Asylum Seekers: Hotel Accommodation

Dan Carden Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Angela Eagle]

I will answer in my own way. The Conservative party allowed channel crossings to be industrialised. We are now facing a very sophisticated set of international supply chains that need international co-operation to be taken down and disrupted. We have established the border security command, we have announced the investment of £150 million, and we are getting 100 additional investigators to look at this matter. We managed to achieve a very significant arrest of an offender just the other week, which will begin to degrade the capacity of international organised criminal gangs to smuggle people on to our shores. The hon. Gentleman will see when the numbers start to go down, as will the rest of us.

[Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)]

The Minister has inherited an incredible mess. Reportedly, £3.6 billion of overseas aid will be spent on refugees and asylum seekers in this country this year, but simply ending the use of hotels will not solve some of the problems that the system is causing in our communities. A lot of the private providers of asylum accommodation buy up properties in the most deprived parts of cities. I think that the Government’s biggest challenge is to rebuild trust with the public. I ask her to consider the difference between the Homes for Ukraine system of housing people and the system of allowing big corporates and profiteering companies to house asylum seekers, and to think about how we involve civil society and our communities in the way we respond to the needs of asylum seekers.

[Dame Angela Eagle]

My hon. Friend will be comforted to know that I am thinking of precisely those things.

Migration

Dan Carden Excerpts

Thursday 15th June 2023 Commons Chamber

3.19 pm

[Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government policies on migration.

I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this area of policy, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for finding time and granting this debate. Few policy areas generate as much unwanted noise as migration, and my aim in securing this debate is to have a reasonable, rational, evidence-informed discussion on the impact of the Government’s migration policies. Those policies are also looked at individually, whether that is Brexit and the impact of the end of freedom of movement, asylum, or other areas of immigration. I am grateful to the Father of the House and the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for co-sponsoring this debate. They both bring considerable expertise to this area, and I am looking forward to their contributions.

We are living in a world that is characterised by increased, near-constant movement. Goods, capital and services are increasingly unburdened by borders. One central pillar of the globalisation that we have been living through over the past 40 years or so is that human beings have to some extent also become units that can be moved around the world to enable profit. For decades, cheap labour and trained labour has been used here to lower costs and keep things going, and while we withdrew almost entirely from vocational training, we have seen increased immigration. For many working-class communities, their experience of immigration has been a form of wage suppression.

This is one of the most complex areas of policy that we encounter, cutting across several Departments and dividing public opinion. Specifically, we must begin to take a more focused look at the evidence of policy impact. Why has net migration hit a record high, and what will its impact be? According to the Office for National Statistics, net migration stood at 606,000 people in 2022, with 1.2 million people arriving. Of that number, 925,000 were non-EU nationals. Those numbers include refugees under the respective Ukraine and Hong Kong schemes, but that growth has slowed over the past few quarters as the impact of those two schemes decreased. Despite that record number, the Government continue to say that net migration will decrease. That is what successive Conservative Governments have said since 2010, but despite such promises, no decrease has ever been achieved. That huge gap between rhetoric and reality is borne out by the figures. Net migration stood at 256,000 in 2010, and is now 606,000. That is the reality of the situation.

The Minister will stand up and try to say that the Labour party voted against all the Bills that claim to address those increases, but the reality is that none of that legislation has achieved the Government’s stated aims. Net migration has increased, small boat crossings have increased, and the asylum backlog has increased, and all that is because the increased movement of people, and increased migration, is a reality of the modern world.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend mentioned the increase in boat crossings, but overall the number of people coming over the channel, not just in boats but in trucks and through other irregular forms, has actually decreased over time, has it not? The problem, partly, is that other regular forms of entry into this country are being tightened and people are prevented from them, which forces many people into dangerous forms of migration.

[Dan Carden]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point and share his view on the need for legal and safe crossing routes to this country. I look forward to hearing other contributions on that point.

Hundreds of millions of people around the world are displaced from their homes because of climate, poverty, famine, drought and conflict. Many more seek a better life as economic migrants. We must acknowledge that reality and engage with communities here at home that have understandable concerns about the effects of that increase on their ability to buy a house and access health and education services as well as what those increases mean for the public purse.

It is impossible to understand the ruptures in our politics over the last decade without thinking seriously about immigration as a social, political and economic issue. One of the biggest causes of the Brexit vote was a response in many working-class committees to being told that nothing could be done about the forces of globalisation. The mass migration of people around the world will continue, but our immigration system can be managed more effectively, can be more efficient and can be more humane. I believe that our politics needs to put more emphasis on addressing the root cause of some of the concerns that people have about the impact of immigration on suppressing wages and placing pressure on housing stock in local communities, if we are to continue to live in the open, tolerant society that we all wish to have.

There are some areas that we can address to improve the migration system for all involved. I want to use my time to discuss three such areas: visa costs, labour shortages and backlogs at the Home Office. On visa costs, the total minimum cost of the current 10-year settlement route for an adult with indefinite leave to remain stands at £12,836.50. For families, that is extortionate, with fees paid for each individual, including children. Those punishingly high fees force many applicants into debt. While there is a clear need for the visa system to pay for itself, in some cases the cost of visas stands many times higher than the administrative costs of processing them. To take one example, the fee for in- country naturalisation stands at £1,330, yet Home Office figures show that the unit cost for facilitating naturalisation stands at just £372. While those eligible to apply for a fee waiver may do so, applicants cannot apply for a fee waiver for indefinite leave. That makes little sense, especially for those who come to work in our NHS or social care. I would appreciate the Minister’s views on that. Will he look at giving them the opportunity to apply for a fee waiver? The substantial visa cost does not include ancillary costs such as legal advice, translation services and the enrolment of biometric data.

Further, it is not just the substantial financial cost that presents a challenge. Repeat applications, which take an increasingly long time, must be made. Such applications are not subject to a service standard, and applicants are also subject to a default “no recourse to public funds” condition. That has an obvious detrimental impact on applicants, causing them stress and placing them in a form of bureaucratic purgatory. Surely it does not have to be this way.

A joint report by Praxis, the Institute for Public Policy Research and the Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit, which are all organisations that do hugely valuable work in this area, highlights that if applicants had the option to apply for longer blocks of leave—for example, five years instead of two-and-a-half years—applicants’ stress and anxiety and Home Office caseworkers’ workloads would decrease. That would go a considerable way towards guaranteeing security for those who may have already lived and worked in the UK for a long period of time.

On costs, the Home Office could cap them at the administrative cost only, or grant an automatic fee waiver to those who have had their “no recourse to public funds” condition lifted. These are all little measures that could make a big difference.

