gross. I do not understand the hatred that someone must feel to consider taking an action that will so horribly disfigure someone for life—I am thinking here of the lady whose story was told by the hon. Member for West Ham, because that story is very real for me, on paper if not in reality, after she told us about it. I cannot fathom how on earth someone could be so despicable as to want to burn through other people’s flesh with acid and watch them suffer. Just because I cannot fathom it, that does not mean it does not happen. It does happen, it is happening more and we need to do our part to legislate against it.

The hon. Lady clearly outlined a number of issues that the Government should respond to, and I suggest they would be good ways to take the legislation forward and are what we might wish to see. I will mention some of my thoughts as the debate proceeds.

In the past, before acid attacks became more prevalent in London and parts of the UK, my knowledge of them came through my position as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. I have had occasion to have direct contact with some of the groups in Iran that were, unfortunately, able to supply some very graphic evidence—pictorial and video—of attacks on people there. Those people were subject to acid attacks simply because they had a different religious opinion, simply because they were women and simply because they spoke on behalf of other women for equality and human rights. How can anyone feel justified in attacking those ladies, disfiguring them for life, with some of them losing their eyesight as well? I just cannot come to terms with the horribleness and brutality of it all.

I want to have this on the record, although again it is not the Minister’s responsibility, but through her good offices she will make my comments known, and perhaps those of other Members, that we are very concerned about Iran and what is happening there. The attacks are brutal and painful.

I recently highlighted the acid attacks in Iran and was appalled at the damage caused. Then to learn that acid attacks in England and Wales have more than doubled since 2012 certainly reminded me that evil is restricted to no postcode and that those attacks are happening worldwide. We need to address them in whatever way is necessary.

Figures from the Metropolitan police, which the hon. Member for West Ham referred to in her introduction, show that men are twice as likely to be victims of acid attacks in London as women. The attacks have been linked to gang crimes—there is a gang culture that sees acid purchased as a weapon. People do not need to have a gun or a knife; they can use acid, which will leave lasting physical and visual effects, which are another way of scoring, so to speak, but the others respond as well.

The vast majority of cases, however, never reach trial. Again, this is not the Minister’s responsibility, but I pose the question: why is that the case? Is it down to evidence? The evidence may be very clear, but perhaps it is down to those who wish to make complaints, or it is the response of the police. We need to ask ourselves why such cases are not reaching trial and what we must do to facilitate the successful trial of someone who makes the decision to carry out that heinous act. Today, at long last—thank the Lord for it—we had a sentence that equals the crime, with 20 years for a person who blatantly, directly and without any recognition of the people, attacked a number of them in a nightclub in London. The sentence gave me, and I suspect all of us, heart.

In the news, Dr Simon Harding, a criminologist and expert on gangs at Middlesex University, commented that acid is fast becoming a “weapon of first choice” and:

“Acid throwing is a way of showing dominance, power and control, building enormous fear among gang peer groups”—

the hon. Member for West Ham referred to that in her speech. When I read that, I was horrified, but even more horrified to realise that to use acid is becoming a calculated move. The debate today is therefore very timely, and it is appropriate to discuss the subject. We look to the Minister and to the Government for how best to respond.

Many people have the idea that there are advantages to using acid to hurt someone rather than a knife: they will not kill someone, but disfigure them for life, disadvantaging them in what they can cope with and leaving women especially with a disfigurement, which means vastly more to them—I mean no disrespect to men. We must look at the fact that the charges are more serious for someone caught with a knife and the tariff for prison sentences much higher. As I said earlier, we are very pleased about the sentence from the courts we read about today—perhaps that is the start of something. Will the Minister respond to that?

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

I also put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) for securing this very important debate. The hon. Gentleman was talking about such cases and the courts, and I have some concerns. First, the CPS has new powers to produce community impact statements. Fear goes through the community whenever this sort of attack happens, so it is important to get such assessment reports before the courts so that when they sentence, they take them into account. Secondly, the figures from the London boroughs show a large number of incidents in areas that are ethnically very diverse. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the CPS and the police should pay attention to that and consider whether they are therefore aggravated offences, pressing charges that will take that into account?

[Jim Shannon]

I agree with hon. Gentleman. I asked the Minister in an earlier comment where we are with the trial process, and why it seems that many cases do not get to trial. Is there a problem with the police, or with the CPS? Whatever it is, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and we need to put that on record.

Dr Harding added that,

“acid is likely to attract a ‘GBH with intent’ charge”—

in other words, not the same seriousness—

“while using a knife is more likely to lead to the attacker being charged with attempted murder”.

