Policing and Crime Bill

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 10th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

We are committed to introducing measures to strengthen further the rights of victims, and it is important that we have taken the time to get this right. We will announce our plans in due course. It is important to be clear that Lords amendments 138 and 139 are, therefore, similarly unnecessary, as the training of all staff in the criminal justice system is taken very seriously.

On Lords amendment 141, on quality standards, the Victims’ Commissioner’s role already encompasses encouraging good practice in the treatment of victims and witnesses, and the operation of the victims code, which is a detailed set of victims’ entitlements. In addition, police and crime commissioners, who commission local victims’ services, enter into grant funding agreements with the Secretary of State for Justice to receive the funds to do so. Those agreements set out a range of minimum standards for the services provided. We are currently reviewing existing standards relevant to victims’ services to make sure that we have the best possible framework in place.

The amendments, individually and taken together, are un-costed, vague and duplicative. They could impose significant obligations and financial burdens on the criminal justice system.

On Lords amendment 142, it is not clear what the purpose of directing a homicide review would be. In any case, it is unnecessary. There is already a statutory requirement for a review to identify the lessons to be learned from the death in domestic homicide cases.

Putting aside the many difficulties we have with the detail of the amendments, the Government are already looking at what is required to strengthen further the rights of victims of crime. We are looking at the available information about compliance with the victims code and considering how it might be improved and monitored. We are focused on making sure that we get this work right. We will ensure that any future reform proposals are evidence-based, fully costed, effective and proportionate.

As I have indicated, the intention behind many of the Lords amendments is laudable. On Lords amendment 134, we are persuaded that the case has been well made for increasing the maximum sentence for the more serious stalking and harassment offences involving fear of violence. I congratulate my hon. Friends on the work they have done on that.

As for the other Lords amendments, as a responsible Government we do not want to adopt a scattergun approach to legislation. Nor can we afford to be free and easy with taxpayers’ money by incurring substantial new spending commitments without offering any indication as to where the additional resources are to come from.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

What are the Government going to do about strengthening protection for victims, particularly when they have to give evidence in court? Very often elderly people are frightened to go and confront the person they have accused.

[Brandon Lewis]

I noticed that the hon. Gentleman was trying to intervene before I made that comment. Hopefully he will be satisfied that we are looking to strengthen victims’ rights, but we want to do so in a proper, proportionate and appropriate way.

--- Later in debate ---

I want to pay tribute to this Government. I am enormously proud that more has been done by this Government, both since 2015 and in coalition, than by any other in history to recognise the seriousness of this type of offending. In just a decade, stalking has gone from being treated almost as a joke to being recognised for the serious offence it is. This step builds on vital work that has gone before—from creating the offence in 2012 to enacting stalking protection orders that can offer protection to victims at the first sign of trouble—and should properly be seen in the context of other vital measures that are relevant to this topic, not least the introduction of Clare’s law to protect women from potentially abusive and dangerous partners.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but may I enlighten him? He was not in the House when the stalking legislation was introduced by the Labour Government as a result of a private Member’s Bill, against a lot of opposition from his party at the time.

[Alex Chalk]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but the reality is that the Conservative-led coalition Government ensured that the measure was put on the statute book. However, in the spirit of being entirely conciliatory, I recognise that a lot of people have made efforts.

I close by saying that I am grateful to the many victims—typically, but not exclusively women—to whom I have spoken and who have shared their stories, as well as to the stalking charities, such as the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, the Network for Surviving Stalking, Protection Against Stalking, Paladin, the Hollie Gazzard Trust, the police and the University of Gloucestershire, which, incidentally, is a leader in research on stalking.

Finally, I want, above all, to pay tribute to my constituent Dr Aston. It was her ordeal that triggered this campaign. She has shown astonishing bravery, reliving her suffering again and again. I know that her greatest wish is that future victims can receive the full measure of justice. If these proposals are carried, that will be precisely the result. I commend the Government amendments to the House.

Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Bill

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 16th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Dr Whiteford]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point. Many people are very shocked when they hear those statistics for the first time and hear that so much domestic abuse begins when women are probably at their most vulnerable—during pregnancy, when they are bringing new life into the world and yet do not have the protection they should expect from the fathers, often, of their children. He makes a very important point, and I am grateful to him for supporting the Bill.

