Asylum Seekers and Permission to Work

David Simmonds Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[Neil Coyle]

It is completely the opposite, I am afraid. Asylum seekers could make, and want to make, an economic contribution to this country, and that is to be welcomed. People are forced to use illegal measures to get into the country because of the delays and our terrible system. If we were more compassionate and stuck with the UK tradition of helping people, rather than turning a blind eye or crossing the road, we would be in a better position morally and economically.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

I, too, need to draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a RAMP principal. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the introduction of safe and legal routes—we very much welcome the Government’s commitment to doing that—by which people can establish their claims is key to the United Kingdom’s ability to disrupt traffickers and those who bring people into the country in very high-risk ways, which are a matter of legitimate public concern?

Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that the introduction in 2002 of the ban on asylum seekers working reflected a prevailing concern, in the then Labour Government and in Parliament more widely, about the economic impact? At the time, the United Kingdom was preparing for the accession of further countries into the European Union. However, according to the research that RAMP has shared with us both, 67% of businesses believe that now is the time to lift the ban. Does he agree that we need to recognise that times have changed, and that safe and legal routes and the changing economic climate make a case for doing so that simply did not exist when the Labour Government introduced the ban in 2002?

[Neil Coyle]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution, and I completely agree that times have changed. These people, however, are often professionals; they have skillsets that we should be seeking to use to benefit our economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Coyle]

I think that there is cross-party support for this, and I will come back to the subject of the broader public.

Before I leave the subject of occupations, the Government’s list of approved proficiencies includes classical ballet dancer or skilled orchestral musician—so those are okay, but for other professions, where we desperately need people, people are being delayed in getting into those jobs. I hope the Minister will commit to overhaul the shortage occupation list system; he will have public support for that. British Future found that 71% of the British public supports the right to work after six months—public opinion will be on the Government’s side should they introduce the policy.

I want to talk about the situation in Southwark. We have 189 dispersed asylum seekers housed across the borough, and the council has a commitment in its refreshed plan to making Southwark a borough of sanctuary, working with community groups and partners to help and support refugee and migrant asylum seekers in the borough, and campaigning to end the hostile environment, which the Government told us they wanted to end. They told us they were dismantling the hostile environment, and yet here it is alive and kicking and damaging people’s lives, leaving people destitute.

I want to celebrate the work of the Southwark day centre for asylum seekers, which does a tremendous job and has very strong links to this House; the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) are both patrons of it. People from the centre tell me that the majority of the people they see do not have the right to work and are dependent on charities and faith groups. Churches and mosques are picking up the slack because we have an irresponsible Government leaving people without support. Some of the people they are supporting are not even covered by the asylum support scheme and live beyond destitution. They have confirmed that 40% of the asylum seekers they are helping wait longer than 12 months for a decision—40% of the people they see. I see these people in my casework and surgery sessions—not face-to-face at the moment, although I do make exceptions, so if anyone does need to see me, we can do in a covid-secure way in my constituency office.

[David Simmonds]

I promise to be super brief. I was reading a quote about how cash benefits have been regarded as

“a major pull factor that encourages fraudulent claims”—[Official Report, 14 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 16.]

from asylum seekers. That was from Jack Straw, when he was overseeing this policy as Home Secretary. Does the hon. Member agree that one strength of recognising that times have changed and introducing the right to work is that it would prove to our constituents that asylum seekers are not scroungers, but people with skills valued by British businesses who are here to make a tax-paying contribution, rather than expecting to subsist off the taxpayer?

[Neil Coyle]

I agree 100% and that echoes the point made earlier that these are people who want to contribute, to make a difference and to improve our country as well as their own lives. I have two quick examples from constituency casework. One woman who applied for asylum in 2014, was initially refused, and reapplied in 2017 has still had no response and no decision. She fled Eritrea due to political repression and has physical injuries as a result of the beatings that she took there. Her current application has taken more than three years and remains undecided. The second is a man with post-traumatic stress disorder from his experience in Iran, where he was born, who received a refusal in 2019, after waiting more than a year initially. He submitted a fresh application, including more medical information, has still not received a response and is left destitute. This is an issue—the longer people wait and are out of work, the harder it is for them to contribute when permitted by the Government. Of course, there are also mental health issues and other implications for those left marginalised and isolated on the periphery of society. These are people who could be contributing, as other Members have mentioned.

It is estimated that the current policy costs the taxpayer almost £100 million a year—for an awful, inhumane and incompetent approach. The CBI and TUC back the Lift the Ban campaign. It would generate income and reduce bureaucracy, help raise additional income tax and national insurance, and cut emergency accommodation and other costs. Of course, there are stronger and long-term savings as people integrate and contribute more. Compared globally, we perform badly. Before people can work in France, Spain and the USA it is six months, in Germany it is three months, and in Italy two months. In Canada and Australia—Ministers often hold up the Australian immigration system—there is no wait. People can get into work as soon as they arrive. Why are we not using the Australian model? Why is the Minister still sustaining the damage of this policy to our economy and those people’s lives?

In conclusion, what the campaign asks for is a change and for the ban to be lifted to ensure a more humane approach that tackles this long-term isolation and marginalisation; one befitting the UK’s proud history of support and allowing people who face persecution and repression abroad to enter; and one that is in our economic interests, helping us to tackle covid so that people can protect themselves, the NHS and the wider community. Without that change the Home Office, the Department responsible for safety in this country, leaves those people and our whole community unsafe.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

As I have made some interventions already, I shall be brief. As a Conservative, I believe the case is now robustly made for a change in position. We can consider the history and accept that it is right that Government Departments should implement different policies to respond to the concerns that the public, voters, businesses, and everybody in the community has in a given period.

I was reflecting on an article published in The Guardian about how the wider issue of immigration and this point specifically had become so toxic over the years. It referred to the proposals put forward by a Labour Government, for example, that the children of asylum seekers should be taught separately because they were “swamping” the classrooms of this country. Barbara Roche, who was the Immigration Minister for a number of years at the time when the current legislation was established, talked about needing to be much tougher to deter people. That was probably a response to a prevailing concern with the accession of the Visegrad countries into the European Union and a lot of coverage in the media that said that that was going to lead to large numbers of people arriving in the country with the right to work. There was understandable concern in some communities about the impact that would have on their local areas. The Government wanted to demonstrate that they were concerned, and that they were going to be tough and take effective measures to make sure that impact was mitigated.

Of course, as we have heard from the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), we face a period in which covid, Brexit, and changes in legislation on borders and free movement all add up to a very different picture. The polling done by British Future identifies that many people in these communities have, over time, come to see that asylum seekers and refugees in their local area can bring valuable skills and should be able to use those skills in paid work, rather than subsisting for a long time on very meagre amounts paid for by the taxpayer.

It seems to me a very Conservative thing to expect people to pay their way. When people arrive and could be working in our hospitals, our care system or, frankly, in any kind of job that their skills and experience make them fit to do, we as Conservatives should enable them to do it, rather than having taxpayers pick up the tab for their costs while we make a decision on their long-term futures. That view seems to be gaining a high degree of traction.

