Modern Slavery Bill

Jim Sheridan Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Randall]

At the time I thought that it was appropriate, Mr Speaker, but I fear that your opportunities have since vanished.

There is no fool like an old fool, and I am afraid that I felt a little like that in supporting—sincerely—the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart). I say that not because I disagree with the sentiment; we have heard so much about modern slavery and become so immersed in the issue that, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) said, when we meet the victims, so many of whom are involved in the sex trade, there is a real feeling that the demand must somehow be curbed. However, I am not sure that this Bill is the right place to do that.

That issue seems to have stirred up a hornets’ nest and taken up valuable time on Report, and unfortunately, because of the timing—it would be wrong, of course, to complain about the selection—we have not been able to discuss everything. We are discussing something that I think is slightly out of scope. I am almost tempted to agree with the Opposition Front Benchers on that. I am not sure that we should necessarily start it at this point. It is something that I will be observing from whatever job I do after leaving this place—in the car park at Tesco or wherever. It is a very important debate about prostitution and it cannot be ignored, but there are two sides to the argument, and I know that even the hon. Members for Slough and for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) take slightly different views on it. It is an important discussion that we must have.

When I have previously voted against my party, I was normally also voting against the Labour party, which was in government at the time. In other words, I was part of a tiny minority, which I think is a safe position to be in—the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington has tutored me well in how to rebel. In many respects the issue of overseas domestic workers, and therefore new clause 2, does not need to be covered in the Bill, because it is a matter of policy. Were I still in a ministerial position, I know that that is how I would explain it to colleagues, saying that this is not the time to deal with the matter. However, I have met too many victims to be able to say that it is a matter for another day. I understand why the Government brought that in, and it was a laudable reason: they thought that it would help the situation. Unfortunately, that appears not to be the case and there is a knock-on effect that is not helping those poor, innocent people from overseas.

As a result, I do not think that there will be much success. Unfortunately, the way the political debate on immigration is going at the moment—an important debate, but one in which we must be careful not to become extreme—I do not expect the Government to do a great deal about it this side of an election, if I am honest. I hear what my hon. Friend the Minister is doing, and there are some other things that can help. However, if it comes to a vote, regrettably—oh so regrettably—I shall march into the Lobby with the comrades on the other side of the House.

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

I will take your advice on brevity, Mr Speaker. I rise to support my party’s new clause 1 on gangmasters.

Before I do so, I want to thank many people. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) said, I had the privilege of introducing the private Member’s Bill that became the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004. I was greatly supported in that by a number of individuals and organisations, none more so that my own union, Unite, which was absolutely terrific in giving me the support and research that I needed to try to get the Bill through. The National Farmers Union was also extremely helpful in getting it through and in championing the ethical trading initiatives that were around at the time.

One individual who was particularly helpful during that period was the then Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale, Geraldine Smith, who was extremely supportive in helping me as regards what happened to the cockle pickers. Another individual who was greatly supportive was the then national secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, now my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), who offered his experience in trying to get the Bill through. Also very helpful and supportive were the legal gangmasters—the guys who operated on a legal basis—because they had operated in a legal field while the other people were undermining them by trying to get labour at cheap prices.

Some organisations, I have to say, were dragged to the negotiations by their fingernails—namely, the major retailers, who really did not want to get involved in this and wanted to exploit the farmers who were engaged in the industry. The farmers were getting a very bad deal from the major retailers, so we made sure that the retailers played ball.

To correct a fact about the gangmasters legislation, the myth is that it was drawn up in response to the tragedy of the Morecambe bay cockle pickers, but in fact it was introduced before that unfortunate incident because Unite had already experienced the inequities that were happening in the construction industry, the care industry, and so on. That is why the Bill was launched some months before the dreadful situation surrounding the Chinese cockle pickers.

Nevertheless, what happened to the cockle pickers was the catalyst in getting support for the Bill. Just imagine, if you will, that you are on a cold, sandy beach surrounded by water that is coming to drown you, you cannot speak English, and there is no one there to take any responsibility for you. All that was left for these people was to use their mobile phones to phone home to China to tell their relatives that they were in the process of dying. The gangmasters who took them on did nothing to help them. That is why the gangmasters Bill was a good and effective piece of legislation, and even now, as we speak, it has the potential to be even better and more effective.

[Michael Connarty]

Everything that my hon. Friend said about the struggle that he had to convince a number of organisations at the time is true. Does he know that on 21 August the Ethical Trading Initiative and the British Retail Consortium wrote to the Prime Minister in support of proposed amendments to the Bill, and, as part of that submission, called for the Gangmasters Licensing Authority to be strengthened and extended to cover hospitality, construction, and many other industries? My hon. Friend has converted a lot of people by showing that his legislation made a difference to people involved with gangmasters.

[Jim Sheridan]

There is no doubt in my mind whatsoever that the legislation must be extended.

