Immigration (Guidance on Detention of Vulnerable Persons) Regulations 2018 Detention Centre (Amendment) Rules 2018

Joan Ryan Excerpts

Wednesday 6th June 2018 General Committees

[Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mrs Moon. It is not the first time I have done so; I think the first time was in Westminster Hall. I make no apology if I repeat some of what my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton said from the Front Bench, because this matter is of such importance that it bears repeating.

I welcome this opportunity to scrutinise Government policy relating to the welfare of vulnerable people in immigration detention. At the risk of your ire, Mrs Moon, I will say that I do not think any of us has ever said that there is absolutely no place for immigration detention, but legislation and guidance have always referred to exceptional circumstances. Members sitting on a Committee of this importance, where we see a present danger and threat to the health and life of human beings, should know that.

The new Home Secretary, as my hon. Friend said, has pledged to re-evaluate the Government’s hostile environment policy because of the Windrush scandal. I completely agree with my hon. Friend; the adults at risk policy is part of that hostile environment, and I think the court judgment demonstrated that. The issues we are discussing today should be an important part of that review, because the treatment of victims of torture and other vulnerable people in the country’s immigration detention system is nothing short of scandalous. The current safeguards have failed, and the proposed amendments to the detention centre rules and the guidance on the detention of vulnerable persons set out in the statutory instruments will fail to provide adequate protection to vulnerable people.

I prayed against these statutory instruments with the support of Front-Bench colleagues to give the Government an opportunity to break with the errors of past policies. I urge the Minister to withdraw the SIs so that a proper consultation can be carried out on the proposed changes.

The Minister will know that I brought a ten-minute rule Bill before the House last December to make provision about immigration detention safeguards for victims of torture and other vulnerable people—I emphasise “other vulnerable people”. I will come to that point, but I am sure the Minister understands why I emphasise it. Long-standing Home Office policy has required that vulnerable people, including those with independent evidence of torture, should not be detained unless in exceptional circumstances. In practice, however, many are.

Extensive medical evidence has shown that immigration detention can seriously harm the mental health of detainees, particularly those who have previously suffered ill treatment, and the conditions of immigration detention can be appalling. Six court cases in recent years have reported on the inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees. Surely we should all be shamed by such reports. In 2017 alone, 11 people died in custody. Detainees in immigration detention are dying at a faster rate than we have seen before. We should all be deeply concerned about that.

In 2016, the then Home Secretary—now Prime Minister—commissioned the former prisons and probation ombudsman, Stephen Shaw, to conduct a review of the welfare of vulnerable persons in detention. His damning report found that the safeguards for vulnerable people were inadequate, and that detention was used too often and for too long. It is not a Labour spokesperson saying that; it is the former prisons and probation ombudsman.

However, the implementation of the Government’s adults at risk policy, which incorporates the detention centre rules and guidance on the detention of vulnerable persons, failed to address Shaw’s recommendations. Far from increasing protection to vulnerable detainees, it increased the risk of harm. In its initial 10 weeks of implementation, the adults at risk policy was applied incorrectly in almost 60% of 340 cases. Between January and September 2017, Freedom from Torture’s medico-legal report service received 101 referrals for suspected torture survivors in immigration detention, and 14 of its treatment clients were detained between January 2016 and November 2017. Torture survivors continue to be detained.

The guidance on the detention of vulnerable persons raised the threshold for a decision not to detain by increasing the evidentiary burden on the vulnerable individual. As a result, the release rate following a rule 35 report—designed to screen torture victims out of detention—has fallen dramatically. In quarter 3 of 2016, before the policy was introduced, 39% of those with a rule 35 report were released. In quarter 1 of 2018, that number fell to 12.5%.

According to the charity Medical Justice, the Home Office policy fundamentally weakened protections for vulnerable detainees, leading to more, rather than fewer, being detained for longer. That analysis was borne out in October 2017 by a ruling of the High Court in a case brought against the Home Office by Medical Justice and seven detainees. It found that the adults at risk policy unlawfully imprisoned hundreds of victims of torture. Do any of us really want to be responsible for that? That was due to the Home Office’s deeply regrettable decision to narrow the definition of torture so that it refers only to violence carried out by state actors, and excludes vulnerable survivors of non-state abuse. We can all think of organisations that might be responsible for non-state abuse. The policy also encourages states—some rogue states—to outsource torture to organisations such as ISIS, the Taliban, Hezbollah to name but a few: I am sure hon. Members can come up with examples of their own.

Let me come to some of the questions I want the Minister to answer today. They echo some of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton made, and those that I am sure other hon. Members will make. The Government tabled these statutory instruments in direct response to the High Court’s ruling. Why are the Government proceeding with introducing these statutory instruments in their current form when Medical Justice—the very organisation that brought the successful litigation against the Home Office—has said that these changes will not deliver inclusive, protective and effective detention safeguards for vulnerable people? Why are we going ahead with that? The Government should be paying due respect and attention to the assessment of experts. They should have done that some time ago and saved themselves a High Court judgment. They should most certainly be doing that now.

Instead, to quote Freedom from Torture and Medical Justice,

“The SIs were laid before Parliament following an inadequate and expedited ‘consultation’ with a limited group of NGOs.”

They cautioned against the new torture definition, as set out in SI 2018/411, and said it was unnecessary, inappropriate and too complex for caseworkers and doctors to apply to specific cases. That is the very point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton. They said that,

“even when applied correctly, the definition will exclude a group of victims of severe ill-treatment, who do not fall within the other indicators of risk”.

Their concerns have been ignored by Government.

Why does the Minister think it necessary to produce a new definition of torture when the Government were not ordered to do so by the High Court? Can the Minister explain why the Government rejected the recommendation of Freedom from Torture and Medical Justice that the current categories of torture and victims of sexual or gender-based violence be replaced with a more inclusive category, modelled on the UN High Commissioner for Refugees’ detention guidelines, namely,

“victims of torture or serious physical or psychological, sexual or gender-based violence or ill treatment”?

NGOs stipulated that the new catch-all provision within the revised guidance on detention of vulnerable persons

“does not adequately mitigate the risk of excluding from the protection of the safeguard those who are known to be at risk of harm in detention”.

Their concerns, again, have been ignored by Government. NGOs asked the Home Office to await the publication of Stephen Shaw’s re-review into the welfare of vulnerable people in detention, in order to allow consideration of his findings before laying changes before Parliament. Their concerns have been ignored by Government, as have the concerns of the cross-party group of parliamentarians, including myself, who signed Lord Dubs’ letter to the Minister in March.

I raised this matter with the Minister during our telephone call about these issues on 28 March but was not provided with a satisfactory response. I wondered whether the telephone call was lip service or a tick-box exercise in order to say that consultation had taken place. The High Court judge did not demand that the Home Office respond to the court order before Shaw published. As we now know, Shaw gave the Home Office his report a matter of some weeks before these statutory instruments were tabled in the House.

[The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)]

indicated dissent.

[Joan Ryan]

I will refer to the timeline in a moment but I understand that the Minister had the report.

[Caroline Nokes]

I would like to provide reassurance on that. I received Mr Shaw’s report at the end of April.

[Joan Ryan]

I accept what the Minister has said but I will check my notes when I sit down. If necessary, I hope she will let me come back. Whatever the case, the Minister has the Shaw re-review now. Given the considerable resource and expert input expended on the second Shaw review, I consider it deeply ill advised to proceed with these changes before the Government, parliamentarians and expert NGOs have had time to consider Shaw’s latest recommendations.

Let us be clear: as the judge did not ask for this to be done, it was always an option for the Government to go back to before the adults at risk policy and narrowing torture definition that have caused all the problems. They could have gone back to the previous policy while we look at the Shaw re-review, before laying these SIs. Why did the Minister not wait for Shaw to provide his findings before issuing these statutory instruments? It seems inexplicable, and the answers I have seen from her in no way answer that question. Can she explain why she believes that it is more sensible to consider the revised definition of torture and the amended guidance separately from the findings of the Shaw re-review? Given the relevance of Shaw’s re-review to the adults at risk policy, when will his report be made publicly available? Also, given that the Home Office possesses the report, why can we not see it now?

In a written statement on the Windrush scandal, which the Home Secretary submitted to the House on 24 May, he said that it was

“fundamentally important that the lessons from this episode are learned for the future, so that this never happens again.”—[Official Report, 24 May 2018; Vol. 641, c. 53WS.]

It is blindingly obvious that the Government are refusing to learn the important lessons on how to increase the protection of vulnerable detainees. The Government have ignored the expert advice of esteemed organisations, cross-party concerns in Parliament, expressed through questions, letters and early day motions, and a Select Committee inquiry, none of which has been properly addressed. As a consequence, here we are today, discussing statutory instruments that are not fit for purpose.

If there were any doubt about the level of concern, I am sure that the Minister is aware that early-day motion 696 was signed by 131 MPs, making it the eighth most supported early-day motion in the 2017-19 parliamentary Session. We have also had the early-day motions that have prayed against today’s statutory instruments: early-day motion 1200 and early-day motion 1202, which have 115 and 111 signatures respectively. That is a significant level of concern.

As we have heard, the Joint Committee on Human Rights is considering this matter today. The Home Affairs Committee also conducted an inquiry. I have read the transcript of that, and the answers that were given were most unsatisfactory. Next Thursday, we will have a Back-Bench debate in Westminster Hall that was requested by more than 20 MPs. The issue is not going away. Nobody is satisfied; everybody is concerned. I do not understand why the Minister is not paying any attention to what Members of Parliament, Select Committees and experts are saying.

How can the Minister say with confidence that, despite all the concerns that have been raised, the statutory instruments will make the situation better, not worse, for vulnerable people in detention? Is she willing to acknowledge that the Government may be running a real risk of further court action by ploughing on regardless of criticism? I cannot believe that she wants to make the situation worse for vulnerable detainees, so I cannot understand why she will not listen to what is being said to her.

In December 2017, as part of the conclusion to a ten-minute rule Bill speech, I said:

“The UK has a proud history of providing sanctuary to people fleeing violence and persecution. We have both moral and legal obligations to victims of torture and other vulnerable people who seek asylum. The UK must set an example as a country that respects and upholds human rights commitments. The torment faced by many individuals in the Government’s immigration detention system runs counter to this country’s proudest traditions.”—[Official Report, 20 December 2017; Vol. 633, c. 1073.]

We are asking for a policy devised with consideration, care and compassion for victims of torture and other vulnerable people who have come to this country seeking refuge. In order to ensure a more humane approach to immigration detention in general, I also urge the Minister to end indefinite immigration detention, and to introduce a 28-day time limit. I will not pursue that, because it is not the subject of the statutory instruments, but it is obviously a related issue. Will she therefore commit to reviewing that policy too?

