Policing in the 21st Century

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Monday 26th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point and for enabling me to put absolutely clearly on the record that this Government will not try to impose mergers on police forces. If police forces voluntarily wish to merge and come forward not only with a strong business case, but with clear indications that such a merger is supported by the local communities, we will of course look at that, but we will not, unlike the previous Government, try to impose mergers on forces.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

May I welcome a number of the Home Secretary’s proposals today that are in keeping with recommendations made by the Select Committee on Home Affairs last year? I was going to say that she nicked the name of our last report for her White Paper, but I will be generous and say that she borrowed it. She is right about SOCA, and clearly, £79 million on National Policing Improvement Agency consultants is far too much, but will she give the House an assurance that, whatever the reorganisation entails, front-line policing will not be affected; that the number of officers on the front line will remain the same; that our fight against terrorism will be as strong as it has been over the past few years; and that we will not give in to the serious organised crime gangs?

[Mrs May]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his questions, for the work that the Home Affairs Committee has done under his chairmanship and for the issues that it has identified, to which I referred in my statement. I can confirm to him—and it is clear in the document—that our work on counter-terrorism is a good example of forces coming together and working together, and we have no plans to change the arrangements that are in place. In relation to front-line policing, this Government want to strengthen it. We want to slash the bureaucracy and get the police where they should be—out on the streets.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Wednesday 14th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), who is the newest member of the Home Affairs Committee. I can recall that of the Committee’s 38 reports, 37 were unanimous; the discussion and inquiry that we held on pre-charge detention was the only one on which the Committee divided.

We have had some very odd couplings, if I may put it like that, today. We had the Front Benchers—the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary—agreeing, and then we had the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick) agreeing. I thought for a moment that the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) was going to vote against the order until the last few seconds, when he gave the Home Secretary the benefit of the doubt.

This is a very important debate. Of course, the mood is different from that of the last debate, although there is a huge amount of passion. I came into this Chamber with a determination to vote for the order, but I am going to vote against it because I do not think the case has been made. I have been swayed—I know that this is very unusual for a Member of this House—by the speeches that I have heard. I am impressed by the integrity of my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North, who has campaigned long and hard on this issue, and by the fact that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden resigned and fought a by-election on it. I also remember the speech made by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) during the last debate, which was pretty passionate. That is not to dismiss anything that we have heard from others who obviously make very important points.

[Jim Shannon]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need 28 days for two reasons: for the ongoing verbal investigations and for the forensic part of the evidence? It is not like the “CSI” programmes on TV. A person is not convicted in 60 minutes—28 days are needed to do that. It helps to remove the more volatile members of the community and to ensure that innocent people are protected.

[Keith Vaz]

I understand that; it is exactly the point that Ian Blair, now Lord Blair, made to the Select Committee. However, as we have heard today from the Home Secretary, this power has not been used very often. I am sure that she was in the Chamber when the Attorney-General spoke on the issue—it was one of the best speeches that I have ever heard here—and opposed what the last Government were going to do. To be perfectly frank, if one has a power that one does not use, why have it?

It is important to consider who supported the longer detention period. Only the police came before the Committee and said that they supported it. Ken Macdonald—now Lord Macdonald—who is conducting the review had no reservations when he was Director of Public Prosecutions, but had reservations after he ceased to be DPP. He brought those reservations—

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Keith Vaz]

I will not, because time is very short and I know that lots of people want to speak. I have great admiration for my right hon. Friend—oh, all right, then.

[Mr Howarth]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for reluctantly giving way. Does he recall that when those debates were going on, the claim was never that these powers would be used frequently, but that they might be necessary in very exceptional circumstances?

[Keith Vaz]

My right hon. Friend is right, but we now have the facts and some evidence that we did not have before. The hon. Member for Esher and Walton mentioned the security services. The security services have never said, on or off the record, that they wanted an increase in the detention period. When they met the Select Committee, they were very clear that they were not taking a position on this, and that was echoed in the statements made by the head of MI5. In their view, it was a decision to be made by politicians.

My next point concerns the impact on the community. I listened to what my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary said, and I have great admiration for him. However, I do not believe that the so-called independent research conducted by officials at the Home Office—or consultants, or whoever did it—truly reflects the views of the community. This matter impacts on the community, and that includes the ethnic minority communities of this country, specifically the Muslim community. There was huge disquiet about these powers being sought by the last Government. I have 10,000 people of the Muslim faith in my constituency; others have more. It was not only the Muslim community but the entire ethnic minority community that was concerned, although they may not have wanted to relate their views to consultants for a research document.

The Home Secretary is coming before the Select Committee tomorrow morning—I hope she has not forgotten, because we are all turning up and it would be terrible if she were not there—and we will of course probe her about her review. I am sure that she will deal with all the points that we raise in the competent way she has done since becoming Home Secretary. However, in answer to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) she said that she was personally in favour of 14 days. She had me until that point. If she believes that 14 days is the right limit, how can she come before the House and ask for 28? On that point alone, and having been convinced by right hon. and hon. Members, I will vote against the motion.

Counter-terrorism and Security Powers

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Tuesday 13th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments about the review. I will of course ensure that information is available from the Home Office as to how organisations and others can make comments as part of their submissions to the review.

I take the point that it is important to look at the collective impact of legislation. We will be looking at the six individual areas, but as part of that process we shall look at the overall impact of legislation. It is that balance that is so important for us to achieve—ensuring that the legislation is not brought into disrepute because of the overall impact or because it is felt that it encroaches on important liberties.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

Every new Government are entitled to review legislation in the way that the Home Secretary has suggested, and the Select Committee looks forward to seeing her on Thursday morning when we shall have the opportunity to explore these issues with her. I am grateful to her for agreeing to see us at such short notice.

May I press the Home Secretary on resources? The threat is still severe. Mr Yates has made it very clear that as far as he is concerned there will be cuts of £150 million to the counter-terrorism budget, and I understand that Home Office officials saw his speech before he delivered it to the closed session of the Association of Chief Police Officers last Thursday. Can the right hon. Lady confirm that it is the Government’s intention to ensure that the counter-terrorism unit, and units all over the country, have the resources they need to fight terrorism and that there will be no cut to that budget?

[Mrs May]

I of course want to ensure that those involved in counter-terrorism, whether in the police or other agencies, are able to undertake the job we ask them to do and which they do diligently for us day in, day out. On spending cuts, however, no specific figure has been set. As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, a spending review is under way in which Departments are looking at their expenditure and it is right that the Home Office does as other Departments do. I must tell the right hon. Gentleman and others on the Opposition Benches that I did not want to be in the position of looking at spending cuts in the Home Office and other Departments. The reason why we have to do so is that, in the words of the last Labour Chief Secretary to the Treasury, there is no money left. And whose fault is that? It is the Labour party’s.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Section 44)

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Thursday 8th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments on the statement and for his suggestion, which I am certainly happy to consider. He is absolutely right: the use of the powers among forces has been quite different—not just among England and Wales and Scotland, but between police forces in England and Wales.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement. She is absolutely right to have taken the position that she has taken. There is no question of a further appeal, given the circumstances, and she is right to introduce guidelines. Will she share with the House any information about further claims for compensation, which could run to hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of pounds? We obviously look forward to probing her on these issues when she comes before the Home Affairs Committee. Can she assure us that she will return to the House regularly to continue to pursue the previous Government’s counter-terrorism agenda, where we showed zero tolerance; that the claims made by Mr Yates that, somehow, the resources will not be there are ill-founded; and that she will provide all the resources necessary to pursue a strong and vigorous counter-terrorism agenda?

[Mrs May]

I can certainly assure the right hon. Gentleman that it is the Government’s intention to pursue a strong and vigorous counter-terrorism agenda, and we will, indeed, come to the House at various stages in relation to our review of counter-terrorism legislation and any related changes that we wish to make. He asked a specific question about compensation claims. We have, of course, responded quickly to the European Court’s judgment, but the Court was clear and agreed with the Government that no compensation should be awarded given the short duration of stop-and-search powers. The finding alone was considered by the European Court as satisfaction, although it ordered the Government to pay legal costs.

DNA and CCTV (Crime Prevention)

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Tuesday 6th July 2010 Westminster Hall

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), with her very informative speech, and to serve under you, Mr Chope, for the first time. I was about to describe the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) as the Shami Chakrabarti of the Conservative party until he described Liberty as an anarchist organisation, so I shall have to refrain and instead describe him as a kind of male Boadicea from Yorkshire, on his chariot fighting for the civil liberties of this country.

