Asylum Seekers: Support and Accommodation

Alex Norris Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir John. I assure hon. Members that I will leave more than just a moment of the time remaining.

I want to start by thanking my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for introducing the debate. I have said this before, but it bears repeating: it is a very difficult job to present a petition in these debates as a member of the Petitions Committee. The Committee member is asked to speak for, in this case, hundreds of thousands of people, some of whose sentiments they share, but not all. Those people all have their different views and different takes, and the Committee member has to bring those voices into the room, although it is a speech in their own name, and to reflect the views of their constituents and their personal experience too. My hon. and learned Friend did an excellent job.

We were all struck—not least because they were mirrored in so many contributions—by the points of my hon. and learned Friend about our nation’s proud history of providing shelter, with his particularly poignant reference to 1914 and his community. The issue is of great interest to the people of Folkestone and Hythe. I, too, thought of our history in this space. I have seen, as all hon. Members have and as a number of them referenced, the British public’s breathtaking capacity for humanity and compassion for those who need it.

My hon. and learned Friend talked, of course, of 1914. We could echo that down the decades, but I think of recent years, too, and the Afghan and Syrian resettlement schemes, Homes for Ukraine and the support for the British national overseas visa. The British people have stepped up for people in need. That is the country that I know and love.

We know that there is anger, however, because people see too often that those who do not have the same degree of need are testing the system because they think it is in their interests to do so, or that there are those seeking to game the system. There is no doubt that that is pulling at public trust. All of us, whatever our political persuasion, see and feel that on the doorsteps and in our mailbags. It serves nobody to say that we do not or to suggest there is not something that the Government of the day need to address.

This is a challenge of public confidence in our asylum system, but that has been turbocharged in recent years by the disreputable act of stopping processing. That created a huge backlog, which means that hotels, which were never part of this nation’s approach to asylum, are now a significant part of it. We must name that as the original sin, but we know what people are saying now: they want order, fairness and humanity in the system. That has been lost in recent years, which is why we see the degree of anger in these petitions, in our mailbags and beyond.

I am going to address the petitioners first, and then cover the important contributions made by hon. Members. On petition 705383 and the suggestion that support for asylum seekers should be stopped, the reality is that doing so overnight would mean that, in many cases—I dare say the vast majority—those people, including children and vulnerable people, would end up living on the street.

That is not the right way to exit hotel accommodation. A better approach is to continue to speed up the processing of asylum claims, so that those who are genuine refugees can be accepted and those who are not can have their claims rejected before being removed. Either way, we will reduce the amount of money being spent on asylum support. I am proud that, under this Government, we are already spending £1 billion less, including £500 million less on hotels. However, I know that the British public want us to go further so that the money can be invested in the British people’s priorities, and rightly so.

That is why we are working so hard to turn around the backlog of tens of thousands, which we inherited, by reforming each stage of the asylum system. We have doubled decision making, as we committed to at the election, and the backlog is already down by some 18%. We are reforming the appeal system entirely. Provisions in the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill will introduce a statutory timeframe for supported accommodation cases, halving the disposal time for such appeals and enabling swifter movement out of hotel accommodation. And for those who have no right to be here, there will be swifter departure from the UK.

We have a statutory obligation to continue to support those whose claims are being considered, in order to prevent destitution. We have tightened the terms and introduced tougher sanctions for those who refuse suitable accommodation without a valid reason. However, we have legal and, I would argue, moral imperatives not to create mass destitution simply by turfing them out with no support.

As a number of colleagues have said today, although it has been lost in our public discourse, it is important to recognise that the individuals we are discussing today do not have access to our welfare system. A frequent refrain from people who engage with me on this issue is that one of their frustrations is that people come here to use our welfare system, but that is not what is happening. We are meeting our obligations to prevent destitution, but that is it.

E-petition 718406 relates directly to hotels. It says explicitly that the Labour party made a commitment at the last election to close those hotels, and it says we ought to do so now that we are in power. We will make good on that pledge, as we said in our manifesto before the election that we would close the hotels during this Parliament. We are committed to that, and that is what we are doing. We will go at the fastest pace we can, which is why we are looking at options with local partners—a number of colleagues have raised that issue, and I will cover it in a little while.

We are also looking at a range of sites, including military sites. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe talked about the work at Napier barracks. When such work is done thoughtfully, in a planned manner with the community and with civil society, it can be a really good model, and we are looking very closely at that work. We are also looking at disused industrial sites.

By processing claims, we are allowing those fleeing persecution to move out of support and rebuild their lives. For those individuals with no right to remain in the UK, we are taking the actions that are needed. We have removed from the UK more than 35,000 people who have no right to be here, which includes a 28% increase in the return of failed asylum seekers.

We are also working upstream—this was a matter of interest to colleagues—to disrupt the criminal gangs that profit from this misery and the dangerous small boat crossings, which are a significant factor behind the trends we have seen. Significantly, we are doing that by boosting funding for the National Crime Agency, so that there is more capacity, and through our innovative international agreements, such as the one with France, to return those with no right to be here.

I now turn to some of the contributions, starting with those from Conservative colleagues. I would argue that it is no coincidence that no Conservative Member of the previous Parliament contributed to today’s debate. I promise that I am the last person to police colleagues’ diaries, as there is nothing worse than saying, “Well, there’s five of ours and eight of yours, so what does that mean?” However, that is a really important point. It was interesting to hear what the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), the Opposition spokesperson, said. As yet, there has been no acceptance or willingness to put a name on why we are in this situation. Instead, there is this rather heroic hope that the British people will believe that, in 14 months, the Conservatives have learned the lessons and now know how to fix a crisis that they created over 14 years. I gently say that that is a heroic expectation.

With characteristic charm, the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) talked about the important impact of the hotel in his community. I cannot give him a date for its closure, but what I can say is that we will not have that hotel open a day longer than is needed. We have made a commitment to an ordered exit from asylum hotels. He talked about challenges in getting information from the Department. I am a new Minister, but I will always endeavour to do my utmost to get him the information he needs. It is the same for all colleagues, because we have an important role.

Multiple times a week, people, including those in positions of responsibility—less often Members of Parliament, but certainly people in local government—feed on those rumours: “I’ve seen this online. What does this mean?”. They create a buzz and a bubble of activity around rumours with no foundation. It is better, and in our interests, for colleagues to have the best information possible so that we can be the leaders we need to be. I know that colleagues would want to do it in that way.

The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) asked about the progress on taking on organised crime. I am pleased to tell him that we have made 350 disruptions of people-smuggling operations, which is a 40% increase on last year. We are serious about going after them, and we will leave no stone unturned in doing so.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

If the hon. Gentleman has been so successful, why is the number of boat crossings up 50% on this time last year? And why are there 3,000 more people in asylum hotels than before he came to office?

[Alex Norris]

The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that these journeys take a very long time, so those are lagging indicators. He also knows that the number of people in hotels currently sits at 32,000, compared with 56,000 in September ’23. The journey is in the right direction. Of course, there are bobbles along the way, but we will deliver on the commitment that we have made.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Yes, the number was 56,000 in 2023, but the previous Government brought it down to 29,500 in June 2024. The reduction that the hon. Gentleman mentions was all under the previous Conservative Government. The number has gone up by 3,000 since he took office.