The Government must learn the lessons from this episode so we do not end up back in court again. That would not be the worst outcome; the worst outcome would be to harm vulnerable individuals who are detained when they should not be. I urge the Minister to reflect on my concerns and withdraw the regulations. The Government must also engage constructively with parliamentarians and expert non-governmental organisations to ensure we have a policy that works for the good of vulnerable detainees. I look forward to the Minister’s response to my speech and her answers to my questions. I thank Committee members for their patience.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Enfield North for prompting today’s debate and for the opportunity to set out the Government’s position on these matters. We put significant effort into encouraging individuals to comply with immigration rules and supporting those with no right to remain in the UK to leave voluntarily. Unfortunately, a minority of individuals refuse to comply with the immigration rules and detention may be a necessary and proportionate tool to enforce their return.

Detention is used sparingly and we operate a strong presumption in favour of liberty. At any one time, we are detaining only 5% of those liable to removal, and the number of individuals we detain is decreasing: in the year ending March 2018, 26,541 people entered immigration detention, a reduction of 8% on the previous year.

Each time an individual is detained, there must be a realistic prospect of removal within a reasonable timescale, and we expect those making detention decisions to consider the likely duration of detention necessary to effect removal. The vast majority are held for very short periods: some 91%, or 25,000, of those leaving detention in the year ending March 2018 were detained for less than four months, and 64% were detained for less than a month.

When it is necessary to detain people in order to remove them, we have a number of safeguards in place, which are a key component of the adults at risk in immigration detention policy. The adults at risk policy was implemented in September 2016 and was a significant part of our response to Stephen Shaw’s review of the welfare of vulnerable people in immigration detention. Under the policy, vulnerable people are detained or their detention is continued only when the immigration considerations in their particular case outweigh the evidence of vulnerability. Decisions are made on the basis of all available evidence. Cases are reviewed regularly, as well as on an ad hoc basis whenever new evidence comes to light in respect of removability and vulnerability.

That brings me to the specifics of the statutory instruments, as they relate directly to the adults at risk policy. The main purpose of the statutory instruments is to amend the definition of torture for the purposes of immigration detention. Torture is one of the 10 indicators of risk in the adults at risk policy, in addition to a further safeguarding provision for any other vulnerability.

I do not dispute the assumption that individuals who have been tortured—along with all others who are vulnerable under the terms of the adults at risk policy—should be considered to be at particular risk of harm if detained, but that does not mean that such individuals should never be detained. The adults at risk policy represents a proportionate and rational way of carefully balancing the vulnerability considerations against immigration considerations. It aims to ensure that when the most vulnerable are detained, it is only for very short periods of time or where there are overriding public protection concerns.

The way in which torture is defined in the context of immigration detention has a long history. The definition in use, the so-called EO definition, was established in case law in 2013. It is a broad definition, which limits the ability of the Home Office and of immigration removal centre health services to focus resources on the most vulnerable. The Home Office therefore introduced the UNCAT definition of torture into the adults at risk policy. As we have heard this afternoon, the High Court has since declared that definition to be unlawful when used for the purposes of immigration detention. We of course accept the High Court’s view.

Contrary to what some have argued, however, the court also declared that the adults at risk policy was inherently sound. It took issue with the EO definition of torture, believing that it did not get to the heart of the imperative of defining torture in terms of the impacts of acts of harm that would be triggered by immigration detention. The court helpfully set out its view on what a rational definition of torture for the purposes of immigration detention should look like, and we used that as the basis of the definition set out in the statutory instruments.

The court also said that the broad safeguarding provision was not effective and that guidance needed to be amended. The SI bringing into force the revised statutory guidance meets that requirement.

[Joan Ryan]

First, the Minister is correct—I am saying so for the record—about when she received the Shaw re-review. However, she laid the statutory instruments on 27 March, to come into effect on 2 July, so she will have had the Shaw re-review for a couple of months before they come into effect. It does not seem reasonable not to have waited so that we could have taken that important re-review into account.

Secondly, I want to come back on the torture definition. Does the Minister agree that the judge did not order the Home Office to maintain a torture definition? His commentary on the definition was caveated with

“if that indicator is to be retained”.

The mechanism should have a very low threshold for identifying those vulnerable to harm in detention—much lower than that setting out culpability under international law. That does not seem to be where we are. This narrow approach risks excluding others who are no less highly vulnerable and who have suffered serious ill-treatment.

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the right hon. Lady for putting on the record that I received Mr Shaw’s re-review at the end of April this year. She will be conscious that we have significant parliamentary timetable issues to get through, not least the summer recess. The High Court judgment was delivered on 10 October last year with an emphasis on timeliness. When I spoke to the right hon. Lady and before we laid the SIs, I did not know exactly when the Shaw re-review would arrive. I was expecting it imminently but, in the event, it came significantly after the date that I had expected it—by a couple of weeks. I was anxious that we should not be in the situation, 12 months on from the judgment, of not having responded and of still not having a new definition on the statute book.

The right hon. Lady spoke about whether there is a need for a definition of torture or, indeed, the other aspects of vulnerability that make up part of our adults at risk policy. However, there are 10 separate elements of indicators of vulnerability, of which torture is only one. We were conscious of the potential for some vulnerability that we had not previously considered, so we included a catch-all category at the end to enable different types of vulnerability that had perhaps had been missed to be considered by health professionals working in the detention estate when considering people’s suitability—or, indeed, by our detention gatekeepers.

[Joan Ryan]

I thank the Minister for being so generous in giving way. I agree that a catch-all is vital to ensure that unforeseen vulnerabilities can be picked up, but it is not an adequate substitute for known categories of vulnerability. Therefore, will the Home Office merge the existing categories of sexual violence and torture into a more comprehensive category modelled on the UNHCR detention guidelines, to ensure that vulnerable people are identified?

Furthermore, expert non-governmental organisations have said that the catch-all is too vague. The idea that the list is not exhaustive is essentially what the catch-all is, which leaves caseworkers in a difficult position; vulnerable people who should not be detained will be detained.

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her view. I disagree with her; it is important to have a catch-all that enables other categories to come forward. I do not want to make our definitions and guidance so restrictive that people may fall through the cracks. I am sure we all agree that that is absolutely the worst thing that could happen.

The view was put forward, as the right hon. Lady said, that the Home Office should not have laid these statutory instruments until Stephen Shaw’s follow-up report is published. I do not accept that; the changes we seek to make through the statutory instruments are to implement the court’s judgment within the reasonable timescale set by the court. The right hon. Lady will have read the judgment; specifically, paragraphs 172 to 177 cover these points in some detail. The Government have been correct to take the necessary action to put in place the new definition of torture within a reasonable timeframe. It is also right that we have made the important amendment to the statutory guidance, to put it beyond doubt that the list of 10 indicators is not exhaustive.

Implementing the court’s judgment is just the first step, and it is the right thing to do now. Stephen Shaw has conducted a wide-ranging re-review and we will consider carefully his recommendations, which have been relatively recently received and will be published, along with our response, towards the end of this month. We will take the recommendations into account and review the operation of the rule 35 reporting mechanism, as part of the wider review of the detention centre rules later this year. That exercise will be subject to consultation.

Until the report is formally published, I will not be in a position to disclose its contents. I can, though, say that my officials informed Mr Shaw’s team of proposals to implement the new definition of torture in parallel with their engagement with NGOs. I have explained to some hon. Members already that we will most certainly take Mr Shaw’s views into account when we review the detention centre rules later in the year. The imperative at present is to ensure that, in the light of the court’s very clearly expressed view, the correct definition of torture is applied without undue delay.

I turn to some of the comments made by right hon. and hon. Members. Please be assured that I have heeded the warning of Mr Shaw’s review and, if it can be regarded as such, the warning in paragraphs 172 to 177 of Mr Justice Ouseley’s judgment of 10 October. As I said, the review of the detention centre rules will come later this year. Adults at risk did form part of Shaw’s review, which will be published at the end of this month. That gives us the opportunity to carefully consider and establish what enhancements can be made to that policy. I regard it as a work in progress and something that we need to make sure we make necessary improvements to, as required.

The right hon. Member for Enfield North mentioned timeliness; the High Court had the benefit of the experts brought before it by Medical Justice. I am sure that she has read the judge’s comments, but I remind her that we had already invited Mr Shaw to carry out his re-review. I feel that there is a time imperative: we should not have allowed parliamentary recesses and delay to mean that we did not have a better definition 12 months after that judgment. We are considering the adults at risk policy in the round and we will publish Shaw’s report and our response later this month.

The right hon. Lady concluded with a comment on the 28-day time limit, which, although not strictly in the terms of these regulations, I regard as an arbitrary time limit that potentially runs the risk of those with no right to be here deliberately frustrating their removal, simply to meet the date at which they might be released.

The hon. Member for Feltham and Heston made some important points about mental health and the welfare of detainees. I take on board her comments about those with serious mental health conditions. We have worked very hard to introduce the mental health action plan in 2016—it was developed by the Home Office, NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care, following research by the Centre for Mental Health.

I am firmly of the view that the provision of mental health care in IRCs is crucial, but it is a matter for NHS England. We must, of course, remember that those with serious mental health conditions are perhaps best looked after under section 48 of the Mental Health Act 1983 and in hospital.

It has been suggested this afternoon that caseworkers and doctors would find the definition of torture set out in the statutory instruments to be too complicated. I do not accept that. As I have said, that is based on guidance provided by the court and has a number of key elements that must be met, but it is not inherently complex. We are in the process of producing detailed guidance for caseworkers who will be making decisions, and have engaged with a range of non-governmental organisations on the guidance.

My officials are currently also involved in running out an extensive training programme for caseworkers and healthcare professionals working in immigration removal centres and short-term holding facilities.

[Joan Ryan]

My understanding is that there was confusion when many of the caseworkers in training were questioned afterwards about the sample cases put before them on whether a person would be classed as vulnerable, should be safeguarded or not be detained. It was very difficult for them to identify who should be detained and who should not. Therefore, there is reason for concern. Medical Justice says that there will be problems applying this definition for medico-legal reports. Why are we not listening to what it says?

[Caroline Nokes]

We invited NGOs to attend the early sessions as observers and provide feedback. It is important that we evaluate carefully the success of training as part of any process. As I said, we are still in the process of rolling out guidance and the training programme. To date, we are about one fifth of the way through the training programme. It is important that we continue to learn the lessons.

I believe that these are important statutory instruments. As I explained to right hon. and hon. Members, the court clearly indicated that our previous definition was not adequate, so I have no hesitation in commending them to the Committee.

Hate Crime

Joan Ryan Excerpts

Monday 12th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

Of course we recognise the importance of bringing communities together, and there are many ways in which to do that. My constituency may enjoy being brought together in a very different way from another constituency elsewhere in the country. I am not clear about the direct impact asserted by the hon. Gentleman in relation to that project, but I will happily write to him about it.

[Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)]

May I, along with everybody else, condemn this absolutely abhorrent letter? It has been reported that since the EU referendum there has been a spike in hate crime, both in Islamophobia and in anti-Semitism, coming from the hard right and the hard left. It has also been reported by the Crown Prosecution Service that, against that increase in incidents, there was a drop by more than 1,000 in the number of prosecutions in 2016-17. What is the Minister doing with the CPS and the police to ensure that that is reversed?

[Victoria Atkins]

The drop in referrals, recorded last year, has had an impact on the number of completed prosecutions in 2016 and 2017. The Crown Prosecution Service is working with the police at local and national level to understand the reasons for the overall fall in referrals in the past two years. The message to spread around our constituencies to people who have been a victim of hate crime is please report it, because that way we can try to do something about it.

Proscription of Hezbollah

Joan Ryan Excerpts

Thursday 25th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes that Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation driven by an antisemitic ideology that seeks the destruction of Israel; notes that Hezbollah declares itself to be one organisation without distinguishable political or military wings; is concerned that the military wing of that organisation is proscribed, but its political wing is not; and calls on the Government to include Hezbollah in its entirety on the list of proscribed organisations.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am pleased that my right hon. Friend is bringing this issue to the House. I do not know whether she is aware of this, but in December the Government held a debate on the extension of proscribed organisations. During that debate, the Minister for Security and Economic Crime told me that only the military organisation of Hezbollah was proscribed, but that Hezbollah supporters who engaged in terrorist activities in this country would be prosecuted.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that terrorist activities should not be the only grounds for prosecution, and that there should be prosecutions for incitement to hatred, incitement to anti-Semitism and other crimes that are being committed on the streets of London? As the Mayor of London has said, Hezbollah should be banned in its entirety.

[Joan Ryan]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and I thank him for that intervention, which I take as 100% support for the motion.

I am the chair of Labour Friends of Israel, an organisation that has campaigned for many years on the issue that we are addressing. Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation, driven by anti-Semitic ideology, which seeks the destruction of Israel. It has wreaked death and destruction throughout the middle east, aiding and abetting the Assad regime’s butchery in Syria and helping to drive Iran’s expansionism throughout the region. It makes no distinction between its political and military wings, and nor should the British Government.

In 2010, the Obama Administration labelled Hezbollah

“the most technically capable terrorist group in the world”.

Over the past three decades, it has been implicated in a string of deadly attacks against Israeli, Jewish and western targets in the middle east and far beyond. Its operatives have been arrested for plotting or carrying out attacks across the globe, in Europe, Asia, Africa and South America. The litany of death and violence widely attributed to Hezbollah includes the 1983 murder in Beirut of 241 American and 58 French peacekeepers; the 1986 wave of bombings against Jewish communal targets in Paris, in which 13 people died; the 1992 attack on the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires, in which 29 people died; the 1994 bombing of the Argentine-Jewish mutual association, which led to the deaths of 85 people; the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in which 19 US servicemen lost their lives and nearly 500 people were injured; and the 2012 attack on a bus of Israeli tourists in the Bulgarian resort of Burgas, in which six people were murdered and for which two people finally went on trial last week.

Such terrorist acts are promoted, glorified and encouraged by the Hezbollah leadership. Hezbollah’s secretary-general, Hassan Nasrallah, has, for instance, praised suicide bombings—or “martyrdom operations”, as he prefers to describe them—as

“legitimate, honourable, legal, humanitarian and ethical actions”

saying that “those who love death” will triumph over those who fear it.

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

The right hon. Lady is making a powerful speech. Does she agree that the 1,000 or so people who marched in London under the Hezbollah flag subscribe to the very agenda that she has described? There is no difference between the military and political wings of Hezbollah, as it continually acknowledges. The only recognition of a difference is in UK policy; it does not exist in reality. It is time for that policy to change.

[Joan Ryan]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman and thank him for that intervention. He is completely right to say that there is no distinction and we need to be clear about that.

Hezbollah’s actions are driven by a deep-seated, intractable and vicious hatred of Jews. The House does not need to take my word for it; Hezbollah’s leaders have proudly boasted of their anti-Semitism:

“If they all gather in Israel,”

declared Nasrallah,

“it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.”

Nor is Nasrallah a lone voice. Naim Qassem, Hezbollah’s deputy leader, has said that

“the history of Jews has proven that, regardless of the Zionist proposal, they are people who are evil in their ideas”.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Does she agree that, as well as being anti-Semitic, Hezbollah has assassinated and murdered Christians? As the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) has said, any distinction between a military part and a political part of Hezbollah is entirely without meaning.

[Joan Ryan]

I have no difficulty agreeing with my hon. Friend on that point. Hezbollah has killed probably more Muslims than anybody else, as well as Christians, Jews and others.

Hezbollah’s leaders and its media peddle classic anti-Semitic tropes and lies. They refer to Jews in the basest of terms, labelling them “apes and pigs”, and suggesting that

“you will find no one more miserly or greedy than they are”.

Hezbollah’s leaders and media make spurious claims about Jewish conspiracies and world domination, and they deny the Holocaust, suggesting that

“the Jews invented the legend of the Nazi atrocities”.

Hezbollah’s hatred of Jews is a noxious mix, which, in the words of one writer, fuses

“Arab nationalist-based anti-Zionism, anti-Jewish rhetoric from the Koran, and, most disturbingly, the antique anti-Semitic beliefs and conspiracy theories of European fascism”.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

I just want to highlight the backers of Hezbollah, the Iranians, who provide training and weapons, including rockets. While the Iranians’ malevolent influence continues throughout the middle east, they are jeopardising the prospects for peace between the Palestinians and Israelis and posing a strategic threat to the very state of Israel.

[Joan Ryan]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point with which I absolutely agree. I will come to it a little later.

Hezbollah is a menace throughout the middle east, but Israel is its principal target. That is no secret. In its founding manifesto in 1985, in which it also pledged its loyalty to Ayatollah Khomeini and urged the establishment of an Islamic regime, Hezbollah says of Israel:

“Our struggle will end only when this entity is obliterated… We recognise no treaty with it, no cease-fire, and no peace agreements, whether separate or consolidated.”

This is no mere rhetorical sabre-rattling; Hezbollah vehemently opposed the Oslo peace process and has fought any normalisation of relations between Israel and Arab countries. On numerous occasions—most notably in 1993, 1996 and 2006—it has sought to provoke conflict with Israel, and the consequences have been disastrous and devastating for the peoples of both Israel and Lebanon.

In 2006, Hezbollah kidnapped and murdered Israeli soldiers on the country’s northern border and proceeded to launch Katyusha rockets to indiscriminately pound the Jewish state. The resulting conflict led to large numbers of civilian casualties and the evacuation of several hundred thousand people. In defiance of UN resolution 1701, which brought the conflict to an end, Hezbollah has spent the last decade restocking its arsenal and rebuilding its forces in Lebanon. It has trebled the size of its fighting force from 17,000 to 45,000 men. It has launched an arms procurement programme, amassing short, medium and long-range missiles and rockets, drones, precision-guided projectiles, anti-tank weaponry and ballistic missiles. It now has an estimated 120,000 to 140,000 rockets and missiles—an arsenal larger than that of many states.

That Hezbollah has been allowed to replenish and then expand its armoury in this manner represents a terrible failure on the part of the international community, a breaking of the assurances provided to Israel and a betrayal of the people of Lebanon and Israel. The implications are truly horrifying. Andrew Exum, an expert on the region and President Obama’s former deputy assistant secretary of defence for middle east policy, wrote recently:

“I shudder to think what the next conflict will look like.”

Hezbollah has no qualms about such a war. It does not care about the loss of thousands of civilian lives—of Israelis, Lebanese, Jews, Muslims and Christians—that its aggression will lead to.

Quite deliberately, Hezbollah has embedded its forces and weaponry in towns and villages, turning the people of southern Lebanon into human shields. Quite deliberately, it will, as it has done in the past, target civilian population centres in Israel, even vowing, in the words of Nasrallah, that there will be “no red lines” in any future conflict—he underlined the pledge with threats to attack the Dimona nuclear reactor and the ammonia storage facility in Haifa. Quite deliberately, it will seek to draw in other regional actors. Its capacity may be many times greater than those of other terrorist groups, but its aim—to instil terror by inflicting mass civilian casualties—is the same as that of those who wage attacks on targets big and small throughout the world, and of those who attacked London Bridge, the Manchester arena and this House only last year.

Hezbollah has not simply exported terror globally and wreaked havoc in Israel and Lebanon; its bloody fingerprints are all over the Syrian civil war, the most brutal conflict of this century. In 2016, it was estimated that more than a quarter of Hezbollah’s forces were engaged in fighting on behalf of the murderous Assad regime. It has not only contributed to the killing fields of Aleppo and Homs; it has helped to eliminate the non-extremist opposition to Assad, thus contributing to the ranks of Sunni jihadists and stirring sectarian hatred.

Hezbollah has indeed become Iran’s indispensable partner—the Blackwater of Iran, as some have labelled it—helping to promote and further Tehran’s expansionist agenda throughout the middle east, in Syria, Iraq and Yemen. Such a vast enterprise cannot be run on the cheap, so in addition to the vast sums of weaponry and cash lavished on it by Iran, the party of God is now engaged in money laundering, arms sales and drugs smuggling. It works through informal networks and centrally run enterprises. The latter, one leading middle east expert told the US Congress last summer, were operating like “international organised criminal entities”.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Do not the various elements that my right hon. Friend is describing show the indivisible nature of Hezbollah? It does not have separate wings but is one criminal terrorist entity.

[Joan Ryan]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a distinction that Hezbollah not only does not recognise but denies.

As the House will be aware, the British Government have long held the view that Hezbollah’s military wing is involved in conducting and supporting terrorism. In 2001, the Hezbollah External Security Organisation was added to the list of proscribed organisations. In 2008, this proscription was extended by a reference to the

“military wing of Hezbollah, including the Jihad Council and all units reporting to it (including the Hezbollah External Security Organisation)”.

Hezbollah’s political wing, however, is not proscribed, even though this distinction is not one that Hezbollah itself has ever recognised.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

My right hon. Friend is making a powerful case and we are grateful to her for bringing this to the House. Does she not agree that it should make both the Government Front-Bench team and our Opposition Front-Bench team deeply uneasy that they are effectively in an alliance in refusing to recognise the bogus distinction between the so-called military wing and the rest?

[Joan Ryan]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I am hoping that both Front-Bench teams will take note of my speech and come forward with policy decisions that support proscribing Hezbollah in its entirety.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

Is the right hon. Lady aware of the ComRes poll showing that 81% of the public want Hezbollah proscribed in its entirety, and does she agree—I see that there are some very honourable Members on the Opposition Benches—that the Labour Front-Bench team has got this wrong and should agree with the motion, not oppose it?