I want to take a bit of time to set out why the Istanbul convention is so important, why it offers such a powerful vehicle for tackling gender-based violence and why the UK needs to prioritise its ratification. The treaty has global, national and local dimensions. In a globalising world, it recognises that gender-based violence often crosses state borders. States that ratify the convention commit to promoting and protecting the right of all their citizens to live free from violence in the public and private sphere, to working to end discrimination, to promoting equality between women and men, and to working within a co-ordinated, strategic, accountable and adequately resourced framework of policy and practice.

The convention is broad in scope. It covers aspects of criminal, civil and migration law. It sets out minimum standards for the protection of survivors and for access to services. It requires signatories to work to prevent violence and bring about attitudinal change. It explicitly addresses many of the most common manifestations of violence against women, including physical and psychological abuse, stalking, sexual violence, including rape, forced marriage, female genital mutilation and so-called honour crimes—that is not an exhaustive list. It recognises the differentiated risks women face depending on their circumstances. Although we know that women from all backgrounds—all income groups, ages, ethnicities, cultures, religions and political perspectives—are affected by these types of violence, we also know that poorer women are more exposed to risk. We know that disabled women are more likely to experience abuse than able-bodied women and that refugees and asylum seekers are especially vulnerable. In this respect, we see gender inequality cutting across and compounding other forms of disadvantage, and the convention addresses those and other forms of discrimination in its articles.

Several weeks ago, I had a conversation with Dr Lisa Gormley of the London School of Economics, who is one of the UK’s leading experts on the Istanbul convention. She emphasised that the key bit of the convention is found in articles 7 to 11. That surprised me. At first glance, when we turn to them—well, let me read out some of the headings: “Comprehensive and co-ordinated policies”; “Financial resources”; “Non-governmental organisations and civil society”; “Co-ordinating body”; “Data collection and research”. That is pretty dry stuff—we might say it is quite technocratic—but it is the engine that will drive the machine. Those provisions will turn a good critical analysis of violence against women and a collection of useful case studies of policy initiatives into a strategic and dynamic vehicle for real and ongoing change. They will allow us to learn from others’ experience of what works and force us to think more strategically about how we provide support to women across different levels of government—local, national and international. Crucially, those provisions will improve the protection of funding for women’s refuges and helpline services at a time when austerity cuts to local government budgets and voluntary sector funding are placing such lifeline services in jeopardy.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I support the hon. Lady. She mentions local government. Women’s refuge shelters are under the hammer and being forced to close down in many places.

[Dr Whiteford]

The hon. Gentleman makes a vital point. One reason why it is important that we ratify the convention is that it gives protection in law to those services for the first time in a co-ordinated way, so that we do not have one local authority cutting services while another maintains them. The convention also forces Governments across the piece to work with one another and to think strategically about how to go about providing services in a way that is co-ordinated rather than piecemeal. That is one of the most important longer-term things that ratifying the convention will do. It will also make every level of government think twice before they pull the funding from the voluntary organisations delivering lifeline services to women living with domestic violence or trying to flee from it.

We are already seeing the impact of the Istanbul convention. The UK Government and many non-governmental actors from civil society were actively involved in the development of the convention and the negotiations surrounding it, and it is evident that that process has already been a powerful impetus to modernising domestic legislation in a number of relevant areas. It is important to acknowledge the steps the Government have taken in recent years to pave the way for ratification, most notably with new legislation on forced marriage, modern slavery, stalking, female genital mutilation, so-called revenge porn, and controlling and coercive behaviour, all of which prepare the UK for compliance.

We have seen similar legislative progress in Scotland, most crucially with the Equally Safe strategy and the forthcoming domestic violence legislation, which is currently out for consultation. In that respect, the convention is already driving change, but we need to finish the job. Having signed the convention in June 2012, the UK has still to ratify the treaty.

UN International Day: Violence against Women

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

The right hon. Gentleman leads me directly on to my next point. I was about to congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) on the publication of her Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Bill, which will have its Second Reading next week. The UK signed the convention in June 2012, but has not yet ratified it. That issue was the subject of a letter today to the Prime Minister signed by more than 75 Labour Members of Parliament. Let me just take a moment to thank the IcChange campaign for its work on this issue, and to recognise the early-day motion of the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), which was signed by Members from across the House.