I think that there is no disagreement among Members of the House that we need both DNA on a database and CCTV as tools in our fight against crime. I would be amazed if any hon. Member said that we should stop using either of those two very important techniques in trying to detect crime. The division will be over the extent to which we use DNA and a DNA database and cameras to detect crime.

It would be churlish of me not to welcome what the Government propose, because it is fully in line with two reports by the Select Committee on Home Affairs in the previous Parliament. Both were unanimous and both called for changes to be made. To be fair to the former police Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), we had the Government moving in the right direction, at least as regards the DNA database.

We have the largest DNA database in the world; 15,000 profiles are added every week. It is much larger than that of any other country in Europe, given the new information put on it on a daily basis. I shall explain the problem for the Select Committee and, I think, for other Members of the House. I am sure that the hon. Member for Shipley has discussed this with his hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands). Quite innocently, he was asked to provide DNA to the police for an inquiry, and he waited for months and months to get information about whether the police had that DNA on their database. The issue for members of the Committee and Members of the House was very much one of process. I think that if the process of getting information from the police was a little better, we would not now be talking about trying to control the very large number of names on the database.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), for whom I have huge respect, mentioned the black community and their willingness to be protected by the taking of DNA, but she will know that 75% of young black men are on the DNA database. It disproportionately takes DNA from young black people, so there are lots of faults with the current system. I think that all the Government are seeking to do—obviously, it is for the Minister, not me, to make the Government’s case—is control it and to allow innocent people to have the opportunity, if they choose to do so, to apply to one organisation and receive a reply about whether their DNA is on the database.

[Mr David Amess in the Chair]

If we examine the process, the issue of whether the database should be extended can be dealt with, but I think that if people are innocent and are caught in a situation in which they have absolutely nothing to do with a crime, their DNA should not be on the database. The former Government moved significantly, from 12 years to six, and I hope that the present Government will carefully examine the process as well as the principle of what is proposed.

I understand that there are 4.2 million CCTV cameras. Someone can be caught on average 300 times a day on a CCTV camera. I had no idea that we had more in Orkney than in San Francisco per head of population, but those are very important statistics. We are not saying and the Select Committee, in its unanimous report, did not say, “Stop using CCTV cameras,” simply because every time that I go back to my constituency, local residents are calling for more cameras.

[Philip Davies]

I do not want to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman’s flow, but I want to make the point that the figure of 4.5 million CCTV cameras is derived by Professor Clive Norris for the EU-funded Urbaneye project. It counts the number of cameras in Putney high street and extrapolates that figure across London and then the UK. There are nowhere near 4.5 million CCTV cameras. According to the people who actually use the system, the figure is much nearer 1.5 million.

[Keith Vaz]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman—I knew there would be an EU dimension to this debate somewhere. However, we have reached the stage at which we have too many cameras in the wrong places. As the hon. Member for Stourbridge said, we need more in different areas; they need to be fit for purpose; we need to know what their use is. That is why the Select Committee suggested that we have not reached the stage of being a surveillance society, but we are almost there, so let us stop and pause, which is precisely what the Government are doing in adopting the recommendations of the Select Committee, and examine the current situation. We also proposed that we should ensure that once a year the Information Commissioner lays a report before Parliament on this issue and that we have a proper debate, not in Westminster Hall but on the Floor of the House, where many more hon. Members can participate on these two very important subjects.

The hon. Member for Shipley and other hon. Members have quoted police officers and others in support of their arguments. The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) served as a police officer for eight years in Lothian and the Borders, so he comes to the House with huge experience on this issue. However, we do not always accept everything that the police have to say. They are very useful in providing us with information. The only time that the Select Committee divided in the previous Parliament was over the 42 days issue. That was the only time we had a vote, and that was because powerful evidence was given by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. We take such information, and obviously we have huge respect for those who implement these decisions, but at the end of the day, it is our judgment as politicians.

I shall just put one more expert into the pot, for the purposes of the discussion. I am referring to the views of Sir Alec Jeffreys, the man who discovered DNA profiling and who, in evidence to the Select Committee, said that he thought that it had gone too far or at least Governments had gone too far in extending and expanding the database. He suggested that there was a limit. We understand why DNA should be kept on the database if people are convicted, if they are charged, but if they are innocent, a time limit should be the order of the day. If not, they should have the ability to ask at least whether their DNA is being retained on the database.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I should like to make some progress; I need to reply to several speeches, and I might need to take an intervention from an hon. Member who did not get called to speak.

The interesting and perhaps central point in the debate is the balance between the right of the public to be protected from crime and the right of individuals to live their lives without unnecessary state intrusion. That has been at the forefront of many of the speeches this morning. It has been interesting, and there have been some important contributions. I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley said about drawing a distinction between certain freedoms, which he articulated with reference to ID cards, which he sees as an intrusion, as against CCTV surveillance or the retention of DNA profiles, which he did not see as an intrusion in the same way. Clearly, not everyone shares that view, as we have seen in connection with developments in Birmingham; indeed, many cases from constituency postbags, to do with DNA profiles, for example, show that the issue is considered significant for the way the state may perceive individuals who have done no wrong. That private life interest is involved in the balance.

There have been comments about the role of the police. We have certainly discussed issues with ACPO and other police representatives and shall continue to do so as we progress with and publish our detailed proposals, so that the House can give them proper consideration. I am sure that we are only at the start of discussion of those important issues, which is why I welcome the speeches that have been made, albeit that, while it is a pleasure to continue in debate with the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr Campbell), he and I have probably debated the issues six or seven times in the past couple of years and I am reconciled to our not reaching complete agreement. We do, however, find agreement in the importance we place on public safety and the need for checks and balances on the retention of DNA. Although I may the other day have made a pejorative suggestion about the hon. Gentleman supporting the indefinite retention of DNA, I recognise that at the time in question that was not his position: there was recognition of a need for some restrictions on the retention period and related matters. We may not be wholly on the same page, but I recognise that there is at least some agreement about some issues.

[Keith Vaz]

Does the Minister accept the recommendation of the Select Committee that there should be an annual debate on the issue in Parliament, with a report presented to Parliament by the Information Commissioner?

[James Brokenshire]

I very much welcome the contribution made by the Home Affairs Committee on the issues of CCTV and DNA retention. I made sure that I had a copy of at least one of those reports before coming to today’s debate. We shall certainly reflect on a range of issues about CCTV as we proceed with the framework for regulation, and I shall consider the recommendations in the Committee’s report. Other codes of practice have been referred to and the right hon. Member for Leicester East mentioned the Information Commissioner, whose office has published a CCTV code of practice. That is important in informing the debate, as are the findings and feedback that we receive from the interim CCTV regulator, which as the right hon. Member for Don Valley pointed out was set up under the previous Government. We await the regulator’s recommendations and feedback and will reflect upon it closely in relation to how we may proceed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Monday 28th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. What the public want to see is police officers out on the beat. They do not want them to be tied up with unnecessary paperwork. That is why we are so determined to deal with the performance management framework and the targets that have prevented them from doing the job they want to do.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister for Police to his first Home Office questions. What he has said is absolutely in agreement with the recommendation of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which is that we should get police officers out on the beat. Will he therefore accept the other recommendation, which is that there should be full investment in new technology, giving police officers hand-held computers so they can spend more time on the beat than in police stations? Will he defend that part of the Home Office budget against any Treasury cuts?

[Nick Herbert]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind introduction. I recognise the importance of technology in assisting the process of reducing bureaucracy, such as in our commitment to scrap the stop form, which is an unnecessary and bureaucratic impediment to common-sense policing. There is a role for technology such as hand-held computers in recording stops and searches in accordance with the right hon. Gentleman’s suggestions.

Limits on Non-EU Economic Migration

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Monday 28th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My right hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. This is another area where frankly, yet again, the Labour Government failed over the course of 13 years: they failed to ensure that people in this country had the skills necessary to get the jobs that become available. This Government, through our welfare reform proposals and our work programme, will be helping people and giving them much more support to get into the workplace, whereas under the Labour Government economic inactivity in the UK rose significantly. Many migrant workers were being brought in from overseas, and limiting that number will be part of the process of ensuring that we are able to help people to get out of unemployment and into the workplace.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary’s cap, if I may call it that, is a departure from existing policy, because this is the first time we have had a definitive figure. How did she arrive at the figure of 24,100? What will we do about the 24,102nd person who applies and is turned down? Will we give them the right of appeal if they have the skills necessary to help our country? What resources does she propose to give to posts abroad, which will be overwhelmed by a stampede of applications over the next year? Will she come before my Committee as soon as possible to discuss these matters further?