[Alex Norris]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s heroism in asking for regards and laurels for housing merely 30,000 people in hotels as opposed to 56,000, but I do not think that will wash. The reality is that we will be the ones who end hotel use.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned deterrence. Conservative colleagues cannot really believe that a scheme that sent four volunteers for £700 million formed a meaningful deterrent. We want to have a deterrent, and returns agreements are good deterrents, which is why we innovated one with France. Indeed, the shadow Home Secretary was very keen on them, but was unable to deliver. We delivered it. That is exactly why we proceeded in that way.

The hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) talked about how hotels and the housing waiting lists are dreadful. He talked about how dreadful homelessness is and the pressure on public services. He is going to be very angry when he meets the people who did that. The sad thing is that they are on his Front Bench, not ours. He talked about a future Tory Government, which will remain a long way off until the Conservatives come properly to terms with their legacy in this area and across public services, the economy and beyond.

The hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) talked about how fed up her constituents are. That is a point of agreement with me, but perhaps the end of such agreement. Many people who signed this petition, who may have voted Reform in the previous county council elections or who are thinking about voting Reform in a general election, will be watching this debate. I say to them that I believe her contribution is exactly why they cannot and should not vote for Reform. She said that she agreed with the petitioners. She said that no money should be spent on this cohort of people, and within the next sentence she spent tens of billions of pounds on her solution to the problem. Those are not serious answers.

Similarly, the hon. Lady said that the past offered no solutions. Within 10 minutes, the former leader, and now deputy leader, of her party, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), who is not in his place, contradicted that by asking why we could not just go back to how things were 20 years ago. The reality is that Reform will argue each end of any argument if it thinks that doing so will receive political support. The last thing Reform wants is for the Government of the day to solve this problem. I am afraid that we will disappoint Reform on that, because we are very much going to do so.

The right to work was a major feature of the debate. A number of colleagues talked about that, including my hon. Friends the Members for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) and for Clapham and Brixton Hill (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), and the hon. Members for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan), for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer), for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler) and for Woking (Mr Forster)—I would be a good train announcer, and I suspect it would be quite a journey. I appreciate why there is a degree of enthusiasm for the right to work. As a member of the Labour party, I believe that work gives people dignity and purpose, and it should always make people better off. It is certainly better than being on welfare or, as in this case, in asylum accommodation.

The reality is that this country is already attractive. People take the breathtaking risk, which should never happen, of entering the channel in a precarious small boat because this is an attractive country. The right to work would create greater attraction and greater reason to take that risk, and I cannot support that.

[Carla Denyer]

I have previously asked Home Office Ministers, and staff supporting them, whether they have any evidence for the claim that allowing asylum seekers to work while waiting for a decision would act as a pull factor. That evidence was not provided to me. Can the Minister provide it?

[Alex Norris]

Counterfactual cases can be challenging, but we see that already: it is well reported, well documented and well evidenced that work in the illicit economy already acts as a significant pull factor. That is why, through provisions of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, we are seeking to make that work harder, particularly in the gig economy. We know that the ability merely to work illegally is already attractive; imagine what it would be like if that was a condoned and supported approach. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Woking, talked about timeliness. We do have the backstop that if someone’s claim has been delayed for 12 months and it is not their fault, they will be allowed to work. I have to say I would never want that to be used, because we do not want claims to last that long, but there is at least that backstop.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe and my hon. Friends the Members for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) and for York Outer (Mr Charters) made important points about local authorities. There is absolutely no doubt that the Home Office under the previous Government did not treat local authorities as equal partners, or even as partners at all, in this process. Hon. Members will know that my previous role in the Government was in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. The reality is that local authorities know their communities —they have the most intimate connection to them—and we are committed to better information, better engagement and better work with local authorities. We have made up to £500 million available as a pilot to do as colleagues have suggested: allow local authorities to buy up the stock themselves and keep it. When the demand is not there in the future, that stock could be part of tackling ongoing housing challenges.

That is an important upcoming piece of work, but I want to give a note of caution on dispersed accommodation. Dispersed accommodation will always be part of the solution. It is something that all local authorities provide to some degree, whether for people fleeing domestic abuse, people with substance abuse issues or people with homelessness issues. Dispersed accommodation is a part of all communities, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) said, when certain communities see vast swathes of their streets bought up, it ceases to be dispersed accommodation. I urge colleagues to be very cautious of thinking that that alone could be the panacea. That is why we are looking at bigger sites alongside dispersed accommodation; otherwise, we will merely test the public’s confidence on that point as well, and I do not think that is the right thing to do.

My hon. Friends the Members for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) and for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) also talked about local authorities in the context of exit strategies. Again, I am committed to full engagement and full transparency. It will be done in an orderly way, but it may not be done simultaneously, and of course confidence needs to be built into the process. I can give that assurance.

The hon. Member for Wimbledon and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray), who serve, as I used to, on the Home Affairs Committee, have a very important report coming out. I commit to them that I will look at it very closely. We are concerned about quality, and about profiteering in the sector. As they said, we inherited a 2019 contract that has a break point in 2026 and ends in 2029. We are looking to get the best value. I hope that the work we are doing with local government shows our interest in alternative models. We want to get the very best. I think of the horror stories that my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer talked about—we are very conscious of those. However, Ministers will not hide behind criticism of third parties, if they are acting in delivery of Government policy. It is for us to make sure that those providers are operating in the right way and that, when they are not, the issues are tackled swiftly. That is my commitment.

The hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) asked why there is so much focus on this group, and I will use that as a bridge into a more general point. First, this issue is important because the public are aghast when they see people entering the channel and coming to the country in that way; they lose all confidence the system is orderly. We have to address that if we are going to build any public confidence in the system. I do not refer to the hon. Gentleman in particular in saying this, but for colleagues who believe in the system and want to improve it or make it even more generous, there is a danger in defending a broken status quo. They ought not do so.

[Richard Foord]

I think the Minister is either misunderstanding or mischaracterising my contribution, but will he please comment on the potential return hubs for failed asylum seekers?

[Alex Norris]

I would certainly never seek to mischaracterise the hon. Gentleman. I cannot commit to never misunderstanding him, but I certainly would never mischaracterise him. I understood that he had asked why there is so much focus on this cohort within the wider migration figures. If I am wrong, I apologise without reservation. On return hubs, he will have seen what the Prime Minister said, and that is the Government’s position on that matter.

Any system that involves multiple tens of thousands of people entering the channel and making an incredibly dangerous journey, any system in which tens of thousands of people are living in hotels, any system that leads net migration in this country to reach 900,000, any system in which people must wait and wait for a letter about their future—I have had conversations with people in that situation, and they are often people who have left the most desperate situations—is a broken system. Of course the Government of the day, whether in the borders Bill or the immigration White Paper, will seek to tackle those things. We must not defend a status quo that works for neither the British people nor the individuals who are reliant on it for sanctuary and safety.

This has been a robust and very important debate. I hope that those who signed the petitions in considerable numbers will have had the chance to watch the debate and seen that Parliament has taken their views seriously and had a thoughtful and constructive debate on them. This is a hugely important issue for the Government of the day. We have been working in overdrive since the general election to fix the chronic problems that we inherited. We will keep doing so, and along the way we will end the use of hotels once and for all.

Draft Extradition Act 2003 (Amendment to Designations) Order 2025

Alex Norris Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 General Committees

[The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Extradition Act 2003 (Amendment to Designations) Order 2025.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I take this opportunity to register my solidarity and that of my colleagues with you and your community for what you have been through in recent days. An attack on your community is an attack on all of us, and we stand with you.

[The Chair]

Thank you.

