Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse

Diane Abbott Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Newton]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for the customary thoughtfulness with which he asked his question and reflected on the importance of this inquiry. As he quite rightly points out, child sexual abuse can have a devastating impact not just on the victims, but on the people caught up in such inquiries. He referred to a particular case that is an operational matter for the police. While I can understand why he wants to bring this matter to a swift conclusion on his constituent’s behalf, these are operational matters for the police, who, quite rightly, are independent of the Home Office.

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

This inquiry is on its fourth chair. Every time, Ministers have come to the House and asserted that the current chair is the right person to take the inquiry forward. Having said that for the fourth time, why do they expect the House, the public and, above all, the survivors to be reassured? As the Minister has said, this is of course an independent inquiry, particularly as to its conduct and findings, but that does not mean the Home Office can take no responsibility at all.

On the question of the Shirley Oaks survivors who were in the Lambeth children’s home, I have heard the Minister say that she will not answer operational questions, but she will know their concern about having a social worker as the overall chair of the inquiry. They have said they will accept a vice-chair for their strand who is not a social worker. Have Ministers put that to Alexis Jay? Above all—I hope the Minister will not dismiss this as an operational question—the Shirley Oaks survivors want to know what Home Office involvement there was in the monitoring and supervision of the Lambeth children’s home during the period when the historical child abuse occurred. Ministers cannot just let this inquiry run into the sand. The public expect better, this House expects better and the survivors expect better.

[Sarah Newton]

I absolutely assure the hon. Lady and every other Member in the House that we will absolutely not let this inquiry run into the sand. It is vital to the full protection of children in our country that we understand the failings of the past, seek remedies for the victims and use that intelligence to improve and have better safeguarding arrangements for children today.

The hon. Lady asked questions about operational details that she knows full well it would be completely inappropriate for me to answer. I can assure her that the chair of the independent inquiry regularly meets survivors groups, and I am sure that she will listen to the concerns raised by the Shirley Oaks Survivors Association. She is undertaking a review to make sure that the inquiry is properly focused to address the really serious concerns that are being raised.

Immigration Rules (International Students)

Diane Abbott Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Gray. May I first congratulate the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald)? I think I have pronounced that correctly. [Interruption.] It is always a challenge. Do not worry, I am used to “Luger-bruger”. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this excellent debate on this important subject. It is nice to see the Minister in his place; I know he will listen carefully to what we all have to say. May I apologise to the Chamber for not being able to stay for the wind-ups? I will, however, read the concluding remarks—particularly from the Minister—with great interest.

I am here to speak up as the Member of Parliament for Loughborough, which has a hugely successful and internationally focused university. I also recognise the other successful universities in Leicestershire, which have already been mentioned by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz): Leicester University and De Montfort University. It is fair to say that Leicester and Leicestershire Members are extremely proud of our three highly successful universities.

In my former role as Secretary of State for Education, and also as the Minister for Women and Equalities, I spent much of my time encouraging our young people to be outward looking and globally minded. That was at the heart of what the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East said about the importance of our internationally facing universities and higher education institutions to all of this country.

Given the interest in the debate, I will keep my remarks to two main points: first, numbers, and whether it is right to include students in the reduction in migrants to tens of thousands per year, and, secondly, the benefits of universities. I think the debate also speaks to a wider issue that we are grappling with as a Parliament at the moment, which is the kind of country we want to be after the referendum on 23 June. I firmly feel, and I suspect—or hope—that many Members agree, that we do not want to turn our backs on the world. If we were somehow to harm or to disable our higher education institutions, we would be at grave risk of doing just that.

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

People of intelligence and good will voted both for and against Brexit. Does the right hon. Lady agree that many people are now frightened by some of the rhetoric they have heard around Brexit, and that it is the responsibility of the House to allay those fears?

[Nicky Morgan]

I agree with the hon. Lady. There has been some very unfortunate rhetoric, and I am sad to say that we have even had incidents—I know of at least one—on the campus of Loughborough University, in my constituency, whereby those who have come from abroad to work or study have been made to feel unwelcome. I do not think that is the kind of country any of us want to represent.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) on securing this very important debate. It gives me great pleasure to place it on the record that Her Majesty’s Opposition believe that we should remove international students from Home Office migration statistics. The purpose of that policy, apart from making the stats more accurate in relation to people who are subject to immigration legislation, is to contribute to the detoxification of this area of British society and political life, beginning with the obvious benefit to our university sector. Of course, as hon. Members have said over and again, the truth about international students is that, far from being a burden, they make this country better off in innumerable economic, social and philosophical ways.

We have heard that there were 436,000 students from overseas in the UK in 2014-15 and that they comprised 19% of the total. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills—I bow to the Department for BIS, although I know that there are different figures—estimated that the economic value of the contribution from international students was £14 billion in 2014-15 and was set to rise to £26 billion in 2025. As the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) said, this is not just about what they pay in fees; it is their financial contribution and their contribution to growth and GDP in many of our great cities. The presence of overseas students creates more than 250,000 jobs here.

The Home Secretary and her predecessor have claimed, falsely, that very large numbers of international students overstay their visas and so contribute significantly to the breach of their immigration target. They have yet to validate that claim. The most recent legal case collapsed in the Appeal Court as the Home Office attempted to use hearsay evidence that students had fraudulently obtained English qualifications. It has to be stressed that the vast majority of students return home after study. In 2014-15, fewer than 6,000 students applied for a tier 2 visa, applicable to non-EU students who wish to stay here, and that 6,000 may actually be too few for the overall needs of the economy. As I think many hon. Members know, an unpublished report from the Home Office, drafted when the Prime Minister was Home Secretary, seemed to show that the number of student overstayers is tiny, just 1% of the total—approximately 1,500. Therefore, they make no significant impact on overall immigration numbers.

[Keith Vaz]

Ministers in the past have said that one problem has been the abuse that overseas students have been involved in, yet we have seen little evidence to support that. We heard about one student working on the checkout at Tesco from a previous Immigration Minister, who is now the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, but we have had no evidence. If there is evidence, it should be brought forward.

[Ms Abbott]

I am grateful to the distinguished former Chair of the Select Committee on Home Affairs for making that point.

Several stakeholders oppose what is happening. They include Universities UK, the teaching unions, the National Union of Students and many local authorities where education is a much-needed growth industry—cities such as Sheffield and Coventry. This is not just about the top 10 or Russell Group universities; our university sector benefits in so many ways from the contribution of international students.

If international student numbers are reduced in the way that Ministers seem to want, there will be a funding shortfall for universities and, as colleagues have said, courses for which international students make up a disproportionate number of the students may be imperilled. The Government’s policy on international students, with its financial implications, implies either further Government borrowing, which I do not find credible, or increased fees for UK-born students.

I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently floated the idea of excluding international students from the figures only to be slapped down by the Prime Minister. Despite that, the Conservative hon. Member for Bath (Ben Howlett) has written that the “smart” thing to do is to exclude international students from the migration statistics. On this issue, it appears that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary are on their own.

As we have heard, polls consistently show a majority in favour of excluding international students from the migration statistics; typically 60% are in favour and 30% against. As a follow-up, we should look at reforming the policy on tier 2 visa applications, to make it easier for non-EU graduates to work here in sectors that require them, whether they are doctors or IT specialists.

Let me say just a few words on India. As we have heard, the number of overseas students from India has plummeted as a consequence of both the rhetoric and the policies of this Government. The Prime Minister, I think to her surprise, on her recent visit to India, realised that there was great concern about the situation in relation to its students in the UK. That was at the heart of the negotiations. And what did the Prime Minister offer? Golden visas for the super-wealthy. There was no attempt to address the real concerns of Government and society in India about the way we are talking about and treating international students. It is an entirely self-defeating policy. Indian students do not want to stay on. They come here because it is one of the best education systems in the world and then they probably go to Silicon Valley. The Minister may be aware that the chief executive officer of Google is Indian; that is the path to fame and fortune for Indian students. We should be glad that they recognise the quality of our education and want to come here to study at least.

Earlier today, the Minister expressed concern that no one was leading on immigration for Her Majesty’s Opposition. I can tell him that we do have someone leading. It is the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, the shadow Home Secretary. The Minister seemed to wonder why I would bother my head with immigration. I do bother my head with immigration and I am happy and proud to lead on it. Over nearly 30 years, I have consistently been in the top 10 of MPs dealing with immigration casework. With the solitary exception of my good and right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), I have probably done more immigration casework, under both Labour and Conservative Ministers, than anyone in the Chamber today. I bother my head with immigration because I am the child of immigrants, and I am committed to a debate on immigration, on both sides of the House, that is based on fact, that puts the economy, society and British values first and that is not driven by short-term political concerns—I say that to all Members. It is a concern of mine; it is a concern of my constituents. Whether or not many millions of people up and down the country are frightened by the current tenor of the debate on immigration, both here and in the US, it is a concern of mine—it is a long-standing interest of mine—and I am proud to say that as shadow Home Secretary, I do indeed lead on immigration.