We need to have hard court action and the sentencing that is necessary. We perhaps need a new vigour from the police and from the CPS. The fact that that could be case—that an acid attack would be grievous bodily harm with intent, and would not be equalised to using a knife and attempted murder—disgusts me. It is clear that we need to legislate for that.

Times have changed, and in the same way as we are legislating for online offences, we need to move with the times and legislate accordingly for the sort of crime we are discussing. Online offences were never on the books, but unfortunately, the way of hurting people is changing. We need to legislate so that no gang member thinks, “I will use acid so that it will be easier on me if I end up getting caught”. We need to make changes and make sure that he or she understands that what they are doing will have repercussions.

I was greatly touched by the courageous tale of Katie Piper, as I am sure all hon. Members were. I know her story from having read about it in the press. I could not read that story and not be touched by it. She showed intensely personal and private images in order to highlight the sheer horror of an attack and the length of time that it takes to even begin the healing process physically and emotionally. It has shown that we need to change the legislation and we need to represent those people who are attacked.

I sincerely urge the Government to take all the arguments into consideration and put acid attacks on a par with knife violence crimes, to ensure that the sentence fits the crime. This crime leaves a life destroyed and a person undergoing perhaps 20 operations or more and still unable to breathe or walk without horrific pain. I applaud Katie Piper and others like her for putting their face to this crime and I stand with all victims who say that the attitude towards this crime must change. That must begin as a matter of urgency in this House.

Asylum Accommodation

Afzal Khan Excerpts

Thursday 14th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. Our asylum accommodation system is not fit for purpose. Those who come to the UK for protection are housed in appalling and at times unsafe conditions.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) on securing the debate. She does an excellent job as the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. Today, she has clearly and forensically exposed the Government’s failures to implement the Committee’s recommendations on asylum accommodation, and I, too, agree with most of the contributions we have heard from hon. Members.

I will take a slightly wider view this afternoon. The issue of asylum accommodation exposes three underlying issues in the Home Office that run through everything it does: first, the inability to deal with its workload and process cases efficiently and fairly; secondly, the lack of transparency and accountability; and thirdly, the pursuit of cost savings above what is best for communities. There is an urgent need to change our asylum accommodation system. We have that opportunity, as the current contracts are coming to an end, but so far the Home Office has not been listening. Now is their chance.

The Committee highlighted in its report that demand on the asylum system has increased and that the Home Office has not been able to keep up. The backlog is significant. The chief inspector of borders and immigration said of his recent report:

“Given the life-changing nature of asylum decisions, the Home Office’s performance needs to improve.”

When the Home Office takes too long to decide a claim, real people suffer. When it makes inaccurate decisions, people suffer.

Research by Refugee Action found that on average, people spend 37 days in initial accommodation, waiting for their claim to be assessed, despite the fact that the Government have recognised that such accommodation is not suitable for long-term stays. The temporary nature of initial accommodation prevents people from registering with GPs, placing their children in school or appointing a legal representative to progress their asylum claim. Will the Minister regularly publish data on the length of time people spend in initial accommodation? Do the Government even collect that data?

I am deeply concerned about the extent to which the Home Office evades transparency and accountability. Contracts to provide asylum accommodation have been granted to private companies and look like they will be again. As complex services are outsourced, they evade scrutiny. The Home Affairs Committee report found that the

“current compliance regime is not fit for purpose.”

Will the Minister assure us today that he will provide an independent oversight and accountability role for local authorities, as the Committee recommended?

Asylum accommodation deals with some very vulnerable people. The Committee’s report highlighted deeply concerning reports of unannounced visits. One person came home to find a housing officer going through their phone. The report found victims of trafficking being re-traumatised by officers entering their property with keys, without waiting to be let in, as well as threats of repercussions if people complained, and rude and intimidating behaviour.

I seriously question why the Home Office has granted contracts to companies that have very dubious records in other contracts they hold. Only recently, staff of the security firm G4S were found to be abusing detainees at Brook House. The conduct of the staff was disgraceful, but so was the lack of Home Office oversight. What assurance will the Minister give that companies with such terrible records will not continue to be granted asylum accommodation contracts? Will he confirm that when we find appalling practice, we can terminate the contract? Will the Minister agree that councils are much better placed to manage the service? They already manage integration and other public services that asylum seekers would be accessing.

The new contracts are being advertised for 10 years, with no break clause. From a purely practical point of view, that is wrong. Asylum is a volatile and unpredictable area. We need proper accountability and the ability to change contracts that are not working. Will the Minister commit to a review of the new contracts within three years of operation to check whether they are performing well, need reform, or need to be halted?

