Detention of Vulnerable Persons

David Burrowes Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2017 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the detention of vulnerable persons.

I have brought this debate to the Chamber because the arguments about detaining people simply because of their immigration status are not over. I will argue that that is not necessary, is extremely damaging and is not cost-effective. I will also argue that unless the Government get on with examining the alternatives and implementing the bulk of the Shaw review recommendations with alacrity, I can only conclude that the use of immigration detention for vulnerable people is purely ideological. To make my arguments, I will explore the impact of detention, particularly on vulnerable people; say something about the alternatives to detention; and highlight some of the Shaw review recommendations that have not been implemented more than one year down the line.

I will say at this point that my experience of the Minister for Immigration, limited as it is, is that he has listened when I have had something to say and he has acted, so I come to this debate fairly sceptical but not completely cynical. I very much hope that today will signal a turning point.

I thank all the organisations that wrote to me and provided me with information. It did not make pleasant reading, but it is important to know what is going on. I pay tribute to all of them for the work that they do. They include Scottish Detainee Visitors, Detention Action, Medical Justice, the Scottish Refugee Council, the English Refugee Council, the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, Liberty, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Asylum Aid, the Helen Bamber Foundation, the Association of Visitors to Immigration Detainees, and the Detention Forum.

I am fortunate: I have never had to flee my home or my country and I have never been detained for anything, far less detained without having committed a crime. However, I know the damage that it does to a person’s physical and mental health to experience that. I know because of what I read and because of friends who have been through it. I will refer to two sets of friends of mine who have been in immigration detention.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing a debate on a subject whose time has come again—many of us have been involved in debates on it in times gone by—but may I caution her on something? I welcome her scepticism: she is right to be sceptical, given the evidence that she will present to us. However, I would hope and expect my hon. Friend the Minister not to say that the reason for continued detention of vulnerable people is in any way ideological. Sadly, it could well be administrative. That is unacceptable too, particularly when the Government have said to Parliament that the presumption should be that those who are at risk are not detained.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne McLaughlin]

Actually, the thing that surprises me about that—I am not sure whether this is my hon. Friend’s point—is that the number is so low. I am telling the Minister that 78 is not the number of people in these circumstances feeling suicidal and considering suicide.

Such people are human beings who the Government agree should not be put through this; yet they are being put through it and the British Government are doing it to them. Every time the Government are asked when a recommendation that they have agreed to will be implemented, the answer is “in due course.” Notwithstanding all I said about the Minister at the start, I do not want to hear “in due course” today. That is not good enough. The most soul-destroying thing about being in detention is the unlimited nature of it—not knowing when or whether you will be released; the most soul-destroying thing for campaigners, many of whom have been in detention or are still at risk of detention, is not knowing when the Government will do as they promised.

I want to look at some of the alternatives to detention. There is a strong moral case for community-based alternatives. However, I am often, if not always, on a different side of the argument from this Government when it comes to discussions based on morality and values, so I will make the arguments based purely on effectiveness of outcome and cost.

In this place, I have often accused the Tory Government of knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Yet when it comes to immigration detention, it seems that money is no object. Why? Why do we use the most expensive system, particularly in these times of austerity? Why is there no money to support people in need—vulnerable young homeless people who now cannot claim housing benefit, for example—but an unlimited pot of cash to put already vulnerable people through a living hell in detention centres, given that the Government agree that that is what they are doing and that it can be catastrophically damaging to people? Evidence is increasing that working with people in the community, using a case management approach, works.

[Mr Burrowes]

The hon. Lady perhaps understates the costs. What about people whose stay is extended, so their time in detention is longer than legally required? The compensation bill is going up by millions of pounds. That is taxpayers’ money, which is being wasted on illegal, extended detention. Frankly, that is a scandal—it should go on effective, alternative ways of controlling people.

[Anne McLaughlin]

In a recent two-year period, the bill for compensation for people detained illegally was about £10 million. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for all that he does and says—it cannot be easy for someone when their Government are involved—and for all his campaigning on behalf of people in these circumstances.

