Detention of Vulnerable Persons

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Anne McLaughlin]

I echo that call and hope that the Minister will respond to it. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) has fought long and hard for this woman who is fortunate to have her, but so unfortunate to be in the situation she is in—it is so wrong.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Anne McLaughlin]

I’m very popular today!

[Mr Smith]

The hon. Lady is being very generous. I congratulate her on the debate and agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) has just said. On medical conditions, does the hon. Lady agree that the issue is not simply mental health conditions? I would cite the example that I was told about of someone with an urgent arthritic condition, who, rather than being given medical treatment in Campsfield House IRC, was put on a bus to central Oxford, where a taxi driver who spoke his language got him to Asylum Welcome, and an ambulance had to be called. Do we not need urgent re-evaluation and attention to the medical guidance?

[Anne McLaughlin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Bill

Andrew Smith Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 16th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Dr Whiteford]

I agree entirely that this is an extremely urgent issue. Nobody can use the excuse of parliamentary time any more, given the way that business has been collapsing in recent weeks. There is plenty of parliamentary time; what we need is political will. I hope that my Bill will be a step along that road and give us the opportunity to examine this in more detail and to push the Government to follow up their words with actions. They have said consistently that they want and intend to ratify the convention, but we have reached a hiatus, the process has stalled and the convention has now been languishing on the backburner for over four and a half years, which is far longer than Council of Europe conventions usually take to ratify. The Bill is an attempt to shift the logjam and give the Government the impetus they need to take the final steps to bring the UK into compliance.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Lady on her Bill. This is a vital matter. What does she think is holding the Government back from ratifying the convention?

[Dr Whiteford]

I have some theories, and I hope to come to those in due course, but at the end of the day a lack of political will holds these things back. The fact that so many Members are here on the Friday before we break for Christmas shows that many people recognise how critical this is.

As Members will see, this is a short and straightforward Bill that would require the Government to provide a clear timetable for ratification within four weeks of Royal Assent and require the Home Secretary to come to Parliament annually to report on our compliance with the convention. This would afford Members across the House better opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s record and plans for tackling violence against women. Ratification needs to be more than a tick-box exercise. It is a challenge for us all, as legislators and policymakers, to make sure that it works in practice to improve women’s lives. Strengthening parliamentary accountability would also improve our compliance with article 70 of the convention.

I want to turn to those areas where the UK is not yet fully compliant with the convention. The main sticking point appears to be article 44, which makes provision for countries to establish jurisdiction over an offence committed by one of their nationals outwith their territory. I am told by learned friends that extraterritorial jurisdiction can be a tricky legal area—parliamentary Clerks and civil servants visibly blanch when those magic words are spoken—but the UK already exercises extraterritorial jurisdiction in relation to dozens of serious offences in a wide range of areas, including in several relevant to the convention, such as forced marriage, trafficking, female genital mutilation and sexual offences against children. There are still a number of offences, however, including rape, sexual assault and domestic abuse, where it does not yet apply and where compliance would require changes to domestic law.

Moreover, some of those offences relate to areas of devolved responsibility in Scotland and Northern Ireland, so UK Ministers would need to work with Ministers in Holyrood and Stormont to secure the necessary legislative changes in the Scottish Parliament and Northern Irish Assembly, or agree legislative consent motions. I am pleased to say that the Scottish Government have signalled their willingness to push this forward, and I have been heartened by the support for the convention and my Bill from Northern Irish MPs across the political spectrum.

I want us to be clear about the difference that ratification would make and why it matters. A few weeks ago, the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) raised in Prime Minister’s Question Time the case of a constituent of his who—it is alleged—was raped by another British national outside the UK. If we had already ratified the Istanbul convention and integrated the provisions in article 44 into domestic legislation, the authorities here could have investigated and prosecuted that crime, and crimes like it.

Another example is that the women’s organisation the Southall Black Sisters has been working tirelessly to highlight the circumstances surrounding the death of Seeta Kaur, a UK citizen whose family believe was the victim of a so-called honour killing in India. The UK already has extraterritorial jurisdiction over the crime of murder, but the contested circumstances of Seeta’s death have made it difficult for her family to get the police here involved, even though they claim there is evidence that a serious crime was planned in the UK. Again, ratification of the convention would strengthen the law to provide unambiguous protection for those at risk of honour-based violence.

The Istanbul convention would offer significantly enhanced protection to women who spend time working overseas and those who work for airlines or on cruise ships. Many women travel abroad in the course of their professional lives, but if, for example, a colleague sexually assaults or rapes them in a country where the law is weak, they may have little or no redress. Workplace harassment policies are not designed to deal with criminal violence, nor should they be. We need to give our police and our courts the authority to hold UK nationals and habitual residents accountable for behaviour abroad that would constitute a serious crime at home.

We already exercise these powers in relation to child sex offences, but not sexual offences against adult women. We exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction in relation to terrorist offences, but not to those terrorised behind closed doors. It is important that we send a strong signal that crimes such as rape, sexual assault and domestic abuse committed by UK nationals will be taken seriously wherever they occur in the world. The key point is that the very existence of extraterritorial jurisdiction and the possibility of sanction will act as a powerful deterrent and help end the impunity with which some of the most violent perpetrators evade justice. These people should have nowhere to hide.

The Government need to take the Istanbul convention out of the bottom drawer, where it has been filed for far too long in a pile marked “too complicated, too difficult, too low a priority,” and we need to work together, across the House, across Departments and across the devolved Administrations to move things forward.

Immigration Rules (International Students)

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Nicky Morgan]

The right hon. Gentleman is an old hand in the House. He knows he is tempting me down paths that are always dangerous for former Ministers to follow. I will say that this former Secretary of State for Education was very much in favour of making sure that our higher education institutions were open to international students, because we are at our best when we are outward looking. It is fair to say that there were certainly other Ministers who very much shared that view.

I hope the Minister will confirm that the Government are relying on reliable numbers when drafting their immigration policy. The annual population survey suggests that only around 30,000 to 40,000 non-EU migrants who previously came as students are still in the UK after five years. The rules introduced by the Home Office over the past six years have done the right thing in cracking down on abuses by those who came here for the wrong reason—not to study but to work without the requisite permission. However, we have to be careful that the rules do not adversely affect genuine students and institutions, and do not undermine the UK’s reputation as a desirable destination for international students.

I will also talk about public opinion, because it is important in the current immigration debate. We know that many of our constituents want immigration to be controlled. I think that means that we should know who is coming in, how long they are coming in for, why they are coming in and at what point, if any, they are going to be leaving, or whether we are going to get the benefit of their skills once they have finished their studies.

Recent polling from Universities UK and ComRes revealed that only 24% of British adults think of international students as immigrants. Of those who expressed a view in the poll, 75% said they would like to see the same number or more international students in the UK, which increased to 87% once information on the economic benefits of international students was provided. The poll also revealed that the over- whelming majority of the British public—91%—think that international students should be able to stay and work in the UK for a period of time after they have completed their studies.

In the interests of time, I will move on to my second point about the benefits that universities bring to our local communities, which the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East set out very well. Of course, as I am constantly reminded by Loughborough, we should not forget that our universities are not just about teaching, although that is important, but about research and driving economic growth in our local areas. All three Leicestershire universities that I have mentioned are key parts of our local enterprise partnerships and, I suspect, should be key parts of the Government’s industrial strategy when that is announced.

The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East talked about the contribution that universities make to our local areas. The international education sector is one of the UK’s biggest services exports, and I hope that the Department for Exiting the European Union listens very closely to what universities and higher education have to say on the deal that we will eventually negotiate with the European Union. UK education exports are estimated to be worth approximately £17.5 billion to the UK economy. International students, including EU students, support 170,000 full-time equivalent jobs across the UK and contribute £9 billion.

Those are big numbers but, if we boil it down, I know as a local Member of Parliament that my constituents are employed as researchers and academics, but also in less skilled jobs—the people who make the campus the place it is, who look after the students and who run businesses and other institutions, such as retailers, that rely on the student contribution to their local economy.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Lady agree that the contribution that EU students make is absolutely crucial and, as we approach Brexit, a particular signal of reassurance has to be given? There is already evidence that researchers and students are apprehensive about their future in the UK, post-Brexit.