In opening this debate, I wish to make three main points: the first is the growing scale of the challenge at home and abroad; the second is our call to the Government to do more on prevention through relationship and sex education and ratifying the Istanbul convention; and the third is the culture shift across society, businesses and public services that is needed to lift the lid on violence against women and girls and to engage all in the role that they can play in eliminating that violence in all its forms.

Let me start with the scale of the challenge. Violence against women and girls is rising at home and abroad. Worldwide, an estimated one in three women experiences physical or sexual violence—that is a staggering statistic. The World Health Organisation highlights the fact that, in addition to being a human rights issue, violence against women is a major public health issue. Women who have experienced violence are more likely to have babies with low birth weights and to experience depression. Each year in the UK, up to 3 million women experience violence. On average, one woman in Britain dies at the hands of a man every three days. We also know that around one in 10 domestic violence incidents involves men as victims. That number is significant, but the overall figures show the scale and gendered nature of domestic and sexual violence. The cost to our economy is estimated to be around £25 billion. This scourge is present in every community across our nation. Domestic and sexual violence knows no boundaries—of age, geography, ethnicity or social background.

I want to share a few, relatively recent, examples from my constituency. I was approached by a lady who had suffered domestic violence for many years. Eventually, she found the courage to leave her husband, but was unable to care for her children who were then taken away. The abuse continued and she now lives in terror of her ex-husband and his family. She feels unsupported by the police, and scrimps and saves to afford new door locks and security. Her future feels uncertain, and she lives a nightmare every day.

Another told me how, six years after leaving her husband who had an alcohol addiction, he recently reappeared and threatened her elderly parents. She is at a loss as to how to protect them as well as herself. The impact of domestic abuse is borne not just by female victims, but by children. SafeLives estimates that 130,000 children live in homes in which a parent faces serious harm or death at the hands of their partner or ex-partner. Those children can go on to replicate the behaviour that they have seen. One mother told me of her experience. She said that her teenage son was starting to behave in the way that he had seen his father behave. He was lucky enough to respond to her challenging him, but she knows that the story is not over for him, and is now seeking support for him as the trauma that he experienced plays out in his life as he reaches adulthood.

The challenges that we now face in the provision of child and adult mental health services are having an impact on outcomes. One mother told me that she had to wait a year for support for her six-year-old son who had witnessed her abuse. That just cannot be right.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that not enough resources are being invested in shelters and refuges for women? More importantly, another by-product of domestic violence is that it affects not only a child’s character but a child’s education. If I were a kid at school, I would be more worried about what was happening to my mother than about my lessons.

[Seema Malhotra]

My hon. Friend has supported refuges and other services that help his constituents. I will, if I may, refer here to the work of Refuge and Women’s Aid in challenging the cuts to refuges and the support for women and their families. It is horrifying that, in recent years, we have seen an increase in the number of women being turned away from support because of the lack of provision.

My hon. Friend mentioned schools and educational attainment. I would extend that to the role that schools are playing in picking up the pieces. One school told me that it estimated that five children in each class were experiencing or witnessing domestic abuse in some form at home. I was told the very sad story of how a school was working with a mother who kept an emergency escape bag in a cupboard at the school for when she felt she had to flee her home.

Such cases are far from unique. Women’s Aid highlights some staggering statistics. The crime survey of England and Wales found that 27.1% of women had experienced domestic abuse since the age of 16. The rate of domestic violence crime against women has doubled each year since 2009, and there were over 100,000 prosecutions for domestic abuse in 2015-16, the highest number ever recorded.

It is a year since the new offence of coercive control came into force. Domestic abuse goes beyond physical violence. Using the law effectively will require greater understanding. I would be grateful if, in her closing remarks, the Minister outlined the steps that the Government are taking to improve training for statutory agencies so that some of the new offences can be put to greater use.

Online abuse is a growing problem. The scale and nature of domestic and other abuse are changing. Online abuse is combining with offline abuse. A survey by Women’s Aid shows that over 45% of survivors of domestic violence had also experienced online abuse. The existing legal frameworks should be examined to ensure that the law is up to date in all areas to provide protection against online abuse as well as offline abuse.