There are a number of established alternatives to detention, such as the Toronto Bail programme, which is centred on community-based release. Importantly, that model has achieved a 94% cost saving compared with detention, and a compliance rate of 95%. I will not go into all the other models, but Sweden has a case management welfare and rights-based approach, which works with the person who is seeking asylum. Is the Minister aware that in 2014 in Sweden, the voluntary rate of return was 76%, whereas here it was 46%? Does he realise that the longer a migrant is detained, the more likely it is that they will be released from detention and not returned to their country of origin? Does that not just make the exercise completely pointless? Would it not be better to strengthen the decision-making process in the first place, and would that not be cheaper? Well yes, it would.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this important debate, which gives the Minister a chance to get a taste of the cross-party concern that was amplified last year in the run-up to the Immigration Bill—now the Immigration Act 2016. Many hon. Members, from all parts of the House, made it clear that indefinite detention was unacceptable—that was the easy point to make—and that there needs to be progress, not least towards a statutory time limit. Through the passage of the Act, and through Stephen Shaw’s scrutiny and welcome report, it was accepted—some of us conceded—that the welcome recommendations, the broad thrust of which the Government accepted, could well lead to a reduction in the numbers being detained and for how long.

Stephen Shaw talked about the package of “adults at risk” policies, individual assessments for removal and reviews, and the welcome progress that was made on outlawing the detention not only of children, but of vulnerable people, such as pregnant women, unless there are exceptional, limited circumstances. We all recognise that that package might not be the only lever to deal with too many people being in detention for too long—there are also statutory time limits—but it might be successful. However, Stephen Shaw said he that he would revisit that tool if progress was not made. Time has now gone by and, sadly, we have not seen the steps that were promised to Parliament and Members, so it may need to be revisited. I say advisedly to the Minister that cross-party concern will grow, not least in terms of interest in the blunt instrument of a statutory time limit, unless we see further progress.

[Paul Blomfield]

The hon. Gentleman and I have worked closely on these issues, and I pay tribute to his work. He is right to highlight that the progress we appeared to be making seems to have stalled. However, does he agree that there are worrying signs that things may be going into reverse? The most recent report on an immigration detention centre was done by the chief inspector of prisons on Brook House, where the average length of detention has increased, rather than decreased. Does he share my concern that that is a worrying sign? Clearly, we hope that the Minister will listen to the cross-party concerns that the issue needs to be addressed.

[Mr Burrowes]

I agree. There are warning signs. We have seen the reports in the media and elsewhere on Yarl’s Wood and the scandals that have taken place. We do not want to be in that position. We want to ensure that the recommendations, which were broadly accepted, mean real results, but we are not seeing them.

In January last year, the then Minister committed in Parliament to safeguarding the most vulnerable, with a clear presumption that people who are at risk should not be detained. I want to talk about the victims of trafficking and the need for reviews and assessments relating to their removal, not least because Ministers have given assurances, as did the Prime Minister last July. She made it clear—rightly, given that she has championed the cause of tackling modern slavery—that the Home Office has taken the lead. The Home Secretary is leading the task force, bringing Whitehall together in regular meetings, in which I am sure the Minister is also involved, to ensure that we apply our full force in tackling the evils of modern slavery, so that we can, in the words of the Prime Minister on 30 July,

“get a real grip of this issue”,

and

“drive further progress in the battle against this cruel exploitation”.

The words of the Prime Minister are pertinent to today’s debate. She wrote:

“Vulnerable people who have travelled long distances believing they were heading for legitimate jobs are finding they have been duped, forced into hard labour, and then locked up and abused....These crimes must be stopped and the victims of modern slavery must go free.”

The victims of modern slavery must go free and not be in detention.

I will refer to an example given to me by Detention Action. It is about T, a trafficking survivor:

“Like many Vietnamese people in detention, he was trafficked to work in a cannabis farm.”

That was referenced by the Prime Minister.

“He has been left with long-lasting injuries and psychological trauma after being beaten by his traffickers. The Home Office accept that he is a torture survivor but have refused to release him. On the basis of limited information, the Home Office refuses to believe that he is a trafficking survivor. He has been detained for four months.”

Victims of modern slavery must go free.

I will refer to the Helen Bamber Foundation and a recent example this month about someone with a rule 35 report from a detention centre. The doctor noted extensive scarring that was in keeping with a history of torture. Sadly, though, there was a negative reasonable grounds decision that turned on the credibility of the applicant, as the trafficking claim was not raised when first questioned in the UK. We have made great strides in dealing with the issue of reporting referrals. Here is a clear example where no doubt the threats by the trafficker not to tell anyone of the exploitation at the time of initial questioning is something that is normal and not exceptional, but is not given any weight. There are also indicators that the individual had been re-trafficked after coming into contact with UK authorities initially.

I will draw on reports referred to by the Home Office. There are reasons why the claim of a torture survivor trafficking victim had not been properly maintained above issues around immigration. The vulnerability issue is the concern, but sadly it is weighed among immigration factors and the vulnerability concerns are downgraded. The Home Office report stated that entry into the UK took place

“in a clandestine manner”—

in other words, on the back of a lorry. That is not surprising for a trafficked victim:

“You have no close ties in the UK to ensure your compliance.”