[Nicky Morgan]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) who asked the Prime Minister a very good question earlier. I have said publicly and will say again that the Government should be giving confirmation to EU citizens who are currently here that they can stay and should have no fear of being asked to leave. My constituents have emailed me—some of whom are EU citizens who have come here to work; some of whom are married to or have other family members who are EU citizens—and I think it is wrong that we are leaving them with this uncertainty.

I very much hope that student numbers will be removed from the drive to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands, for the reason I have given about public opinion, as well as because it is the right thing to do for our economy. In the next couple of years, the Home Office has the opportunity to develop a new, post-Brexit immigration policy. I know that will be a challenge, but there is also an opportunity to remove student numbers from that drive to reduce net migration to the tens of thousands, as we develop a sensible immigration policy that works for this country, for businesses, for communities and for our higher education institutions. Again, I congratulate the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East on bringing the debate to the Chamber.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) on securing this debate. I apologise if I have to leave before the end—I will be a Teller at the end of the debate in the main Chamber—but hopefully that will not be necessary. I do not want to speak for long; I just want to make a few short remarks urging the Government to listen to our universities and to ensure that international students continue to feel welcome in the UK. Following the vote to leave the EU and the Government’s rhetoric on visa restrictions, there is a real and justifiable worry about the future of international students in the UK.

As a Manchester MP, I am proud that we have a university where one in five students is from overseas, many of whom live in my constituency. Ahead of this debate, the University of Manchester was keen to impress on me the great contribution that international students make to the wealth and cultural life of our city. The figures are varied, but I think we can all agree that international students generate more than £9 billion to the UK economy and at least 140,000 jobs. An international student who studies in Britain is an investment in the future of UK research and innovation. According to the British Council, 45% of early career researchers are from overseas. These are some of the people who become our international academic staff, who help to maintain our world-beating reputation for higher education.

At the same time, demand from international students on our public services is relatively limited. Non-EU students have no access to benefits and students generally are far younger and healthier than the population as a whole.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

Going back to the statistics that my hon. Friend mentioned, the proportion of overseas students at post-doctoral level in disciplines such as science and engineering exceeds 70%, so if the income and the expertise they bring were to go, there would be a real risk that those departments, or parts of them, would close.

[Jeff Smith]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point; that is a real risk. When we talk about immigration numbers, the public recognise the value of international students. They do not consider international students as immigrants. It is not often that I agree wholeheartedly with the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), but she was absolutely right to quote the Universities UK study. Clearly, the British public think that international students should be able to stay and work for a period after studying, so the Home Secretary’s comments about new restrictions on overseas students are a real worry, particularly at a time when there is already uncertainty as a result of the referendum.

Leaving the EU will pose a real threat to our universities and students. Although I welcome the short-term funding guarantees for EU students and staff, there needs to be a longer-term solution, and the Government have to prioritise the free arrangements for the academic community in the upcoming negotiations because the indecision is already causing problems. I was talking to an academic, an EU national, who works at the University of Manchester. He said to me, “I love living in Manchester. I love my job. I don’t want to move abroad, but I don’t know what the future holds.” He had been offered a job at a German university. He said, “For the first time in my life I am considering leaving the job I love in Manchester because I can be more certain of my future in Germany.” That is a real concern for the academic community and for us in the UK, because we cannot afford to lose talent.

Prioritising the post-Brexit study arrangements for EU students and academics has to be a vital first step. However, at a time when the Government need to reassure the higher education sector that the UK will remain outward-looking, they appear to be pulling up the drawbridge on international students. The focus on bringing net migration down to the tens of thousands may or may not be workable. I suspect it is unworkable, and it is certainly damaging our universities while students are included in that number.

The IPPR has argued that the Government are treating students as an easy target in their mission to bring net migration down. It has called the Government’s approach “deeply problematic”. We need only look at some of our international competitors to see what they are doing in contrast. I will give two examples. In April, Australia announced a new national strategy for expanding its international education sector and has streamlined its visa processes. Canada has recently expanded opportunities for international students to access post-study work and permanent residency. It is time the Government learnt the lessons from our competitors and welcomed international students instead of putting extra visa restrictions on them.

I want to close with three or four asks for what the Government should do immediately to reassure our higher education sector.

Immigration Detention

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow such powerful speeches. The hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) makes a very good point about due process, which is why increased judicial oversight is one of the recommendations of the report. There is a lot of concern about the issue in my constituency, especially with Campsfield being so close. That concern is felt by people of all parties and none. It is encouraging and heartening how broadly concern is being expressed today across the House.

We owe a vote of thanks to those who served on the panel and produced this excellent report. I wholeheartedly endorse its recommendations. It is worth underlining that the panel members came from across the parties and included a former Cabinet Minister, a Law Lord and an independent inspector of prisons. I hope that from this report comes the momentum for real change. As the report says, piecemeal tinkering with the system is not enough. The Shaw review is very welcome. However, by specifically excluding the decision to detain within its terms of reference, the Government are seeking to avoid the most important question.

The truth is that immigration detention simply is not working. The report concludes, and I agree, that the detention system is “inefficient, expensive and unjust”, so real change, not least the introduction of a time limit, is essential. I hope that following this debate the Government will commit to forming a working group to implement this and other recommendations of the inquiry.

It is clear that immigration detention is used too frequently. The Home Office is detaining more people than ever, with 32,053 people entering detention in the year ending June 2015, an increase of 10% on last year. There is general agreement across the House that detention for administrative purposes should be used only in rare circumstances when it is absolutely necessary, but that is not happening. Figures from 2013 show that the UK detained 30,418 people that year while Germany detained 4,309 people, Belgium detained 6,285 and Sweden detained 2,893. As has already been pointed out, Germany received four times as many asylum applications as the UK in that time. That shows that there are workable alternatives to detention.

A high percentage of those detained in this country are released, receive temporary admission or are granted bail—49% in the most recent relevant immigration statistics. That must raise the question why they were detained in the first place. Furthermore, as has already been said, immigration detention is expensive. In 2013-14 the annual cost of running the immigration detention estate was £164.4 million. There are cheaper community-based alternatives available, and there are certainly better uses for the money.

Most importantly, indefinite detention is unjust, which is why the Labour party committed to ending it in our manifesto. People are being detained for far too long. The most recent immigration statistics show that 187 people had been in detention for a year or longer and 29 had been in detention for two years or longer in the year ending June 2015. That is totally unacceptable. A time limit should be imposed. The 28-day limit suggested in the report, which would bring the UK into line with others in Europe, seems sensible. Of course, we need to ensure that that does not become an automatic period of detention, but the alternative of no time limit at all is simply not working and cannot continue.

Many of my constituents are involved in supporting detainees in Campsfield immigration centre, including in the bail observation project, which has done important work monitoring bail hearings. Its two reports have found many barriers to release on bail and difficulties in challenging ongoing detention.

Since the report was published there have been other concerning developments—some have been referred to already—such as publication of the report on Yarl’s Wood by Nick Hardwick, Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons. He called it a place of national concern and joined his voice to the call for a time limit. Worryingly, the Government’s consultation on reforming support for failed asylum seekers seems to aim to remove accommodation provision for those bailed out of detention, and I fear that the result would be more people detained for longer and at greater expense.

There have been far too many scandals about the conditions in detention centres. There have been enough calls for reform from campaigners, experts and former detainees. Every death in detention, such as those of Ianos Dragutan and Ramazan Kumluca in Campsfield, is one too many. There have been enough Government reviews. This time let us end this cruel and shameful practice by bringing an end to indefinite detention and looking at international best practice and community-based alternatives. In the past I have made many representations about the detention of children, and the previous Government made important progress in that area by radically changing how families with children are detained. It is now time to make such systematic reform to the use of immigration detention as a whole. I urge the Government to act on the report.