Although I absolutely accept that there is a compassion argument at the heart of this issue, we need to recognise that that argument is not attached to any particular political viewpoint. Governments have to make decisions in the light of the circumstances that they face and in the wider interests of the country. It was, once upon a time, in the wider interests of the country to apply those restrictions to have a borders and immigration policy that commanded public confidence.

When so many businesses around the country say that they are struggling to recruit workers, particularly skilled workers for certain types of job—the farming industry was talking about that over the summer with preparations for harvesting, and for local authorities recruiting staff for social care is a major challenge, with significant upward pressure on wages—there is an opportunity to bring people with those skills in to make that contribution and become tax-paying, economically active members of our society, rather than subsisting on the taxpayer. That is why I think it is time to make the case for a change in that policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

Well, of course, people who come in through the family reunion route can work straightaway; people who come in under the resettlement programme—those 25,000 people, including the constituents of the hon. Member for Strangford—can work straight away. We need to speed up our asylum decision making; some fair points were made there. Clearly, the pandemic has made that considerably more difficult, but we need to work to speed up those decisions, which is in everybody’s interest. It is in the interest, clearly, of the person seeking asylum, so that they know where they stand; that is only fair. If they do get a positive decision, it means they can start working; that is only fair to the taxpayer as well.

[David Simmonds]

Will my hon. Friend the Minister give way?

[Chris Philp]

I have to just finish, because there is very little time remaining. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for concluding.

I also am concerned about the possibility of creating some measure of pull factor, because if people know that they are able to come here on, for example, a small boat or the back of a lorry, or on an aeroplane, without proper documentation and immediately, or very nearly immediately, start working, that will act as a further encouragement to come to the UK and add to the 35,000 asylum claims that we have already. Particularly in the case of people who are in safe countries such as France—pretty much all the small boat arrivals come from France—they are in a safe country where they could, if they wished, claim asylum.

I will just say that the shortage occupation list is rather wider than was represented. It does include nurses and medical practitioners. I commend that scheme to people with those skills who want to work.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

David Simmonds Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 4th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

This Lords amendment should not be a point of party political disagreement. I agree with every word that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said. He is a fellow member of the Home Affairs Committee, and the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) is also a member of the Select Committee. We may disagree on many things, but on this we are in strong agreement, as we are with my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch).

When in the past we have helped child refugees, we have done so on a cross-party basis—be it, generations ago, with the Kindertransport or, in more recent years, with the Dubs amendment put forward by Lord Dubs, himself a child of the Kindertransport. We have done so with the investment through the aid budget supporting refugees across the regions, and with the resettlement scheme, which many of us called for and the Government rightly brought forward, to help many Syrian families restart their lives. The same principle should apply here as well.

We have always had cross-party agreement that we should do our bit to help children and teenagers who are alone with no one to look after them, and who have fled conflict and persecution but have family here in the UK who can care for them, put a roof over their head, try to make sure they get back into school, look after them and give them back a future. It is something that every one of us would want for our own families if we, for a moment, just think about walking in others’ shoes and about the awful plight of families in this situation, torn asunder by conflict or by persecution. I have teenage and adult children and, like so many of us, I would want them to be back together or to find others who could care for them from within our family if something terrible happened.

While the Government’s proposed review will, I hope, be important in looking at safe and legal routes to sanctuary, it is not an alternative to the Lords amendment. Reviews take time and consultation takes time. All of those things take time, and we do not know yet where it will end, but at the moment the rules change in January, and therefore it is not an alternative for the children and teenage refugees who may be in need of support to rejoin family now.

The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham set out clearly why the current rules do not suffice to provide that support, but Safe Passage provided us with the reason why there is so much at stake when it described the case of a 14-year-old teenage boy on the streets of Paris, whose brother is here. Safe Passage had worked with him to get him off the streets into secure accommodation, to get him support from social services and to get him into the legal process to apply to rejoin his adult brother, who is in Scotland. However, the boy and his brother became deeply anxious that the rules were about to change at the end of December, and he has now left that accommodation. He has absconded, and nobody knows where he is. The message he left behind said, “I have heard that the law will change. What will happen to me?” The huge risk is that he may now end up in the arms of people smugglers or people traffickers, trying to make a really dangerous journey. We have seen the consequences of those awful, dangerous journeys in flimsy boats, with lives having been lost so recently—children’s lives have been lost as well.

I urge the Minister to think again and go with the spirit of the things he told us this morning about wanting to be compassionate towards child and teenage refugees. I urge him to keep these provisions in place, to accept the Lords amendment and to recognise our continuing obligation to reunite desperate families. If he wants to look at this again once his review is in place, he will have done no further harm to those families in the meantime.

For the sake of these teenagers and young people, whose safety and lives may otherwise be at risk, I urge the Minister to accept the Lords amendment.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

I very much welcome the Minister’s restating of the commitment to safe and legal routes, which we all recognise are critical to tackling the risks of trafficking. I also very much welcome the commitment to existing family reunion routes.

One issue that has not received enough attention in the debate around child refugees is the humanitarian issue of what happens to them after they arrive in this country. It is important that I ask the Minister to consider some of those wider implications, because they are enormously significant in making a decision about the UK’s attitude to so many of these questions. They are vital to our care system, to local authorities and, of course, to local communities, because the children and young people we are talking about in the context of this specific amendment and debate are a very small proportion of the number the UK is involved in supporting. Indeed, from 2015, we saw around a doubling of the annual number of unaccompanied children and young people coming into the care of local authorities in the United Kingdom under the terms of the Children Act 1989, partly as a result of the Government’s commitments, but also in recognition of the fact that determining the narrow legal status of a child refugee before they arrive here and ensuring that is sustained after their arrival is something with which this debate and the legislation struggle.

One of the big challenges I have always found, having worked with the noble Lord Dubs on these issues for some time, is that the idea that Dubs created a very specific route that opens up an opportunity often turns into an illusion for these children once they arrive,. I have personally come across many examples of young people who have been lined up to come here to be reunited with a family member only for it to transpire that the family member is in no position to care for them, and that young person is, in fact, simply being lined up to be taken into the United Kingdom care system. That, of course, is the ultimate destination for many unaccompanied child refugees, because that is what our legislation requires.

Although I very much agree with the points raised by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), we need to consider not that Dubs is unique in and of itself but that, actually, it concerns a very small, flexible and variable number within a much larger number of child refugees who are coming into the care of the United Kingdom.

When the Minister looks at the wider capacity picture, he should speak to the 30 councils that have come forward and said they would like to take Dubs children. He should ask them why they are not willing to make those places available to the large numbers of existing asylum-seeking children who are in the care of local authorities while looking for openings under the national transfer scheme. That would enable many of these children, many of whom may turn out to be Dubs eligible anyway, to move into the care of a local authority in a different part of the country. That is a critical question.

