Illegal Migration Bill

Debate between Chris Bryant and John Hayes

Report stage
Wednesday 26th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir Chris Bryant]

I hate the crossings. I hate every single aspect of the crossings. For a start, it is a traffic that turns people, in particular extremely vulnerable people, into a commodity. I have heard stories that traffickers often deliberately buy dinghies that are more dangerous, because they are hopeful they will be picked up by other people. That is despicable. They are deliberately putting other people at risk. They are also a sign of a failure of international diplomacy in other parts of the world, most notably in Afghanistan, Iran and Syria. No doubt we will have people from Sudan in the not too distant future, too. They are chaotic and unregulated. There is no opportunity for justice or proper priority for those who are most in need, so I absolutely hate them.

Emotions run extremely high, most notably emotions on behalf of those who are being trafficked. They are in fear for their lives. They are terrified of being spat at, of being hated, of being in an environment they do not know and where they do not speak the language properly, and all the rest of it. Also, many people in this country watch with compassion that is mixed with anxiety and fear. That is why the language that we use is so, so important. I say very gently to the Minister that I really did not like it when, in a previous debate, he started using language about breaking into this country, and his using the word “cannibalise” today is very, very unfortunate. I know he is a decent man; I urge him to think about that language.

I do not, incidentally, buy the fundamental premise of the Bill either. If it really were trying to provide some kind of deterrent, it would have been thought through much more carefully. I do not believe that deterrent is really the matter of it. The push factors to the UK are far more significant than the pull factors in determining who ends up on a boat. Insofar as there is any evidence as to what the pull factors are, they are: that we speak English in the UK and lots of people are more likely to speak English than French, German, Italian or Spanish; that people already have family connections in the UK, so they think they might be able to base themselves here more easily; and that we have the rule of law. Those three things are not going to change.

I passionately dislike the Bill’s interaction with UK modern slavery legislation. The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) said it far more effectively than I can, but I just look at Government amendment 95. It is the worst piece of gobbledegook I have ever seen introduced:

“The Secretary of State must assume for the purposes…that it is not necessary for the person to be present in the UK…unless she considers that there are compelling circumstances…In determining whether there are compelling circumstances…the Secretary of State must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State.”

She is going to be in endless discussion with herself! It is just preposterous and completely undermines the good efforts, made over many years, to try to ensure we really can crack down on the traffickers. The best person able to reveal a trafficking ring is a victim of that trafficking ring. Without willing co-operation from those people, we simply give more power to the traffickers.

I also dislike the interaction with our international commitments. The former Attorney General, the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox), made the point earlier that, in essence, the Bill is asking us to say deliberately that a Minister can breach our international commitments. As somebody who has probably been the longest standing critic of President Putin in this House and has been saying this for a very long time, I do not want us to be in a very small group of countries with Russia and Belarus who have left the European Court of Human Rights. That, in the end, would do a terrible disfavour to British prosperity in the world.

[Sir John Hayes]

What the former Attorney General said—I thought it an extraordinarily contradictory contribution to our affairs—was that these judgments were not compelling. We are not compelled to abide by them—indeed we did not in respect of prisoner voting—yet he complained that there was something wrong with saying in law that we are not compelled to do so. Either we believe we are obliged to follow the judgments or we do not. The truth is that we should not be following them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Chris Bryant]

There are times when we want to disagree with a Court ruling. The Labour Government certainly did over whether prisoners should have the right to vote. There was a lengthy process, and I cannot even remember where we ended up. I am not opposed to a disagreement with the Court—that can sometimes happen—but the Bill, and especially the amendments in the name of the right hon. Gentleman and others, deliberately ask the Government to front it up with the European Court and the European convention on human rights. In the end, that will do us long-term harm. When we want to have a conversation with China about abiding by international rules-based order, it will be more difficult for us to do that when we are offending our own treaty obligations.

Labour MPs are often asked the perfectly legitimate question: “If you don’t believe in this Bill, what would you do?” As I said earlier, first, I want a comprehensive security treaty between the United Kingdom and the European Union. I think that was what we always wanted at the beginning of the Brexit process—the right hon. Member for Maidenhead was quite right to argue for it. I do not know why that is not on the table again now. It would solve many of the problems that we are seeking to address. Secondly, we should make it easier to arrest the traffickers. We need to devote more time, energy, money and international co-operation to making that happen. Thirdly, we need to process the backlog faster. The more people stuck in the backlog for months, the more the cost to the British people from hotels or whatever other arrangements are made. That is wrong.

