Assisted Dying

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Monday 29th April 2024 Westminster Hall

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

I am grateful to be called and to have been able to attend the statement in the main Chamber earlier. We last debated this issue nearly a decade ago—in 2015. The Commons vote failed to reflect public opinion then, but MPs could do so now. It is my view that we should have a thorough and fresh debate, especially as other places increasingly have experiences to share about how assisted dying laws can work well, as we have heard from the Health and Social Care Committee. It is notable that none of the 31 countries that have put these laws in place has repealed them.

I speak in favour of the proposition, and I am very pleased that the petitioners have brought it to us. I voted as such in 2015, and I will make the same arguments now. I was in the minority on that day, but I hope that there will shortly be a majority for the proposition. I believe that terminally ill people who are mentally sound and near the end of their life should not suffer unbearably against their will. They should have the option of requesting medical help to end their lives with dignity through a safe and compassionate system with strict criteria and safeguards. It is their life, their death and their choice—not anybody else’s. Under the core proposal, it is not only a choice; it is also not compulsory.

Without such a provision in our law, too many people are taking matters into their own hands with absolutely tragic consequences. People are forced to take often hidden, undignified and desperate action. They should be able to have an open conversation with their doctor instead. It is not okay that they have to refuse food or be able to afford to go to Switzerland.

The problems in our law are twofold: it is not just that it forces honest people to go underground, but that it is not currently neutral. This debate is about a choice that has already been taken in law. We are not starting from neutral ground, but we have to apply our best work to it as legislators. The main problem with that lack of neutrality is that it is heartbreaking to make carers risk a charge on top of their grief. One constituent said to me:

“In the 21st century we should be having an adult debate about this. We should protect family members or friends who risk prosecution for assisting.”

Another added:

“This is a subject that as a caring and civilised country we can no longer ignore. I hope this issue can finally be addressed in Parliament.”

I agree with my constituent: we should bring these quite awful ethical choices into the light, and give people dignity and support. People are suffering cruelly, and I hope the next generation of MPs will take courage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robin Millar (Aberconwy) (Con)]

First, I give my thanks to the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for introducing the debate on behalf of those who signed the petition. It is really important that we represent the people who write to us, and like many colleagues here, I have had lots of emails and letters on this subject.

I want to make two points. My first would be a note of caution. As parliamentarians, it is our job not only to represent those with a voice—those who are motivated, interested, engaged and who grab our attention. Our job is also to represent those without a voice—those who are vulnerable, who cannot speak or who speak with a very quiet voice. It is our duty to represent their interests and consider their situations as well. That is an important balance we must bring to this debate, and I make no apology for that. I want to commend the hon. Member for Gower for bringing that balance to her opening remarks. If we are to have these debates, it is important that they are done in the right way. The tone she set was very helpful, so I thank her for that. I also thank the Health and Social Care Committee for its report, which I found very helpful, with the facts it presented and the approach it took. I commend it to all to read, as there are many good and useful points in it.

There is very little time available, so I will finish with my second point. Some might characterise this as a slippery slope or the thin end of a wedge, and I, too, was appalled at what Matthew Parris wrote. I found the way in which he wrote and presented it to be crude, and unnecessarily so in such a debate. However, I want to speak about the issue of normalising. The point has been made in other places that suicide rates in countries where this legislation is introduced go up, and it is that normalising that I am particularly concerned about. In Scotland, the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill includes a definition of terminal illness, which could be seen to include things like type 1 diabetes or rheumatoid arthritis. To quote the Health and Social Care Committee’s report again, it states on page 45:

“Wherever the boundaries are set, evidence from other jurisdictions shows that the boundaries are eroded and criteria expanded”.

[Chloe Smith]

I was following these arguments very carefully earlier. The citation my hon. Friend makes is a quote from a campaign group rather than a finding of the Committee.

[Robin Millar]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that. It stands as it is, and I refer every interested reader to the context of the quote.

Immigration Bill

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Monday 25th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is just over half an hour to go and I see probably a dozen people trying to get in to speak. There is no formal time limit, but if each colleague speaks for no more than three minutes, a lot will get in. Otherwise, a lot of people will be disappointed.

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

I shall endeavour to live up to that, Mr Speaker. Like Save the Children, I believe that every child and young person should live in a supportive, protective and caring environment that promotes their full potential. But this Bill, on which I served in Committee, is about the wisest use of resources, and I support the Minister tonight in his position on amendment 87, which is about how best to help unaccompanied children. We all seek to help them, so the question is: how?

We have two large questions about resources before us tonight. The first is: do we help people better in the region or through Europe and, within that, which is more unsafe? The second is: how do we balance such action with supporting children who are already in need? The key point that the Minister has set out, on which I support him, is that of avoiding the encouragement of extra peril and the creation of an extra pull factor. In that position he is supported by the UNHCR representative to this country and the Children’s Commissioner.

We have all agreed tonight that other European countries must step up, too. Europe is a place of safety; there are dozens of safe countries between Italy and Greece and the United Kingdom. I note some of the figures provided during the Lords debate on this Bill on the comparison with our European colleagues: we have relocated 1,000 refugees already, as we promised we would do by Christmas, and in that whole period the 27 other countries in Europe have managed to resettle only 650. We should look at the 21 other countries that have not taken in even one Syrian refugee.

The point we must then address is whether we are already doing enough to help the children are already in need in this country. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst), I speak as somebody whose local authority does not do well on this count. I cast no aspersions on Kent, but I go on to say that Norfolk has more than 1,000 children who are in care and who need good homes. We must look at that statistic alongside this issue tonight. We must ask ourselves: how are we to provide a supportive, protective and caring environment for these children if we cannot already find enough foster homes and enough long-term homes for those children? We must balance those things tonight.