In conclusion, I welcome much of what the Minister said. I simply ask him to provide in his response a commitment on the future of global resettlement. We all recognise that this is a very small part of that much bigger picture. A clear commitment from the Government about when the scheme will commence and what its resourcing will look like would provide assurance of what the future framework is for so many vulnerable people around the world and maintain the UK’s reputation as providing a safe and honourable route to a safe haven for those who genuinely need it.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). I have heard him speak on this matter in the past, and he does so with clarity and some experience and authority. Of course, he is right to bring these problems to the attention of the House. I would observe in passing, however, that the problems he highlights are, relative to the problems we will have if we remove the Dublin scheme, easy problems to have. The state, as we all know, is not a good parent. We have seen that not just in relation to refugees, but in relation to our own constituents. Frankly, however, those are problems that can be solved when you have used the safe legal route to get children here. That is really what is at stake here.

The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) was absolutely forensic and clinical in his dissection of the Government’s policy and response. It was an absolute masterclass that should be played to future generations of new Members. He is absolutely right. He laid bare the paucity of the position the Government have taken for reasons that I still fail to understand. The Minister said we would doubtless engage proactively with the consultation he referred to. Of course, he is absolutely right. We will do that. My colleagues and I will never pass up an opportunity to put the case for the creation of safe and legal routes. However, it is no substitute for the House now stepping up to the plate and meeting its obligations and responsibilities, moral and legal, in providing those safe and legal routes.

The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the Chair of the Select Committee, said that we should walk in the shoes of those who find themselves in this position. She is absolutely right about that. I do not know if I am the only person in the Chamber at the moment who has ever gone to sea in November in a gale. Having been born and brought up on Islay and representing Orkney and Shetland, it is just part of what you do. It is absolutely terrifying. Being at sea when a gale blows up is absolutely terrifying. I remember one occasion waiting on a pier to go on a ferry with my own children. I decided I would not take them. It was a modern ferry. It was well-equipped and would have had every rescue availability if something had gone wrong. It was a ferry that would only go to sea because it had a responsible captain who felt it was safe to do so. But I was not going to put my children through that, because they were young and they would have been terrified.

So how bad have things got to be before any parent would consider the possibility of going to sea at this time of year, knowing the possible consequences that we saw in the channel so very recently? That is what at stake here. The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford is absolutely right. We should put ourselves in the position of those who find themselves in that position. If we do, the Dubs amendment looks like a very modest proposal indeed.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

David Simmonds Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Monday 19th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

It is difficult, in six minutes, to do justice to such an important piece of legislation, with such a diverse set of amendments. I want to speak primarily to Lords amendment 3—the old new clause 2 that I proposed on Report—and Lords amendment 4, which is the old new clause 29 on the Dublin replacement. However, I also support Lords amendment 6, previously proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), and Lords amendment 9, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) spoke so eloquently about.

On Lords amendment 3, we had previous arguments about lots of children in care going under the radar. There are now just eight months to go until the end of the EU settlement scheme. The Home Office originally told us that it estimated that there were some 9,000 EU children in care and care leavers in this country, but now, after a survey completed by 90% of local authorities, it suggests that the figure is under 4,000. Why the drop? At a similar time, it estimated that the number of EU adults who would register to qualify for the EU settlement scheme would be 3 million, but it has turned out to be over 4 million. Why does the number for children in care go down and yet the number for adults has gone up?

These children are of course already in this country. Not a single additional child will be brought into this country under this legislation. It is about regularising status and giving those children safety and giving confirmation to children already in this country. That is why the amendment is still very important. We risk another Windrush scandal for a particularly vulnerable set of children growing up in care who inevitably have more chaotic lifestyles than most people.

Recent research by the charity Coram, “Children left out?”, highlighted the mixed practice among local authorities in identifying and supporting children in care through the EU settlement scheme, with fears that some authorities are making no attempt to identify children in their care who need to regularise their status. Of course, there is no incentive for authorities to regularise that status through citizenship when it costs £1,012, for every child, to do that.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is drawing attention to a very important issue. Does he agree that the crucial point is that a local authority may have the statutory duty as the corporate parent, but if the child does not have documentary evidence proving their nationality—not their residence, which the local authority can prove easily, but their nationality—the local authority is unable to take forward the application at all? I hope the Minister will be able to address that issue when he responds to the debate.

[Tim Loughton]

That is absolutely right. It is very difficult to replace documents, and many people come here without any documents. We are relying on the timescales of high commissions and embassies in various EU countries, and it is not exactly a priority of social workers, who are snowed under with all the other safeguarding work they have to do.

This is a really important amendment. Interestingly, there was a judgment by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman against Liverpool Council. A care leaver complained that the council had failed to regularise his immigration status and failed to secure him British citizenship and a passport, which meant he could not travel or work. That complaint was upheld. The Government did not vote against the amendment in the Lords, so what has changed between then and tonight? This is a great opportunity for the Government to show why such a provision is necessary, without adding a single additional person to the immigration figures, if that is what they are actually worried about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shaun Bailey]

I am really sorry, but I have not got the time. I am more than happy to pick up with the hon. Gentleman outside the Chamber if he wishes. [Laughter.] I am always open to a debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have been very open-minded in this place.

I am conscious of time, so I will turn to Lords amendment 5 on the IT system. It is important to have this discussion because one thing we have noticed during these times is the digital disconnect—the digital lockout. Hon. and right hon. Members on all sides of the House have pointed that out. I accept the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Minister on the merits of using a digital system, but we need to be really careful that we do not lock a generation out.

I know from my area that there are many people who do not have access to computers and digital. There is a reliance more widely across Government on digital—obviously, we are going into the future and it is going to be there—but we cannot lock people out. From discussions with the Minister, I am heartened by the way in which the Department is open to being agile in that space, but we need to be mindful that we cannot lock out a generation.

I want to wrap up my comments, because I am conscious I have only 30 seconds left, but I will just say this. I stood on a manifesto in my constituency to get Brexit done. I stood on a manifesto to bring in a fair immigration system that my constituents felt ultimately stuck by that principle of fair play. I believe the Bill, unamended, does that. However, there are operational points, which I am sure the Minister will pick up in his winding-up speech, that we need to address. If we do that, we can be absolutely sure that we refine this and make it work for that sense of fair play that my constituents voted for.

[David Simmonds]

Like my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey), I am very much of the view that the Bill has the purpose of replacing the arrangements we had in the European Union. I will not be supporting the amendments this evening, because I feel very much that the issues highlighted are principally about matters of management and administration of the process, rather than operation of law. That said, I hope those on the Government Front Bench are paying close attention to what has been said across the House this evening about a number of particular points. The two I would especially like to draw attention to are: the circumstances of undocumented children in the care system, and the point about documentary evidence in the hands of those who are applying for settled status.

I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his time and attention to the first issue relating to undocumented children. However, we heard Members across the House emphasise the vulnerability of those in the care system to finding themselves at risk of a future Windrush situation because of the retroactive nature of some elements of the applications for settled status. While it is welcome that the Home Office accepts that people will be able to apply in effect out of time—that is a positive thing—it does not address the fundamental problem that a local authority with care responsibilities, or indeed a family member with a special guardianship order for a young person, would face if they do not have the necessary documentation proving that young person’s nationality in obtaining settled status for them in the United Kingdom. Although I think we recognise that that group is a relatively small group, it is vital that their needs are addressed to ensure that we do not, in 10 or 15 years’ time, find ourselves regretting that we did not take more action on that tonight.