European Union Agency for Asylum

Diane Abbott Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2016 General Committees

[Mr Goodwill]

I could not be so uncharitable, I am sure.

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

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I volunteered to do this because I think the immigration challenge that Europe faces is no laughing matter. I have more junior colleagues in my Home Office team who were available to do it. Our constituents want to see us take the issue seriously.

[Mr Goodwill]

When the hon. Lady started her career in the Home Office she was involved in this particular area, as a fast-streamer, so I am sure that her expertise will be useful as she brings it to bear during the debate.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset for his opening words. I can reassure him that I did not feel any need to agonise over the decision—it was a fairly simple one—and I apologise for any part I may have played in any delays. I am sure he is aware that a lot has been going on, both in the Government and in Europe, since 23 June.

I thank the European Scrutiny Committee for selecting these important measures for debate and apologise for the late tabling of the motion and any inconvenience caused to the Committee by the change in date. The three measures under consideration—the reform of the Dublin regulations, the reform of the Eurodac regulation, and a proposal for a new EU asylum agency—represent the first wave of a package of proposals to reform the Common European Asylum System, or CEAS.

A wide-ranging package of reforms to CEAS was proposed by the European Commission in a communication published in April of this year. The migration crisis led to the Commission identifying priorities for addressing perceived structural shortcomings in CEAS: Dublin reform; reinforcing the Eurodac fingerprint database, which supports the operation of the Dublin mechanism; providing a stronger mandate to the European Asylum Support Office, or EASO; and further harmonising asylum systems. The proposals on harmonisation are not before us today.

It is undoubtedly necessary to develop an asylum and migration framework in the European Union that works to control illegal migration, deter abuse and prevent unwarranted secondary movement. That does not mean, however, that the Government agree with all the policy options that the Commission suggests. The Government have already decided not to opt in to the proposed EU agency for asylum. I apologise that the Committee did not have the chance to debate the proposal before the opt-in deadline, but I suspect it would have supported our opt-out.

The UK participates in the European Asylum Support Office, but there were several problematic areas in the proposal for a new agency which, in my view, would outweigh any benefits to the UK. The Government’s key consideration was the significant oversight that the agency could have had of the UK asylum system if the UK had decided to participate. Although we respect that our European partners may wish to pursue greater commonality in their asylum systems, we remain firmly of the view that the functioning of national asylum systems is a sovereign issue. The Government are, of course, committed to running a high-quality, effective asylum system. We will continue to support EASO and member states that face particular pressures, as well as to share our expertise widely within the EU.

Turning to the Commission’s proposal to reform the Dublin regulation, Dublin IV maintains the traditional, recognisable “Dublin” concepts to determine responsibility for examining an asylum claim. That includes provisions on family unity and the best interests of the child. The proposal introduces some procedural changes—for example, to time limits—and increases obligations on applicants to co-operate with asylum authorities by claiming in the first member state. The Government strongly support the “first safe country” principle, but within the proposal lies a corrective fairness mechanism based on a distribution key that allows for adjustments in the allocation of responsibility in certain circumstances. Essentially, it is a mandatory relocation mechanism.

The Government remain opposed to the use of relocation to address the migration situation in the EU. We have been crystal clear in all our engagement with European partners—both before and since the publication of the Dublin IV proposal—that we see no reason why a mandatory redistribution, relocation or corrective mechanism should be part of a single proposal under the Dublin regulation.

In that context, it is worth noting that the Commission was very clear when it published the proposal that should the United Kingdom not opt into the revised Dublin IV regulation, the Dublin III regulation would continue to apply between the UK and member states—a direct result of our engagement—so I hope that reassures my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset. As such, we believe that there is no risk that we would lose our current powers to return people to other EU member states as a result of this proposal. There is a clear precedent for two Dublin regimes operating in parallel, as seen with regard to relations with Denmark between 2003 and 2006, when different rules applied between states. Finally on Dublin reform, it is obvious that the legislative proposal will require significant negotiation, given the well-known divergence of views across the EU towards mandatory burden-sharing schemes.

Turning to Eurodac—the fingerprint database that supports the application of the Dublin regulation—we agree with the Commission that member states must be provided with appropriate fingerprint evidence to facilitate the operation of the responsibility mechanism and to enhance its role into other areas to address illegal migration and facilitate returns. The Eurodac III proposal includes new provisions to store data on persons found illegally present and to store facial images in addition to fingerprints. It enhances the personal data associated with the biometrics to include, for the first time, the name, nationality, date and place of birth of the data subjects and it stores the details of any travel documents held. It also lowers the age threshold for the transmission of data from 14 years of age to six to enhance the safeguarding of children.

By increasing the capture of data on illegal migrants, Eurodac III will become more of a tool for managing illegal migration, and we welcome that. Its enriched data sets are also of significant value in terms of law enforcement access. I welcome the endorsement of the Government’s position on Eurodac and Dublin.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Abbott]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I am glad to be able to speak in this important debate. We know, because the polling tells us, that immigration is very high up our constituents’ list of concerns. Whether it is the people in contact with me daily who are frightened by the tenor of the immigration debate—a fear that has been reinforced by the election of Donald Trump in the United States—or whether it is the people who believe that immigration is the source of many of their problems, we can all agree that this subject should be taken seriously.

The Opposition argue for an immigration policy that is based on the facts, which puts the good of the economy and our GDP first, and which emphasises the kind of society we want to be—an immigration policy that speaks to the historical values of the British people. We welcome the draft regulations in principle. We believe they are long overdue. More than 1 million refugees arrived in southern Europe last year. In the first six weeks of this year, the rate increased tenfold on the same period in 2015. Sadly, the number of missing children in Europe has far exceeded 10,000.

Earlier in the year I visited Lesbos, which is the first port of call for tens of thousands of refugees who have crossed the Mediterranean. From meeting the people who run the facilities for refugees and from meeting the refugees themselves, I was struck by what a huge burden the issue is on a country such as Greece, which has many economic problems. I was struck that even in the middle of what is obviously a crisis for the people of Lesbos, they were trying to do their best to welcome the refugees: many residents of Lesbos are people who sought refuge in Greece from other parts of the Mediterranean and other parts of the middle east.

I was struck by the inadequacy of Europe’s response to the refugee issue. It cannot be right that a country such as Greece, which, rightly or wrongly, has been through so much economically in recent years, is taking such a huge burden of our response to the refugee challenge. The Minister has said that the Government have sent half a dozen or a dozen Home Office officials over there. I was on Lesbos and I saw no evidence of a substantive British response or substantive British support for the challenge the Greeks are facing. I was also struck—on Lesbos and while visiting other refugee camps in Lebanon and, of course, Calais—by how ruthless the people smugglers are. I therefore welcome the regulations, the aims of which are to achieve an organised and humane response, and to tackle the people smugglers.

As hon. Members might imagine from a former Home Office civil servant, I believe in the Dublin III regulation. I believe that refugees should be processed at their first point of contact with Europe. However, it is grossly unfair to expect Greece and Italy to struggle on as they have been doing. The Dublin III regulation has been very difficult to enforce, yet if we do not enforce it, it will be not the countries of Europe but the people smugglers who decide where refugees and economic migrants go. That is why we must have a level of European co-operation and a framework that will work in a way it has not up to now. I hope that we all agree that the Dublin regulation is in need of update and reform to fit our current reality.

The UK has long benefited from the arrangements, as one of the few member states that transports more asylum seekers across its borders than are received under the Dublin regulation. I believe, and I think that Opposition Members strongly believe, that whether or not we are in Schengen and whether or not we are formally in the EU, we are part of the European family of nations. We must take our fair share of the responsibility. We should be opting in to a regulation that makes sharing the burden as equal as possible. On Eurodac, it is clearly important that we have a robust system of processing asylum seekers and determining their entitlement to be refugees. The regulation to improve and expand Eurodac goes some way towards meeting that need.

[Michael Fabricant]

I am following the hon. Lady’s speech with great interest and I agree with much of it, but she began by saying, quite rightly, that she is aware that immigration is a major issue in the minds of many of our constituents. She also said—and I have some sympathy with this—that the United Kingdom must take its fair share and should remain a part of the scheme after leaving the European Union. How does she reconcile those two concepts when, as she will know, of the 52% of the population who voted for Brexit, many are believed to have done so because of overall net immigration to the UK?