I have heard the Immigration Minister say in this House on several occasions that the UK visa service is now meeting or exceeding every one of its service standards, but that means nothing if, as we currently see, many applications are not subject to those service standards. Will the Minister commit to introducing a service standard for all applications to improve performance? Will he also indicate what recent steps his Department has taken to simplify the visa application system and lessen the administrative burden on both applicants and caseworkers? It is clear that there is so much to be done in this area.

Labour shortages in areas such as health, social care and hospitality can only be described as hellish across the UK. Sector after sector tell us that they need more access to skilled staff and they simply do not have that access at the moment. The impact of the shortages is obvious. They act as a drag on our whole economy, holding back prosperity and reducing the quality of life for people across the country. Shortages affect productivity and public services and neither can be improved if we do not fill vacancies. The Recruitment and Employment Confederation estimates that, if labour shortages are not addressed, they will cost the UK economy a staggering £39 billion a year. That is a catastrophe and the Government must not allow their rhetoric on reducing net migration to act as a barrier in addressing that huge fiscal black hole.

Increasing access to skills training and education will go some way over the years to improving labour shortages, but we must also look to migration. Employers have long decried the onerous, bureaucratic and time-consuming nature of recruiting staff from abroad. While employers should make every effort to recruit locally, the Government should not act as a roadblock, stopping local businesses such as restaurants and other businesses across the hospitality sector, the NHS or social care from recruiting the staff they need from further afield.

Local businesses tell me of their frustration. They do not understand why, after Brexit, after leaving the EU and the end of freedom of movement, now we are in control of our own borders, we are not using that control to allow UK businesses to recruit to prosper and grow. It is clearly in the public interest to have a thriving visitor economy. For Liverpool, it makes up more than 50% of our economy. It is a matter of life and death that we have a properly staffed national health service and address shortages in social care. As it stands, the Government are sticking to their line that they must keep net migration down, but I think they should shift to look at how we can use migration policy to address the labour shortages. Many measures have been introduced in the form of a temporary exception to the skilled worker criteria under the points-based system and the introduction of a specific visa for seasonal agricultural workers, but workforce challenges are clearly not being solved. The Government must go further. I am aware that the Migration Advisory Committee recently launched a call for evidence on reform of the shortage occupation list. I urge the Government to heed its calls when they arrive.

Finally on labour shortages, why have the Government not moved to allow asylum seekers the right to work? There is support from both sides of the House for this policy change. Refugee Action highlights that the ban currently costs the public purse around £500 million a year. All available evidence, including the Home Office’s own leaked report from September 2020, refutes the Government’s argument that enabling asylum seekers to work is a pull factor. I have met many people residing in my constituency seeking asylum who also want to contribute to their new communities and are desperate for the right to work and to earn a living.

All these issues are made much worse by delays in the Home Office’s decision making. My caseworkers frequently encounter cases with almost indeterminate delay. Although they try to make progress through the UK Visas and Immigration hotline, often responses are non-specific, unhelpful and sometimes contradictory.

To give just one example, one of my constituents applied for asylum in January 2019. She completed her interview in the same month and was referred to the national referral mechanism, as she was identified as a potential victim of trafficking. In November 2021, a positive conclusive grounds decision was reached on the case—in other words, she was identified as a victim of modern slavery or human trafficking. The nearly three years of waiting for a decision were difficult for her and her children, not knowing where their future may lie.

In February 2022, my office was told by the Home Office that my constituent would receive a decision on the asylum part of her claim within six months. That created an obvious expectation from my constituent. But when six months had passed, she informed me that no decision had been forthcoming. After my office notified the Home Office of that, we were told there was no timeframe for a decision, despite the previous commitment. My constituent’s solicitor then issued the Home Office with a pre-action protocol. The Home Office committed to an asylum decision by 1 May. No decision came on 1 May. We wrote again to the Home Office, and I am still awaiting a response. Four and a half years have passed since the initial application, and nearly a year since the Home Office committed to making a decision. That case is not an anomaly; it is one of many I could have chosen to illustrate the point. I would appreciate it if the Minister’s office could reach out to mine to discuss just a few such cases that would greatly benefit from his intervention.

More widely, backlogs are now a well-known aspect of our migration system. They are a feature, not a bug. The Minister has hinted that a quick decision-making process would act as a pull factor again. However, among other issues, that ignores the huge cost of asylum accommodation in the meantime. I would appreciate it if the Minister could provide clarity on this point in his closing remarks.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

The cost of housing asylum seekers is huge. There is no ability for local communities who might believe they could do it cheaper and better in alternative forms of accommodation to draw down money. The Home Office has paid huge amounts, often to corporate organisations, even though local organisations would be able to do it better. Giving asylum seekers the ability to draw down that money on an individual or a community basis, and allowing communities and councils to organise accommodation, would at least help to alleviate some of the trauma that people face in Home Office hotels.

[Dan Carden]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s point, and I hope that this debate is a space for exactly those kinds of ideas so that we start to see improvements in the system.

Delays seem to be worse in the asylum system, even as the Home Office chooses to be selective, applying service standards to other types of application, such as for naturalisation or further leave to remain. The backlog on so-called legacy cases has started to fall very slightly. However, the Prime Minister’s commitment to clearing the backlog will not be met at the “current pace”—not my words but those of the Home Secretary.

There have been smart moves to address the huge backlog. For instance, last week, the Government quietly dropped the two-tier refugee system introduced in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. That is a perfect example of the Government very quietly replacing a noisy, reactionary policy with one that has more chance of being workable. It is also illustrative of the desperate need for a coherent and honest long-term strategy in this area.

We all want a migration system that works for all our constituents, those seeking asylum and those wanting to work or visit our country. I am grateful for the time to put some of my thoughts on the record.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Carden]

I want to use this final minute to thank my colleagues, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), for collaborating on this debate, which was very positive. I thank the Front-Bench spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), and the Minister for the replies.

I focused my comments on the costs and barriers to visas and labour shortages, and the backlog in the Home Office. Those issues need to be fixed before we can move forward to consider what a positive migration system can look like in future now that we are in control of our own borders. We should promote the virtues of migration, as many speakers today did, and the contribution that people can make to this country. Finally, the grave challenges that we face, which require international co-operation, are to do with poverty, climate and conflict, and the UK’s role to support people around the world on that.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government policies on migration.