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising those points. He mentioned the possibility of a stampede at posts overseas in relation to this matter. The whole point of having the interim limit set over the next nine months or so, until the permanent annual limit comes into place, is precisely to avoid that stampede. It will not be possible for people to say that they are going to try to apply to come here before that limit comes in, because we have the interim limit, which we have set at slightly below—5% below—the numbers for the past year.

The right hon. Gentleman said that this is a change in policy. It is indeed, because under the points-based system the impetus is with the individual migrant: if they have the right number of points, they can decide whether they want to try to come into the UK. Under our system, we are saying, “We do want to welcome the brightest and the best, but we recognise that it is necessary to have a limit because we want to ensure that we are able to control immigration.” I am sure that Members across the whole House will agree that that is the view of many members of the general public who have raised this issue with them.

Cumbrian Shootings

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd June 2010 Westminster Hall

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be in a debate under your chairmanship, Mr Benton; I think that this is the first such occasion for me. I am pleased to be following the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart). One of the great values of this House is that Members come from so many different backgrounds. They are able to give the House their experience and expertise in areas of policy of which some of us have absolutely no experience. I represent an urban constituency, which does not have anything like the open space and rural background of the constituencies of many hon. Members here this afternoon.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) for the way in which he has conducted himself as Member of Parliament for the area where the event that we are discussing took place. It must have been a 24/7 experience, the like of which none of us would ever want to be involved in. Of course, we are always there to represent our constituents every moment we are in the House, but what he had to go through was exceptional. He conducted himself with enormous dignity, and he is a credit to his constituency and to this House.

[Tony Cunningham]

I just want to endorse what my right hon. Friend has said about my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland. However, there is one word that he did not use that I should like to add—it is “leadership”. That is what communities would always want to see in their MP in such difficult circumstances. Throughout this entire tragedy, my hon. Friend has shown real leadership and he is to be commended for that.

[Keith Vaz]

Indeed; my hon. Friend is absolutely right to say so. As we are in the business of acknowledging hon. Members, I should say that all the other Members with Cumbrian constituencies who are here today also played their parts in responding to this tragedy—the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) and my hon. Friends the Members for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) and for Workington (Tony Cunningham). Those constituencies were just names to me until I went to Whitehaven on Monday. As I went down the motorway, I saw all those constituency names; I am sorry that I did not have a chance to notify the Members that I was driving past, as is the convention, but I tried my very best.

I will speak very briefly as I know that other hon. Members who represent Cumbria wish to be involved in the debate. I was in Whitehaven in Copeland on Monday, at the invitation of my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland, as I had expressed the view that it was important that we not only looked at the overall area of policy that is paramount in this particular case, but recognised, following statements made by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, that it was important that Parliament itself should look at the events that had occurred in this tragic set of circumstances.

Of course, those of us who live outside Cumbria send our condolences to the families of those who have died; it must be an awful experience for those families. On Monday, I met the vicar of Egremont and he told me about the funerals that he had conducted and the fact that it is a very close-knit community—everyone knows everyone else. The tragedy is taken very personally.

The hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire and my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland are absolutely right: the reaction of politicians, including the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, was spot on. There was no rush to judgment. There was a careful and measured approach, as was demonstrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland here in Westminster Hall today. That approach was also reflected in the statement of the Prime Minister when he went to Cumbria and by the Home Secretary in her statement to the House, which she made very soon after this tragedy.

It was right to say that we have to wait and see. There must not be a rush to judgment. Let us look at the facts, see exactly what happened and consider, in a careful and measured way, how to proceed. I think that that is what will happen in this particular case.

Nevertheless, I feel that it is important that there should be an urgency about getting to the facts. My hon. Friend and I had a meeting with the deputy chief constable of Cumbria, Stuart Hyde, who talked about a series of inquiries that were taking place. Clearly, the police do not want to leave things in a position where people have any further questions to ask, so there are a series of inquiries. There is the inquiry into the issuing of the gun licence, the inquiry into the circumstances of the day itself and another internal inquiry that the police are conducting. Those inquiries are all very important and very relevant.

At the end of the day, however, judging from the limited time that I spent in Cumbria, the interests of the constituents of my hon. Friend and other Cumbrian MPs will not be served until all the facts of the case come out, so that people know precisely what happened. That is important, although not so much for us to guard against this tragedy happening again—because, although we do not know the full facts yet, we think that this tragedy could have happened anywhere in the country at any time; this was not a premeditated series of events. It is important because it is right that the public should know about the full sequence of events. So I hope that when the Minister responds to the debate, he will tell us something about the timetable that has been placed on the local police force in Cumbria.

Although the deputy chief constable of Cumbria did not ask for additional resources, there may be a resources issue. As a second point of clarification, I seek an assurance from the Minister that, if those additional resources are necessary, they will be provided.

The deputy chief constable spoke intelligently about the fact that Cumbria does not own a helicopter, for example. He also said that, in his view, Cumbria does not need one. A deal had been done with another force—the Greater Manchester force, or perhaps the Merseyside force—to provide a helicopter when it was required. Obviously, not all police forces can have their own helicopters, but there may well be resource implications that need to be examined in the cold light of day.

I hope that in the meantime, before we get to the conclusion of the inquiries, whatever Cumbria’s police ask for and whatever hon. Members feel is appropriate is provided. I know that the Prime Minister has said to my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland that he is keen to know the views of local people; I know that, because my hon. Friend told me so on Monday. If the local people ask for something, I hope that it will be granted.

As we all know, we are in something of a limbo situation. As we speak, there are elections for the membership of the Home Affairs Committee, so that Committee has not yet been formed. However, at our first meeting I will certainly recommend to members of the Committee that we should look at this area, because I think that it is important that Parliament itself should examine the wider issues. We should not necessarily examine the detail of what happened, although of course we will need to take evidence from those involved, but we should examine the wider area of the policy issues that emanate from what has happened.

As I am sure the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire will remind us, we have some of the tightest and strictest gun laws in the world and people will find it amazing that anyone should have been able to do what this person did to the citizens of Cumbria and then to himself. However, the fact is that we will have to look at the issue of gun law in the round. It would be very odd if we did not look at it.

I think that that is what my hon. Friend is talking about; he is not saying that there should be an instant revision of firearms legislation, but that we need to look at firearms legislation in context. The Home Affairs Committee last looked at this issue 10 years ago, when we made certain recommendations about having people on the national register. Immediately, the issue of data sharing is important too. When a gun licence is applied for and the data about that application are held locally, what happens to them? Are they available to others?

So broad issues need to be raised, without our getting into the finer detail of this case, because that is what the people will require. Of course, it is up to the Committee to decide on the inquiries that it carries out. It is not up to the Chairman, even in these days of electing Chairmen and having independence and accountability to Parliament. But I very much hope that this is an issue that we will look at when we have the opportunity to do so.

My hon. Friend mentioned a number of other issues concerning the media and his local hospital. On the media, I think that he has made some very valid points. It is important that we look at how these matters are reported and he is absolutely right to want to write to broadcasters and the Press Complaints Commission asking them to look at the overall handling of this situation.

My hon. Friend is also right to praise his local media, as we all do, because they have a better feel for local people. They are unwilling to trample on the lives of people, either the living or the deceased, because they know that they will be meeting them again. For the national media, it is something of a visit; they may be there 24/7 during the rolling period of a crisis, but they then go away quite swiftly to the next story. My hon. Friend’s concern is about how the story was reported at the time and I was certainly told about examples of cheque-book journalism and other issues of that kind, which really ought to be explored. He is right to raise this whole issue of the media; it is one of the lessons of Cumbria and one of the points that we need to remember.

As for my hon. Friend’s local hospital, I am sure that he makes his case more powerfully than anyone else here can, and I am sure that that case has been heard by Ministers. I wish him well in what he seeks to achieve.

In conclusion, the people of Whitehaven, its local Member of Parliament and the other Members of Parliament who represent the region desperately want to return to normality. I had never been to Whitehaven before Monday. It sounds odd, but I think that the furthest north that I had travelled in England previously was to Carlisle; of course I had been to Scotland before, including to the western isles many years ago on parliamentary business.

On my visit to Whitehaven, I saw a very beautiful place; it was absolutely stunningly beautiful. Local people, including the excellent leader of the local Labour group, Elaine Woodburn, and the local vicar, Richard Lee, wanted to return to normality. They want Whitehaven and Cumbria to be remembered for the beautiful places that they are, rather than for any other reason. We have a duty to ensure that they are able to return to that position. We also have a duty to ensure that all the facts come out. I hope that the Minister will assure us that the Government are also keen that that should happen.