Relocation Scheme (Syrians)

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2014 Westminster Hall

[James Brokenshire]

Of course. I am keen to support more local authorities signing up to the scheme. Across the UK, a number of local authorities have already indicated their willingness and we are in discussions with others that have expressed an interest. Obviously, the scheme is based on vulnerability, including women and children at risk, medical needs and survivors of torture and violence.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I apologise, Mr Dobbin; I could not be here at the beginning of the debate due to a constituency commitment.

Will the Minister say a bit more about the process and the criteria by which the number of vulnerable cases is identified? It is difficult to imagine that there are not very many more who would fit the criteria, but who we are not taking. I am interested in liaison with the UN and how the numbers are determined.

[James Brokenshire]

In respect of liaison, we are working with the UN to identify families and then to ensure that the support that they need is there before they arrive. As I said, two to three families are arriving steadily each month, under the regular plan for continuation of the scheme that we have in place. I will come to the overall numbers and reaffirm the commitment made by the Home Secretary in that regard.

The scheme is to ensure that families receive the support that they need in local areas, given their vulnerability, and central Government are responsible for its overall funding. However, as was mentioned, we will recover costs, if possible, from the EU and other funding sources, and work and discussions continue in that regard.

The Government have delivered what we promised in January: a bespoke scheme to complement the UK’s humanitarian aid, focused on giving sanctuary to the most vulnerable refugees and ensuring they get all the care and support they need in the UK.

Family Annihilation

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Jonathan Evans]

I most certainly do. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work on this case. Part of the family lives in my constituency, but the events took place in his constituency, so this is a classic example of working together.

For some time before the events, Ben’s father had been receiving treatment for mental health problems from Cornwall Partnership NHS Foundation Trust. During that treatment, Harry made threats against his wife and son, but those threats were not taken seriously by those treating him and were never communicated to his wife on the grounds of patient confidentiality. The case was later considered in a serious case review compiled by the local safeguarding children board in Cornwall. The report highlighted that Ben’s father had experienced mental health problems for two years and once had delusional thoughts about his son. The report concluded that no evidence could be found that mental health staff had considered the implications for Ben of his father’s return to live at the family home or considered that Harry’s co-operation with treatment to manage his delusional and paranoid systems was neither consistent nor maintained. On the contrary, no agency reported any child protection concerns regarding Ben or registered any concerns for his safety at the time of his death.

Although my constituent, Ben’s uncle, remains deeply dissatisfied with the failure to properly assess the risk to Ben and his mother, or to inform her of the delusional and paranoid thoughts that her husband had expressed to mental health staff, he is also anxious that there should be much more awareness of the public policy challenges of such cases. The issues cut across several areas of Government policy, and my aim today is to draw wider attention to some common themes that arise in such cases and to encourage the Government to consider a cross-departmental approach to understanding and responding to those issues.

Ben’s murder was front-page news in the media and daily newspapers. We can all recall cases that appear to have a similar theme. Richard and Clair Smith from Pudsey and their children, Aaron and Ben, were described as “the perfect family.” They similarly made news headlines two years ago when Richard stabbed and strangled his wife, before stabbing and suffocating his sons, aged nine and one. He then set fire to the family home, dying of smoke inhalation. Richard also had mental health problems. He was described as an obsessive and driven man who appeared to have been motivated by depression to seek the destruction of both himself and his entire family.

Just days before the Pudsey murders, another father reportedly turned on his family. Tobias Day, from Melton Mowbray in Leicestershire, had recently lost his job as a policeman. He killed his wife, Samantha, and seven-year-old daughter, Genevieve, and he tried to kill his two other children, Kimberly and Adam, before finally taking his own life. Just over a decade ago, Robert Mochrie murdered his wife and four children in Barry, South Wales, before calling the school bus operator to say that his 10-year-old disabled daughter would not be attending school that week; he also cancelled the milk. Later he hanged himself, surrounded by his murdered family. He had also been previously treated for depression.

“Family annihilation” is the generic term applied to such cases in the USA and has been adopted here. In essence, the cases are those in which a parent—almost invariably a man—murders his partner and his own children before going on to commit suicide.

Professor David Wilson and Dr Elizabeth Yardley of the centre for applied criminology at Birmingham City university have undertaken a historical analysis of such cases going back to the 1980s. Professor Wilson is also editor of The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, which recently published some preliminary findings from his research. I am grateful to Professor Wilson for his guidance on this debate.

Professor Wilson and his colleagues examined 71 cases in England and Wales between 1980 and 2012—59 involving fathers and 12 cases in which the mother was the murderer. In almost all the cases involving men, the wife or partner was included in the murders, but in the cases where the mother committed the crimes, the husband or partner was not a victim. An example of the latter is the Donnison case in 2010 in Heathfield, East Sussex, which neighbours the Minister’s constituency. That lends weight to the proposition that family annihilation might predominantly be about a personal crisis of masculinity.

Professor Wilson’s team has suggested that there are certain similarities that subdivide such crimes into four broad categories. Anomic cases are those in which the family is seen as directly linked to the economic and financial success of the father. When that is threatened, the perpetrator responds by seeking to destroy himself, his home and his entire family. Self-righteous cases are those in which the murderer blames the mother for a family breakdown. The pre-eminent role of the father is viewed by the murderer as pivotal to his own image and concept of family, which causes him to obliterate his family. Disappointed cases are those in which the father believes the family have turned against him and, for instance, failed to follow his strictures on family life or religious matters. Finally, paranoid cases are those in which the offender harbours mental health delusions about his family.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. Is a distinction drawn in the research between the awful murders and more general, awful domestic violence, or is the former but the particularly ugly tip of the awful iceberg?

[Jonathan Evans]

The research shows that in a number of cases, although not all, there is a history of domestic violence, and I will develop that theme. The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point.

It must be acknowledged that the incidence of family annihilation is mercifully low. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children reports that some 60 children a year in England and Wales are killed by their parents, which is equivalent to about two thirds of all child murders. The numbers may be small, but child murders still represent more than 10% of all murders in our country. Although mothers and fathers are later found to be equally responsible for such deaths, the circumstances and ages of the killers and of the children killed are markedly different. Mothers are typically responsible for the murders of very young children in the aftermath of childbirth, for instance, because of post-natal depression or post-partum psychosis. Parliament has long recognised that phenomenon and passed the Infanticide Act 1938. Older children, however, are much more likely to be killed by their father. We tend to take small comfort from the idea that such instances are very rare. We see them as temporary losses of sanity and done in the heat of the moment when someone snaps. That idea provides a reassuring framework to explain what would otherwise be incomprehensible. That may be convenient and reassuring for us, but in many cases it is just not true. Researchers show that family annihilations are virtually all premeditated and typically executed with a chilling calmness and sense of purpose.

The trigger for such attacks seems to be, usually, relationship breakdown or a dispute over children when a relationship might already have ended. The Birmingham studies have identified a significant rise in cases of family annihilation during August, in the school holidays, and at weekends, when children are perhaps being passed from one parent to another. Half the cases identified by the research related to crimes committed at weekends.

I am concerned that the crime statistics do not separately record incidents of family annihilation, probably because of their rarity. Statistics are, however, compiled for infanticide, so the argument about the instance of family annihilation should not exclude consideration of compiling and publishing such figures. Professor Wilson has told me that he does not think that his work has been impeded by a lack of official statistical data, because the cases typically attract significant press attention, so the internet search capacity for press stories has tended to highlight most cases for the purposes of his research.

Previous studies—to come to the point made by the right hon. Gentleman—in particular that in The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, emphasised the rareness of violence convictions among those who commit such offences. Of 203 cases examined in that study, only seven involved a killer with a previous criminal record of violence. That, however, does not tell the whole story. Professor Wilson has highlighted to me that in many cases subsequent inquests throw up evidence of some previous domestic abuse. The evidence tends to come from family or friends, but the abuse had not escalated to the point of criminal prosecution. That may be another reason why police forces and the courts should give closer attention to fully recording details of all accusations of domestic abuse. For too long, clearly, the domestic dispute has not been taken seriously enough by some serving police officers.