[Ms Abbott]

I am well aware of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I can only repeat what I said at the outset. Our immigration policy should be based on the facts, not on urban myth. It should be based on what is good for the economy and good for society, and it should be based on our values as a country. If that means that we have to go out and argue and campaign for that position, I for one am willing to do so. Anything else leads to a downward spiral of anti-immigration rhetoric, and we can see the consequence of that downward spiral in the result of the recent presidential election in the United States. The US electoral college has spoken, and of course the American people are entitled to elect the President of their choice, but we should never legitimise Donald Trump’s anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim and anti-women rhetoric, and we should be aware that one of his first appointments was of Steve Bannon, who runs the website Breitbart, which is largely regarded as anti-Semitic. We must work with our oldest ally as we have always done, but we cannot legitimise a political narrative of that kind.

[Mr Goodwill]

Would the hon. Lady clarify something? From what she said earlier, she appears to support a mandatory relocation measure in the EU. Is that indeed the position of the Labour party?

[Ms Abbott]

Broadly, we support these regulations in principle, and specifically we believe in much more genuine European co-operation. That is the position of the Labour party.

[Michael Fabricant]

The hon. Lady said just now that she would wish that after we leave the European Union we continue within this scheme—or is she now saying that she does not wish that to be the case?

[Ms Abbott]

If I knew what the Government’s plan on these matters was, I could respond to what the hon. Gentleman said. [Interruption.]

[The Chair]

Order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Abbott]

If I knew what the Government’s plan was in relation to Brexit, I could respond to what the hon. Gentleman said. I can only say that the first principle, which is an important principle, is the maximum amount of European co-operation, whether that takes place formally within the EU or just on the basis that we are part of the European family of nations. Anything else, anything other than the maximum European co-operation, leaves literally hundreds of thousands of people across Europe and in the middle east in appalling conditions, hopeless and helpless.

To return to the question of Eurodac, in extending its capabilities we must note that in recent years member states have developed a habit of putting “anti-terror” in front of legislation and sometimes using that as a licence to implement unnecessarily draconian measures or surveillance practices. We must protect our security. Our constituents expect us to do that; it is probably the first responsibility of any Member of Parliament. However, we can do it while respecting our commitment to all human rights and civil liberties. We must also take into account the sensitivity of minors when considering fingerprinting from the age of six.

On the European Union agency for asylum, Labour Members agree with the European Commissioner for Migration and Home Affairs, who said in May:

“The time has come for a reformed and more equitable system, based on common rules and a fairer sharing of responsibility.”

It is not clear to me who would argue with that. There are no walls, there is no barbed wire and there is no militarisation of the police that can in the end halt the weight of migration that we are seeing in the current era. Only fair regulations, properly implemented, and European co-operation can bring some order to the situation, which has hitherto been characterised by a high degree of disorder, which feeds public fears but also leads to the very tragic plight of the refugees whom we see, and I have seen, in refugee camps all over Europe.

I note that there is much debate about the manner in which we should make these arrangements, given our imminent departure from the European Union. As I said, the plan is not clear. Recent papers that have been leaked from Government emphasise even more a lack of clarity about the plan. However, even if we leave the EU—that was the democratic vote of the British people—the British Government must work with the European family of nations on a sustainable migration policy that remains in place, as other arrangements in relation to security will have to remain in place. We need mechanisms by which legitimate asylum applicants can ask for protection without having to pay with their lives or their life savings. Those routes need to be not only safe and legal, but efficient and effective.

Europe’s refugee crisis will not end overnight, and our moral obligation does not end when we leave the European Union. With the lack of transparency in the Government’s Brexit plans, it is difficult, in closing, to be more specific than I have been. However, I can set out the broad principles with which I will approach the immigration debate: to take it seriously, not to use it as a weapon for short-term party political advantage, to always have the interests of the country and society at heart, and also to always, whatever the pressures and whatever the international context, speak for an immigration policy that speaks for the values of British people.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I will be mercifully brief. The humanitarian crisis that has reached Europe would at any other time have been quite upsetting enough, but the debates going on here in the United Kingdom have meant—with no disrespect—that the issue has unfortunately been sent off to a European Committee when a debate on the Floor was what was recommended. I share the concerns outlined at the start of the debate about one of the opt-out deadlines already having passed.

[Ms Abbott]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. This is a subject of great importance, and this is why I have spoken on it this morning. It should have been debated on the Floor of the House.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I absolutely agree. My party also supports the broad thrust of the proposals outlined in the documents, although not entirely and without qualification. A supranational crisis like this requires a supranational response, and solidarity with the front-line states is essential. That is why my party supported the Commission’s proposals for relocation, and we voted for them back in December when we did have a debate on the Floor of the House. We regret how ineffective member states have been in implementing them.

This is another attempt at fairly sharing responsibility in times of emergency. I return to the question that I posed during our question session: if not this model, then what alternative do the Government have in mind to share responsibility more equitably at times of intense migratory pressures? I am not convinced that the Government have offered a realistic alternative. The most recent situational briefings from the likes of the International Rescue Committee and others remind of us how grim the situation is in Greece and around there. The simple fact is that the situation is far more readily dealt with if we share responsibility rather than leaving a handful of frontline states to face responsibility themselves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

These figures have come from the UK as part of our overseas development budget. I can give my hon. Friend some clarification on whether any of that money has been channelled via the EU, but as far as I am aware, this is money from the UK Exchequer, not European money.

Start Network non-governmental organisations were given £11.5 million, £1 million was given to the IOM and more than £1.8 million of essential supplies were provided. They included 3,100 tents for over 15,600 people, 60,000 blankets, 8,000 sleeping bags and other basic items, including direct support for the German Government with returns and donating 40 ex-Ministry of Defence Land Rovers to the Bulgarian border police to help them patrol the green border with Turkey.

The key message on Dublin is that the Government maintain their position: we support the existing principles of the Dublin regulations, but do not agree to a mandatory redistribution mechanism as part of a revised Dublin regulation. I am still slightly confused about the Labour party’s position on that. Indeed, Dublin is important, as it prevents asylum shopping and reinforces the first safe country principle; redistribution does not.

[Ms Abbott]

The Minister may be confused about some things, but he is not half as confused as I am about what this Government’s response is to Brexit.

[Mr Goodwill]

As I have shown, our response to this crisis has been to step up to our obligations as part of Dublin, to go over and above our obligations by incorporating the Dubs amendment into the Immigration Act 2016, and to give the humanitarian and practical help that I have just listed. Given all the ways we are helping people in the region—I was in Jordan last week to see how that money was being spent, putting clean water into some of the refugee camps, helping with the registration of refugees and helping with the education of children in those camps—I think the Government can be proud of our record in that regard.

I have followed the debate with great interest and I thank those who have contributed. It is the Government’s position that it is necessary to develop an asylum and migration framework in Europe that works to control illegal migration, deters abuse and prevents secondary movement. That does not mean, however, that the Government agree with all the policy options suggested by the Commission or that they are right for the UK. These opt-in decisions will be fully in line with the national interest.

Question put and agreed to.

Police Officer Safety

Diane Abbott Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House notes with concern the estimated 23,000 assaults on police officers in England and Wales each year; and calls on the Government to implement statutory guidance on sentencing uniformly across the country which reflects the seriousness of the issue, to accurately record the number of assaults on police officers in England and Wales and, noting the fall in numbers of police officers by 20,000 since 2010, to ensure that police officer numbers and funding are not cut further.

The Opposition have called for this debate because the question of assaults on the police is an important matter that has received too little attention, and we are happy to begin to correct that. For too long, police victims of violence have felt like second-class victims, but there is no more important duty than their duty to protect our citizens, and there is a social contract between the public and police officers, which can be summarised as follows: society as a whole confers on policemen the unique powers of detection, prevention, arrest and detention in order to uphold the rule of law and all our rights; in return, police officers are entitled to all reasonable co-operation from the public, free from violence and the threat of violence. Any assault on any police officer is a breach of that social contract and an injury to all of us.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend surprised to learn that, in relatively peaceful Devon and Cornwall, there were 267 assaults on the police in the last year, more than doubling the associated costs in one year? Does she agree that one of the reasons that the police and other services are so vulnerable is that, because of cuts, they are increasingly operating on their own and not in pairs?

[Ms Abbott]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his important intervention. I agree with him and will come to cuts in police numbers later.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that another problem is that we are simply not robust enough in collecting data on the number of assaults on police, and that we need to do that in order to find a solution?

[Ms Abbott]

My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I will come to the question of data later.

I must acknowledge the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), who raised this issue in an earlier debate and has arranged for representatives of the Police Federation to be here today.

Sadly, the police are not the only group of dedicated public service workers who are coming under physical attack. Violence against NHS staff has rocketed in the past five years, with 186 attacks on doctors, nurses and paramedics every day.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

Fire crews, which attend emergencies and save people’s lives, are also coming under attack. It is outrageous that our police, fire and emergency ambulance services, which are all on the frontline, are being discussed not because of the positive work that they do, but because people think that it is fair game to attack them.