[Alex Norris]

In an increasingly interconnected world, where crime knows no borders, international co-operation that promotes justice and helps keep the British public safe has never been more important. The statutory instrument before the Committee today will enhance our extradition arrangements and bring compatibility between our domestic and international legal frameworks governing extradition co-operation. I shall start by explaining in a little more detail why these changes are being brought at this time and the effect that they will have on our extradition arrangements.

The draft order amends the designation under the Extradition Act 2003 of three states: Chile, Hong Kong and Zimbabwe. Taking those in turn, Chile’s designation is required as it has recently acceded to the 1957 European convention on extradition, of which the UK has been a long-standing supporter. In the light of that change, it is both appropriate and necessary that Chile’s designation be amended from a part 2, category B territory to a part 2, category A territory. The change will mean that Chilean extradition requests will no longer require the provision of prima facie evidence, streamlining co-operation to reflect the underlying international legal framework now in place. It is worth reflecting that this designation is not simply a matter of administrative convenience, but a recognition of Chile’s commitment to international legal standards and a reaffirmation of our own dedication to maintaining robust and principled extradition arrangements. It will enhance the efficiency of our judicial co-operation, reduce unnecessary delays and ensure that justice can be pursued swiftly and fairly.

Turning to the de-designation of Hong Kong, as Members will be aware, the UK suspended its extradition treaty with Hong Kong in July 2020. The move was taken in response to the imposition of national security legislation by the Chinese authorities—legislation that was and remains wholly incompatible with the principles underpinning our extradition framework and the rule of law. Since the suspension, there has been no formal treaty framework in place to underpin extradition co-operation with Hong Kong. The draft order before the Committee today formalises that reality, removing Hong Kong’s designation under the Extradition Act, thereby aligning its status with other non-treaty jurisdictions. I want to be crystal clear about the impact of this legislation. For the avoidance of any doubt, it does not reinstate extradition co-operation between the UK and Hong Kong. It also does not create any new powers for the Government and does not change any powers of UK courts to consider extradition requests.

I am aware of concerns raised by Members across the House, particularly regarding the safety of pro-democracy activists and critics of the Chinese Government who have sought refuge in the UK. I assure the Committee that we take our responsibility towards those potentially at risk of persecution extremely seriously, and that our courts remain independent and vigilant in upholding the rights and freedoms of all individuals. This de-designation is a necessary step to reflect accurately the international legal position in our domestic law. It protects the integrity of our extradition process and safeguards the rights of those Hongkongers in the UK who have fled political repression.

Finally, the draft order de-designates Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe was originally designated as a part 2, category B territory on the basis of its participation in the London scheme for extradition within the Commonwealth, a multilateral treaty arrangement that underpinned co-operation among Commonwealth nations. Zimbabwe, however, formally withdrew from the Commonwealth in 2003, and as such the legal foundation for its designation under the Act has since ceased to exist. De-designation now is therefore not a reflection of any change in our diplomatic posture, but rather a necessary legal correction, given that the current designation is incompatible with the UK’s domestic legal framework and international obligations. Zimbabwe’s continued designation was an oversight spanning many years and multiple Governments, which we seek to put right today.

More broadly, this issue highlights the potential for a country to remain listed under part 2 despite the underlying treaty or arrangement no longer being in force. I can therefore confirm, because I know there will be interest in this, that measures have now been put in place to strengthen co-ordination between policy, legal and operational teams across Government to ensure that designation status accurately reflects the relevant frameworks in a timely manner.

To conclude, extradition is a vital tool in our fight against cross-border crime. Offenders should not be able to escape justice by crossing borders. This order ensures that our system remains principled, effective and fit for purpose. I therefore commend the order to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris]

I am grateful for those constructive and thoughtful comments from colleagues opposite. I share the positivity that the Opposition spokesperson feels around the progress made with Chile. It just shows that these partnerships, built over time, can build an international rules-based order that creates freedoms around the world. That is something we should be very proud of.

I would also like to make it very clear that I strongly share the shadow Minister’s views on Hong Kong, and I hope colleagues will take comfort from what the Security Minister said yesterday about the Government’s resolution to stand with members of the Hong Kong community, who have really catered to our country. They are making a huge impact in Nottingham, as they are across the country, and we are committed to supporting them. We are proud to stand up for the rights of the people of Hong Kong, and we will continue to monitor developments closely.

The shadow Minister asked for assurance on our robust engagement with China and Hong Kong, and I can absolutely give him that commitment. As he said so importantly, I also restate the shared view across multiple Governments, and across the House, that extradition must never be used for political purposes. I think we can have a significant degree of assurance that the systems underpinning extradition in this country will endure whatever the changes of Government or political mood or sentiment. The 2003 Act, which we are amending today, and the European convention provide a sound underpinning that gives an independent judiciary the ability to ensure that individuals have that protection. I hope that reassures the shadow Minister and colleagues.

I had a degree of trepidation when I saw the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston—I also cannot get used to saying that name, as I said Oadby and Wigston so many times.

[Edward Argar]

Charnwood.

[Alex Norris]

Charnwood—gosh, it does seem like a thousand years ago. The right hon. Member for Melton and Syston was an excellent and helpful Minister when I shadowed him during the pandemic, which was an exceptionally important period for our country. I gave him a tricky ride at times, but I did so in good humour, as he always was too. I am grateful that he is yet to repay that debt, although I am sure that is inbound.

It is worth noting the timeliness of the correction on Zimbabwe, which is 22 years out of date. Thinking back to 2003, I had terrible highlights and was dancing to Busted on the campus of the University of Nottingham, and I was not generally thinking that I would be here 22 years later. When we find something like this, it behoves us to scrub to ensure that there is nothing else. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we have done that scrub, and there are no other such anomalies to be tidied up in the future.

To conclude, I want to reiterate that this order does not reflect a change in Government policy towards the countries named, or the extradition system more generally. It seeks to ensure that changes to the international framework are reflected in our domestic law. On that basis, I hope the Committee can support the order.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Norris Excerpts

Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

T4. The Attorney General has claimed that we need the European convention on human rights and the European Court to solve the illegal migration crisis—an extraordinary claim. Will the Minister please explain, therefore, how Australia managed to tackle its migration problems and how the US is managing to implement our Rwanda plan, all outside the European convention that the Attorney General says we need?

[The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Alex Norris)]

The hon. Gentleman heard the Home Secretary’s point on the convention, but it is clear that gimmicks such as Rwanda do not work—£700 million for merely four volunteers to go. What works is effective processing, quick decisions and quick removals. That is what we will get under this Government, and it is what we do not get from those who carp from the Opposition Benches.

[Louise Haigh (Sheffield Heeley) (Lab)]

Earlier this year, 15-year-old Harvey Willgoose was murdered by a fellow pupil when attending school. His murderer has now been convicted and a national child safeguarding review panel set up, but time and time again such panels make the same recommendations and we fail to implement the kind of learnings and culture change that would ensure that another tragedy like this does not happen. Will the Home Secretary reassure Harvey’s family that she will ensure that those panel recommendations are implemented and that we can avoid any family like Harvey’s suffering that same tragedy again?

--- Later in debate ---

[Carolyn Harris (Neath and Swansea East) (Lab)]

Last year, a report by the charity Justice and Care highlighted that a lack of regulation allows unscrupulous business owners to exploit vulnerable people. Nottingham Trent University showed that 90% of hand car wash businesses operate in a way that makes them high risk for forced or compulsory labour. Will the Government consider licensing sectors such as hand car washes to improve compliance and prevent illegal workers and modern slavery?