Alternatives to Child Detention

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Thursday 17th June 2010 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Immigration (Damian Green)]

I am delighted to have the opportunity today to draw attention to the issue of children in immigration detention. The UK’s policy of detaining children with families in order to effect their removal from the UK is an area of long-standing concern for many organisations that take an interest in immigration and asylum, and for organisations that work on behalf of children. Those concerns are significant, and the Government have, very early on, set out their commitment to ending the detention of children for immigration purposes. We want to replace the current system with something that ensures that families with no right to be in this country return in a more dignified manner.

To help bring that about, the UK Border Agency is leading a comprehensive review of present practice on the detention of children. It will look at the actual levels and at how to prevent such detention by improving the current voluntary return process. The review will also consider good practice in other countries, and will look at how a new family removals process can be established that protects the welfare of children and ensures the return of those with no right to remain in the UK. It will come as no surprise to you or to the Chamber, Mr Weir, that in the current climate the review will also have to include value for money as part of its remit.

The review has already begun and its phase of collecting views and submissions will run until 1 July. It will take in the views of a wide range of partners, experts and organisations that represent the interests of children to create viable long-term solutions. Earlier this week, I went to Glasgow to discuss the matter with many voluntary groups. They made extremely useful inputs to the review, so we will be repeating those meetings in all regions and in other countries of the UK over the next few weeks.

The Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund is helping the review by co-chairing a working group made up of a range of non-governmental organisations, and I am grateful to the fund for agreeing to do that. We are seeking to identify how the UK Border Agency can fulfil its role while taking the right account of children’s safety and welfare. We are carrying out the review as fast as humanly possible, so that the detention of children for immigration purposes can end and a practical alternative be put in its place.

I should emphasise that the UK Border Agency is fully determined to replace the current system with something more humane, without compromising on the removal of people who have no right to remain in the UK. We are talking about alternatives to detention and not about ending removals. Until the review is completed, current policies will remain in place, with one exception. As Members will know, the detention of children overnight at Dungavel immigration removal centre in Scotland has been ended as a precursor to such a practice ending across the UK. Currently, a very small number of children—fewer than five—are being held in immigration detention, but before we close Yarl’s Wood for the detention of families we need to find effective alternatives.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Damian Green]

I will of course give way to the newly elected Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs.

[Keith Vaz]

I thank the Minister very much for letting me intervene. I welcome this review, which is very much in keeping with the report the Select Committee produced last November. One of the recommendations was for the then Government—clearly, it is now for the new Government—to look at the role of local authorities. Will he confirm that local authorities will be consulted? The Committee was concerned that councils were sometimes not aware of children in their jurisdiction, and that that led to some children absconding and councils simply not being aware that they had gone.

[Damian Green]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I take the opportunity formally to congratulate him on his election—his reappointment, rather—as Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee. I can do so with a due degree of objectivity because I was not allowed to vote in the election, so he can neither thank nor blame me. I am sure we will have many constructive exchanges in the coming years.

To address the right hon. Gentleman’s point, the simple answer is yes. I mentioned earlier that I had had a meeting in Glasgow at which the city council played a significant, helpful and constructive role. The purpose of the consultation is for it to be as widespread as possible. As he said, local authorities will have statutory responsibilities for such children and will therefore have views about how best we can and should proceed, so I will very much welcome their input into proceedings.

The challenge is to develop a new approach to family removals that remains cost-effective and delivers the return of those who have no right to remain in the UK. I hope I will not be constraining the review if I identify some of the factors involved; indeed, I hope this will help those who wish to contribute. It is already clear from the initial stages of the review that there is not a single, simple remedy: it is not just about ending detention at the stroke of a pen. There may have to be—I think there will have to be—a number of changes at different points in the system, each contributing to the overall aim. Clearly, there is a need to achieve faster and better decision making on family asylum cases; we are already taking forward work on that. We are told there is a need for greater confidence in the initial decision that is made in asylum cases. I take on board that message; indeed, I may even have transmitted that message to Government in the past.

In a recent report, the UK Border Agency’s independent chief inspector, John Vine, commented favourably on the commitment to quality, and the UK is felt by many countries to have good systems in this regard. Members may know that in 2007, the provision of early legal advice was piloted in Solihull, in the west midlands, to test whether collaboration between the legal representative and the UK Border Agency decision-maker led to better information at the initial decision-making stage, so that better quality decisions could be reached. The findings were unclear, so we are working with the Legal Services Commission and key asylum partners to test those principles across an entire region of the UK Border Agency. It is called the early legal advice project, and it is an example of collaborative working and trying new things that I hope will characterise this area of alternatives to detention for families.

Another thing to consider is the need for better contact management and more active discussion of a family’s options if their claim is rejected and their right to appeal a decision has been exhausted. Discussions with a family might need to be backed up by improved support from NGOs, partners and other workers. The options open to families at present include some very generous assisted return packages, but the take-up rate for families is low compared with that for single asylum seekers. There is, therefore, a need for better marketing of those assisted return offers. Marketing may sound like an odd word in this context, but I use it because we should not be forcing the take-up of such offers. Better explanation and promotion of the offers is clearly needed; they are real offers to provide help and assistance when all the other options have been exhausted. To illustrate one apparently small but important point, the assistance includes help with excess baggage so that families can take with them belongings purchased in the UK. They would not be returning home empty-handed, and would have more to show for their migration journey and for their time in the UK.

I think that everyone involved would also like to see a clearer and more evenly managed process after applications and claims to remain have been turned down. The starting point—and what I hope will become the standard—would be a much more clearly identifiable transition from a voluntary departure to an enforcement approach that is shaped by the family’s own approach to their situation. The UK Border Agency would therefore set removal directions while the family is in the community, giving the family time to submit further representations and to apply for a judicial review if they wish to do so, as well as giving them time to make plans for their return. The arrangements would place a greater emphasis on self check-in or escorting to the airport. That approach, which already exists but possibly in a less clear way than it ought to, gives families every chance to comply with the need to return home without enforcement action. Making it much clearer to families—and their helpers—where they stand at this stage of the process seems to me to be necessary.

Other changes to processes may be called for, but inevitably some families who have no justification to remain in the UK will always refuse to leave voluntarily, despite all the encouragement we give them to do so. A changed approach should, and I hope would, minimise the number of those families, but there will remain difficult cases where solutions have to be found and where enforced removals are likely to continue. That approach could involve separating different members of a family and reuniting them before departure, so that some family members stay in the accommodation they are used to. However, I recognise that that approach would be hugely contentious and has its own practical difficulties. Therefore, in some cases we may still have to have recourse to holding families for a short period before removal—where keeping the family together is seen as being in the best interests of the children, which of course must be the paramount concern.

I hope it will not come to that. The Government and the UK Border Agency would much prefer that families who do not require humanitarian protection or refugee protection return to their home countries voluntarily. That is a responsible approach in a world where the number of people who choose to live in another country, for a variety of reasons, is continually expanding. Not everyone’s journey will be a success in economic terms; not everyone’s journey will be lawful. We believe that the Government should respond in a responsible, fair, dignified and humane way to this reality.

[Keith Vaz]

I thank the Minister for giving way to me for a second time. Will he comment on the report in The Guardian today that the Government are considering a reintegration centre—basically, a detention centre—of some kind in Afghanistan for families who are due to be removed from this country? Is that report correct, or wrong?

[Damian Green]

I would always hesitate to describe a report in The Guardian as being completely accurate. The proposed centre in Afghanistan is not particularly a British Government project; indeed, the previous Government raised this idea with other European Governments and with international agencies. The proposed centre’s purpose is, effectively, to have a retraining centre—a re-entry centre—in Afghanistan, which the right hon. Gentleman will know is the source of many unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in this country, so that there is something for those children to go back to that will enable them to lead a better life in Afghanistan. I suspect he agrees with me that it would be much better for those young men to have a decent life and some hope in life in their own country. If they can have those things, that will stop many of them making dangerous—in some cases, sadly, fatal—journeys halfway across the world to try to reach Britain or other European countries.

So the basis of the report in The Guardian, for all that I said in my initial response to the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention, is true, but it is being presented in a luridly and unfairly hostile light. The centre is an effort to help people. I suspect that the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), the Opposition spokesperson, will agree with that, because she was in government when the then Government originally suggested this process. It is a constructive and creative response to the problem of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, and to present it in any other light is straightforwardly unfair. It is a constructive idea and I hope it comes to fruition. The tender for the operation is being examined, and we hope to make an announcement in the next few months about what will happen next.