[Ms Abbott]

My hon. Friend must be clairvoyant, because the next thing I was going to say was that fire crews in the UK have come under attack 1,000 times in the past two years, and attacks on ambulance workers are also on the rise. Although the main purpose of this debate is to discuss violence against the police, I could not let it pass without referring to other blue-light services with similar issues. All assaults on the police are unacceptable, and we will discuss how to address them. The sad thing is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) said, there is no clear, reliable evidence of the number of assaults on the police, because the data are still recorded in a haphazard and irregular fashion.

[Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)]

On Merseyside, the most recent figures equate to almost 16% of the entire force being subjected to an attack in one year. Not all those attacks would have resulted in injury, but very many of them did. Does my hon. Friend think that it is an urgent matter for the Government to collect proper statistics on such assaults?

[Ms Abbott]

It is indeed urgent that the Government collect proper statistics. We need reliable, uniform data so that we are clear about the extent of the problem, the trends over time and the differences between forces. To address a problem, it is first necessary to identify it correctly.

There is a further point in relation to the collection of data. Even without data that are as robust as we would like on assaults, there are things that we could do now to address violence against the police to the benefit of the police force and for the reassurance of the public. One of those things is the adoption of body-worn cameras by all police officers who come into contact with the public. I will return to that subject later.

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ms Abbott]

I will make a little more progress. There were 9,055 recorded assaults on police officers in 2015, and the number of convictions was 7,629. That represents an increase on the 2014 figures, but the 2014 total was the lowest that it had been for a number of years. However, according to the Home Office there were 23,000 assaults on police officers in 2015-16, including assault without injury and including the British Transport police. There are big discrepancies in those data. No one claims—I do not imagine that the Minister will do so—that the data are wholly reliable. Obviously, we hope that the latest rise in assaults may possibly be a consequence of higher levels of reporting, and that the long-term downward trend will resume. The data on assaults without injury to a constable are more robust, because there is more uniformity in their collection across forces. They have fallen over the long term, even though there was a rise last year. It would be surprising if assaults without injury fell consistently, but assaults resulting in injury were on the rise.

One thing we can be sure of is that the data need to be more reliable and robust. There is a clear and simple reform that we can introduce. We can insist that all police forces, working with the Home Office and the Office for National Statistics, provide the highest quality data on assaults on the police. It is a serious matter, and it needs to be taken seriously.

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

May I, too, pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) for her outstanding work in bringing this debate to the Floor of the House of Commons? In the West Midlands police service, where the statistics are sound, 2,000 police officers have gone, violent crime is up by 20% and three police officers a day are being assaulted. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) agree that the price being paid, as a consequence of Government cuts, for the thin blue line becoming ever thinner is not just putting the public at risk—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The point about interventions is that they are meant to be short. We have a very large number of people who want to make speeches this afternoon. If people make interventions, it prevents other people from making speeches. May I also point out that if someone intervenes in this debate, it is expected that they will remain in the Chamber for most of the debate and be here for the wind-ups? I am not looking particularly at the hon. Gentleman, who is an extremely well-behaved Member of Parliament, but I am just pointing out that it is extremely discourteous to take up time in a very short debate by making a long intervention and then to leave. Nor am I criticising the hon. Lady, who is perfectly right to take interventions because that is what makes the debate interesting.

[Ms Abbott]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that there is a correlation between cuts in police numbers, the rising tide of crime and the increasing number of assaults on police officers. Whatever the precise quantum of the data on assaults and whatever the precise trends over time, we have a duty to foster the social contract between the police and the public—I mentioned that at the beginning of my remarks—and to protect them both.

I want to tell the House about the very important eight-point plan recently adopted by the Metropolitan police. It reflects an initiative by the Hampshire Police Federation, and the Met has called it Operation Hampshire. We hope that this very important plan will be rolled out across all police forces. The Met’s plan states that a member of the operational command unit’s senior leadership team should be informed of all assaults; a MetAir form should be filled in for every assault; the total victim care and victim codes of practice should apply to officers and staff, just as they do to the public; officers should not investigate their own assault; officers should not write their own statements; the best evidence must be presented; learning from each assault should be captured; and being assaulted should not be seen as part of the job. It is excellent that the Met has adopted this plan, and I hope it will be rolled out in every police force around the country.

In the light of that plan, I am interested in the new developments with body-worn cameras for police officers. The Metropolitan police, under the leadership of Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe and my former right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting, the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has embarked on a programme of rolling out body-worn video across the London boroughs. Where that has been trialled elsewhere, there has been a sharp reduction in the number of complaints against the police. There can be little doubt that the presence of a camera will lead to an improvement in behaviour by all parties in what are often stressful or even dangerous incidents. The police can be reassured that any assailant will be recorded, and of course members of the public should be reassured that the actions of the police officer are also being recorded.

As a party, we believe in investment, not austerity. We believe that capital investment in our policing will improve it. Investment in body-worn cameras will save money by reducing the number of complaints against the police and the costs of evidence collection. There is of course a need for safeguards on the use of body-worn cameras—in relation to civil liberties, such as whether their use should be compulsory, and who has access to what is filmed—but the principle is correct. Body-worn video leads to better policing and fewer complaints against the police.

There have been several studies on the use of body-worn cameras, and I will give a flavour of some of the results. One US study showed a 50% reduction in the police use of force. A UK study showed greater levels of prosecution in cases of domestic violence. In a Scottish study, there was a higher incidence of early guilty pleas. In many cases, there has been a reduction in the number of complaints against the police, while in many others, there has been a lower level of assaults against the police. That is why we are raising this question in this important debate. We need better processes and procedures—that is what the Metropolitan police is seeking to introduce—but we need capital investment, in the Met and in police forces up and down the country, in things such as body-worn cameras. [Interruption.] This is not humorous; this is about police officer safety and the public being reassured that Ministers are doing everything they can to keep our police officers safe.

The most recent figures show that the number of assaults on police is falling, but the fact is that there are increasingly fewer police to be assaulted or to protect us. Home Office statistics show that there were 19,700 fewer police officers by March this year than there were when the coalition came to office in 2010. As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) said, the numbers are falling in the west midlands. Police officer numbers have fallen every year under the coalition and under this Government: one in seven police officers have been lost. I recently met Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe of the Metropolitan police, who told me that, at this point, the cuts imposed by this Government have largely been absorbed by a reduction in non-police staff, selling old police stations and asset shortfalls. Now, however, for the first time, the biggest police force in the country is looking at a reduction in police numbers. It seems to the Opposition that under this Government the thin blue line keeps getting thinner.

In cases of serious assault involving injuries to police officers and in the extremely rare incidents of firearms or deadly weapons being used against officers, we believe that the culprits should expect the stiffest sentences.

We believe that the issue of assaults on police officers is very serious. It needs to be taken seriously, including in the gathering and collating of reliable data that are consistent across all police forces. While that is in progress, we should address measures that will tackle such assaults now, such as the introduction of body-worn cameras across all police forces in England and Wales, and encourage our colleagues in the devolved Assemblies to do the same.

Before I conclude my remarks, I congratulate the chair of the Hampshire Police Federation, John Apter, on his work. I am sure that we will not always agree, but his campaigning on the issue of violence against the police deserves the commendation of the whole House. We need to protect the protectors. The Opposition are glad to have brought this issue to the Floor of the House and we urge Ministers to consider some of the measures that I have suggested.

Orgreave

Diane Abbott Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes an impassioned point. I would not for a moment want to put words in the mouth of the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) from the Dispatch Box. I am sure he will be able to explain the actions he took or did not take during that period. For us, this has not been a political decision. The Home Secretary said yesterday that it is about looking at what is right in terms of the wider public interest and in the light of the substantial changes to and reforms of the police service there have been. All of us, across the House, should get behind the continued driving through of future reforms of the police service through the Policing and Crime Bill.

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

We on the Labour Benches have noted that the Home Secretary has not bothered to come before the House on this occasion to explain her decision.

Most people in this House remember the miners strike, and what happened at Orgreave was totemic. Most people in the House also remember what Lord Stockton—Harold Macmillan—said in his maiden speech in the House of Lords about the miners strike:

“it breaks my heart to see what is happening in our country today. A terrible strike…by the best men in the world. They beat the Kaiser’s army and they beat Hitler’s army. They never gave in.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 November 1984; Vol. 457, c. 240.]

Does the Minister understand that the Home Secretary’s decision is a slap in the face to the best men in the world and their friends and supporters? Does he understand that the Orgreave campaigners feel that they have been led up the garden path by the Home Secretary? And does he understand that the Home Secretary’s proposition is that because there were no deaths and no convictions—and the cases only collapsed because the collusion by South Yorkshire police officers was revealed—injustice must stand? The Opposition say to Ministers that we will not let this issue go and that injustice will not be allowed to stand.