[Alex Norris]

In the view of the Home Office, the most important safeguard is the right-to-work checks. That is why we will strengthen them under the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill that is making its way through Parliament, but that will have to be underpinned with rigorous enforcement. That is why I am pleased that enforcement visits are up 50% in the past year, as are arrests.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

T8. The 2018 definition of Islamophobia by the all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims said that the debate about rape gangs was a form of “anti-Muslim racism”. Among other alarming things, it said that raising concerns about entryism into government by extremists, which is an established tactic of the Muslim Brotherhood, was Islamophobic. The Home Secretary endorsed that definition. Does she still believe that addressing the religion of rape-gang members or identifying Muslim Brotherhood entryism is Islamophobic, or does she now disown that definition?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the new team and welcome them to the Government Front Bench. A week is a long time, but I had a promise to meet the previous Minister to discuss the immigration system, because one of the challenges that the Home Secretary has inherited is a broken processing system. As one of the Home Office’s largest customers for my constituents, I know where the gaps and the problems are, so I would welcome a meeting with the Minister about that, if the Home Secretary agrees.

[Alex Norris]

I share my hon. Friend’s important interest in that issue. I would never miss a chance to meet her and I would be very glad to do so.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

[Dame Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

I welcome members of the new Government Front Bench team to their places. The previous ministerial team had been clear that they wanted to stop the use of large sites to house asylum seekers, but there has been some indication that that position may have changed. Will the Home Secretary or the Minister clarify the position, and confirm that if they are changing that position, they will learn the lessons of what went wrong previously?

[Alex Norris]

I look forward to working with the right hon. Lady and her Committee in its important work. We have made a significant commitment to the closure of asylum hotels, which is crucial for public conference. It is a matter of record that we are looking at big sites, including Ministry of Defence sites, but we will of course look very closely at the history in this space to ensure that anything that we do is effective and sustained.

[Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the Home Secretary and her team to their places. The Home Secretary will be aware of the recent horrific attack and rape of a Sikh woman in Oldbury, in my constituency, who reportedly had racist abuse directed at her. The case is being treated as a hate crime and a suspect is under arrest. What steps is the Home Secretary taking to support West Midlands police in securing justice in the case, and to address the wider concerns of the Sikh and other ethnic minority communities regarding the increase of racism in the public discourse, which can lead to targeted violence and damage community safety?

Crash-for-cash Insurance Fraud

Alex Norris Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2024 Westminster Hall

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. I frequently get the opportunity to take part in debates that the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) leads in this place, because of his very important work on the Petitions Committee. Today, his leadership of this debate in the interests of his constituents was characteristically thoughtful, particularly when he talked about the advice he would give in these cases. That was a public service contribution that we cannot repeat enough. As the hon. Gentleman said, this is a constantly evolving crime type, and we must evolve our efforts to match it. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate and on his contribution.

Colleagues have set out how important this issue is, and the impact of these scams on victims and the insurance industry. It also impacts on wider local services, including the NHS and the police, which are already stretched at the moment. This is a serious problem. The financial impact of this kind of fraud is significant, with fraudulent claims pushing premiums up for ordinary motorists, as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington mentioned.

It always enriches debates when colleagues bring their own personal experiences into the room. When my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) talked about how she felt, I double-underlined one word she used: “stupid”. There is nothing stupid about it at all. That is how life feels when we engage in good faith with someone who is actually quite a polished and artful scammer, about something that did not happen.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden mentioned the particular vulnerability of mums on the school run, as did the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington. When they are busy protecting loved ones and performing an important function in their life, and then stop to engage with someone who has set out that day to defraud, of course they would end up feeling daft. How do we compete with that level of polish and organisation? It is happening up and down the country every day. I will return later to the points that my hon. Friend made about hotspots, because that is a particularly important part of what we can do to look at solutions in the future.

Insurance fraud is a blight on our society. “Crash for cash” is a catch-all term used, for instance, where people deliberately stage or cause a road traffic collision for the purpose of financial gain. The police describe three different types of crash-for-cash fraud. First, there are staged accidents, when someone makes a claim for an incident that they have deliberately staged with another individual. Secondly, there are ghost accidents, when someone makes a claim for an incident that never occurred. That will not directly impact on our constituents in the same way, because they are not enforced parties to it, but it does impact us through our insurance premiums. We know that this is a regular, routine happening.

Finally, as we have spoken about quite a bit today, there are induced incidents, when someone makes a claim after intentionally causing a collision with an innocent motorist. Hon. Members have mentioned their experiences and those of their constituents, but we have also seen videos of this online. The footage is staggering: people driving their scooter or running in front of a car, creating a collision and throwing themselves to the floor, and then getting up and creating a drama and a scene that they know the innocent party will not want to be part of—certainly not if they have young children in the car. There is a sadness here, because although those filming the incidents are best protected through whatever capabilities they have in the car, I do not really want to live in a society where I must go on the road filming and surveilling what is happening to be protected from people trying to scam me. That is not a world we want to live in, or ought to have to live in.

The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) mentioned taxi drivers. Being off the road or having issues relating to insurance or their licence is significant for them—this is their livelihood—so I can understand why they take the decision to record to protect their businesses. Those who seek to scam are pushing well-meaning, law-abiding citizens into that type of behaviour every day.

We have heard a little from colleagues about how this issue makes people feel, but we cannot stress it enough. It makes them feel that they are no longer safe on the roads or in their communities; every time they are driving, they dread that it may well happen again. Again, that is not how we want people to feel when they are driving their cars.

Driving is important and, by its nature, risky. We do not want people to flinch every time someone moves in front of them or goes around them, thinking they are seeking to create a collision, but that is how people across the country who have fallen victim to these crimes feel. That is notwithstanding the fact that for someone to seek to induce a collision, whether or not they were successful in clipping or skimming, is exceptionally dangerous, as is doing something that makes someone act reflexively, which puts others at risk too. This is a safety issue, as well as being an issue of insurance premiums and cost.

I hope the Minister might be able to tell us something about scale, but I am not sure that the crime statistics on which we would usually rely give us enough detail to identify the number of crash-for-cash offences in insurance-related fraud or to identify the trends. However, the number of crash-for-cash cases investigated by the insurance fraud enforcement department is up 15% since 2021, so there is clearly a behaviour change. The industry itself has made its own estimates.

The IFB estimates that around 170,000 car insurance claims between October 2019 and the end of 2020 were linked to crash-for-cash fraud schemes. That is significant —multiple thousands of incidents every single day. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden mentioned, Allianz reports that the number of accidents has increased by a quarter in 2023. We know that this is happening and that organised fraudsters see it as an attractive type of crime. It is an important issue.

At a time when people are struggling—people up and down the country are still feeling financial challenges—the impact on premiums is significant. Inflation is in the news today, but whatever the rights and wrongs of that conversation, insurance prices in the first quarter of this year are up a third on the first quarter of last year. We always encourage our constituents to shop around, but we know that that is a bill that people are feeling. By its nature, it is a big bill—three and sometimes four-figure sums of money that come in one go—and people are feeling the pressure. It makes a significant contribution. No one should think that this is a victimless crime, because it very much is not; we will all suffer from it. What conversations has the Minister had with the industry about what it can do to combat fraud and to ensure that those costs are not piling up on ordinary motorists?