[Joan Ryan]

Obviously—unless the Labour Front-Bench team is agreeing with my position—we have a difference of opinion, but I am calling on the Government to change their position. I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but his point would have far more weight and power if he addressed it to his own Front-Bench team, as they are in a position to lead on this but are not doing so.

[Nick Boles (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)]

It is so great to see you back in your seat, Mr Deputy Speaker. I high-tailed it from my office in Norman Shaw South when I saw the right hon. Lady on the television screen and was absolutely inspired by the passion with which she is speaking. She is a friend of Israel, and I am a friend of Israel, but does she agree that you do not have to be a friend of Israel to believe that Hezbollah, in its entirety, is a terrorist organisation? You can be a friend of Syria, a friend of Lebanon or a friend of the entire middle east, but you should want Hezbollah, in its entirety, to be banned.

[Joan Ryan]

Well said—I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation and it should be banned in its entirety—whoever you are a friend of—if you are not a friend of the terrorists. I would add one other thing: it is not just for Jews to fight anti-Semitism, and this is an anti-Semitic organisation; it is for all of us to stand up on that issue.

The distinction is not one that Hezbollah has ever recognised; in fact, it has consistently and explicitly refuted it. In 1985, its founding document stated clearly:

“As to our military power, nobody can imagine its dimensions because we do not have a military agency separate from the other parts of our body. Each of us is a combat soldier when the call of jihad demands it.”

It could not be clearer.

In 2009, Naim Qassem, Hezbollah’s deputy general secretary, made it clear that

“the same leadership that directs the parliamentary and government work also leads jihad actions in the struggle against Israel”.

It could not be clearer. He repeated this message three years later, declaring:

“We don't have a military wing and a political one; we don’t have Hezbollah on one hand and the resistance party on the other…Every element of Hezbollah, from commanders to members as well as our various capabilities, are in the service of the resistance, and we have nothing but the resistance as a priority.”

Those are Hezbollah’s own words.

Also in 2013, Nasrallah himself ruled out any notion that the military and political wings were somehow different:

“However, jokingly I will say—though I disagree on such separation or division—that I suggest that our ministers in the upcoming Lebanese government be from the military wing of Hezbollah.”

He also mocked our Government’s division between the two, saying

“the story of military wing and political wing is the work of the British”.

That is what he said. It is a distinction that, with good reason, many other countries throughout the world do not recognise. Those that do not include the Netherlands, Canada, the US, the Arab League and the Gulf Co-operation Council.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

The right hon. Lady’s passion and clarity on this issue are absolutely right. I agree that it is incumbent on the Government in principle—I hope those in the Opposition Front-Bench team would follow—to change the policy. Is it not absolutely possible to work with the Government of Lebanon—a Government with whom we are extremely friendly and whom we are assisting to defend herself against the predations of ISIS, initially, and now of other factions in Syria? Is it not absolutely possible to assist our legitimate and welcome allies in Lebanon against those things, yet still call out this terrorist group for what it is, for the violence it is committing in Syria and for the destruction it is carrying out in northern Israel and all around the region?

[Joan Ryan]

Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman is right. Those Governments that do proscribe Hezbollah in its entirety do talk to the Lebanese Government. If Hezbollah wishes to change its views on Israel—to not obliterate it—and to signal that it will give up its arms, I am sure that, whether it is proscribed or not, that would be the right road to take if it wished to take part in any peace negotiations, which it clearly does not.

Many Members of this House do not recognise the false distinction between the military and the political wing, as is evident today. Last summer, marchers at the al-Quds day parade in London displayed Hezbollah flags, causing great offence to many, especially in the Jewish community. Once again, they were exploiting the utterly bogus separation that the Government choose to make.

I pay tribute to Jewish communal organisations, such as the Community Security Trust, the Board of Deputies and the Jewish Leadership Council, which have tirelessly campaigned on the issue of Hezbollah proscription. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), as well as the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord) and the Mayor of London, for their efforts to persuade the Government to proscribe Hezbollah in its entirety.

I note not only the Government’s unwillingness to do so but their inability to explain or justify why they will not act. I understand that, in conflict situations, it is sometimes necessary to keep open channels of communication to facilitate dialogue and to encourage those who are engaged in violence to abandon the bomb and the bullet for the ballot box. However, there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that this is Hezbollah’s intention. In both its rhetoric and its actions, this leopard shows no sign of changing its spots.

Nor do I accept the notion, which Ministers have previously advanced, that banning Hezbollah’s political wing might somehow—the Chair of the Select Committee touched on this—impede our ties with Lebanon, where Hezbollah exercises not just military but political power. Proscribing Hezbollah in its entirety does not appear to have hampered relations between Lebanon and any of the countries we have already referred to. I am deeply concerned that this Government are simply not taking the threat posed by Hezbollah seriously. Only last week, I was informed by the Home Office that it does not collect data on the numbers of Hezbollah members or supporters in the UK, a practice that is followed by other European countries, such as Germany.

The Terrorism Act 2000 allows the Home Secretary to proscribe an organisation which

“(a) commits or participates in acts of terrorism,

(b) prepares for terrorism,

(c) promotes or encourages terrorism,”

including the unlawful glorification of terrorism, or

“(d) is otherwise concerned in terrorism.”

As I have demonstrated, Hezbollah, the leaders of which assert that it is unified and indivisible, more than fulfils those criteria. Even if a distinction between the political and military wings could be drawn, the words of the former in promoting, encouraging and glorifying terrorism surely meet the Government’s criteria for proscription.

After last June’s terrorist attack at London Bridge, the Prime Minister said

“there is, to be frank, far too much tolerance of extremism in our country.”

I agree. Hezbollah is an organisation that is driven by a hatred of Jews, that promotes and encourages terrorism and that calls for the destruction of the middle east’s only democracy—a key British ally in the region. However, as long as the Government do not proscribe Hezbollah’s so-called political wing, the tolerance will continue.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Offord]

I am not in favour of banning things, I have to say. But the hurt, resentment, agitation and general disruption that this annual march causes—not only to the Metropolitan police, but to the people of London—should in itself lead to its being banned. This year, I called again on the Metropolitan police not to allow the march to go ahead. Infuriatingly, days after the Grenfell Tower fire, with the police massively stretched by the tragedy, the organisers insisted on going ahead with the march even though the Met did not have the resources to police it. That was reprehensible on the part of the IHRC.

This year, the march was led by a director of the IHRC, Nazim Ali, who in a speech, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) mentioned, blamed the Grenfell fire tragedy on

“the Zionist supporters of the Tory Party”.

He also accused the Israel Defence Forces of being a

“terrorist organisation that murdered Palestinians, Jews and British soldiers.”

Participants in the rally called for the destruction of Israel and waved slogans, including one stating “We are all Hezbollah”. Shockingly, but perhaps unsurprisingly, the Leader of the Opposition has spoken at the annual event in the past. I take this opportunity to call on him not to do so again in future.

As we have heard, senior Hezbollah officials have repeatedly said that Hezbollah is a single entity, proudly stating that “resistance” is their “priority”, and even publicly mocking the UK and other European countries for distinguishing between the two wings.

[Joan Ryan]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech, which I agree with. I should just say that in response to the al-Quds march and the resulting complaints and offence, the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has asked for Hezbollah to be proscribed.

[Dr Offord]

The right hon. Lady has made a really good point, and I want to respond; I am grateful that she took my intervention earlier. She is absolutely right—there is an issue with not only Labour Front Benchers but Government Front Benchers. I certainly hope that they hear what I am saying today. This is not about one party or another. I do not seek to make this a party political issue, but when I see the shadow Home Secretary rolling her eyes at some of the comments made by Labour Back Benchers, that makes me think that her heart is not really in this issue and that she is not as concerned as many Government Members—or, indeed, many Opposition Members.

According to Home Office guidance,

“Under the Terrorism Act 2000, the Home Secretary may proscribe an organisation if she believes it is concerned in terrorism, and it is proportionate to do. For the purposes of the Act, this means that the organisation: commits or participates in acts of terrorism; prepares for terrorism; promotes or encourages terrorism (including the unlawful glorification of terrorism); or is otherwise concerned in terrorism”.

It is worth reiterating that senior Hezbollah officials have openly and repeatedly stated that no substantive separation exists between so-called “political” and “military” wings. Given that fact, I believe that Hezbollah meets the criteria for full proscription under the Terrorism Act.

It is not just the Jewish community in this country who are distressed by Hezbollah’s overt presence in the UK; it also distresses those of us who deplore terrorism and hate all kinds of bigotry and those of us who want this country to be a welcoming and safe place for our many diverse communities.

A number of Members are unable to be here today because they have returned to their constituencies. No doubt they will be attending this weekend’s Holocaust Memorial Day commemorations. However, we must not underestimate the strength of feeling among the British public in favour of rooting out anti-Semitism and hatred wherever it occurs. Anti-Semitism is rising throughout Europe, and as we commemorate Holocaust Memorial Day on Saturday, we must be the ones to say, “Enough is enough.” It is in the best interests of us all to proscribe Hezbollah in full.

Let us demonstrate our commitment to tackling extremism by finally putting aside the mistaken belief that Hezbollah has a political wing. It quite simply does not exist. My constituents think we should not wait any longer before admitting that, and so do I.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his intervention, but let us make the position clear today: we want the proscription of Hezbollah. That is the thrust of this debate. That is what we are about. There are not two wings in Hezbollah.

[Joan Ryan]

I should like to clarify this point. Most members of the armed forces cannot comment on these issues, but very senior members of our armed forces who are no longer actively serving have made it clear that they think that this is a false division, and that Hezbollah should be proscribed in its entirety. I agree with them, although I understand that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) is not saying that he supports Hezbollah.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention. In a moment, I will give the House an example of an ex-soldier who has knowledge of the situation and whose position will become clear. Perhaps then, everyone in the Chamber will understand why we need and want this proscription.

Hezbollah leaders have openly stated that there is no separation between its component parts. The group in its entirety meets the criteria for full proscription under the Terrorism Act 2000. Its leaders have repeatedly encouraged terrorism and supported jihad and martyrdom. Hezbollah has been responsible for attacks on Jewish people across the globe, yet last year, as the hon. Member for Newark witnessed, people with Hezbollah flags marched down Oxford Street celebrating al-Quds day with complete disregard and with the AK-47 on their flags. If that is not provocative and illegal, I would like to know what is. Along with the flags and banners that day, we had all the associated inflammatory rhetoric because the purpose of the demonstration was to agitate for violent resistance and the destruction of the state of Israel under the euphemism of “liberating al-Quds”—Jerusalem. The context was militaristic, not political.

The domestic consequence of the current Government policy that the Minister will repeat in due course is a fabricated division that allows public support for a terrorist organisation and anti-Semitism to flourish freely on our streets. These actions are detrimental to social cohesion and damaging to community relations, and that is why Hezbollah must be banned. Many Members across the Chamber have made it clear that we have taken a stance against anti-Semitism. The Government have taken a stance against it, but there are others who need to be stronger when it comes to taking that stance, and we encourage them to do so.