We introduced the gangmasters legislation under a Labour Government, and I have to say that it was extremely difficult to try to convince Ministers that it was the right way to go. We decided to go with it as it stood in terms of the shellfish and agriculture industries, arguing that it should subsequently be extended to other sectors, and the Government said that we could extend it if it worked. In my view, it did work, and we set up the Gangmasters Licensing Authority. Prior to that, the gangmasters never paid any tax or national insurance, and neither did the exploited workers. The GLA cleaned its face: it got people to pay income tax and the workers to pay national insurance. In effect, it was a self-funding process. If that rationale were extended to take in construction and the service and hospitality sectors, I think the GLA would be a more effective organisation. The Modern Slavery Bill could have sought to prevent exploitation of forced labour by expanding the remit of the GLA.

Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill

Jim Sheridan Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dr Huppert]

Let me make a little more progress. The type of change that I want to see is fundamental to how RIPA works. I wish to have a system that retains communications data for a very short period—a week or a month—so that we can find out, say, what happened just before somebody died yesterday. It should not be available for any longer unless a preservation order is applied for. That sort of system would massively reduce the amount of evidence that is kept on people, but would allow it to be available for those very serious cases that all of us want to see investigated. That is the sort of system that I would like to see, but that is not an easy thing to write down. It would take many, many months of work to try to write that into a form that we can make work.

There is another problem, which runs right at the base of this. It is what I hope to talk about when we get on to the next collection of amendments, my new clauses 3 and 4. The Home Office simply does not have evidence on how this information is used and for what purposes. As I understand it—I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—the only information on how communications data are used is based on a two-week snapshot survey of police forces. What sort of crime is it? We know that data are used and we know of many examples. It is only that small survey that tells us exactly what sort of things they are used for. We need to have that data to make a sensible decision. The more data we retain, the more things we can do to combat crime, but the more invasive it is. We cannot set a sensible balance without that data. The Home Office urgently needs to collect that data but it will not have it in the next couple of months.

I worry—I have seriously considered and agonised over this—that what is being suggested would not put us in a better place. The alternative to having a Bill that started almost straight away would be to wait a bit longer—until November—and have a new Bill. We could use that time to get a bit of information for a review, but then we would again be forced to fast-track the legislation. We would go through exactly the same process, with not that many Members here debating it, and we would have exactly the same problems. That would not help and would not take us to where I want to be, because I am passionate about getting rid of the awful system that we have and coming up with something better. As I said earlier, we can have more security, more civil liberties and more protection, which is something that I have debated on many occasions.

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Huppert]

I promised the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) that I would give way to him first. I will then give way to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan), and then I will stop, because I want to let others speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Huppert]

The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s point is that we simply do not have the time to make that happen. We cannot take account of the detailed reviews that are necessary. I totally accept that we could do a bit more, but it would not fundamentally change where we are. It would not allow for the data collection and information gathering to work up much better proposals, which is what we need to make progress.

[Jim Sheridan]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there is already a significant amount of criticism from people north of the border about the purpose of this place. If the Bill goes through in the time scale suggested, other people will say, “What is the purpose of that place down there when they do not even have time to scrutinise the legislation?”

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Straw]

That is a matter for the Minister. Sometimes, companies do not wish to be named; sometimes they do. If they did wish to be named—they are not slow in coming forward in other respects to let us know their views—they would have named themselves.

[Jim Sheridan]

My right hon. Friend seems to be making the case that the lack of attendees in the Chamber suggests that the vast majority of colleagues on both sides of the House support the legislation. If that is the case, why not have a free vote? Then people could vote whatever way they wanted.

[Mr Straw]

If I started discussing the importance of the party system, I think Mr Hood would pull me up short. My hon. Friend knows that the party system is fundamental to the way our democracy operates. I was elected not as J. Straw, an individual of obvious talent, or not, but because I was a member of the Labour party. In doing that, I accepted and signed up for, among other things, the standing orders of the parliamentary Labour party and the whipping system, and the authority system that we have. Of course, there is loads of scope for going against that. I am sitting next to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who has voted against his party probably more often than he has voted with it—and a very fine constituency member he is, too, if I may say so. I have voted against my party once—

Young Asylum Seekers

Jim Sheridan Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Westminster Hall

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries, and to have secured this debate on the rights of young asylum seekers in this country.

We must remember that, on the whole, asylum seekers have fled to Britain from horrific persecution and we should give them the opportunity to escape properly, especially during their crucial formative years. Certain elements of the popular press have a lot to answer for, in my view, because they paint these vulnerable children and adults as people scrounging off the state. In fact, they are forced to live off the state; the jobs they are allowed to do are so highly skilled that they are unable to do them because of the inequities in access to education. Under the current system, young asylum seekers are at particular risk of floundering in limbo while their peers are starting their own lives. Often, unaccompanied minors are not believed by local authorities and so are left in risky adult situations, when they came here to escape that world. They are forced to live well below the poverty line, because of the Government’s freezing of asylum support.