[Mrs Grant]

Does my hon. Friend agree that children are being trafficked younger and younger, and that they face loneliness and bewilderment? Does she agree that a child advocate support scheme similar to that trialled by the Government could be very useful for local authorities and young children?

[Chloe Smith]

I would be keen to look at that in more detail. I am unsure exactly how it might help in this particular case of Norfolk County Council, but I would be delighted to hear more if my hon. Friend can tell me about something I should be able to do as a constituency MP on that front.

Given these serious practical reservations, given that we do not already have enough supportive and caring environments for all the children we would wish to help, given the action that we are already taking and will take within those constraints, and given that surely it would be brutal to promise something that we are not currently able to deliver, I support the Minister’s position tonight and find it difficult at this time to support Lords amendment 87.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Immigration Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 17th November 2015 Public Bill Committees

[James Brokenshire]

I welcome you back to the Chair, Mr Bone, for our final day of deliberations on the Bill.

The new clause and new schedule 3 make changes to the availability of local authority support in England for certain categories of migrants. The new schedule is in part a companion to schedule 6, which reforms arrangements for the provision by the Home Office of support to failed asylum seekers and other illegal migrants, which the Committee has already considered. As I said during our debates, we continue to consult with local authority colleagues, in particular on the detail of the new support arrangements and how they will sit alongside other provisions. We are clear that we want to encourage and enable more migrants without any lawful basis to remain in the United Kingdom to leave in circumstances when they can do so.

In particular, we have been discussing with local government colleagues whether changes to schedule 3 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which controls access to local authority social care for migrants without immigration status, would be helpful. Our public consultation on asylum support highlighted concerns that the framework provided by schedule 3 to the 2002 Act and associated case law was complex and burdensome for local authorities to administer and involved complicated assessments and continued litigation to establish what support should be provided in what circumstances. The Committee heard similar concerns from local authority colleagues in their oral evidence to us on 22 October.

We have listened carefully to what local authority colleagues in England told us about the scope for simplifying and strengthening some of those provisions. Our response is the amendments made by the new schedule to schedule 3 to the 2002 Act, making two key changes. First, new schedule 3 simplifies the way in which local authorities in England assess and provide accommodation and subsistence for destitute families without immigration status. It enables local authorities to continue to provide under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 for any other needs of a child or their family to safeguard and promote the child’s welfare. Secondly, the new schedule prevents adult migrant care leavers who have exhausted their appeal rights and have established no lawful basis to remain here from accessing local authority support under the 1989 Act. It makes alternative provision for their accommodation, subsistence and other support before they leave the UK.

Immigration is a reserved matter and, as we have debated previously, immigration legislation—through schedule 3 to the 2002 Act—already provides a UK-wide framework for migrants’ access to local authority services. We therefore have it in mind to seek to amend the Bill at a later stage to extend those provisions to the rest of the UK once we have had further dialogue, which is in hand, with the devolved Administrations.

Turning to the main provisions of the new schedule, paragraph 7 of new schedule 3 inserts a new paragraph 7B in schedule 3 to the 2002 Act. It provides a new simplified definition of a person without immigration status who will generally be ineligible for the forms of local authority support listed in paragraph 1(1) of schedule 3 to the Act. It replaces the convoluted immigration status definitions in paragraphs 6 to 7A of schedule 3 to the Act.

Paragraph 8 inserts a new paragraph 10A in schedule 3 to the 2002 Act, under which regulations will be made by the Secretary of State, subject to parliamentary approval, to enable local authorities to provide for the accommodation and subsistence needs of destitute families without immigration status in circumstances in which case law and human rights considerations may well mean that the local authority should provide support.

Such circumstances include where, first, the family has an outstanding specified immigration application or appeal—in a non-asylum case for which Home Office support is not provided. Secondly, the family might have exhausted appeal rights and not failed to co-operate with arrangements to leave the UK. They must also not qualify for the support available from the Home Office under proposed new section 95A of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, to be inserted by schedule 6 to the Bill, for failed asylum seekers with a genuine obstacle to departure at the point their appeal rights are exhausted. Thirdly, the provision of accommodation and subsistence support must be necessary to safeguard and promote the welfare of a dependent child. That will enable local authorities to take any action they consider necessary to prevent destitution pending the resolution of the family’s immigration status or their departure from the UK.

Paragraph 4 will insert a new schedule 3A to the 2002 Act, which will mean that accommodation and subsistence support will be provided to a destitute family under the regulations made under new paragraph 10A of schedule 3 rather than under section 17 of the Children Act 1989. As we discussed in respect of schedule 6, there is no general obligation on local authorities to accommodate illegal migrants who intentionally make themselves destitute by refusing to leave the UK when it is clear that they can do so. Schedule 3 to the 2002 Act already provides that a range of local authority social care is unavailable to failed asylum seekers and others who remain in the UK unlawfully except when, following what can be a complex and burdensome assessment process, the local authority decides that the provision of such support is necessary to avoid a breach of human rights or on the basis of other exceptions for which schedule 3 provides.

The new schedule will simplify the complex human rights assessment process, much of which is concerned, in line with case law, with immigration matters that are for the Home Office and the courts to determine, which the local authority has to undertake before it can assess and provide for the family’s social care needs. The provisions embody a sense of simplification.

The main social care needs of families without immigration status who seek local authority support are for accommodation and subsistence to prevent destitution. A June 2015 study by the Centre on Migration, Policy and Society at Oxford University on local authority support for such families—I referred the Committee to this in my letter that notified colleagues of the amendments—found that the welfare needs of the children at the point of referral to the local authority were overwhelmingly for accommodation and subsistence.