I have a few points to make to the Minister about what we could be doing on the issue. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden said, the Government’s fraud strategy does not include it. Fraud by its nature is a shape-shifting, ever-changing endeavour by people who seek to profit by doing the wrong thing, so that document by definition has to be a living and breathing one. What can the Minister do to include it? If it is not to be included in the strategy, can he provide an assurance that it is seen as a priority?

The IFB has highlighted the 30 most-challenged postal districts in this regard. If this issue is affecting certain communities, that is a good hotspot policing- type approach that we could take. The issue links back, as so often in these debates, to the fact that there are 10,000 fewer neighbourhood police. We have made our own commitments in that space and will continue to argue for them. This is the type of behaviour that individuals undertake if they think there will never be any accountability, just like retail crime—for example, if someone feels that they can walk in and nick stuff from the meat counter because there is no uniformed presence. Insurance fraud is similar. We need a uniformed presence on streets in areas where we know those crimes are taking place, so that there is that deterrent and sense that the streets are contested and that those who do the right thing are being backed up by the agencies we rely on to support them.

Finally, I know that there is a limit to the things the Minister can say in this space, but the reality—again, this is the same for retail crime—is that organised gangs that operate with sophistication in stealing at a staggering scale in the retail space do not just do retail crime; they do trafficking for sexual exploitation, forced labour, drug dealing and all sorts of organised crime. Breaking one element can help us break all those elements. I wonder whether the Minister might talk a little about the model used by the fraudsters who operate in this space—whether they are stand-alone fraudsters or part of the greater industrial-scale fraud that we see across a variety of different topics. As I say, if we can crack them on this, we can crack them on all sorts of things. It has been a good debate, and I hope the Minister will address some of those points.

British Nationality (Irish Citizens) Bill

Alex Norris Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 26th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of the Opposition. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) on his success in the ballot and on navigating his Bill through Second Reading, Committee and hopefully through these stages very shortly. As we heard in the previous debate, legislating via the private Member’s Bill route is a tricky art and anyone who reaches this stage deserves credit. I know the right hon. Gentleman has spoken at previous stages about his good fortune, and doubtlessly that is part of the process, but I thought when reading those debates that he was selling himself short to some degree. It is no mean feat finding an issue that is compelling and relevant and that support can be built around from across the House. That is part of the alchemy of a private Member’s Bill, and he has passed all those tests with this Bill and deserves full credit for that, because in those elements there is no fortune at all.

As my Front-Bench colleagues have put on the record previously, and as I am pleased to reiterate, Labour supports the Bill. It is a straightforward Bill, but one that I know will be appreciated by many people. Indeed, following the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the process put in place to ensure that those from Northern Ireland who wish to gain Irish citizenship would be able to do so, many would be surprised to learn that reciprocal arrangements are not in place to ensure that Irish citizens have a route to British citizenship if they so wish. We thank the right hon. Member and, as he has done, those who have come before him over not just years but, in this case, four decades. We thank those campaigners for putting this issue on the agenda and pushing for change, as the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) says, using each and every device to push it forward persuasively. That is a real model for an effective campaign.

It is right that long-term residents of Northern Ireland—or the UK as a whole; we should recognise the Government’s wisdom in making that suggestion and change during the process—who are Irish citizens and wish to be recognised as citizens of the UK should have that right. On that central point, I reaffirm Labour’s support for the Bill promoted by the right hon. Member for Belfast East. Again, I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman and the Government for their wisdom in determining that there need not be a citizenship test.

I am a strong believer—I dare say the Minister might say this is not always true because, in Opposition, we love to point out exceptions to rules—in having regimes and structures. We can always come up with special cases to say that this or that should be different, but in most cases we must have a consistent regime. This, however, is a different case. The nature of the relationships between our nations and within our nations means that not exempting those individuals from a citizenship test would be not only, frankly, a waste of time, but in many cases deeply insulting, as the right hon. Gentleman says. That is wise, and again we very much support that.

That leaves only one more point of contention, and that is fees, which the right hon. Gentleman touched on, and I too want to press the Minister a little on this matter. As the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, we know that fees in this area are in the region of a little more than £1,500. That is a significant sum to anybody. I know we are to expect that the issue of fees will be settled separately in regulations, and the right hon. Gentleman acknowledged that too, and will be debated in the usual way by the House. We know that Ministers have engaged on the matter and, again, we welcome that, but I wonder whether the Minister might at least tell us the direction of the Government’s thinking in this regard, because it is significant in pertaining to how the Bill will operate in practice and how accessible the provisions of the Bill will be in future.

Will the Minister set out what further discussions he and his colleagues have had since Committee and whether the Government are working up potentially agreeable solutions particularly to test this basic point of substance, which I think the Government have accepted, that by waiving the citizenship test, the case involving Irish citizens is different to that of citizens of other countries who seek to obtain British citizenship? Again, that is a significant point, but a point of consensus. Does the Minister therefore believe that the same principle could be read across on fees as well? If so, will that give us a sense of what we might expect in regulations?

I am keen to hear from the Minister about the Government’s direction of travel on this issue, and perhaps when they expect to reach their destination and have something public to share about what they intend to do. At this point, I am keen to hear those reflections from the Minister and do not want to detain the House any further, so I will wind up there. I again congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and those who have worked with him for the success of the Bill so far, and I wish him every luck as it proceeds to the other place.

Draft Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment, Surrender and Compensation) Order 2024

Alex Norris Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd April 2024 General Committees

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Rees.

Knife crime is a scourge on our communities. In 2022, we saw the highest number of people killed with a knife for over 70 years, and the biggest increase was among young boys aged 16 to 17. Compared with 2015, total knife crime was up 70%, and that included record levels of knife-enabled rape and threats to kill. Last year, 75% of teenage homicides involved a knife or sharp instrument.

As a result, we are now in a situation where it is thought that more than 200,000 children are vulnerable to serious violence. In 2021-22, a record number of children were victims of crime. Those numbers can blur into one, but behind every one is a family, broken hearts and an empty place at the table at Christmas. Many people do not recover from the trauma of that. It is therefore right that we want to act in this space.

Seemingly frequently, we see horrific attacks and threats by people using such weapons as zombie-style knives and machetes in the media. These weapons trade on their supposed aesthetic appeal and the harm they can inflict. It is chilling to see how these weapons are advertised and, frankly, how easy they are to purchase. Any member of this Committee could have bought one, probably a couple, during the length of the Minister’s speech; that is how available and well advertised they are. The intent to cause serious harm is abundantly clear there.

Campaigners have pushed hard to get the Government to act on this, and I pay tribute to those incredibly brave families who have turned their experience of dreadful personal loss into heroic campaigning. This is their day. It ought to be recognised that this is a ban that has been announced 16 times by the Government in some form or other. It should have been introduced sooner, but it is welcome and we certainly will support it in this Committee. We have long called for such a ban, and we now want to see it as swiftly as possible.

The Minister may be able to help me with a technical point. Like colleagues, perhaps, I always find compensation for the surrender of such weapons to be a jarring concept. However, as they were legal products at the point of purchase, it is probably fair, as well as being in line with the Offensive Weapons Act 2019. Article 5 of the draft order sets the compensation at £10, but the surrender and compensation scheme claim form set out in the schedule states that an individual must be owed

“£30 or over to be eligible for compensation.”

Am I right in my understanding that a person would therefore need to return three items in order to be eligible for compensation? Does the Minister have any concerns that that may impair surrender rates? I wonder what modelling has been done.