Finally, I honestly do not think that anyone will be proud of this legislation in five, 10 or 20 years’ time. I hope that it will all be undone by a future Government. I do not even think that the immigration Minister will mention it in his memoirs.

[Sir John Hayes]

Edmund Burke said:

“Justice is itself the greatest standing policy of civil society; and any eminent departure from it, under any circumstances, lies under the suspicion of being no policy at all.”

Defending our borders and our ability as a sovereign nation to remove people who have no legal right to be here is a matter of justice—it is legally just and socially just. So is our right as a Parliament and a Government to say how many people should come here lawfully. I suggest gently to the Minister that he needs to look next at legal immigration—the record numbers of people coming here and the visa system that allows that. All that matters to my constituents. I humbly propose that it matters just as much to the constituents of Members of this House from Ruislip to Rhondda, and from Worthing to Walthamstow.

Every poll or test of public opinion says that the British people want to stop the boats crossing the channel. As the hon. Member for Rhondda (Sir Chris Bryant) said, not only does that endanger the lives of the people in the boats, it offends the principle that I just set out that a nation is no nation if it cannot control its borders. Despite the rhetoric that we have heard, Opposition Members are paying lip service to immigration controls. I believe, as do the vast majority of the people I represent, that there has been too much immigration into Britain for too long. Immigration is a salient for them in a way that it is just not for many Opposition Members.

Outside this place, the shrillest opponents of this legislation and the fiercest critics of the Home Secretary include those who are deluded and those who are devious. They are deluded in refusing to accept the reality that many of the people arriving in the boats are economic migrants, gamed by dodgy interest groups and devious lawyers to support spurious claims exploiting the capricious perversity of European judges, who no one in my constituency chose and who are not accountable to anyone in this Chamber or this country. The trouble is that some people do not believe in the integrity of our borders because, in essence, they do not believe in the integrity of our nation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Chris Bryant]

On that point, will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir John Hayes]

I will not because time does not allow.

The amendment I tabled in Committee, which has now been brought forward by the Government, will put in place scientific tests to establish beyond doubt the age of claimants.

Almost 90,000 people have come here in small boats in recent years. It costs £6 million a day to accommodate them in more than 300 hotels. The Government and this House must re-establish the faith of the British people that we understand their concerns. It is as simple as this: we must deliver the legislation because we must stop the boats.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Debate between Chris Bryant and John Hayes

Report stage & 3rd reading & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 6th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

This is what happens all too often: a man, and it is normally a man, comes home, perhaps he is drunk, or he loses his temper, or he quietly and dispassionately decides to deal with his partner to teach her a lesson—perhaps to slap her around a bit. Maybe he lashes out with a punch to the face, or he shakes her violently, repeatedly and at length, or he strangles her, or he pushes her down the stairs. I have heard of men slamming their partner’s head against the wall, against the door, against the bathroom cabinet, against the toilet bowl, against the kitchen worktop, or against the oven.

These are horrific instances, and in many, many cases there is absolutely no visible wound, or even a bruise, but the damage is invisible and internal, inside the brain. That internal damage can last for years. The woman, and it is normally a woman, may suffer from anxiety or depression expressly because of the injury to her brain. She may suffer from memory loss. She may be more confused. Her language—her speaking—may often be slurred because of the brain injury. Many may doubt her in the criminal justice system because she is confused and finds it difficult to turn up to events on time having lost some of her executive functions. She may suffer from terrible fatigue, which is a very common aspect of brain injury. It is almost certain that she will not have gone to the doctor about it, either because she has a coercive partner who will not let her, because she is frightened of talking to anybody about the domestic abuse that she has suffered, or because she does not realise that a brain injury can do as much damage as any other kind of injury.

Depressingly, we have very little idea of how common this is in this country, because there has been remarkably little research done. That is why my amendments, which are tiny little amendments, seek to redress the balance a tiny little bit. In the United States of America, some work has been done showing that 88% of those referred to a traumatic brain injury clinic from local abuse services had had more than one brain injury from their partner. Only 21% of them had ever volunteered to go to the doctor with it. Work done by Ohio University found that 81%—81%—of domestic abuse survivors had received a blow to the head. But in this country we have no idea of what the true numbers are.

The Disabilities Trust did a really good piece of work in Drake Hall Prison with women prisoners coming on to the secure estate for the first time. It found that 64% of women had had a brain injury and 62% of those injuries had been from a domestic violence incident.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I welcome and endorse the hon. Gentleman’s excellent amendments. Not for the first time, he has brought brain injury to the attention of this House. I wonder if I might, through him, invite those on the Front Bench, either by means of an intervention now or in the concluding remarks, to commit to the kind of research that he has recommended to the House.