The new schedule will also ensure that section 17 of the 1989 Act will remain available to the local authority, together with its other powers and duties under that Act to deal with any other needs of the child or their family that the local authority considers must be met to safeguard and promote the child’s welfare while the family’s immigration status is resolved or, where it is established that they have no lawful basis to remain here, before they leave the UK. The local authority’s duty to provide for the child’s schooling and to address any specific educational needs will also be maintained.

The reforms to schedule 3 to the 2002 Act will simplify the basis on which local authorities deal with destitute families without immigration status and maintain essential safeguards. We are satisfied that they are compatible with our obligations under the UN convention on the rights of the child and article 3 in particular, which requires that children’s best interests are a “primary consideration” in all decisions affecting them. We are also satisfied that they are compatible with section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 under which the Secretary of State must have regard to

“the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in the United Kingdom”

when carrying out immigration functions.

Paragraph 2 of the new schedule amends paragraph 1(1) of schedule 3 to the 2002 Act so that adult migrant care leavers who have exhausted their appeal rights and who have established no lawful basis to remain here are prevented from accessing local authority support for care leavers under the 1989 Act. Nearly all of those adult migrants are former asylum-seeking children whose asylum and any other human rights claims have failed. The provisions in the 1989 Act are geared to support the needs and onward development of young adults leaving local authority care whose long-term future is in the UK. Those provisions are not appropriate to the support needs, pending their departure from the UK, of adult migrants who the courts have agreed have no right to remain here.

Paragraph 8 will insert a new paragraph 10B in schedule 3 to the 2002 Act under which regulations will be made by the Secretary of State, subject to parliamentary approval, to enable local authorities to provide for the support of adult migrant care leavers who have exhausted their appeal rights in respect of their asylum claim but have an outstanding specified immigration application or appeal and are destitute; or who have exhausted their appeal rights and do not qualify for Home Office support under the new section 95A of the 1999 Act because there is no genuine obstacle to their departure from the UK, but to whom the local authority is satisfied that support needs to be provided. That will enable the local authority to ensure that support does not end abruptly and that there can be a managed process of encouraging and enabling their departure from the UK.

Paragraph 4 inserts new paragraphs 3B and 3C in schedule 3 to the 2002 Act, which means that support will be provided to the adult migrant care leaver under the regulations made under new paragraph 10B of schedule 3, or under new section 95A of the 1999 Act, rather than under the Children Act 1989. By virtue of paragraph 11 of schedule 3, the new regulations will enable local authorities to provide such other social care support, beyond accommodation and subsistence, as they consider necessary in individual circumstances.

We are confident that the reforms to schedule 3 to the 2002 Act will simplify how local authorities deal with destitute families without immigration status, will make more appropriate provision for support to adult migrant care leavers who have not established a lawful basis to remain in the UK and will maintain essential safeguards. The provisions in the new schedule will, like those in schedule 6 to the Bill, be subject to the new burdens assessment of the final package of changes to which we have committed.

We will continue to work closely with local authority colleagues to look at other ways in which we can improve the framework within which they work with migrants without immigration status. All are clear that we want to work together to encourage and enable more migrants who have no right to remain here and who face no barrier to their departure to leave the UK. The new provisions will help ensure that we have the right platform in place for that work.

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

Obviously, since the Committee last met we have seen the appalling attacks in Paris. It will not have escaped the Minister’s attention that it is considered possible that one of the attackers entered Europe as a putative refugee. Does the Minister agree with me and many of my constituents that the work we are doing with the new clause and the new schedule, and other parts of the Bill, will simplify, strengthen and prioritise the support we can give to those refugees who need it, rather than those who may be seeking to abuse the system? He surely would agree that that is important work in light of those attacks.

[James Brokenshire]

I note my hon. Friend’s comments. She will obviously have heard the Home Secretary’s statement yesterday, and the Prime Minister will make a further statement to the House today. It is important that we do not speculate on what may or may not have happened in the appalling events that we have all seen in the past few days. We stand in solidarity with the French people at this extraordinarily difficult time. We stand against those who would seek to divide us and destroy our very way of life. We all have a common cause in standing with the French people and all those who are against Daesh and those extremist organisations that seek to threaten our very way of life.

In general terms, my hon. Friend has highlighted the issue of any threat that may exist with those seeking to come to Europe through an asylum-based route. We need to analyse the facts carefully as to what has or has not happened, but it is equally important to underline the stringent checks that we carry out in this country on those who are claiming asylum and how we believe it is essential to strengthen the screening and identification of those arriving on the shores of Europe. That is why we support the work of Frontex, the EU external border agency, in its work on debriefing those who are picked up. We also support such things as the Hotspots initiative in Italy, Greece and other countries, which ensures that those who are arriving are processed speedily and effectively.

No doubt my hon. Friend will have heard the Home Secretary’s comments yesterday on the work that is undertaken to ensure that we are appropriately screening those arriving in this country through our vulnerable persons relocation scheme. All the steps we are taking are part of our focus on the security of this country, but equally they are about ensuring that those coming to this country who are fleeing persecution and in need of support are welcomed by us and given the support that they require. We believe that that approach is entirely consistent with the proposals in the Bill and is reflected in the new clause and new schedule.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

Norwich airport in my constituency suffered a minor cyber-attack on its website last week. First, will the Minister join me in encouraging businesses to check their defences? Secondly, will he redouble his efforts to ensure that we are safe from cyber-terrorism in the light of the callous attacks, about which we are all agreed?