Immigration Rules (International Students)

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Absolutely. There is a feeling of uneasiness among the migrant community more generally in the light of recent events. Again, I urge the Government to rethink their rhetoric about not just students, but migration generally.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Like some of my colleagues, I have two universities in my constituency: the University of Warwick and Coventry University. Students from abroad certainly make a major contribution—about £9 billion per year—to the British economy. That is a hefty sum. To put that another way, 380,000-odd students come to this country per annum. The Government are not really friendly towards students. As some colleagues will recall, the Government abolished the education maintenance allowance, and they do not show much enthusiasm even for apprenticeships and further education.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman says. International students’ contribution to GDP is actually now £10 billion—even higher than the figure he quotes.

I will finish my praise for international students by turning to the St Andrews University students’ association, which put out a statement this morning that I think sums things up nicely:

“Universities... owe much of their value and their success to their diversity. Without a student or staffing body comprised of people of all races, religions, class or political allegiance, we cannot and will not achieve the level of quality—in research and personal character—to which the UK is accustomed. By mixing, debating, and learning from those with varied views and cultural backgrounds, we become better, more rounded, more tolerant and accepting individuals.”

Those views are broadly shared by around three quarters of our own students, according to a Higher Education Policy Institute survey.

Turning to where we are now, the UK has for some time been a world leader in attracting international students, but that reputation is in jeopardy.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I agree wholeheartedly. I will turn later to the contradiction that on the one hand, the Treasury appears to be all for increasing our education exports, but on the other, the Home Office includes students in its net migration target and therefore sees them as a ready target for trying to clamp down on migrant numbers.

In 2014-15, of the around 2.27 million students at UK higher education institutions, more than 125,000 were from other EU countries and more than 300,000 were from non-EU countries. In the most recent year that we have figures for, overall international student numbers just about held up, but the number of new entrants fell by 2.8%. Figures from June this year show that the number of study-related visas granted by the UK fell by 5% from the previous year. The British Council has stated that the UK is beginning to lose market share to competitors.

There are serious concerns about the UK’s performance in attracting students from key markets. The number of Indian students enrolling in their first year at UK universities fell by 10% in 2015 compared with the year before. The number of Indian students studying here has fallen by around 50% in the four years since the UK Government started to turn the screw while our rivals were all improving their offer. It is no coincidence that there is now a record number of Indian students in the US, which has, for example, opened up post-study work schemes.

Where do we want to go from here? If any other industry brought such a wealth of benefits to the country, the Government would be mad not to pull out all the stops to go for growth. Education is one of the UK’s most successful exports. In what other export market would we say that we were not going to bother so much with expansion and we were quite happy to see our rivals catch us up and overtake us?

The Government’s official ambition is for education exports as a whole to be worth £30 billion by 2020. In last year’s autumn statement, the Chancellor projected that the number of non-EU students in England alone would rise by just over 7% in the next two years and by 3.2% in the two years after that, but if the 0.6% increase in student enrolments last year is anything to go by, the Government’s goal, modest though it is, has no chance of being met.

The Government must be much more ambitious. While our share of international students is beginning to falter, international student numbers are growing much more significantly and strongly in countries such as the US, Australia and Canada—in fact, those countries are in a completely different league from us. International student numbers are expected to grow significantly around the world in the years ahead, so the opportunities are there if we want to take them, but countries such as Canada, Australia, Germany, New Zealand, China, Japan and Taiwan often talk about doubling their number of international students by 2020 or 2025.

Our universities are alarmed about the implications of Brexit, so the Government must step up to the plate to reassure rather than seek to complete what essentially would be a triple whammy, with another crackdown and a persistent failure to listen to rational arguments about a post-study work visa. One of the key underlying problems is, as the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) said, the inclusion of students in the net migration target. At best it seems inconsistent for, on the one hand, the Treasury to be targeting an increase in education exports and, on the other, the Home Office to be quite clearly seeing student numbers as a target for reductions.