We in the UK should be proud of our commitment to supporting legitimate refugees. We owe them a duty of care and a life of dignity, yet families that have fled from war or persecution are plunged into poverty when they reach the UK, a place they thought would be safe. The Home Secretary’s “irrational” decision to freeze asylum support in 2011 has seen a further 6,000 families fall below the poverty line. The Government’s many decisions to limit and cut benefits are tragic for families across the UK who are using food banks or shivering in their homes due to fuel poverty, but they are all the more devastating when we consider that asylum-seeker parents are not lawfully able to get a job to support their families at all in the first 12 months, and, realistically, in practice will not be able to get one after that, either. They have to live on £5.23 a day, an amount that was low in 2011 but is even worse now, as food prices have rocketed; 40% of these families now say they cannot afford to feed themselves or their children.

As the Minister will be aware, we are awaiting the Government’s decision on how much to raise the allowance to. The Government had to be told by a High Court judgment that the amount was far too low. As she also will know, MPs and organisations are calling on the Government to raise the amount to at least 70% of income support. I look forward to hearing the announcement on that—perhaps she could indicate in her response what she plans to do.

Although asylum support remains desperately low, only today the chief inspector of borders and immigration has been talking about the lack of a strategy to stop asylum support fraud—only six people were successfully prosecuted for asylum support fraud offences in 2012-13. The Minister needs to get a grip on asylum support. The Home Department clearly does not have a clue what it is doing—there is no policy to stop fraud and no policy to give dignified support to those who genuinely deserve and need it.

How does the Minister plan to respect the rights of the over 10,000 children who are in receipt of section 95 support? Those are the people we are here to speak about today: young asylum seekers who have come here to get an education and to have the opportunity for a decent life. With such a low allowance, they are denied the nutritious meals that help them concentrate at school. They are denied school trips and uniforms—in fact, everything that would help them to settle and integrate with their school friends—and they cannot start afresh. The Minister might have us believe that they are all making it up and none of them has a legitimate case, but surely children should not suffer as a result of the bad decisions of their parents. We would not let a British child suffer in that way, and we should not let persecuted children suffer, either.

The situation gets worse for young asylum seekers aged 16 and 17. They are too young to be treated like an adult, but too old to be treated like a child. They receive a considerably lower level of support than under-16s, yet are still in full-time education. They face all the problems I have just explained, but the situation is far more serious. Instead of inspiring those who have faced adversity, we are pushing them to their limits and forcing them underground. I assume the Government’s plan is to create a hostile environment so that even the countries they have fled from seem better than here. They face either a life of hardship and inequity, or a life of constant fear of death.

Young refugees and asylum seekers prioritise education; it helps them focus on the future and is often a positive aspect of what can be a very difficult life in the UK. UNICEF research has found that many have the aim of reaching university; that is particularly important when we consider the list of jobs open to asylum seekers—those jobs are very highly skilled and often require specialised qualifications. The Department for International Development prioritises education in many of the countries these young people come from, as can see the benefit of education to development and reconstruction, yet students in the UK could be forced out of their courses—or be unable even to begin them—before being returned to those countries. I am sure the Minister will acknowledge that that is inconsistent.

I am sure that young refugees in England, Wales and Northern Ireland would welcome the change that the Scottish Executive made in 2007, when they waived tuition fees for those who had been studying in Scotland for at least three years, but that does not help those young people who have been here for only a short period before their 18th birthday, and who are cut off from education at a crucial age and are prevented from taking anything positive from their time in the UK.

For those able to work or go into education, even the practical issue of having passed their documents to the Home Office can be a barrier. They have no proof of the legality of their stay in the UK, and employers or higher education institutions are understandably reluctant to take a chance on them. Even without that barrier, the shortage jobs that asylum seekers are allowed to do are so highly skilled that they need to go into further education, but many of these young people cannot afford to do so because they are treated as overseas students and so are unable to apply for student finance. That cruel cycle effectively means they are in limbo, unable to move on with their lives and stuck in the asylum system. That might be tolerable if the UK Border Agency could stick to its target of six months for a decision, but some young people wait five, six, seven or even eight years for that decision. That is eight years in limbo—eight years with their life on hold.

For young people who have discretionary leave to remain but not refugee status, the transition from child to adult is a challenge because they are reapplying when they are just 17. We need to ensure that ongoing support is offered, in line with social best practice, until the age of 21. That would give them the chance to finish their education, and become less vulnerable and better able to tackle the challenge of possibly returning to their home country.

I am proud that it was Labour in Scotland that pioneered the commitment to take a comprehensive approach to integration for refugees and people claiming asylum, and their closest loved ones—that always means their children. Thankfully, Labour’s leadership has been followed up, and we now have a refugee integration strategy in Scotland with a joined-up approach that facilitates things for refugees, so that they can fully contribute to and benefit from life in Scotland. The coalition should replicate that across the UK. Will the Minister commit to visiting Scotland to learn about that excellent practice in the Scottish Guardianship Service? Will she ensure that the Home Office is demonstrably playing the fullest part possible for kids who have literally lost everything, and tragically in some cases have suffered horrendous abuse too?

