Home Office Removal Targets

Diane Abbott Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary if she will make a statement about the use of removal targets in the Home Office.

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

Yesterday, I gave evidence to the Select Committee on Home Affairs about the Windrush generation—the people who contributed so much and who should never have experienced what they have. These people are here legally and should never have been subjected to any form of removal action; and, as I told the Home Affairs Committee yesterday, I have seen no evidence that that has happened.

Everyone in this House agrees that this group were here legally, but also that people who are here illegally should be treated differently from legal migrants. I am personally committed to tackling illegal migration because I have seen at first hand the terrible impact that it has on the most vulnerable in our society—the exploitation and abuse that can come hand-in-hand with illegal migration. That is why my Department has been working to increase the number of illegal migrants we remove.

I have never agreed that there should be specific removal targets and I would never support a policy that puts targets ahead of people. The immigration arm of the Home Office has been using local targets for internal performance management. These were not published targets against which performance was assessed, but if they were used inappropriately, then I am clear that this will have to change. I have asked officials to provide me with a full picture of the performance measurement tools which were used at all levels, and I will update the House, and the Home Affairs Committee, as soon as possible.

[Ms Abbott]

Another day, another revelation about the Windrush scandal. Yesterday, giving evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, the Home Secretary said in terms:

“We don’t have targets for removals.”

But the general secretary of the Immigration Service Union told the Committee earlier that there is a net removals target that enforcement teams have to meet and that they are aiming to remove a certain number of individuals in any given month. The general secretary later confirmed that the target this month was 8,337, with targets on posters in regional centres. When Lord Carrington resigned over the Falklands, he said that it was a matter of honour. Is it not time that the Home Secretary considered her honour and resigned?

[Amber Rudd]

I would like to make the very clear distinction between legal and illegal migrants. The right hon. Lady talks about the Windrush cohort. We have already established that the Windrush cohort is here legally. This Government are determined to put this right, which is why I put in the new measures to ensure that that happens.

I believe that I have addressed the issue of targets, referring to the fact that some offices are working with them. Unfortunately, I was not aware of them, and I want to be aware of them, which is why I am now putting in place different measures to ensure that that happens.

Windrush

Diane Abbott Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. Many people, both in this House and outside, think that the events involving the Windrush generation are one of the biggest scandals in the administration of home affairs for a very long time. The Home Secretary said that the situation “should never have been allowed to happen”, but she is the Home Secretary and she allowed it to happen. These cases cannot come as a surprise to her because many of my Opposition colleagues have been pursuing individual cases for some time. She is behaving as though it is a shock to her that her officials are implementing regulations in the way that she intended them to be implemented. The Home Secretary must understand that the buck ultimately stops with her.

Ministerial maladministration sometimes occurs because officials act in error, and sometimes it is a question of unforeseen circumstances, but the problem with the plight of the Windrush generation is that it was foreseeable and it was foreseen. People inside the Department and Members of this House have tried to draw the Government’s attention to it. The key was the Immigration Act 2014, which removed protections for Commonwealth citizens, who had up until then been exempt from deportation. I spoke about that and explained the situation to Ministers, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) voted against it, and the current leader of the Labour party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), voted against it, but Ministers paid no attention.

Four years ago, an internal Home Office memo found that the “hostile environment” could make it harder for foreign nationals to find homes and could provoke widespread discrimination. Furthermore, the then Tory Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government said:

“The costs and risks considerably outweigh the benefits.”

Let me repeat those costs for the benefit of the Home Secretary: patriotic Commonwealth citizens treated like liars; benefits cut; healthcare denied; jobs lost; and people evicted from their housing. Whether they were deported, refused re-entry or detained, these people were separated from family and friends in breach of their human rights. This was a system where people who had come here, very often as young children, were required to show four pieces of original documentation for each year they were supposedly in this country. Who could have believed that that was a sustainable or fair situation? As I said, the situation we are in is not a surprise to Ministers or their officials because Member after Member has written to the Home Office to try to draw its attention to these cases.

There are elements of the Home Secretary’s statement that I welcome. I welcome the waiving of the citizenship fee; I welcome the waiving of the requirement to carry out the knowledge of language and life in the UK test—some of these people, having been in the UK all their life, would almost certainly pass that test with flying colours. I welcome the waiving of the naturalisation fee for children and, in particular, I welcome allowing people who have retired from this country to return, with the cost of their fees waived.

