Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Monday 20th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I am aware of the issue with dairy farmers, as well as the other needs of industry for migrant workers. Rest assured that, when we decide on the right immigration policy after we leave the European Union, we will make sure it continues to support our economy.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

The all-party parliamentary group on migration, which I chair, recently conducted research asking a whole range of businesses about their labour needs and the effect of Brexit. Those businesses uniformly told us that it is not just a case of access to highly skilled labour but many jobs that are characterised as low skilled would also be difficult to fill if they could not access the EU labour market. Will the Home Secretary consider that report? What assurances can she give businesses across a whole range of sectors, from food processing to construction to care?

[Amber Rudd]

I share the hon. Lady‘s view. We talk enthusiastically and positively about wanting to be a country that attracts the brightest and best to support our economy, but we recognise that there will also be a need for migrant labour in different areas—potentially in construction and potentially in dairy farming, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Jack) said. Dairy farming is exactly the sort of area on which I hope the Migration Advisory Committee will be able to report next year.

Unaccompanied Child Refugees: Europe

Kate Green Excerpts

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Heidi Allen]

I absolutely agree with that. This goes to the heart of why—the legal case aside—the general public and many Members did not feel that the consultation had exhausted all the offers that were made. I am convinced that there are still families and businesses in my constituency that want to help. A safeguarding strategy was published yesterday, and I will come to that in a moment. It should open a window of opportunity for people to benefit from those offers, and it would be unforgivable for us not to use them.

In Calais, children are still sleeping outdoors at the mercy of the elements and, dare I say it, the police, because the official shelter that the French Government have provided can house only 60. In Greece, more than 1,800 children are waiting for a space in such a shelter, and when they make it, they will find that it is actually a disused prison. In Italy, the situation is even more chaotic. I understand that our ability to influence local arrangements in those countries is limited, but we have a responsibility to set clear parameters with our foreign counterparts to allow them to rapidly identify every child who might be eligible for Dubs or Dublin. It therefore concerns me when the numerous charities still working on the ground tell me that only 20 children have been transferred from France under Dubs in the past 12 months, that only a handful have come from Italy under Dublin, with none under Dubs, and that none at all have come from Greece. It is over 18 months since I last visited Lesvos. Can we honestly say that we have done everything we can?

If we have taken just 200 from Calais so far, there are still 280 Dubs places to be filled. Does the Minister suspect that our criteria have been misunderstood? Are they too tight? Do we need to look again at the cut-off date of 20 March 2016? Can we work quickly to identify the remaining 280? I hope to hear from the Minister what he will do to fill those spaces as soon as possible. Can we aim for the end of the year? Call me sentimental, but can we aim for Christmas?

But this debate is not just about Dubs. I am also seeking reassurance on what will happen to Dublin III once we leave the EU and its legislation. Despite textbook policy suggesting that our existing domestic asylum legislation should already allow unaccompanied child refugees to be reunited with their wider families—grandparents, siblings, uncles and aunts—this is not happening in practice. What plans does the Minister have to improve or amend our domestic legislation so that it does exactly what it says on the tin? Can we have complete confidence that the spirit of Dublin III will exist post-Brexit? Might our negotiations even allow us to stay in Dublin III? Clarity on this point really matters. Knowing that we will continue to offer sanctuary to the most vulnerable children in the world is as important to them as is the depth of charity and benevolence that makes Britain great.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on the manner in which she is opening this debate. She alludes to whether there might be scope for us to remain in Dublin III even after we leave the European Union, but does she share my curiosity, which the Minister may address in due course, about whether we could continue with Dublin III arrangements even if we are not party to any potential Dublin IV arrangements?

[Heidi Allen]

That is a question that I have, too. There has to be something between the great repeal Bill and the immigration Bill that will come later to ensure that we still offer the same rights to those children as we do now.

I will conclude by thanking the Minister for Immigration and the Minister for Children and Families for publishing the eagerly awaited safeguarding strategy just yesterday. Although it comes five months later than was originally indicated, it has been significantly improved by being done hand in hand with charities that understand intimately the vulnerabilities that refugee children have and the risks they face. I am pleased that it commits to updating Parliament and the Children’s Commissioner regularly on the number of children transferred, that the funding made available to local authorities will be reviewed and that the number of foster training places will be increased by 1,000. Most important of all for me, however, is the commitment to improving how Dublin III is actually administered on the ground, with an emphasis on improving family tracing and speeding up asylum application processing. I wish that the determination to act with pace had come more quickly. I wish that those children had not had to sleep in fear for as long as they have. We should be proud of the safeguarding strategy, and I thank both Ministers for creating it but, for goodness’ sake, let us bring it to life now and bring those remaining Dubs and Dublin children home.