To make matters worse, the Home Office appears to be motivated by international passenger survey statistics and a belief that about 90,000 students are not leaving when their courses end. That is not a good thing, because serious questions about the accuracy of those figures are now being asked not just by me, but by the UK Statistics Authority, the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs, and the Institute for Public Policy Research, just by way of example. The main reason for the concerns is that the figures suggested by the Government are completely out of kilter with many other sources of information, from Home Office longitudinal studies to the destination of leavers survey and the annual population survey. We are talking about not just a few hundred students here and there, but many tens of thousands.

As the Minister will know, just a few weeks ago an article appeared in The Times that suggested that the Home Office has in its hands an independent analysis that shows that just 1% of international students break the terms of their visas by refusing to leave after their courses end. Sadly, as I understand it, the Home Office has refused to share that study with other Departments, never mind with MPs or the public. Perhaps the Minister will explain why.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

Has the hon. Gentleman considered that there is another dimension to this? Universities such as the University of Warwick export knowledge to different countries. They set up various sub-universities, for want of a better term.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

That is a good point that we should bear in mind. The export of education takes the form of not just attracting international students, but physically building campuses and other institutions abroad.

I ask the Minister to explain what is happening with the study that we are not allowed to see, because that study almost certainly takes into account new exit checks, which have been in place for about 12 months. Using exit checks and cross-referencing other data sources gives us a tremendous new opportunity to get a proper handle on student migration patterns. It simply is not common sense for the Government to press ahead with new goals for reducing student numbers until such time as the assumptions on which the proposals are based are thoroughly tested.

I know from speaking with the Office for National Statistics just this morning that it is taking on a body of work to look at this issue and that it will today put some information on its website to explain the nature of that work. Will the Government therefore undertake to share the exit check data with the Office for National Statistics, which is important for its work, and will the Minister wait until that work is complete, rather than pressing ahead with any rash policy decisions?

I turn finally to the policies we need, if hon. Members agree with me that we should be going for growth. What policies would allow us to do that? The obvious first answer is that we need to up our game on post-study work offers. Post-study work is something that our competitor countries are using as a key means to attract talented international students, and they are doing it much better than us. Canada has three-year visas with no salary threshold and New Zealand has one-year visas with no salary threshold. Australia conducted a big review on the subject back in 2010, when it was beginning to struggle to attract international students, and, lo and behold, it proposed a two-year post-study visa with no salary requirement, just like we used to have here, and now it is much more competitive than we are.

Criminal Finances Bill

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

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

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

This speech represents two firsts: I am the first non-lawyer to speak from the Back Benches; and I think I am the first to acknowledge the role played both by our former Prime Minister and by the right hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir Eric Pickles), who was the anti-corruption tsar, in providing leadership on anti-corruption. They should both be acknowledged today as their work led to what we are considering. I agree with everyone who has spoken today that the Bill is extremely important. Whether from the National Crime Agency or HMRC, the estimates of the billions of pounds that are laundered through the UK or lost to public services because HMRC is unable to collect them make this an important measure. I fear, however, that the rhetoric that many have been given to this afternoon does not reflect the reality, so I hope that the Minister will able to respond to the points that I raise.

Others have mentioned the omission of tax havens, and the failure to take action on the overseas territories and Crown dependencies, which act as key jurisdictions in support of tax evasion, tax avoidance and corruption, is a grave error. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that during the Bill’s proceedings and see whether we can introduce some amendments. The Government’s failure to mention such territories makes them complicit in facilitating the very corruption that they say they want to tackle through the Bill.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I agree with my right hon. Friend and previous speakers that, were something done about the overseas territories and Crown dependencies, that would give the Government more credibility. They have committed to report annually on tax avoidance in some of these overseas tax havens—for want of a better term. Does she agree that, if they are going to negotiate with other Governments to get them on board, they should do something about the overseas territories?

[Dame Margaret Hodge]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend’s comments.

Calais

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

The total package is £36 million, of which approximately £14 million is for security. The existence of security in Calais is very much in the UK’s interest. We need to ensure that we can protect tourists and enable truckers to maintain their economy and go about their normal business, which I hope will be much improved after the camp has been cleared.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

Can the Home Secretary reassure us that local authorities will be adequately funded, and will she tell us exactly who will fund them and provide compensation? More importantly, will she reassure us that adequate accommodation will be provided for the children, and that they will not be institutionalised?