The Home Secretary talks about the problems of legislation, but she is not suggesting changes in legislation. It would be easy, for instance, to restore the protections for Commonwealth citizens that existed prior to 2014. There is no detail on compensation, but she will understand that Opposition Members will be pursuing the point. It is important that the compensation is not a token sum but properly reflects the actual costs and the damage to family life caused by this policy.

I am glad that Ministers have thought better of their early position of refusing to provide data on deportations. They told my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) in January that providing information on deportations and detention would

“require a manual check of individual records which could only be done at disproportionate cost.”

I am glad that the Home Secretary has thought better of that position and is now undertaking a manual check of deportations, but what about people in detention? I visited Yarl’s Wood and met women in exactly this position who have been detained for very many months.

The Home Office must know who it has in detention. [Interruption.] The Home Secretary shakes her head: you must know who you have in detention, and you must know why they are there. I am asking the Home Secretary to produce the figures on those members of the Windrush generation who are in detention.

As for the Home Secretary’s new customer care centre, we will see how that works. Will it have new staff, or will the staff be transferred from elsewhere in immigration and nationality? I share her care for illegal immigrants, many of whom are exploited by employers. The women are subjected to domestic violence. They live frightened and miserable lives. We are pursuing this issue because of our concern for our constituents who are Commonwealth citizens and legally here.

The Home Secretary need not believe this ends here. Coming up behind the Windrush cohort is a slightly later cohort of persons from south Asia. In the next few years, even though they have lived here all their life, even though their children are British and even though they have worked all their life, they will be asked for four pieces of data for every year they have been here, and they will be subjected to the same humiliation as the Windrush generation.

There was a meeting in the House of Commons on Thursday night for people in the community who are concerned about this issue. We had advertised the meeting for just two days and 500 people came. They packed out four Committee Rooms, and we had to turn away hundreds more. The Home Secretary must understand how upset communities are about what has happened to this generation. They feel it reflects something of the way this Government regard the entire community. [Hon. Members: “Rubbish!”] Well, let me say this: my parents, brothers, sisters and cousins have largely worked in the national health service, in factories and in London transport, and I always remember one of my uncles saying to me with tremendous pride that he had never missed a day of work. This is a generation with unparalleled commitment to this country, unparalleled pride in being British and unparalleled commitment to hard work and to contributing to society, and it is shameful that this Government have treated that generation in this way.

[Amber Rudd]

I am pleased to hear there are some areas on which the right hon. Lady and I agree. On this side of the House, as on the other side of the House, our appreciation of the value of these citizens, our admiration for the work they have done here and our respect for them remain undimmed. We are absolutely committed to that. I am pleased, too, that she has welcomed the substantial nature of the changes I have put in place to address the urgent problem of now: the fact that this cohort of people need to have their documentation put in place.

The right hon. Lady challenged me on some of the comments I made earlier. I just want to be clear again, if I may, that this group of people should have had their legal status formally given to them a long time ago. She will have seen, as I did, that some of the references of the individuals who have been so heartbreakingly let down were made before 2010; they happened when people tried to travel—[Interruption.] She may have voted against some of those provisions, but this has not just happened overnight. Unfortunately, the fact is that this group of people, whose proper, formal legal status should have been put in place any time from 1973, fell foul of that, bit by bit, more and more, as Government after Government took different and more formal steps to make sure that we protect people from illegal migration. There is legal migration and there is illegal migration, and the group we are talking about were part of legal migration. The steps I am putting in place now are going to make sure that they have the formal status that they should have had a long, long time ago.

Oral Answers to Questions

Diane Abbott Excerpts

Monday 16th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I have agreed, and I have volunteered, to meet this week the high commissioners who would like to meet me, to find out whether there are any such people who have been removed. If they want to bring me situations such as that, I will certainly look at them.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary will be aware that one of her ministerial colleagues will apparently say tonight that some of these people were deported in error, so can she tell the House how many and how she plans to rectify the situation?