Immigration Act 2016: Section 67

Kate Green Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Just this week, the Home Secretary and I launched and put extra funding into the community support project. We have seen phenomenal work, which people should be proud of, in charities and communities, developing and learning from colleagues from countries around the world such as Canada. I appreciate the time that the Canadian Minister gave us to discuss the issues. My hon. Friend is right: last year alone, we took in more than any other country in Europe. We should be proud of that, but we are clear that we want to build on that. We should be very proud of the fact that we are looking to bring over 23,000 people, to make sure that we are helping the most vulnerable—including the many thousands of children who have already come over and others who will continue to come.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

The Minister will have on his desk petitions from children at St Matthew’s Primary School and Moss Park Infants School in my constituency asking him to respect the rights of all refugee children under the United Nations convention on the rights of the child—their right to an education, in particular. What assessment is he really making of the quality and experience of education that children are getting in camps? Is it not time that we brought children here to settle them and ensure that they have the chance to develop a happy and successful childhood?

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Lady is effectively agreeing with the point I made earlier. We are working with local authorities to make sure that when children come over, they are given the right support and the home that they deserve, to help them be an important part of the community and give them a fruitful and fulfilling life.

Terror Attacks

Kate Green Excerpts

Thursday 22nd June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Community and faith leaders in my community have been outspoken in their revulsion at and condemnation of the attacks in Manchester and London, but there is also consternation at reports that members of the Didsbury mosque, which Salman Abedi and his family attended, had reported his radicalisation, but it appears that that was not heeded or acted upon. What can the Home Secretary say about that, and what assurances can she give the community that such reports will be acted upon, and that lack of resources will not present a barrier?

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Lady asks a very fair question, and naturally I have been asking that of the security services. We should not rush to believe everything that is said about what was and was not done during that period. That is one of the reasons for having this review. It has not been about resources; really it has sometimes been about the number of calls coming in. However, we should still encourage people to use the terrorist hotline to make those calls. It is up to us to lead in that respect, and to do everything we can to ensure that people call out, as strongly and as often as possible, the types of activity that can lead to terrorism.

Draft Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Fire and Rescue Functions) Order 2017 Draft Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Transfer of Police and Crime Commissioner Functions to the Mayor) Order 2017

Kate Green Excerpts

Monday 13th March 2017 General Committees

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. The Minister will be delighted to know that I will not repeat at length my arguments against the course that the Government have taken on police and fire mergers. I will, however, begin by saying that the core of our objection last year concerned local demand and local consent. We thought then—and still think today—that it is wrong to force a merger of police and fire authorities on an area that does not want one.

Thankfully, that does not apply to these draft orders, which have received the consent of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and are part of a wider devolution deal. That deal should enable the Manchester city region to adapt, to the extent that any level of government can, to the extremely difficult combination of reduced service funding and increased service demand that they will face over coming years. We welcome the devolution settlement as a way to bring powers together at a level where they can be used effectively and their use can be held accountable effectively.

There is a long history of local authorities working together across Greater Manchester, with or without a permanent statutory framework, which bodes well for such reforms. That history of co-operation in major cities is one that the Conservative party has not generally had much respect for, so I am delighted by the apparent change of heart. We still have serious concerns about the fragmentation and incoherence of this Government’s attempts at devolution within England thus far, but that need not prevent us from endorsing reforms if they go in the right direction.

I hope that none of us assumes that the devolution process has gone far enough to put in place genuine devolution to Manchester. Our local areas need more control over revenue raised locally, so that such deals will not simply transfer responsibility for cuts made by central Government. Governments should never pass the buck without passing the bucks. Local government needs a system for national funding that is fair, transparent and based on real need—not sweetheart deals with Ministers at meetings in cars outside Downing Street. That is particularly important for areas such as fire and rescue and policing, where community safety is paramount.