I want to put on the record my frustration that this measure appears in secondary rather than primary legislation. The Government consulted on knife crime last year and then set out a welcome series of changes that they intended to implement in response to it. The draft order makes one such change, but there are others; those that require legislation have tended to be contained in the Criminal Justice Bill. A Bill is amendable: hon. Members and Members of the other place have a chance to table amendments to it and debate them at length in a Committee Room on this corridor. Today, however, we have been deprived of that chance and have been given a yes or no question. The answer must be yes, but we still feel that there are gaps, particularly in relation to ninja swords.

Ninja swords are very much in the same spirit as a zombie knife: they are sold and marketed to young people for their aesthetic appeal and their threat. We know that they are being used to cause serious harm; the dreadful case of the murder of Ronan Kanda with a ninja sword in Wolverhampton springs to mind. I always apply the Ronan Kanda test: would the action that the Government are taking have taken that weapon off the street? It would not have, and it still would not. That result is a shortfall. Can the Minister say why ninja swords have not been included in the ban and why the strategy is being implemented in a two-tier way via primary and secondary legislation? We might be missing an opportunity here.

Can the Minister tell us where the Criminal Justice Bill is? It contains hugely significant provisions relating to knife crime and organised crime, and it is the pledged vehicle for the stand-alone offence of violence against retail workers. However, we read online, seemingly every weekend, that perhaps it will not be coming back. Can the Minister confirm that it will?

We need a broader approach to tackling knife crime. Bans like this one are a really good start, but when the Minister talks about the policing approach, he knows as well as I do that there are 10,000 fewer neighbourhood police deterring and detecting on our streets than in 2015. That means that there are weaknesses in our attempts to tackle knife crime. Similarly, education and youth services have been denuded in the past 14 years, which has weakened our approach.

The draft order is welcome, but there is much more to do. I hope that the Minister will address the issues that I have raised and that we can go a little further in the remaining stages of the Criminal Justice Bill, if not today.

Draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Investigative Powers of Prosecutors: Code of Practice) Order 2024 Draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Search, Recovery of Crypto Assets and Investigations: Codes of Practice) Regulations 2024 Draft Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and Terrorism Act 2000 (Certain Information Orders: Code of Practice) Regulations 2024 Draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Code of Practice for Authorised Officers) Orders 2024

Alex Norris Excerpts

Tuesday 16th April 2024 General Committees

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. All four of the instruments before us are about ensuring that the authorities have the tools they need to combat criminals and terrorists in a digital world by giving them the powers they need to investigate, search for and seize crypto assets. As the Minister says, we know that this is a growing, fast-moving and changing area of crime and criminality, and it is vital that the relevant authorities have the powers they need to keep pace.

I will refer to each set of regulations in turn, but let me say at the outset that the Opposition do not intend to oppose them. The principles underpinning the instruments were debated during the passage of the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022 and the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023, and I will not repeat arguments made than. It is important that the authorities have codes of practice in place to guide the use of the new powers, so that we can find the appropriate balance between individual liberty and collective security.

First, under the Proceeds Of Crime Act 2002, there are regulations concerning codes of practice on the investigative powers of prosecutors, the search and recovery of crypto assets, and investigations. The reforms will enable officers to seize crypto assets and other property during the course of an investigation without having first arrested someone for an offence. They will also enable officers to seize crypto asset-related items and enable the courts to better enforce unpaid confiscation orders against a defendant’s crypto assets, which is really important.

Can the Minister clarify whether non-fungible content is included in the phrase crypto asset, which is a well-established term? Non-fungible tokens were not something that interested me, so my position is not a universal one, but they were of some public interest. I know that they hold some value because they are bought and sold, although not in the way they were as recently as a year ago. I am interested to see if they are covered. I think they are, and rightly so. In general, these provisions are an important clarification of authorities’ powers, so that individuals who are subject to those authorities’ investigative powers will have clarity about what they can and cannot do, which must be right.

Secondly, in relation to the POCA 2002 and the Terrorism Act 2000, we have regulations concerning a code of practice for information orders. The regulations deal with new information order powers to support the NCA’s operational strategic analysis of information relevant to money laundering or suspected money laundering and/or terrorist financing or suspected terrorist financing. That seems clear and sensible to us. There are also regulations in relation to the Terrorism Act 2000 concerning a code of practice for authorised officers; again, the clarity there is to be welcomed. There are reforms to the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, again enabling officers to seize and detain crypto assets, so I hope that the Minister will also give clarity around the status of NFTs and non-fungible content in that context.

As we have said previously in debates on these matters, we welcome the Government bringing forward measures on crypto assets. The technology is changing and fast-paced, and so is the usage of criminals in that space. We must have a digital approach, not an analogue approach, to freezing and seizing assets, and this instrument has found the balance.

[Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I want to come in on that particular point, because much attention has been given to terrorist and criminal organisations, but what about individuals? A number of individuals, including some of my constituents, have been defrauded of cryptocurrency, and I am intrigued to see what we can do to support them.

[Alex Norris]

My hon. Friend makes an important intervention. We know of individuals whose lives have been ruined. They may have lost their business or their house because of such transactions. Ensuring that the authorities have the relevant investigative powers to follow these new types of crime is really important. We can have a degree of confidence that these instruments move us forward in that direction.

I have a couple more questions to the Minister to get some reassurance; they follow on neatly from what my hon. Friend said. It is important that we ensure that the relevant authorities have the right powers, and the right capacity, resources, knowledge and experience. There has been a consultation on the codes of practice, but what consultation or conversations has the Minister or his right hon. Friend the Security Minister had with relevant authorities, such as the NCA, about their capacity to deal with this growing threat?

Similarly, on consultation more generally, each of the explanatory memorandums to the instruments has a section 10 on consultation. A consultation clearly has taken place, and it seems to have been a valuable one. It makes note of some of the changes that have happened as a result, which is always a positive, but was there anything in those consultations that the Government were not minded to accept? Can the Minister tell us any of those things? I will not say anything more than that, but hopefully he will be able to address those questions.

Draft Strikes (Minimum Service Levels: Fire and Rescue Services) (England) Regulations 2024

Alex Norris Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2024 General Committees

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Fovargue. I am proud to declare at the outset that I am a lifelong trade unionist and a member of a number of unions, including the GMB and the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers.

Let me start by offering our thanks to our brave firefighters up and down the country. They do dangerous work, they do crucial work, and they help us in our darkest moments, tackling fires, but also the impact of climate change—now more than ever, flooding—as well as doing rescue work, when people are stuck in their cars, and much, much more. There are so many of life’s challenges to which the answer is to call our brave fire and rescue services.

As with any legislation, it is important to contrast the comfort and security in which we sit and do our important work today with, in this case, the dangerous situations that firefighters will be facing right now, whether they are on a motorway or tackling a blaze. We are talking about their terms and conditions and the nature of their work while we sit here, so we ought to have due regard for the different dangers we face at work.

The regulations are the end product of the Government’s failed approach to industrial relations. Under this Government, we have seen a wave of strike action—the most significant in decades. Yet at every stage, rather than seeking to work with our hard-working public sector staff, the Government have refused to get round the negotiating table, thrown in last-minute distractions or failed to show the leadership required to settle these disputes. The Government have failed on the economy and failed on public services, and they are failing on industrial relations.

The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 was billed as a silver bullet to solve all these problems; but there lies the rub. The regulations are not about solving the issues faced by millions of British workers, whether it is those who go into burning buildings, those who keep us safe at night or those who keep the health service functioning, as they did during the pandemic. The regulations are about solving the Government’s problem, such that they do not have to negotiate, because this is a Government more interested in dealing with their own issues than in the daily struggle of the British people. What image does that send to the public? The Government have gone, in a very short period, from clapping public sector workers to threatening to sack them.