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who has been a doughty advocate for those who have suffered from brain injuries, not least because of his own experience. That has been invaluable to the House.

The Disabilities Trust’s work, and work that has been done with male prisoners across the estate, was the result of a pilot scheme introduced by the Ministry of Justice. It has been very effective. It is very simple screening —just three simple questions are asked of prisoners arriving. Nevertheless, it has enabled people to rectify some of the problems within the prison—for instance, prisoners who, because of their brain injury, find loud noise, clanging, smashing and things like that to be very disruptive to them. They have, very simply, been able to be put down at the quiet end of the prison. Sometimes, very simple measures have transformed the experience of those individuals and the likelihood of their reoffending, and given them a better opportunity in life.

That is writ even larger when it comes to women prisoners. The evidence is clear that many of the women coming into prison have been victims of domestic violence themselves, so the victim ends up being victimised a third time. All my new clauses are designed to ensure, first, that every single woman coming on to the prison estate is screened—a very simple screening, involving three questions, as has already been done in Drake Hall—and secondly, that every woman coming on to the prison estate who it has already been decided is a victim of domestic violence should be screened for brain injury, so that we can give such women the proper neurorehabilitation they require, so that they can understand the condition they have and lead a fuller life.

I was disappointed by the Minister earlier. I am sure she did not intend to mislead the House, but she said that the national screening agency—I think she means the National Screening Committee—considered screening, when in fact the committee considered screening every single adult in the country for domestic violence. That is not what we are talking about here. I hope she will correct the record when she winds up the debate.

[Sir John Hayes]

I am pleased to follow the hon. Gentleman, who, as I said, has made a persuasive case, to which I hope the Government will respond in the way he suggests.

For most of us, home is where the heart is; it is where we find love and warmth. I guess that most people here would say that is true of their constituents, by and large, but for too many of the people we represent, home is where the hurt is. It is a place of hate and pain—a pain that, for many of them, dare not speak its name, because they feel shame. The irony—the bitter irony—is that some of the victims of domestic abuse feel that they are in some way to blame, that they are in some way guilty, and it goes on year after year, unrecognised, unnoticed, and therefore untreated, undealt with. This Bill is a brave Bill that, to some degree, begins a process. It will not end here; this is a start, not a conclusion. It begins a process by which we can highlight, recognise and then act upon this awful spectre of domestic abuse.

I remember the case of a constituent who came to see me. We all have, every week, every month, horrible things to deal with—things that are memorable in the worst way—but this constituent stands out in my memory. It was a gentleman I knew—I had known him for years; I knew his son. I had no reason to believe he was unhappy —he was always cheerful, a rather jolly sort of chap in his mid-50s. He arrived at a surgery; I did not know why, as I had received no notice of what he wanted to see me about. He sat in front of me and, with almost unbearable tension in the air, revealed to me that he had for years been the subject of domestic abuse. His wife had been beating him. He was a disabled man, so the poignancy of that exchange was exacerbated by knowing that she was much stronger than him and much more powerful. As he burst into tears, I recognised that he was far from the only person like that in my constituency and in all our constituencies. In two thirds of cases, the victims are women, but they can be men, too. That personal experience gave me an insight of what domestic abuse can be and mean for so many of those we represent.

         G. K. Chesterton remarked that

“the business done in the home is nothing less than the shaping of the bodies and souls of humanity.”

Home is where most of our experiences take place, and the impact on the formation of an individual’s earthly experience happens disproportionately in homes. That is why the Bill is important and why I commend so warmly Ministers for bringing it to the House, and particularly my great friend, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins)—I mean no disrespect to my equally good friend, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), by the way—for championing this cause.

My new clauses seek to do two things, as the House will have seen. The first is to monitor the connection between the kind of relationship that people are in and the propensity of domestic abuse. There is some evidence that the sort of relationship in which people are fitted has an impact on the likelihood of domestic abuse taking place. While postmodernists may resent the idea that the Government should play a part in family formation and social solidarity, I do not share that view because I am not postmodern—in fact, I am not even modern, as many people here know. I ask the Government to look at that in some detail, because there is some disturbing evidence to suggest that some kinds of relationships are particularly prone to domestic abuse, which is a heinous crime by any measure.