The Home Office’s aim was to save £140 million through the COMPASS contracts. It seems unlikely that they will achieve those savings. The dispersal system has not worked. Instead, asylum seekers are clustering in some of the most deprived areas of the country, which are already at the sharp end of cuts to local government and are now being asked to absorb the significant extra costs associated with housing and integrating high numbers of asylum seekers and refugees.

The report highlights some success stories. The vulnerable persons resettlement scheme has involved local authorities in designing the process to offer holistic support to refugees and facilitated integration. Will the Minister re-examine the dispersal policy and roll out the resettlement scheme’s approach to all asylum seekers in the UK? Does he agree that privatising that service provided this Government with yet another reason to cut funds from already stretched council budgets? Councils are not being given the opportunity to use such funding to invest in the local area for the benefit of all; instead, it is being used to provide substandard housing to make a profit.

Standards in asylum accommodation are shocking. Nobody should live in a vermin-infested house, or in fear of officers who could arrive at any time. The Home Office’s approach to the issue highlights underlying trends: an inability to deal with its caseload, a lack of transparency and accountability and the pursuit of cost savings above what is best for communities. I encourage the Minister to re-examine that approach and accept the Committee’s recommendations.

[The Minister for Immigration (Brandon Lewis)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson.

Many specific points have been made and questions raised during the course of this debate. I will do my best to cover them, but I will also make a point of going back through the debate, and if there are any points that I do not cover in the next few minutes, I will write to the Chair of the Select Committee to cover them. Although we have quite a lot of time, I want to leave time for the right hon. Lady to respond.

Before responding more generally, I will say that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) seems to have a better grasp of my diary than I do. I do not doubt that I will be in Scotland shortly. I am not sure whether I will be in Glasgow, but I am happy to meet or talk in Glasgow or in London, whichever works.

Many speakers this afternoon have outlined the ethos and the moral position. The Government agree on the overarching principle of how we look after, support, work with and integrate people who gain asylum here. Although we might disagree sometimes on the details, I would like to think that we agree across the House on the principle.

I urge slightly more caution in the comments made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) and the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey). It is dangerous and wholly inappropriate in a debate such as this to confuse asylum with detention for returning people. They are different things, and bringing them together in the way that the Opposition spokesman did is wrong and does a disservice to the position that we take as a country. We try to be clear about how we want to deal with asylum seekers, and I will come to that.

The opening and closing remarks made by the hon. Gentleman on the state of accommodation in asylum were also somewhat misleading. Hon. Members from his own party have said that much of the accommodation is very good. I will come to that point. I do not deny that any property that is not up to the right standard, whether it is social housing or accommodation for asylum seekers, is not acceptable. However, to cast it in the way that he did is simply wrong. Having visited Barry House recently, I disagree with him categorically.

Similarly, I understand the point that the right hon. Gentleman was trying to make about what I always refer to as the compliant environment. Again, it is not helpful to have that in the same conversation, because it does not apply to someone who is gaining asylum. He is right about that. Somebody who is gaining asylum will hopefully play a hugely important part not just in our economy, but in our communities and our society. Much as he described, when I have travelled around the country meeting people who have been resettled, whether they are refugees or people who have gained asylum, I have seen that they play an important part in their local community and are valued by the community. He made a good point about that. I am happy to confirm that the compliant environment is a different thing. It is about people who are here illegally, which is different. Personally, I try to keep them in different conversations, because asylum is different from being here illegally.

[Afzal Khan]

To ensure that things are clear, I am not saying that all accommodation is poor.

[Brandon Lewis]

That is what you said.

[Afzal Khan]

Well, we can check that again. Some of it is appalling. The key point on which I wanted clarification is whether the Minister, in saying asylum and detention are being mixed up, is saying that asylum seekers are never detained.

[Brandon Lewis]

I am saying that confusing the completely unacceptable and abhorrent scenes that we saw in the “Panorama” programme on Brook House with somewhere like Barry House and the work done by organisations around the country on asylum accommodation is simply wrong. It is a mistake to go that way. It gives the wrong impression and confuses two very different things.

Ultimately, the United Kingdom has a proud history of providing an asylum system that should look to protect and respect the fundamental rights of individuals seeking refuge from persecution. I have always been clear that I personally and we as a Government are committed to continuing to ensure that destitute asylum seekers are accommodated in safe, secure and suitable accommodation. They should be treated with dignity while their claims are considered.