Colonel Richard Kemp, to whom I referred a moment ago, is the former head of the international terrorism team at the Cabinet Office. I hope that we can all respect the fact that his credentials are impeccable as he explains his view of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s position. He says:

“The Foreign Office deludes itself that by appeasing Hezbollah it can influence the organisation. And that it will do its killing elsewhere. Instead this gives legitimacy to Hezbollah. Piling appeasement on appeasement, Britain and the rest of the EU hope to mollify Iran, the biggest state supporter of terrorism. They know designating Hezbollah would enrage the ayatollahs.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Joan Ryan]

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for accompanying me to the Committee to apply for it. For contributing today, I thank the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley North (Ian Austin), the right hon. Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones), my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside, the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord), my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and the hon. Member for Strangford. Their powerful contributions have been much appreciated.

I draw attention to the fact that not a single Back-Bench Member who has spoken or intervened today has opposed the motion, which I think speaks volumes about where the House is on the matter. The public agree with us. As the hon. Member for Hendon said, a ComRes poll reported today shows that 81% of the public also believe that Hezbollah should be proscribed in its entirety.

The SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), said that he is sympathetic to the motion. We welcome that sympathy and hope that it will turn into something a little more forceful policy-wise.

I very much hope to persuade my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), who speaks from the Labour Front Bench, that proscribing Hezbollah in its entirety is the right thing to do. I hope to have further discussions with him on this. However, I appreciate the tone that he took in the debate.

The havoc, death and destruction that Hezbollah has caused in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and Israel—indeed, across the middle east—as well as in Nigeria, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Argentina, Thailand and other places have been outlined today, to our horror. What about the streets of London? The CST has made it clear that the domestic consequences of the artificial division with regard to Hezbollah has consequences here: a policy is pursued that allows public support for a terrorist and anti-Semitic organisation.

The argument the Minister made is a little tortuous. The US, Canada and others proscribe Hezbollah and still manage to talk to it. No peace has been forthcoming from Hezbollah, despite not proscribing it. We are giving moral, political and social authority to Hezbollah by not proscribing it in its entirety. Hezbollah itself does not agree with the Government. The Government should look again at their position. Keeping this under review is not adequate. They are wrong.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House believes that Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation driven by an antisemitic ideology that seeks the destruction of Israel; notes that Hezbollah declares itself to be one organisation without distinguishable political or military wings; is concerned that the military wing of that organisation is proscribed, but its political wing is not; and calls on the Government to include Hezbollah in its entirety on the list of proscribed organisations.

Drug Consumption Rooms

Joan Ryan Excerpts

Wednesday 17th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, and that body has recommended that DCRs are a policy that we should pursue. Would he agree that it is the case that not only have DCRs not been a venue where people have died, but they have been one of the most effective interventions at getting people away from addictions? DCRs are not being complacent about addiction; they are being realistic—[Interruption.]

[Joan Ryan (in the Chair)]

Order. We have two more speakers, and they will be able to get in. We will resume immediately once everyone is back from the Division; we will not take the 15 minutes. If there are two Divisions, the same applies. As soon as the second one is done— I think there will be two—I ask everyone to get back quickly, apart from Members who have informed me that they cannot do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Crispin Blunt]

I shall conclude by saying that one should recognise the challenge facing the Minister, given the circumstances she faces. It is difficult enough when our policy and, I believe, global policy are stuck in absolutely the wrong place; we have had 60 years of the policy not working. She then has to deal with the legislative framework that she has to operate within. She then has to try and find a way actually to get drug consumption rooms working, when the overwhelming evidence on the ground is of the benefits they can bring to the communities in which they are placed. They get needles and addicts off the streets, stop people shooting up on the streets, and put addicts on the route to recovery. That is able to happen in an entirely safe place. The public health outcomes need to be a priority for us.

Recognising those difficulties, all I ask of the Minister is that she learns, as I am learning about this issue as I engage with it, and that she and the Government remain open to all the evidence that is coming in from all around the world, through all the different examples. On drug consumption rooms, I very gently suggest that the evidence from around the world is utterly overwhelming about their merits.

[Joan Ryan (in the Chair)]

May I just say that if Back Benchers who wish to speak stick to three minutes each, everybody will get a turn to speak?

County Lines Exploitation: London

Joan Ryan Excerpts

Wednesday 17th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered county lines exploitation in London.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Cheryl. I thank all hon. Members who are here to participate, and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) for her support before this debate and for her important work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on runaway and missing children and adults.

London gangs and criminal networks from other major cities are aggressively expanding their illegal enterprises. They are flooding suburban and rural areas as well as market and coastal towns with drugs. They co-ordinate their sales through dedicated mobile phone lines in a practice known as county lines activity.

The latest National Crime Agency report reveals that,

“there are at least 720 lines across England and Wales”,

with

“at least 283 lines originating in London.”

Worryingly, the report states:

“The actual number may well be considerably higher, as many of these areas are likely to have more than one line.”

London is the major urban source of county lines activity, and I will consider how the Met police, local authorities and other agencies in Enfield and across the capital are working to address it. It is spreading out from London and other urban areas, however, to reach into every area of our country. It is a national issue that demands a co-ordinated, nationally funded response that focuses on policing and children’s services.

County lines activity is having a terrible, damaging effect on young people, vulnerable adults and local communities. Children from my constituency and beyond are being exploited by gangs and forced to transport class A drugs, weapons and money great distances away from where they live.

Between November and December 2017, at least nine children from Enfield were reported as missing. Enfield police issued a statement to reassure the public that the borough was,

“not experiencing a disproportionate amount of missing teenagers.”

That was undoubtedly true, but I know from the messages and emails I received that the public were not reassured. If nine missing children in a matter of weeks is not disproportionate and there are 32 London boroughs, that is very frightening. There was genuine alarm about what was happening to those children and speculation that county lines exploitation could be involved.

It is not only vulnerable children and teenagers who are affected. Gangs are taking over the homes of vulnerable adults in those areas to set up drug dens—a process known as cuckooing—often through violence and coercion, or in exchange for free drugs. Many communities affected by county lines activities are reporting a rise in knife crime offences, violent crime and drug use.

The Government acknowledge that,

“County lines is a major, cross-cutting issue involving drugs, violence, gangs, safeguarding, criminal and sexual exploitation, modern slavery, and missing persons”.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the good advances that we have made over the past year has been to understand that some of our children are being coerced into those gangs? Is she pleased, as I am, that the modern day slavery legislation is being applied in such cases so that those children are understood, rather than condemned?

[Joan Ryan]

Indeed, I will come to that later. As pleased as I am about the modern day slavery legislation, it has been used very little. In fact, I think there has been only one case, which I will refer to. We need to bear it in mind that those children often do not see themselves as being exploited. They think, “I’m doing rather well here. I’m getting money in.” If they are not cared for children, they feel cared for by their exploiters.

The Government acknowledge that,

“the response to tackle it involves the police, the National Crime Agency, a wide range of Government departments, local government agencies and VCS (voluntary and community sector) organisations.”

However, they must also acknowledge that county lines activity is putting our vital public services in London and across the country under even greater strain. Our health and social care services, police forces, schools and youth clubs are trying to tackle this growing menace at a time of Government-imposed austerity and severe funding cuts to their budgets.

The way in which county lines activity is being carried out changes all the time—the use of social media as a recruitment tool is one recent development. Authorities require the resources to respond dynamically to those changes and be innovative. I call on the Government to establish a national, co-ordinated, inter-departmental and inter-agency strategy to tackle county lines activity. I urge the Government to ensure that they provide our public services and local authorities with the support and financial resources they need to end the exploitation of some of our most vulnerable children, young people and adults.

London is the exporting hub from which county lines activity flows into almost two thirds of police force areas across England and Wales. Every day, older gang members in the capital prey on vulnerable children and young adults, many of whom are from troubled backgrounds, have been excluded from school or are suffering from mental health problems.

It is particularly concerning that almost half the police forces in England and Wales have reported,

“that individuals involved with county lines came from care homes”.

All too often, we take less notice of the safety and security of children who are in care. From cases such as Rotherham, we already know what happens when warning signs of abuse and exploitation are missed or ignored. We cannot allow that to ever happen again.

Vulnerable children as young as 12 are being groomed by county lines gangs with promises of money, companionship and respect. In reality, they are often forced to go missing from home for long periods of time; they are used as drug mules with their orifices plugged with class A drugs, predominantly heroin and crack cocaine; and they are trafficked to remote areas and forced to deal drugs in squalid conditions. At all times, they are at great personal risk of arrest by the police—in fact, probably the only time that they are really safe—or of physical and sexual abuse from older gang members, local drug users or rival gangs.

We must remember that this activity is associated with a lot of extreme violence. These are cases of modern day slavery. We have seen harrowing cases of vulnerable adults whose homes have been turned into drug dens by urban gangs, such as one individual who was held hostage in their own home and prevented from using their own toilet. Those vulnerable people, young children and adults, are in desperate need of our help.

The National Crime Agency, which has reported on county lines activity since 2015, acknowledges that there

“remains an intelligence gap in many parts of the country”.

It states:

“A clear national picture cannot be determined currently”

of accurate levels of exploitation and abuse carried out in county lines activity in many parts of the country.

[Lyn Brown]

One of the most shocking stories I heard was from a mum whose child had been on the county lines. She told me how she had been trying to stop him, but how he would just come home for a rest before going off again. What was most shocking was that child protection professionals were completely and utterly unaware of him. The gangs played the system really well: social services considered her a bad mum because of the unreasonable demands she was making on her son to stay at home.

[Joan Ryan]

Absolutely; so much more needs to be done. Let us remember that county lines are somewhat below the radar: we might know about them, but the response to the Twitter reports about missing children in Enfield caused something of a public panic. The public do not know about the issue, so there is not enough pressure to introduce policies to deal with it. Drug dealers like nothing better than operating in the dark, under the radar. Young people especially may not recognise their exploitation.

It is clear that we need to understand the creation, recruitment, opportunities, risks and scale of county lines so much better if we are to address the issue. I therefore urge the Government to commission comprehensive and rigorous research to pull together up-to-date police and local authority data to achieve that aim. After all, how can we hope to tackle the problem unless we understand its true scale? As the NCA’s head of operations for drugs and firearms threats, Vince O’Brien, says:

“This is a national problem…there is still no national response.”

Gangs are aware of the intelligence gaps. County lines activity is exposing the challenges of dealing with offenders who operate across police force boundaries. Part of the problem relates to police forces’ ability to work together.