[Mike Penning]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. As I said, we have a responsibility personally, but so do companies. We are working very closely with the banks in particular, but all companies have a responsibility to protect the data they hold, particularly individuals’ personal data.

Immigration Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I thank the Solicitor General for that.

There is a further cost issue to consider, which is the impact the proposed change would have on local authorities. Last week, the Minister and I had a long discussion about the ongoing dialogue with local authorities. I stand by what I said last week. I am not convinced that discussing with local authorities the impact of these burdens that will be placed on them once the Bill is already in place is the right way to do things.

Asylum seekers who find themselves destitute will be scooped up by local authority services—statutory homelessness services, child protection services under the Children Act 1989, mental health services, adult social care services and so on.

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

I wonder whether it would be helpful if we were clear about our language. The hon. Lady used the phrase “asylum seekers”, and said that they will be forced to turn to the services she listed, but we are talking about failed asylum seekers—people who have exhausted their appeal rights. By that process, they have been deemed not to be refugees. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees said:

“National asylum systems are there to decide which asylum-seekers actually qualify for international protection.”

We have a system for a reason, and the hon. Lady’s use of the phrase “asylum seekers” in that sentence is not accurate.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. I made that error last week, too. I apologise again; I should have said “failed asylum seekers”, but what I am saying still stands.

Can the Minister clarify something? We had a long discussion last week, but I am still not entirely sure—this may be my fault, and I may be missing something—how the Bill fits with the ethos of other legislation in this country, which protects vulnerable people. I hope that the Minister can explain for my benefit—I am quite a simple character, and I like things in straightforward terms—how the Bill fits with the ethos of other legislation.

I feel strongly that this measure will potentially be a disaster for local authorities, which are already overwhelmed by funding pressures and will soon have a duty of care for other people as well. Asylum seekers are generally more concentrated in urban areas and areas of higher deprivation—the places where local authority budgets have been most dramatically cut in recent years. I do not need to remind the Committee that in the top 10 most deprived areas, the cost is 18 times higher per resident than in the 10 least deprived. If the Bill is passed, those local authorities will face a big surge in demand for such services. How will they pay for that? Will the Minister let us know whether he is going to offer them any funds?

Section 95 support cost the Home Office £45 million in 2014-15. Given that councils will have to process failed asylum seekers, assess their needs and so on, the process is likely to become much more expensive. The people concerned are spread across dozens of local authorities, which will entail duplication of work. What options do local authorities have? Should they cut services elsewhere, put up council tax or abandon their legal duties? The Bill’s lasting legacy may be to effect a massive transfer of responsibilities from the Home Office to local authorities, with no accompanying transfer of services or resources. On top of all the challenges that councils face, they will now be asked to do the Home Office’s job. The Government are washing their hands of failed asylum seekers and passing the buck to somebody else.

We must think of the human cost of causing families to live in the most dreadful poverty and separating children from their parents. When a family cannot feed their children, it is considered neglect. Children’s services will have to step in and take those children into care. I do not know what will happen when the time comes for the family to return. Will the child or children get returned to their family’s care? I have worked in child protection with a large number of families who have fled war and persecution, and I cannot stress enough the long-term damage that the separation of a child or children from their family can do to their and their parents’ mental health and emotional wellbeing. At the end of the day, it is the migrants who will suffer, and our constituents will too, with public services pushed beyond breaking point as their local authority is forced to clean up the Home Office’s mess.

The Home Office must know that that is about to happen. When the section 9 pilots were trialled a decade ago, the Home Office said that they placed “significant demands” on local authority resources. I believe strongly that the Government are on the brink of making a terrible mistake that will simultaneously undermine efforts to process asylum seekers quickly and heap unmanageable new duties on some of our country’s most deprived local authorities. I urge Government Members to accept our amendments to avoid this disaster.

Immigration Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Thursday 5th November 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

I recall from our evidence sessions that many of the organisations that the Minister has mentioned agreed wholeheartedly that we need to be able to control our costs where somebody is not eligible for support in order to be able to do more where somebody is—I have in mind the 20,000 Syrian refugees whom we all wish to welcome to this country. Does the Minister agree?

Immigration Bill (Eighth sitting)

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Keir Starmer]

In relation to amendment 12, the Minister has no doubt seen the letter written to him by the Residential Landlords Association on 23 October, which says:

“The effect of amendment 12 will be that all existing tenancies in the private rented sector will now be covered.”

It then spells out what it sees to be the consequences of that:

“The threat of substantial fines or potential imprisonment will cause a great deal of concern for all law-abiding landlords who constitute the vast majority. They will want to be completely certain that those residing in their rental properties are legally entitled to do so. The only way of doing this, and to avoid accusations of discrimination, will be to check the documentation of all their tenants, whether they are UK nationals or not.”

The Residential Landlords Association is concerned that the likely response to the provision is that all law-abiding landlords will want to carry out checks for themselves on date X, when it comes into force. It then spells out the implications of that. First, the provision will place a huge burden on landlords—particularly those with multiple properties, who will have to contact each and every tenant to carry out the check. Secondly, it is concerned that

“the structures in place to provide support to landlords, unless properly resourced, will not cope.”

It references a response to a written question tabled by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North. It says that the Minister

“indicated that there are just 2 full time equivalent members of staff handling incoming calls to the landlord helpline.”

It then points out the potential for chaos. It cites the 2011 census figures, which show that

“16.5% of tenants in private rented housing do not hold any passport”.

The Residential Landlords Association’s big concern is that if amendment 12 is agreed to, many, if not the vast majority, of landlords will want to carry out checks on the day that the provision comes into force. That is a huge national exercise, way beyond anything that happened in the pilot or anything that would constitute the exercise if only future tenancies were included.