Since the current system for asylum accommodation contracts began in 2012, there have been changes. It is important to be aware that the contracts for the provision of housing for asylum seekers demand high standards of accommodation—in many areas, higher than in the social housing sector. I should also be clear that a third of all properties are inspected every year—more than in social housing—and where it is required, appropriate and requested, that is done in conjunction with local authorities, to involve them in the process. It is a requirement that every property be inspected every month by the accommodation provider. We encourage service users to report defects to their provider as they arise.

The contracts also contain strict time limits within which repairs must be made, and we in the Home Office have an inspection monitoring regime to ensure that those time scales are met. The vast majority of accommodation provided has been maintained at a good standard, but as with all housing, property defects and issues can and do occur. Where they do, our providers are required to rectify them. If any hon. Members have examples of where that has not been done, I want to know about them so that we can chase them through the system.

EU Nationals

Afzal Khan Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

The International Trade Secretary told the Tory party conference last year that the Government

“would like to be able to give a reassurance to EU nationals in the UK, but that depends on reciprocation by other countries”.

He said any other strategy

“would be to hand over one of our main cards in the negotiations and doesn’t necessarily make sense at this point”.

That is using the EU nationals here as bargaining chips—that is the Government’s approach. This could have all been resolved quickly if the Government had made a unilateral guarantee of rights, as Labour Members were pushing for, and it would certainly have been reciprocated by the EU. At the start of the negotiations, the EU tabled an offer that opened the doors to a reciprocal arrangement. Had the UK accepted it and worked with the EU on the details, we may have settled the issue by now. But the UK did not take that course and instead has created a climate of uncertainty and confusion. That uncertainty has already led to discrimination against EU citizens.

[Suella Fernandes (Fareham) (Con)]

rose—

[Afzal Khan]

I am going to make some progress, as we have limited time. Labour and the EU citizens’ rights group the3million found more than two dozen examples of job, housing and other adverts that illegally prevented applications from EU nationals. Those adverts have been reviewed by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which has written to a number of the advertisers. How can EU nationals who have been here for decades continue to feel welcome if we allow discrimination of that kind?

Even the Home Office is finding it hard to deal with the confusion. Over the summer, it sent hundreds of letters to EU nationals living in the UK, ordering them to leave the country or face deportation. The letters were intimidating and unsettling, especially given the fact that the recipients were in the UK perfectly legally. Instead of providing assurances from day one, the Government made their own offer on EU citizens’ rights. Their so-called settled status offer has been extensively criticised by the3million. The Government must urgently improve their offer and stop acting as if this settled status is a settled matter.

The problem with settled status is that the Government seem to think that assimilating EU nationals into our existing immigration system is sufficient. That was the vision set out in the leaked Home Office White Paper, but it is not sufficient. The Government will have to realise quickly that both our non-EEA and EEA immigration systems need a total overhaul. Moreover, although this debate focuses on EU nationals in the UK, let us not forget British citizens living in EU27 countries. Despite the pensioner stereotype, some 80% of them are working, often on a cross-border basis. What are the Government doing to secure their right to freedom of movement and the recognition of their professional qualifications? What assurances can the Minister give today that those rights will be guaranteed before we proceed to phase 2 of the negotiations?

Another problem is the attitude of some Government Members, who seem to imply that EU nationals are lucky to be in this country, rather than acknowledging the value they bring and the contribution they make to our economy and communities, particularly our public services and not least the NHS. There are 58,000 EU nationals working in NHS hospitals and community health services in England alone.

[Suella Fernandes]

The Prime Minister has said clearly,

“we want you to stay”

and that we value their commitment. What part of that does the hon. Gentleman not understand?

[Afzal Khan]

It is clear that things are still confusing for everyone. What part of this does the hon. Lady not understand—that we need to give a simple offer so that we can move on?

In total, there are 2.4 million EU migrants working in the UK, and a far greater proportion of them are in work than of the population as a whole. They make a huge contribution. What they desperately need now is certainty before the conclusion of phase 1 of the talks. This is what the hon. Lady needs to understand: we need certainty for EU citizens in the UK, for UK citizens in the EU and for the businesses and communities in which they have built their lives. The Government have provided none, as they are still busy negotiating with themselves.

It seems to be an alien concept to the Government, but citizens have rights. EU nationals came here in good faith when their rights were guaranteed under freedom of movement rules. Rather than guaranteeing those rights, the Government are offering them the opportunity to reapply for them, charging them for the privilege, and then pretending that nothing much has changed. That is transparently false. No wonder the EU negotiators seem to believe that the Government are incompetent. The Opposition value EU nationals; it is high time that the Government did, too, and followed up their warm words with action.

Migration Policy and the Economy

Afzal Khan Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) on securing this debate, and I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. I welcome the Minister to her position, and I look forward to our exchanges. I was an immigrant, but I am an adopted Mancunian and I am here representing Manchester, Gorton.