More generally, the current model of piecemeal reform is inadequate. Restructuring should not be imposed from the top down and cannot be based only on local authorities going cap in hand to Ministers either. We need to make devolution the default if we are to open up public services to the experience and creativity of local areas and truly demonstrate our trust in the people who are most affected by changes in policy.

The Greater Manchester Combined Authority consent documents noted that the draft orders

“will need to be in place by February 2017 at the latest to allow sufficient time for Mayoral candidates to be fully aware of the powers of the elected Mayor and to prepare a manifesto.”

Clearly, that has not happened, since it is now the middle of March and some of the legislation determining the new Mayor’s powers is still not fully confirmed. Does the Minister have an explanation?

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I am sure my hon. Friend agrees that not only the mayoral candidates need to be sighted of the Mayor’s powers but the Manchester electorate, many of whom are completely baffled by what the Mayor will and will not be able to do.

[Lyn Brown]

I completely and utterly agree. My hon. Friend made the point better than I could.

More broadly, this is the first case—apart from the now well-established arrangements in Greater London—where full accountability and power relating to policing will be assigned to the elected Mayor of a city region. The fact that responsibility for fire and rescue services will be mixed in at the same time makes it doubly significant, because the Mayor of London does not have direct responsibility for fire and rescue. There is now an urgent case to be made that the new Mayor of Greater Manchester will have a truly unprecedented degree of authority across those two public services. It will be an important test case for future structural reform.

It is important to note that the offices of Mayor of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and of police and crime commissioner for the area have already been combined to some extent for almost two years now, because Tony Lloyd, Labour’s elected PCC, was appointed as interim Mayor on 29 May 2015. He has served in both capacities admirably and has set an excellent standard, which I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) will live up to, starting on 8 May.

To sum up, we support the draft orders. They will help to cement the devolution settlement for Greater Manchester, which has received the agreement of local authorities and residents in and around that great city. I hope that members of all parties will join me in wishing the new Mayor well in helping the city region to deal with the undoubted challenges of the future.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies, in a debate on a matter as important as this to me and the many people who live in Greater Manchester and will be affected by these changes.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, I very much welcome the thrust of what the Government are trying to do, particularly pushing power out of Whitehall and Westminster and ensuring that decisions affecting our lives are made much closer to where we are. I echo her words by paying tribute to all those who have been involved—not only Tony Lloyd, the interim Mayor, who has done an excellent job, but the many politicians and officials who have done something quite unique in bringing together a whole range of diverse interests and circumstances across Greater Manchester and getting everybody pointing in the right direction. It has not been easy, and they deserve real credit.

These statutory instruments, quite understandably, concentrate a great deal of power in the hands of one individual. However, I do not think the Government have thought hard enough about the level of scrutiny and accountability that needs to be built into the system. There is considerable confusion among the general public in Greater Manchester about what the reforms mean. I heard what the Minister said about the consultation, but if he means the consultation on the legislation that gave rise to these statutory instruments, he should know that that was advertised on one Government website and ran for just three weeks and garnered only 12 responses, 10 of which were from the same council leaders who set up these arrangements in the first place.

People must be part of the conversation, not least because Greater Manchester is a very diverse area. For example, the needs in my borough of Wigan are very different from those in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston. If we look at the details of what is being devolved to the Mayor and the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities through the statutory instruments, a very large borough such as mine obviously has different fire and rescue needs from the city of Manchester, which is very small. That is why scrutiny and accountability really matter.

The election of the Mayor is long overdue and very welcome, but the only real place where the Mayor will be accountable under these arrangements is to those same 10 council leaders who helped to establish this situation in the first place and who retain a great deal of decision-making power across Greater Manchester. As the Minister will know, ours is an area where one party dominates politics. Obviously, as a Labour Member of Parliament, I am very pleased about that, and long may it continue. However, that poses a question, particularly when we consider that Greater Manchester is intended to be the first of many areas to follow this model: where will the challenge come from? Of the council leaders who currently represent the boroughs across Greater Manchester, only one of them is a woman and only one is from an ethnic minority background.

In relation to the fire authority, I understand from the documents that a committee will be appointed by the Mayor. Members of that committee will be councillors or officers of the 10 borough councils, but they will be proposed by council leaders—the same council leaders who provide the primary scrutiny function for the Mayor. Those posts appear to come with an allowance; I imagine they will be hotly contested among councillors and officers.