The Residential Landlords Association raises the concern that the provision will lead to some unjustified convictions where documentation is not easily to hand. As it says, 16.5% of those in the rented sector do not have passports. It also points out that many landlords, having done the checks, will feel compelled to report to the Home Office anybody they feel is of concern to them, which could be many thousands of individuals. It asks for two things—first, a simple, readily identifiable document that it can use; and, secondly, for the Government to outline what plans they have to increase the resources available.

There are very big concerns in the relevant sector about how the provision will work. There is a trigger date and, if the Residential Landlords Association’s analysis is right, landlords will not feel comfortable sitting back and waiting until each tenancy comes to an end. They will feel compelled to carry out the necessary checks. As it also points out, if a landlord is served with notice by the Secretary of State in relation to an existing tenant—a tenant whom they were not required to check on at the outset, which knocks out one of the points made in an intervention this morning—they become criminal from that date onwards, notwithstanding the fact that when they took on the tenant they were not required to carry out a check, and until they got the notice from the Secretary of State they would not have known that there was anything wrong with the tenant’s status. If ever there was a glaring example of why the vote on the defence that has just been taken was wrong, this is it. A landlord who has had a tenant for many years and was not obliged to carry out a check, can potentially receive a notice from the Secretary of State, which will be the first the landlord knows that there is anything wrong with the tenant’s status, and immediately become a criminal, with no defence.

The Residential Landlords Association has raised serious concerns that require, at the very least, a high level of reassurance. How does the Minister see things operating in practice? Is he saying to law-abiding landlords that they should sit back and not bother checking? Is the message that, notwithstanding the provisions, they are perfectly entitled not to check? That would give them a level of reassurance. If they feel that they ought to check, will there be adequate resources to enable them to do so properly? They are deeply concerned. Does the Minister see any merit in their concern that once they are notified by the Secretary of State they become criminals? On the face of it, that would be unjust and unfair.

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

I want to make an extremely short point in support of the clause. There is a strong argument for having new offences to target rogue landlords and agents who deliberately try to exploit others and who, in doing so, reduce the extent of housing stock for those who do have the legal right to be in this country.

Will the Minister help me on a point of detail? On page 6 of the explanatory notes, paragraph 13 states that the intention is

“to target those rogue landlords and agents who deliberately and repeatedly fail to comply with the right to rent scheme or fail to evict individuals who they know or have reasonable cause to believe are disqualified from renting as a result of their immigration status.”

Will the Minister explain how the nature of a repeated misdemeanour comes through in the Bill? Repeated failure to comply is a strong argument for ensuring that we have adequate legislation to combat such practices.

[James Brokenshire]

I appreciate the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras raising the concerns of the relevant landlord body. A number of things flow from the provisions. I do not accept that the clause will trigger some form of requirement to check retrospectively. As I highlighted in an earlier contribution, the point is that the offence under what would be new section 33A of the Immigration Act 2014 will be triggered on two conditions: first, that the premises are occupied by an adult who is disqualified; and secondly, that the landlord knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the premises are occupied in such a way.

We come back to the previous debate on the distinction between nuisance and the higher standard that will be applied for the new offence. I do not share the Residential Landlords Association’s view and will certainly respond to it in clear terms. I know that the RLA has consistently voiced concerns about the right to rent check scheme and how this matter might present itself in the west midlands. I welcome the contribution it continues to make through its support and input to our landlord panel, but I must underline that its interpretation of the provisions in the Bill extends them in a way that is not intended.

Immigration Bill (Sixth sitting)

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Keir Starmer]

I beg to move amendment 60, in clause 2, page 2, line 26, at end insert—

‘(3A) The Director must engage with civil society in the development of his or her labour market enforcement strategy.”

To expressly require engagement between civil society and the Director of Labour Market Enforcement in the development of the labour market enforcement strategy.

The amendment would require the director of labour market enforcement to engage with civil society in the development of the labour market enforcement strategy. Page 26 of the Government’s consultation document “Tackling Exploitation in the Labour Market” states that a director:

“will engage with a wide range of stakeholders to gather insights and perspectives on real world practices, improve detection of exploitation and understand external views of the effectiveness of the enforcement landscape. Stakeholders will include Government departments, the IASC, the police, local authorities and other public bodies; organisations representing employers and employees across the economy and in particular sectors of interest; and a range of third sector bodies that engage with vulnerable/exploited groups.”

The amendment would make that explicit in the Bill.

It is important that the voice of organisations working with victims of labour exploitation, trade unions and others are invited to feed their expertise into the director’s work, especially at the strategy stage. The absence of any formal engagement strategy will mean that the director may fail to gain the breadth of front-line experience and expertise required to prepare an evidence-based strategy. This is linked to the resource point that was made earlier. With extremely limited resources, it will be very hard for the director to gather the range of information required to complete a comprehensive labour market assessment, so strong engagement mechanisms will be required to ensure that all expertise is integrated into the strategy. The amendment would strengthen the strategy and formalise the involvement of others who have expertise and experience, as is recognised in the consultation document, and ensure that the strategy is as strong as it needs to be, if the approach is to be the step change that we hope it will be.

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

The hon. and learned Gentleman has tabled an extremely interesting amendment. Has he given more thought as to how “civil society” ought to be defined? If he is going to put that phrase into primary legislation, it should be well defined. Of course, he would expect there to be consequences if the director does not do what the Bill says the director must do. Could the hon. and learned Gentleman better define civil society and explain how he would enforce such a thing?