[Amber Rudd]

As I say, I will find out from the high commissioners whether there have been any situations where such people have been removed. I would respectfully remind the Labour party that the workplace checks were introduced by Labour in 2008. What is happening now is part of the pattern of making sure that people are here legally. I do not want any Commonwealth citizens who are here legally to be impacted in the way they have been. Frankly, some of how they have been treated has been wrong—has been appalling—and I am sorry. That is why I am setting up a new area in my Department to ensure that we have a completely new approach to how their situation is regularised.

Windrush Children (Immigration Status)

Diane Abbott Excerpts

Monday 16th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

My right hon. Friend, who has some experience in this area, will be aware that we cannot have a situation in which anybody can perhaps falsely declare anything—that would not assist the Windrush generation, whom we are trying to help. We are going to work with them in a cross-Government way, so if they come to us with their address and date of birth, we will start from that point and try to build a picture to evidence the circumstances and, within two weeks, get them the permits that they need to be able to access services.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

In the week of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, is the Home Secretary aware of how shameful it appears that we are treating the Windrush generation of Commonwealth citizens in this way? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) said, they came here after the second world war to help rebuild this country, and they worked hard and paid their taxes. There are few more patriotic groups of British citizens than the generation from the West Indies that we are talking about.

The Home Secretary mentioned her special team. Is she aware that hundreds of these people have been trying to get their situations sorted out with their lawyers, presenting what information they have? Months later, however, things have not been resolved. How much confidence can people have in the special team when people with lawyers have been unable to resolve their situations? Why does she not simply issue an instruction to her officials today that no one in such a position can be deported until the case is clarified? There must also be an apology to any who were wrongfully deported, and the Government must consider compensation.

Is the Home Secretary aware that in 2014 the Government removed the immigration protection that existed for the Commonwealth citizens who had come here previously? Theresa May was the then Home Secretary, and there was no parliamentary debate or scrutiny at the time. Theresa May could simply—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. [Interruption.] I do not need any advice from people chuntering from a sedentary position for their own satisfaction but to no wider benefit at all. The position is that Members should not refer to other Members by name—[Interruption.] The hon. Members who are wittering away from a sedentary position probably feel better for doing so, but it does not advance the interests of the House.

[Ms Abbott]

I apologise for naming the former Home Secretary in that way, but we are talking about a very serious matter. I believe the Home Secretary could now simply table a statutory instrument restoring the protections, which were removed without debate in 2014; there would be no objection from this side of the House.

Finally, this policy and this scandal did not fall from the sky. It is a product of the bent of Government policy: the “hostile environment” for migrants generally. We now hear warm words about the contribution of Commonwealth migrants who have given their lives to this country, but warm words are not enough. We have to establish the facts on the deportations; we have to make apologies where necessary; and as the Commonwealth Heads of Government are gathered in London, we have to acknowledge what a disgrace it is that this Government have treated Commonwealth migrants in this way.

[Amber Rudd]

Nobody disputes that the people who came here as part of the Windrush cohort are highly valued here and have the legal right to stay. In this week in which we celebrate the Commonwealth, I urge hon. Members on both sides of the House to acknowledge the changes that we as a Government are making today to ensure that this cannot happen again and that the new processes in place will indeed reach out and protect all Commonwealth citizens who need additional help to get their documentation in place.

The right hon. Lady asks particularly about removals and detention, and I reassure her and the House that I have given an explicit instruction. In accordance with my wishes today, there will be no removals or detention as part of any assistance to help former Commonwealth citizens get their proper documentation in place.

Police Funding

Diane Abbott Excerpts

Wednesday 28th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

I listened with interest to the Minister who introduced the debate and to the speeches from Conservative Members. Members on the Labour Benches were told that we do not understand the complexity of the issues. We were told that we do not care about efficiency. We were told that we are looking backward. Above all, the Minister said we were waving shrouds.

Let me explain to the Minister that I have represented one of the high-crime areas of our great cities for 30 years. None of us wants to make these speeches about the effect of crime in our communities, and yes, Minister, violent crime is going up: knife crime, gun crime, acid attacks, the county lines system of drug distribution. But crime is not just brutal for the victims of crime—it is brutal to whole communities: mothers who see their young sons disappear down a vortex of violence and crime, and wonder, when they go out, if they will return. We are not waving shrouds: we are talking about the reality of life as it is lived by the people we live among and seek to represent.