For that reason, I applaud the Home Secretary’s September announcement that Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary is being required to look at the performance of individual forces in England and Wales to examine the way in which they approach, investigate and record cases of domestic violence. I would prefer to see the review as one of a series of measures better to address the shortcomings in how we deal with such tragic cases. At the weekend, The Sunday Times reported that one of the cases the Home Secretary had in mind in ordering this review was the murder of Rachael Slack and her two-year old son, Auden, in Holbrook, Derbyshire, three years ago, by Auden’s father, who later committed suicide. The father had been treated for mental illness, but we do not know what information may have been shared by the mental health professionals.

Family annihilation seems to be rarer in the UK than in the USA or in some parts of Europe, and one of the factors driving that could be our tougher gun laws. The Birmingham researchers found that in the United States and some parts of Europe the greater prevalence of such weapons led to 80% of family murders being carried out with a gun; in the UK, that number is less than a fifth. Nevertheless, we have seen family annihilation cases in which unstable men had been permitted to have shotguns and firearms, but then used them to murder their families.

The Michael Atherton case is one shocking example. The murderer had been granted a licence for both shotguns and firearms even though he had been reported for domestic violence on many occasions. In fact, the weapons had been taken away from him after such an incident, and then returned. The police officer who had approved his application turned out to have been running his own dealership in confiscated weapons, while serving as an officer, which led to him receiving a suspended prison sentence. Atherton used his weapons to murder his partner and her relatives before killing himself.

I wish to emphasise one further shortcoming. When the perpetrator of such a crime commits suicide, the duty of the coroner seems to be limited to identifying how the deceased died and giving verdicts accordingly. Invariably, the cases are massively distressing for the surviving relatives, and coroners sometimes seem at pains to be guarded about saying anything negative about the perpetrator. There is no duty to undertake any further analysis of the background circumstances or the state of mind of the perpetrator, except for the purposes of determining the cause of death and who might have been responsible. That denies us the opportunity to learn any lessons.

Given the rare incidence of such cases, it has been suggested that they should merit a much deeper analysis through what some academics have called psychological autopsy. The true incidence of mental illness as a contributory factor could be helped by a detailed review of each case—there are not so many cases, so it should not be an onerous requirement. Perhaps it should involve examining coroners’ reports and police files, interviewing relatives, friends and contacts of the deceased, and analysing medical records from hospitals and general practitioners.

The Atherton case and that of the serial killer Derrick Bird led to a 2010 proposal that the individual health records of all NHS patients holding shotgun or firearms certificates be file-tagged with a recommendation that, if a GP considered that such a patient presented a risk to themselves or the public, the police should be alerted. That seemingly reasonable and prudent proposal to improve public safety was later vetoed by the Information Commissioner on the grounds of patient confidentiality, the self-same argument that led to the failure to alert my constituent’s sister-in-law to the danger his brother posed to her and her son’s safety.

The purpose of the debate is to draw greater attention to the phenomenon of family annihilation and to the important research that is being done to understand it better. My purpose is also to urge the Government to build on the Home Secretary’s review of police effectiveness in dealing with domestic violence by creating a cross-Government initiative to encourage better risk assessment and information sharing between health professionals, the police and members of the public who might be at risk; to promote better statistical information about cases of family annihilation; to examine the concept of undertaking psychological autopsies in cases in which the perpetrator of family murders has committed suicide, by undertaking a full assessment of the history of that person, including questioning family members; and, finally, further to strengthen gun control legislation to ensure that no person with a history of domestic abuse or who is suffering from mental illness can get access to lethal weapons.

As the Home Secretary said when she ordered her domestic violence review,

“We have a duty to provide vulnerable people with the best possible protection.”

Sadly, I feel that in Ben Philpotts’s case, and in many of the others I have highlighted in the debate, we have fallen a bit short in that duty. The general crime rate in this country is falling, but, though still mercifully rare, the number of cases of family annihilation is rising. There should be a public policy response to meet that challenge.

[The Minister for Crime Prevention (Norman Baker)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) for the opportunity to debate this important issue and for the lucid and measured way in which he presented his case. Family annihilation, or domestic homicide as it is more commonly known in this country, is a diabolical crime and one that the coalition Government is committed to tackling.

Fatal domestic abuse is all the more shocking in cases involving children. As my hon. Friend said, family annihilation has no established definition but is a term that is often used to describe the tragic circumstances in which a parent kills their children, and sometimes their partner, often before seeking to take their own life. As he said, such cases are rare in this country—the Home Office homicide index suggests that around six incidents of a parent killing one or more children and a current or former partner were recorded in 2011-12—but they are all the more appalling to us when they occur.

Child protection is a priority for the Government, and we are committed to ensuring that we have the best possible arrangements in place to protect children and families from harm. Only last week, I spoke to the House about my concerns regarding the circumstances of the deaths of Rachael Slack and her young son, Auden—to which case my hon. Friend referred—at the hands of Rachael’s mentally ill former partner. I outlined the steps that are being taken to review the apparent police failings in that case.

My hon. Friend rightly drew our attention to the tragic deaths, also in 2010, of Ben and Patricia Philpotts at the hands of Ben’s father, Harold. I am aware that a serious case review of the circumstances surrounding Ben’s death was published in August 2010 and that, sadly, it concluded that lack of communication between local agencies contributed to the risk that he and his mother faced. Action is being taken to address that failing, as I will set out later.

Closer to home, my hon. Friend is no doubt aware of the appalling incident in Cwmbran in September 2012, in which Carl Mills set fire to the house where his partner, Kayleigh Buckley, was staying with their six-month-old daughter, Kimberley, and her mother, Kim, resulting in the deaths of three generations of one family. I understand that a local review of that case is ongoing and that, in due course, it will be quality assured by a Home Office-chaired panel. The Government takes such cases extremely seriously. We must ensure that lessons are learned to deliver justice for those who have lost their lives. We must also do more than that; we must ensure that lessons are acted upon.

I am aware, as my hon. Friend is, of the recent study by Professor David Wilson and Dr Elizabeth Yardley of Birmingham City university regarding the behavioural patterns of male so-called family annihilators. I thank the authors for their attempt to bring new learning to such a difficult area, with a sensitive and well written report. However, I do not agree that domestic homicide is on the rise. Official statistics from the homicide index show that the domestic homicide rate has remained stubbornly static over the past decade at around two a week.

My key focus is to ensure that we do everything that we can to support local agencies to reduce the occurrence of such tragic events. To help to achieve that, the coalition Government has instigated a new process, so that every local report on a domestic homicide is reviewed and quality assured by a panel of independent and Home Office experts. I understand that such a review is ongoing in the case of Kayleigh, Kim and Kimberley Buckley. Each review results in a tailored action plan that must be delivered by the area in question to ensure that we learn from individual tragedies. The Home Office will shortly issue a document collating the lessons learned from those reviews into a national action plan. I hope that that meets some of my hon. Friend’s concerns.

On child protection services, following the publication of Professor Eileen Munro’s review, the Government has published a new version of “Working Together to Safeguard Children”, which provides statutory guidance for all professionals who work to protect children. The new guidance is less bureaucratic and puts more trust in front-line skilled professionals. The guidance clarifies the core legal requirements, by making it much clearer what individuals and organisations should do to keep children safe and to promote their welfare. The guidance provides a national framework within which local agencies and professionals draw up and agree their own ways to work together to safeguard and promote the welfare of children.

The Government has also made a series of reforms to the police’s handling of domestic violence and child abuse. All police forces have measures in place to ensure that officers have the knowledge and skills to deal effectively with cases of child abuse and domestic violence. Specific training on domestic violence and abuse is included in the national police training curriculum. That training was updated this year to take account of the Government’s introduction of a new definition of domestic abuse. The new definition helps to prevent the escalation of abuse that may end in tragedy—the right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) referred to this—by dispelling the belief that domestic abuse begins and ends with violence. It places coercive control at the centre of determining whether abuse is taking place.