The powers in the 2023 Act that allow the Government to bring forward these regulations are a sticking-plaster solution and a distraction from the real issue. The impact of these regulations will be a significant winnowing of the basic rights of tens of thousands of people who work in the most dangerous of environments; and today we are upstairs, out of plain sight. This is a poor set of affairs, designed not to tackle the problem but to solve the Government’s problem.

But the Government cannot legislate their way out of 14 years of failure. That is why Labour opposes attacks on working people’s freedoms. It is why we would repeal the 2023 Act and why we oppose the regulations before us today. No one wants to see the public disrupted by industrial action, least of all the staff themselves—I did not hear that mentioned in the Minister’s contribution. Those staff do not wish to be on strike; they want to be at work, protecting the public.

Also, we all want minimum service standards in our public services, but it is the Government, not our hard-working staff, who have failed us in that regard. That is clear in every aspect of British life. I know that the Minister seeks constructive solutions, but I say that because the failure here is not in the intricacies of trade union legislation: it is in 14 years of failure on the economy, which have left working people facing an economic emergency. It is in a Government who have ground down the resilience of household finances over a decade so that millions are now struggling to make ends meet, and it is the Government who have stretched public services to breaking point with a recruitment and retention crisis across the public sector. We know that is blindingly obvious to the public, but it seems the Government cannot see it. Instead, they choose today to attack the rights of working people, undermine their terms and conditions and devalue their contribution to the country. The regulations will have a practical impact, but they will not achieve what the Government seek.

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Gentleman says that there is a recruitment and retention crisis, yet we have record numbers of police officers—149,566 last March, as I may have mentioned previously. We also have record numbers of doctors and nurses; indeed, today the NHS has about 60,000 more staff than it did a year ago. We have record police, doctors and nurses. That is hardly a recruitment and retention crisis, is it?

[Alex Norris]

I am grateful for that intervention, because therein lies the difference between the Government’s position and our position. We think that public sector services are distressed and morale is really poor in the police; I would be staggered if the Minister did not really know that. He knows the attrition rate, particularly among young officers. He knows the pressures in the health service. He knows the struggle that we have to hire social care staff.

[Chris Philp]

We are getting a bit off topic, so I do not want to stretch your patience, Ms Fovargue, but the hon. Gentleman mentioned the attrition rate, which is about 6% overall for the police. Half of that is to do with when people reach the 30-year retirement level. Only 3%, roughly, is early exit prior to the retirement date, which, in comparison with most sectors, is extremely low.

[Alex Norris]

The Minister and I are bound basically in one long-running, important conversation. The Minister’s proposition is that the public have never had it so good on policing and community safety. My position is that—

[The Chair]

Order. We need to stick within the scope of the regulations.

[Alex Norris]

I apologise, Ms Fovargue. I will get back to my argument.

The practical impact of this statutory instrument will be to poison relations between management and staff at a time when we need constructive working relationships. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston said, constructive working relationships have existed between fire and rescue services and trade unions for many years.

The FBU has always negotiated major incident agreements with employers before national strikes. That relationship works. The Strikes (Minimum Services Levels) Act 2023 was a response to an unprecedented—certainly in my adult memory—wave of industrial action. However, that has not happened in fire, because the collective bargaining process has worked. At a time when strikes are commonplace, that has been the one place where there have not been strikes. There has not been a strike on pay in fire and rescue services for 20 years. Why are the Government meddling with a set of arrangements that work well?

I will return to the regulations themselves. I appreciate the Minister’s detail on how the requirement for 73% of appliances to be deployable on a non-strike day, as formulated by the Government, was reached. He must understand, though, that there is deep concern about that proportion. Is there a commitment that it will be kept under review? The calculations as he explained them are one way of doing it, but they are in no way the definitive one.

Similarly, the Minister said that we are in a weaker position than before. I must say, I thought it was brave of him to say that the Government have so ridden down our armed forces that now they can no longer help us in contingency and emergency. That is a significant point, because we know that there have been times, particularly in the summer and around wildfires, where in parts of the country our fire and rescue services were right on the brink. In that situation, normally we would expect to fall back on support from the armed forces. Is the Minister now saying that, due to a lack of investment, that will not be available to us? That is a significant point indeed.

The Minister discussed the appliances in scope with regard to the 73%, but I did not hear whether that is a raw calculation per unit, such that any vehicle is considered the same and 73% of them must be on the road, or whether that is weighted in any way with regard to what the different vehicles and units can do. I suspect that the answer to that will be, “That is to be decided locally.” That is part of the problem for the Minister. He said at the outset that the consultation found that the majority of fire and rescue services wanted clarity. That does not surprise me—that is not an uncommon consultation response—but the problem is that the Government have failed on their own terms in that regard, because we have heard the Minister say on multiple occasions that this statutory instrument sets the environment, but what that means must be agreed locally.

For example, it is reasonable to say that the Government ought to take a view on the level of control room service they consider to be of the same standard as on a non-strike day, if they are going to legislate for that, but instead we are told that that will be decided locally. That is a failure on the Government’s own terms. To follow that through to its logical conclusion, is the Minister saying that any given fire and rescue service could say that they believe the acceptable level in their control room locally is 100% of what the level would have been on a non-strike day? The Minister says that this is not meant to be a ban on striking, but in that case it would be, and that would be decided not in this place but in local arrangements. That would have catastrophic impacts on relationships locally.

More than three quarters of the staff who work in control rooms are women. The equality impact assessment quickly brushes over that point, saying that that is not a material consideration; I am surprised and would like to hear from the Minister why he believes that.

On local negotiation and agreement, will the Minister confirm not only that there will not be an obligation—certainly not in law, because I do not believe this is on the face of the regulations—for fire and rescue services to issue work notices, but that nor will there be an attempt, certainly while he is in his role, to compel fire and rescue services to issue work notices, and that we would expect them to work locally first, in ways that have already shown to positive, rather than using what is clearly a blunt tool?

To conclude, we have a Government who are incapable of providing even the most minimal level of service to the public. They have wrecked the economy and hammered public services. They now want to compound those woes by taking basic rights at work away from a group of people who do the most dangerous job going—people who have shown time and again that they will negotiate constructively and in good faith. This legislation is their reward for that. It is dismal

It comes back to the basic debate between the Minister and me. The Government are asking the British people to take a side: are they with the Government and their analysis of the world, or do they stand with our firefighters, our doctors and our nurses? I know which side I am on, so I will vote against the regulations and I encourage all colleagues to do the same.

Draft South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority (Election of Mayor and Transfer of Police and Crime Commissioner Functions) Order 2024

Alex Norris Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2024 General Committees

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Dowd. It is vital that we have an effective arrangement for the leadership of police and crime commissioners. The leaders are the voice of the local community and the link to the community. They are at the core of the important work ahead in restoring public confidence in policing. It is safe to say that police and crime commissioner roles are not always well understood or even to some degree valued, even perhaps by this place. That is wrong. They are crucial roles and we should give thanks to those who fill them and who stand for election.

What we encounter with this instrument, and in general in our regional policy, is an asymmetric devolved settlement: for every community, there seems to be a different configuration of the powers held locally. How leaders are selected to exercise those powers is different as well. That makes for a very complicated landscape that does not often serve the public’s engagement in the political process. Explaining our devolved settlement to a dispassionate observer is very difficult. Why would certain things be the case in the City of London, the Liverpool city region or, in my case, Nottingham? There are three very different models in three not so different places. However, we work with the world that we have rather than the one we might wish to have.