We have a very centralised model of council leadership across Greater Manchester; council leaders are responsible for making the vast majority of appointments to their cabinets and to outside bodies as well. In such a system, what incentive does the Minister think there is to challenge decisions that are made? The documents reference the need to mirror the balance of political parties. I would be grateful to the Minister if he elaborated on the Government’s thinking, particularly on making sure that some cross-party scrutiny is built into the system. That is even more important because a report by the National Council for Voluntary Organisations recently found that, in areas where devolution is under way, the voluntary sector has had little or no involvement at all. As a representative of civil society, I think that is unacceptable; it mirrors what I have seen happening in my area of Greater Manchester so far.

I will say something about the police and crime commissioner functions, because I think that all the points I have made are more important in that area than any other. The Mayor will be scrutinised by a police and crime panel, but our police and crime panel in Greater Manchester is made up of those same council leaders I have just referred to. They also make up the Mayor’s cabinet and provide the only channel of accountability and scrutiny for the public outside of election times.

I understand that the diversity problems I have raised may be addressed by the Mayor via the appointment of up to five additional members to that panel—I would be grateful to the Minister if he confirmed that—but even so, it is likely that the scrutiny membership on that panel will be heavily weighted in favour of council leaders. What resources will those additional lay members have to ensure that they can do that job properly and effectively? I say that because Greater Manchester is an incredibly diverse area, which is not currently reflected in our political arrangements.

[Kate Green]

My hon. Friend is raising concerns that a number of us, although we welcome devolution, have raised throughout the process of designing the devolution settlement for Greater Manchester. Does she think it unlikely that, in making appointments to those five lay places, the Mayor will appoint people who are likely to be assertive and critical of his or her decisions?

[Lisa Nandy]

The problem with the vision set out in the documents is that it very much relies on the good will of the person who holds that post. In such an important area, I do not think that is an adequate safeguard.

The same seems to apply to the hearing of police and crime complaints. If those are criminal complaints, I understand that the responsibility will continue to lie with the Independent Police Complaints Commission. However, if they are non-criminal, they will be heard by the local authorities, which will of course take them straight back to the 10 people who sit on all those boards and provide that level of accountability. The Minister is shaking his head; I would be grateful to him if he cleared this up. One of the problems we have had in Greater Manchester is in trying to penetrate the arrangements that have evolved over the past couple of years. Obviously, with an election looming large, it will be helpful for the Committee and the wider public to understand where that outside scrutiny and challenge will come from.

Finally, the documents set out that the Government have not seen fit to do an impact assessment, which is a mistake. They say that there are no plans to build in any kind of review period for the arrangements because there will be elections for the position of Mayor three years after the first election and then four years after that. This could build up real problems threatening the very success of this enterprise. Real devolution has to be based on consent and built from the ground up. The people must be heard.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kate Green Excerpts

Monday 6th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Some EU nationals—for example, Roma or those from central Europe—find it particularly difficult to produce documentation, as they may have been in insecure employment, have ended up sleeping rough and so on. Following on from the Minister’s answer to the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), what can be done to ensure that those who have lived, worked and contributed here but who struggle to produce documentation will also receive a fair hearing?

[Mr Goodwill]

I stress again that there is no need for EU nationals who are living here and exercising their treaty rights to make any change in their status; there is no need for any further documentation. As we quickly get into the negotiations after triggering article 50, I hope that this will be resolved very quickly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

I would be more than happy to have such a meeting.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Trafford Council has already received 10 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and is supporting two more. The council and the community are keen to support more such children in need, but they are finding it difficult to establish with the North West Regional Strategic Migration Partnership the exact numbers they can expect over coming months. Given the uncertainty local authorities face in planning to receive such vulnerable children, what assurances can the Home Secretary give?

[Amber Rudd]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. The fact is that it is sometimes uncertain when we are able to bring the children over to the UK. When we had the situation with Calais, we were told x number by the French one day, and it moved very quickly the next. We will always do our best to give councils as much notice as possible, but sometimes the numbers change at very short notice.

Prevent Strategy

Kate Green Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) on securing it. I will start with one of her first points: that those who question the use of Prevent are accused of not being concerned with people’s safety. Let me give an example. When the 7 July incident took place near the bus stops in Euston, it happened in an area to which I normally used to travel to go to my chambers in the Temple—it just happened that that day I was out of the country. I therefore think I am well aware of the possible threats to security that people face. When I am accused of not being concerned about people’s security, I find that incredibly insulting because, but for the grace of God, I could have been in that incident.