The Government’s migration policy is not driven by economics. Since 2010, the focus has been on meeting the net migration target, whatever the cost—and there certainly has been a cost. One of the first groups they went after was students. International students contribute £25 billion to our economy. They are also an easy target for reducing migration numbers. Students are the largest group in the net migration figures, and the numbers for that group are easier to control than for other forms of migration. Attempts to reduce international student numbers have worked: 72 British universities have lost more than 43,000 international students over the past five years.

[Mr Harper]

With the greatest respect, the Government have not gone after students at all. There are more international students here. What the Government have done is to tackle colleges that were pretending to educate people who were actually working. We have taken away their sponsor licences. We actually have more genuine students studying here than we did—I welcome that—but it is not right that people come here pretending to be students when they are really working. We have got rid of that abuse.

[Afzal Khan]

I have no problem with stopping abuse, but if the right hon. Gentleman will hear some of my further arguments, what I am trying to say may become clearer.

[Carol Monaghan]

What we have seen in Glasgow is not a drop in the number of international students, but a change in the demographics. Whereas in the past we had students from India, the States, Australia and New Zealand, now the majority of our students come from China. They come and study, and are welcome—we love having them—but they leave immediately after finishing their course. We want them to stay and help improve the economy, but we need the post-study work visa in place for that to happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Afzal Khan]

I thank the hon. Lady for that contribution.

Let me make progress on my point. Those students would have supported about 24,000 jobs and brought £920 million-worth of positive economic impact to those universities and their local economies—50% of the jobs would have been in the local economies and 50% in the universities. International students pay higher fees and subsidise UK higher education spending. Students not only benefit local economies but have a lasting impact on our links with other countries. They increase our soft power abroad: 55 world leaders from 51 countries have studied in the UK.

Research is a major reason why the UK is attractive to investors. International students go on to fuel innovation and research. I am from Manchester, and graphene—a wonder material—was discovered at Manchester University. The two professors who discovered it were migrants. They won Nobel prizes, and we will continue benefiting economically from their discoveries. International students have also been shown to benefit the UK students who study alongside them.

Despite all those benefits, the Government made it more difficult for students to get visas, which discourages them from staying in the UK. The Government have chosen their misguided net migration targets over the benefits students bring to local economies. Their approach to EU nationals is already making skills and labour shortages worse. The NHS, nursing and social care are being hit. Those sectors face a crisis. The Government have used EU citizens as bargaining chips in negotiating with the EU. EU citizens are still waiting for clarity about their rights 18 months after the EU referendum. The number of EU nurses registering to work in the UK dropped by 96% in the year since the Brexit vote, and staff shortages in social care are causing homes across the country to close.

This issue does not just affect the public sector. The Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors and the British Chambers of Commerce have all said that we will need more migrant workers, skilled and unskilled, in the years ahead. Despite the rhetoric that immigration policy will attract the brightest and best, we are losing out on skilled workers. The Government’s distinction between skilled and unskilled workers makes no sense. Apparently, to be a skilled worker, a person must earn at least £35,000 a year, but people in a number of skilled occupations earn less than that, including non-medical nurses, many teachers, language teachers and engineers. Outside London, many people earn less than £35,000. A tech genius in Manchester is likely to earn less than she would in London, but that does not mean she is any less skilled.

The Government asked the Migration Advisory Committee to investigate immigration policy and our economy, but it seems that the Government will publish the immigration Bill before the Committee publishes its advice. What could be a clearer sign that immigration policy is not guided by economics? The Government are already planning to ignore the advice they requested.

When the Government draft the immigration Bill, will they ask businesses what they need, and will they seek input from unions? Will they examine the impact that their own austerity policies have had on access to the NHS, schools, housing and public services? Will they take account of the fact that the Migration Advisory Committee missed the nursing shortage altogether, and that it was the Secretary of State for Health who had to lift the visa restriction for nurses?

Labour has promised fair and reasonable management of migration. We will always put economic prosperity first. We will scrap the meaningless and unworkable migration target, which has never once been met in seven years. The reality is that the target for non-EU migration alone, which the Government are solely in charge of, has never once been met. Labour would not include international students in the immigration numbers. We will work with employers, unions and others to establish our real needs and meet them. We want fairness between EU and non-EU migrants. That means levelling up decent treatment and establishing fair rules. We will crack down on all exploitative employers who deny rights and breach national minimum wage rules. Migrants make a great contribution to this country, to our social and cultural life, and to our economy. Tory rules are an obstacle to maximising those benefits.