One way of creating greater simplicity and coherence in decision making is for elected Mayors to hold the powers and office of police and crime commissioner. Our belief is that such important governance decisions should be in the gift of local communities rather than Westminster. We have seen too much top-down imposition of local structures. That does not serve democracy or buy-in in local communities. The Minister said that there is local political consensus in South Yorkshire on the transfer of PCC powers to the South Yorkshire Mayor, so we do not oppose this instrument.

I led for the Opposition—in fact, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East sat in the Whip’s seat then, as well—during the passage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. The order is in line with section 33, which allows for the transfer of the powers of the police and crime commissioner to the elected Mayor provided that there is coterminosity of the two footprints.

It is interesting to hear the Minister talk of the Government’s belief that the combined model, with the powers of the PCC resting with the elected Mayor, is in and of itself an advantageous model. That case was clearly made and that is a problem for us going forward, as huge parts of England will be locked out of being able to do that. My own community is entering into an arrangement for what is called the East Midlands Mayor—in reality, one for Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire—in May, and we cannot do the thing that the Minister says is most optimal. I am not sure that I wholly agree with him that it is, but in the Government’s eyes it is the most optimal arrangement. We cannot have that, because we do not have coterminosity. There is a challenge there, because we are essentially saying that we have baked into the system that some communities can have more effective arrangements than others.

[Alexander Stafford]

My understanding is that Labour supports the order and the transfer of police and crime commissioner powers to the Mayor. Can the hon. Gentleman explain why the West Midlands, with a Labour police and crime commissioner, is judicially reviewing the Government to try to stop the same powers being transferred to that Mayor? It does not make sense.

[Alex Norris]

It does make sense. I will make it very clear why I think that is different—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman can laugh, but he ought to at least hear me out—he is welcome to laugh afterwards.

As I said, I led for the Opposition on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which introduces these powers. I tried to amend the relevant clause and voted against it—the hon. Gentleman, of course, voted for the clause in the Commons, as did other South Yorkshire colleagues. We do not have that in common: I wanted to amend the Bill so that there was a lock on the provision and an elected Mayor could not, essentially, take out another political office for themselves without consent from anyone other than the Secretary of State. My amendment said that there ought to be unanimity among the constituent councils of the combined authority. That test is passed in South Yorkshire and not in the West Midlands. That is the reason for my party’s different approach.

As I say, the hon. Member for Rother Valley voted for these provisions. The moment he cast that vote, he must have known that they could operate in South Yorkshire. I find it difficult to see how he can say that this is in some way unacceptable.

[Alexander Stafford]

One of the reasons why I oppose the order is that, of the 3,000 people who responded to the public consultation, 65% of people were against. If we have learned nothing else from Brexit, it is that we should listen to the voice of the people. The people of South Yorkshire said no.

[Alex Norris]

The hon. Gentleman will have the chance to make that case. As I say, if he and enough of his colleagues had supported my proposal, there would have been a safeguard that protected local voices—[Interruption.] He is not listening to what I am saying, so I am not sure why I have replied.

I did not propose to amend the provision because I thought that Mayors could not exercise PCC functions effectively—in fact, we know that they can, and colleagues in West Yorkshire show that very well—but because I do not think that important decisions about local democracy should be in the gift of an individual. As I say, I do not think, in relation to the counterpart instrument governing the West Midlands, that politicians of one party ought to be able unilaterally to dissolve a political opponent’s role and absorb their powers. That issue was debated at length and sadly the Government did not agree.

A combined authority lock on the power would have put us in more satisfactory circumstances. The Government were not minded to accept it. The Minister might want to contradict me—of course I will accept that—but I fear that the Government’s approach to the provision in that Act that leads us here today was born of a preoccupation with the West Midlands. As a result, the system was designed around a particular case rather than the effectiveness of the legislation.

There is an eccentric typo in paragraph 7.2 of the explanatory memorandum that is perhaps a little revealing. It states:

“It is Government’s view that the exercise of PCC functions by the Mayor of the West Midlands has the potential to realise a more collaborative, holistic approach to public safety in South Yorkshire”.

That is a bold claim, but it possibly tells us where the Government’s mind really is. Nevertheless, that is not a reason to oppose this statutory instrument.

The instrument will end the stand-alone role of PCC for South Yorkshire. I want to put on the record our thanks to Commissioner Dr Alan Billings. He has served Sheffield and South Yorkshire for decades—as the police and crime commissioner and as deputy leader of Sheffield City Council, as well as by filling a huge range of non-elected roles for the Government, through the Department for Education, the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, and outside Government, with the national lottery and much more. That has been a political career of extraordinary commitment to his community. We are very grateful for all he has done and we look forward to seeing the contribution that he makes in the future.

I will conclude by saying that there is much to be concerned about with regard to the Government’s approach to local democracy, and it is right that we in this place seek to hold high standards in this regard, but clearly there is local political support in South Yorkshire, and that is where the determination should be made. Therefore we do not oppose this order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

First of all, Mayors with a very high profile—particularly Andy Burnham and Sadiq Khan—do exercise PCC powers. Andy Street has asked for the PCC powers in the West Midlands. He believes, I think rightly, that exercising those powers will enable him to do a better job. We agree with Andy Street.

[Alex Norris]

The Minister again makes the case that those structures are better in and of themselves. Our view is that that should be for local determination. However, if that is true in the Minister’s view, what does that mean for those communities that can never have that structure, and the calibre of their leadership and decision making?

[Chris Philp]

We are trying to implement those structures where there is coterminosity. That is not physically possible in all places. For example, the shadow Minister mentioned the proposed combined authority across Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire. At the moment, those are two separate police forces. Unless the police forces are merged, it is impossible to do that. We cannot have the same solution across the whole country unless we start merging police forces or changing police force boundaries. We can do the best possible given the current boundaries. If Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire want to come forward and propose a merger of their police forces, obviously they are free to do that.

[Alex Norris]

indicated dissent.

[Chris Philp]

The shadow Minister is shaking his head. I suspect there would be a lot of local opposition to doing that. It is impossible to have the combined Mayor of the east midlands exercising PCC powers, because there are two different police forces. We just physically cannot do it there, but we can do it in other places. Just because we cannot do it everywhere—

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Norris Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

With incidents up by 70% since 2015, the public are looking for leadership on knife crime. Earlier this month, the Government would not support our plan, which includes broadening the ban on zombie knives to include ninja swords; an end-to-end review of online sales; and criminal penalties for tech execs who allow their platform to be used for illicit sales. The Government rejected our plan, but what they have in place simply is not working, so we will push again during the remaining stages of the Criminal Justice Bill. Will they accept it then?

[Chris Philp]

The shadow Minister should be aware that according to the crime survey of England and Wales —the only reliable long-term indicator for volume crime trends, according to the Office for National Statistics—violent crime is down by 51% since 2010. He asked about online knife sales. He should be aware that when the Online Safety Act 2023 is fully in force, very strong action will be taken, for example against online marketplaces, and the illegal sale of knives online will become a priority offence under schedule 7. He will also know that we are bringing forward legislation to ban a range of machetes and zombie-style knives. We define them in relation to the features they have. For example, knives over 7 inches in length with two cutting edges and serrations will be banned. Those are just some of the measures we are taking, all of which have helped to bring down violent crime by 51% since 2010.