Hillsborough Families Report: National Police Response

Dan Carden Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

My hon. Friend is right to point to the police failings at the time, and the fact that they essentially created the tragic situation that unfolded. The apology they gave yesterday was important: it was comprehensive, I think it was heartfelt, and it is good that they have done that. It is also important that they change the way that they respond in those circumstances, as my hon. Friend has said. That is why the changes to the code of ethics that the College of Policing will be bringing forward are important, and it is why the duty of candour I have referred to previously, enshrined in the statutory professional standards, is important as well. But I do agree with the points that my hon. Friend has made.

[Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

Former Bishop of Liverpool James Jones’s report laid bare the sheer scale of the failure of the police at Hillsborough and the lies, smears and state cover-up that followed. It is disappointing, to say the least, that it has taken this long for an apology to come from the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the College of Policing, and it does nothing to undo the horrific abuse of power that has been seen. What is worse—what is more shameful—is that five years on, we are still waiting for the Government’s response to the report.

The appalling treatment of the Hillsborough families did not happen in isolation. As we have heard, from the contaminated blood scandal to Grenfell, it is part of a problem of failure and cover-up. When will the Government finally listen to calls for the Hillsborough law? Will the Minister back the Public Advocate (No. 2) Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) so that the scales of justice can be levelled in favour of the bereaved families?

[Chris Philp]

We will be bringing forward the full response as quickly as possible. That is important, as Members on both sides of the House have pointed out. In relation to the Hillsborough law, that will be included in the response. However, via the professional standards of policing in 2020, which are statutory and were introduced by regulations, we have already introduced the duty of co-operation in relation to inquiries, which is one of the most important elements of that. Our response on the independent public advocate, which is also important, will happen as quickly as possible. The Ministry of Justice is working on it actively right now.

Government Alcohol Strategy 2012

Dan Carden Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the 2012 Alcohol Strategy.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

The Government’s alcohol strategy 2012 was an ambitious attempt to reduce the harms of alcohol. In its introduction, it states:

“alcohol is one of the three biggest lifestyle risk factors for disease and death…It has become acceptable to use alcohol for stress relief, putting many people at real risk of chronic diseases. Society is paying the costs—alcohol-related harm is now estimated to cost society £21 billion annually.”

Despite the ambition, 10 years on, the harms of alcohol have not decreased; they have spiralled. We are at crisis point.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is not just about the fact that alcohol is more used today; it is also about the effect it has on lives. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that 70 people die every day due to alcohol. Deaths from alcohol had already increased prior to the pandemic: between 2001 and 2018, across the UK deaths increased by 13%. In Northern Ireland, deaths rose by 40% between 2012 and 2017—more than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Does he agree that the Government must begin to deal with this in a standalone manner, rather than under the general umbrella of health?

[Dan Carden]

The hon. Gentleman hits the nail on the head. The point of this debate is that the Government had a very good strategy in 2012 and unfortunately failed to deliver on it.

Alcohol is now the leading risk factor for death, ill health and disability among 15 to 49-year-olds. In 10 years, deaths caused by alcoholic liver disease are up by a third, and the estimated cost of alcohol harm is upwards of £27 billion—£6 billion higher than back in 2012. Alcohol-specific deaths have risen by 27% in the last two years alone, and since 2012 there have been more than 66,500 deaths from alcohol across the UK. Alcohol-related hospital admissions in England are upwards of 980,000 annually, and one in five children is living in a household with one parent with an alcohol use disorder.

The wider impact on families and communities is incalculable, but it is often plain to see. The crisis we are facing is the consequence of a decade of inaction. Sir Ian Gilmore, chair of the Alcohol Health Alliance and a great advocate of alcohol policy reform, said:

“The ten years since the last Government UK strategy is a decade of missed opportunities to reduce preventable hospitalisations, deaths, violence, child neglect and antisocial behaviour. A failure to deliver on promised initiatives has contributed to the rising levels of alcohol harm we are seeing today. This cannot continue.”

I want to mention a couple of the milestones of the last decade. In 2011, the Government alcohol strategy was introduced. In 2013, key evidence-based measures in the strategy were scrapped. In 2018, the Government promised another alcohol strategy, which was later scrapped. In 2019, it was announced that alcohol care teams were to be put in hospitals in the top 25% of most-in-need areas; that is still uncertain. In 2021, an alcohol and health calorie labelling consultation was agreed, yet it has still not begun. In 2021, the Government’s health disparities White Paper was due to be published, and yet still no decisions have been taken.

The Government’s record on alcohol policy is one of policies scrapped and promises broken. The Health Foundation’s 2022 review of Government policies tackling smoking, poor diet, physical inactivity and harmful alcohol use in England made for uncomfortable reading. It observed that there are “no national targets” for alcohol and that the Government have a dismal track record in implementing commitments, not only from the 2012 alcohol strategy but beyond. The report delivers a blistering assessment of the many alcohol policy initiatives that have not been introduced, or that are of unclear status or partially implemented.

The measures set out in the 2012 strategy were, and remain, effective, evidence-led health policies that are shown to prevent deaths and alleviate pressures on the NHS. Back then, the Government’s stated outcomes were:

“A change in behaviour so that people think it is not acceptable to drink in ways that could cause harm to themselves or others; a reduction in the amount of alcohol-fuelled violent crime; a reduction in the number of adults drinking above the NHS guidelines; a reduction in the number of people ‘binge drinking’; a reduction in the number of alcohol-related deaths; and a sustained reduction in both the numbers of 11-15 year olds drinking alcohol and the amounts consumed.”

We were told the 2012 strategy would

“radically reshape the approach to alcohol and reduce the number of people drinking to excess”,

through 30 commitments or actions covering various areas. The flagship policies included minimum unit pricing, banning multi-buy alcohol promotions in shops and regulating to ensure that public health is considered as an objective by local authorities when making alcohol licensing decisions. The former Prime Minister, David Cameron, promised that there would be 50,000 fewer crimes each year and 900 fewer alcohol-related deaths a year by the end of the decade.

The only conclusion that I can reach is that the decision to scrap the 2012 strategy is a major factor in alcohol-related crime, which now costs us £11.4 billion each year, and in the fact that deaths from alcohol have reached record levels, because soon after its publication, the Government backtracked on all the flagship policies, despite the evidence. Based on David Cameron’s figures, 9,000 lives would have been saved.

Many of us who care deeply about the impact of alcohol and addiction across society fear that the influence of the alcohol industry on Whitehall and Westminster is to blame. When minimum unit pricing is mentioned, uproar ensues and misinformation spreads—namely, that introducing a minimum unit price would hit the pub trade or punish moderate drinkers. As the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), the former Home Secretary who introduced the strategy, said:

“Most drinks will not be affected by minimum unit pricing, but the cheap vodka, super-strength cider and special brew lagers will go up in price.”