Another point which arises from that of course is the one raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), which is the significant cost of this. Local authorities paying that cost to the Home Office is simply a cost shunt from one taxpayer to another taxpayer, and I would urge the Home Office to give consideration to ensuring that, for children in care, those costs are either waived or substantially reduced to remove a final barrier.

I will finish on this point, time being tight. A number of Members have raised the issue of documentary evidence in the hands of the citizen. We have seen many examples in all different walks of life where we would have legitimate concerns about whether the digital record keeping, of all kinds of organisations and for all kinds of reasons, is sufficiently accurate. We all hear, as Members of this House, from our constituents about the issues that that causes them in their day-to-day life. For people who may be refugees, who may be facing a degree of digital exclusion or for whom English is not a first language, that is an even greater problem. I am reassured by the message from the Home Office that everybody who makes an application will receive a written response, with a number on it, that provides evidence of the status that has been granted, but I think it would be useful for all of us to hear a bit more in due course from the Home Office about how it proposes to ensure that that is something people appreciate the value of, and that it is kept and preserved so that the evidence is there for the future.

The UK has much to be proud of in the way that we respond to immigration. It is right that we keep this tight to the matters under consideration, but I trust that colleagues have heard the concerns across the House and that the Minister will address them in his summing up.

[Kevin Foster]

This has been an interesting and fascinating debate, which has mostly been reflective and reasonable. I hope colleagues will appreciate though that, in the seven and a half minutes I have, I will not be able to respond to every single point that has been raised.

I will start with the themes, and we have again had a lengthy debate on social care. I was pleased to hear the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), say he agreed with the MAC. He will recall the evidence that Brian Bell gave to the Public Bill Committee that considered this Bill, and I am glad to hear that he now agrees with that. I would say, however, that we are being clear again that the MAC has been free to make its own reviews and commissions, and to produce an annual report that can then be considered by this House. It will be able to do that independently, and it will almost certainly provide commentary on social care. To set up a body that is independent and free to make its own decisions, and then tell it all the reviews it needs to do does not make a great deal of sense. Similarly, we are keen that it is there, and it can be lobbied, including by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous), about areas that it may wish to consider of importance. As we keep on saying, if the lesson people have taken from the last few months is that the solution to social care is to give employers an unlimited opportunity to recruit at the minimum wage, they have really taken the wrong lesson.

Moving on to the issues of modern slavery, we have again had some impassioned speeches and some very well-informed ones, particularly from my right hon. Friends the Members for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) and for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). Again, I would say that we have obviously made the changes to guidance. We will bring forward those changes to guidance and have them in place on 1 January. He will appreciate why we will not do it before then, because people will still have free movement rights and we should respect that. But certainly we are happy to engage more widely around the position on what we can do and where we can ensure that the support these victims need is available to them, particularly as we remove the distinction between EEA victims who have free movement rights and non-EEA victims who do not, subject to the caveat that we will of course always look to see if a victim of modern slavery is eligible for the European settlement scheme.

Turning to the issues of family reunion and resettlement, I again point out that there are provisions under the UK’s migration rules that, certainly under part 8, go wider than purely affecting parents with children. We are in negotiations with the European Union, and the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), is actively looking at what we can do. If we can get bilateral arrangements, then fantastic, but does it make sense in future to have a different set of rules for people in EEA countries versus those in the rest of the world? That is the core of this Bill, which is about free movement rights. If there is an agreement—a reciprocal arrangement—in place, then that would go beyond what we have as our baseline rules. Now that we have left the European Union, with the transition period and free movement coming to an end, whatever settlement we have in future—there is a debate to be had in this House about our asylum system, and we will have it at more length in the near future—it does not make sense to have a distinction between someone whose position is in the EEA and someone whose position is, for example, in Turkey, unless there are reciprocal arrangements that justify that difference of treatment.

The issue of children in care has rightly been a subject of some debate. I hear the point that has just been made about identification. Let me be clear: EUSS does not require a passport or an ID card; alternative measures can be used to prove entitlement through documentation. However, that issue is not particularly caused by EUSS because today you would need the same challenge to identify whether someone is a UK national, an EEA national or a rest-of-the-world national, given the impact that that has on free movement rights. However, we are happy to continue working with local authorities to see how we can help them to tackle these issues, and to work with high commissions to ensure that those who deserve their status receive it.

As we have said, there is a range of provisions around late applications and those who should make an application but do not. This is not just about children in care. We also include those under 18. If a parent does not make an application, and, at a later time, the child reaches the age of majority and they have to do a compliant environment check, for example, and discover that it has not been made, we would see that as a reasonable ground for a late application. As touched on, there is no specific time limit to that provision.

On detention, we have outlined our arguments. I am conscious that there are strong feelings on this in the House. We all want to see people swiftly moved out of detention and, if they have no right to be in this country, to be removed from it. We want detention to be used as a last resort. Its use has been declining over the past few years. That is partly because we cannot guarantee that a country in sub-Saharan Africa, for example, will issue us with travel documents for the person to be returned to it within the timeframe. In particular, we have to be clear that there is no ability to put someone in detention for no reason. We have to have a lawful basis for doing so, and that can only be where there is a reasonable prospect of removal or a threat to the public—although I accept that only a very small number of people are serious foreign national offenders.

On physical documentation, we are moving towards more digital statuses. For example, we are looking to see where we can use public services to automatically check status. In recent months, we have seen the advantage of EU citizens who already have EUSS—although they are not yet required to have it—being able to share that online and digitally when doing a range of checks, at a time when a face-to-face meeting to do so may be a lot less desirable. As touched on, it will not just be EEA nationals with status under EUSS who will be using digital status—we also intend the route for British nationals overseas, who will also be moving to digital. As touched on, countries such as Australia have had a system like this in place for some time. It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) talk about the idea of digital passports. We are starting to look to the future where people may well travel on their biometrics and with digital identities rather than travelling purely on passports—although that is probably a few years away given that it would require technology being reciprocated in other nations.

I particularly enjoyed some of the speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) hit the nail on the head: this Bill is about delivering a manifesto commitment. This Bill is about ending free movement, as voted for in the general election and in the referendum back in 2016. It is not there to have the whole range of debate around immigration, but I respect the fact that people took the chance to do that. This Bill is about delivering a manifesto commitment, and that is why we should remove these amendments, which do not go to that core goal.

No Recourse to Public Funds

David Simmonds Excerpts

Thursday 8th October 2020 Westminster Hall

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under a chairman with such experience of this issue. I know, Ms Nokes, that you have done a great deal of work on asylum migration in the United Kingdom over the years.

It was my pleasure to support the bid for this debate today. My experience with no recourse to public funds starts with recognising that it is an extremely complex issue. I have no dispute with the estimates, made by the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, of 1.4 million people and up to 175,000 children living in households where there are adults with no recourse to public funds. For many of those households, that is not necessarily an issue of destitution, because for some time NRPF status has been used as a kind of migration amnesty. People are told that while there may be some question mark over their eligibility, they are able to remain in the United Kingdom provided they are not a charge on the funds of the state.