Operating across county lines is a fantastic business model for the gangs, because they are opening up new markets and operating below the radar. They have no competition at the early stages of their operation, and very low overheads because their business is based on using vulnerable children and young adults as slaves. In Enfield, a young person who is absent from school may be regularly reported as a missing person, but in Essex the same child could be deemed by the local police to be a street drug dealer or to have been forced into street prostitution. It is very likely that the two police forces could be operating in isolation from each other. Which is responsible for taking the lead? Do we need cross-border crime squad teams, like the old national crime squads?

Progress can be made by improving how Departments and other agencies share data. In spite of the lack of national leadership on the issue, councils across London, led by Islington’s lead member for children and families, Councillor Joe Caluori, have taken proactive steps to understand the county lines that originate in their own boroughs. They are working together to cross-reference data and identify areas where further information and action are required.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) may want to go into this in greater detail, but police in Lewisham have also done innovative work by looking at the numbers of missing young people over the previous 12 months, identifying those who may be at risk of exploitation and uploading their information to the police national computer. That means that Lewisham police will be contacted if any of those at-risk young people comes into contact with another police force, which will build a fuller picture of the scale of county lines activity.

I welcome the Government’s implementation of new drug dealing telecommunications restriction orders, which allow the police to shut down phone numbers used for county lines drug dealing. However, while that is an important step forward, how much disruption will it actually cause? How long does it take for a county lines dealer to simply get another phone and begin sending drug offers to their original contact list? A lot more needs to be done to address the problem at its root.

I am concerned that major questions about county lines remain unanswered. The county lines model is being changed all the time. We know that social media are used to recruit children and young people, but do we know enough? Is there enough research and is it moving at the right pace? There also needs to be a much stronger focus on prevention. By the time the police become involved, it is often too late to prevent irreversible harm from being done to a vulnerable child or young adult, or to ever extricate them from the world they have become involved in.

All Government agencies and local authorities need to be able to recognise and act on the warning signs for victims of county lines exploitation. That requires proper funding from central Government, but the reality is that health, social and children’s services are being pushed to breaking point by the Government’s austerity agenda. In Enfield, the Government have slashed £161 million from the council’s budget since 2010, and the council is required to make a further £35 million of cuts by next year. Immense pressure is being placed on Enfield’s public services at a time when they are already struggling to support a rapidly growing population. How do we expect councils and other agencies to implement strategies to prevent county lines exploitation, when their resources are being cut year on year? I ask the Minister not to simply pass the buck to local authorities by telling us about raising the precept. Hard-pressed Londoners cannot make up the funding gap, and nor could raising the precept. That is not a solution and should not be put forward as one.

Home Office guidance states that tackling county lines will involve working with groups such as voluntary and community sector organisations, providing meaningful alternatives to gangs. What we need is meaningful actions; warm words just will not do it. The stark reality is that the Government cut £387 million from youth service spending across the country between 2010 and 2016. Government cuts to London councils have slashed youth service budgets by £22 million since 2011, leading to the closure of 30 youth centres and the loss of at least 12,700 places for young people. If the Government are serious about tackling county lines exploitation, there needs to be greater investment in youth clubs for children and teenagers and in children’s services across the board.

A standout example of best practice to tackle county lines in London is Project Denver, an initiative piloted by the Met’s Trident gang crime command unit in Enfield between October 2016 and January 2018. The project’s objectives are to dismantle one of the most violent county lines gangs in London, to identify vulnerable people who are at risk of exploitation, and to prosecute the gang members responsible. The team assigned to the initiative is made up of specialist Trident officers and local police from Enfield and other affected forces, working alongside Enfield Council and other councils within and outside London. So far, 20 operations have taken place, leading to more than 100 arrests and the identification of more than 50 vulnerable children and adults. The gang has now largely been dismantled. Formerly one of the most harmful gangs in London, it is now ranked outside the top 20.

[Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)]

I am interested in what the right hon. Lady says, but there is a slight problem with her argument. Every single time the police intervene and take down one gang, another is only too willing to step into the void. That gang will use increasing violence, because that is how these people operate: the more violent they are, the more territory they control. Every time we pull down a gang, another will step in until we get to the root of the problem: the illegal market.

[Joan Ryan]

I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s points that we must get to the root of the problem and that these gangs operate in a violent manner. However, I do not think that we can leave them in place; we would be abandoning children and young people to their mercy. We need a much bigger, better-resourced operation based on national intelligence about how county lines operate. That may then help us to address the root causes of the issue.

[Ronnie Cowan]

I think we are trying to achieve the same thing and we are genuinely both looking after the interests of these young adults. However, if we regulated the marketplace, we would take away all the power from all the criminal gangs and all their production, distribution and selling of the product, and therefore they would not need these couriers to do the job for them. I am talking about re-regulating the drugs market at the top level, which would immediately take all the power away from the gangs.

[Joan Ryan]

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is proposing, but I do not agree with him and that would not be the solution that I would look for. I do not believe that it would necessarily solve the problem, because violent gangs would either move on to some other product or would want to sell the product at extortionate profits, whether it was legal or otherwise. We see the sale of illegal cigarettes all the time, yet cigarettes and smoking are legal, so I am not sure that I can agree with him. However, I thank him for his intervention.

[Ronnie Cowan]

rose—

[Joan Ryan]

I will allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene again shortly.

I want to finish what I was saying about Project Denver, because when we have an example of something that works, we should pay it some attention. One of the fundamental problems is poverty and the lack of care for exploited young people. We know how effective things like Sure Start were and we know how effective neighbourhood policing, which has been decimated, was. We know what some of the solutions are, without having to legalise class A drugs.

The gang that I was talking about has been largely dismantled and it has gone from being one of the most harmful gangs in London to being ranked outside the top 20. Earlier this month, as part of Project Denver, two drug dealers from Enfield were convicted of human trafficking offences under the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which was the first case of its kind in the UK. Those men were operating a London-to-Swansea county line and they had trafficked a vulnerable 19-year-old woman from London to a house in Swansea, where she was being held against her will, in order to supply class A drugs.

The successful prosecution of those two men shows what can be achieved when police forces, local authorities and other agencies share data effectively. But make no mistake—this work is resource-intensive. It cannot be done successfully unless there are the necessary resources. At the moment, if police forces and local councils put resources into this work, they have to take them from somewhere else, and under the pressure of funding cuts everything is a priority right now.

I believe that Enfield police and the Metropolitan Police Service as a whole are doing a good job, under immensely difficult circumstances, to keep Londoners safe. However, since 2010 the Government have axed more than £600 million from the Met’s budget and in the next three years they plan to cut several hundred million pounds more. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Cressida Dick, has warned that further cuts to the Met’s budget would lead to the loss of 3,000 officers, which is 10% of London’s police force, by 2021. That would mean that London had just 27,500 officers, which would be the lowest level in 19 years, at the same time as London’s population is growing.

The latest figures, which are from December 2017, show that Enfield—just one London borough—has just 504 officers, which is 48 fewer officers than the borough’s target strength. The police are operating with one hand tied behind their back; they simply do not have the officers to do the job. That comes at a time when knife crime in Enfield has risen considerably; it rose by 48% in the last year alone. If the Government are intent on continuing to cut the Met’s budget, what hope is there for vulnerable children and adults who are being exploited by county lines? Do those people not matter? The Government should be under no illusion as to how resource-intensive county lines operations are. The Met must be given the resources it needs to tackle county lines in London.

County lines exploitation is a major issue for London and the UK. As the Prime Minister has said, modern slavery is

“the great human rights issue of our time, and…I am determined that we will make it a national and international mission to rid our world of this barbaric evil.”

Well, Prime Minister, county lines exploitation is modern day slavery, and it is now three years since the National Crime Agency published its first assessment of it. Since then, the police, children’s services and other agencies have called for a national strategy to end this exploitation of vulnerable children and adults. On 19 January 2017, which is almost a year ago to the day, a cross-party group of London councils wrote to the Home Secretary to press the Government to implement a national strategy. So where is it?

The Government must show national leadership on this issue. We urgently require a national strategy to ensure that consistent practice in tackling county lines is applied across all local authorities and police forces in London and throughout the country. We cannot allow more vulnerable children, young people and adults, who currently are all too often invisible to the police and child protection services, to fall between the cracks. The Government must make tackling county lines exploitation in London and across the UK a priority.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Cheryl. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) for securing this important debate on county lines; I thought her contribution was absolutely fantastic. I was interested in the description that the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince) gave of the impact of county lines on the community he serves. He said that despite the fact that his community is away from London, the county lines have a corrosive effect on it.

The National Crime Agency report “County Lines Violence, Exploitation & Drug Supply 2017”, published in November, mapped the growing extent of the exploitation of children and young people and the shocking levels of violence, intimidation and coercion used. That this has reached such levels in what we all believe to be a civilised society is shameful. The NCA accepts that it does not have a national response at this time, but following its report, it will prioritise county lines and take a co-ordinating role with local and regional police forces. I think we would all agree that that is long overdue, and it would help if the Minister expanded a little on what that might look like.

There has been concern for some time about the growing county lines operations of organised crime gangs based in the big cities. In 2015, Missing People and Catch22 presented their report “Running the Risks” in Liverpool. It explored the links between gang involvement and young people going missing. In 2016, our all-party parliamentary group, which is supported by the Children’s Society and Missing People, reported on the safeguarding of absent children. We found evidence that children reported as absent who the police decided were at no apparent risk ended up falling through the safety net, exploited by adults for sex and/or for supplying and selling class A drugs.

The majority of those recruited by gangs are 15-to-17-year-old boys, but boys are more likely to be recorded as absent and at low risk than girls. That is why county lines operations have been able to exist below the radar. Girls who are exploited along county lines are at increased risk of sexual exploitation and trafficking. We should not forget that children can suffer multiple exploitation. We cannot simply deal with that by putting the issues into particular silos; it all has to come together in an understanding of the exploitation of children.

In 2017, the all-party group held a roundtable on children who go missing and are criminally exploited by gangs. We warned that the safeguarding system was failing children because of a lack of understanding of the signs of exploitation and because many children were still being seen as criminals and not victims—a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North and the hon. Member for Colchester. Looked-after children are particular targets for grooming by criminal gangs, and those placed out of the borough can be especially vulnerable, as are young people in pupil referral units. Such children are particularly vulnerable to exploitation because of the circumstances of their lives and their exclusion from schools.

Preventing young people from becoming embedded in gangs has to be a priority. Key to identifying early risk is the sharing of data on missing children. Frequent missing episodes and being found out of area, returning from missing episodes with injuries and unexplained absences from school were all highlighted as being signs that a young person could be involved in county lines activity.

There are issues about how missing data is collected and shared. I welcome the new missing persons database that will be operational later this year, but how effective it will be will depend on the information gathered by local police forces. Will the Minister say when the missing persons strategy will be updated? Recognition of missing episodes as indicators of potential criminal exploitation, followed by appropriate and timely responses, might prevent further exploitation of vulnerable children and young people. Disrupting county lines and convicting the criminals behind them is vital. Organised crime has been getting the message that, provided they use children and young people, we are powerless to do anything about it.