She went on:

“Pubs have nothing to fear from the minimum unit price that is being introduced today. That will not have an impact on them.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2012; Vol. 542, c. 1072-1078.]

The not-so-snappily titled “The Public Health Burden of Alcohol and the Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Alcohol Control Policies” states:

“Policies that reduce the affordability of alcohol are the most effective, and cost-effective, approaches to prevention and health improvement.”

The 2012 strategy agrees with that. Minimum unit pricing is no silver bullet, but it is an evidence-based policy that works.

I welcome the alcohol duty reforms that will come into effect in August this year. Alcohol should be taxed according to its strength. That is an effective starting point that makes it possible to use duty reforms to improve public health. The reality of the last decade is that cuts and freezes to alcohol duty have cost the Treasury £8.6 billion since 2012.

Advertising was another key component of the 2012 strategy. In July 2013, “Next steps following the consultation on delivering the Government’s alcohol strategy” promised to challenge and engage with the industry and sellers to promote responsible drinking, and I want to read a little excerpt from the strategy:

“The alcohol industry has a direct and powerful connection and influence on consumer behaviours. We know that people consume more when prices are lower; marketing and advertising affect drinking behaviour; and store layout and product location affect the type and volume of sales.”

The “Next steps” document promised to challenge and engage with the industry and sellers to promote responsible drinking, saying:

“Alcohol offers are too often prominently displayed in shop foyers or at the end of aisles. Some in the industry recognise such promotions, and the high visibility of these within shops, can unduly encourage harmful levels of drinking.”

The strategy cites as one potential example for action the voluntary agreement between retailers and the Government in the Republic of Ireland. There is no evidence of any progress here in the UK, and alcohol marketing is more invasive than ever. Anyone who has set foot in a large supermarket will know that alcohol promotions are unavoidable, whether that is in the foyer, at the end of the aisles or at the checkout. The sales campaign is aggressive, unnecessary and irresponsible. In the Republic of Ireland, thanks to the voluntary agreement, alcohol is reserved to one area, with the exception of smaller stores. Why have Ministers not implemented a voluntary agreement between retailers and Government?

It is worth remembering that, in the same year the alcohol strategy was introduced, this place legislated to cover up cigarettes and hide tobacco products from public view. Last year, I met ASDA and other large supermarkets to discuss online marketing practices and giving customers an opt-out from online marketing. I hope we will see progress in that area.

There are tragic consequences for individuals, their families and communities from the failure of this strategy. It is not just the person drinking who is at risk from alcohol harm; the harms affect us all, and they cause the most damage in the most deprived communities. Nobody chooses to be alcohol-dependent—it is not a life that anyone would aspire to lead. Trauma and poor mental health are often the root cause.

Anyone who has tried to access support in the last 10 years will have faced an underfunded service with staff who are overworked and undervalued. Since 2012, billions of pounds have been hollowed out of drug and alcohol treatment. NHS in-patient detox provision in England is at breaking point. There are seven in-patient detox clinics across the country, with just over 100 beds, supporting a population of 56 million.

I want to share the experience of a father trying to support his daughter, who wishes to remain anonymous. He said:

“I did everything I could to stop her from drinking. I didn’t know where to go, no one seemed to help or care. Her drinking was out of control—she always had mental health difficulties and I know she thought the alcohol would help. I took her to A&E so many times and was told the same thing—‘we have no space for her’. I was broken, I still am. I’m not a doctor or a nurse, I didn’t know how to monitor an alcohol detox. Eventually I raised the funds to go private, she’s on the mend and slowly returning but I’m angry—I’ve worked my entire life, my daughter worked, we paid into the pot. How can there be no NHS beds for my daughter?”

As the Minister knows, alcohol care teams provide specialist expertise and interventions for alcohol-dependent patients and those presenting with acute intoxication or other alcohol-related complications. They are proven to be successful and help reduce avoidable bed days and readmissions. The seven-day-a-week service in the Royal Bolton Hospital saved 2,000 bed days in its first year, and modelling suggests that an alcohol care team in every non-specialist acute hospital would save 254,000 bed days and 78,000 admissions each year by year 3.

I have spent some time with the alcohol care team at the Royal Liverpool University Hospital, and I pay tribute to Dr Lynn Owens and her team for everything they do. In 2019 the Government promised to establish alcohol care teams in the 25% of hospitals with the highest need. Three years have now passed since that promise, and I hope the Minister will update us on the roll-out. Does he agree that alcohol care teams should be in every hospital?

As of December 2020, the Government have begun to replenish the budget for addiction treatment services, but it will take time to recover after a decade of cuts. This new funding forms part of the 10-year drug plan, “From harm to hope”, which adopts all the key recommendations from Dame Carol Black’s independent review of drugs. Dame Carol’s review was groundbreaking. However, the legal and most harmful drug—alcohol—was out of scope. Her review, if implemented properly, will see system change in reducing the harms of drugs. I commend the Government for commissioning the strategy and beginning its implementation, but now I want an independent review of alcohol, and so does Dame Carol Black. I am delighted that she supports that call.

In November, Alcohol Health Alliance UK and I, with the support of 42 cross-party colleagues from both Houses and over 50 leading health organisations, wrote to the Prime Minister calling for an independent review of alcohol that would lead to an alcohol strategy. The focus of that review should be evidence-based interventions to reduce the harms felt across society. There is already strong evidence for the effectiveness of measures to reduce the affordability, promotion and availability of alcohol, such as alcohol taxes and a comprehensive restriction on alcohol advertising. So far, the Government have responded to calls for an independent review by signposting the recent increase in spending on addiction treatment services. Increased funding for treatment is a start, but improved drug and alcohol services are a separate matter from the wider public health measures that we need.

In recent years, we have heard a lot about the action needed to tackle tobacco use, gambling-related harm, the use of illicit drugs and obesity, but we hear little about what is needed to tackle the harms of alcohol. With so little to show from the Government’s excellent 2012 alcohol strategy, is it any wonder that deaths from alcohol across England are about to top 10,000 annually? As the social and economic pressures continue to mount, more and more people will use alcohol to escape their often difficult reality. We cannot afford to wait another 10 years. The time to act is now.

In his foreword to the 2012 alcohol strategy, the former Prime Minister, David Cameron, said:

“the responsibility of being in government isn’t always about doing the popular thing. It’s about doing the right thing.”