Again, that is not surprising in terms of the indicators present. The individual had been trafficked. Here is an example from the Shaw report in relation to mental health:

“Whilst it is noted that you have encountered physical torture and are suffering poor mental health as a result of this, the doctor has not diagnosed any serious physical or mental health conditions that are likely to worsen within the detained environment during the duration necessary to effect your removal.”

Page 306 of the Shaw Review states:

“Together the literature, which spans a 25-year period and a number of legal systems, tells a consistent story of the harmful effects of detention on mental health.”

That is compounded in a victim of trafficking. What is going on here? We have the Shaw report referencing clear evidence of mental health aggravated by detention, not least among those who are victims of torture.

The report continues:

“When balancing your vulnerability against your negative immigration factors, the negative factors outweigh the risks.”

What is happening here to very vulnerable people? At the time of writing, despite the adults at risk policy, this individual has now been in detention for four months, with a further three and a half months being proposed to effect removal. It is not the will of Stephen Shaw, it is not the will of Parliament, and I do not believe it was the will of the Ministers and the Government during the passage of the Immigration Act 2016. We must do better.

I must press the Minister on his answer to my questions that followed up on the clear will of the Minister’s predecessor in response to the Shaw report. My question is about timescales for individual reviews and assessments for removal, which should take precedence over issues around detention. It is what immigration removal centres are all about: removal and ensuring that individuals are assessed for removal, which is there to supplement the adults at risk policy. There was a clear commitment that that would be in place by the end of the year.

The then Minister responded on 14 January by saying in response to the recommendation that

“the Home Office should examine its processes for carrying out detention reviews, the Government will implement a new approach to the case management of those detained, replacing the existing detention review process with a clear removal plan for all those in detention.”—[Official Report, 14 January 2016; Vol. 604, c. 28WS.]

The following month in the Select Committee on Home Affairs, the then Immigration Minister, now the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, told me that the current system of detention review would be replaced by removal assessments by the end of the year. It has not happened. The current Minister responded to my question yesterday by saying that

“work continues on designing and implementing a more effective case management process to replace the existing method of reviewing detention. Case Progression Plans are intended to act as the single caseworking record for all individuals entering immigration detention. Wider rollout...is planned for later this year, subject to the findings from the evaluation of the pilot phase.”

Again, we must do better.

In conclusion, whether it is on that issue or publishing a plan for the whole of the estate that will be predicated on the Government’s commitment to reduce the numbers in detention, we must do better. At the very least, let us commit ourselves to follow through with what the Prime Minster said:

“the victims of modern slavery must go free.”

Oral Answers to Questions

David Burrowes Excerpts

Monday 6th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

When will the current system of detention reviews be replaced by the individual removal assessments and reviews, and when will the plan for the future of the immigration and detention estate, promised by the Minister’s predecessor last year, be published?

[Mr Goodwill]

We seek to minimise the time for which people are kept in detention, and that is done for the purposes of removal. We have, of course, introduced a new adults at risk policy, which seeks to minimise the use of detention for those considered vulnerable.

Unaccompanied Children (Greece and Italy)

David Burrowes Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Goodwill]

I can certainly let the hon. Gentleman have that number, but the Dublin process has been accelerated following the clearance of the Calais camp and the majority of the 750 children whom we brought across from Calais came under the Dublin process. When children think they have a claim under the Dublin procedure, they need to claim asylum in the country that they are in so that they can be fed into the Dublin process. It is important that they claim asylum first.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

At the request of the Prime Minister, the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner visited Greece and Italy last year and reported back with recommendations. He said that the Dublin process was simply not working for children. It is taking too long and there is a lack of clear information about how the process works and of specific updates to children on their particular case. Whether there are 115 experts or the 75 that were previously requested, the system is not working, and we must ensure that it works well for children and their relatives. Will there be a response to that call-out from the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner?

[Mr Goodwill]

It is important that the Dublin process works effectively and that it takes into account the safeguarding of children. Checks must be made to ensure not only that the family connection is genuine, but that children will be cared for. Things have not worked out for several children admitted under the Dublin protocol, which is why the specified number that was set with local authorities has left some slack in the system. There are 50 places for failed Dublin relocations, and we expect that number to be a minimum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Cox]

I agree with the right hon. Lady, but let us leave aside arguments of conscience and compassion. Let us concentrate on our legal obligations. I say that to the hon. Lady not because I disavow or seek to reduce the importance of the moral arguments, but because moral arguments do not always appear in the same light to everybody.