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. In a sense, the intent is to formalise what was envisaged in the consultation document, which contained a fairly lengthy list—I read it out a moment ago—of stakeholders, including organisations representing employers and employees, and third sector bodies that engage with vulnerable and exploited groups. It might be helpful to go a bit further than that, but the intention was to formalise what was rightly set out in the consultation document—the bodies with which the director should engage—using the words “civil society”. That is what lies behind the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion]

I speak in support of my hon. and learned Friend. It is fundamentally wrong to make the employee a criminal—it makes no sense. I have not been convinced by any of the witnesses we have heard or any of the evidence that I have seen that this is the right way to achieve the Government’s objectives.

My main concern is that the measure will compound exploitation. I would like to quote Caroline Robinson, one of our witnesses, from FLEX—Focus on Labour Exploitation—who put the three issues more succinctly than I can. She said:

“First, we think that people will be fearful of coming forward to be referred into the UK national referral mechanism as victims of trafficking…The second reason is that we know that traffickers use the threat of deportation, removal and reporting to immigration officials in order to abuse and exploit workers…The third reason is something that was raised a lot on Second Reading, namely the criminalisation of trafficked persons. Although the Home Secretary set out the statutory defence, which is in the Modern Slavery Act 2015, it is quite narrow in its terms. The schedules exclude a number of offences for the victims of trafficking, such as aggravated criminal damage, but if I was to leave the building in which I was held I would no longer be covered by the statutory defence in the Modern Slavery Act.”––[Official Report, Immigration Public Bill Committee, 20 October 2015; c. 24-25, Q50.]

My biggest concern is that the measure will stop whistleblowers. How will we identify bad employers if the very people who can give us that evidence are too scared to come forward for fear of being criminalised? It is not only bad employers that could be overlooked, but health and safety risks that could impact on a number of employees.

I am pleased about the Modern Slavery Act, which is a good and strong piece of legislation. I am also very pleased that the Minister has made it clear that people are protected under the Act if they are trafficked into the country. If they are used as a slave, they are exploited. However, I would like clarification from the Minister about how someone will be dealt with if their status shifts. For example, if someone was trafficked into the country and forced into slavery, but then managed to escape and became an illegal worker, would they be protected because at the start of their journey they were protected under the Modern Slavery Act, meaning that they would be treated as a victim, or would they be criminalised because, at the end of their journey, they were an illegal worker? What happens the opposite way round? If a person comes to the UK as an undocumented worker and is then exploited by their employer, at what point would they be protected if, having come to the country illegally as a worker, they were then used as a slave?

[Chloe Smith]

The hon. Lady and I both served on the Committee that considered the Bill that became the Modern Slavery Act. I looked at the list of exemptions in that Act while we heard the piece of evidence that she quoted. It is worth reminding the Committee that there is a set of defences in the Act, and to that set of defences, there is a set of exemptions. In that set of exemptions—this is rather like a Russian doll, but bear with me—there is an exemption on this point of criminal damage. In other words, an individual might be at risk of being accused of criminal damage only if they had behaved recklessly and endangered somebody’s life. That is in the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which the hon. Lady and I debated. Has she reflected on that before trying to advance this line of argument that the provision is all one thing, rather than being nuanced?

Immigration Bill (Fourth sitting)

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Champion]

I am sorry. We are not trying to trip you up.

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

Q 257 Does the Committee have any reason not to accept the figures in the Home Office’s August consultation document? I am referring to the public consultation on reforming support for failed asylum seekers and other illegal migrants. I am looking at the figures given for the scale of the situation: an estimated 15,000 refused asylum seekers with an estimated cost of £73 million. Do you accept those figures or have any concerns about them?

Paul Greenhalgh: We broadly accept those figures, yes.

[Chloe Smith]

Q 258 That is very helpful. Thank you. I will preface my next question with a sentence from the UNHCR website:

“If the asylum system is both fast and fair, then people who know they are not refugees have little incentive to make a claim in the first place, thereby benefitting both the host country and the refugees for whom the system is intended.”

If we are looking at 15,000 refused asylum seekers, with an associated cost that we might all agree on, does the panel think that we ought to do everything we can to reduce that number and those costs, to be able to fulfil the obligations to refugees that we all want to fulfil—the Prime Minister has set out that we want to—towards refugees coming in from other parts of the world at present, who of course have recourse to public funds, because they are under the temporary relocation scheme?

Councillor Simmonds: Yes, entirely. If we look at the Syrian programme, which is under way at the moment, people coming with humanitarian status will have rights, and the expectation is that they will be able to access fully UK public services but also will be expected to work.

Picking up on the point about the numbers, there is a survey that is probably the most up-to-date one, because I do not think we have any national data on the number of people who are here irregularly as migrants under one status or another. The Greater London Authority commissioned a study. It is from 2007 and it gives the most recent national figure. It estimated that the number of irregular migrants—this is people with a number of different statuses—was between 417,000 and 863,000.

In terms of the numbers at present, we know the organisations that participate in Henry’s body. There was a survey recently, in January this year, and it put the number at around 2,154 households, supported by the 34 authorities that provided detailed information, at a cost of £613,872 per week. Clearly, that is a significant cost to UK taxpayers for people who will fall into a number of different groups; not just failed asylum seekers but visa overstayers and various other categories.

[Chloe Smith]

Q 259 Would you just kindly repeat that number and say what the unit is?

Councillor Simmonds: Yes. So, we were talking there about 34 authorities that are supporting 2,154 households who are irregular migrants, and the cost—the quite detailed costing of that—is £613,872 per week.