I hope the Government will take heed of his words and conduct an independent review of alcohol that informs an alcohol strategy for the future, because it is the right thing to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Carden]

I am grateful to the Minister for his response. He has covered every part of government and society, from the health service to criminal justice. I think alcohol takes up around half of all police time. What I am asking for is a strategy and an independent review. The Government have taken their eye off the ball over the last 12 years. They published the strategy, but it was never fully implemented. What we need is something that looks across Government at alcohol, in the way Dame Carol was able to do with illicit drugs. Our constituents know that this is a problem up and down the country. It costs society tens of billions of pounds, and the money that the alcohol industry pays in taxes does not cover the cost of alcohol harm.

[Chris Philp]

I am not going to make a commitment in this debate to initiate a review, for reasons that the hon. Member will understand, but I will give the issue some consideration and careful thought since he raised it.

In concluding, I reiterate that there has been a significant increase in investment in drug and alcohol treatment in the last one or two years. We have the new alcohol abstinence monitoring provisions in place, and we have seen the consumption of alcohol decline. We have also seen the number of alcohol-related violent incidents halve over the last 10 years or so, and much of the 2012 strategy has been implemented, so there is a lot to be pleased about. I will give some thought to the suggestion the hon. Member made, and I will of course happy to work with him going forward, given his obvious expertise and interest in this area.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dan Carden Excerpts

Monday 20th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

My right hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot give comments and pledges from the Dispatch Box, but I am very happy to meet him, and he highlights a valid point. Russia is not Putin. Putin likes to say that he embodies everything Russian, but he does not. There are plenty of Russians who have suffered under his regime and are vehemently opposed to his illegal and disgraceful actions in Ukraine.

[Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

The reality out in the country is that we have labour shortages across multiple sectors, 1.3 million job vacancies, the most persistent post-pandemic drop in employment in the G7, operations not being carried out in our hospitals, restaurants and the hospitality industry being unable to recruit staff, and a shortage of drivers to drive produce around the country. Why will the Minister not act pragmatically and immediately, introduce more work visas where are there shortages, lift the ban on asylum seekers working and have an independent review of the impact of ending freedom of movement?

[Kevin Foster]

The hon. Member might benefit from taking some time to look at the labour markets across most of the developed world, including the European Union. He will see that shortages in many areas, such as hospitality, are not unique to the United Kingdom. I find interesting his calls for the resurrection of free movement, given what we understand his party’s emerging policy to be.

HM Passport Office Backlogs

Dan Carden Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

The Government fully recognise the scale of the issue. As I said, there are 5 million unrenewed passports and we expect 2.5 million of them to be renewed, and that is on top of the normal 7 million-strong demand each year. Last month we processed over 1 million applications, which is 30% higher than the previous record, and 90% of those between January and March were done within six weeks. We certainly recognise the scale of this and have put in extra resources. The message we want to get out to the public is that if they are planning to travel this summer, they should make their application now, and we will get through it in the time we have said, which is 10 weeks.

[Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

I want to put on the record my thanks to staff in our passport offices up and down the country, who are facing enormous pressures—I wonder whether the Minister has met the trade unions to discuss the issue. I have a constituent who made his application in February but was told this month that his documentation has been lost. He wants to visit his sick mother in Canada but has received no information and is deeply concerned about the delay. The Minister says that cases can be expedited, which is what my staff are trying to do. What can we expect and what is the timeline for resolving this?

[Kevin Foster]

First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments about passport office staff. As he knows, a large number of Home Office staff are based in Liverpool—we have fantastic staff in those decision-making hubs—so it is good of him to recognise their contribution. I understand that there is regular engagement with staff trade unions. Just to be clear, the weekend working is based on incentivised overtime, not on people being compelled to work. If the hon. Gentleman gives me the details of the individual case he raised, I will happily follow it up.

Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill

Dan Carden Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 7th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

That would be very helpful. But we also need to know when this visa application centre will be set up and operational, because right now this means that people are being turned away from Calais because they do not have the biometrics or the security checks they need and so are being sent back to Paris in order to do so. We need to know when that is going to be in place.

[Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

Are not the Government and the Home Secretary absolutely out of step with the British public on this? When bombs are raining down on families across Ukraine, the public want us to open the doors and welcome them in.

[Yvette Cooper]

I think the public want to see us doing our bit, and that is not what is happening. What people are seeing time and again is families having to leap over additional hurdles—additional bureaucracy. People are being told to wait 72 hours after their security checks are all cleared just because of bureaucracy. Lots of relatives are still being left out. Elderly aunts or 19-year-old nieces are not included and are being turned away. That is the point. [Interruption.] If the Home Secretary says that is not correct, I really urge her to stand up and clarify it, because at the moment her guidance says that elderly aunts and 19-year-old nieces are not included in the family visa scheme.

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

Dan Carden Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons
Thursday 15th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

The proceedings on this Bill today are an absolute travesty of parliamentary accountability. That a major Bill such as this, with huge implications for civil rights and human rights in our society and for our standing around the world, should be pushed through in a very short time this afternoon is a travesty. I suspect we will not even vote on most of the amendments—they will not have been subject to stand-alone debates. In effect, we are having another Second Reading debate to accommodate those who have tabled amendments. We should reflect on this House’s role in holding this Government to account.

I have added my name to a number of amendments, particularly those drafted by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), to whom I pay tribute for her work on the Bill and her contribution this afternoon.

The Mitting inquiry into undercover policing operations, which succeeded the Pitchford inquiry after Pitchford’s death, is still going on. It was due to report in 2018; it has not even got into its second and third stages yet and may well go on for several years more before it reports. It covers undercover policing since 1968, a time which, I reflect, more or less covers my whole political life, so I will read with great interest the Mitting inquiry’s final report.

What has come out so far for those of us who have good friends in environmental groups, human rights groups, trade unions and many other campaigns is the sheer arrogance of police undercover operations that have infiltrated wholly legitimate and legal operations in order to disrupt them, spread negative information and cause problems for them. If we live in a free and democratic society, criminality is obviously not acceptable and policing is obviously required to deal with it, but we do not deal with criminality by authorising criminality through undercover policing operations and investigations into such groups.

There are those of us who have had the honour of meeting people, particularly women, in a number of groups that have been infiltrated by the police and the police have then knowingly formed sexual liaisons with those women. Children have been given birth to a result and then, often years later, the woman concerned finds out that she was completely duped—completely misled—and her life was ruined by an undercover police operation. Imagine what it feels like for someone to have been with what they thought was their life partner for several years, and they discover that that person was put there by the police to seduce them into giving information on, actually, legal activities done by environmental and other groups. Will the Bill protect women from that in future? I think we all know the answer to that.