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Lady was here yesterday when the Home Secretary was here, having already made a written ministerial statement, to answer questions on this matter during oral questions. I am here today because this issue forms part of the portfolio I cover for the Home Office.

The Government have stood up and brought forward inquiries before. We have not been afraid to address matters to correct the wrongs of the past. We have had to consider the wider public interest, which includes what lessons need to be learned and how we change police behaviour based on what happened 30 years ago. Bear in mind that since that time we have had not only the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 but a range of other reforms, not least the delivery of local accountability through police and crime commissioners and changes in police practice. Looking at what lessons could be learned, what the benefits would be and what outcomes we are looking for from a public inquiry, the Home Secretary’s decision, although the hon. Lady disagrees with it, is absolutely right.

I would just make a further point to the hon. Lady. In looking at the wider public interest, the Home Office considers a wide range of matters, including differences with previous cases where there were a substantial number of tragic deaths. In this case there were none and there were no convictions, so what we are looking at with a public inquiry is whether other lessons could be learned. As I said yesterday, if the hon. Lady looks at the changes in police practice over 30 years, she will see there would be no benefit from proceeding with a public inquiry.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Diane Abbott Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I rise to speak to the group of amendments and to Lords amendment 15 in particular. I pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), who did so much work, on a cross-party basis, to bring the Bill to its current position. However, we still need to investigate unfinished business concerning the relationship between various authorities and the media. That is why the Labour party fully supports the Lords amendments, particularly Lords amendment 15.

The Minister has told us about his landmark consultation, but we are baffled as to why it is needed when we already have the Leveson report, which had so much time, effort and expertise poured into it. It seems to me that the Minister’s vaunted landmark consultation is merely a stalling exercise.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is new to her position, as is the Minister. I served on the Bill Committee and she is right to point to the work that the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) did to build cross-party consensus on what could have been a difficult Bill to land. If the Lords amendments are ultimately rejected by this place and the other place caves in, will the Opposition continue to support the Bill, or will the hon. Lady use that as a crutch on which to base the withdrawal of their support?

[Ms Abbott]

We are not in the habit of artifice or crutches. Let us see what Members in the other place do with the Bill, and then we will make our position clear.

The Opposition have consistently called for the Leveson recommendations to be implemented in full. The public have waited long enough. In 2013, following extensive consultation with victims of press intrusion, a new system of independent self-regulation was agreed by what were then the three main political parties. It is therefore disappointing that Members in the other place have had to table an amendment, and that we have to debate it, to get the Government to honour their promises. It is disappointing also that the Minister calls legitimate amendments, which have been passed in good faith in the other place, blackmail. What kind of way is that to talk about our friends in the other place?

[Chris Bryant]

Is not the point that the amendments almost exactly replicate legislation that was introduced by Conservatives in another Act? It would be bizarre in the extreme for the Government to say that they should not become law. If the Government want their Bill, they can have it today. All they have to do is say, “Yes, we agree to all the amendments.”

[Ms Abbott]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making an important intervention. Nobody is trying to hold up or halt the Bill. If the Government wish to have it, all they have to do is agree to the amendments.

[Mr Wallace]

In that spirit, perhaps the hon. Lady could answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare): should the Bill not contain Baroness Hollins’s amendment, would the hon. Lady support it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Abbott]

I do not deal in supposition. Let us see what Members in the other place do with the Bill, and at that point we will debate it and the House will hear Her Majesty’s Opposition’s position.

[Simon Hoare]

I have heard the hon. Lady say in other places what a future Labour Government would deliver. That, surely, is a supposition. She should deal with the supposition in question.

[Ms Abbott]

When the hon. Gentleman heard me say those things, I was not yet shadow Home Secretary.

There were concerns when section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 was not commenced in summer 2015. The right hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), the then Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, was asked about it by the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, but he refused to be drawn on it. He said at the Society of Editors conference in October 2015 that he was not minded to commence section 40. We believe that that is a breach of the cross-party agreement and that it breaks the promises made to the House and, perhaps even more importantly, those made to victims.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Raab]

For all the differences between me and the hon. Lady, I totally understand the importance that she attaches to section 40 and the issue of costs. I join her in wanting to scrutinise them very carefully and there will be ample time to do so, but may I gently say to her that it would be wrong and irresponsible to hold up, let alone frustrate, this Bill on account of those legitimate concerns, which can be dealt with separately and discretely?

[Ms Abbott]

We are not attempting to hold up the Bill; all the Government have to do is accept the amendments.

Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act remains unimplemented, despite widespread support in principle from Members on both sides of the House, including Front Benchers. The amendment, which the Government want to vote down, was tabled in the Lords by a Cross Bencher, Baroness Hollins, and overwhelmingly passed by 282 votes to 180. That is one of the reasons that I am shocked that the Minister regards it as blackmail. It would implement, as my colleagues have said, the same provisions as those contained in section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act in relation to claims against media organisations over phone hacking and other unlawful interception.

The amendment goes further. Unlike section 40, it would not require ministerial approval, which we regard as an improvement, so it would automatically implement section 40 in relation to phone hacking claims. That would restate the very clear intention of Parliament, as previously expressed in 2013. I repeat that the amendment would not be necessary if the Government had fulfilled their stated commitment to implementing section 40.

Part 2 of the Leveson inquiry sought to investigate the original police investigation and corrupt payments to police officers and to consider the implications for the relationships between journalists, politicians and the police. We are therefore going to have to undergo further weeks of consultation. Previously, Ministers had said that part 2 would begin after the criminal cases relating to phone hacking had concluded. Then they said that they would make a decision on whether it would begin once all the criminal cases had concluded.

If we look at the provisions affecting journalists and the press in this Bill, we will see that there is no protection of journalistic sources. Law Officers may act on their own cognisance to access data, collect and retain them for 12 months, and share them with other bodies, including overseas agencies. It would be a simple matter to establish the identity of a whistleblower in any public or other body by trawling the journalist’s internet history. That would be detrimental to all of society and to fundamental press freedoms. The contradiction here is that there is a free-for-all in ignoring the thinking behind Leveson, and yet there is a failure to implement section 40. Some of the most irresponsible practices of the press go unchecked, and there is no recourse for anyone except the ultra-rich and those who can afford libel lawyers.

To function properly, the press should be able to hold all who are in power to account and unearth important wrongdoing. That is wholly in the public interest. But the Government stand accused of allowing muck-raking, savage attacks on the vulnerable and the defamation of those who cannot afford to defend themselves legally, while proper journalism in the public interest—holding the powerful to account, giving an outlet to whistleblowers and investigating matters in the public interest—is to be fatally undermined. The proposals, in their current shape, run the risk of being seen as a charter against valuable and public interest journalism, but for the worst journalistic excesses.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

I want to focus on several aspects of Lords amendment 15. First, I want to focus on what it is designed to do, in which I think it is fundamentally wrong-headed. It provides for an increase in the penalty that will be applied to newspapers where an accusation of phone hacking is made in a case that is brought against them. That is difficult, because in the ordinary course of events, a newspaper will want to protect its sources. A newspaper that tried to protect its source for a story would not be able to prove the negative that phone hacking had not been involved, even when it had not been.

The immediate risk will be that newspapers will be reluctant to print investigative stories because they will be unable to avoid the double penalty of extra costs, even in the event that their story was true. The particular outrage of amendment 15 is that the press could report a story accurately, fairly and honestly but still find that, if they were taken to court by an aggressive litigant, they would have to pay the litigant’s costs. That is an absolute charter for the very rich to bully the press into not publishing stories about them. It will not help the poorest in society, who will not be able to afford the initial fees to get a case going, but anybody with any funds will be able to use it as an opportunity to bully the press into not printing anything disagreeable about them.

--- Later in debate ---

If those communications had been made using internet-based telephone services, rather than traditional phone calls, it is likely that police would not have been able to successfully disrupt this awful activity. The Bill goes a long way towards plugging this capability gap. In doing so, it safeguards the most vulnerable in our society, and it gives victims of crime a greater chance of achieving justice. That is why the Bill is so important.

[Ms Abbott]

Like the Minister, I came to the Bill towards the end, but I am happy to claim credit just like him. Let me say right at the beginning that the Bill has enjoyed, and continues to enjoy, cross-party support, but the House will forgive me if I put on record some of the reservations still raised by important stakeholders.

The first thing I would like to remind the House of is that there is a case before the European Court of Justice that involves the Home Secretary. It is brought by, among other distinguished persons, the deputy leader of the Labour party, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson). It relates to the predecessor legislation to the Bill—the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014. It seems clear from the interim judgment delivered by the advocate-general on 19 July this year that key sections of DRIPA will be struck down. It is clear that the Bill has even more widely drawn powers and has fewer safeguards and mechanisms for judicial oversight. The logical conclusion —we cannot say at this point what will happen—is that the powers in the Bill may well be among the shortest-lived in parliamentary history, as they may be struck down at the European Court of Justice, and that court proceedings would almost immediately follow Royal Assent.