[Amber Rudd]

As the hon. Gentleman may know, the Dubs amendment can be implemented only if local authorities come forward and volunteer to take the children. We are fortunate in that enough local authorities have offered places, but we shall need more over the next few weeks, so if any Members wish to urge their local authorities to volunteer, they are most welcome to do so. Authorities are aware of the costs and the rate that the Government pay, and I hope they will consider the compensation adequate and volunteer to take the children.

Rights of EU Nationals

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Roger Mullin]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that quite astonishing point. Does that not speak to the morality of Conservative Members?

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but there is an additional right that is important while these negotiations are going on. It is the right to safety, particularly when we look at what has happened to members of the Polish community, which seems to be taking the brunt of all this anti-European sentiment. Surely they have a right to reassurance here.

[Roger Mullin]

The hon. Gentleman makes a wonderful point. I have been in discussions in my own constituency with a body called the migrant forum, the majority of whose members are of Polish extraction. They have been coming to me with concerns, wanting to find ways to gain reassurance. It is not good enough for some Conservative Members to say, “They should not be frightened and they should not be uncertain, but by the way, we are putting you into the negotiation pot none the less.” That is not reassurance. It is perfectly understandable that people are feeling uncertain and insecure about their rights.

My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) put that point wonderfully when she talked about her own husband, a doctor and a fine man—I have met him—who has been working here for 30 years. With his background, he is not going to be easily scared or put off, but there is uncertainty in his mind as well as in thousands upon thousands of people’s minds.

I held a meeting in my constituency, and 40 EU citizens came along to talk about their anxieties. These are real anxieties, and the Government should do the right thing. The Minister should stand up now and guarantee all those people’s rights in our country.

Immigration Bill

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Monday 25th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

In September 2015, Save the Children released a paper called “The extreme vulnerability of unaccompanied child refugees in Europe - a proposal for managing their relocation to the UK”. The paper charted the journey of unaccompanied child refugees to Europe: the war, conflict and violence in their home countries; and the abuse, exploitation, physical and sexual violence experienced during their long journeys to Europe, which often lasted months and years. Even if that was the end of the horror story, surely that would be enough fully to justify Lord Dubs’s amendment. In fact, it provides more than enough justification for us to say that we will take our fair share of responsibility for providing not just immediate aid and protection but the stability, education, support and care that these children require when arriving in Europe, bearing the scars of such dreadful experiences. But tragically the horror story does not end there. The scale of the crisis and the lack of co-ordination and solidarity between European countries mean that the arrival here of these children is barely the beginning of their troubles.

It is important to remind ourselves just how grim the experience in Europe is. The hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) did that powerfully earlier in the debate. In its paper, Save the Children looked at migrants and refugees on the Greek islands, in Calais and in Hungary and Macedonia. In Greece, it reported a lack of basic services and adequate shelter, toilets, clean water, health facilities and safe spaces, which put children and women at high risk of sexual harassment, physical violence and trafficking.

Unaccompanied minors are at particular risk. Save the Children reported

“a lack of adequate sanitation facilities which means that women and children have to share toilets with men or are forced to defecate in the open. . . Unaccompanied minors, once in the hands of the authorities, are sometimes placed in detention with adults, again exposing them to risks of sexual and physical harassment. . . Children interviewed recounted stories of war and death and described the terrifying journey crossing the sea to Greece. Parents reported symptoms like bedwetting, nightmares, fear and extreme attachment. Most of the children had been out of school for years and have a distorted view of what constitutes ‘normality’. Food distributions are limited and erratic … whilst more vulnerable individuals … often end up unserved. . . There is limited primary health care coverage across migrant and refugee sites”.

Finally, as a shocking matter of fact, Save the Children recorded that in Athens, in their attempt to leave Greece, women and children sleep in squares and parks that are frequented by drug dealers, traffickers and prostitution rings. During the period of the assessment, a 10-year-old boy was raped in one of these parks.