Paul Greenhalgh: Which aggregates to £32 million for those 34 authorities.

Henry St Clair Miller: And includes 3,825 dependants.

[The Chair]

I do not know whether any of the witnesses has those figures in a table, because it is very difficult to take them all down. If you could write to us, I would like to circulate them to the Committee.

[Chloe Smith]

Q 260 Would the rest of the panel like to make any comment on this notion of having to reduce our undesired costs to be able to do more for those who most need it?

Paul Greenhalgh: Absolutely, and we would want to do that to ensure that the relevant safeguards are in place, particularly for children in families.

Henry St Clair Miller: I agree with that, yes.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

Q 261 I would just like to follow up a little on some of the witnesses’ answers to the Minister’s questions about the interaction that you have had with the Home Office. Mr Greenhalgh, you said in relation to the 2005 pilot by the then Labour Government that it not only failed but was counter- productive, in that it drove many people underground and made compliance more difficult. From the discussions that you have had with the Home Office, do you know what different measures the Home Office is putting in place that will mean this time it is different, and are you confident that that is the case?

Paul Greenhalgh: I spoke about the complexity of the current assessment system when families need to come to local authorities for support. So, as the Bill is currently drafted, we believe that the number of families that would inevitably come to local authorities for support would increase significantly.

One of the questions that we are exploring with the Home Office is whether it is appropriate to leave the legislation around the Children Act as it currently stands, which we then have to apply to those families, or whether we take migrant families without status out of the Children Act and provide support for them through schedule 3 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. There are some advantages to that, in terms of the potential for establishing a new simplified assessment system, for providing support in a way that takes more account of the family’s immigration status and for being more explicit about the fact that it would result in a clear new burden on the local authority, which would need to be funded. That is one mechanism that we are in discussion about.

Immigration Bill (First sitting)

Chloe Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

There is a chance, down the line, that that could be the case. I just wanted to clear that up. Thank you.

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

Q 16 Two quick questions from me. The first is on what happens at present to engage with these families. Mr Kaye, you were just saying that the longer we do not engage with them, the more there is a problem; yet, as I have just heard it, Ms Dennis, you were outlining the current process and saying that it was chock full of engagement. Will the panel comment on the ways in which current engagement is different from what happened under the 2005 process, which I understand hinged largely on corresponding with people rather than engaging with them, perhaps as happens at present?

Judith Dennis: The 2005 pilot took away support, or threatened people with taking away their support if they were not taking steps to remove themselves. Partly as a result of the lack of success of that programme, and of hearing from some families in parliamentary work done by various agencies about the complexity of the situation, this programme was established. There are several stages at which family conferences take place, and specialist family engagement managers who understand the process invite the families—parents and sometimes children—to meetings. They are invited to think about whether or not they want to go and they visit the family, and those kind of things. There are lots of steps. Most of the process is designed to help people think about voluntary return, because there are fewer barriers to removal if someone agrees to go rather than being forced to go. So measures that just take away support, rather than put in more support, have been found not to work, and those that put in more support have some more success.

[Chloe Smith]

Q 17 I suppose in what you are saying there are two types of support, in the sense of money and of engagement, and just to be clear you are—

Judith Dennis: Indeed. I would say that they need to go hand in hand.

Mike Kaye: I just draw attention to the fact that—the point that I was making—if you cut off support, you cut off all that work, because you no longer engage with that individual and they no longer engage with you. The other point that I would make is that under the Bill we are looking at—the Home Office is talking about—cutting off support to families after 28 days. That is an entirely insufficient amount of time to work with a family to get them to return home. In fact, under the voluntary return programme you would be looking at 90 days. This is for delegated powers, but it would be useful if we could get the Minister to indicate that the minimum would be 90 days.

[Chloe Smith]

Q 18 My second question looks back somewhat. Mr Kaye’s organisation, Still Human Still Here, in 2008 gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee on the then draft citizenship and immigration legislative proposals. Your organisation stated:

“Government asylum support policy is leaving many refused asylum seekers destitute”—

that was clearly the then Government in 2008—and that that destitution

“results from the current statutory scheme”

of that Government. Why is it that two major British political parties, which most recently represented around two thirds of the UK population, would want to pursue such measures when they have been democratically elected?

Mike Kaye: Why would they want to—

[Chloe Smith]

Q 19 Why do you think that the Government—either of those Governments—respond to the electorate’s ask?

Mike Kaye: To be frank, it is a total mystery to me after 20 years how Governments can continue to do the same thing and expect a different outcome. Over 20 years Governments have basically been implementing policies that are short-term, deterrent policies, and they have not been resourcing the system to do the job properly. It is a huge frustration to me, because if Government really supported the Home Office to do the job properly, we would not be looking at a problem with asylum seekers. We have had a static number of asylum seekers for 10 years—25,000 applications—well within the realms of the Government’s ability to deal with quickly and efficiently, but we have under-resourced the system so dramatically that we have not dealt with it effectively. The measures being put forward are a repeat of measures that have failed before. We have evidence from previous Governments, all democratically elected—I do not know why we are even talking about whether they are elected or not. They all try to do the same things and, if you look at the evidence, you will see that those things have not worked. That is what is so frustrating—to look at measures in the Bill that are replicating measures that have not worked previously.

[Chloe Smith]

Q 20 But they are not, because the 2005 pilot was based on correspondence rather than engagement.

Mike Kaye: Talking about correspondence rather than engagement is not going to be the issue that changes whether this works or does not work.