Among the issues that have been raised with us during the passage of the Bill by stakeholders are access to internet records and the nature of the judicial safeguards; the protection of data, and the rights of journalists to protect their sources; the lack of powers to refer issues to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal; and insufficient checks on the sharing of data between agencies. There is no right of disclosure to the target and not necessarily a duty to provide information to the service provider. There is also the concern—it may be a theoretical concern, but it is a real one for many stakeholders—about the potential abuse of these investigatory powers by state agencies.

A wide number of interest groups and stakeholders have told Opposition Members that the powers in the Bill are perhaps a little disproportionate in relation to the objectives. The Society of Editors, the National Union of Journalists, with the backing of the TUC, and many others concerned with the freedom of the press have raised valid and important objections to the Bill, which, despite the best efforts of Members on both sides of the House—particularly my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer)—have not been fully addressed in the parliamentary process. Among the issues that have been raised with me is the ability of journalists to protect their sources.

Another concern, which should also be a concern for Members, is the protection of whistleblowers, who have played an important role in public life, whether at Addenbrooke’s or at other hospitals. The concern is that public bodies, by being able to identify internet records—without, as we know, examining the content—may be able to identify the whistleblowers. There is a measure of judicial oversight. However, many stakeholders have said to us that judicial oversight of data access, gathering and retention is not as strong as they would like. The absence of review proceedings has been raised with us as another troubling aspect of the Bill.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that despite these reservations, the almost 300 amendments that the Government were forced to table on Report give us much greater safeguards in the exercise of these powers and a much greater capacity to scrutinise whether they are being used properly, with clear avenues for challenge where people are tempted to misuse them, all of which was absent before these changes?

[Ms Abbott]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his, as usual, very wise observation. There is no question but that the amendments that the Government have been forced to table, and the work of Members on both sides of the House, have made this a much better Bill than the one that was originally presented to this House.

[Dr Murrison]

It is not a question of being forced. The hon. Lady may recall that this measure was subject to a Joint Committee on the draft Bill. There can be no Bill in recent memory that has had more scrutiny than this one. Will she also note clause 232, which establishes a review of this measure after five years—a most unusual mechanism for a Bill of this sort—and give the Government credit for doing everything in their power to reconcile the need to protect our liberties with the need to protect the press?

[Ms Abbott]

Right at the beginning of this debate, I made a point of acknowledging the very hard work of hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber, including hon. Friends of mine, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not here at that stage. The first thing I did was to acknowledge the diehard work of Members on both sides of Chamber. There is no question but that this is a better Bill than the one that was originally presented to us. We are very grateful, and, more importantly, the stakeholders are very grateful, for the possibilities for a review, but I would not be performing my role as a member of Her Majesty’s Opposition if I did not put on the record the reservations that still exist among some of our stakeholders.

A number of stakeholders, campaigning groups and other bodies have expressed their continuing dissatisfaction with elements of the Bill. They include Amnesty International, Article 19, Big Brother Watch, the Centre for Investigative Journalism, Don’t Spy On Us, English PEN, Index on Censorship, Labour Campaign for Human Rights, Liberty, the National Union of Journalists, OpenMedia, Open Rights Group, PEN International, Privacy International, Scottish PEN, the Society of Editors and the World Wide Web Foundation. In addition, I have held meetings with the TUC and a number of other trade unions that still have concerns about this Bill. I would be grateful if the Minister explained why, despite all the efforts that have been made to improve the Bill, there continue to be concerns among such a wide array of stakeholders.

[Mr Wallace]

Perhaps I could pick up on some of the concerns of Liberty. We will all have had in our inboxes this morning a letter from Liberty. The concerns expressed in it are, I am afraid, simply wrong. In the third paragraph, Liberty’s policy officer says:

“Bulk powers allow for…surveillance…The much vaunted ‘double lock’ system of authorisation in fact allows the Secretary of State rather than judges to authorise warrants.”

That is incorrect; in fact, the Secretary of State and a judge will authorise a warrant. Perhaps Liberty is incorrect in some of its assertions about why it is unhappy and should look at the Bill, as amended, that has been before this House.

[Ms Abbott]

I have no doubt that stakeholders will look at the amended Bill, and if it returns to us from the Lords, there will no doubt be another opportunity to tease out some of these issues.

This Bill has all-party support and that is significant, because getting the balance right between updating legislation to deal with an internet and high-tech age and defending the civil liberties of subjects is very important, and this House is best placed to do that. We have been grateful to Ministers for being willing to listen to Members in all parts of the House in seeking to improve the Bill.

[Lucy Frazer (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

Privacy is an essential right in a democratic society. It is a basic civil right, protected by statute, so it must follow that any incursion into that right should be limited and carefully considered. I want to make three short points to show that, through the passage of the Bill through this House, that necessity for considered judgment has been respected.

First, a significant amount of information

“was given when the Bill was first tabled…including more information about the security services than we have ever seen in parliamentary papers.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 October 2016; Vol. 774, c. 1797.]

Those are not my words, but the words of the Liberal Democrat peer Lord Carlile during last month’s debate in the other place.

Secondly, as the Bill has passed through the House and through Committee, the Government have listened. Again, that is not my view, but that of Lord Janvrin, the Cross-Bench peer who opened the debate in the other place by stating that the

“changes have introduced significant improvements in the protection afforded to privacy.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 October 2016; Vol. 774, c. 1797.]

Thirdly, this is a Bill that

“stands not only for transparency but for the introduction of significant new safeguards”,

which is a view expressed by David Anderson in paragraph 1.20 of his most recent report on bulk powers.

It is right that we think carefully when we look to limit the right to privacy, and this Government have done so. Importantly, we must also remember why we are passing this Bill. We are doing so to protect and ensure the safety of our citizens from illegal acts, including serious crime, and to fight international terrorism; and we are doing this in a fast-moving environment where we have to keep pace with technology.

Andrew Parker, the head of MI5, told The Guardian this morning that the number of terror plots thwarted in the past three years stands at 12. He said that

“the tempo of terrorist plots and attempts is concerning and it’s enduring. Attacks in this country are higher”

than he has experienced in the rest of his 33-year career at MI5. The Bill’s provisions are designed to ensure that our security services have the tools that they need to protect our citizens from those attacks.

David Anderson wrote in his report, which was published in August:

“The bulk powers play an important part in identifying, understanding and averting threats in Great Britain, Northern Ireland and further afield. Where alternative methods exist, they are often less effective, more dangerous, more resource-intensive, more intrusive or slower”.

The Bill strikes a balance between privacy and security, and it does so because the Government need the tools to fight external threats to the nation. Those tools ensure our safety and our freedom.

Oral Answers to Questions

Diane Abbott Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Lady, and I hope she will join me in spreading the word that international students are welcome here. There should be no hate crime here, which is why I launched my hate crime action plan at the end of July. I can give her some reassurance that the unpleasant and unwelcome spike in hate crime in August has now fallen off.

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

To return to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), we know that international students contribute £7 billion to export earnings, support 137,000 jobs across all regions of the UK and help to make us a world leader in the international knowledge economy, so does the right hon. Lady accept that we are not persuaded by her arguments not to remove international students from migrant totals, and will she undertake to look at the issue again?

[Amber Rudd]

I think that the hon. Lady and I are in danger of violently agreeing on the benefit of international students to the economy and to this country in general. However, I think she is tilting at the wrong windmill here by focusing on whether international students are part of the immigration figures or not. As I explained earlier, this is a net figure, so it takes account of the people who come and the people who go. The hon. Lady may be exaggerating the impact that she would expect from the removal of international students from the figures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amber Rudd]

I spoke to the head of the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign this morning, and I am not surprised that she was very disappointed. I set out my reasons and I have written her and the campaign group a six-page letter. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that they be given a chance to digest its contents before we set up any meeting.

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

I do not think the Home Secretary fully understands how disappointed and let down the Orgreave families and campaigners will be by her decision. A six-page letter does not compensate for the violence and injustice that occurred at Orgreave so many years ago. We know the South Yorkshire police lied about what happened at Hillsborough, yet only five years earlier the same South Yorkshire police, including many of the same commanders, behaved in a very similar way at Orgreave. The Orgreave families and campaigners need the same justice as Hillsborough had; they need the same type of independent inquiry to establish the truth.