As the Minister will be aware, young asylum seekers, particularly those in the 16 to 17-year-old age bracket, are at high risk of having their age wrongly identified and so being placed into adult environments. That is in part due to cultural differences. Birthdays, birth dates and birth registrations are not as important in some cultures as they are in ours; for example, 64% of births go unregistered in sub-Saharan Africa and 65% in south Asia. Many children and young people arrive in the UK without identity documents to prove their age because they never had them or, in some cases, had to destroy them en route, having had to use false documents to travel. That is a challenge for local authorities in determining age. Some children from similar ethnic backgrounds who have grown up in the same environment may display significant physical, emotional and developmental differences, made larger by experience of adversity, conflict, violence and the migration process.

The Minister is concerned that some young people lie about their age, and I am sure that may be true in a small minority of cases, but as Labour Members say when talking about welfare fraud that we should not penalise the many for the decisions of the few. There is, of course, concern about someone in their early 20s being placed in accommodation with teenagers, but there is a far greater risk of placing children, perhaps as young as 14, in detention, or in independent and less carefully regulated accommodation, with adults of all ages. The system should be designed to protect children and to catch people in the net, not to penalise them for cultural differences or the rough journey they had to get here.

I would like to hear today what the Minister plans to do about that. Is she, at the very least, keeping track of how often this happens? How many cases have there been in the last year of the UK Border Agency treating an individual as an adult based purely on their appearance or demeanour? How many cases have there been in the last year of an individual who claims to be a child being placed in immigration detention? If the Minister cannot tell me this, will she agree to start collecting such information and to publish it regularly?

The Home Office should revise its policy on assessing age and treating young people as adults based solely on their appearance or demeanour. Anyone who has sold alcohol in a pub will say how difficult it is to assess someone’s age from what they look like. Our immigration system should not be based on that crude assessment. I welcome the work by the Association of Directors of Children’s Services in developing an age assessment strategic oversight group and reviewing the current arrangements. The belief that multiple agencies should be involved in age assessment is sensible and fair in trying to tackle this issue.

The Scottish Guardianship Service has a positive reputation on age assessment practice, but it remains inconsistent, and we need national statutory guidelines to ensure that all child protection and social work professionals follow a standard, high-quality pathway. The Minister will be aware of the costed proposal from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health to provide guidance to paediatricians. To my knowledge, she has not yet responded to that; I urge her to support proper guidance, because it is the best opportunity we have to make progress on age assessment since it first became a substantial issue 10 years ago.

We have a proud history around the world of fighting for human rights through our armed forces and the development objectives of the Department for International Development, but we are failing to protect the rights of young asylum seekers who have fled persecution. We must ensure that their time in the UK allows them to reach their potential, whether or not they are granted refugee status and whether they build their lives in the UK or return to try to find a solution to the problem in their home countries. We should equip them with the tools they need and respect their right to grow into responsible young adults.

I will conclude with the following questions for the Minister. In their response to the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, “In their best interests?”, the Government said that no action was needed on the majority of points. That was disappointing given the amount of expertise that was harnessed to create the report. Will the Minister commit to looking again at the report? Will she also consider giving asylum seekers a proper right to work, not just on shortage jobs, so that they can earn a living and contribute to society while they are waiting for a decision?

Will the Minister indicate how much asylum support will rise by? What does she have to say about the chief inspector’s claim that there is no strategy to tackle asylum fraud? Will she agree to visit Scotland and to learn more about the Scottish Guardianship Service? Does she think the service deserves funding from the Home Office? When will she respond to the costed proposal on age assessment guidance? Why did the Minister cancel the National Asylum Stakeholder Forum’s children’s sub-group meeting today? Why does she not prioritise these issues? Will she ensure that support is offered, in line with social best practice, up to the age of 25, or at least 21?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) for securing this debate on the important subject of young people in the asylum system. I enjoyed reading his piece in dodonline today, which covered the issue. I am aware that he has long been interested in it and I therefore take his views particularly seriously. I welcome the opportunity to address some of the issues raised during this debate and I will do my best to cover as much as possible in the time available, but if I do not have time to cover them all, I will endeavour to ensure that he receives a written response.

It is a pleasure, Ms Dorries, to serve under your chairmanship. This is probably the first time I have done so in my present capacity, so it is a real treat.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the UK has a proud history of granting asylum to those who need it, and that all claims are carefully considered before decisions are made. The asylum system provides protection for those who are found to be genuinely in need of it in accordance with our commitments under international law, notably the 1951 refugee convention and the European convention on human rights. Protection needs are considered taking into account the individual’s circumstances, and against the background of published country information from a wide range of recognised and publicly disclosed sources.

The Government recognise that young asylum seekers may be particularly vulnerable children, and take very seriously their responsibility to safeguard and promote such cases. All staff who come into contact with young people in the asylum system have been trained to recognise their needs and to act in a way that protects and promotes their best interests in line with our obligations. The Government have a sustained track record of significant improvements in this area. We have transformed our approach to unaccompanied migrant children by ensuring that their best interests and human rights are fully protected while ensuring that legitimate immigration functions are not compromised.

The initiatives taken by this Government include the following. In December 2010, we published plans for ending the detention of children in a way that seeks to balance the protection of children with ensuring the departure of families who have no right to be in the UK. In the few cases in which families are held in pre-departure accommodation, we have worked with statutory and non-statutory corporate partners to ensure that the conditions in which they are held meet all their welfare needs. We have since gone further by giving legislative effect to the policy on detaining children.