This is a real, worldwide problem and as I was saying, we believe that the Government should respond in a responsible, fair, dignified and humane way to the reality of what is happening around the world today. The review into ending the immigration detention of children is an important part of that. Obviously, we will not take any firm decisions until the review has completed its work and we have taken into account the views that are put to us. I hope that during this debate, more ideas will be put forward that the Government can feed into the review, which may therefore give us what we all want to see: a fairer and more humane system that ends the system of detaining children for immigration purposes in this country.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) on his appointment as Minister for Immigration. I attended many debates with him in his Opposition capacity, but he has finally made it and now has the opportunity to put into practice all the good proposals for which he argued so strongly as the Opposition spokesperson.

I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) for all the work that she did as an Immigration Minister in the last Government. She was always very firm in defence of the Government’s policy, but she was also very willing to listen to Members of this House when they raised matters of concern with her. I am glad that she has retained her position as the Labour party’s spokesperson on immigration in opposition, because of course she knows everything—where all the bodies have been buried, figuratively speaking.

I welcome most warmly the Government’s decision to conduct a review of the whole question of the detention of children in the immigration system. It may well be that during the general election campaign, the Minister read the reports of the Home Affairs Committee. If so, he will have seen our report published on 24 November 2009, “The Detention of Children in the Immigration System”. In a sense, he has prefaced that report in the comments that he has made today. He has also rehearsed some of the arguments that are used for keeping children in detention, while rejecting those arguments. Of course, one cannot prejudge the outcome of a review, but I would be most surprised if the Government, having begun a review on this very important subject, came to the conclusion that everything was okay as far as the detention of children in the immigration system was concerned.

Nearly 1,000 children a year are detained in the UKBA’s immigration detention centres. On average, such children spend more than a fortnight—15.58 days—in detention, but detention for up to 61 days is not uncommon. On 30 June 2009—the last date for which the Home Affairs Committee had information on children in detention—10 of the 35 children in detention at that time had been held for between 29 and 61 days. The Committee noted that the cost of keeping a person in detention was £130 a day; therefore, keeping a family of four in detention for between four and eight weeks costs more than £20,000.

During our very brief inquiry into this area, Members of the Committee visited Yarl’s Wood. We felt that there must be an alternative that can be used to deal with the Government’s proper function, which is to ensure that those who have lost their immigration cases and who have not been granted leave to remain in this country, either as asylum seekers or in any other context, are removed. I think that all of us, on both sides of the House, accept that there cannot be an indefinite right for people to stay here after all the legal processes have been exhausted. What we must find is a humane way to deal with families, particularly children, who are kept in detention before their removal.

We went to Yarl’s Wood after hearing serious allegations about its operation, and what we found was a much more humane regime. Ultimately, of course, Yarl’s Wood remains a prison; one cannot walk in and out without being checked through. When the Select Committee arrived, we produced all our identification and were put through those checks. I am not sure whether the Minister has had an opportunity to visit since taking up his office; I am sure that the shadow Minister visited at some stage. Some the reports of conditions in Yarl’s Wood were lurid, and it may well have been like that in the past, but certainly nothing like that was obvious to us when we visited. The staff made an effort to accommodate families and children. We saw an impressive nursery school that had been built. It did not deal with anyone over the age of 10; it dealt with young children.

Unfortunately, our visit was somewhat marred by the Home Office officials’ terrible anxiety about the Select Committee visit. They tried hard to keep us away from the people being detained there, which was totally unnecessary. The point of Members of Parliament visiting an institution such as Yarl’s Wood is to ensure that we speak to the people there about their circumstances. What we found was that people were more anxious about the progress of their immigration case than about any of the ways and means by which they were detained I hope that, even before the review is continued, the Minister will take on board the fact that people in detention need access to proper and appropriate legal and immigration advice. I left the detention centre with about five or six cases, which I immediately passed on to the relevant constituency MPs.

It was depressing to see children being kept in such circumstances. Of course the Serco staff did their best to ensure that they were kept happy—there was a little shop, for example. We talked to a couple of the kids about what it was like being there. Though it is acceptable for a very short period, it is still a prison, it is still detention and their freedom is still restricted. The review is therefore timely and important, and I hope that it will be concluded as quickly as possible. As I missed the first few words of the Minister’s opening remarks, I am not sure whether he has a timetable. The Government are undertaking a lot of reviews, and although I do not hold that against them—any new Government want to review everything that happened before—we need timetables. Under the current system, however, it is important that people should be clear where they stand as far as their future is concerned.

I raised with the Minister the question of the local authorities’ involvement. We took evidence from the London borough of Hillingdon, because it contains Harmondsworth centre and Heathrow airport—those put into detention after coming off a plane and those about to be removed are held in close proximity to airports. One of the Select Committee’s recommendations was that the Government’s future building programmes should take proximity to airports into consideration. We were concerned to find that the local authority did not seem to know how many children were being detained and that it was not notified when children left detention. That is why we recommended that local authorities should be informed every seven days of how many children are being detained in their area. That would be quite a simple process for UKBA, so it is surprising that those facts and figures are not available. I hope that, in the interim—before the review is published—we will look at what we can do to get that information to local authorities. That must be easy for UKBA to do, so I hope that it will be done.

I do not want to detain the House long, given that the Government seem to be doing everything that the Select Committee asked them to do. My final point is a general one to which I will keep returning as long as I occupy the Chair of the Select Committee. I want to be fair to this Government as I was fair to the last one, and the former Minister will remember that on every occasion when we discussed immigration, I raised the same issue: the state of the backlog in the administration of the Home Office.

I see that the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) is here today. I am not suggesting for a moment that we should move the Home Office away from Croydon, as I am sure that a lot of his constituents work there and that Lunar house and all those other fine buildings contribute greatly to Croydon’s economy. However, it is not acceptable for us to go on as though the backlog will only be here until next year. The Select Committee is due a letter from Lin Homer setting out the state of the backlog, and of course progress has been made in the past 13 years, but I asked the then Minister for Borders and Immigration, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Mr Woolas), whether he would like to be the first Immigration Minister in history to leave office having cleared the backlog. For as long as I have been a Member of Parliament—23 years now—there has always been a backlog. When I was first elected, there were sacks of unopened letters in Lunar house, simply because the volume of correspondence was so great.

I know that the Minister has written to right hon. and hon. Members about how we deal with constituency cases. Looking around the Chamber, I think that all of us here have a smattering of immigration cases, some more than others, and the shadow Minister is probably the biggest consumer of her former portfolio than anyone else here. It is all very well to tell Members to write to officials at Croydon and to come to Ministers only as a last resort, but we all get the same letters back, drafted by the same person. Miss Homer, as director general and chief executive, takes ultimate responsibility—this is not a personal issue; it is just business, as they said in “The Godfather”—but the fact is that all the letters are the same. We do not expect the Minister to draft his own letters, but we get the same information whether we write to Miss Homer or to him. UKBA keeps telling us that we must wait until next year for the backlog to be cleared.

That is the problem for children in detention. If only the system actually worked and gave us quicker results, even if those results did not please people and the cases still went through judicial review. I declare an interest: my wife is an immigration lawyer and I worked in a law centre before I was elected, and the process does, of course, make work for lawyers. People apply for judicial review only if they have no other option, but at present, they apply for judicial review at the end of a three-year process. If we had dealt with their cases more quickly, some asylum seekers would not have had their children. Some of the children in detention are there because their parents’ cases have taken so long to be concluded.

In the spirit of a new Government with a fresh approach, I say that eliminating the backlog and dealing with immigration cases quickly is the best way to solve the problems of needing to build more detention centres and to keep children in detention. I know what the Minister will say: “You were in office for 13 years. Why hasn’t this been solved?” Believe me, I and others have been asking Governments for the past 20 years to do something about it.

Administrative delays have become an essential part of immigration policy, which means that people in this country are working illegally because they are waiting for their cases to be concluded. People come to me every week—tomorrow I will see another 50, and on average I deal with 60 immigration cases a week—who are desperate to work but cannot because they are waiting for UKBA to deal with their cases. Some cases take between six and seven years to be concluded. Dealing with those issues must go hand in hand with the Government review.

The Minister’s biggest battle will be against the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and ultimately the Chancellor, but the Home Affairs Committee will be on his side arguing, as it has done in the past, his case for more resources for UKBA and to clear the backlog. UKBA is full of good and decent people, but the system needs changing. We have constantly asked for greater expenditure but, obviously, no Minister for Immigration has ever said in a debate, whether in Westminster Hall or the main Chamber, “Please can we have more money?” That would breach the convention of Government. The Select Committee will say that for him.