[Amber Rudd]

I respectfully say to the hon. Lady that the Hillsborough situation was quite different from Orgreave; 96 people died at Hillsborough and it was right that we had an inquiry that analysed exactly what happened on the day. In this situation at Orgreave there were no miscarriages of justice, there were no deaths—[Interruption.] There were no convictions, the hon. Lady should be aware. Therefore Orgreave does not merit the same status as that needed for a public inquiry, which was required for Hillsborough.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

With equal brevity, I agree.

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

I reassure the Minister that the Opposition do know that the camp is in France, but we are weary of French and British officials trying to pass the buck, even at this late stage, when desperate children’s lives are at stake. We know that there are more than 1,000 young people in the container compound at Calais without proper supervision and the help that they need. The Minister says that the assessment and transfer process has paused. Can he share with the House when it will begin again?

[Mr Goodwill]

The transfer process has been paused at the request of the French so that the relocation can take place and the children are not in the container camp, which so many people are critical of. We continue to work closely with our French colleagues to actually resolve this situation.

Criminal Finances Bill

Diane Abbott Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 25th October 2016 Commons Chamber

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

If someone walks around the most expensive neighbourhoods of London—Knightsbridge and South Kensington—they will see house after house dark every night. Some have no lights on because the owners are out, but many more have no lights on because they have been bought as an investment and lie empty most of the time. Some of the most expensive properties in the capital are unoccupied because they have been bought solely for the purpose of laundering dirty money.

In 2016, money laundering is not just happening in accountancy offices or the back rooms of banks. It is happening in plain sight of ordinary Londoners, because we see some of the most expensive domestic properties in the world change hands but remain mysteriously and persistently empty. We welcome the Bill, which has been introduced with the express purpose of providing new powers and safeguards to improve the Government’s capacity to tackle money laundering and terrorist financing and, above all, to recover the proceeds of crime. I want to make it clear that, in principle, the Opposition support the aims of the Bill.

We do so because it is vital to do as much as we can to bear down on illegal activity, including targeting the enablers of illegal activity: lawyers, accountants and estate agents. We support the Bill partly because public opinion, encouraged by the work of the Public Accounts Committee under distinguished past and present leadership, rightly demands that politicians do more to stop tax evasion. We also do so because some of the poorest countries in the world have had their Treasuries denuded by money laundering. If the UK, which is often described as one of the money-laundering centres of the world, could act effectively against money laundering, not just our own tax authorities but the populations of countries in the global south, from which some of this money has been looted, would benefit.

We will wish, however, to ascertain that the provisions of the Bill will actually work and impact in reality on the harms that the Minister set out. We will weigh carefully the civil liberties implications of those provisions. Furthermore, we seek assurances that the Government agencies tasked with implementing the legislation will have all the resources and support that they need.

[Keith Vaz]

The issue of resources was raised by the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). Despite the effective way in which the Minister made his case, he did not answer my question. When will the NCA get a new computer system? When will ELMER be renewed so that the agency can look through SARs? The system is designed for 20,000 complaints, but it is currently dealing 385,000. The agency needs a new computer system to do what the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) want the Bill to achieve.

[Ms Abbott]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that important intervention. If the Minister does not give a clear reply to that question on the Floor of the House, I can assure him that we will pursue the issue in Committee.

The Minister said that money is not the main obstacle to pursuing money launderers and criminal actors, but it does not help when agencies such as the NCA experience cuts. The Home Affairs Committee produced an important report in June on the proceeds of crime, and I am indebted to the then Chair and the Committee as a whole for their investigatory work. The Committee pointed out that money laundering takes many complicated forms, ranging from complex financial vehicles and activity in tax havens around the world to property investments in London and high-value jewellery. I share the Select Committee’s astonishment that of over 1 million property transactions last year only 335 were deemed suspicious. I agree with the Select Committee’s conclusion that supervision of the property market has been “totally inadequate” and has

“laid out a welcome mat for launderers”.

The Select Committee report also made the important point that it is all too easy for people who want to launder money to buy property in London, let it out in the capital’s high-value lettings market, then take in clean money in perpetuity.

Overall, the NCA believes that up to £100 billion of criminal funds could be passing through the UK each year in the form of property, luxury cars, art and jewellery. Transparency International estimates that there are hundreds of properties in the UK that are strongly suspected to have been acquired with the proceeds of corruption. Land Registry figures show that UK real estate worth more than £170 billion is held by more than 30,000 tax haven companies. I do not argue that there can never be a legitimate reason for holding UK real estate in a tax haven company, but I believe that, all too often, what we see could well be illicit activity.

[Charlie Elphicke]

As a former tax lawyer, may I point out to the hon. Lady that companies in tax havens own UK property because it was possible to do a stamp duty avoidance scheme called “enveloping” during most of the period in which the Labour Government were in office? Action taken by this Government has put a stop to a lot of that abuse.

[Ms Abbott]

I made a point of saying that there can be legitimates reasons for holding UK property in tax haven companies. I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was not every single detail of the activity of the last Labour Government that I supported.

Most owners of those companies hide behind anonymous trusts or nominee directors and shareholders. For instance, in a single 50-storey apartment complex in London, The Tower at St George Wharf in Vauxhall, a stone’s-throw from the House, a quarter of the flats are held through offshore companies. This Bill aims to close a loophole which means that authorities cannot seize property from overseas criminals unless the individuals are first convicted in their country of origin. The orders will apply to property and other assets worth more than £100,000. If the owner fails to demonstrate that a home or piece of jewellery was acquired using legal sources of income, agencies will be able to seize it.

The Opposition support the new law in principle, but stress that for it to be effective agencies must be given the financial and political support to take powerful and wealthy individuals to court. Furthermore, there is some concern, which we will explore in Committee, that the measures may be too widely drawn. Throughout, the sole safeguard for seizure orders is the reasonable suspicion of a police officer on their own authority. This may be too low a bar as a safeguard against the incompetent use or abuse of state powers.

[Keith Vaz]

I thank my hon. Friend for her kind comments about the Select Committee’s report published in July. In evidence to the Committee, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe suggested that the criminal law should be amended to ensure that those who had not paid their compensation order should be the subject of a second criminal offence. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is wrong for those who are subject to a compensation order to go to prison, finish their sentence and come out without it being paid? We need to look very carefully at this aspect.

[Ms Abbott]

My right hon. Friend is right. We need to look at the case of people who serve a prison term that may be relatively short, but are able, in effect, to flout the compensation order.

[Sir Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

I take the point that my neighbour, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), makes, but often when a criminal is sentenced, along with a compensation order or a proceeds of crime order, he is sentenced to an additional term of imprisonment in the event that he does not pay back the money. Sometimes those extended sentences can be very long—indeed, as long as or even longer than the original sentence.

[Ms Abbott]

Far be it from me to bandy words with the many lawyers in the Chamber. I repeat that as the Bill goes through Committee we will seek to examine the question of people flouting compensation orders. Overall, in relation to bearing down on money laundering, we welcome the relevant provisions, including the unexplained wealth orders, the reform to the suspicious activity reports regime, information sharing and the new disclosure orders.

The Bill also deals with tax evasion. In recent years there has been a great deal of public interest and a raft of Government measures on tax avoidance. Arguably, less attention has been paid to tax evasion. There is some blurring between the two terms, but broadly, tax evasion occurs when an individual or corporate entity acts in breach of the law, and tax avoidance occurs when an individual or corporate entity complies with the letter but not the spirit of the law. In recent years Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has produced estimates of the tax gap—that is, the difference between the tax that is collected and that which is theoretically due. Clearly, any such estimate must be speculative, but I draw the attention of the House to the fact that HMRC’s most recent estimate of the gap is £36 billion, which is the equivalent of 6.5% of total tax liabilities. Of that £36 billion that is lost, £5.2 billion is lost to evasion and only £2.2 billion is lost to avoidance.

We welcome the measures to bear down on tax evasion, and we welcome the provision that makes it a criminal offence for corporations to fail to stop their associated persons facilitating tax evasion. We particularly welcome the fact that this will have extra-territorial jurisdiction. However, we regret that in the tax evasion measures in part 3 there is no reference to the British overseas territories and Crown dependencies. That is a startling oversight. There are 14 British overseas territories. Just one of them, the British Virgin Islands, is mentioned no fewer than 113,000 times in the Panama papers. BVI, with a population of just 29,000—fewer than my own constituents in Hackney—is home to 452,000 international businesses. Maybe the 29,000 population is particularly skilled at accountancy and banking, but maybe some of those business entities are shells for tax evasion.

There are three Crown dependencies, Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, and it is frequently argued that the British overseas territories and the Crown dependencies are the largest tax evasion network in the world, so the failure to mention them in a Bill which purports to deal with issues surrounding tax evasion is a major omission. We will be seeking amendments as the Bill goes through Committee. It is frequently asserted that it is not possible to legislate for the British overseas territories and the Crown dependencies, but the Ministry of Justice seems to think differently. This is an issue that we will explore.