I visited the Border Force team at Gatwick airport recently to see their work on identifying trafficked children in particular, but also asylum-seeking children, to ensure that they have the support they need. I cannot speak too highly of the way in which the team works with local social services. It has ensured that the rooms to which children are brought are child-friendly, with bean bags rather than nailed-down chairs. It respects the fact that these young and very vulnerable people need help and support when identifying whether they have been trafficked and ensuring that we can catch the traffickers and punish them. I have seen that with my own eyes and I assure the hon. Gentleman that the operation is very impressive.

Following the report, “Landing in Dover” in January 2012 by the Office of the Children’s Commissioner for England, we strengthened the arrival and screening process for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. When the asylum claim is made at their first point of contact with the Department, we allow up to four days for recuperation and to enable them to seek legal advice. In July 2012, we introduced new immigration rules to provide a framework for considering applications under article 8 of the European convention on human rights, which relates to family and private life. We have brought consideration of the best interests of children into the immigration rules in order to ensure that we consistently meet our obligations when considering family cases. There is now a clear route for applications for leave based on a child’s best interests.

In the Immigration Act 2014, we also set out clearly how we believe the interests of children should be balanced against the Government’s wider responsibilities for public safety and security and for the effective management of immigration. That has provided greater clarity and transparency on immigration decision making in what is a difficult and sensitive area.

Although the decision-making process in children’s asylum cases is essentially the same as that for adults, there are certain differences. For example, when children attend the asylum intake unit in Croydon—not far from Gatwick, of course—to submit their asylum application, they are often accompanied by social workers and an appointment line is used to minimise waiting times. If they attend alone, an urgent referral is made to local authority children’s services. We also take the fingerprints of all children over the age of five as soon as possible. That ensures that they can be identified if they are encountered at a later date, which is particularly important in potential trafficking cases.

We always make social services aware of a child’s arrival at the earliest opportunity. From that point onwards, a variety of professionals will have involvement with the welfare of the child. For consideration of their asylum application, children are interviewed by a specially trained decision maker. At the interview, the child will be accompanied by a responsible adult. A legal representative would normally be present for the interview, and an interpreter if appropriate. The decision maker will then consider the details of the case and make a decision on the application. If the decision is to refuse the child’s asylum application, the reception arrangements upon returning them to their country of origin must be considered.

The Home Office will not remove an unaccompanied child from the UK unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that safe and adequate reception arrangements are in place in the country to which the child is to be removed. In the event that it is not possible to put in place sufficient arrangements, specific leave is granted on that basis, for 30 months or until the child is 17 and a half years old—whichever is the shorter period. Grants of limited leave in these circumstances provide children with certainty that they will be allowed to stay in the UK until they are 18 years of age. Once they reach 18, we will seek to return them, unless they can establish a legitimate reason to remain in the UK as an adult.

At this point, I would like to add something else from my personal experience. Recently, I visited Albania, which is one of the source countries for many of the unaccompanied children. There is a terrible industry in Albania of falsifying histories of blood feuds. Organised crime gangs are involved in it, and I have enormous sympathy for the children who end up in that dreadful situation: trafficked by somebody who is falsifying their life records in order to use them for labour and other exploitation in the UK. We are working with the Albanians and other authorities to stamp out the organised crime that enables that to take place. It is an absolute travesty that people are able to use and abuse these most vulnerable young people in that way, and we have to work across borders to stamp it out.

We are not complacent, but we believe that the Government have a good story to tell about how we manage asylum claims from children. Last year, the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration inspected our management of claims from unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. His report was largely positive and praised the Home Office for conducting interviews sensitively, for giving the benefit of the doubt and for having good safeguarding procedures in dealing with unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. Overall, the report was a fair assessment of our current performance in handling these claims. We welcome the fact that the ICI praised the Home Office for the cultural and customer-focused aspects of its work with young people, particularly its professional commitment to safeguarding and welfare and its close liaison with external partners such as local authority children’s services.

Our partnership with local authority children’s services is one of the cornerstones of our efforts to promote and ensure the welfare of children. The Home Office provides direct financial support to families, but unaccompanied children are the responsibility of local authority children’s services. Local authorities provide support to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, regardless of their immigration status, as they would to any other looked-after child. The immediate focus, especially where a child may have been trafficked, will be to ensure that the child is safe from harm, but local authorities will also plan to meet the health and education needs of the child. As for every looked-after child, the education plan will include securing the best education provision to meet that child’s needs. Health planning will include addressing both the physical and psychological needs the child may have as a consequence of their experiences before claiming asylum. It is worth reiterating the point that if a child is claiming asylum, they will have gone through some very difficult experiences and often suffered physical and almost certainly psychological damage. It is incredibly important that they be dealt with sensitively and that all children’s services are aware of that point.

[Jim Sheridan]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but will she indicate when we can get to a decision time of six months? As I said, it has taken six, seven or eight years for these young people to get a decision. Are there any plans to bring that down to the six-month target?