I want to say a few words about reserves, which Ministers sometimes bring up as the answer to money problems in police funding. They know full well that most of the reserves they refer to are earmarked or allocated reserves. The funds they refer to have overwhelmingly been allocated for specific purposes. These reserves are just not available for day-to-day funding. Just as important, they should not be used for day-to-day funding. Ongoing and recurring costs should not be met from the finite stock of reserves. That is the way to losses, to deficits, to crises—the types of issues, deficits and crises this Government have created elsewhere in the public sector, most damagingly in the NHS. The reserves are needed, and it would not be prudent or even lawful to run them down to zero.

On precepts, I do not want to remind Ministers of their reprimand by the chair of the UK Statistics Authority, but it is simply not the case that they can include money from the council tax precept and treat it or talk about it as if it is direct funding from Government. It is not. It is simply not clear to Labour Members why Conservative Members persist in using that line when the Prime Minister has already been reprimanded by the UK Statistics Authority. Let me remind Ministers of the Home Office press release in December 2017. The headline was “Police funding increases by £450 million in 2018”, but the chair of the UK Statistics Authority, questioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), said:

“the Prime Minister’s statement and the Home Office’s tweet could have led the public to conclude incorrectly that central government is providing an additional £450 million for police spending”.

He went on to suggest that the Home Office head of statistics made sure that his colleague statisticians understood the structure of police funding and the importance of making clear public statements. I hope that the Minister will assure me that this has happened.

[Dan Carden]

One criticism that Ministers have made is that we have focused our remarks on resources, but are chief constables themselves not telling us that they need resources? The key example is gun crime in Liverpool. Merseyside police have the experience and the expertise, but they need the resources.

[Ms Abbott]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I will come to what chief constables all over the country are saying later in my speech. In his statement on police funding on 31 January, the Minister stated:

“In 2018-19, we will provide each police and crime commissioner (PCC) with the same amount of core Government grant funding as in 2017-18.”—[Official Report, 31 January 2018; Vol. 635, c. 25WS.]

He said “the same amount”, but it is a freeze in direct Government funding. When inflation is close to 3%, it amounts to a cut in real terms, because the flat-cash settlement does not cover the unfunded pay rise, pension costs, the apprenticeship levy and rising fuel costs. To say blithely that it is the same amount, as though it is not actually a cut in real terms, is quite disappointing.

I want to say a few words on counter-terrorism and to make the point that Ministers sometimes do not want to talk about—that counter-terrorism and community policing are inextricably linked. As somebody reminded us earlier, it was Sadiq Khan who said:

“For every £1 of counter terrorism funding spent in response to an incident, around £2 is spent on necessary additional non-counter terrorism activity, which has to come from wider policing budgets.”

Community policemen and women are on the frontline of counter-terrorism, so to talk about narrowly defined counter-terrorism funding and not understand that community policing on the ground is the frontline of counter-terrorism is, again, disappointing.

The effects of these cuts on the ground have been set out by my colleagues my hon. Friends the Members for High Peak (Ruth George), for Redcar (Anna Turley) and for Halifax (Holly Lynch), the hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), and my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden), for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq)—who made a very moving speech—for Leigh (Jo Platt), for Newport East (Jessica Morden) and for Peterborough (Fiona Onasanya). They talked from personal experience, but in closing, let me remind Ministers what senior officers have said.

The assistant chief constable from Northumbria, Ged Noble, recently told the police and crime panel that total crime in his area had risen by 109% since 2014 and violent crime was up by over 200%. The Bedfordshire chief constable said:

“We do not have the resources to keep residents safe.”

[Ruth George]

Does my right hon. Friend not feel it is a sign of the significance that the Government attach to our brave police officers and the victims of crime all over this country that the Home Secretary has not even been present at any point during this important debate?

[Ms Abbott]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It will have been observed by the community and by policemen and women that the Home Secretary was not in this debate at any point.

I was talking about what senior officers have said. The Bedfordshire chief constable, Jon Boutcher, said:

“My officers cannot cope with the demand and no-one seems to be listening.”

The Minister quoted Cressida Dick, so let me give him another quote:

“We’ve got emergency calls going up, we’ve got crime going up nationally and in London…Police chiefs will do all they can to protect the public from terrorism. We will make choices about what we prioritise and where we invest. Some of these choices may be difficult and unpalatable to the public”.