The Minister referred to the beneficial ownership register that we are encouraging the overseas territories and the Crown dependencies to introduce, but he must be aware that at least some of the overseas territories are boasting that they are in practice evading the Government’s efforts to get them to set up beneficial ownership registers, and many of them are saying that these registers will not be publicly available. The Opposition insist that if this Government are serious about dealing with tax evasion, they must ensure that the overseas territories and Crown dependencies not only set up beneficial ownership registers, but make them publicly available.

We note that there is little distinction in the Bill between corporate or partnership bodies which facilitate tax evasion, and those that do it routinely and as a central part of their business model. We believe that we should look into a new provision specifically criminalising entities and individuals for whom tax evasion is at the heart of their business model, and punishing them more harshly.

I shall not conclude my remarks on tax evasion without mentioning the Labour party’s tax transparency enforcement programme. We want a public inquiry to examine the loss of tax revenue, and increased powers for HMRC, including a specialised tax enforcement unit. We want to force foreign firms to list their owners and beneficiaries, and we want the introduction of a general anti-avoidance principle and the extension of current rules to cover offshore abuses.

The Bill deals with the important issue of terrorist finance. Those of us who have watched with horror terrorist atrocities all over the world, and here in London, know that terrorism is an existential threat to us and our society. We share the Government’s aims in reducing the terrorist threat, not just to us in the UK but to our allies and interests overseas, and agree that one way of doing this is to deprive terrorists of the financial resources required for terrorism-related activity. Globalisation means that we must constantly update our legal instruments. We note the changes that the Bill will make to the law enforcement and intelligence agencies in relation to investigations of offences under the Terrorism Act 2000, but we will examine these proposals because we are anxious that they do not have too harsh a bearing on genuine charities.

Labour Members support the Bill in principle. We will scrutinise its detail with care. We insist that it is vital that agencies such as the National Crime Agency get the money they need for implementation, because otherwise the Bill will be a dead letter. For too long, London has been accused of being a hub for money laundering, with all its terrible effects not only on the take of our Treasury but on the lives and countries of many of the poorest people in the world. We hope that this Bill is the beginning of a process that brings the curtain down on the era when London could be described as a money-laundering hub, instead ensuring that London and the UK set an example internationally about what can be done to bear down on money laundering and tax evasion.

Calais

Diane Abbott Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2016 Commons Chamber

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

As we speak, thousands of men and women are being bussed out of Calais—one more leg in a desperate odyssey that has taken some of them half way around the world. It is worth noting that the situation in Calais represents everything that is wrong about Europe’s response to the refugee crisis. There was not enough co-operation. The French claimed that, because the migrants said they wanted to go to the UK, they were somehow not their responsibility, whereas we refused, for far too long, to go into the camp and identify those who might have a legal right to come to the UK.

The men, women and children in the Calais camp were treated by the French and the UK like pawns, but these are real people fleeing war and economic devastation, living in appalling conditions. In addition, in the absence of any proactive action by either the British or the French, those people were at the mercy of people smugglers and criminal gangs, who were in and out of the camp, as I discovered when I visited the camp in January.

It was left to charities, church groups and individual volunteers to go across and provide basic support and services in the Calais camp. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to all those selfless volunteers. I thank the UK staff now working in the camp in difficult and dangerous conditions and I congratulate the local authorities that are providing temporary and permanent support.

I accept that the Home Office has accelerated the processing of child refugees in recent weeks, but it has known for months that the camp was to close. More should have been done to persuade the French either to process all the children themselves, or allow us in. The truth is that we should have made it clear to the French that the camp should not be demolished until we had processed all the children.

The media are in uproar about the supposed failings in the processing, and commentators are in a lather about whether some of these children are seventeen and a half, eighteen and a half or, God forbid, nineteen and a half—as if being a year over the legal definition of childhood makes them miraculously immune to illness caused by freezing temperatures and raw sewage in front of their tent, fear caused by violence and the deadly attentions of sex traffickers. If the commentators who are now suggesting that these young people should be treated like cattle and have their teeth tested had made as much noise about the Government’s slowness in processing these child refugees in the first place, we would not be in the situation we are in. We know that the last time there was an eviction, more than 100 children went missing because that eviction began before their safety was guaranteed. If children go missing this time, the fear must be that they will disappear into the hands of people smugglers and sex traffickers. Can the Home Secretary give the estimated timings for processing the remaining 1,000 children left in the camp? Will she note that the Opposition regret that any new children arriving at the Calais camp will not be able to access family reunion and Dubs transfers?

I am glad to hear that work is being done in Greece and Italy, because Calais is not the only refugee camp. I have visited the camps in Lesbos in Greece. I have seen the traumatised men, women and children there. They had already risked their lives crossing the Mediterranean. These children will have seen others, perhaps family members or friends, perish at sea. These children should not feel that they have no option but to make their way across France and attempt the dangerous journey to the UK. Will the Home Secretary therefore say more about her plans to create similar expedited family reunion and Dubs transfers in countries such as Greece and Italy? How long does the Home Secretary estimate the Dubs and Dublin children will be held in the temporary accommodation centres in the UK before being reunited with their families or placed into the transfer scheme? Will there be funding and support for the local authorities that are stepping up to play their part in helping these traumatised child refugees?

This House knows that from 1999 to 2002 there was a migrant camp near Calais at Sangatte. More than 2,000 men, women and children were living in appalling conditions. The camp was closed with great fanfare 14 years ago, but this new encampment that the French are attempting to close had four times as many people and the conditions were even worse. The French might be closing this camp now, but there is an urgent need for more co-operation Europe-wide on migration issues and, as the Home Secretary noted, unless we deal with the underlying issues of poverty, civil war and ill-conceived foreign interventions, this will not be the last time that this House has to debate encampments of desperate people in appalling conditions in Calais.

I am glad that we are moving to help the child refugees. I think more could have been done earlier, despite the Home Secretary’s attempts to hide behind the French, but let us remember that all those people in that camp—which I have visited—are human beings. We will do what we can do for the children, but we need a more considered and Europe-wide strategy to deal with the tragedy of refugees moving across Europe.

Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse

Diane Abbott Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He is right to say that we need to point out that the permanent secretary is appearing before the Home Affairs Committee tomorrow, as is the new chair, Alexis Jay. I am sure she will get the confidence she deserves from the Select Committee and from other parties who have listened to her.

My hon. Friend is right that the operational independence of the chair is also dependent on support from the expert panel, and when my permanent secretary was approached by the secretary of the independent inquiry about concerns on 29 July, he rightly referred the secretary to ask the expert panel to take this up with the chair. The relationship between the chair and the expert panel is central to this, and so in that way the chair would not be able to act independently, because she needs the support of the expert panel.

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

The Government are now on their fourth chair of the inquiry into child sexual abuse. No inquiry in modern times has been mired in such chaos. At the very least, this suggests a certain incompetence, both in setting the terms and in selecting the personnel to lead the inquiry. This is bad for policy and for the Home Office but, above all, it is a terrible situation for the survivors of child sexual abuse, who have put so much hope and trust in the successful conclusion of this inquiry.

The latest scandal is the departure of Dame Justice Lowell Goddard, amid allegations of high-handedness and racist remarks. The Home Secretary said—this has been repeated—when she appeared before the Home Affairs Committee on 7 September that “all the information” she had was that Lowell Goddard had quit because she was

“a long way from home”

and “too lonely”. She says that she was reliant on Justice Goddard’s letter, but why did she not ask—why did she not get a formal response from her as to why she was going? In the absence of any attempt to get formal information, other than the letter, the Home Secretary finds herself in a position where she will have to defend herself against accusations of misleading the Committee. It is clear from the statements of the victims and their families that they believe there will be no change to the remit of the inquiry and no reduction in its scope. Who, on behalf of the inquiry and the Home Office, has communicated that to them? Was this Home Office policy at the time? Has it changed, and why has it changed? Will any attempts be made to scale back the inquiry? Does the Secretary of State agree that if that were to happen—scaling back an inquiry on which so many hopes rest among individuals who have spent a lifetime in pain and misery because of early abuse—it would be to make the survivors pay for the Government’s failure in managing this inquiry?

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Lady confuses a number of items in her questions, and I respectfully say to her that questions to me about scaling back the inquiry reveal that she has failed to understand that this inquiry is independent. I urge her to look at the terms of reference, which were set out last year to Parliament, as they are very clear about independence. To maintain the confidence of the survivors and victims, it is essential that that independence is maintained and is seen to be maintained. There is no question of the Home Office scaling back an inquiry; this is for the chair of the inquiry, Alexis Jay, who has such a strong reputation in this area, including for her work on the Rotherham inquiry. I urge the hon. Lady to acquaint herself a little more with what this independence means, and I hope that that will mean that she will have more confidence in the process.