The arguments about the push and pull factors that are sometimes used surround the problem with what I understand are difficult equations and judgments about the practicalities and complexities of whether we should take children or not. But sometimes we can surround a problem with a web of complication. Sometimes, I would prefer to be a fly than a spider, and the plight of the child is one example. The plight of a child transcends the complexities of push and pull factors.

Nobody is suggesting for a moment that we should take every single one of the 30,000 children a year who enter Greece and Italy. All that the Dubs amendment meant was that we should take a modest few. Those of us on this side of the House who voted for that amendment believed that we would take a modest few, but we did not believe that it would be only 350.

Let me return to the question of our obligations. It is not in the interests of our reputation as a country to be seen to be a nation parsimonious and mean-spirited in the fulfilment of an obligation. We should have in Greece and Italy now not only the valiant single lady, Miss Malahyde, who seems to be doing tremendous work—dozens of Home Office officials should be actively searching for the children whom it is our legal obligation to find and process.

[Mr Burrowes]

The dispiriting and depressing issue is that back on 21 April, the then Minister for Immigration explained that

“The teams we send to Greece will include experts in supporting vulnerable groups, such as unaccompanied children and those trained to tackle people trafficking. This will help ensure that vulnerable people, including children, are identified and can access asylum procedures as quickly as possible.”

Now we hear from the Red Cross that it is taking 10 months to process a child’s case. It is our legal and practical responsibility to have ensured that those 75 experts were about protecting the vulnerable, not getting rid of them through to Turkey.

[Mr Cox]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. It is our duty to process the children and to deal with those who have connections and family in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, and I congratulate those Members who secured it.

At the heart of this debate is the important question of whether we have done enough for child refugees. Have we shown our compassion? The answer now, and always, is no, not yet. It is not a case of our saying, “We are just going to do this much to comply with our interpretation of the law and see whether it is enough,” and then moving on; we should want to do the maximum for the most vulnerable refugees who need our support. We can do that in all manner of ways, not only through compliance with section 67 of the Immigration Act 2016 or the Dublin agreement, but through our international aid obligations and the resettlement routes, and, indeed, by caring for those who come to our shores irregularly. We can show our compassion in all manner of ways.

The Home Secretary was right when she said in her party conference speech in October—this did not get as much publicity as some of her other comments—that compassion has no borders. That is something we will hold on to. As has been said, compassion is not the preserve of any one political party, and it is not the preserve of Back Benchers or Ministers. I understand that there is a difficult job to do, with much complexity. We all care about these vulnerable people, so the issue is how we can deliver something practically.

As everyone has said, the Government have a good record, having committed £2.3 billion to international aid and cared for the 8,000 unaccompanied children who came through last year, many of whom came through the Syrian VPR scheme.

I particularly commend the Government for focusing not on the numbers, but on the issues of safety and vulnerability, whether in the UK or by making the value of our pound go far in Syria, the middle east, north Africa or, indeed, in Europe.

Over time, through cross-party pressure, the Government have moved from a 200 VPR scheme to a 20,000 VPR scheme, despite some pressure and push-back from some people. We are not simply going to pick a number; we will look at how far we can go now and we will keep the door open to looking at how we can respond to issues of vulnerability and safety. That is why I welcome the Government’s continuing approach.

We are on a journey. We do not know what is going to happen next or what the next crisis or challenge will be. We have an international leadership role, particularly on modern slavery, that I want to touch on briefly. It means that we must keep the door open to a response to the refugee crisis.

I welcomed the Government’s response last April and May to the call that came from the public and elsewhere to take in 3,000 child refugees. What was our response to that number? The charities recognised that it was somewhat arbitrary, but it rightly mobilised us—we wanted the Government to do more. The Government’s response was, “Yes, we will take 3,000 more vulnerable children, and we will take them from the middle east and north Africa.” That is the largest international resettlement effort that focuses on children, those at risk and their carers. I commend the Government for it.

The Government went further. They responded to the wonderful and very credible campaign led by Lord Dubs, which eventually led to section 67 of the Immigration Act. Their response was commendable because it was very practical; it recognised that focusing on numbers is not the best way to approach things when it comes to those in Europe, although it can be a good approach for refugee camps, particularly in the middle east and north Africa. The situation in Europe is complicated, and we have to work practically on it in partnership with our French, Italian and Greek neighbours and with local authorities.

I supported the revised Dubs amendment, because it took a practical approach—compassion with a head and a heart. The Government announcement of the scheme on 4 May, under the previous Prime Minister, stated:

“Those at risk of trafficking or exploitation will be prioritised for resettlement. And existing family reunion routes will be accelerated…The government is not putting a fixed number on arrivals, but will instead work with local authorities across the UK to determine how many children will be resettled.”