The National Police Chiefs’ Council criticised the Government’s funding settlement for

“failing to fully meet the level of investment identified.”

But perhaps the most damning verdict is from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, which said in its recent report:

“About a quarter of forces are all too often overwhelmed by the demand they face, resulting in worrying backlogs of emergency jobs”.

The picture is clear. Despite Tory bluster, the police are overstretched, they are attempting to deal with more crime and more complex crime, and this Government are providing them with fewer resources in real terms to do that. We heard tonight about some of our poorest communities feeling the need to pay for private protection. We saw in the constabulary report that policemen and women are responding to 999 calls the next day. That is happening on this Government’s watch. Instead of accusing us of shroud waving, they should address the real concerns among policemen and women and in communities about this Government’s failure to fund policing properly.

UK Passport Contract

Diane Abbott Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

I very much appreciate my right hon. and learned Friend’s contribution—how could I not? He is absolutely right to point out that we wish to be a global, outward-looking trading nation. All the companies that participated in this tender process provide identity documents and bank notes, and other passport providers have bid. The reality is that in a fair procurement process, we had to look at quality, security and price, and this was the contract that provided the best value on all counts.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware of the concern among supporters of every party in this House and none about the prospect of a British passport being printed by a Franco-Dutch company. The Government cannot be allowed to hide behind EU procurement rules. They must take responsibility for the potential fallout on workers, their families, the community and the Government’s wider industrial strategy. Does the Minister accept that it was wrong that the workers at De La Rue were not directly informed of the Government’s decision, but instead heard from the media that their jobs were at risk? Is this what senior Ministers in the leave campaign meant by “taking back control”?

Far from taking back control, it seems we cannot control where our passports are printed. We understand that passports may be manufactured partially in the UK, but it is telling that for security reasons—security reasons that the Minister does not appear concerned about—in countries such as France state-run companies make the passports. What is the total cost of the switch to blue passports? We read reports of savings of £120 million made in the allocation of the contract. Last December, the then Immigration Minister estimated the cost to be £500 million. We are now told that it is £490 million, so the original estimate seems to have been almost exactly correct.

Finally, the Minister must understand why the public see this whole episode as a farce. Labour Members call on Ministers to re-examine this decision and to meet De La Rue, the trade unions and others to ensure that this industry, the quality of the jobs that come with it and our security are protected. Ministers have to understand that the cheapest is not necessarily the best.

[Caroline Nokes]

I gently point out to the right hon. Lady that it was in 2009 that the rules were changed to enable the British passport to be made overseas and that 20% of blank passports are already printed abroad—[Interruption.] She refers repeatedly from a sedentary position to taking back control. Yes, we are: we are taking back control by awarding a contract within procurement rules—WTO rules as well as EU rules, which are embedded in UK law—and it is imperative that we have the most secure and up to date passports at the best value for money.

Yarl’s Wood Detention Centre

Diane Abbott Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab) (Urgent Question)]

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on the detention centre at Yarl’s Wood.

[The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)]

Ensuring that individuals abide by immigration rules is an essential part of an effective immigration system. This includes individuals leaving the UK if they have no lawful basis to remain. Of course, we all hope that those with no right to remain in the UK will leave voluntarily, and we have measures in place to assist those who wish to do so. However, this is not always the case, and detention is therefore an important tool.

The dignity and welfare of all individuals detained is of utmost importance, and any decision to detain is made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account individual circumstances. But let me be clear: Home Office officials work with any individual with no right to be in the UK, both detained—including those at Yarl’s Wood—and in the community, to assist with their return at any time, if they decide to leave the UK. In fact, 95% of people without the right to be here are managed in the community and most people detained under immigration powers spend only very short periods in detention.

In 2017, 92% of people were detained for four months or less, and nearly two thirds were detained for less than a month. As well as regular reviews of detention, individuals can apply for bail at any time. I visited Yarl’s Wood on 8 February to see that all detainees were being treated in a safe and dignified manner, and I understand that the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) is meeting the Home Secretary to discuss this issue very shortly.