[Karen Bradley]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I hope to get to that shortly.

Local authorities already have a duty under the Children Act 1989 for planning the transition to adulthood of care leavers. For unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in care, that planning will include the different steps required in response to different immigration outcomes for the child. As part of that case planning, the guidance is clear that local authorities should work with dedicated case workers at the Home Office. The planning also includes a continued commitment to the education and well-being of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children leaving care while they remain in the UK, with support provided by a personal adviser. Any support will be tailored to individual need but, to take just one example, good practice might be working with apprenticeship schemes, so that those young people can develop meaningful skills while contributing to the local economy.

I turn to some of the hon. Gentleman’s specific points. On the asylum support given to children, it is absolutely clear that no child should be left destitute, and local authorities support unaccompanied children as they would any looked-after child born in the UK, regardless of their immigration status, nationality or documentation. Local authorities produce a care plan to ensure that everyone involved in providing the child’s care is aware of their needs. The plan will cover key stages in the child’s asylum claim, legal support, health—that includes psychological needs and any learning difficulties—and education, and the Home Office provides funding for that to local authorities.

If the children are in families, the families receive support direct from the Home Office to avoid destitution. That generally includes fully furnished accommodation with utility bills paid and a cash allowance to cover other essential living needs. The level of cash allowance varies according to the size of the household and how many children there are, but as an example, a couple with two children typically receives £170 to £180 a week. We do not believe that is ungenerous, but in light of the recent judicial review decision on the asylum support rate, we are carefully reviewing all the allowance levels to ensure that they are sufficient to cover essential living needs, and we expect to complete the review by mid-August. If a family asylum claim is refused and the family includes a child under 18, the family will continue to receive the same level of support as before in order to protect the welfare and best interests of the child.

We are endeavouring to decide all asylum cases older than six months by 1 April 2015. We have already made progress, and in March we cleared all straightforward pre-2011 asylum decisions. We cleared all straightforward pre-2012 decisions by the end of last month—June 2014—and we aim to clear all pre-2014 cases and ensure all new claims receive a decision within the six-month service standard by April 2015. Clearly, we inherited a backlog from the previous Government and that is a shame and a pity. We are now working to make sure we clear that backlog, and that by April 2015, all cases are dealt with in the six months that we endeavour to deal with them in.

The hon. Gentleman talked about uncertainty about age. He is absolutely right—as a publican’s daughter, I can vouch for how difficult it often is to see whether someone is a child or an adult when they come to the bar to get a drink. In the work on modern slavery, in many of the cases I have seen coming through the system, the age of the person involved is very uncertain, but it is not that people are being treated as an adult until proven to be a child. Where there is any doubt about whether someone is an adult or a child, we would immediately refer them to a local authority social services department for a careful, case-law-compliant assessment of their age, and we would treat them as a child until we have the outcome of their assessment.

I am conscious that we are about to reach the end of the time allotted for this debate. If there are any further points, I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman is written to, and I thank those in the Chamber for their time.

Modern Slavery Bill

Jim Sheridan Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

I am 100% behind the right hon. Lady. We talk about preventing the exploitation of workers, and the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, which I brought in through a private Member’s Bill, has done an excellent job and proved itself. Does she have any intention of extending the GLA to other sectors of industry?

[Mrs May]

The Gangmasters Licensing Authority has indeed done a very good job and I want to see how we can build on the work that it has done. As a first step, we have brought the GLA from the auspices of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs into the Home Office to work alongside those who are working on the issue of modern slavery. We will be looking at a number of aspects of enforcement which relate to modern slavery, and looking at the GLA will be part of the work that we are doing.

UK Citizenship

Jim Sheridan Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2014 Westminster Hall

[Ms Abbott]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. In saying that, I am accepting an argument that I do not really support, namely that somehow, because someone is alleged to be a terrorist, that makes them a terrorist. Even if we accept that logic, we will not be making the country any safer, because we cannot move such people on anywhere.

Statelessness is a notion that the British Government were trying to move away from for a long time. In 1930, Britain was among the first to ratify the convention on certain questions relating to the conflict of nationality, which included a protocol relating to certain cases of statelessness. The universal declaration of human rights, which was adopted by the UN General Assembly with UK support as far back as 1948, says:

“Everyone has the right to a nationality…No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality”,

yet that is what clause 60 of the Immigration Bill seeks to do.

Deprivation of citizenship is a severe sanction and statelessness is a separate and even more brutal punishment with unique practical and legal consequences. Although it is an aspiration of human rights activists that fundamental rights such as the right to life and the prohibition on torture should attach to all human beings, the reality is that we live in a world deeply divided along national borders, in which it is notoriously difficult to access redress for, or protection on, human rights matters without nationality.

Going further forward, the UN convention on the reduction of statelessness, which is where we are supposed to be going, was adopted in 1961 and ratified by the UK in 1966. It stipulates that, absent circumstances of fraudulent application or disloyalty toward the contracting state, deprivations and renunciations of citizenship will take effect only where a person has or subsequently obtains another nationality in replacement. The clause moves away from that. This country has spent a generation trying to move away from statelessness, but we are now going in reverse.