Acquired Brain Injury

Debate between Chris Bryant and John Hayes

Monday 18th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

The truth is that acquired brain injury is an invisible epidemic in this country. It is invisible because all too often we do not even know the numbers. I know the Minister means well, but I suspect his numbers were a hideous underrepresentation of the truth, because the figures I have seen suggest that there are more like 1.3 million people in this country living with a disability brought on by an acquired brain injury, with nearly half a million presenting to hospital last year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) said, that is one a minute—1,500 a day. That is a very significant number of people. All too often, it feels like an invisible epidemic to the individual concerned, because they might not ever have known they had a brain injury in the first place.

Some of the most distressing work that I have seen has been done by people working in prisons. I was in Cardiff prison a couple of weeks ago—some would say not a moment too soon—to see the work being done there with prisoners, because the work Huw Williams has done at HMP Leeds showed that when we screened every prisoner arriving in through the door we found that 47% of prisoners had an acquired brain injury, that 76% of those had several and that 30% of those had more than five brain injuries. This is often invisible in the case of children, too. The latest figures I have seen show that five children in every primary school class in this country will have an acquired brain injury. If we think that figure is bad enough, the figure for poorer constituencies, and for poorer families and areas, will be considerably higher. The research is a bit difficult to be precise about, but a study in Exeter showed that it was 4.3 times higher in poorer areas, and another survey elsewhere found it was three times higher in poorer families. So, for me, as a socialist—I still like to use the word—this is still a matter of social justice as much as anything else.

[Mr John Hayes]

As a non-socialist and member of the party of Wilberforce, Shaftesbury and Disraeli, I believe in social justice, too. The key thing that the hon. Gentleman has said, as did the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), is that we have to get teachers to be more aware of this. If one thing comes out of this debate, it should be exactly that. We need to co-ordinate across Departments to get teachers to recognise and know this.

[Chris Bryant]

I completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman on that, not least because of one thing that sometimes happens to teenagers. Part of their brains will be quite well developed—the reward bit, the one that knows how to seek out pleasure—but the area of the brain most likely to be hit if they have a brain injury is the bit that is not yet well developed, which is the executive function. It is the bit that gives that youngster the ability to say no to things or to control their emotions and their functions. All too often, if that bit goes wrong, they can start to present in school as somebody who is a problem. They may then get excluded from the school, because it is not understood that this is actually about a brain injury—perhaps the student themselves does not understand that. They may then start offending and we may find several years later that they have a whole career of offending and that if we had managed to do the rehab properly right at the beginning, when the first brain injury happened, we might have been able to save that individual their self-respect and self-esteem, and we might have been able to save society the costs of all the criminality. We might, thus, be able to strengthen the whole of the way we do our business.

One memory that really strikes me is the story of Ben Robinson, the 14-year-old who was playing rugby for Carrickfergus Grammar School in Northern Ireland. He was sent back on to the field three times after brain injuries on the field and then died of double impact syndrome. He was pronounced dead when he arrived at the hospital. I am so proud of Ben’s family, who have campaigned on this issue. His mother, Karen, has always referred to these injuries as rugby’s dirty secret.

Rugby has tried to clean up its act in recent years, but in so many sports, even all these years after footballer Jeff Astle’s brain injury, which was determined to have been an industrial injury brought on by heading the ball, we still see in matches people being sent back on by the club medic. Only an independent medic should make the decision about whether somebody should go back on. If there is any doubt, sit them out. It should be simple and that should apply across all sports.

The Government have had a great success thanks to the major trauma centres which, as somebody said earlier, now manage to save an extra 600 lives every year. That is brilliant, but let us save the quality of their life as well. The miracles that can be achieved in saving lives can be matched by the miracles that can be achieved through really good, long-term, sustained rehabilitation. If we can take an 18-year-old who has had a big brain injury from needing six carers to wash, dress and feed them and get them up and so on, to a place where they no longer depend on those people, are mostly independent and need only one carer, think how many millions of pounds we can save the taxpayer across their lifetime. That must of course be the most effective way to change things.

I repeat the points made about PIP and ESA. One woman said to me, “The doctors say to me that I should spend all my emotional energy on getting my brain to work again, but I am spending all my emotional energy on trying to understand the forms and going through the process so that I can put food on the table for the rest of my family.”

I have a great deal of time for the Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work; she has had meetings with me and I know that she will want to make changes. This is about the whole of Government. I very much hope that we will be able to have another debate soon, because there are so many issues that we have barely managed to touch on in this one.

Restoration and Renewal (Report of the Joint Committee)

Debate between Chris Bryant and John Hayes

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

This is the problem. In many of the spaces we are talking about, which are effectively very narrow chimneys, there is very little room, because they were intended to be ventilation shafts, in essence, but are now so full of generations of heating, electricity and other kinds of cabling that it is impossible to get in there to check. It is even impossible to get in there to check the extent to which the cabling has decayed.