The Minister intervened on the hon. Lady and said that Prevent is not about reporting but about putting safeguards in place. However, that is effectively reporting. When a person thinks there is someone of concern and they start the safeguarding process, they call on the local authority, social services and various other people—that is effectively nothing but reporting.

The Government have a duty to protect our country, but the rules, laws, programmes and provisions we put in place must be effective. There is no point in having a knee-jerk reaction to a problem and saying, “We will have Prevent. We will put it on a statutory basis, and somehow all the problems of radicalisation will go away”, without realising whether the policy is effective.

Countless studies have been carried out. In October last year I hosted an event for the Open Society Justice Initiative, which had spoken to 80 different sets of experts in the field and many families who had been affected by Prevent. It showed that 80% of the people affected had been referred wrongly—that is 80% of children and families affected completely unnecessarily. The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson, QC, said:

“Prevent has become a more significant source of grievance in affected communities than the police and ministerial powers that are exercised under the Pursue strand of the Contest strategy”.

Again, someone has looked at terrorism legislation and thinks that Prevent is wrong. Unless and until we get the community on board, we will not be able to effect any real changes. All Prevent does is stigmatise people.

Prevent was brought in by the Labour Government, but it was rolled out on a voluntary basis. I have to say I was not keen on it then, but at least it was voluntary. Now it is statutory, which means that doctors, nurses, hospitals and teachers can get into trouble if they do not report something that the Government think they should have done. That puts so much pressure on professionals. They are being asked to make disclosures and breach confidentiality, and families and everyone else are being put under stress for something that is not achieving anything.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

Apologies for coming into the debate late, Sir David. I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) on securing it. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) agree that professionals—teachers, clinicians and so on—would say they already have professional standards that meet the need, and that the additional duty does not add anything?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I absolutely agree. Dr Clare Gerada, who spoke at the presentation I held last year, said exactly the same thing: they already have duties to look after vulnerable people. By making Prevent statutory, we are pressurising them, which could lead to them being affected if, for example, they feel that somebody should not be referred in a particular case.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Berry]

I agree with everything that my hon. Friend said. That brings me to the second main criticism of Prevent—that it puts undue pressure on teachers, doctors and social workers. It is true that they are not policemen and are already under huge pressure—I know that teachers are, because my mother was one—because of all sorts of duties of the kind, besides their core one of teaching. However, they are the people with day-to-day contact with young people and they have the opportunity to notice what others, including the police, may not. That is why they have similar duties to report child abuse, female genital mutilation, forced marriage and the like. We rely on them to pick up things that others might miss or parents would not report.

[Kate Green]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that teachers are among those who have regular contact with young people, and it should be part of professional practice to notice when children’s behaviour changes—such as becoming withdrawn or difficult. However, teachers and parents in my constituency tell me that the way the Prevent duty on professionals is perceived is breaking down trust between families, parents and schools. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that must be addressed if the programme is to work effectively?

[James Berry]

That certainly must be addressed, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) that the Prevent duty has led to much greater awareness among professionals of what to look for and how to help. We need a way to pick up the signs of radicalisation before it is too late and innocent lives are devastated by being drawn into the ideologies in question. Prevent, the current system, certainly has issues that need to be worked through, and the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) raises a good point. There is a need for constant updating, but equally, if we were to replace Prevent it could only be with a similar duty. Whatever we replaced it with would come under sustained attack, and it is our duty in the House to stand up for the Government’s efforts as well as to scrutinise and criticise them as we are doing.

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

Kate Green Excerpts

Committee Debate: House of Commons
Wednesday 1st February 2017 Public Bill Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sarah Newton)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mrs Main. I welcome the tone and spirit with which my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan opened this debate, and the opportunity to continue our work together. I am grateful to all hon. Members who have given up their time this afternoon; it is a pivotal day in Parliament, not just because we are talking about this very important Bill, but because of the debate in the Chamber, and I am grateful to those who have prioritised being in this Committee Room. It underlines the cross-party support for what we are doing.