On 4 December, our APPG held an event at the House of Commons, attended by experts, professionals, police and practitioners to discuss the disruption of county lines and how children and young people can be better protected. There was overwhelming support for more use of trafficking legislation and the Modern Slavery Act 2015.

The national referral mechanism was set up in 2009 to identity victims of human trafficking or modern-day slavery. Acceptance by the national referral mechanism clearly identifies the young person as a victim, even if they have committed a criminal act, which is very important in the context of criminal exploitation. Evidence from the Children’s Society and ECPAT shows that the knowledge, understanding and implementation of the national referral mechanism is patchy. ECPAT is also concerned that the national referral mechanism does not necessarily trigger any safeguarding response and should be embedded into the child protection system.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North mentioned, there have been very few prosecutions under the trafficking legislation. One of them was at Swansea Crown court—the case that she mentioned, the first of its kind, against the gang operating out of London. There are ongoing cases in London, but, as with any new legislation, the police and CPS will be waiting to see how successful those cases will be.

We need effective tools to prevent young people from being used as drug mules by organised crime. Lewisham has used criminal behaviour orders, which can prohibit a young person from travelling to certain places, which makes them less attractive to the criminal gang. Child abduction warning notices can also be served on individuals suspected of grooming children and young people. Although there are some issues with those, such as the need to consult with parents—we can all see what the problem with that might be—they clearly identify that it is an individual adult who is exploiting children and it is the child who is the victim, which puts the responsibility where it belongs. That might encourage communities to look at the people operating in their communities as exploiters of children and might help to change attitudes towards those people.

However, there should be a notice that is more in keeping with the trafficking legislation than the Child Abduction Act 1984 is, and it should apply to all 16 and 17-year-olds, which child abduction warning notices do not. Breach of the new notices could then be used as evidence to apply for orders that carry penalties under the trafficking legislation. Will the Minister support such an approach?

We have a fragmented safeguarding system that responds to the child as a victim or as an offender and does not recognise that a child can be both. The most powerful contribution to our December meeting was from a parent who had battled hard to get safeguarding agencies to understand that her son, who was being groomed into criminal activities, was an exploited child. Her son became more and more embedded into county lines and ended up being stabbed. The parent said:

“It became so frustrating as all services that were assigned to working with my son in this period were all working as separate entities. With this came, on many occasions, lack of communication, oversight or duplication of what was meant to be done or not take place, and this caused me great distress.”

In the end, she herself set up an email group for all the many agencies to co-ordinate information about her son, which proved helpful. It is important to learn from the experience of parents to make sure that the safeguarding response that a system provides is helpful to both the young people and parents and does not make a bad situation worse. It is important to understand the impact of out-of-borough placements on young people, which can expose them to further risk rather than protect them.

We need to challenge public attitudes that blame the young person for their own exploitation. This echoes the early cases of child sexual exploitation where the young girls were written off as prostitutes. But who can blame the public when that was the view of the agencies tasked with safeguarding children? Education is crucial. The Greater Manchester police “Trapped” campaign focuses on county lines, aims to raise awareness of the grooming process in communities and schools, and encourages communities to spot and report exploitation of young people.

Greater Manchester police says that county lines is a much broader issue than drugs and also involves the transportation of firearms and money. It is a developing business model, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North has already said. It is vital for police forces and agencies to work well together, so Greater Manchester police is working closely with forces that have an expanse of rural areas such as Cumbria, Cheshire, North Wales and Lancashire.

The excellent Greater Manchester police YouTube video, made for the “Trapped” campaign, illustrates vividly how a child drawn by the offer of cash becomes more and more embedded in the gang. What at first seems like easy money becomes a miserable existence of escalating violence and threats to life. We know that certain factors make children more vulnerable to exploitation, but all young people can be vulnerable at the time of transition from primary to secondary school. That is why it is important that sex and relationships education in schools involves raising awareness of criminal exploitation and county lines.

[Joan Ryan]

I completely agree about the transition period being a risk. Does my hon. Friend agree that the pupil referral unit, where we have seen gang members hanging around to recruit youngsters who often are vulnerable, is also a risk?

[Ann Coffey]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Young people in PRUs are specifically targeted by organised crime because of their vulnerabilities. Vulnerable young people often feel there is nothing else for them on the horizon except what the drug dealer might offer. Poverty, poor housing, unemployment and living in a high crime neighbourhood creates the conditions for county lines to flourish.

County lines is also a public health issue. We cannot ignore the demand for drugs and the impact on individuals, families and children’s health. Health needs to be part of the safeguarding response to county lines at a national and local level. I thank the Minister for meeting me recently to discuss many of the issues.

Recent media coverage has meant an increase in the awareness of the extent of exploitation of children by organised crime, reaching beyond high-crime areas to communities that have never experienced the brutality and violence that comes with county lines. It is progress that there is increasing awareness and that the National Crime Agency is taking a national co-ordinating role. There has to be an effective response by the police leading to successful prosecutions so that county lines are disrupted. Alongside that there needs to be better identification of children at risk by agencies working together at a local and national level. There need to be better interventions earlier in children’s lives, and more resources.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joan Ryan]

I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. We have heard some thoughtful, knowledgeable and concerned contributions. There is widespread concern about the issue among all those who know about it.

I accept the Minister’s commitment to deal with the issue, which demands a cross-party response, and I accept that the Government wish to deal with it. However, we have to will the means to make an impact. I have found the police refreshingly honest about the need for the resource, the difficulty that forces have working across county lines and, therefore, the need to develop that ability.

The Minister talked about sums such as £300,000 to support exploited children or £100,000 for local area reviews. Of course, that is all very welcome—who is going to refuse funding for such important issues? However, they are tiny sums in the face of the fact that, over a 10-year period from 2010 to 2020, the Metropolitan police will have suffered a cut of £1 billion, and London local authorities anything from £150 million to £200 million.

If we are to make meaningful inroads into tackling this issue, as we all want, we have to will the means, and the resources have to be put in. That is the only way we will make real progress, rather than having one or two examples that we are pleased about, but which will not solve the problem or protect vulnerable children and adults.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered county lines exploitation in London.

Home Department

Joan Ryan Excerpts

Monday 9th October 2017 Ministerial Corrections

The following is an extract from proceedings on an urgent question on police pay and funding on 14 September 2017.

[Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)]

The Metropolitan police have warned of steep increases in gun and knife crime in London over the past year: gun and knife crime have risen 42% and 24% respectively, and recorded crime is up across virtually every category, which does not chime with what the Minister is saying. Police numbers fell for the seventh consecutive year in July, and many forces are at breaking point. I do not see how asking the police to foot the £50 million bill for the Government’s disingenuous pay deal will help to solve the crisis. To talk about the Mayor’s precept in London is simply trying to pass on to hard-pressed Londoners the cost of the Government’s failed policies.

[Sarah Newton]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question, which gives me the opportunity to thank the Metropolitan police for its deep and consistent engagement with my colleagues in the Home Office working on action plans to tackle the spike in violent crime in London. We do a huge amount of joined-up work supporting our colleagues in the police force in London to tackle these issues. Taxpayers all over the country pay for policing through a combination of general taxation and local precepts. Given that the Metropolitan police consumes about a third of the police budget for England, I do not think it is too much to ask Londoners to pay their fair share of the precept, just as my constituents have to pay their fair share.

[Official Report, 14 September 2017, Vol. 628, c. 987-88.]

Letter of correction from Sarah Newton:

An error has been identified in an answer to the urgent question.

The correct response should have been:

Police Pay and Funding

Joan Ryan Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Newton]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I talked about the prudent use of reserves, but it is important to note that they have been growing year on year. They now stand at £1.8 billion, so there is clearly an opportunity for forces to use them to pay for the extra 1% pay rise. I refer her to the work that Sir Tom Winsor does with Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary reporting on police forces. He has said clearly and consistently that police officers can do much more to improve efficiency.

[Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)]

The Metropolitan police have warned of steep increases in gun and knife crime in London over the past year: gun and knife crime have risen 42% and 24% respectively, and recorded crime is up across virtually every category, which does not chime with what the Minister is saying. Police numbers fell for the seventh consecutive year in July, and many forces are at breaking point. I do not see how asking the police to foot the £50 million bill for the Government’s disingenuous pay deal will help to solve the crisis. To talk about the Mayor’s precept in London is simply trying to pass on to hard-pressed Londoners the cost of the Government’s failed policies.[Official Report, 9 October 2017, Vol. 629, c. 2MC.]

[Sarah Newton]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question, which gives me the opportunity to thank the Metropolitan police for its deep and consistent engagement with my colleagues in the Home Office working on action plans to tackle the spike in violent crime in London. We do a huge amount of joined-up work supporting our colleagues in the police force in London to tackle these issues. Taxpayers all over the country pay for policing through a combination of general taxation and local precepts. Given that the Metropolitan police consumes about a third of the police budget for England, I do not think it is too much to ask Londoners to pay their fair share of the precept, just as my constituents have to pay their fair share.

Immigration Rules: Spouses and Partners

Joan Ryan Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

I want to start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald)—or Kirky East, as we like to call it—on securing this extremely important debate and on his knowledgeable speech. He has a background in this area. Everybody who has spoken today has demonstrated how much they care about the people they represent. It is important to do that, even when we feel like we are banging our heads against a brick wall, and even when we feel that the Government are possibly not listening and that nothing will change. People need to know that there are Members in this place who care about them and will keep speaking up for them; that makes a difference to them. I congratulate everyone who has spoken today on demonstrating how much we care.

When the topic of spousal visas comes up, as it does from time to time, people generally react with shock to the news that UK citizens are not automatically entitled to bring their partner to live with them in the UK, as my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) —land of my birth—said. When I detail the hurdles and hoops that most couples have to jump through, the response is always one of disbelief. People think I have got it wrong. They say, “Surely it is an infringement of civil liberties to be denied the right to live with your spouse,” or, “Is there a price on love?” Well, according to the Home Office, there is a price for marrying someone from another country, and it is a high one.

Applying for a spousal visa is an expensive process that should, in itself, indicate the commitment to the relationship. In addition to the application fee, which is now more than £1,300—as my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde said, that is an increase of 25%—lawyers’ costs can be not inconsiderable, as applications often drag on for years through the appeal or reapplication process, putting not only a financial strain but debilitating emotional stress on couples and families.

If people can find the money to make an application, the three main barriers preventing many of them from living with their non-British or non-EU partners are the minimum income threshold, as we have heard; the complicated application process; and, perhaps most importantly from what I have experienced through my constituents, the culture of disbelief at the heart of the Home Office. We have heard examples, notably from my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), who talked about Beth and Willie in Houston—the Houston. He told us that even when an MP gets involved, that often makes very little difference. The MP must then battle for months on end to get mistakes rectified. One mistake in that case was the Home Office calling for a passport that had already been sent in. Then we heard the horrifying story from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) of a baby being separated from its mother for nine months. It is not necessary to be a psychologist to know the damage that that could do to the baby’s development.