I am a constituent of the Prime Minister. One of the members of the household next door is a lady from India, who is married to a British man of Indian heritage and who has two children who were born in the United Kingdom. She has NRPF status. If the Prime Minister is not aware of that, I am certainly happy to bring it to his attention. It is evidence that in many households this condition has been imposed as a consequence of the person’s presence in the United Kingdom, but for many people that is not something that will cause them a problem in their day-to-day life.

Although there is a valid debate to be had about the morality of saying to people, “You can be in the UK but you are excluded from the British safety net,” I will focus on some of the practical issues that NRPF status creates for those families who find themselves getting into difficulty. I agree with what has been said about the numbers. One of the challenges in this debate is that because those numbers are not widely available, they are not easily analysed. Understanding what proportion of the estimated 1.4 million people find themselves in difficulty and require intervention is a major challenge.

Starting in 2005, the Government introduced, through the Home Office, a programme of asylum dispersal. I had the pleasure of giving evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, alongside the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham. Part way into his evidence he said, “I have just realised that I was the Minister who signed this into law, in the mid-2000s, when we introduced this policy of dispersing people through this mechanism around the country.” A lot of the issues we see arising in local authorities are iterations of that policy, which exists to this day. The simple principle behind it is that people should be placed in parts of the country where accommodation is inexpensive and where they can be housed in a way that does not introduce competition with other local families that may be in need. It is a policy that has worked in different forms, with varying degrees of success, over the years.

The challenge seems to arise when the result of those people’s journeys through the asylum dispersal system is a decision that they are not supposed to be in the United Kingdom and that they do not have a future here. At that point the NRPF status is imposed on them and they find themselves at risk of destitution. That is where there is a major challenge for Governments of all parties, which is that NRPF is something of a myth, as a status. It is a list of things that are paid for out of central Government funds, which cannot be accessed, at which point the duties of local authorities, dating back to the National Assistance Act 1948 and the Children Act 1989, then come into effect.

What we see, in fact, is a cost shunt from central Government to local government. Those who understandably wish to see a robust policy in respect of migration, and in respect of those who do not have a right to be in our country, have the comfort of thinking, “At least we are not paying for the subsistence costs of those families,” but in fact local council tax payers are picking up the bill for that. I know that the Public Accounts Committee has given the matter some consideration over the years. When we look at the information provided by a number of different sources—I pay particular tribute to the No Recourse to Public Funds Network—we see that they identify that that costs the authorities responsible about £44 million per annum of council tax payers’ money. Some 82% of the households that are supported under those arrangements are on what is termed the exit pathway, so they are people whom the Home Office does not view as having any long-term future in the United Kingdom, and they are on their way to deportation or leaving under their own steam but have not yet left.

It seems to me that it is not justifiable to say that we have a tough and robust policy around migration, and that people who should not be here are required to leave, when in fact the consequence of our policy is that they are staying at a cost to local council tax payers. The underlying assumption is that NRPF will result in people who do not have the long-term right to be in the United Kingdom leaving. The reality is that, in many cases, that is not what happens, and families who do not have a long-term future in the United Kingdom none the less become a cost to local council tax payers.

I therefore urge consideration of this issue, not just from the perspective of compassion—I think that that is very important, and it is very much the perspective that we have heard already—but because, if we wish to develop and build confidence in our communities that, in practice, we have the robust and rigorous asylum, refugee and migration policies that we say we do, we need to demonstrate that the ambitions that are set out in policy are being fulfilled at local level. In my view, NRPF simply does not meet that test at the moment.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Simmonds Excerpts

Monday 28th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

As the hon. Gentleman has already heard throughout oral questions, the fact of the matter is that we are totally committed, and rightly so, to protecting the way in which those who seek asylum are treated in our system. He has already heard about strains and pressures, and it is right that we undertake all interviews in the right and proper phased way. That is exactly what we are doing, in a responsible manner.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

  Proportionately, the UK is not a major destination for asylum seekers, but those who have a legal claim here face a Catch-22 situation. Currently, someone must be in the UK to establish a claim, but what plans does my right hon. Friend, and her Department, have to create safe legal routes, so that we are able robustly to disrupt traffickers who are trying to bring people in illegally?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is right about the greater need for safe and legal routes, but it is right that as a Government we pursue those individuals who are facilitating criminality. Hon. Members have already heard the figures for arrests and numbers of convictions, and we will continue with that. We are working right now to look at new, safe and legal routes for the protection of those who need our help.

Fire Safety Bill

David Simmonds Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 7th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kate Osborne]

On the Prime Minister’s watch as Mayor of London, in eight years the London Fire Brigade was required to make gross savings of over £100 million, leading to the cutting of 27 fire appliances, 552 firefighters, 324 support staff, two fire rescue units and three training appliances, the closure of 10 fire stations and a reduction in fire rescue unit crewing levels. Ministers must commit to funding fire and rescue services sufficiently to ensure that fire authorities are able to inspect and enforce these new measures.

In conclusion, last October the Government promised to implement the recommendations of the Grenfell Tower review in full and without delay. Nearly a year later, this Bill does not contain a single measure recommended by the inquiry. Therefore, I will be supporting new clause 1 as it places robust requirements on building owners or managers to implement the recommendations from phase one of the Grenfell Tower inquiry. I will also be supporting new clauses 2 to 5. I urge the Government to make true on their promises: back the amendments and put everyone’s safety first.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

I would like to add my voice to those of many colleagues across the Chamber who have expressed the frustration of many of our residents that, following the terrible incident at Grenfell, we have not yet brought to a conclusion many of the issues that the incident highlighted. We have followed the progress of the inquiry, with many views expressed by stakeholders—those personally affected because they had relatives in the building, and different parts of the industry and professional bodies. At the heart of much of the frustration is the question of liability. Who, ultimately, will meet the costs faced by our residents—whether they are landlords or occupiers of the property, freeholders or leaseholders—for the cost of remediation, which we know is substantial?

That issue plays out in many different parts of our lives. In my former role, I was responsible for the construction of a significant number of new schools. Inspections of those new buildings subsequently identified that some of the fire safety work, signed off and done in recent times, did not meet the standards that we would expect. We need to ensure that the question of liability is brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible. Those on the Front Bench know that there are many different ways in which that might be achieved, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister will have something to say about that.

I turn to two specific points on which it would be helpful to hear a little more from my right hon. Friend. The first is the role of the responsible person. Across Government, where we are concerned about the degree of accountability for a life-and-limb, critical activity or service, it has been common practice to identify an individual post holder who is accountable for ensuring that work is done to the relevant standard. In children’s social care, we have the director of children’s services. In public health, we have the director of public health. In businesses, we have chief accountable officers.

We also know from long experience, with all sorts of things having gone wrong across different parts of those services, that having someone identified as accountable will only bring about the improvement that the House wishes to see if we can be confident that that person has the necessary qualities to do the work required and the ability to carry out the duties we are imposing on them. A number of Members have expressed views about whether there will be sufficient people with the knowledge of fire safety to undertake this role. It is crucial to ensure that whoever is responsible in individual buildings, on estates, on local authority estates or on school estates, we can rely on them to carry out that duty effectively. It will be critical to ensure that training, qualifications and all the rest of it sit behind that.