Even in the current climate, providing resources will save the Government millions and millions of pounds spent every year on detaining people, including families and children, and forcibly removing those who have been here for seven or eight years. Let us not get into that situation. Let us deal with cases as quickly and efficiently as possible so that we do not have to detain or lock up children any more. We can allow people their chance of a fair hearing before the courts and eventually before the Minister, and then the results that the Government put forward must be accepted.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak in this important debate. The issue is important not only because of the numbers of children who are detained, but, sadly, because it symbolises how far the Labour Government had gone, in some aspects, from the ideals that motivate many millions of the party’s supporters.

When I raised the issue on the Floor of the House about two years ago, I was one of the first people to do so. I have visited Oakington detention centre and Yarl’s Wood, and I have had two debates on the Floor of the House about children in detention. As hon. Members will have heard earlier, and as they will certainly have read in the documentation, no reputable organisation defends this practice, which almost certainly puts us in breach of the European convention on human rights. All reputable organisations—whether it is United Nations organisations in this country, Save the Children, the Refugee Council or Liberty—are united in opposition to this practice.

The practice of detaining children is wrong in principle. What are we doing detaining children in custody when they have committed no crime? Hon. Members might be surprised to know that when I discuss the issue with friends and colleagues in foreign legislatures—even those in third-world countries—they are surprised that Britain, of all countries, detains children indefinitely. When looking at these issues, we must always remember that the history of empire means that people look to Britain to set an example, but we are not setting one on this matter.

Detention was wrong in principle, and it was almost certainly in breach of a number of human rights conventions, but it was also wrong in practice. I know that because I have visited the detention centres. Ministers will tell us about the improvements, and they will tell us that everything is the parents’ fault because they should have left when they were supposed to. However, when we go to the detention centres to meet the families and the children, particularly if we have children ourselves, it is brought home to us on a level that we cannot put down on paper—even in excellent reports such as those by the Home Affairs Committee—what it means to children to be detained and deprived of their liberty. However wonderful the facilities, the children cannot run outside as far as the eye can see. As far as they are concerned, they are behind four walls. They have almost certainly been brought into detention in traumatic circumstances, such as after a morning raid, and they find themselves locked up for reasons they can scarcely comprehend—and locked up, in their view, is what they are. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who will speak for the Opposition, I have actually visited the detention centres and the children. Detention is a restriction of children’s liberty, and they face the trauma that that entails.

There are also issues about the conditions, some of which were dealt with by the Labour party when it was in government, but some of which were not. At Yarl’s Wood, in particular, there is an inflammable atmosphere. We have just had riots, and there have been all sorts of problems. Most recently—earlier this year—women were on hunger strike. Part of that inflammable atmosphere has to do with the underlying tension about the fact that children are detained at Yarl’s Wood.

Party colleagues will say that the parents chose not to go home at the first time of asking, so they are responsible for their children’s being in custody. Whenever I raise the issue on the Floor of the House, I hear that it is not the Government’s fault and that the parents are responsible, but where in the practice of justice and in the way in which this country is run are we in the business of punishing children for what their parents have done?

[Keith Vaz]

There is another issue, which I raised in my speech. Why do people have to wait so long for their cases to be dealt with? Does my hon. Friend agree that dealing with cases in a more timely fashion and clearing the Home Office backlog would help to make the system more humane? She is absolutely right about the detention of children, but the reason why we have so many cases is that they are not being dealt with quickly enough.

[Ms Abbott]

My right hon. Friend has great experience as a constituency MP. He probably does more immigration casework than any constituency MP, and he has been doing it for 23 years. Added to that is his experience as the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. He makes an excellent point: the delays help to create an intolerable situation for people trapped in the system.

I am one of the longest-serving Members of the House present today, and I remember when detention centres were introduced. The House was told that they would be used only for short periods while we fast-tracked cases and deported people. Had the House been told that children, in particular, would be in these centres for months—there have even been cases of children being in them for nearly a year—it might have taken a very different attitude. A system that was meant to be used for short periods of detention while people’s cases were fast-tracked has turned into one—I have visited the detention centres myself—in which people and their children are held in limbo. That is one of the things that make this practice so unacceptable.

As I said, the detention of children is wrong in principle; it is wrong because it is an infringement of their liberty. It is also wrong because, in a way, we are making children and families suffer for the issues in our system, and the delays are very much part of that. We set a very poor example to other countries and other jurisdictions if we cannot construct a system in which it is not necessary to detain children.

The purpose of the detention centres, apart from expediting removals, was to act as a deterrent. There has been a strong feeling over the past 13 years that the grimmer and more exacting we made the regime for asylum seekers and immigrants, the less likely they were to come here. However, people must recognise that, for better or worse, the push-factors behind people migrating and seeking asylum are very great, and the idea that turning the screw one more time will see numbers drop has proved false.

We need to focus as never before on having an efficient and speedy system, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and I have spent 23 years struggling with the delays. In the long run, we also have to deal with the circumstances in people’s countries of origin that make them think, in their desperation, that they will chance their arm by coming to this country.

After 23 years of immigration and asylum casework, I would add that we also need to deal with some of the so-called immigration and legal advisers who prey on our constituents and give them false advice and false hope. Often, it is not the would-be immigrants or asylum seekers who put themselves on the path of collision with the authorities, but the advice they get from people who are feeding off them and making money out of them, even though they have little money to spend.

In the immediate term, we need to deal with the ongoing inefficiencies in the system and bear down on some of the lawyers and so-called immigration advisers. Although we are obviously very constrained, we also need, in the very long term, to create the right conditions in people’s regions of origin so that it is not necessary for them to flee here. That is the way to deal with the system.

Successive bodies and individuals have tried to get past Governments to deal with this issue. It was a particular preoccupation of a previous Children’s Commissioner and it is a preoccupation of the chief inspector of prisons, Anne Owers, who did a comprehensive report on the issue two or three years ago. As I said, every reputable organisation that has looked at this has said that the detention of children is wrong in principle and detrimental to children in practice. Medical work has been done on the consequences of the stressful situation for children, and it is very alarming. I have said before, including to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch, when she was a Minister: how can we, the politicians, agree to keep children in circumstances that would horrify us if they were proposed for our own children?

It must be wrong to punish children for the alleged infractions of their parents. There must be a better way than that. The way, of course, as the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) said, is not to split families but to bear down on the aspects of the system—whether the advice that is given or the speed with which cases are dealt with—that lead to people being in such a plight. What has been happening is wrong. There must be a way forward that does not involve splitting up families.

I have raised the issue time and again in the House and in questions, and I have visited detention centres, not because there are votes in worrying about the children in those centres but because I felt that what was happening was wrong, and that there must be a better way. It gives me no pleasure to say that it has taken a new Government to take a fresh look at the question. I hope they will not let the tribulations of office and its practical difficulties deflect them from ending what has been this country’s shame: the detention of innocent children in detention centres.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Thank you, Mr Weir, for calling me to speak for the first time in Westminster Hall. It is a great honour to follow the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who spoke as powerfully as ever on the issue in question. It was a great pleasure to hear her speak at the Liberty annual general meeting on Saturday; she spoke movingly about many issues, and I wish her the best of luck with her forthcoming selection process. I shall not say that I support her, as that might do her more damage than anything else.

I am delighted that the debate has been obtained, because the issue is very important. I have always felt that a good test of the underlying morals and values of a country is the way it treats people who cannot defend or look after themselves, and the most vulnerable people in society. That description applies to all sorts of groups, and child detainees are one of them. We fail the test incredibly badly in relation to them; we can talk another time about how well we do in other respects. It is a matter of great shame to this country that we treat people so badly.

The topic of the debate is alternatives to child detention. The main alternative that I can think of to detaining 1,000 children a year is not to detain them. That, above all, is what I want to say. We simply should not detain them. The suggestion that we should detain the family but not the children is at least as bad. We should not even consider something that tears families apart at what is often a difficult time for them. That leaves the question of what we can do with the children in the case in question, and before I discuss that I want to explain why I am concerned about the issue.

Cambridge has a great history as somewhere that is very multicultural and tolerant, with people from various backgrounds, and a number of people there have been involved in various ways with detainees. I might mention, in relation to the remarks of the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell), that the Conservative candidate in Cambridge was one of the Conservatives who signed the sanctuary pledge; ours was one of very few constituencies where every candidate did so. I am delighted that we did, and I wish it had happened elsewhere.

We are also very near the Oakington detention centre, which has a sad and sorry history. Children are not the main focus there, but recently it hit the news because of the death of one gentleman in detention in April. I am currently dealing with a case of serious assault there. The hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington has been there to look around. I spoke to her earlier about my request to do so too: that visit was scheduled, but has now been delayed. I fear that my speaking here today means that it will be delayed further, but I look forward to the chance to see it.