We remain absolutely committed to ratifying the Istanbul convention. Combating violence against women and girls remains a top priority for the Government; the Prime Minister has made that absolutely clear, as have the Home Secretary and I. Since we signed the convention in 2012, the UK has made significant progress towards ratification. In most respects, we are already compliant with the convention’s requirements or we go further than them. We have put a range of measures in place to tackle VAWG—violence against women and girls—including criminalising forced marriage; allowing women to request information on their partner’s criminal history; introducing new laws on stalking and female genital mutilation; rolling out domestic violence protection orders; and introducing new domestic abuse offences.

We know that there is more to do. Last March, we published our new cross-Government VAWG strategy, which sets out our ambition that by the end of this Parliament no victim of abuse will be turned away from the support they need. To support that, we have increased funding, pledging £80 million through to 2020. We recently published a national statement of expectations, to set out what local commissioners need to put in place to ensure that their response to VAWG is effective; new guidance on domestic homicide reviews; and a new domestic abuse statistical tool and data set. We have announced our intention to introduce a new stalking protection order.

We are making progress, but before we ratify the convention we must ensure that the UK is fully compliant with it. There remains just one outstanding issue relating to extraterritorial jurisdiction, which I will call ETJ today for the purposes of brevity, that we have to address. Article 44 requires that all signatories take the necessary legislative measures to establish ETJ over any offence established in accordance with the convention. The UK already exercises ETJ in relation to many serious offences, including forced marriage, FGM and sexual offences against children. However, there are some VAWG offences to which it does not yet apply. Introducing ETJ for the remaining offences requires primary legislation and, as my colleagues at the Ministry of Justice have highlighted to Parliament, the Government will seek to legislate as soon as time allows.

In addition, Northern Ireland and Scotland also need to legislate on ETJ. We therefore need to allow sufficient time for their respective Governments to do that. We realise the importance of getting on with this matter. We liaise regularly with the devolved Administrations on VAWG and I have been in touch with my counterparts about the Bill. MOJ officials have also had informal contact with their counterparts about the ETJ requirements of article 44 and we will continue to liaise closely with the devolved Administrations on this issue. I am sure that all hon. Members know that, at the moment, that is quite challenging for Northern Ireland, given the situation there, but that does not diminish our commitment. Nevertheless, it means that we must be realistic about the amount of time that we need to spend on this issue.

On Second Reading, the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service made it clear that the Government supported the Bill in principle but that further consideration of the detail was needed. We have now had time to consider the Bill in detail and our intention is to propose amendments on Report. I would like to take this opportunity to set out the direction of, and rationale behind, those amendments.

Clause 1 would require the Government to take “all reasonable steps” necessary to ratify the convention

“as soon as reasonably practicable”.

The Government fully support the aim behind the clause, which is to ensure that we deliver on our commitment to ratify the convention. However, as Members will appreciate, because one of the steps that we and the devolved Administrations need to take will require primary legislation to introduce ETJ, there is a danger that the clause could be interpreted as imposing a duty on the Government to legislate. In effect, that would pre-empt the will of Parliament. Much as the Government always want to get our own way in Parliament, we cannot take that for granted. We must acknowledge the democratic processes that need to happen in Parliament.

Therefore, we will table an amendment to remove clause 1, while ensuring that the spirit behind it is captured by the remaining clauses. Once again, I would like to put on the record the Government’s commitment to ratifying the convention. The proposed removal of the clause does not change that in any way, shape or form.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I apologise if this is a stupid question, but I would be grateful for the Minister’s answer to it. I understand what she says about the will of Parliament. However, if this legislation were passed with the wording in the Bill, as tabled, would that not mean Parliament had expressed its will?

[Sarah Newton]

I have discussed this matter a great deal with the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, who is promoting the Bill, and taken a lot of advice from expert parliamentary draftsmen. We just want to make sure that there is absolutely no confusion in what we are attempting to do. When the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston has the opportunity to read the amendments—of course, there will be further opportunities to discuss the Bill on Report—I think she will see that in no way, shape or form are we diminishing the commitment that the Bill seeks to place on the Government to ratify the convention. We have been crystal clear: we want to ratify the convention. It is just a question of using the appropriate language to make sure that we put the matter beyond doubt.