Secondly, ensuring that that person has the ability to do what sometimes may be intrusive and expensive work that may not always attract the consent of the householder will be a major issue. Earlier on in my political career, I spent a bit of time as chairman of a housing management and maintenance sub-committee at a local authority responsible, as a landlord, for over 12,000 properties. I am conscious that the local authority sometimes had to take several dozen tenants to court every year to get access to properties to do—at no cost to the tenant—essential safety checks and safety-critical work. We should not assume in this House that, by saying that we are going to designate a responsible person, we can be confident that they will be able to do what they need to do. I look forward to my right hon Friend fleshing out the further measures that we might need to take to ensure that responsible people are able to undertake the work to the relevant standard, to provide the assurance that we all want on behalf of our residents.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Simmonds Excerpts

Monday 13th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

What steps her Department is taking to ensure that community services working with victims of domestic violence have adequate resources to deal with an increase in demand as a result of the covid-19 outbreak.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

What steps her Department is taking to help protect victims of domestic abuse.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)]

Domestic abuse devastates lives. During this time of covid that we have all experienced, victims are particularly vulnerable, and as we know, home has not been a safe place for everyone to access the usual support that they could receive. That is why, through our landmark Domestic Abuse Bill, we are committed to protecting victims in a stronger way.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that children, who are often the hidden victims of domestic violence—either as victims themselves or through witnessing it among parents and other members of the household—will gain additional protection from our landmark Domestic Abuse Bill?

[Priti Patel]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The protection of children is an important issue—children are victims when it comes to domestic abuse, and it is a sad fact that children often witness some of the most abhorrent abuse of their parent or others—and the Bill does exactly that. I am really pleased and proud that we have made sure that children are at the heart of the Bill. It is right that we safeguard and protect them.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

David Simmonds Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 30th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

I concur with the point made by the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) about armed servicemen and women from the Commonwealth. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind when the next immigration Bill is introduced, because there are some egregious cases that desperately need to be looked at fairly.

We will not vote for the Bill tonight, mainly because it seems to have been written before the covid crisis. It seems to ignore the fact that we need a new approach to immigration based on solidarity, decent jobs, employment protections and quality public services for all, with all EU citizens guaranteed the right to remain in the UK. Anybody who has been watching “Sitting in Limbo” and following the fantastic work done by the journalist Amelia Gentleman on Windrush will know that it is these sorts of debates that sometimes end up creating systems that cause huge problems for hard-working families.

I wish to speak briefly to some of the amendments and new clauses. First, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) has tabled a proposal that emphasises the need for a plan for and provision in the crucial area of social care. We are nowhere near through this pandemic and we desperately need to encourage those working day in, day out in the care sector. Those watching this, perhaps in the course of their duties today, may well feel a bit down and depressed that we are not backing them a little more with this Bill.

Secondly, I wish to talk briefly to the question of care leavers, as addressed by new clause 2. Care leavers face numerous levels of disadvantage. Anyone who has worked in a local authority context will be aware of just how many placements the average child in care goes through. Many children go from home to home, from foster carer to foster carer, into residential care and out again, and into their own flat. Throughout that journey they often lose documents and the phone numbers of their legal advisers. Changes to legal aid mean that they can no longer access legal aid. We then have a very disadvantaged and needy 17-year-old who desperately needs immigration advice when they are about to turn 18. Such are the realities of children’s lives in care. We are talking about a tiny number of individuals. It is the sort of clause that we should all be voting for so that a very small number of people are not left out of the system.

Thirdly, I call new clause 29 the Dubs clause. So many Members from all parties have spoken in favour of it, particularly the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), who has Yarl’s Wood detention centre in his constituency. Many children are desperate to join family members here in the UK. Many other immigration systems in developed countries have positive family reunion programmes that are quick, that include a system in which people do not have to go in and out of the rules and write to MPs and everything, and that are clear and provide for children who have been torn from their families, mainly by conflict, so that they can get that reunification.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

Does the hon. Member agree that one of the big challenges for local authorities in making offers has been that in so many cases young people brought to the UK for family reunion find that the family member simply cannot take care of them? Does she welcome the fact that the Government have, at long last, announced a very substantial increase in the funding rate for local authorities that are caring for those young people as they go in adulthood? That will go some way to assisting the issue, about which many Members have talked today, of ensuring adequate provision for care leavers who have arrived in this country as unaccompanied minors or through family reunion, which can rapidly make them unaccompanied because their family member cannot care for them.

Fire Safety Bill (Second sitting)

David Simmonds Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 25th June 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

Let me start by saying that the Opposition support the Bill. We are here to be constructive. Although clearly we wish that things had gone faster and that we had been able to do more, we support the Bill and want to make it the best that it can be. On Second Reading there was agreement across the House on what needs to be done to fix some of the problems with the legislation. Amendment 2 relates to one of those problems, which has been raised by many of the organisations that have submitted written evidence.

I associate myself with everything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, who is an expert in this area. He is absolutely right that we need to ensure right at the outset that we include parts of the building not currently listed in the Bill.

Amendment 2 would do what amendment 1 would do, but in a slightly different way. As the explanatory statement states, the amendment would make the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 apply

“to all parts of a building that contains two or more dwellings, other than those dwellings themselves,”

Not just the

“parts that come within the meaning of structure, external walls or common parts.”

I had a long conversation with the London Fire Brigade about how we define “common parts”. Introducing that term without a definition alongside the definition of “domestic premises” in article 2 of the fire safety order could lead to confusion about what it means and could add an additional layer of complexity to what is already quite a difficult landscape.

In the past, “common parts” has been used to refer to entrance halls, corridors or stairways in a block of flats, but it does not necessarily cover areas such as lift motor rooms, service risers, roof voids and other potentially high-risk areas, as well as fire safety facilities that are inside individual dwellings but used in common for the protection of the entire premises, such as sprinklers and detection systems.

This is not a new issue. Following the Lakanal House fire, the coroner recommended that there be clear guidance on the definition of “common parts” in buildings containing multiple domestic premises. Dame Judith Hackitt has also recommended that the assignment of responsibilities in blocks of flats be clarified.

The purpose of the Bill, as we discussed this morning and as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith has already mentioned, is to provide clarity on what is covered under the law. Without really clear definitions, there will be new questions of interpretation, and we will not achieve what we are setting out to achieve. There will be the potential for confusion and conflict.

Simply put, the absence of a clear definition creates opportunities for those who might try to game the system. We know that the system has not worked in the past, because people have been able to do things that nobody intended them to do. We want to make it crystal clear that the provisions cover all common parts of the building, and want to make it clear that “common parts” includes all the other spaces, such as lift motor rooms, that are not set out in the Bill.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

I very much sympathise with the motivation behind the amendments, but I am unpersuaded by the argument. There is sometimes a risk of seeking to make very precise what in reality is not at all precise.

Following the Grenfell Tower disaster and the Lakanal House fire, the Local Government Association, working with local authorities across the country, commissioned a huge piece of work to try to understand the inherent risks in tall buildings, but also in other types of building in the public estate, and to learn lessons that might be relevant to the private sector.