The fact that this is happening in Europe is not down to one or two European countries. It is a collective failure by all European states, and it is our collective obligation to fix it. As has been argued:

“Under specific criteria and safeguards, relocation is one of the few viable long-term solutions for the protection of the most vulnerable unaccompanied children”.—[Official Report, 8 December 2015; Vol. 603, c. 864.]

The need for such a scheme is every bit as great now as it was then, as recent reports by Save the Children and so many other organisations—too many to mention—have shown. I know that many hon. Members present tonight have seen these awful places at first hand and will probably share some of those experiences this evening during the debate.

When I read those reports, and having seen at first hand the situation in Calais and Dunkirk, I am furious—furious about what is happening to these children, and furious also that there is any doubt about whether we will stand by Lord Dubs’s amendment this evening, and I am at a loss to understand why that should be in doubt. A strange phrase has been dropped into the argument recently by the Government—that we need to use our heads as well as our hearts. With all respect to the Minister, who I know generally chooses his words carefully, I find that expression a little bit patronising.

This is not some hare-brained plan dreamed up by well-intentioned but misguided amateurs on the back of an envelope. It is a carefully thought through proposal based on years of professional experience from experts in the field, incorporating carefully considered criteria. It was a modest calculation of our fair share, based on circumstances at the time. It is not those who support the relocation of 3,000 children from Europe who need to start using their heads. On the contrary, it is the sceptics and cynics who need to start using their eyes and ears so as to understand the full horror, extent and duration of what is going on in our continent.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

We have a proud tradition going back centuries of taking in refugees. In particular, before and during the war we took large numbers of Jewish children in. Why can we not honour that commitment now?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Absolutely. As we heard earlier, Lord Dubs was one of those who benefited from that very scheme.

I find other arguments against this very modest proposal equally disagreeable. Some have argued that we must not provide an incentive for others to come. Like the shadow Minister, I cannot believe for a second that any hon. Members are really saying that we should not rescue children from abuse and exploitation lest that create an incentive. If that is “using their head”, I have serious concerns for the sanity of those hon. Members. But if they are saying that someone else should rescue those children from abuse and exploitation, not only does the argument about incentives fall to pieces, but the question arises: if not us, then who? If the UK says “Leave it to Greece and Italy”, why should anyone else come to their aid not just in the short term, but in the medium and long term?

Even a child can understand that tens—or almost certainly now hundreds—of thousands of unaccompanied kids shared between 28 members states, although hugely challenging, is infinitely more workable than the same number left as the long-term responsibility of two or three countries. This country should not wash its hands of its responsibilities; it should roll up its sleeves and play its part.

The Government have again tried to win the day with their well-worn trump card—that we should focus on those in the conflict region. In these debates I have always welcomed what deserves to be welcomed. The support provided in the region in the form of aid has been incredibly welcome, as has the resettlement of vulnerable persons scheme and the new proposals for children, but the House of Lords passed this amendment by more than 100 votes, fully aware of all those other Government schemes, including proposals—in principle—to resettle children.

Their lordships were absolutely right to resist the attempt by the Government to set up a false choice. There are refugees in Europe, including children, who are every bit as much in need of our support as those in the conflict region. It is not a question of one or the other. Showing leadership in support of those in the region does not entitle Government to abdicate responsibility for children in Europe.

If we think about what is happening to these children on our doorstep, I shudder to think what it says about this Government and Parliament if we do not support the amendment, but what a positive message if we do. From whatever angle we approach this question, using our head or our heart; from a perspective of faith or of simple human decency; from human rights or common sense, there is only one answer. Lord Dubs’s amendment has the full support of SNP Members.

UK Citizens Returning From Fighting Daesh

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

The short answer is that very little support is offered to returning individuals. Indeed, my research suggests that the vast majority of people are not even questioned by the police or security services on their return.

Many people going out have little knowledge of the principal militias such as the YPG. My purpose tonight is not to besmirch the YPG, but to point out that it divides opinion and that many if not most Britons who go out have no real knowledge of that group or the accusations against it. Amnesty International has accused the YPG of war crimes.