The police play an important part in local child safeguarding arrangements and have a statutory responsibility to safeguard and promote the welfare of children and to investigate child abuse and other crimes committed against children. The police have a legal duty of care. As well as their duty to investigate criminal offences, they have emergency powers to enter premises and to provide immediate protection for children who are believed to be at risk of significant harm. Nationally, we are working to ensure that local police and children’s services are best placed to respond to allegations of child abuse, and our existing arrangements have been further strengthened with the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre becoming a core part of the National Crime Agency.

The Government has ring-fenced nearly £40 million for specialist local domestic and sexual violence support services. Facilities funded with this money include 144 independent domestic violence advisers, who help victims of domestic violence to have their voices heard, and 54 multi-agency risk assessment co-ordinators to protect the interests of those who are most at risk, by bringing all agencies together to promote information sharing and to drive up a joined-up local response to supporting victims.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

In the various welcome collaborative initiatives that the Minister has mentioned, will the point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) about mental health professionals having knowledge of the potential risk to others in the community be addressed?

[Norman Baker]

Yes. I addressed the mental health issue in part during an Adjournment debate last week, but I have asked my office to investigate further the Information Commissioner’s ruling, which is what I believe the right hon. Gentleman is referring to, and rightly so. It is an important point.

Up to 60% of abuse victims report no further violence following intervention by independent advisers, so clearly they are working effectively to some degree.

National funding operates in tandem with local initiatives. Local safeguarding children’s boards bring together local authorities, health organisations, the police and others to co-ordinate member agencies in protecting and promoting children’s welfare. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North will join me in endorsing the Cardiff Health Alliance’s multi-agency approach to supporting victims of domestic and sexual abuse and integrating child protection and domestic abuse training to ensure a joined-up local approach. It is vital that all local authorities remember the importance of such initiatives when making difficult decisions about spending in coming months.

We must do more nationally to reach out to those caught in a cycle of abuse, which is why the Home Office has piloted two initiatives to empower victims and to stop domestic abuse in its tracks. The first of these is the domestic violence disclosure scheme, known popularly as Clare’s law, which offers the opportunity for anyone to seek disclosure of a partner’s violent past. Those who have the legal right to know are provided with information that could save lives, which empowers them to make an informed choice about their future.

Our second pilot scheme creates a new process to protect victims in the immediate aftermath of domestic abuse. Domestic violence protection orders have the power to prevent a perpetrator of domestic abuse from having contact with the victim for up to 28 days. That offers both the victim and the perpetrator the chance to reflect on the incident. It provides the victim with an opportunity to determine the best course of action to end a cycle of abuse and sometimes stops the unsatisfactory requirement for them having to leave the house for their own safety. We are carrying out an evaluation of both of pilots, and we expect to be able to announce plans for their future this year.

The Home Office has funded a project to improve the understanding of the different local multi-agency models in place to support the sharing of information about safeguarding responses for children and vulnerable people. The project recognises that many areas are considering new and different ways to deliver services and aims to develop a national picture of what models are already in place—for example, multi-agency safeguarding hubs and co-located assessment or specialist teams.

The project will increase our collective understanding of what is happening and provide a practical exchange of learning and experience to local areas that are looking to develop their multi-agency working and information-sharing arrangements. Early findings from the project were released in July, as part of accelerated action from the Government’s new national group to tackle sexual violence against children and vulnerable people. The report provides information to help local areas that want to put in place more effective local multi-agency approaches and responses. The Government are now developing a further package of support to ensure the early identification of children and families who are at risk and to ensure that agencies are best placed to prevent abuse from happening.

I turn to the four specific points that my hon. Friend made. On risk assessment, I hope that he has been reassured to hear about the work that has taken place since the tragic events of 2010 to establish multi-agency risk assessment conferences and, more recently, wider work to promote multi-agency safeguarding models, such as multi-agency safeguarding hubs, which draw together local agencies to protect those who are at highest risk. I agree that, although patient confidentiality is important, it cannot be allowed to stand in the way of saving lives. The right hon. Member for Oxford East rightly made that point. I am happy to reassure him that the national group to tackle sexual violence against children and vulnerable people, which I lead, has identified the sharing of information as a critical issue and is working on advice to dispel myths that prevent the effective sharing of information.

My hon. Friend asked a valuable question about the recording of statistics. I am happy to reassure him that the Home Office homicide index retains detailed information about domestic cases. He made the point that, in considering the level of data captured, we must consider whether the additional detail justifies the resources needed to obtain them. That is a balance to be judged.

On post-homicide reviews, I understand my hon. Friend’s concern about the limitations of coroner’s inquests, but I am sure he will be reassured to hear that coroners are under a legal duty to refer cases involving the death of children to the local children’s safeguarding board in a process that triggers a serious case review, as happened in the Philpott case.

I am sure that my hon. Friend will be pleased about the Government’s initiation of the domestic homicide review process. I agree that we must be joined-up in addressing domestic violence, which is why, for example, I undertook in the House last week to raise our approach to mental health in domestic violence cases with the Department of Health at the next inter-ministerial group on violence against women and girls, which I will attend and which will be chaired by the Home Secretary.

My hon. Friend referred to the importance of gun control in the context of domestic abuse. I am happy to tell him that, as part of the revised guide on firearms licensing law, we have introduced new, detailed guidance on firearms and domestic violence for the police that makes it clear that evidence of domestic violence will generally indicate that a person should not be permitted to possess a gun.

So-called family annihilation seems to transgress the fundamental natural instinct to protect that we expect a parent to feel for a child. Understandably, these cases cause shock and outrage, but we must appreciate the complexity of the circumstances that may contribute to such tragic outcomes, and continue to co-ordinate a joined-up approach to tackling child abuse and domestic and sexual violence to protect those who are most at risk. Through our violence against women and girls action plan and the national group to tackle sexual violence against children and vulnerable people, which I now lead, the Government has made significant strides towards a better reality for the victims of child and domestic abuse. However, we recognise that there is still much to do.

Only last week, I raised my concerns about domestic abuse at a meeting of all chief constables, and in the coming weeks I will meet representatives of third-sector groups and the Director of Public Prosecutions. I look forward to discussing our plans with them. It is vital that we protect those who are vulnerable to the worst crimes. I look forward to updating Parliament on our continued progress in tackling domestic violence and child abuse in the coming months.

Student Visas

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Thursday 6th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I would like to join in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) and other colleagues on securing this important debate. He made some important points, as have all the subsequent speakers. It is good to see cross-party agreement emerging that we have to remove students from the immigration target in domestic policy.

With two universities and numerous independent colleges in Oxford East, my constituents are among the hardest hit by the ill-judged policies on student visas and immigration that the Government have brought in. They have inflicted serious damage on the reputation and attractiveness of the UK, and on the economic and cultural contribution that overseas students, and those who teach them, make to our country. The Government’s policies amount to a perverse and stupid act of economic self-sabotage. They hit a part of our economy where Britain in general, and Oxford in particular, have a strong global strategic competitive advantage. There is a logical contradiction in the Government protesting that there is no cap on student numbers, while persisting in including student numbers in their overall target of reducing net immigration to tens rather than hundreds of thousands. They find it so difficult to control other areas of immigration, including illegal immigration, that there is continual downward pressure on student numbers.

We are fortunate in Oxford to have many high-quality institutions. It shows how ludicrous this policy is if we imagine it being applied to another area; for example, to our Mini plant—to manufacturing, as opposed to educational exports. Imagine a Government who have an overall limit on manufacturing exports because they do not want too many foreigners getting their hands on our goods. As the number of BMW Minis being exported falls because overseas dealers worry that they will not be able to fulfil orders, the Prime Minister flies out to the far east and attempts to reassure people that while he is determined to bring down net manufacturing exports, there is no cap on the export of Minis! Such a policy would be barmy, way beyond swivel-eyed, and yet economically that is exactly what the cuts in overseas students amount to.

[Roberta Blackman-Woods (City of Durham) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that it is simply no good for the Prime Minister to be going on these visits overseas supposedly to increase our exports when one of our very best exports, higher education, is being undermined by the Government’s policy?