I want to refer to a particular type of structure known as a Bison block, which is common in west London and found across my constituency, and which my local authority has spent a good amount of time examining. It is particularly relevant to amendment 2, which is seeking a very tight definition. The blocks were large panel system builds. They are quite common across the capital and in other parts of the country.

A great many of these blocks were extensively refurbished, particularly in the 1980s, because they are not especially attractive buildings and in the past there have been concerns about their structural integrity and safety. The refurbishment was undertaken by a process that we might understand as cladding. In this case, a brick skin was erected around the entire outside of the building. New windows were installed, and the structure now looks considerably more attractive than when it was first constructed.

To manage the risk of fire spreading in the cavity between the floor where a fire occurs and another floor, a steel band needs to be installed between each storey’s-worth of brick structure. It ensures that a fire that gets into that cavity cannot spread up or down. On examination following the Grenfell disaster, it was discovered that some of the window installations, for example, had been changed, which had had an impact on the integrity of the fire safety system. The banding had been constructed many years ago. The challenges of inspecting something that is inside a sealed brick structure, the natural dilapidations of time and the consequences of a small amount of heave or subsidence around the site would all have had an impact on it. That is a significant issue for those of us who are concerned about the safety of those high-rise towers.

I am concerned that the amendment, by seeking to be very precise, could open the door to our not including a number of the elements that we would see in a variety of structures around the country. I have heard the Minister speak about this before when questions have been asked of him. I am satisfied that one of the motivations behind the Government’s choice of wording was to make the definition sufficiently broad that all the issues were captured. To ensure that the definition relates to all the different, unique types of structure out there, many of which there may be little evidence of on the public record today, it may be wise not to narrow our definitions too much. We could end up with a lawyers’ bonanza of arguments about whether, for example, the provision covers the steel band structure for fire safety in a Bison block. For that reason, I am unpersuaded of the merits of the amendment.

[The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)]

I am very conscious, not least as the former London Assembly member for the area, that it is less than two weeks since we marked the third anniversary of the Grenfell Tower fire, which saw the worst loss of life in a residential fire since the second world war. I am sure that all those who died, the bereaved and the survivors will be in our minds as we do our work this afternoon and into the future.

On the day of the publication of the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 1 report, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister accepted in principle all 12 recommendations addressed to the Government directly. Eleven of the recommendations will require implementation in law. The Fire Safety Bill, which will amend the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, is an important first step toward enacting those recommendations. As has been mentioned, the Bill is short and technical; it clarifies the scope of the order. We appreciate that this is the first Bill on fire safety since the Grenfell Tower tragedy, and we intend to legislate further.

It is vital that regulatory standards and public confidence be increased across the whole system of building and fire safety. Next month we will publish a consultation on the implementation of the phase 1 recommendations that call for changes in the law, alongside proposals to strengthen other aspects of the fire safety order. I assure the Committee that the Bill is the start, not the finish, of a process through which we intend to improve the fire safety order.

Alongside the consultation, there is the building safety Bill, which will be presented in the House for pre-legislative scrutiny before the summer recess. That Bill will put in place new and enhanced regulatory regimes for building safety and construction products, and will ensure that residents have a stronger voice in the system. It will take forward the recommendations of Dame Judith Hackitt’s independent review of building regulations and fire safety.

Our programme of work is not limited to legislation, of course. It includes establishing a remediation programme, supported by £1.6 billion of Government funding, through which we will remove unsafe cladding from high-rise residential buildings. We are undertaking, in conjunction with the fire service, a building risk review programme for all high-rise residential buildings in England by December 2021, supported by £10 million of new funding.

This Fire Safety Bill is also a move towards enhancing safety in all multi-occupied residential buildings by improving the identification, assessment and mitigation of fire risks in those buildings. It will resolve the differing interpretations of the scope of the fire safety order in such buildings and provide clarity for responsible persons and enforcing authorities under the order. It will make it clear that the order applies to the structure, external walls—including cladding—balconies and flat entrance doors in multi-occupied residential buildings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

The new clause does what the Government say will come later: it puts on the face of the Bill the recommendations made in the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 1 report. At the beginning of June, the MHCLG announced that it was preparing to open a public consultation on recommendations for new fire safety regulations emerging from the Grenfell Tower inquiry. In a letter to Martin Moore-Bick, the Prime Minister gave assurances that action on the findings of the inquiry’s first report “continues at pace”. However, the Government had already promised in October 2019 to implement the inquiry’s recommendations in full and without delay. Failing to include the simpler recommendations for the Bill, such as inspections of fire doors and testing of lifts, is a breach of their commitment to implement the recommendations without delay.

Only this week we saw alarming statistics that underline the urgency of implementing the recommendations. Of more than 100,000 doors in about 2,700 buildings across the UK inspected by the fire door inspection scheme in 2019, 76% did not comply with building regulations and about one in six, or 16%, were not even proper fire doors. Nearly two thirds, or 63%, of the buildings also had additional fire safety issues. Those are huge challenges. We need to move as quickly as possible to implement the recommendations.







Earlier this month, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government said that the Bill

“provides a firm foundation upon which to bring forward secondary legislation”.—[Official Report, 2 June 2020; Vol. 676, c. 41WS.]

The Minister has taken the same approach, but there is no timetable for when everything else will happen. There are lots of committees, consultations and groups looking at these things, but it is not acceptable that after the promise of “without delay” in October 2019, we still have not moved on those issues by the middle of summer 2020.

I do not understand, and it would be good for Minister to explain, why we would not put such provisions in the Bill. They have the support of the organisations that we heard from this morning. It is just a case of putting things up front in the legislation, rather than waiting for an undefined time that may or may not come at some point in the future.

The new clause would require an owner or manager to

“share information with their local Fire and Rescue Service in respect of each building for which an owner or manager is responsible about the design of its external walls and details of the materials of which those external walls are constructed…in respect of any building for which an owner or manager is responsible which contains separate flats, undertake regular inspections of individual flat entrance doors…in respect of any building for which an owner or manager is responsible which contains separate flats, undertake regular inspections of lifts and report the results to their local Fire and Rescue Service; and…share evacuation and fire safety instructions with residents of the building.”

It just pushes faster and implements more quickly the action that the Government have committed to implementing. I press the Government to accept that that is possible, or to set out exactly when those things will become part of legislation.

[David Simmonds]

I have similar feelings about new clause 6 as I had about amendment 1. There is a risk that by seeking to be precise, we may create additional gaps in the legislation. Looking at the list, it would be clear to anybody with experience of the issue in a wider context that many other issues would come into consideration in such circumstances.

For example, the London Borough of Hillingdon had to go to court on 16 occasions last year to gain access to tenants’ properties to undertake essential safety-critical work on gas installations. If we were to define the duties that we are placing on the responsible individuals, the list would be extremely long. I have heard the Minister talk on the issue and I know that, with his local government experience, he is well aware of the context.

The properties to which the legislation will apply are hugely diverse, as are the risks that they offer. I therefore strongly believe that the new clause is another example where we are better off having a broader-brush piece of legislation that provides the opportunity to catch every set of circumstances flexibly, rather than being unnecessarily specific and risking missing out things that might turn out to be safety-critical.