John Wilkes: I have worked in this field for seven years now, and one of the observations that I would share is that the system has been in a state of constant churn over that seven years. Asylum is a very complicated thing—it is one of the most complicated activities that the Home Office has to do under its responsibilities—and it has had perpetual change in all sorts of aspects of the system, and I mean major organisational changes. So the system has no time to settle down and to have a coherent overview of how these things are done. Doing a pilot in one area of the system when there are things that need to be addressed in other parts of the system means that you do not get the results you need. The system needs some time to settle down and to enable a much more focused approach on the whole system. In that way, you will start to achieve better results.

Mike Kaye: If you look back over the past 20 years—I totally agree with what John is saying—what you see is different Governments setting different targets. What you are generally doing is shifting very limited resources to meet a separate target, which just creates a backlog in a different aspect of the asylum system, and you have big structural changes, which are administratively inefficient, waste time and do not deliver the end goals that you are looking for. If we want to save money, to make the system work more efficiently and to have quicker and more accurate decisions, we need to resource the whole system properly.

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

Q 21 My question is specifically to John Wilkes. It is about the Scottish issue. Obviously, every country has different legislation. You have been through the changes in legislation coming from this House, so I hope that you will be able to advise us about the impact of this legislation, and the challenges that that presents, in terms of Scottish legislation.

John Wilkes: One of the things we said in our evidence was that the Committee should ensure that the Immigration Bill considers whether the legislative consent process needs to be undertaken with the Scottish Parliament under the Sewel convention, which is actually going to be put into statute under clause 2 of the Scotland Bill, which is currently going through the House. We say that because the whole concept behind legislative consent is that whatever this Parliament does should have no unintended consequences on the business of the other Parliament. There are a number of aspects of the Bill, particularly on asylum support, that we feel would have an impact, in the way colleagues have identified, on local authority responsibilities and on duties to children, which are framed in different legislation in Scotland. There is the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 and the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, which, in Scotland, defines local authorities’ responsibilities in terms of a duty of care to people who have no other resources. We believe that one of the duties of this Bill Committee is to ensure that there are no unintended consequences. What the Home Office often says about immigration legislation is that the intention is around immigration. What Sewel also says is that you have to look at the impact of that legislation, and we think that the impact of this legislation potentially involves legislative consent considerations between the two Parliaments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kelly Tolhurst]

Q 70 Undocumented workers. It has not always reached a full conclusion, so there has perhaps been a view that the penalties are not stiff enough. That is why I am interested to know whether this measure is enough finally to stop people taking those decisions and using undocumented workers.

Kevin Green: My take is that we have to be very careful. There are lots of businesses, and we look at national minimum wage breaches. There are only two cases that have involved recruiters, and they were just miscalculations. Such businesses should be held to account to make sure that they put it right, and then we move on. There is a difference in holding businesses to account. Sometimes small businesses without the resource might make mistakes, and we still need to hold them to account. There is lots of regulation already in place to do that. I think some clarity about that and resource for enforcement are important, but that is very different from somebody who is actually bringing people, harbouring people—what I would call human trafficking. That is criminal activity, and we need strong clarity about the potential punishment, the right level of resource and the right level of intelligence gathering across the different agencies, where this is moving in the right direction.

One of the things that we have uncovered is that, when they find criminal activity, lots of my members will provide examples and identify areas to the GLA where they think they have been infiltrated or where they see information, bank details and telephone numbers being given from one employer—they will then whistleblow to the GLA. Those legitimate businesses need to be sure that, by whistleblowing, they are actually helping to resolve the issue. Resource for the GLA is critical in moving this forward. They need the resource to go after the people who are carrying out real exploitation so that we do not mix them up with small businesses that make the odd mistake along the way.

[Chloe Smith]

Q 71 I want to take Ms Robinson back to her point about defences under the Modern Slavery Act 2015, in which I take a great interest—I sat on the Public Bill Committee. I have that Act and the Criminal Damage Act 1971 in front of me because she made a specific reference to that defence. As I understand it, the defence supplied in the 2015 Act in relation to criminal damage specifically excludes criminal damage with the intent to endanger another person’s life, so it is a rather more specialist case than she might have suggested. Secondly, on Second Reading of this Bill, the Home Secretary was very clear that all those defences will continue to apply. Will Ms Robinson explain her view?

Caroline Robinson: All those defences will continue to apply. What do you mean?

[Chloe Smith]

Q 72 The Home Secretary said that those defences will continue to apply. I thought I heard you say earlier that the defences will not apply; the Home Secretary says that they will.

Caroline Robinson: In relation to the Immigration Bill?

[Chloe Smith]

Yes.

Caroline Robinson: Sorry, I was thinking about Second Reading of the Modern Slavery Act. Yes, she did say that, which is why I said it will be very interesting for organisations such as mine, and many others, as part of the Anti-Trafficking Monitoring Group to know for sure what would be the situation in the case I set out in which there is a series of events in a person’s stay in the UK. They might be exploited when they arrive and then they escape that exploitation on their own—that happens many times, including to a woman I spoke to last week—before entering undocumented work.

Secondly, what would be the situation if I was in undocumented work when I arrived in the UK and then that work deteriorated to the point of exploitation, as we know is a regular pattern in exploitative working conditions? What would happen there? Would I be offending for that work at the beginning, or would the modern slavery defence, if proved, counter that previous work? Those are the questions that remain for us. It would be brilliant to have expanded detail on that in Committee.

[Mims Davies]

Q 73 I want to pick up with Mr Green, and perhaps Mr Miley, how the Bill intends to improve the market regulation and enforcement of workers’ protections. Why has such a culture built up in certain sectors, and how have we allowed that? Does what is in front of you work for that culture to be broken down?

Kevin Green: In terms of exploitation in certain key industrial sectors?