I understood that as a very practical way of moving things forward. I did not expect the number to be 350; I do not believe that that was in any Member’s mind—whether we are using our heart or our head, our moral and legal responsibilities to fulfil section 67 go way beyond that. Nevertheless, it was a practical approach, which is why in a letter to MPs the Home Secretary rightly stated:

“The scheme has not closed, as reported by some. We were obliged by the Immigration Act to put a specific number on how many children we would take based on a consultation with local authorities about their capacity. This is the number that we have published and we will now be working in Greece, Italy and France to transfer further children under the amendment. We’re clear that behind these numbers are children and it’s vital that we get the balance right between enabling eligible children to come to the UK as quickly as possible and ensuring local authorities have capacity to host them and provide them with the support and care they will need.”

The Government can make any interpretation they want, but the reality is that the scheme is in law. It is a matter of statute, and there has been no revision, no sunset clause and no Bill that means that it no longer applies. The Dubs amendment still stands. What we might call the Cameron scheme had a cut-off date of 20 March 2016, although the Government are quite at liberty to change that, but our responsibility to work with local authorities to come up with the right scheme is a matter of statute.

I recognise that the Government scheme is still open, although I suggest we need to reset its time lock. It needs to be opened wider—the statutory 0.07% commitment to offer places across local authorities may need to be made wider. As we learned in the Home Affairs Committee yesterday, that would lead to 4,000 more spaces. I encourage the Government to go back and show that that door can be pushed wider open. I also urge them to publish more comprehensive criteria on all forms of modern slavery, as the anti-slavery commissioner has said.

Mr Hyland has said that 3,000 unaccompanied Nigerian children arrived in Italy by sea last year. There is nothing about push and pull; most have already been victims of trafficking. What is their destination through the traffickers? It is the UK. The Prime Minister is taking a lead on modern slavery. She dispatched Kevin Hyland to find this out, and he has come back saying that we have a responsibility to these women and children. I want the Government to take those responsibilities seriously, keeping the Dubs amendment wide open, resetting it in Italy, where the Turkey deal has no relevance, and ensuring that we can keep on the path of safety for these child refugees.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Burrowes Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue; we are pressing to do exactly that. I have spoken to Kevin Hyland, the independent commissioner, about this subject, and I have had a roundtable on working with commissioners and the police force to ensure that the police not only press charges, but collect the information from the victims of modern slavery, so that we can make sure that investigations can lead to convictions. I share the hon. Lady’s views.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

Why has the Home Office blocked three Iraqi Syrian bishops from coming to the UK to consecrate the first Syriac Orthodox church? Is it not at least disrespectful and probably shameful that they have been given the reason that they do not have enough money or that they might not leave the UK at a time when we should be showing solidarity with Church leaders at the frontline of persecution?

[Mr Goodwill]

It would not be appropriate for me to comment on individual cases, but let me say that all these applications are considered on their individual merits, in line with UK immigration rules and guidance. There is no policy of denying entry clearance for visas from Syrian nationals.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Burrowes Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Goodwill]

I echo the points that the right hon. Lady makes. These are exactly the representations that I have received from many NGOs which are working very hard to assist us, and our own people are on the ground to ensure that that is done. It is very important indeed that, as we continue to process those children who are eligible to come here, that is done safely, and the French are determined to help us with that.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

On the subject of refugees, may we focus on the real issue of the safety of children? As children are being transferred from the containers to specialist centres across France, can the Minister confirm that Dubs and Dublin children have all been identified, that they will be transferred as soon as possible to the UK, and that they will be kept safe under the close supervision of NGOs and Home Office officials?

[Mr Goodwill]

I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that we are working hard to identify children who would qualify under Dubs and Dublin. It is very important indeed that we ensure that the most vulnerable, particularly the children under 13 and those who may be vulnerable to sexual exploitation, are prioritised under the Dubs amendment procedure.

Calais

David Burrowes Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

We do not always have all the information that we need. One of the reasons why the full cohort of nearly 200 “Dublin” children has not yet been brought over is that we have not been able to establish where their close family members are. It is possible—this is an issue to which the hon. Lady has particularly drawn attention—that the close family members who have been claimed, and have been contacted before the children have been brought over, are no longer quite as contactable once the local authority is trying to address the situation. As I have said to other Members, this can be a complicated process, and it is not always straightforward to follow up the contacts that we have been given. However, if the hon. Lady wants to send me a particular example, I will of course look at it.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her close attention to and compassion towards child refugees in Calais, and for her talk of a humanitarian operation. When I was there in February witnessing the partial demolition, it was far from humanitarian. Can the Home Secretary confirm again that the camp shelter will be sufficient to accommodate all child refugees if the French authorities do not accept the French Red Cross offer of a child centre? Will she truly be able to ensure that children who are dispersed across child accommodation centres across France will be accommodated, particularly those in respect of whom we have a legal duty under Dubs and Dublin?