I hope that, at the very least, the House of Lords is able to make some substantial amendments to the Bill. I am disappointed that the College of Policing advice, which has just come out, is that it is not necessarily wrong for undercover officers to form sexual relations with people to gain information. This is the kind of world that we are about to approve of unless the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham, my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and others are accepted by the Government today.

I will be brief, because there is not much time and 11 more colleagues wish to speak before 3.20 pm. The second matter to which I shall refer relates to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham. The Bill says that people cannot do anything to undermine the economic wellbeing of the country. What does that actually mean? Does that mean, for example, that if dock workers decided to take strike action because they had reached the end of the road in negotiations with their employer and therefore wished to withdraw their labour to force a settlement of their grievance, they would be acting against the economic interests of this country, because that would disrupt trade? Or would they be acting in the interests of themselves, their colleagues and other workers by trying to improve their economic wellbeing? There is a big debate about what is economic wellbeing and what is not.

There are those, like me, who have seen the activities of undercover police operations in trade unions and the blacklisting of wholly legitimate trade union representatives, who have spent 20 years and more being unable to work, as electricians, as carpenters or as plumbers, because they have been blacklisted secretly by groups of employers, when the police knew about it all along. These were wholly illegal activities. The police need to recognise that what they have been doing is completely wrong—it is simply unacceptable.

I hope that we will have a thought for the moment for the more than 1,000 groups that have been infiltrated in some way by the police at some point over the past few years. Those of us who have spent our lives campaigning for social justice and environmental sustainability, and against racism in any form, often wonder why there is apparently much less concern about, much less involvement with and much less attention paid to far-right racist organisations than to other people within our society. We need to know the answers to all these questions, but I suspect we will not get them today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has tabled an amendment that proposes that activities should in future be authorised only by the Prime Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham has also proposed amendments on the issue of accountability, which is the key to this. I wonder whether Ministers actually knew what was going on or know what is going on now. I wonder whether senior police officers always knew what was going on. I wonder how many different quasi-secret operations were being conducted in different police authorities around the country without the relevant police commander even knowing what was happening. Inquiries in South Yorkshire in respect of Orgreave and Hillsborough tend to indicate there is a lack of transparency in the way the police operate.

The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) spoke correctly about the issue of where we are going if we go down a road of ignoring human rights and justice within our society. He and I spent a lot of time campaigning to try to get British nationals and British residents released from Guantanamo Bay. The whole thing is a disgrace. The whole thing is extra-judicial in every conceivable way. Likewise, this country and our Government here were involved in extraordinary rendition in some form. If we are to hold our heads up around the world as being supporters of human rights, and as being a signatory to the universal declaration, the European convention and our own Human Rights Act, we need to look carefully at ourselves and at what this Bill proposes. I hope that at the very least the Minister will make it clear whether the Government are committed to continuing to support, recognise and work within the terms of the historic and important Human Rights Act or whether, once again, he will be appealing to the backwoods people in the Tory party who see human rights as somehow a term of abuse and who want to repeal that Act or reduce its power and importance. These things are very important.

I regret that we have such a short time for this crucial debate today, but I am moved by the hundreds of people who have been in touch with MPs about this, and the dozens of organisations, not necessarily all protest groups or on the left—these groups cover peace, civil liberties and human rights—that are very concerned about this Bill. These are people who think seriously about these matters and we would do well to listen to them, rather than ramming this through in a few hours on a Thursday afternoon and imagining that that will be job done. It will not be, because this will all get back in the courts at some point in the future and the Mitting inquiry report will come out at some point. Many of us will continue our vigilance in order to protect civil liberties and human rights in our society and our country, and to protect the civil liberties and rights of those who work in the police and other security services.

[Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Dame Rosie. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) has swapped places with my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) in the list, and they are to be on either side of my speech. I was just wondering whether there was a reason for that.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. I understand that the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) spoke to my predecessor in the Chair because he is speaking to his new clause, so, very unusually, given that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) was happy to swap places, that seemed reasonable. There is nothing sinister about it and it has not altered where the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) comes in the call list, but for the value of the debate, it was felt to be reasonable that the person speaking to the new clause could move forward. It does not affect when the hon. Gentleman is speaking, I can assure him.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

There was a time when I used to like the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden), when he was a young researcher here. There is nothing sinister happening—it was the fact that the Intelligence and Security Committee sat this morning. I was going to move the amendment because the Committee was still sitting, and that is why it was done. It is nothing against the individual personally, and he knows I have a lot of respect for him.

I support the Bill, and obviously the new clause in the name of the ISC, because it gives a legal framework to cover this area of work. Having been on the ISC for a number of years, I have seen transcripts of some of the evidence from CHIS. Is it information that we could get in any other way? No, it is not. There is a misunderstanding that somehow now with modern technology, telecommunication intercepts and everything else, we can get all the information that we require. We cannot. The best is still from human sources. Certainly, with the cases I have seen and the transcripts for terrorism cases relating to Islamic terrorism and the ones for Northern Ireland, the work that the security services do to protect us all—including all communities, and that includes marginalised communities—could not be done without that CHIS involvement.

There has also been a misunderstanding—I think it gets crossed over in the Bill—between what is happening now and what happened in the past. I am no defender of what happened in the past, in terms of some of the things that were referred to in Northern Ireland or even the spy cops issue. Under this legislation, we will have the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s oversight of the situation, and there is a big difference between police officers, in terms of this authorisation, and civilians. Police officers will come under the Bill, but remember, more importantly, their conduct is also covered by other legislation.

I know that the spy cops case is cited, as though this would legitimise them. It would not because police officers would still have to come under the legislation that covers their conduct. They are more controlled than the civilians or individuals we will recruit both for organised crime or national security issues, who will have to commit crimes on occasions to ensure that their cover is not blown. I have seen the transcripts, and although I cannot refer to individual cases, I have seen one where an individual was part of a proscribed organisation for many years. His actions have not only led to a major disruption of that organisation, but, I think, saved lives. Therefore, is it right that this should be on a legal footing? Yes it can.

My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) said that this would give carte blanche for the security services and police to do what they want. I am sorry, but it does not. We have to look at the guidance, which many people have not looked at. I know that some Opposition Members have been saying that they will vote against the Bill on principle. Well, I am sorry, but I do not see anything principled in weakening the ability of our security services to protect us or of the police to protect trafficked women and children, or in the fact that it will make the situation worse for some of the most vulnerable people in our society, who are preyed upon not only by organised crime but terrorism groups.