[Keith Vaz]

On that point—I know the hon. Gentleman was not here for some of the earlier speeches—when the Select Committee asked to make a visit it took a long time to get that sorted out. When we got there, I think 10 Home Office officials attended, and only about three from Serco. There was a total of about 15; the room was full. Is it the hon. Gentleman’s wish, as it is my hope, that the new Government will perhaps let us in more often, if we ask?

[Dr Huppert]

It is indeed a problem getting in; my predecessor, David Howarth, tried to get in and was told that it was not possible for him to do that. It is somewhat worrying if there are institutions in this country in a state such that MPs cannot be allowed in to have a look.

--- Later in debate ---

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir.

I have some questions for the Minister, and to help him respond fully it may help him if I go through them before I make any other comments, and pick up on hon. Members’ points. As to Dungavel, what, currently, will happen if a family in Scotland are required to leave the country—to be deported? Where are they sent, and how is that dealt with?

The Minister spoke about local authorities, and working more closely with them. I wonder whether the Government are planning to work with all local authorities equally, or whether they will build on the existing model that applies to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. It is a slightly different model, and involves specialist local authorities that are particularly adept at dealing with these challenging issues.

What discussions has the Minister had with local authorities to make them aware of the situation regarding children liable to be removed, and of how the process will work? I know that it is early days, but I wonder whether he could give some guidance, because I am sure that the Local Government Association and individual authorities will be keen to know how it will work practically.

I am also interested to know how the Government propose to work with community organisations. We hear a lot about the big society. Like many people, I am keen to know what it actually means. I shall touch on some of the work with community organisations that was under way while my party was in government, but I am keen to hear a bit about the Government’s plans. Perhaps, if the Minister is unable to answer here and now, he could provide some information in writing in due course.

This debate is about alternatives to child detention. I have had the opportunity to speak to those who are responsible for the project in Glasgow. I do not know whether the Minister managed that on his visit to Glasgow this week, but I am pleased that he is going around the different nations of the UK to discuss the matter. What progress has there been on the Glasgow project? To date, has any family actually left voluntarily as a result of that very intense intervention, which I believe involves two social workers working with around four families at a time? I wonder whether there has yet been a success story, because, sadly, there had not been one as I left office, but I have great hopes that the project can deliver some results. It is still early days, but I would be keen to hear an update on it.

The Minister mentioned the assisted voluntary returns package but did not absolutely pledge that it will continue, although I did not hear him say that it would not. I would be keen to hear some clarification on the future of the package, particularly in the current financial situation. It is a reasonably generous package of up to £5,000 per individual, and I wonder whether the Government plan to keep it at that level, and whether the Minister has a hotline to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who is his right hon. Friend these days, to ensure that that money will be there to enable the alternatives to progress. I welcome the fact that the Minister is cautious about the separation of families, and I shall touch on that in a moment.

An interesting issue in this area is the impact on human trafficking. Clearly, children are trafficked. If they are never detained, there is a risk that that could become a pull factor for those who have mal-intent towards children. In constructing the review and taking account of views, is there any particular oversight of that threat, so that as the review progresses and proposals come forward, it is considered, and there are not perverse outcomes which none of us in the House would want?

On that, would the Minister pledge to monitor the impact on children in what we might call private fostering? As the previous Minister, I was responsible for this area. There were occasions when adults were detained but the children would be elsewhere, and it could take some time to locate the children when the parents and family themselves had decided to separate. That lays open terrible potential risks to children in terms of child protection and safety. Again, if the review is well done and well constructed, the matter could possibly be dealt with, but there is a potential perverse outcome which the Government need to be aware of and plan against.

Has the Minister had any recent legal advice about section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 on the duty of care for children, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert), and its impact on the review? There has been previous legal advice, but I wonder whether the Minister is seeking legal advice about the impact of that legislation.

There has been some discussion of the importance of legal advice, with which I certainly agree. I wonder whether any further action has been proposed, either as part of the review or separately, on improving legal advice, which has dogged all of us as constituency Members who deal with casework but also anyone in government who has to deal with these challenges. Does the Minister have any thoughts on that?

The current proposal is to continue some detention, but, according to the coalition agreement—I stand to be corrected if I have misunderstood it—there is an intent to hold a family with children for between 24 and 72 hours only. What would happen in the current situation if a family with children who are already in detention launch a judicial review at the 11th hour? Will the Minister ever continue to detain the family? Does he rule that out, or do the Government not currently have a definite position? I hope that because I have given him notice of questions, he will be able to answer them fully.

We heard some useful contributions from Members. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) has spoken many times on this subject. I should point out that the backlog has been a bugbear for us all as constituency MPs, and for anyone in the House who has any interest in the matter, but it has reduced. As a constituency MP and in my previous role, I have seen that and can testify to it.

I do, however, share a concern with my right hon. Friend about resources. Will progress go backwards now, given that there will be tight controls on and reductions in Government spending? Let us be honest: we are interested in this issue, but many people up and down the country would not see it as a priority. I wonder whether it is a priority of the current Government to make resources available to ensure that the backlog continues to go down, and that there is support for those going through the system so that they can get the right advice.

My right hon. Friend rightly highlighted the fact that the backlog does not help the situation regarding detention. Families who see other families staying for a long time because they have been caught up in the backlog are led to believe that there is not a real prospect of their leaving.

[Keith Vaz]

I do not want to prejudge my hon. Friend’s memoirs detailing her period in government before they eventually come out, but is it the case that the Home Office did not ask for more resources, or was it just not given more resources? Was there a plea to the Treasury that if there were more resources, more could be done about the issue?

[Meg Hillier]

I worked with two Home Secretaries who were robust in defending the Home Office’s need for resources for several areas, but, as the Minister will find out in his new role, resources are always challenging in a Department such as the Home Office. There are many priorities, and every time resources are put into one area, there is a risk that another area will bubble up, as I believe he with his greater experience dealing with these matters in Parliament will know.

Resources were always an issue, but it was not as simple as that. Often, local authorities did not want cases decided as quickly as they could have been because of the challenge of then housing and providing for families. There had to be some negotiation so that families who were able to stay were properly provided for in local authorities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

I am not entirely sure that I understood that question. Is the hon. Lady saying that those who were eventually removed had never been detained and then released, and then detained again and later removed? Is that what she is saying? The honest answer is that I do not know. I was not the Minister at that time. She was. If she says that that is the case, I am grateful for the information.

Many hon. Members have mentioned Yarl’s Wood and other detention centres. I have visited Yarl’s Wood on several occasions, and in my experience the regime got markedly better over the years. Last time I visited, a functioning school was in operation and so on, and it was a much more humane place than it had been in previous years. I pay tribute to the Ministers who were involved in supervising that, as well as to the staff of the UK Border Agency who made sure that it happened. I suspect that we have all had the same experience. However, even when that place was in its most humane phase, it was still disturbing to see children locked up behind bars. That is one of the things that impels our policy.

There was mention of children at Harmondsworth. I may have misunderstood the right hon. Member for Leicester East, because it is my understanding that there are and were no children held at Harmondsworth. If I have misunderstood, I apologise, but I thought that he had said that there were.

[Keith Vaz]

When we visited, there were no children there. I was just visiting Harmondsworth.

[Damian Green]

I am grateful for that clarification. The position was not entirely clear.

The point was rightly made about access to local authority services. Local authority social services are embedded at Yarl’s Wood; they are there permanently.

My final point about the statistics is that the figure was more than 1,000 and it is now five, so we are doing our best, even in the interim phase while the review is going on, to keep the numbers to an absolute minimum.

Various Members on both sides of the Chamber brought up the issue of delays, which lead to problems in the system. I think that I was being invited by the right hon. Gentleman to give a new time scale for the end of the legacy. Given all his experience, he will excuse me from making such commitments in my second outing at the Dispatch Box, but he will know, from having sat through many of these debates with me in the past four years, that like him, I have been very exercised by the problem of delay.

I dare say that those who were Ministers in the previous Government would not dissent from the basic proposition that the long delays embedded in the system lead to many of the associated problems that we see. Bearing down on those delays and getting rid of the old legacy, as it has been called, as fast as possible is clearly a high priority. That will have beneficial spin-offs throughout the asylum system and, indeed, the wider immigration system.

At various stages, the debate drifted into a general immigration debate, and it is perfectly reasonable that the same points apply in that context. The fewer delays we have, the more likely we are to avoid the problems that we have seen, although it is a fair point—it was made by Ministers in the previous Government and will be made by me—that not every delay in the system is caused by the system. Not every delay is caused by the border agency. Some delay is caused by the legal processes that people have the right to go through and do go through.