[Amber Rudd]

The only reassurance that I can give my hon. Friend is the reassurance that I have been given by the French. We have particularly asked them to ensure that the children are kept in a secure area, and our request was that it should be, potentially, outside the camp. They chose to keep the children inside the camp, reassuring us that they could keep them secure there. We are in close contact: we now have a large number of Home Office representatives in the camp, as well as the hundreds of Border Force staff who are in the area. We are hopeful that we will be able to work closely with them to keep the children safe. Ultimately, however, this is a French responsibility, although we are giving the French all the support that we can.

Calais Jungle

David Burrowes Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary for a statement on the Calais Jungle in the light of its imminent demolition and the urgent need to provide safety for children who have a family link in the United Kingdom or in whose best interests it is to be here.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amber Rudd)]

Today I met my counterpart, Bernard Cazeneuve, and we agreed that we have a moral duty to safeguard the welfare of unaccompanied refugee children. We both take our humanitarian responsibilities seriously. The UK Government have made clear their commitment to resettle vulnerable children under the Immigration Act 2016 and ensure that those with links to the UK are brought here using the Dublin regulation.

The primary responsibility for unaccompanied children in France, including those in the Calais camp, lies with the French authorities. The UK Government have no jurisdiction to operate on French territory and the UK can contribute only in ways agreed with the French authorities and in compliance with French and EU law. The UK has made significant progress in speeding up the Dublin process. We have established a permanent official-level contact group, and we have seconded UK experts to the French Government.

Part of the role is to assist co-ordinating efforts on the ground to identify children. Since the beginning of 2016 more than 80 unaccompanied children have been accepted for transfer to the UK from France under the Dublin regulation, nearly all of whom have now arrived in the UK.

Within those very real constraints, we continue to work with the French Government and partner organisations to speed up mechanisms to identify, assess and transfer unaccompanied refugee children to the UK where that is in their best interests. While the decision on the dismantling of the Calais camp and the timing of the operation is a matter for the French Government, I have made it crystal clear to the French Interior Minister on numerous occasions, including at our meeting today, that our priority must be to ensure the safety and security of children during any camp clearance.

We have made good progress today, but there is much more work to do. To that end, I emphasised to Mr Cazeneuve that we should transfer from the camp as many minors as possible eligible under the Dublin regulation before clearance commences, with the remainder coming over within the next few days of the operation. I also outlined my views that those children eligible under the Dubs amendment to the Immigration Act 2016 must be looked after in safe facilities where their best interests are properly considered. The UK Government stand ready to help to fund such facilities and provide the resourcing to aid the decision making. I made it clear today in my meeting with Mr Cazeneuve that we should particularly prioritise those under the age of 12, because they are the most vulnerable. The UK remains committed to upholding our humanitarian responsibilities on protecting minors and those most vulnerable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Burrowes]

With the Calais Jungle earmarked for demolition next week, what is being done to provide safety and refuge for children for whom we have a legal and moral duty of care? On the last count conducted by Citizens UK/Safe Passage UK, 178 children were eligible for sanctuary in the UK under the Dublin criteria and 212 under the Dubs best interests amendment. The Red Cross has told me today that

“the Home Office’s energy in the last few weeks has been significant and recognises the scale of the challenge.”

However, that energy is not shared by the French authorities, which do not provide appointments, interpreters or resources to make transfers in the “days” that the Home Office wants rather than the “weeks” or the “months”.

Last month, the Home Secretary told the Home Affairs Committee that she would get over to the UK as soon as possible all the children for whom we have a legal obligation, and she has confirmed today that she wants as many of them as possible over here before demolition. Last week, she said that

“compassion does not stop at the border”,

and she has been reported as saying today that the first 100 child refugees are coming to the UK “within weeks”.

Can the Home Secretary provide the assurance today that all children eligible for transfer to the UK will be in a place of safety before the demolition starts? The French accommodation centres are inadequate for children. When it comes to transportation, only 12 got on the bus to the centres on Thursday, and the next bus is not until tomorrow. The French Red Cross, however, has pledged to provide accommodation in one place for all children awaiting reunion with UK families. Will the Home Secretary ensure in her discussions with her French counterparts over the coming days that that happens before the demolition starts? Will the Government, with France, create a designated children’s centre sufficient for all children with relocation claims, whether under the Dubs amendment or Dublin arrangements, rather than risk dispersal and exploitation?