All I say to Members is please read the Bill and read the guidance, because the guidance is important. I have some problems with the Bill in the sense that it could be improved. My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) made a very good point that this is probably not the way to do it. We should have had more time, and perhaps debated it in Committee upstairs, which would have been far better. It is important that we get this right, but the idea that the security services do not have any oversight is not the case. In fact, they will have more oversight. May I just say this: the individuals who are running CHISs are not just the office boys in MI5; they are senior officials who not only have training on the guidance, but know the difficult situations that are being dealt with on the ground. I say to Members: please do not go for headlines; look at what happens in the Bill. The Bill can be improved, which is why I support the oversight proposed in new clause 3.

I agree with the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on one point—a point that was also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) in her contribution in which she made some other very legitimate points. The Bill would be strengthened if the guidance was actually in the Bill. I have no problems with the guidance as it is written at the moment, because it is both strong and robust. The right hon. Gentleman’s point was that if it were in the Bill, it could not be, as he said, tinkered with or changed afterwards.

I also ask Members to look at the present, rather than at what went on in the past. My right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) is right: we cannot justify what some of the agencies did in the 1960s, ’70s and ’80s without any scrutiny—whether for the police or the security services. As for blacklisting, the Bill will not lead to a situation in which blacklisting is not given a red light. If Members read the guidance, they will see that that would fall out of the scope of that guidance. Likewise, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner will be able to look at those individual warrants. Moreover, as a former trade union official, I know that blacklisting existed, but certain members of trade unions do not have a great history in terms of their collusion, on some occasions, with employers in certain industries to blacklist trade unionists. I feel passionate about this in the sense that it is wrong, but it cannot all be necessarily put down to the employers.

May I touch on two other points? The first is the issue around amendment 7 in the names of those on the Labour Front Bench. I have problems with it. I accept that, as the Bill is written, it is looking backwards at these cases. Operationally, from the cases that I have seen, the idea that we could get a judge to cover the scope of potential criminality in certain areas would be difficult. Let us say, as an example, that we have someone who has been authorised to get involved in the drugs trade, but then they are asked to carry out a burglary. A very broad warrant would have to be issued to cover quite large things. I think that it is perhaps better leaving it in the guidance and with the officer. I have seen evidence that there are occasions when the security services will withdraw authorisation from a CHIS, and they do so because people are getting involved in things that are quite clearly not in the public interest and are not followed by the guidance. That does happen.

I have one final point, which again has been raised and which I still struggle with. Why have other organisations been lumped into the Bill? I am quite content for the police and the security services to be covered by this legislation, but I am less at ease with the Food Standards Agency and others being given authorisation. There is a level of expertise now, both in the police and in the security services, in terms of being able to authorise, train and run CHISs, which might not be there in the other organisations when, perhaps, they are dealing with very small numbers of cases over a period.

The Bill is an improvement on what we have at the moment, because it will bring in a legal framework. Can it be improved? I think that it can be, but, again, I urge people to read the Bill and read the guidance and to look at them in terms of what is happening today rather than what has happened historically.

[Dan Carden]

I am delighted to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones)—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Right hon.

[Dan Carden]

My right hon. Friend. I think that was one of the briefest speeches he has ever made in this House.

This Bill is about the power of the state, and it is also about the rights of citizens. What we have today is a book of amendments, almost each and every one of which would improve the Bill, but unfortunately, it feels to me like a fait accompli by the Government. I am not surprised that the Government are not listening to civil liberties organisations, but I am pretty surprised that they are not even listening to the Intelligence and Security Committee of this House. The way in which the House is being led down the garden path is something worth speaking up against.

I would not be in this House if it was not for my experiences growing up with a dad involved in an industrial dispute for over two years—the experience of workers taking action and the challenges they faced. That was an unofficial dispute, opposing casualisation and insecurity, and it lasted two years. It is relevant because there is a real worry that these powers could be misused. What matters is what is in the Bill. Of course we all want appropriate powers to deal with criminality and the most serious crimes. However, the scope in the Bill for organising criminal conduct by the state is wide open to abuse, and it comes down to a triple-whammy attack on our civil liberties.

First, the Bill permits secret agents of the state to commit any crime to prevent what they consider to be disorder or harm to the economic wellbeing of the UK. Secondly, it does not include the necessary independent judicial oversight, so the agencies concerned will act alone in that decision making. Finally, the Bill does not limit those crimes at all. We have heard that the Human Rights Act will be applied to this legislation, but the Human Rights Act does not create crimes like other legislation does. Rather, it means that a Government can be found in breach of that Act, so the crimes in this Bill are simply not limited.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the contribution that he is making, and I forgive him his earlier remarks. He says that the scope is unlimited, but it is not, because the guidance that goes alongside the Bill—which I accept should be in the Bill—makes it clear that it will not lead to the free-for-all that he is suggesting.

[Dan Carden]

I think my right hon. Friend has far more trust in the words of the Government and the guidance than I do.

What would stop an agency deciding that an unofficial dispute constituted disorder or harm to the economy that it was worth taking action against? The Bill is written so badly and broadly that it is effectively a licence to criminally disrupt working people taking action to support themselves, their co-workers and their families, and we have seen this all too often in the past. The Bill paves the way for gross abuses of state power against citizens.

In Liverpool, we have a healthy suspicion of state power, because we have felt its damaging force too often in the past. We have experienced the 30-year fight of the Hillsborough families and survivors for truth and justice. We have had striking workers targeted by state violence, and trade unionists blacklisted and spied on for representing their members, and we are not alone. Campaigners fighting miscarriages of justice across our country, such as Orgreave, the Shrewsbury 24 and now Grenfell Tower, oppose this dangerous Bill.

I fear that my own party is being taken for a ride by this Government, because I will tell you what happens. You start with the idea that legislating for something that operates in the shadows must be a good thing. You then engage in good faith with a morally bankrupt Government arguing for vital safeguards, and once that Government finish stringing you along, you end up in the perverse situation of condoning laws that ride a coach and horses through our nation’s civil liberties and could even be used against the labour movement itself.

I am sent here by my constituents to stand up for their rights, freedoms and well-being, and that is what forces me to vote against the Bill tonight.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

The reason I asked to speak later in the debate this afternoon was made clear by the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). His knowledge and experience from his time on the ISC gives him an insight into the issue that many of us in this House just do not have. I am a very new member of the ISC, and I have a lot to learn, but I know that it is important to listen to those who have that knowledge and experience.

When I spoke on Second Reading, I made a short contribution saying that I supported the law on giving covert sources the right to break the law being set out expressly. I think that is absolutely right. We need to have those legal safeguards set out very clearly, but that also reminded me of those individuals who put themselves at great risk to go undercover to infiltrate terrorist groups, serious organised crime groups or paedophile rings. They are doing that on our behalf, and it is right that we now have a law that gives protection to them for what we are asking them to do.