[Andy Slaughter]

Thank you, Sir Gary. I apologise for referring to you as Mr Streeter throughout.

Fire Safety Bill (First sitting)

David Simmonds Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 25th June 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Jones]

Q How do you think the other pieces of legislation that are coming forward sit together? We have the building safety Bill, for example. One of the concerns that have been raised with us is that we might have all these pieces of legislation that do not necessarily speak to each other in the same language and do not tie up. It has been suggested that at the end of all this we need to bring it all together into one Bill. What is your view on whether that is a risk and whether we can try to overcome that?

Penny Pender: That certainly picks up on some of the points we have made in our submission about ensuring that the different pieces of legislation speak clearly to each other. The first example is the term “building”: one concern we had was that if it was not clearly defined, the default setting would be to refer to the definition in the Building Act 1984, which is referred to in the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.

Picking up on Dan’s point from earlier, that would be a much wider definition than the scope of the fire safety order currently covers, so that is the type of thing we are hoping to iron out. We just want to ensure that there are opportunities, maybe through secondary legislation or in guidance, for those types of thing to be spelled out clearly, to ensure that all the different pieces are interpreted clearly when they all come together in the future.

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

Q Apologies to the witnesses for dancing around behind you in this way. Picking up on the point about qualified persons and the inspection process, one issue that has been raised a good deal in my experience as a local authority councillor is how those inspections can be undertaken to satisfy the responsible person that the fire risk is being appropriately managed.

For example, if you have leaseholders in a block of flats owned by a local authority that is responsible, what the leaseholder does within the property that may create risk to others may not be something to which the local authority can readily gain access. I am interested in this point about how the different pieces of legislation interact. Do you have a view on how we might collectively move towards a resolution of that problem?

Dan Daly: We talked earlier about how the clarifications in this Bill are really useful in terms of ironing out some of the overlaps we have seen that have caused us difficulties before, both in holding people to account, and in people’s understanding of their duties.

This is a bit of legislation that underpins a self-regulatory regime, and we must ensure that at the end of this we have something that makes it very clear to those people what their responsibilities are. It must also help residents and leaseholders to understand what they can rightly expect from the people with day-to-day responsibility for the safety of their buildings. That is the sort of thing that we are working closely with Home Office colleagues on. The Bill has been presented as it is today, but I know we have taken some assurances in the background that we will work together on providing secondary legislation and guidance to pick up those areas where we might still seek further clarification, to ensure that it is absolutely clear to those people who it most directly affects day to day.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

Q I have two interlinked issues. One is about the number of assessors needed; we have received some evidence that suggests there are around 400 third-party registered fire risk assessors and potentially around 400 APQC independent assessors, but there is nobody putting a number on the assessors that might be needed.

The first question is whether you have any estimates, because we know roughly where we are at the moment and where we need to get to. I was pleased to hear you say that you would welcome a register of assessors, but the interlinked issue is how we train those people. We have had differing evidence. Some suggests there should be a fast-track training, or different levels of assessment, and other evidence suggests that we should not have fast-track training because it can lead to problems. I would welcome your views on both questions: how many people do we need overall, and does there need to be comprehensive training for everybody, or would you take a differentiated view?

Dan Daly: I do not think I can give you a number on how many we need overall, because there is a bit of work to be done before that. This speaks back to the risk-based approach. If we look at the work we are doing with the building safety regulator and the ideas going forward about the level of competency to interact with buildings of different complexity and risk, we could apply a similar staged approach to how we look at the buildings to which the legislation needs to be applied. Picking up those most at risk will allow time for training to come through, and development of people to support the wider piece of work, while ensuring that the effort is focused on the buildings that we would see as highest risk.

There is further work that we need to do as a service overall on understanding what risk looks like. We have a historical risk matrix that informs the regularity with which we inspect buildings; that was based on good evidence at the time, but we have a richer understanding of risk now. We understand vulnerabilities, behaviours and lifestyles that have an equal impact on the likelihood of fire, and therefore the settings that those people may be living in. It helps us understand risk in a totally different way—understanding that this is not just our opportunity to fix high-rise living but is about the wider built environment. It is an opportunity to understand risk in a much more holistic way and ensure we are applying more rigorous inspections to those higher-risk premises, and an appropriate level of inspection to those lower down the risk register, so to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Mr Davis, thank you for that. We have a lot of questions to get through in the next 25 minutes. That was an excellent and comprehensive answer, but I would be grateful if we could have slightly more concise answers.

James Carpenter: I think the key point is around access and, as you mentioned, doors. With residential housing, a lot of buildings might be fairly straightforward in their basic design. The complexities come with the various management arrangements, lease agreements and so on.

The biggest question and challenge for housing providers is one of access. We cannot have it, we do not have it—there is no right of access. With tenants, we might be able to go to court and get injunctions to gain access to a home, but with leases, that challenge becomes even more difficult. It is their private space and we cannot touch it. When it comes to self-closers and checking inside doors, it is optional and voluntary for the leaseholder to listen or to comply with what we are asking. That is a big concern.

As we submitted in the evidence, in my view and in that of others, it would be useful if the law would allow leaseholders to be held responsible for their actions. That could allow building owners some leverage in getting leaseholders to co-operate. Also, if we got to that final point, action could be taken directly against them by enforcing authorities, which would solve the challenge that there has been in housing for the last 13 years or so.

[David Simmonds]

Q My question draws out something that was touched on in the previous response. What powers do responsible persons need in order to be able discharge these duties? If the answer is that there are no powers that would allow them to discharge those duties in practice, do you have a view about what else needs to be done to make the powers real?

From personal experience, I refer to the example of a structure that has been signed off by building control— an independent contractor of the contractor who has built the structure—but, when occupying the building, the local authority discovers that the fire door has been installed against a false ceiling so that it is, in effect, not providing any fire safety at all. One would only know that by taking the whole thing down and finding that that was the case. Such intrusive activity is a significant step into leaseholders’ property. Does the accountable individual need powers, or does something else around building control need to be done to change this situation?

James Carpenter: Ultimately, if there was a way of transferring ownership of a leaseholder’s property through legislation so that it is no longer theirs but the building owner’s, that could solve the problem, because it is now our door and not theirs. I do not know whether that is possible, but that could be something to look into. Other than that, I am not sure. If leaseholders, or whoever it is, have a responsibility to ensure that something is there, safe and how it should be, they have a duty to ensure that that continues and must not make any changes to jeopardise that. That is where I think the law needs to be able to hold multiple people responsible, as opposed to just a single building owner. While I appreciate that having one person in control of everything would make things a lot easier, realistically, I do not think that that is possible.

Dennis Davis: It is quite a difficult one. Again, it is worth remembering that there is another Bill, which will take some of those powers and is about trying to ensure that a building is maintained as well as constructed to a standard. Some of that legislative power may exist within those requirements. We picked up the point about common doors in our submission, because it is an issue. It needs to be very clear that the responsible person has access and can control those elements in the same way that they can control the fire safety systems—alarms or detectors—within a dwelling. Clarity in that area would be helpful; there is no doubt about that.

[The Chair]

Can you see us all right, Mr Davis? Are you watching this?

Dennis Davis: Yes, I am watching.