The Red Cross’s report—aptly named “No place for children”, as many who have visited the Calais jungle would testify—highlighted this weekend the humanitarian and bureaucratic nightmare. The “bureaucratic” aspect is particularly frustrating. No clear process has yet been established by the Home Office or France to identify, assess and relocate UK lone children whose best interests under the Dubs amendment are to be in the UK.

Will the Government use funds, whether they be from the Department for International Development or wherever, to establish an appropriately mandated organisation with the authority from France and the UK to identify all minors eligible for transfer and to assist in the progress of their cases, whether it be through investigating claims through family links under the Dublin arrangements or the Dubs best interests criteria? Finally, does the Home Secretary acknowledge that until we have those answers, that plan for the safety of those vulnerable Calais children will risk the Prime Minister’s words last week on the importance of standing up for the weak being just that—words?

[Amber Rudd]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for raising this matter, giving me the opportunity to set out what the Government are doing. I particularly appreciate his comments about the urgency of this matter, and I share his view on that, as does everybody in this House. I attended a meeting with my French counterpart for nearly two hours today. He had eight or nine people with him, as did I. It is fair to say that the bureaucratic element will now be dealt with with the sort of urgency that we want to see.

On ensuring that there is access to a children’s centre when the clearances take place, I certainly share my hon. Friend’s view that it is essential to ensure that those children are kept safe during any clearances, and I have made that point to the French Minister.

The children who can be dealt with under the Dublin arrangements are not, by any means, all the children we want to take, but it is part 1 of where we want to help. We have been pressing for a list. I appreciate that Citizens UK and other non-governmental organisations have a list, but for the Dublin arrangements to work, the children have to come through the host country. We believe that the French will give that to us this week. My hon. Friend should be in no doubt that we will move with all urgency—a matter of days or a week at the most—in order to deliver on that commitment when we get it.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Burrowes Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

We have a secondee in Greece, we are working closely with the Greek Government and we have identified some children whom we think we can assist, so they will not need to come to Calais. We anticipate that the first arrivals in the UK will be this month.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

May I take the Home Secretary back to those young people for whom take charge requests have been accepted? They have family here waiting for them to arrive. When we talk about fine lines, surely in the case of these young people, when we have accepted the responsibility and when they are at risk of attack, as we saw, or of exploitation and trafficking, the line has been crossed and we have a responsibility to ensure that they get back to their family and that they avoid situations that are not safe. Let us make them safe rather than putting them at risk of exploitation and trafficking.

[Amber Rudd]

My hon. Friend is right to refer to the fine line and to the fact that the camp is a place of terror and danger. We will follow up on our obligations, and as I said in answer to an earlier question, we are now managing to move more quickly. I ask him not to underestimate the difficulty sometimes of dealing with French law and EU law. We cannot simply move in and take action; we must act within the law, which is always in the best interests of the child.

draft Telecommunications Restriction Orders (Custodial Institutions) (england and wales) regulations 2016

David Burrowes Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2016 General Committees

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

I serve as a criminal defence solicitor and see clients who will be affected by these regulations, which I welcome. I am particularly concerned about the prevalence of drugs in institutions. I want to focus on the types of institutions that will be subject to the regulations. Can the Minister confirm whether they will extend to other institutions where there are detainees, such as mental health hospitals? In those institutions people are also under an order and subject to detention, and mobile phones are particularly prevalent, so there will be an impact. Can the Minister also confirm that this will not extend to the immigration detention estate?

[Mr Hayes]

I asked those questions too when preparing for this short debate. In the course of my remarks, I will happily make clear the answers to those pertinent inquiries. The issue is of course most acute in the prison estate itself. The alarming thing—I think it is fair to be absolutely open with the Committee—is how apparently easy it is to smuggle those kinds of goods into prison. Of course, a SIM card is a tiny thing. There are even examples of devices being thrown over prison walls, and smuggling a very large number of very small SIM cards into and out of prisons has become something of a specialism for certain people. I am baring my soul to the Committee, but that is the way a Minister should behave among colleagues, because it is important that they know what I have asked of my officials.

My other question was whether it is possible to find a straightforward way of doing this merely by prison staff searching prisoners, dealing with visitors more effectively, checking cells and so on. However, given the sort of numbers I have mentioned, the logistics of that would of course make it extremely difficult. The business of switching SIM cards between phones, and indeed switching phones between prisoners, means that no prisoner is using the same SIM card on any consecutive days. Essentially, the trading of phones between prisoners, the movement of SIM cards and the business of bringing them into and out of the prison are such that simply putting in place a series of protocols, measures or disciplines in the prison would be insufficient to deal with this. We need to find a technological solution that is more comprehensive in its effect, which is precisely what these regulations do.