We may not have seen the end of this matter; that is why the other place should look at the provision. We had the Home Secretary saying that citizenship was a privilege, not a right, but citizenship is a fact. During the same debate, Alok Sharma MP—

[Jim Sheridan (in the Chair)]

Order. It would be preferable to mention hon. Members not by name, but by their constituency.

[Ms Abbott]

The hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) raised with the Home Secretary the question of whether we could extend the stripping away of citizenship from naturalised citizenship. He said:

“I am a naturalised British citizen and the clause therefore applies to me. I support it wholeheartedly…Perhaps my right hon. Friend should go even further…and introduce similar sanctions against anyone who is British, irrespective of how they got British citizenship”.

The Home Secretary responded:

“My hon. Friend makes an important point about…the desire that we have in the House to ensure that we can take appropriate action against people who are acting in a manner that is not conducive to the public good”.—[Official Report, 30 January 2014; Vol. 574, c. 1042.]

One of the problems with the new clause is that it opens the door to further arbitrary deprivation of citizenship. It must be wrong in principle to create two classes of citizenship. It is wrong in practice because it will create a class of stateless people who, in practice, cannot be moved out of the UK. It seems that the coalition Government introduced the clause as a short-term strategy to see off a related but separate clause covering the ability of foreign criminals to resist deportation on the grounds that they have a right to family life. I suggest that the civil liberties of British citizens are too important to be tampered with for short-term political advantage.

Coming as I do from a family in which many members of my parents’ generation obtained British citizenship through naturalisation, and representing as I do a part of London where many of my constituents obtained British citizenship through naturalisation, I am naturally wary of any move to create two classes of British citizenship, as that could affect so many of my constituents and even members of my family. The clause was thought up in a hurry, and as with so much legislation that is thought up in a hurry, it is deeply flawed. I sincerely hope that when Members of the other place consider it, they will take it out of the Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Sheridan Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Grant]

The Bill is actually about increasing protection for British customers, and allowing British-based operators to compete on an equal footing with remote operators. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman approves of that. We do not intend to use the Bill to reform the levy.

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

The Minister may be aware of the existence of remote channels. If British racing is to have any sustainable, long-term future, any betting activity must involve a legally binding contribution, including activity through remote channels.

[Mrs Grant]

A suitable replacement would have to be sustainable, enforceable and, as the hon. Gentleman says, legally sound. I will of course seek advice from every quarter.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Sheridan Excerpts

Monday 11th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I have indeed seen that forecast, but, as I said, I do not think that the Government engaging in speculative forecasts is helpful; what is helpful is our carrying on the work of the committee I am chairing on access to public services and benefits to ensure that we are not a soft touch. I am sure that my hon. Friend will support us in that valuable work.

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

T7. We have seen some great co-operation between the UK and the EU on crime and justice through the European arrest warrant, as has been seen in the investigation into the sale of illegal horsemeat. May I therefore encourage the Government not to oppose the arrest warrant, to drop the work they are doing and to take a “mare” responsible attitude to this issue?

[Mrs May]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are looking at all the measures that fall under the so-called 2014 opt-out. It is the Government’s current intention to opt out of those measures and then negotiate to opt back into those we believe to be in the British national interest. He cites an example of where the European arrest warrant has been used successfully, but hon. Members will know of cases where people have been held for lengthy periods in pre-trial detention, while the proportionality issue worries not only the UK, but other member states. That is why we are discussing the future of the European arrest warrant with other member states.

Disturbances (London)

Jim Sheridan Excerpts

Monday 28th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question; I am indeed prepared to do that. Over a period of years we saw a sensible response to football hooligans, which included banning orders. That is why I have asked the police whether we need more powers, and I am willing to look at that example.

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

Has the Home Secretary had time to reflect on the policing Minister’s response to a patsy question on the BBC, where the sense was that the Leader of the Opposition was responsible for the anarchist attacks? If she honestly believes that the Leader of the Opposition is responsible for them, then we had better bring back the planes from Libya and have a no-fly zone over the Labour party headquarters in London.

[Mrs May]

I would simply say to the hon. Gentleman that that was not what the policing Minister said. It is extremely disappointing that, at a time when the House should be uniting in its support of the police and its condemnation of violence, the hon. Gentleman chose to address his question in that way.