[Mr Smith]

Indeed. That the Prime Minister felt he had to say that was a tacit acknowledgement of the damage done to the UK’s reputation.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

It is my understanding that applications from overseas students to Oxford university have gone up by 22%. Is the right hon. Gentleman not mis-characterising the objective of the policy, which is to cut down on bogus student applications while still allowing our higher education sector to thrive?

[Mr Smith]

The problem is that not enough is being done to encourage it to thrive. As was pointed out earlier, Universities UK takes issue with some of the figures, but however we characterise them the current position is pretty flat. For a global market that is expanding so quickly, it simply is not good enough.



Of course the closure of visa factories masquerading as colleges is a good thing, not least because of the impact on applicants, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) pointed out. They damage the reputation of UK education as well as undermine legitimate immigration control, but it is important to understand that the way the Government and UKBA have gone about their wider changes have hit legitimate universities and colleges that are an enormously important source of intellectual capital, jobs and prosperity, both now and for the future, that is worth tens of billions of pounds.

The hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) mentioned Oxford university. Its briefing for this debate points out:

“The cumulative and frequent changes to Tier 4 policy guidance over the last few years have created increased anxiety amongst our current and prospective student body especially when some of the rule changes were applied retrospectively.”

It goes on to say:

“We have received feedback and comments from prospective students and institutions overseas about the numerous UKBA rule changes over the last few years that indicate it may be a determining factor in students choosing to study elsewhere.”

The Government have to understand that those damaging effects have an impact at a time of intense international competition, in particular for the highest calibre of undergraduates, post-graduates and researchers. The funding shortfall for postgraduates, especially compared with the United States, makes it an increasing challenge to recruit and retain the best. Oxford university makes it clear that it supports the recommendations of the Select Committee reports referred to in the motion.

Let us also recognise that the damaging impact of Government policy has not been confined to universities and university students. Indeed, the effects have been even more serious for independent colleges, whose educational and economic contribution rarely gets the credit it deserves, and seems to be totally ignored by this Government. It is deeply ironic that a Government with an ideological obsession about liberating schools for home students from state control are hammering private colleges that support thousands of jobs and billions of pounds of overseas earnings.

[Nicola Blackwood]

As a fellow Oxford MP, the right hon. Gentleman will know that I share some of his concerns about student reforms, but it is important that the debate continues with factual information. The 22% figure quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) is based on data from the Higher Education Statistics Agency, and is used in both the Universities UK and Million+ briefings. The points that he was just making are important, because the falls we have seen are in the FE college and private college sectors. The main concerns from the university have been about the frequent changes to student visas, which are much more of a difficulty for both students and the university. Perhaps he might like to comment on those issues, as they are the main challenges that are actually faced by the university’s students.

[Mr Smith]

I will take those comments as warm and strong support for the points I have made about the damage the changes to the visa regime have done.

The Government are denying independent colleges a level playing field and disadvantaging them in a number of respects. These include: the 2011 two-year cap on international student numbers; all the uncertainties of the twice-yearly Highly Trusted Sponsor renewal application; the denial of part-time work for students either in term time or holidays; student exclusion from the new post-study work schemes for PhD and MBA graduates; and the fact that unlike university students, PhD students at independent colleges are not exempt from Tier 4’s five-year time limit, so they cannot do a first degree in the UK before their PhD.

It is little surprising that international student enrolments on higher education courses at independent colleges fell by over 70% between 2011 and 2012, with a fall of 46% in college sector visas for the year ending March 2013. This has destroyed tens—possibly hundreds—of college businesses, cost thousands of jobs and resulted in a loss of income to the families accommodating students and to the local businesses and communities within which they spend their money.

I strongly support the motion. I hope that the Government will listen to the Select Committees that have come to the same view and take international students out of the migrations statistics used to steer UK immigration policy. I hope that Ministers will remove the unfair penalties imposed on independent colleges, work in partnership with them to develop longer-term, highly trusted accreditation and promote the contribution these colleges make. I also urge them more generally to think further and positively about how to encourage, not discourage, overseas students at all levels who want to come here, as those students invigorate universities and other education institutions and generate lots of overseas earnings, jobs and economic demand, which people here desperately need. Doing so would rebuild Britain’s reputation in the world as somewhere that welcomes international students and researchers and recognises their enormous potential contribution to our culture and economy—which, let us remember, is to the benefit of us all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Let me first pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) and all other Members who signed up to ensure that we had this afternoon’s debate. It is perhaps a sort of irony that the quality of the debate has been high, with an enormous degree of unanimity on the issues. I suspect that if the Chamber had been fuller, the debate might have been more partisan and there might have been less unanimity, but the debate we have had is a tribute to the way in which the argument has been advanced in several Select Committees and through the Select Committee process itself. Sometimes if we just look rationally at the facts, it is easier to reach a cross-party position.

I studied abroad. I did part of my primary education in Spain; I studied theology at the Instituto Superior Evangélico de Estudios Teológicos in Argentina; so I understand the complications and difficulties of studying in other countries. I note that the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), of whom I am particularly fond, referred to Erasmus, talking about what has happened since Erasmus came here in the 16th century. It is interesting, because when Erasmus first came here to study at Cambridge university in 1506, he did not complete a whole year so I do not think he would have been included in the net migration target. When he came again, in 1511, staying until 1515, he taught as the Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity at Cambridge university. In that case, he would have come here under the tier 2 visa, which would have been completely different and not the subject of this afternoon’s debate.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

Does my hon. Friend think that the Home Office still has Erasmus’s passport?

[Chris Bryant]

That is a point well made.

Another hon. Member—I cannot remember who it was—referred to the fact that many Heads of State from around the world have studied in the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] It was the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), who speaks sanely and sensibly on many of these issues. As he said, some studied at Sandhurst, as many have been military leaders as well. It must surely be good, in terms of our soft power, that the Heads of State of Denmark, Portugal, Iceland, Norway, Turkey and many other countries have studied in the United Kingdom.

I would also point to those who have had a more courageous political career, such as Aung San Suu Kyi, and, for that matter, to the large number of people who have come to the United Kingdom, studied here, stayed on and ended up teaching here, gaining Nobel prizes in classic instances such as Sydney Brenner, César Milstein and Aaron Klug. Perhaps most interesting of all, T S Eliot, now thought of as the quintessentially British poet of the 20th century, was originally born in the United States of America, came to study here at the beginning of the first world war and ended up staying here for the rest of his life. Perhaps it was because he had the experience of being a migrant student that he ended up writing so much about travelling and the difficulty of living in other cultures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

That is a helpful point, which has been mentioned by several hon. Members—for example, the hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) told us about sharp increases in the number of international students at her local university.

As my final point—I do not want to test your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker—I will touch on the student visitor visa route, on which the hon. Member for Rhondda expressed two slightly different views. First, he said he was pleased that international students are coming here on shorter courses, but then he voiced some concerns. I hope he noticed that yesterday we published some detailed research that I think makes it clear that the visitor route is being used exactly as intended. It is attracting high-value, low-risk migrants who contribute positively to economic growth; in large part, they attend institutions that are accredited by bodies approved by the Home Office, and most are doing English language programmes or university exchanges. There is literally no evidence of displacement from tier 4 into the student visitor route. The number of students from countries where we have seen abuse under tier 4 and where we have cracked down on that abuse is rising in single figures—fewer than 10—so there is no evidence of further abuse, which I think is very positive. It is perfectly proper that the hon. Gentleman raised the question, but the evidence shows no risk at all.

In conclusion, Madam Deputy Speaker—

[Mr Andrew Smith]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Harper]

Yes; I think I am allowed to give way briefly.

[Mr Smith]

Before the Minister concludes his remarks, will he tell the House how he intends to respond to the Select Committee recommendations and his reasons for that response? He has not yet done so.

[Mr Harper]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Government have responded to the Select Committee reports and to each of the Select Committees. The clearest response is this: we do not have a cap on student numbers, and I do not think our net migration target means that we will have to take action that damages universities. Universities were originally concerned that having a net migration target and counting student numbers, as all our international competitors do, would drive the Government to take decisions on future policy that would damage universities. The fact that we have stated clearly that not only do we not have a cap but we are not going to have a cap—that was stated not only by me but by the Prime Minister—should reassure universities.