I turn now to the draft regulations, as I do not want to detain the Committee unduly, even though we are having this interesting and useful discussion. The draft regulations allow NOMS and other law enforcement bodies to apply to the county court for a telecommunications restriction order. If the court is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the handsets and SIM cards specified in the application are in use and inside a prison, they will make a telecommunications restriction order. The terms of the order will require the mobile network operators to take whatever action the order specifies to prevent or restrict the use of those handsets and SIM cards. In practice, the operators will blacklist the handsets, which will prevent the handset from connecting to the mobile network, irrespective of the SIM card inside that handset, and disconnect the SIM cards that are identified in the application from the mobile network.

The blacklisting of handsets and disconnection of SIM cards found to be operating without authority inside prisons will therefore allow us to take much more decisive, comprehensive and effective action against the use of mobiles that are doing the damage I described earlier.

The emphasis on asking the providers to engage in this process will rightly prompt members of the Committee to ask what view the providers take. I assure the Committee that this order has been brought to the House after extensive discussions with providers to ensure that they are satisfied that the measures contained herein will do the job that they are supposed to.

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Lady makes a valid point. Let me be clear about the priority here, which is those institutions where we know there is a profound, serious, compelling problem. I have mentioned some figures, but I cannot give the latest data, given that it is not yet publicly available. I assure the hon. Lady that this is a growing problem. We know that, year on year, the use of mobile phones is growing—despite all the good practice of prison governors, by the way; this is by no means an indictment of their management. We know, too, as I have already described, that phones are being used to facilitate a large number of very serious crimes. The hon. Lady is right that that will vary to some extent from place to place. Of course, the nature of the order is that a TRO will be applied for only when we know there is good reason to do so. In that sense, it is specific to the problems she sets out. If an order is necessary it will be brought forward, and the judge must be satisfied that it is proportionate and, on the balance of probabilities, the right thing to do. There is due process associated with this: it is not a question simply of applying the regulations without consideration of where they are needed and why.

On the funding issue she raised, NOMS has secured funding centrally to operate the measure, so there will be additional money.

On the issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate raised, the regulations apply only to custodial institutions. I take my hon. Friend’s point that there may be a good case to look more widely, if we can find evidence that mobile phones are being used for malevolent purposes elsewhere. As I said to the hon. Lady, this is about application based on need. Nevertheless, I would not want to ignore the implications of my hon. Friend’s remarks, and I will go away and look at that. It is not contained in this order, but he makes a valid point. If we find, on analysis, that there is a need to look at the issue more closely, we certainly will.

[Mr Burrowes]

I actually want a proportionate approach. I certainly do not want the measure to be extended to the immigration removal centre for those who are not convicted prisoners, and I am concerned that there would be an extension. It needs to be dealt with proportionately. Having said that, in my local hospital, there is a forensic wing for convicted prisoners who are subject to a hospital order, and that could be a good case in which access to mobile phones should be prevented.

[Mr Hayes]

I am little surprised by what my hon. Friend said. He makes a reasonable point. All of this could be tested against the actuality of the problem. The regulations are not blanket provisions; they are provisions based on need. My hon. Friend makes a valid point, and I am happy to build that into our further consideration.

I have set out the importance of the regulations, but it is right, too, that there are safeguards. We need to be able to disapply the order if mistakes are made and if anyone is affected in error. That is another point on which I am sure the hon. Member for Swansea East wants to be assured. We want to ensure that if someone is wrongly affected by a telecommunications restriction order, it can be disapplied quickly and they can be reconnected to the network. I want to put in place an additional safeguard to ensure that there is independent and transparent scrutiny of the measures, so I have provided that the use of the regulations will be overseen by the proposed Investigatory Powers Commissioner when the Investigatory Powers Bill receives Royal Assent.

With that introductory explanation of why we are doing what we are doing, I happily commend the regulations to the Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Burrowes Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Richard Harrington]

I can assure the hon. Lady that we are doing all we can to get children in the asylum system and, once they are in the system, to make sure the procedure happens as quickly as possible. We are having regular meetings with the relevant NGOs, including quite a big one on Thursday, to find out how we can speed this up. The records show that the system is operating much faster and with many more numbers than in 2015, and we are doing our absolute best to speed it up as much as we can.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

What progress have we made in despatching the 75 experts to Greece, into the hotspots around Europe and also into Calais to ensure that there is robustness and confidence in the process of vulnerable children going into the system and then having their family reunion application processed, rather than going into the hands of the smugglers and traffickers?