We fully support the requirements of clause 2. It would introduce a requirement on the Government to lay a report, setting out the steps to be taken to enable the UK to ratify the convention and the timescale for doing that. However, we have concerns about the four-week timescale. The Committee will recognise the need to ensure that a more proportionate timeframe is in place, given that in order to set out when we intend to ratify, we need to be clear about the likely timescales for putting in place the necessary legislation on ETJ. We need a proper amount of time to have our discussions with the devolved Administrations so that we can give a realistic timeframe.

EU Asylum Reform Package

Kate Green Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2016 General Committees

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. The documents we are debating—although perhaps fruitlessly—are at the heart of the European Union’s response to the migration and refugee crisis.

The European Commission believes that the EU’s existing asylum rulebook, the common European asylum system, has been weakened as a result of unilateral action by member states to protect their borders, restrict access to their territories and make it more difficult to obtain protection. It says there is too much fragmentation, with too little trust in member states’ asylum systems, which has created pull factors, drawing individuals to member states with higher asylum recognition rates and better reception conditions. The Commission’s reform package purports to reduce the scope for differential treatment, depending on where an application for international protection is made; to deter asylum shopping and secondary movements between member states; and to establish effective burden sharing and solidarity mechanisms.

Today’s debate concerns three asylum reform proposals, published by the Commission in July, which would change current EU asylum laws determining who qualifies for international protection, the procedures applicable to asylum claims and how asylum seekers are to be treated while their claims are being examined. It also concerns a new EU resettlement framework, which is intended to provide safe and legal pathways to the EU for individuals in need of international protection, and to cut off at source the people-smuggling networks that exploit the vulnerability of migrants and refugees.

All the proposals are subject to the UK’s justice and home affairs opt-in, meaning that they will apply to the UK only if the Government decide to opt in. The Government have the option to wait and see how negotiations progress and seek to opt in at the end of the process, once the proposals have been formally adopted, but if the Government want to vote on the outcome, they have to opt in during the initial three-month opt-in period.

The European Scrutiny Committee recommended in September that the Government’s opt-in decisions on each of the proposals should be debated on the Floor of the House, so that the House as a whole had the opportunity to influence and inform the Government’s decision. Those opt-in decisions are important. How the EU adapts its existing framework of asylum laws to respond to the crisis has far-reaching legal, political and humanitarian consequences. In 2016 alone, more than 4,700 individuals lost their lives crossing the Mediterranean to Europe.

However, as a result of the Government’s delaying tactics, we are being asked today to endorse retrospectively their unilateral decision not to opt into the Commission’s asylum reform proposals. Parliament has had no meaningful say on the merits of the Government’s decision or how it was reached, so will the Minister tell us why Parliament was sidelined? Will he also tell us why he has disregarded the Government’s own code of practice on parliamentary scrutiny of opt-in decisions, which makes it clear that opt-in debates should take place within the three-month opt-in period, to ensure that the Government are accountable to the House before, not after, they have reached a decision? Are the commitments made by the previous coalition Government to significantly strengthen Parliament’s oversight of EU justice and home affairs matters and make the Government more accountable for the decisions they make on the EU now a dead letter?

As the European Scrutiny Committee’s reports have made clear, the Commission’s asylum reform proposals raise important questions about member states’ collective commitment to implement humane, fair and effective asylum policies. Since the Government motion appears to leave open the possibility of a post-adoption opt-in, will the Minister tell us how active a role the Government intend to play in the negotiations? What outcome does he seek to achieve? Can he envisage circumstances in which the Government might wish to seek to opt into one or more of the proposals following their adoption? He shakes his head. No doubt he will expand on that in his comments shortly.

Would it be feasible for the UK to opt into some of the proposals but not others, given the interdependence of the Commission’s asylum reform package? Finally, if the Government do not seek to opt in post-adoption, as the Minister appeared to indicate, what assessment has he made of the impact that different asylum rules in the EU and the UK may have on the UK’s asylum system once the UK has left the EU?

I conclude with the observation that the Government’s handling of today’s opt-in debate, including last week’s unfortunate error on the Floor of the House, reinforces the European Scrutiny Committee’s concern that the Government have become complacent about fulfilling their scrutiny obligations at a time when effective scrutiny and accountability to Parliament on EU matters are more important than ever. The Minister has been slow in responding to the reports that we have published, and reluctant to engage constructively with external stakeholders. We have sought but not yet received an assurance that his Department is fully committed to fulfilling its scrutiny obligations and is adequately resourced to do so. I hope that the Minister will give us that assurance today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

Obviously, we continue to observe a watching brief. Should the Government, at any time, decide to opt in, that will be possible, although time is limited, given the Brexit negotiations. I continue to work closely with other member states, particularly those that are under pressure, such as France, Italy and Greece. The application of these four measures will not impact on the priorities of this Government or, indeed, this House. The timetable for final agreement may well be protracted, and we may well have left the European Union before the measures take effect.