Oral Answers to Questions

Afzal Khan Excerpts

Monday 20th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Many of us—if not all of us—will have seen the unacceptable situation on the BBC “Panorama” programme. I met the operator of Brook House several times, including to look at the work that will be done to review what happened as well as to draw up an action plan. I will continue to keep my focus on that matter.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

Last week, the chief inspector of prisons reported that the survivors of torture, rape and trafficking are still being locked up in Yarl’s Wood detention centre. That corroborates what was set out by Stephen Shaw and many others. Why is the Home Office failing to implement the policy for adults at risk in immigration detention and why are vulnerable people still being detained?

[Brandon Lewis]

I can only repeat that we will detain people if we are looking to remove them and if we have a reasonable prospect of removing them. It is an important part of our process.

Unaccompanied Child Refugees: Europe

Afzal Khan Excerpts

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

Let me too start by thanking the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy).

Today’s debate marks one year since the demolition of the Calais Jungle camp. The situation in Calais is a significant crisis that has lasted for many years. Razing the camp has not solved it. The Government stand accused this week of standing back while the position of unaccompanied minors has deteriorated markedly. In the past year, excessive police violence in Calais has intensified. Beatings and tear gas have been used against children. The Refugee Rights Data Project found that 94% of young people “didn’t feel safe” or “didn’t feel safe at all”, with one 19-year-old saying:

“There are no human rights here.”

I welcome the opening of the new temporary accommodation centre in northern France, but what exactly has the UK Government’s involvement been? Will the application process for the new centre, and more generally, be reduced to weeks rather than months or over a year for eligible children? Will the Government provide legal and outreach support to children eligible under Dubs and Dublin III in Calais?

The Labour party fully understands how difficult the Calais crisis has been over many years, but refuses to accept that the Government have so far approached the whole issue with humanity and consistency. The clear evidence for this is the Government’s ending of the Dubs scheme. The Dubs amendment was tabled by Lord Dubs, who was himself saved from the hands of the German Nazi regime. It was passed with the intention of bringing about 3,000 unaccompanied refugee children to Britain. The Government have since announced that they will halt the scheme after accepting just 480. We on the Labour Benches, and many on the Minister’s own side, cannot accept this decision.

The Government have wriggled out of their obligation to accept child refugees, shutting the door on the most vulnerable. The Government said that

“following consultation with local authorities”

they set the number of children to be transferred under the Dubs scheme at 480. However, evidence to the Home Affairs Committee casts serious doubt on that claim. Local authorities suggested that up to 4,000 more places could be made available. We must have more transparency on the issue of local authority capacity. Authorities across the country who might have places must be encouraged to come forward. We understand from refugee charities that a small number of admissions may have occurred in the past two weeks, in which case the point remains that this is too little, given the size of the refugee crisis and the plight and experience of refugee children across Europe. The UN has called for Britain to take 10,000 refugees per year.

The Home Secretary has said a number of times that she wants to avoid the Dubs scheme acting as a pull factor for child migrants or encouraging people traffickers. In fact, the opposite is true. Legal schemes such as Dubs disrupt the activities of people traffickers rather than encourage them. Where legal routes are limited, where children lose faith in systems and trust in officials, they turn to people traffickers or smugglers who exploit them. Unless the push factors, including violence, persecution and conflict which drive children to flee their homes, are resolved children will continue to flee. Will the Minister give an assurance that where it is in the best interests of unaccompanied children, they will be reunited with their families in the UK?

Iraqi refugee Mohammed Hassan died earlier this year hiding in a lorry’s wheel arch on a journey from Calais to Oxford, trying to reach his uncle. The coroner highlighted the fact that UK border agency officials who had detained him only days before could have given him information regarding his right to family reunion under Dublin III. When the Calais camp was demolished, one in six of its inhabitants were children seeking to reach family members; several of those children have since died trying to reach their family. How will the Government ensure that all children in northern France who are eligible for family reunion are able to access safe passage? We must prevent the regrowth of the Jungle and more tragic cases like that of Mohammed Hassan.

There is a great deal to be done in the face of the humanitarian and refugee crisis across the world. We are leaving the EU, but that does not mean we should cease to work together to solve this crisis. The Labour party is clear that Brexit must not be used as an excuse to abandon our legal and moral obligations to refugees. The Government must commit to ensuring that Brexit does not lead to any loss of rights for refugees. Like the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire and my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), I ask the Minister for an assurance that the Dublin III definition of “family” will apply in the UK’s immigration rules post-Brexit.