Identity Documents Bill

Keith Vaz Excerpts

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I congratulate you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your election and on the fact that you are sitting in the Chair. I wish you many years as a Deputy Speaker of the House.

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). He reminded me that that is where I first joined the Labour party when I was a student. It is also where I first met and heard a speech by the Secretary of State for International Development and where I met the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin) and the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington). All of them are now in the Government and one of them has my old job as the Minister for Europe. The hon. Member for Cambridge gave a very intelligent speech, and I am sure that he will make a huge contribution to the House in the years to come. Cambridge has always been a swing seat and I congratulate him on making sure that he kept it for his party at the last election.

We have had some magnificent maiden speeches. In fact, it should be compulsory for older Members to come and listen to the kind of speeches that we have heard. The hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams), who is just about to leave the Chamber—I am not trying to stop him—has not only made a wonderful maiden speech, but already covered himself in glory by having been on the victorious side in the tug of war between the House of Lords and the House of Commons. The cup is displayed in the Tea Room, I think. I am not sure what it is to be filled with, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am sure that you, he and all of us will join in ensuring that it is emptied.

I first met my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) as a member of the national executive committee of the Labour party. When I first heard her speak, I knew that she would become a Member of Parliament, but I had no idea that she would speak so eloquently in her maiden speech in the House. She made a brilliant speech in which she paid tribute to Geoff Hoon, who was a very good friend to all on both sides of the House—we wish him well in his career. I know that my hon. Friend will be able to make a huge contribution in the years to come. I congratulate her and all the hon. Members who made their maiden speeches and then had to disappear to recover from the great experience of addressing the House for the first time. They were so good that I wish I could rewrite my maiden speech and give it again, but that is probably against the rules and even you, Mr Deputy Speaker, with your new powers would not enable me to do that.

Let me concentrate on the Identity Documents Bill and recognise the presence on the Labour Front Bench of the former Minister with responsibility for ID cards, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier). She appeared before the Select Committee on Home Affairs in the last Parliament and, in her own style, gave us important information as to why the scheme would be successful when it was fully implemented. I note that the Opposition’s position is not to oppose what the Government propose to do tonight, and we are right not to oppose them, because the proposal was clearly a Conservative manifesto commitment. Together with their coalition partners, the Conservatives command a large majority in the House, as we saw in yesterday’s votes. The Government have decided that their first home affairs Bill should be on ID cards, and it is right and proper that we in the Opposition should accept the will of the people.

I hope that as the Bill proceeds through Committee some of the comments that have been made by Opposition Members will be taken into account. There are three areas that I want to raise with the Minister, whom I welcome to the Dispatch Box. His official title is the Minister for Immigration, but I know that he is covering the Front Bench for the rest of his team today. It must be very pleasant for him to sit in the Home Office with the permanent secretary and all those fine people bearing in mind what happened to him in opposition and I wish him a long stay at the Home Office.

When the Minister winds up, if he is to do so, will he answer a few factual points that would be of value to the House in making its decision tonight? First, can he give some clarity as to the number of identity cards that have been issued so far? The figure of 15,000 has been given. I am afraid that I do not know what the process is—are cards still being issued, or did that stop with the election of the Government? Of course, the Government aim to stop the cards, but is the process ongoing? Will the number reach 15,000-plus? It would be sensible to stop the whole process immediately even though the House has not yet made a decision, because it would be completely unfair for members of the public voluntarily to get identity cards that we shortly after take away from them. If the Minister could give us clarity on that point, I should be extremely grateful.

[Steve McCabe]

Does my right hon. Friend think it would be useful to seek clarity for people whose applications may be in the system? They may have already paid. What will happen to them? We heard earlier that they will not get their money back.

[Keith Vaz]

Absolutely. We need to know the numbers in the system, but as the Home Secretary made it clear that money would not be returned, I do not think we need further clarification about that.

It would be helpful to know how many foreign nationals have received what are no longer to be regarded as identity cards. The Home Secretary said that that process would continue and we understand the reasons why, but if there is to be differentiation of foreign nationals and those of us who are British citizens, we need to be clear about it. Looking at some of our previous debates, we see that one of the criticisms the Government made when they were in opposition was that there was differentiation of foreign nationals and British citizens. Presumably, we now have a completely different process, but no doubt the Government will continue to issue those cards.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Mr Winnick), who told me he would have to leave the Chamber, mentioned a Home Affairs Committee report from a previous Parliament when I was not the Chair—it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham)—although I think the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) may have been a member of the Committee at the time. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his unopposed election as Chair of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs. Unopposed election is a good form of democracy, although unfortunately it did not apply to other Select Committees. I wish him well and I hope that he will take to his new chairmanship some of the excitement of serving on the Home Affairs Committee.

My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North made great play of the fact that he was the only member of the Select Committee to vote against identity cards, and that all its other members—I now see from the list that they did not include the hon. Member for Monmouth, although there were other Conservatives—voted for them. The overall conclusions in chapter 6 of the report are clear. Even then the Committee said, in paragraph 280:

“However, the introduction of identity cards carries clear risks, both for individuals and for the successful implementation of the scheme. We are concerned by the lack of clarity and definition on key elements of the scheme and its future operation and by the lack of openness in the procurement process. The lack of clarity and openness increases the risks of the project substantially. This is not justified and must be addressed if the scheme is to enjoy public confidence and to work and achieve its aims in practice.”

Although I do not have to defend the decision of a Committee that I was not chairing at the time, it is worth noting that even at that stage the Committee registered concern about some aspects of the scheme.

In the Committee’s report on the surveillance society, published in May 2008—when the hon. Member for Monmouth was a member and an important participant in the Committee’s deliberations—we again raised concerns about data and data loss. We have heard an unequivocal statement from the Home Secretary that every bit of data will be destroyed at a suitable time, when Parliament has its view and the Bill becomes law. I am concerned as to what happens to the data between now and then. Although I do not seek a ticket to the ceremony for the destruction of the data that have been gathered so far, I am sure someone in the Home Office press department will be thinking up something suitable. Simply cutting up an identity card will not be good enough for the coalition. After the impressive press conferences given by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister that we have seen so far, we expect something more for the destruction of the data. I just hope they will be kept safe until then.

In our report on the surveillance society in May 2008, we pointed out our concern about the huge amount of personal data that were being retained. The former Minister with responsibility for identity, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch, was very good when she gave evidence before the Select Committee and was clear that she was absolutely satisfied that the data were safe. But we conducted our review at a time when, as the Home Secretary said, a lot of discs were going missing. We were very concerned, although we of course accepted my hon. Friend’s assurances; one always accepts the assurances of a diligent Minister when he or she appears before the Select Committee, especially someone as erudite as my hon. Friend. Our concern remains that there are a lot of data still being held and this matter needs to be addressed.

[David T. C. Davies]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who has been an excellent Chairman of the Select Committee. I suggest to him that if we were unable as a Parliament to look after our own data on the activities of MPs, it will be difficult for the public to have any confidence that we will do a better job with their data.

[Keith Vaz]

The hon. Gentleman is right; we have to be very careful with data protection and the way in which we look after data. We have not had a lost disc for some time; at least, not for the last three weeks, which is pretty good. The last major loss was several months, if not a year, ago. Maybe the civil servants and others with responsibility for all this will ensure that no further discs will be lost in the future. I hope that we will have assurances about how that will be done.

In conclusion, although the Home Secretary made a terrific case against identity cards—she is always very good at putting the case—the Opposition will not vote against the Bill. Speeches from people such as me should be relatively brief; that is why I will not take up my full allocation of time.

[Pete Wishart]

Does the right hon. Gentleman have any idea as to the position of the Labour party now on ID cards? We understand that Labour will not vote against the Bill. Will ID cards be part of the programme of the Labour Opposition?

[Keith Vaz]

I look forward to finding out when my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch replies to the debate. Until the election, we were very much in favour of ID cards. When she replies, she will tell us. I am trying not to second-guess my hon. Friend, who is pretty good at her job. I will let her speak for herself and tell the House what she thinks the official Opposition’s position is.

I hope that we will tread carefully in the next few weeks and that we will take forward the suggestions that have been made. I know that it is in the nature of new Governments to feel that they should do things very quickly and urgently and it is obviously up to the Government what legislation they put before the House. But I hope that they will take advice from former Ministers who have been involved in these issues and will read carefully the reports of the Select Committee in the last Parliament.