We will take every opportunity to communicate that positive message about our excellent offer for international students, and we will work in partnership with our excellent universities to continue to increase the number of international students who come here from around the world. In that, I think I can say that I speak for every right hon. and hon. Member who participated in the debate.

Operation Jasmine (Care Home Abuse)

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Westminster Hall

[Nick Smith]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and it is one of the direct questions that I intend to ask the Minister.

In 2011, the Health and Safety Executive became involved, too, in the hope that its additional evidence would be the final push over that bar. Sadly, that did not happen. Instead, the charges against the director, who had a GP practice and 26 care homes across south Wales—a profitable empire—will lie on file.

A small number of convictions have been secured in relation to the neglect of elderly people, but no one served a custodial sentence. We have to ask ourselves whether that sorry conclusion could have been avoided. MPs have been told that a change in the QC part way through the case brought a different perspective as to the likely success of the case. We know that the Crown Prosecution Service decides the charges and the standard of evidence it requires, but given the enormous quantity of evidence collected, it does beg questions about the evidence threshold, how Operation Jasmine progressed and the management of the operation. It is clear, as others have said, that local police worked very hard on this case, but the results do not match that fine effort. Was there a well founded and unified understanding between the CPS and the police about what evidence was needed?

Given that the case took seven years, did anything slow down the operation and how could such roadblocks be avoided in the future? What advice does the CPS give to the police and others investigating abuses in care, and does it have a plan for lowering the bar for prosecutions in the future? Were high-level project management tools brought to bear on this investigation from the start, and is the legal definition of “neglect” fit for purpose in cases such as this?

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend and colleagues in Wales on pursuing this case on behalf of the victims and in the interests of higher standards in home care. Am I correct in my understanding that while the principal prosecution collapsed because the principal defendant was unfit to respond to the charges, the co-defendant is not in such a position and yet action is not being proceeded against him? Does my hon. Friend have anything to say about that, and would he like to put that point to the Minister and ask why that person cannot be prosecuted?

[Nick Smith]

My right hon. Friend makes a fair point. That is indeed the case, and it would be good to hear from the Minister why that prosecution was not taken forward.

I have written to the Director of Public Prosecutions to ask for some answers. He has now promised a substantive reply, but further action might be needed. We have a duty to those elderly people who have passed away, the families who are still fighting on their behalf and those with no family and with no voice. We must ensure that their story is put on the record.

The inquiry into poor care at Stafford hospital showed how important it is to record individual cases and to make the information public. I want the QC’s final opinion on the allegations in this case to be made public, and the Director of Public Prosecutions or the head of the CPS in Gwent to meet MPs and members of the victims’ action group. I want them to be joined by representatives from the police, the Health and Safety Executive and the Care and Social Services Inspectorate Wales, and I want key evidence collected for this trial to be made public.

There have been calls for a public inquiry. I need to know what criteria the Minister will bring to bear when considering such calls.

Child Sexual Exploitation

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Nicola Blackwood]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am by no means an expert on the details of the Waterhouse inquiry. I understand that the report is very lengthy, so I have great respect for anyone who has read it in its entirety. However, I do think those who commented with such certainty would have been wise to have made sure they knew the details before making sweeping statements.

No one takes allegations of child sexual abuse more seriously than I do, but those who attempted to start a vigilante crusade of trial by Twitter were, however pure their motives, certainly not acting in the interests of the victims. At best they clouded the debate and the real issues that affect victims, and at worst they risked undermining prosecutions so that victims might be denied the very justice they deserved. Frankly, I cannot think of any more irresponsible kind of politics or journalism than that. Today’s debate should not be about allegations or rumours; it should be about how we can get better support and justice for victims.

I am daily haunted by the knowledge of what happened to those girls minutes from my home. I cannot refer to any details for fear of prejudicing the case, but that is why I am here now. It is why I called for, and secured, a Home Affairs Committee inquiry into localised grooming, and since May we have been hearing about where the system has failed, such as in Rochdale, and about the reality of the ways in which victims experience child sexual exploitation. Repeatedly I have been told that victims initially do not see themselves as victims and, in a cruel irony, even when they do they struggle to gain credibility from the very agencies meant to protect them.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I commend the hon. Lady and colleagues for securing this enormously important debate, and of course I share her horror and concern at the events in Oxford. Do reports such as ChildLine’s excellent “Caught In A Trap” not scream out that these young people need to have confidence that there is somebody they can go and talk to? Do we not need a pervasive national campaign saying that it is okay to talk about it, coupled with suitably trained teachers, social workers and others to whom young people can go with confidence?

[Nicola Blackwood]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comment. As we are both Oxford Members, we have shared the difficulty of realising that a thing such as this could happen in Oxford. I agree with him on the importance of victims feeling that there is somewhere they can go and that they will be believed when they go there, but it is important that, first, victims realise that that is exactly what they are—victims. One problem is that many victims are slowly lured into exploitation by someone posing as a boyfriend and are then kept under control by threats. They are encouraged to commit petty offences, drink, take drugs and play truant. During that process, their relationship with their school, their family and their carers increasingly deteriorates and they become seen as disruptive and a bad influence, with the police and social services perhaps considering them to be petty criminals who are making “bad choices”. In that context, their relationship with their real family deteriorates ever more and their relationship with and dependence on exploiters, whom they see as their real family, becomes ever more entrenched, with threats, violence and intimidation commonplace.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)]

I have a slightly different take. I will not talk about cases, although we all have them and they are horrendous. I will not talk about picking up the pieces and how we help victims, although it is incumbent on all of us to try to do that. I will talk about something that people do not want to talk much about: the causes. Why do people perpetrate these horrendous crimes? It is important to talk about that, because if we can understand some of the causes, we can take action to alleviate and diminish these horrible episodes.

We here are responsible for making the overarching legal and cultural frameworks that can lead to there being less sexual abuse in our society. It is our responsibility not to hold another debate in five or 10 years’ time when more cases come forward or, as is the case now, to hold a debate some 15 or 20 years after such cases, but to take action now to change the culture that allows such people to proliferate and continue.

I would like to hear a response on that from the Minister of State, Home Department, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne). However, much as I enjoy his company, I am saddened that there are no Ministers present from the Department of Health, the Department for Education or the Cabinet Office, because this is a matter for the whole of Government. I am not making a partisan point, because Governments over the past 20 or 25 years while I have been a Member of this House have not covered themselves in glory in trying to prevent offences in this field.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Allen]

I will make a little progress first. I am conscious that some people have taken a considerable amount of time to make their points, so I will try to be a little more succinct.

It is important that Ministers do not view this matter in relation to celebrities, politicians or the BBC, but that they attempt to get a serious, strategic grip on how we can combat sexual abuse. We can do that in two ways. First, there should be a coherent and precise programme of research on the perpetrators of sexual abuse. Secondly, there should be an inquiry. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) mentioned an overarching inquiry. I would like such an inquiry to transcend the individual cases that we have all been talking about over the past few months.

[Mr Smith]

My hon. Friend talked about the ministerial presence or absence in this debate. Is that not symptomatic of an attitude that all too easily characterises Governments —I am not making a party political point—which is that Departments do not take seriously enough matters that are raised in Back-Bench debates or from the Back Benches? They would be well advised to start doing so.

[Mr Allen]

I will let my right hon. Friend make his own points about that. What is important is that Ministers do not act defensively or in a way that is intended to make tomorrow’s newspapers, but that they look at this matter strategically.

There is a plethora of inquiries that have taken place, are under way or are about to take place. The most important inquiry to have, which needs to be heavyweight and overarching, is one that backs off from specific incidents and looks at the steps that we could take immediately. It should ask why the extreme dysfunction of child sexual abuse takes place at all, how the cycle of sexual abuse can be broken, and what plans all public and private institutions must deploy to intervene pre-emptively to eradicate the sexual abuse of children over a generation and longer. It should be about long-termism and should set out a stall, hopefully on an all-party basis, so that we are not back here in 20 years’ time discussing these things. It should also include how we can change personal and family behaviours and social attitudes.