When refugee children come to the UK, we must ensure that they are treated fairly and that councils have adequate resources to provide them with the support they need. As the Government’s safeguarding strategy mentions, there is a real danger of family placements breaking down and children ending up in social care. Poverty among refugee families is a major cause of breakdown. That can be resolved with small amounts of cash, as the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) described happening in Scotland. That is infinitely cheaper than the alternative of putting a child into care. Will the Minister guarantee that core integration needs are covered for reunited families? Will he meet me and representatives from the Scottish Government and Safe Passage to review best practice?

Britain has a proud tradition of honouring the spirit of international law and moral obligations by taking our fair share of refugees. As the feeling demonstrated in this House today shows, we must not now turn our back on unaccompanied children fleeing war and terror, who are not too far from here—in northern France, in Calais.

English Language Teaching: Refugees

Afzal Khan Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

Let me start, as others did, by thanking the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) for securing this debate and for her powerful points about why this issue is important and about the obstacles that we face.

I also want to acknowledge the many other Members who have contributed to the debate. Everyone seemed to make similar points; we seem to be on the same page. Members mentioned the impact on children of their parents not speaking the language and the importance of language training so that people are not isolated. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) hit the nail on the head when he mentioned the lack of a national strategy. I hope that we will hear a bit more about that.

Speaking English is one of the first and most important steps to integration for a refugee. Apart from the Casey review, the all-party parliamentary group on social integration, the all-party parliamentary group on refugees and a report by Refugee Action have all demonstrated the importance of ESOL courses and the vital need for investment. Learning English is a gateway to work, study and getting to know your neighbours. It is also instrumental to refugees’ mental health, staving off isolation and loneliness. The vast majority of refugees want to learn English and in theory they are eligible for fully funded ESOL classes. However, the reality is not matching up to the theory. As we have heard before, there are long waiting lists—in some cases three years long—and many refugees cannot access the classes they are entitled to.

The Casey review identified some of the difficulties faced by women from minority backgrounds in accessing English language courses. This is another point that has been highlighted. Three quarters of ESOL providers have either no provision for childcare or not enough for the needs of most learners, which disproportionately affects women’s ability to attend classes. The overwhelming message is that is a lack of funding is the biggest issue for ESOL providers. Two thirds of providers told Refugee Action that an increase in Government funding is the one thing that would most improve their ability to provide a high standard and quantity of ESOL classes.

The Conservative Government’s actions have been a classic case of rhetoric not lining up with reality. At the same time as the former Prime Minister was calling for migrants to learn English, the Government were cutting funding for courses. From 2009 to 2016, funding for ESOL classes dropped from £203 million to only £92.5 million: a 60% cut. Where we have seen extra funding, it has been tiny compared with the cuts that ESOL has already faced. The extra £10 million over five years for ESOL provision announced in 2016 was to be used only for Syrian refugees resettled through the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme. While that was welcome, why are the Government seemingly only interested in integrating one group?

When David Cameron announced £20 million for Muslim women to learn English, his announcement had the potential to do more harm than good. By tying language classes for Muslim women to the fight against radicalisation, the Government’s clumsy, simplistic approach managed to stigmatise a whole community rather than encourage integration. It was also of no benefit to refugees. The Government say that they value and promote integration, while at the same time slashing funding to one of the most important branches of it.

What should we do? A Labour Government would make further education courses free at the point of use, including ESOL courses. As we do not have a Labour Government, Members in the Chamber have made a strong case for specific investment in ESOL classes for refugees. As the Minister considers his response to the Casey review, I urge him to invest in ESOL funding for refugees, to ensure that women have equal access to classes, and to let the Government’s actions live up to the rhetoric they have been peddling for years.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

If the Minister would be kind enough to conclude his remarks no later than 5.27 pm, that will give Dame Caroline enough time to sum up the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Afzal Khan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Brandon Lewis]

I will make a little more progress, and then I will give way.

The courses are delivered by local educational institutions, which usually have a contract to do so through the local authority. Refugees are also able to access Jobcentre Plus assistance in obtaining employment, and the employment assessment that follows may determine that the refugee needs additional help with English. As part of assisting those people to become employment-ready, the jobcentre can also refer them to fully funded English language training. Its aim is to meet the needs of refugees seeking employment in our job market, and also of those who are not seeking employment but have an ambition to learn English to participate in the society around them, as was rightly outlined.

There are other sources of available funding for English language training, such as where the local authority feels that migration, whether resulting from more refugees or not, is having a local impact that it wishes to address. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden outlined, the controlling migration fund was set up for that purpose: a £140 million fund with £100 million specifically to help local authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald]

rose—

[Afzal Khan]

rose—

[Brandon Lewis]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, but then I must make progress.