The provision of 24-hour, seven-day-a-week healthcare in all immigration removal centres ensures that detainees have ready access to medical professionals and levels of primary care in line with individuals in the community. Any detainees who choose to refuse food or fluid, including the declining number of residents at Yarl’s Wood who are currently refusing food, are closely monitored by on-site healthcare professionals. Home Office staff will not only ensure that detainees are informed about how their actions may impact on their health, but make it clear that we will continue to seek to progress their case. The Government are committed to protecting the welfare and dignity of those in detention and we will always set the highest standards to ensure the safety and wellbeing of detainees.

[Ms Abbott]

The shadow Attorney General and I travelled to Yarl’s Wood detention centre on Friday 23 February to inspect conditions and speak to some of the people detained there. The Minister will be aware that I have been pressing for such access to the centre since the autumn of 2016. The timing of our visit coincided with a hunger strike by some of the detainees, who were protesting at what they described as the inhumane conditions there. But in response to my repeated inquiries, the authorities at the detention centre, the Home Office, Serco and G4S said categorically that there was no hunger strike. It now seems that we were misled.

Is the Minister aware that newspaper reports show a letter that has been sent to these women by the Home Office? The letter has been reproduced in some media outlets. It is a signed letter, on Home Office headed paper, which begins by stating that

“the fact that you are currently refusing food and/or fluid…may, in fact, lead to your case being accelerated”.

To some Opposition Members, this sounds like punitive deportations for women who have dared to go on hunger strike. Furthermore, I was contacted at the weekend by lawyers and others attempting to prevent the deportation of a young woman and her mother. This is wrong. The personnel at Yarl’s Wood are paid for from the public purse, yet Members of Parliament seem to have been misled by officials. Now we learn that the Home Office is apparently threatening these women with accelerated deportation.

The Minister has a series of questions to answer. When did she first know about the hunger strike? When did she know of the existence of the threatening letters, implying that deportation would be accelerated for those continuing on hunger strike? Did she or her officials approve these letters? How is it possible to accelerate deportations and conform to natural justice, as surely all cases are expedited in any event? Does the decision for removal supersede any health concerns that a detainee may have? Is the Minister aware that the primary demand of the hunger strike is to end the inhumanity of what, in practice, is indefinite detention? Finally, will the Government, in line with their own policy, stop detaining women who have been trafficked or sexually abused and stop misleading this House about their detention of these most vulnerable women?

[Mr Speaker]

Nobody would intentionally mislead the House. I am sure that the shadow Home Secretary was not suggesting that. I think that the allegation was of what the Clerk would consider to be a collective, rather than an individual, character.

[Ms Abbott]

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

Very good.

Oral Answers to Questions

Diane Abbott Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I thank my hon. Friend for referring to that article. The purpose of the announcements that I have made today is to ensure that victims are more confident about coming forward and of feeling safe, and to ensure that we can be more certain of securing the convictions that they expect and we all want.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

We on the Labour Benches also wish to thank the brave fire crews in Leicester, and our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families.

It is welcome that the Home Secretary has expressed concern about domestic violence, but we know that, on average, two women a week are killed by a current or former partner. That is the end point of too much domestic violence. We also know that the number of refuge services in England has sharply reduced over the last few years. Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that it fell from 294 in 2010 to 274 in 2017. It is all very well for the Home Secretary to talk about the role of charities, but what will the Government do to address the funding crisis that refuges now face?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Mr Nick Hurd)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. To his last point, the answer is yes, and Northamptonshire is a good example of where emergency services are working across the lights. I am delighted to say that on 1 October, Roger Hirst of Essex police became the country’s first police, fire and crime commissioner. Six other police and crime commissioners have submitted proposals to take on fire, and we aim to make an announcement soon.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

Ministers will be aware that I visited Yarl’s Wood immigration detention centre last week, after a year of asking the Home Office to be allowed to visit. Are Ministers aware of the long-standing concerns about the quality of medical care at Yarl’s Wood—concerns that were raised with me by so many women last week? Is the Minister aware that victims of trafficking and sexual abuse are being held at Yarl’s Wood, contrary to Government undertakings? Is the Minister aware that some women at Yarl’s Wood are on hunger strike—a hunger strike that the Home Office flatly refuses to admit is happening? The women of Yarl’s Wood are desperate, and we owe them a duty of care. Will the Minister agree to meet with me, so that I can share with her the specific concerns that so many women raised with me?