This matter is as significant as the Victorian elimination of cholera and typhoid through the provision of disease-free water. It is the public health issue of our time, and we need to step up and tackle it in a serious and strategic way. I would therefore go further than the former Minister who has just spoken, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, and say that something on the scale of a royal commission is needed. Such a commission has just been announced in Australia. It should look not at particular cases or at how other inquiries went wrong, but at how we can combat the development of abusive behaviour within relationships and outside the family.

Association of Chief Police Officers

Andrew Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Westminster Hall

[Julian Smith]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. My experience in my constituency is of excellent policing. What I am trying to get at in this debate is that some of the things at the top appear to be not beyond reproach.

[Mr Andrew Smith (Oxford East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate and the Yorkshire Post on its investigative work. It is clearly important that transparency is brought to bear on all of the matters that he has raised. What implications does he think that all of this has for the future status of ACPO, bearing in mind the importance of combining independence, accountability and freedom from political interference?

[Julian Smith]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am just about to get there. I would like the Minister’s support in getting all of the information on these ACPO companies.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

I welcome you to the Chair, Ms Clark. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) on raising a number of significant and important questions relating to the Association of Chief Police Officers to which I will respond.

My hon. Friend has made a number of criticisms about the leadership of the police service in England and Wales, but I welcome his positive statement about the work of front-line officers. We must be clear that police officers and staff throughout the country have our support in their fantastic work in keeping us all safe day in, day out.

In the context of some of the specific issues that my hon. Friend raised, I am aware that Sir Hugh Orde, president of ACPO, has written to my hon. Friend about the issues he has raised, and I am satisfied that ACPO has taken and is taking those criticisms seriously. That was demonstrated by the decision of the ACPO cabinet earlier this month to conduct a review of spending on consultants within ACPO. As its president outlined in his letter to my hon. Friend, that review will also look at how financial controls have been applied over the last three years. The whole process will be subject to external scrutiny by Transparency International, and the results will be made public.

A review is the right course of action, and it is appropriate to allow it to proceed and its report to be published before commenting further on the details. I agree that every organisation that receives money must be open and transparent about how that money is spent. Sir Hugh Orde stated that clearly to my hon. Friend in his response to him, and I note that he has agreed to meet my hon. Friend to discuss any further issues in detail.

My hon. Friend highlighted a significant point about ACPO’s independence. It is a private company limited by guarantee. It is not owned or controlled by the Home Office, and is operationally independent. The discussion of ACPO’s future role and funding must be framed in the light of the wider work taking place on police reform. As part of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary’s intention, which is laid out in the White Paper, “Policing in the 21st century”, the Government have embarked on the most radical programme of reform to policing in 50 years. We are currently developing the bodies necessary to support and reinforce those reforms. That work will help to deal with many of the concerns raised today regarding accountability and transparency within policing in England and Wales. We are grateful that ACPO agrees that change is necessary and for the constructive way in which its presidential team are engaging with the Home Office regarding the future of ACPO.

In August 2010, the Home Secretary asked Peter Neyroud to carry out a fundamental review of the delivery of leadership and training functions in policing. In response to the review, the Government announced their intention to create a new police professional body, which presents a unique opportunity further to professionalise policing and increase public accountability. As part of that work, the National Policing Improvement Agency will be phased out by the end of this year.

The Home Secretary has acknowledged a continued need for chief constables to come together for discussion on key operational issues and also when it is in the public interest for them to do so. Indeed, we are clear that chief officers will continue to play a vital role, both within the professional body and as part of a chiefs council, which will work with the new professional body. Together, those two bodies will equip the service with the skills that it needs to deliver effective crime fighting in a changing, leaner and more accountable environment. We are currently working with ACPO and key partners to consider the precise remit of the chiefs council, its relationship with the new body and the transition of ACPO functions. The Government have agreed to continue to fund ACPO’s grant-aid during the 2012-13 financial year while those discussions take place.

[Mr Andrew Smith]

Is it the Government’s intention that the two bodies to which the Minister refers will take on all ACPO’s present responsibilities, or will certain areas—perhaps co-ordination on counter-terrorism or serious crime—be the responsibility of a separate body?

[James Brokenshire]

It is precisely those issues that are the subject of the detailed discussions between the Government and ACPO. We will come forward in due course with further details of the police professional body and its precise functions. That will be the right time for the Government to set out in detail proposals for the police professional body, but it may help the right hon. Gentleman if I say this. As the Government have made clear, the challenge for the police service is to reduce crime to make communities feel safer. At the same time, forces must deliver significant savings to meet the challenges set by the spending review. Tackling those two challenges together will require transformational change; it cannot be done by relying on the existing structures at national level in policing. They require a fresh way of thinking. In particular, they require the development of a professional model for policing. At the heart of that model is the creation of the police professional body.

The new body will safeguard the public and fight crime by ensuring professionalism in policing. It will develop skills and leadership, facilitating the drive to reduce bureaucracy, and will have greater public accountability. The professional body will speak for the whole of policing and will directly support police officers at all ranks and civilian policing professionals. It will set and improve standards of professionalism in the police service and will take responsibility for specialist police disciplines. Work is under way on the detailed design of the new body.

The role of the professional body must be understood within the wider policing landscape and, in particular, the transformation in accountability that the introduction of police and crime commissioners will bring. It will need to reflect that shift in how it is constituted, in what it delivers and in how it delivers that. Its most important role will be to act in the public interest.

Key to that, and reflecting the move towards greater accountability, will be the way in which the professional body is structured. It will be chaired by someone independent of the police service, and its board will have an equal balance of police service and non-police service representatives, including police and crime commissioners. It will be open and transparent. In taking its work forwards, it will need to take into account public need in setting and inculcating standards among officers and staff. It will also need to take into consideration the cost of any changes it recommends to develop professionalism. That will form a crucial part of its ability to enhance the British model of policing by consent.

Many criticisms have been made today of the accountability and transparency of decision making by senior police officers. There are, however, clear examples of where the police have responded impressively to the need for change. This is one public service whose leaders generally recognise the difficult economic times and understand the benefits that reform can bring. Greater Manchester police, for example, have saved £62 million a year from their support functions, releasing 348 police officers from those roles so that they can get back to front-line work. Surrey police have carried out a significant restructuring, which has allowed them to commit to increasing constable numbers by up to 200 over the next four years.

Some forces are going even further, moving beyond restructuring and outsourcing, to building strategic relationships with the private sector. This is not about privatisation; policing will remain a public service. However, by harnessing private sector innovation, skills and economies of scale, forces can transform how they work and improve the service they provide to the public.

As well as saving money, our reforms are about making policing better. We are rebuilding the link between the police and the public. In November, the first elections for police and crime commissioners will take place. Elected by local people, commissioners will have the democratic mandate to set their local police force budget, and they will respond to local people’s concerns by setting the force’s priorities.

The direction of police reform provides a clear basis for the way in which the police professional body will operate. The police service is becoming more open, more transparent and more accountable to the public, and it is right and proper that that is the case.

In “Policing in the 21st Century”, we said that we expect chief police officers to continue to play a key role in advising the Government, police and crime commissioners and the police service on strategy and best practice. We will also expect chief constables to play a leading role in driving value for money and to have the capability to drive out costs in their forces.

ACPO is operationally independent of the Home Office, so it is a matter for the company directors to determine its future. ACPO has played a valuable role since it was established in 1948, providing a means for chief constables to come together to agree a common way of working in the absence of any federal policing structures. I re-emphasise that the Government fully appreciate the contribution that chief officers continue to make at a national and local level, particularly those chiefs who are directly supporting the substantial reform agenda. We look forward to building on all that ACPO has achieved.

The Government’s agenda for police reform is strong and coherent, and will free the police to fight crime at a national and local level, deliver better value for taxpayers and give the public a stronger voice.