Alcohol (Minimum Pricing)

Jim Sheridan Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2011 Westminster Hall

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Jim Sheridan (in the Chair)]

Order. Several right hon. and hon. Members have indicated that they wish to speak. It is my intention to call the Front-Bench spokesmen from 10.30 am, so I ask speakers to take that into consideration when they make their contributions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Jim Sheridan (in the Chair)]

Order. I am reliably informed that both Front-Bench spokespeople are content to extend the licensing hour for Back-Bench speeches to 10.40 am.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

This has been an exceptional debate. Some debates that we have either on the Floor of the House or in Westminster Hall are partisan. Speakers may have entrenched positions and may not necessarily reflect the views of the whole of the United Kingdom or, indeed, of all political parties, but that is not the case this morning. That highlights the impact of the issue and the concerns that people have about the misuse of alcohol and what we see in our communities because of it. Equally, it reflects the complexity of the matter, which can and should be addressed in several different ways. There are societal, health and crime issues, and those themes came through clearly in a range of contributions, whether speeches or interventions, which have informed the debate and made it valuable.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) on securing this debate and allowing this discussion to take place. When I was doing my research, I thought that I had suddenly latched on to something when I discovered a page on the internet that said, “MP admits mistake”:

“MP Nick Smith has told Parliament he ‘got it wrong’”

on the drinking age, but I then discovered it was a New Zealand MP with the same name rather than the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent. I know that the hon. Gentleman takes this issue seriously. In his initial contribution in this House, he highlighted his concerns about social and health inequalities in his constituency as well as other themes. I know how keenly he feels about these issues, and why he sought to secure this debate.

It is important to recognise that, for the first time, because of research that we have undertaken and the many representations that we have heard, we have set out the need to establish a link between alcohol harms and price. I am delighted that the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) is in his place, because we have reflected on the comments in the Home Affairs Committee report, which, interestingly, was published in November 2008. That shows how time passes in this place. It recommended that the Government establish a legal basis for banning the use of loss-leading by supermarkets—that was one of the key recommendations. He and I have had several debates over the years on the issue and the points that arise from it.

It is also important to say that our modelling indicates that the change that we are proposing—duty plus VAT—will reduce the number of crimes by about 7,000 and hospital admissions by about 1,000. We heard from the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) about his fears that the change will somehow drive the price down. I certainly do not see it that way. The sad reality is that some products are deeply discounted. They will be caught by our proposals, and hence the change that we are seeing.

I appreciated my visit to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. I went to Newquay and saw some of the good community work that is taking place on the ground, and how people are dealing with some of the issues around youth drinking and some of the pressures in certain towns. The Newquay Safe Partnership is an important example of that practical work, and I was delighted to visit his constituency.

I am conscious that time is limited, so I apologise if I am unable to canter through everything. The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent asked about the options for bringing matters forward. I am certainly committed to doing that as soon as practicable. We are examining various options, but I intend to press forward quickly to resolve matters and ensure that the measures are introduced at the earliest opportunity.

There were also some questions about Treasury statements, and the hon. Gentleman asked about my comments on super-strength lagers. Before Christmas, the Treasury conducted its own analysis of duty and identified super-strength lagers of more than 17.5% alcohol by volume as a particular issue. It was considering options for duty in the Budget. I hope that that gives him an idea of the time frame.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) highlighted some of the practical issues on the booze bus that clears up some of the problems late in the evening. I stayed out with the booze bus in London late into the evening and saw people literally being picked up off the street—they were dealt with professionally and impressively by the London ambulance service and paramedics. I found quite interesting the leaflet that they gave to the people with whom they dealt, who perhaps would reflect on it the following morning when nursing the after-effects of what they had been through the night before. The leaflet highlights the cost of the pick-ups—each case costs the London ambulance service some £200—and the fact that about 60,000 calls are made each year. I saw for myself some of the real challenges that professionals have to deal with on the ground, responding to the issue, which is why it is important to introduce several different measures to address the problems linked to excessive alcohol consumption.

There is a clear role for the industry. I have been struck by some of the positive work, not just in Newquay, on things such as community alcohol projects, Best Bar Nones, purple flags and some of the steps that are already being taken by the industry to address the problem. Yes, more should and could be done, which is why, for example, we are seeking to introduce the late night levy. It will assist local communities with funding and support for policing and some of the other initiatives, such as the booze bus.

As a rejoinder to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) who described our response as bureaucratic, I gently remind her of the previous Government’s alcohol disorder zones. If she thinks that what we are proposing is bureaucratic—it is actually simple and straightforward—I point her in the direction of ADZs and the bureaucracy that was attached to them. I hope that she will welcome some of the steps that we are taking on pricing, because I know that the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), a former Home Secretary, indicated regret at not taking that on board. I welcome her support as we go on to debate some of the detail around licensing in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill during the coming weeks.

It is important to set the proposal for the ban on below-cost sales in our proposal to introduce a floor price of duty plus VAT. The matter was considered carefully. There were some comments about the industry making further suggestions. We consulted during the summer on our proposals and listened carefully to the responses. Again, there were no simple solutions or unanimous views on what should happen. This is a complex matter, and there are issues around competition law. Also, we need to produce something that is understandable and easy to enforce. There are other models such as invoice pricing, but we did not want to get involved in them because of the bureaucracy attached to them.

Sadly, it appears that we are now calling time on this debate. Our proposals are a first step. We are determined to tackle the harms caused by alcohol and are introducing a comprehensive suite of proposals on problem practices, problem licensing and problem people, and we are looking at how we can better support and aid recovery as part of our wider strategy. I have appreciated this morning’s debate, which I am sure will continue.

[Jim Sheridan (in the Chair)]

Order. We must move on to the next debate. I ask hon. Members who are not staying to leave quickly and quietly.