We know that there is asbestos in some places, but we do not know whether there is in others, so of course we have to take precautionary measures. That is the problem; we do not know where all the asbestos is. A lot of it will have to come out because we have to remove other things, not because we are specifically removing the asbestos.

There are long corridors with no fire doors. We have 98 risers in the building and miles of inaccessible and narrow wooden tunnels that would act as funnels for a fire that, I tell you now, would speed through the building faster than most of us in the Chamber could run. We do not meet the national fire safety standards that we impose on other buildings in the country, so we have fire wardens patrolling the building 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Remember the fire at Windsor castle? The major problem was that it spread rapidly because there was no compartmentalisation. The only royal palace in the country that has not had compartmentalisation brought in since that date is this one, which is the most visited by the public. It is a nonsense.

[Mr John Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman is making the measured case that I expected him to, but surely the characteristics he attributes to this building are shared by many great historic buildings. We think of cathedrals, which are widely visited every year and have the same problem with stonework. We think of the great houses that have the same fire risk. Many historic buildings have the same problems. The issue is not those problems, which we of course need to solve; it is how we solve them.

[Chris Bryant]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about big houses; I think he is asking me to advertise my book on the history of the aristocracy, which is in all the good bookshops at the moment. I would simply say to him that nearly every one of the major houses that fell into disrepair in the last 100 years did so as the result of a massive fire. I think we should take a lesson from that, which is that we must be very, very cautious in this building. When that fire comes, I would not want to be a Member who had voted against taking direct, clear action now; I truly would not.

It must surely also be a disgrace that this Parliament, which introduced proper legislation to ensure disabled access in every other public building in the land, has the worst disabled access of any public building in the land. It is almost impossible for somebody with mobility difficulties to get up into the Gallery, although the staff try really hard. On top of that, the building is very dark—it is almost impossible for many people who are partially sighted to see their way around—and we should, as a matter of honour, be putting that right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

There can be a broad measure of agreement that the House needs to be maintained properly. All those who have spoken would acknowledge that work needs to be done, and indeed, that has always been the case. Since William Rufus commissioned the building of Westminster Hall, there have been major refurbishments of the Palace. Geoffrey Chaucer was Clerk of the Works for one of them. After the great fire of 1834—

[Chris Bryant]

The right hon. Gentleman has obviously got my book.

[Mr Hayes]

Indeed.

After the great fire of 1834, there was the major refurbishment—in fact, it was largely a rebuilding of the Palace—that led to the place where we now sit. Buildings of this kind are always hard to maintain and will always require constant maintenance work. This is not a moment; it is a process. It will be an ongoing process whatever decision we take tonight. Let me make my case as quickly as I can—particularly given your advice, Mr Speaker.

I could make this case on cost grounds. Indeed the report produced by the Leader of the House is very honest about that. The report heavily qualifies the estimates therein. It says that there is significantly more work to be done by professionals before budgets can be set and the accounts therefore made certain. We are not absolutely certain what the costs of the decant would be, nor are we absolutely certain what the costs of staying here would be. But what I think we can say, from all of our experience and intuition, is that they are likely to be considerably greater than the provisional costs that we have now. Every building project I have ever known has run over budget and over time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Bryant and John Hayes

Thursday 22nd January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hayes]

Equipped with the information I need, I have that very study here. My hon. Friend is right that it says that a road link is important, but it does not of course rule out a rail link in the way he describes and of which I know he has been a great advocate. In that context, I will take another look at the matter, which of course has to be taken forward locally. He has been a great champion. How proud the people of Pudsey must be to be represented by my hon. Friend.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Last Thursday in Committee, the charming Minister pushed through amendments to the Infrastructure Bill to change the electronic communications code. Last night, he sneaked upstairs to the Public Bill Office to table amendments to delete the very same changes that he made last week. Are these the shortest lived amendments in the history of this House? To be blunt—[Interruption.] I am here all week. To be blunt, is it not time to say that the Government’s whole deal with the mobile phone companies has fallen apart?

[Mr Hayes]

My advice to the hon. Gentleman is that it is always better to be sharp than to be blunt, but that option is not available to him most of the time. The truth is that we have listened, because we want to move forward in a spirit of consensus. We know that it is vital to reform the code, and we want to do it properly. The Opposition made the case that we should withdraw it, think again and work with all concerned to make it work, but now when we do so, they criticise us. They cannot have it both ways.