[Amber Rudd]

I am always delighted to meet the right hon. Lady and to listen carefully to any suggestions that she has and her experiences of visiting Yarl’s Wood. We take the health of everybody at any detention centre very seriously. There are high standards there, and if there are any examples otherwise, we will always take a look at them. I was concerned by some of her suggestions afterwards when she made her speech. Immigration detention centres play an important part in enforcing our immigration rules. Some of the people there are very dangerous, and it is right that they are detained and then removed.

Immigration White Paper

Diane Abbott Excerpts

Monday 5th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

My right hon. Friend will know as well as I do that in successive Conservative party manifestos we have made a commitment to making sure that we bring immigration down to sustainable levels.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

The immigration White Paper was originally scheduled to be published last summer. Then, Ministers told the Home Affairs Committee that it would be published before Christmas. Does not this constant postponement speak to the chaos and confusion on immigration in the Department as a whole? Does the Minister accept that, as the director general of the Confederation of British Industry said, business will be “hugely frustrated” by yet another postponement? Does she appreciate that firms need time to plan for change?

Does the Minister accept that this uncertainty is particularly upsetting for the 3 million EU citizens who live here? These people are contributing to the health service, social care, universities, financial services and the hospitality industry, among many other sectors. They are many of our constituents, neighbours and work colleagues. It is wrong that they should be treated like this. Furthermore, the longer the uncertainty goes on, the less willing EU citizens will be to come here to take up employment. Does the Minister accept that the consequences for recruitment in the health service in particular are potentially very serious? Does she also accept that European students who come to study in Britain after March 2019 will want reassurance that, if they are doing a three or four-year course, they will be able to stay for more than two years without having to apply again for a residence permit?

It is all very well for the Minister to say that the White Paper will be published when the time is right. The Opposition argue that the time has been right for some time and that the Government’s postponement and delay are inexcusable.

Stalking Protection Bill

Diane Abbott Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 19th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) on bringing forward this very important Bill. We have had a short but well-informed debate that people who are interested in this issue will read and appreciate.

As many Members have said, stalking can be an extremely serious offence that has been exacerbated by the rise in online communication. The victims are usually women who are vulnerable to the actions of resourceful and obsessive perpetrators, and there are often links with domestic violence. The crimes can be horrific. They can combine physical and online stalking, late-night phone calls, and even home invasion. Threats of rape and murder are frequent and all too often credible. I understand that in the case of the man who murdered our colleague Jo Cox, when people went to his home they saw that he had a whole room papered with pictures of Jo, so we need to remember that this type of obsessive attention not necessarily will, but can, end in physical violence.

Far too many stalking crimes go undetected. In 2015, there were just 194 convictions for stalking offences. Yet, as other Members have reminded us, the crime survey suggests that one in five women and one in 10 men will be affected by stalking in their lifetime, while the under-publicised national stalking helpline has responded to almost 14,000 calls since it was established in 2010. Clearly, the conviction rate is barely the tip of the iceberg.

I should not refrain from pointing out the failings of the criminal justice system as it stands. Often, victims are not kept informed. Case adjournments take place without notice. Charges are altered or dropped without reference to the victim. If the victim makes it to court, they can be cross-examined by their own tormentor. Many victims say that they are made to feel that they are on trial. Serious offenders can receive no more than a suspended sentence, even if convicted.

There has been reference to the Emily Maitlis case. Of course, it is important that we repeat that stalking is not just something that affects celebrities. However, I was struck by some of the things that Emily Maitlis said: the fact that it had gone on for 20 years and felt like having a serious illness; the effect it had had on her family and her children; and, above all, the fact that her stalker was able to write to her from prison and while out on licence. Although this is an excellent Bill that I hope will pass through the House, we have to consider the whole approach of the criminal justice system to this issue, and make sure that we have a comprehensive, systematic and integrated approach to the crime of stalking.

We have heard some excellent contributions, including from my hon. Friends the Members for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin), but also from the hon. Members for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), for Harborough (Neil O’Brien), for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) and for Torbay (Kevin Foster).

Labour Members give wholehearted support to this Bill, which will form an important part of the toolkit to deal with the menace of stalking.