[Afzal Khan]

The Minister talks about best practice. Earlier, he talked about efficiencies, then he talked about looking at doing things differently. We have no objection to that, but how does he explain the longer waiting lists we are seeing? Is a 60% cut what he calls efficiency and doing things differently?

Oral Answers to Questions

Afzal Khan Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

As I said earlier, there is no limit on the number of students. I am not going to predict the outcome post our negotiations but, as I have said to other colleagues, we are working to get a good deal for the United Kingdom and our partners in Europe.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

Applications for international students and other immigration applications cost hundreds of pounds, and errors are common. When the Home Office makes such errors, it puts constituents and citizens in unnecessary distress, but there are no consequences for the Department getting critical decisions wrong time and again. Will the Minister explain where the profits from visa and other visa-related applications are going and how much of the fees received pay for these services? What will he do to improve such a terrible service?

[Mr Speaker]

That was an extremely scholarly academic inquiry to which an extremely pithy response is required—not beyond the competence of a graduate of the University of Buckingham in my constituency, I feel sure.

Acid Attacks

Afzal Khan Excerpts

Monday 17th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman and his constituent. Katie Piper, an acid attack survivor and founder of the Katie Piper Foundation, which supports victims, has said:

“Tougher sentencing would surely act as a deterrent to further attacks”,

and I agree with her. We need greater consistency in sentencing as well.

I hope that the review announced by the Home Secretary will be carried out quickly, because we need urgent action, and I hope that in her response to the debate, the Minister will be able to tell us about the envisaged timescale.

I want to say a little more about the two specific points that I raised earlier. First, carrying acid without good reason should be a criminal offence, as carrying a knife is already. Of course, there are wholly legitimate reasons for obtaining acid, as there are for obtaining a knife, but we do not want people carrying them around the streets.

The Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 has created a minimum custodial sentence for those aged 16 and over convicted of a second or subsequent offence of possession of a knife or offensive weapon. The sentence for an offender aged 18 or above is at least six months imprisonment when convicted, and that for 16 and 17 year olds is a detention order of at least four months. Comparable sentences for possession of acid could combat the apparently growing idea that it is a safe weapon for gang members and others wanting to commit violent crimes.

Secondly, a licence should be required for the purchase of sulphuric acid. Some have complained that that would be an excessive, knee-jerk response, but actually it has been proposed by the British Retail Consortium, whose members have agreed voluntarily to stop selling sulphuric acid products. It points out that, under the Control of Poisons and Explosive Precursor Regulations 2015—which amended the Poisons Act 1972 and were intended to restrict supply of items that could be used to cause an explosion—sulphuric acid is already covered but under the lesser “reportable substance” category. Its proposal is that sulphuric acid should be promoted to the “regulated substance” category so that a licence would be required to purchase it. Regulated substances require an explosives precursors and poisons licence. A member of the public needs to show a valid licence and associated photo identification before making a purchase.

The proposal is supported not only by members of the British Retail Consortium, but by the Association of Convenience Stores, which says:

“We support legislative action under the Explosive Precursors Regulations 2014; for example, reclassifying sulphuric acid from Reportable Substance to Regulated Substance. This will provide retailers clarity and certainty on their obligations for products which contain sulphuric acid.”

It is significant that the shopkeepers themselves are asking for that chance.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

The whole country has rightly been shocked by the recent acid attacks in London and the increased number of such attacks throughout the country. Many constituents have contacted me because they are horrified by what has been happening and feel that action needs to be taken. It is also important that we acknowledge the bravery of Resham Khan and her cousin, Jameel Mukhtar, in coming forward and sharing their experience so that we can discuss it here. I hope that the Minister will listen to both of my right hon. Friend’s suggestions, which I fully support.

[Stephen Timms]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and agree with him on both points. I particularly endorse his point about the revulsion and wave of anxiety created by this spate of attacks. As well as shop sales, the issue of online sales will need to be addressed, including of substances other than sulphuric acid.

Oral Answers to Questions

Afzal Khan Excerpts

Monday 3rd July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister’s recent remarks on the status of EU nationals were too little, too late. The Government have failed to reassure long-standing EU nationals living here and have failed to prevent the brain drain of much needed staff in high-value industries and academia, and of students. Will the Minister clarify the position of EU students studying in the UK who will be part-way through their courses when we leave the EU?

[Brandon Lewis]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position.

This offer applies to all EU residents. If they are in this country and want to take settled status, they will be able to do that. That is an offer that will be open to everybody across the European Union, so in that sense it makes no change to the position of students.