I want to share a few examples of my own. It was difficult to decide which of my constituents in this position to talk about, because there are so many and all are struggling, but I will start with Jane. She was a young Scottish woman who emigrated to New York in the 1960s; she was just 18 years old. She met and fell head over heels for Ben, a native New Yorker. They married, raised two children, saw their grandchildren born and, like all couples, faced the many trials and tribulations that life threw at them in their 50-plus years together. When the trials seemed more prominent, they sadly divorced. However, that did not feel right and they were soon back together.

As Jane and Ben reached what should have been their golden years, they decided, having spent their married life in the United States, to spend their retirement in Jane’s home country of Scotland. They owned a house in Glasgow and set plans in motion to come home, but those plans were scuppered by the Home Office, which did not believe that they were a couple. That couple had been together for more than 50 years, throughout the 1960s, ’70s, ’80s and ’90s and into the new millennium, but they were subjected to the insult and embarrassment of having the validity of their relationship questioned.

I am pleased to say that the situation is now resolved and Jane and Ben are finally living, I hope, happily ever after in Milton in my constituency, but that took more than 18 months from the day their original application was rejected. The costs were high, involving considerably more not just in application fees and legal costs, but in terms of the deterioration in Jane’s failing health, which was exacerbated by the regular separations from her husband and the complete uncertainty about their future together.

If the Home Office can cast doubt on a 50-year relationship, what chance do a young couple have? Will the Minister be good enough to tell me why Jane was advised that if she wanted to be with her husband, she should go and live in the United States? How can we expect other countries to take in a British citizen if we refuse to take in theirs because we do not believe they have a relationship? I just wonder what the British Government’s friend, Mr Trump, would make of the advice that Jane was given.

Another constituent, Sasha, met the man who was to become her husband, Jay, on a family holiday in Pakistan when she was just four years old. They became the best of friends as they continued to meet over the years during regular family holidays. As they grew into adulthood, friendship blossomed into love. Sasha and Jay got married in 2011 and are now the proud parents of two beautiful children. People might expect that to be the “happily ever after” ending to the story, but no: the Home Office was ready to rain on their parade, and rain it did. It took decision makers at the Home Office a shocking five years to accept that that was a real relationship. In fact, Sasha’s husband was able to join his wife and children in Glasgow only last week. The Home Office did not believe that they were in a relationship. It was a sham, the Home Office alleged. That Sasha had not visited her husband very often since the wedding was one excuse used. Well, that was correct: Sasha did not visit her husband as much as she would have liked, because she had to work every hour she could to maintain the minimum income requirement and to take care of their two children. That is what the Home Office told her she had to do. As my hon. Friends the Members for Inverclyde and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North said, if someone is female and lives north of London, they are far less likely to be able to reach the minimum income requirement.

The result was that the two children, born in 2012 and 2014, got to know their father, during their most formative years, as a face on a laptop. In whose view is that fair? Six years on from their wedding day, that young couple and their children are no longer a Skype family and are finally able to live together as a family, but why should that have taken so long? Why is there so much distrust? Who benefits from it? Is it the Home Office? Is it immigration lawyers? It is certainly not the British citizen, and definitely not their children. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East told us, the Children’s Commissioner said that the Government were not meeting their legal requirement to children. I argue that they are not meeting their moral requirement to them, either.

As we have heard from other hon. Members, no one is disputing that there has to be a system. There must be procedures and checks, and documents and statements must be verified. We know that that has to be done, but it can be done without hostility, and so it should be. It can be done without insensitivity, and so it should be. It can be done without the Home Office contradicting another Department under the same Government—I am talking about the Department for Work and Pensions. The Minister’s colleagues in that Department tell us that a couple require £5,972.20 per annum to live on; that is the current rate of jobseeker’s allowance for a couple. Let us add in an amount for housing benefit, using average rents in Glasgow, which are about £250 a month in social housing and £500 a month for a private let. That adds on between £3,000 and £5,000 a year, so the DWP thinks that a couple can get by pretty well on anything between £9,000 and £12,000 per annum, and the Home Office reckons that a couple need £18,600. Well, which is it? If the DWP is correct, the Home Office needs to reduce that threshold. If the Home Office is right, surely those on jobseeker’s allowance are in for a bumper pay rise. Considering that those under the age of 24 apparently require so much less on which to live, the injustice is even greater for those under the age of 24 who want their spouse to come and live here.

Who else needs very little to live on, according to this Government? The answer is carers. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) talked about people being unable to bring their partner over to care for them. I want to talk about a constituent who has been deemed to be too poor to support herself and her husband, because she is a carer.

Christine was not always a carer. She worked freelance, so it was not easy to demonstrate that she earned enough every year to meet the minimum income requirement to be allowed to bring her husband to live in Scotland. She was getting there, however. She was building up her portfolio and excitedly looking forward to being permanently reunited with her husband. Then both her parents became ill, one of them very seriously with leukaemia. She did what she believed to be the right thing and moved in with them to care for them, but that decision to return the love and care that her parents had shown her as a child, and save the taxpayer thousands of pounds at the same time, means that she has had to reduce the amount of paid work that she does. In fact, yesterday she told my office that her mum had become very ill and in recent weeks she has earned nothing and relies on her husband to send money from Nigeria.

As the hon. Member for Strangford asked, can the income of the man currently supporting a British family not be counted towards the minimum income threshold? I ask that because the decision that Christine took to care for her parents in effect means that she may never be able to bring her husband here. I know that she is watching, so I am saying “may never”, because I hope that she will—and she could do with him right now. She could do with a helping hand with her parents and with someone looking after her from time to time. She could do with a hug from the man whom she loves and who loves her, but she is being denied that because she chose to care for her parents. Perhaps the Minister will offer to look into that case for me and consider making an exception in Christine’s case.

Do I have another few minutes, Ms Ryan?

[Joan Ryan (in the Chair)]

indicated assent.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Great. I have an endless supply of these stories, as have other hon. Members, but I will not refer to them all. The people we talk of are not exceptions. The Government, as on many things, hide behind the idea that “Yes, that’s terrible, but it’s an exception to the rule; that sort of thing does not happen very often.” These people are not exceptions, because we hear about this all the time, and what is happening to them is definitely not acceptable.

When this debate came up, my office and media manager, Annette, went off and wrote much of this speech. I did not ask her to do that; she did it without asking. Why? Because she has recently divorced her husband after years of trying to get him here for even a visit—he did not want to come and live here, but wanted to visit and eventually she was going to go and live there. She could not even get him here for a visit, and it would have been years before she was able to go and live there. Failing that, they had no way of continuing their marriage. She knew that this country would never welcome her husband at any stage if it would not even allow him to come in for a visit. I remember well that he was rejected at one point because he had a job and then rejected at another time because he did not have a job.

Annette has a simple ask, which I share, and I am sure we all have the same ask. It is that we treat people as we expect to be treated ourselves. Most of us believe that being treated with respect, fairness and compassion is not too much to expect; it is not, but the fact that we seem unable to bring any of those basics to the process leaves me feeling embarrassed and, to be frank, utterly ashamed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Joan Ryan (in the Chair)]

Order. Can I just say that it is not acceptable for a Member to join the debate during the concluding speeches and to intervene?

[Ms Abbott]

The policy also discriminates against young people who have relatively low incomes. As has become clear in this debate, as a result of the impact on partnerships and families, these provisions may be in breach of fundamental human rights—the right to a family life—as they effectively split up families. The Minister asks, “What would a Labour Government do?” We certainly would not bring forward regulations that could put the Government in breach of the European convention on human rights.

As we have heard from Members from all parts of the United Kingdom, the policy discriminates regionally. Some 30% of British employees in London do not earn enough to sponsor a non-EEA spouse, and that rises to 49% for those in Yorkshire and Humberside while 51% do not earn enough in Northern Ireland—of course in Scotland it is even worse. I will say, as a London Member, that although it is relatively easier for London migrants to hit that income threshold, it is not easy in communities such as Hackney.

Oral Answers to Questions

Joan Ryan Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Newton]

I am absolutely delighted to commend the work of this multi-agency Halcon One Team, which operates in my hon. Friend’s constituency. It is, indeed, a marvellous example of where the police and local agencies work together in their communities with vulnerable people, tackling environmental issues and providing young people with a constructive alternative, to avoid them being dragged into a life of crime and antisocial behaviour.

[Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)]

In the light of Holocaust Memorial Day this week, will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and the Holocaust Educational Trust, which remind us of the worst example we have ever witnessed of where anti-Semitism can lead? In the light of the publication of the Community Security Trust 2016 anti-Semitic incident report next week, and bearing in mind the fact that last year saw the third highest annual level of anti-Semitic hate incidents in the UK, what are the Government doing to combat rising levels of anti-Semitism?

[Amber Rudd]

I thank the right hon. Lady for giving me this opportunity to join her in thanking the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and the Holocaust Educational Trust for the extraordinary work that they do in reminding us all of what took place. I am one of the MPs—I am sure that there are many here—who took the opportunity to visit, and I will always remember the impact of that. I work closely with the Community Security Trust, and I made the hate crime action plan my priority. We will continue to work with the trust to ensure that we do what we can to stop any form of anti-Semitism.

Oral Answers to Questions

Joan Ryan Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

The funds that we put in place to support unaccompanied children represent a sum that we agreed after consultation with local authorities to work out the costs. It is the average cost. We acknowledge that some children will have different needs and will therefore end up being more expensive, and some less so. We hope that this is the right amount to be able to support them. We believe that it is the right amount. We are always willing to try to listen to local authorities if they have other suggestions. I particularly refer them to the controlling migration fund, which we hope will be able to give additional support.

[Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Lab)]

10. What the proportion of (a) charges and (b) convictions for crimes of violence against the person was relative to recorded offences in the most recent year for which data are available.

[The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service (Brandon Lewis)]

For the year ending June 2016, 16% of violence against the person offences recorded by the police resulted in a charge or summons. There were almost 30,000 convictions for violence against the person offences in the year ending June 2016. That represents over 75% of the people prosecuted and shows a rise of more than 1,500 convictions on the previous year.

[Joan Ryan]

According to the Home Office data on crime in England and Wales, violence against the person and sexual offences have risen under this Government and their predecessor, while charges have fallen or broadly stayed the same, as in the case of sexual offences. In Enfield, we have seen an 11% increase in violent crime over the past year. Why should people trust the Government when public safety is being put at risk via these statistics and falling police numbers?

[Brandon Lewis]

The right hon. Lady may be confusing recorded crime with actual crime. The crime survey shows that violence is down by over 25% since 2010. We are seeing an increase in recorded crime. We should welcome that, because it shows a better recording of crime, and also, importantly, a willingness of victims to come forward.