As has been said already, the Bill could be improved, and I am disappointed that I have not seen much movement from the Government on the improvements that could be made on oversight and additional safeguards. I am also disappointed that consideration is being squashed into a Thursday afternoon to deal with this really important legislation. As the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee and the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee said, the timing of this is not helpful at all.

There has been recognition over several years that our intelligence services have needed to come out of the shadows, and the role of oversight and accountability has developed, not least through the role that Parliament has played in the creation of the Intelligence and Security Committee. Over the past few years it has extended its responsibilities and powers. So I join the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee and my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham in supporting new clause 3 in the name of members of that committee, cross-party, to give that further oversight every 12 months of the numbers and categories of authorisations given under the Bill. That would, it seems to me, fit with the role that we already have under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 in the bulk interception power. Having that on the face of the Bill is really important, because it spells out very clearly that Parliament believes that the role of the ISC is to look at issues like this on behalf of Parliament.

The ISC will only be able to review those agencies that we have responsibility for, so I agree with hon. Members who have raised questions about the oversight of some of those agencies included in the Bill. I wonder where that oversight will come from to make sure that the law is being properly applied—for example, by the Food Standards Agency.

I also add my support for the amendments tabled by the Labour Front Bench in good faith to strengthen the Bill and give independent oversight. We all have an interest in making the Bill as clear and as strong as possible, and I am disappointed that we are so limited in our debate this afternoon. I support amendment 7, which would require the use of a warrant issued by a judge when a criminal authorisation order is required. Having that prior judicial authorisation is right. I support amendments 9 and 10—

[Dan Carden]

That is such a fundamental oversight that is needed. Is the Bill really fit for purpose without it?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

As I said, I support what the Labour Front Bench is doing in making that proposal to the Government and I hope the Minister is able to give us some good news when he responds to the debate at the end of the Committee stage.

Amendments 9 and 10 are very clear on the legitimate and legal activities of trade unions, and that trade unions should be excluded, on the face of the Bill, from any such acts.

Police Pension Liabilities

Dan Carden Excerpts

Tuesday 6th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

I am sure that my hon. Friend will share the determination of the Government to do the right thing by public pensions and to make sure that they are properly funded. What the Treasury is doing is as a result of independent advice, and its approach is the right one, but there is a recognition of the difficulty that this causes the police at a time when things are already difficult and demanding. I made some comments earlier about possible exaggeration on their part of the problem. I should be more cautious, because there is a very real issue of stretch on police; I just do not happen to believe that there is the loss of officer numbers that they have indicated, not least because I am working very closely to find a solution to that. My hon. Friend can be assured that we at the Home Office, working closely with the Treasury, are determined to find a solution to this and to come to the House in early December with a police funding settlement that allows us to continue on the track of making sure that our police have the resources that they need in Essex and elsewhere.

[Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

I am quite frankly amazed by the language that the Minister is using and by the fact that he told my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) to be careful about what she says. No one in my constituency is telling me to be careful about what I say about knife, gun and gang crime being on the rise. Will he accept that with Liverpool and Merseyside police there are special cases with problems of organised and gang crime, and agree that they will not lose any more money through this Government’s incompetence?

[Mr Hurd]

I absolutely recognise the spike in serious violence that we are dealing with; it is an unbelievably serious problem that applies not just to London but nationally, and the Government are responding to it. I have one note of caution. It is not my business to give lectures to the Opposition, but the reality is that I have sat here with Labour MPs who, session after session, pop up and down demanding more and more money for policing, but actually, in the Labour manifesto, the shadow Front-Bench team committed £300 million additional funding to the police, which has been increased by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley to £780 million over this Parliament, whereas this Government have taken steps to put £460 million into the system in this year alone.

Organised Crime: Young People’s Safety

Dan Carden Excerpts

Wednesday 5th September 2018 Westminster Hall

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) finished her speech by saying that she hoped that she had represented her constituents well, particularly the women to whom she was referring. Anyone listening to what she has just said and the way she has said it—with the obvious depth of feeling on her part—will absolutely think that she has done her constituents proud, but more than that, she has done the country proud by bringing this issue to the attention of Parliament and bringing the Minister to this Chamber to answer on what is a national crisis.

This is not a few people in one part of the country experiencing a particular local difficulty. I am pleased that this Minister is here, because he will know from all his experience in his other roles that it is a huge problem that requires Government and ministerial action all the time. What I want to say to the Minister is this. He is a Minister of the Crown, a representative of the Government. He will be speaking for the people in response to my hon. Friend, who spoke for her constituents but also the country, I think. We have to do better. We come here as parliamentarians, and here we are in this beautiful building, but just half a mile or a few hundred metres away, young people have been stabbed. Go to any of our constituencies and that will be the case. The report I read that caused me to come here today—I will refer to it in a minute—shows that every single area of the country, across the United Kingdom, is impacted by slavery, trafficking, county lines and organised crime, which are an enemy within. I know that the Minister will take this point. He has the power to demand action from the system, whether that is the police, local authorities, the devolved Administrations or, indeed, all of us: yes, write reports, and yes, discuss what we are going to do, but let us get on top of this.

[Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

Merseyside Police tell me that community intelligence from the ground is integral to fighting back on this, but we need to look at the cuts in the number of police officers—we have lost 1,000 police officers across Merseyside. Unless we tackle the problem of policing, we cannot solve this problem.

[Vernon Coaker]

I agree. I am a Labour politician, and the cuts in policing and to local authorities have consequences, which we all refer to. The Minister has to accept responsibility for that, but however many police we have, however many things are going on and however many resources are put into local authorities, there has to be a Government drive to push them into tackling this issue as a major priority.

What caused me to attend the debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham was a National Crime Agency report published a few months ago. It talks about an intelligence gap—we do not know what we need to know. I asked a parliamentary question, and the Minister’s colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, said that the Government did not know. They thought there were many thousands of people involved, and there was an intelligence gap. That was just a few weeks ago. That report said nine or 10 months ago that there was an intelligence gap, and the parliamentary answer two or three weeks ago said that there was an intelligence gap. That is not good enough, and the system will not change unless the Minister gets civil servants and other people in, and demands that something be done. Otherwise, in the Minister’s constituency, my constituency and, indeed, all our constituencies, in Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland and England and in all the regions, these incidents will continue and we will have to come to this Chamber again in a few months saying how appalling it is that young people have died on our streets as a result of their involvement in organised crime and their involvement in county lines. We do not even have the data, yet we see on our streets what is happening.