The Turkish Government believe, rightly or wrongly, that this is an offshoot of the PKK, which is of course a proscribed terrorist organisation in the UK and the USA. Recent reports suggest that some foreign fighters have left the YPG in the field because of its views and joined other even more obscure militias such as the so-called “self-sacrifice” group, which operates in the Nineveh region.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman should be congratulated on securing this debate. Having said that, I have been listening to what he has been saying and I wonder how he would regard ex-British servicemen who fight alongside the Kurds? Is it not an interesting question to ask what happens to them when they return?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Security (Mr John Hayes)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) on securing an interesting and informative debate on a topic that has been unfairly overlooked during our discussions about the conflict in Syria and Iraq. As you might expect, Mr Speaker, I have a prepared speech, and I shall refer to it sporadically, but I want to tailor my remarks to the issues that have been raised in the debate. I sense the shivers that are going down the spines of Home Office officials as I utter those words.

My hon. Friend made an emphatic case for why we should broadcast clearly and powerfully that travelling abroad in uncertain circumstances such as those that he has described is extremely dangerous. There are three reasons for that. First, the cause that people go to support is often not what it is purported to be in the propaganda that has encouraged them to do so. Secondly, as my hon. Friend suggested, those people may well not return. They may be placed in extremely jeopardous situations, even if they are going abroad to offer help. They may not know that they are going to fight—to engage in conflict—but they will nevertheless be placing themselves in extreme danger, almost regardless of their original purpose. Thirdly, on their return they may well face prosecution and will certainly face arrest. Extra-territorial jurisdiction applies in many of the places to which they might travel—particularly, as in this case, Syria. It is entirely possible that they have committed crimes abroad that are subject to that jurisdiction, and can be tried in a court here in the United Kingdom. That is another fact that is not made known to them when they are recruited. So my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that, first and foremost, we should send out the extremely clear message that if people travel to a dangerous place, they will put themselves in all kinds of jeopardy.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

There is a history of people volunteering to go abroad in this way—for example, during the Spanish civil war and other wars since then. Do the Home Office and the Cabinet Office view such people technically as mercenaries?

[Mr Hayes]

As I have implied, these matters have to be gauged on a case-by-case basis, because people travel abroad for humanitarian reasons and all kinds of other reasons. In the first tranche of people travelling to Syria, many went with good intentions and to do good work. They went to help. The pattern of travel to Syria has changed over time, but I would certainly not want to make any general assumptions about why an individual went or what they did when they got there. However, it is almost universally true to say that they place themselves at considerable risk. If people want to offer humanitarian help, it is much better to do that in a more organised way than in a dilettante fashion. People can contribute in all sorts of ways to the humanitarian effort in which the Government are playing a powerful part without putting themselves at risk. There are things that they can do to help.

Part of the reason behind the advice that was offered by my hon. Friend in his impressive speech, and which I have amplified, is that some of the organisations that people might join—ostensibly for the good and noble purposes that he described—might themselves be proscribed. Some of the organisations fighting Daesh are themselves proscribed and might be engaged in activities that we neither endorse nor support. The picture is often more complicated than is portrayed when people are recruited.

Many of those people are recruited through the internet. It will not have missed your consideration, Mr Speaker—little does—that people communicate in all kinds of modern technological ways these days. Much of the propaganda that is now emanating from Daesh uses the most modern methods of communication. We often think of Daesh as brutally archaic, which is understandable given its means and its methods. Indeed, it is often suggested that it is an organisation from times past. However, its technological methodology is extremely up to date. It takes advantage of every kind of social media and it uses the internet regularly in a well-organised and sophisticated way. That is precisely why its message is seductive to its adherents and apologists here in the United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Cunningham Excerpts

Monday 11th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I also thank those in Northamptonshire for the work they are doing to deal with the pressures they have experienced and for the way in which they have approached this through the discussions and round-table meetings that have taken place. Clear age-assessment tests are undertaken to ensure that support is provided to those who require it and not to those who do not. Let me add that I will be writing to all local authorities this week with an update on progress on the national transfer scheme to aid the more equitable dispersal.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

20. Can the Minister say how much money from the overseas budget has been used to help local authorities to resettle asylum seekers?

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Gentleman is asking not about unaccompanied asylum-seeking children but a broader question about the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme. We have set out the different funding mechanisms available to those who are resettled and some of that is fundable through overseas development aid. That is how we are ensuring that appropriate support and welcome are given to the people arriving.