[Kate Green]

Further to that response, are there any aspects of the proposals that the Minister would wish to adopt into UK domestic law, or legislate for in UK domestic law after Brexit?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions to this debate. Irrespective of the opt-in decision under discussion, we remain committed to addressing the migration crisis and working with the EU and member states to tackle this high-priority issue.

The hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, the shadow Home Secretary, talked about “waves” of migration. When discussing these issues, one needs to bear in mind what pull factors can lead those “waves”. Indeed, many of the people who find themselves in unseaworthy boats, either in the Aegean sea or in the Mediterranean, are responding to pull factors that can result in the people traffickers being able to carry out their particularly horrible business.

The hon. Lady is absolutely right when she refers to the most vulnerable people. Having visited refugee camps in Jordan, I would say that the most vulnerable people are those in the camps—indeed, the people in the berm on the Syrian border—and not necessarily those people in Greece, Italy and France, which are safe countries.

As a former Member of the European Parliament, I believe that the United Kingdom post-Brexit will still be in the European family; it is just that we will no longer be sleeping in the spare bedroom. Indeed, the UK will be able to take a lead in Europe and will not necessarily be limited by the speed of the slowest, which is all too often the problem in getting agreement at European level.

[Kate Green]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am very curious about how he thinks we will be able to lead the way when we are out there on our own. Also, does he agree that the way to have influence with third countries, which would be an important part of the solution to this appalling global crisis, would be to act in concert with our European neighbours?

[Mr Goodwill]

I would be more inclined to take lessons from our EU friends and colleagues if they all stepped up to the mark, as we have done by spending 0.7% of our income on overseas aid. We are the second biggest donor to the region around Syria—£2.3 billion of aid is going in. That shows that we put our money where our mouth is and do not just talk about making that commitment.

[Kate Green]

Does the Minister agree that our European neighbours might be more impressed if we took refugees and asylum seekers on the same scale as Germany, which has taken several hundred thousand, or Greece and Italy, which are forced to deal with being the point of arrival for many people, and are unable to cope with that?

[Mr Goodwill]

We are taking refugees from the region under the two schemes that we have put in place, as well as the long-standing scheme. That does not contribute to the pull factor that results in people traffickers carrying out their business, and indeed, sadly, in fatalities and people meeting a watery grave in the Mediterranean and Aegean seas.

Europol

Kate Green Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2016 General Committees

[The Chair]

We now have until 5.35 pm for questions to the Minister. I remind Members that questions should be brief. It is open to Members, subject to my discretion, to ask related supplementary questions.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I very much welcome what the Minister has said. I absolutely appreciate that the position is for today while we remain full members of the European Union and it is not in any way a pre-judgment on how the negotiations to exit may take place. However, by opting in, how will our Europol systems and habits of operating and sharing intelligence and information on crimes that need to be dealt with on a cross-border basis, because they occur on a cross-border basis, be appropriately replicated and provided for after we leave the European Union? For example, is the Minister thinking of setting up shadow systems as a safety net for the post-Brexit world? If not, what other contingencies are the Government putting in place to ensure that today’s Europol protections that the Minister outlined are continued after we leave the European Union?

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. It is right to opt in at the moment. We have been working with Europol, a lead partner, for some considerable time. About 40% of everything that Europol does is linked to work that is either provided or requested by the United Kingdom. The hon. Lady tempts me to give a running commentary on our Brexit negotiations, but I will resist that temptation because we are at the start of negotiations, not the end. However, hon. Members and hon. Friends should bear in mind the fact that there are other countries that have partnership agreements with Europol. In fact, the United States has one of the biggest liaison offices. It is obviously not a member of the EU, but it has come to an agreement to work with Europol. It sees the benefit and has found a way to do that. Opting in now puts us in a strong position from which to be able to negotiate what is right for us when Brexit comes, but we will see how that goes in the negotiations.