Police Uplift Programme

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Wednesday 26th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

Yes, it is. I am delighted to note that Essex has 150 more police officers than under the last Labour Government. The police and crime commissioner Roger Hirst and Chief Constable BJ Harrington are doing a fantastic job reducing crime in Essex. On being tough on crime, I meant to say in response to the shadow Home Secretary that I was shocked in Bill Committee a year or two ago when Labour Members voted against a clause specifically introduced to keep rapists in prison for longer. I think we know who is on the side of victims.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

Merseyside has more than 300 fewer police officers compared with 2010, which has serious implications for the safety of our communities and police morale. A recent survey of police officers on Merseyside, carried out by the Police Federation of England and Wales, found that 17% of respondents intended to resign from the police service either within the next two years or as soon as they can. What steps will the Minister take to improve the morale of police officers, boost retention and boost the numbers on Merseyside?

[Chris Philp]

I pay tribute to Chief Constable Serena Kennedy, who leads the Merseyside force. I was up in Merseyside and Liverpool just a few weeks ago meeting officers. The target of the police recruitment programme in Merseyside was to recruit an extra 665 officers; in fact, 724 have been recruited.

In terms of people leaving the police, we have surveyed thousands of police officers recently recruited through the uplift programme. About 80% are very satisfied with the job and a similar proportion intend to make policing their long-term career. In terms of supporting and looking after police officers, I chair the police covenant wellbeing board. I have not got time to list all the initiatives now, but we are doing a number of things to ensure that serving and former officers get looked after and that morale is maintained.

Illegal Migration Bill

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 26th April 2023 Commons Chamber

We have heard from two eminent lawyers in this Chamber, the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) and the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox), who are united in what they think the new clause will do—indeed the latter, the former Attorney General, said that it was setting out legislation to allow the deliberate disobeying of our obligations.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the amendments she has tabled and the work she does with the Select Committee. Does she agree with my constituents who have written to me, precisely on this issue, to say that the Bill risks our reputation internationally for providing a safe haven for those who are fleeing persecution, and that we must do all we can to ensure that that reputation is maintained?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Reputation is important in this area, and the approach taken on this particular point will hurt our country more than it helps us. For example, it will not help us to get a returns agreement with EU countries, which I think we all agree is necessary if we are to start to tackle irregular migration.

I welcome the fact that the Government are introducing provisions for legal aid in the Bill, which I think is a positive step forward, but I am concerned that they do not acknowledge that there are currently legal aid deserts across the country that leave genuine asylum seekers, refugees and victims of trafficking without access to legal advice. The sector is on the point of collapse and access to advice regulated by the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner is really hard to come by for the many people who desperately need it. I hope the Minister will set out how people will be able to access that legal advice and assistance.

On new clause 8 and amendment 11, I welcome the Government moving on the safe and legal routes. Again, that is in line with recommendations that the Home Affairs Committee made in its report.

At Committee stage, I raised several concerns with the Minister about the lack of consideration for vulnerable children within the Bill. The Bill creates broad powers to detain unaccompanied children, removing essential safeguards and time limits that had previously been enacted by this House.

I know the Minister said in his opening remarks that he was going to support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), and I am pleased to hear that. However, unfortunately, the Bill as currently drafted will still allow the unlimited detention of pregnant women, ending the current 72-hour time limit—a limit put in place by the Government in 2016.

The Bill also abolishes necessary safeguards for children who are accompanied, undoing the protection put in place by the Government in 2014. The Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Children’s Commissioner and the Refugee Council have all raised serious concerns about those proposed changes, and I agree completely with the issues that they have raised.

That is why I have tabled amendments 2 and 3 to uphold the existing detention limits for children, families with children and pregnant women. They were introduced by this House for very good reason and should be upheld. Limits on detention deliver essential safeguards for the most vulnerable people who arrive on our shores, ensuring that while we process their claims we keep them safe, we treat them with care and we do no further harm. The UK has been a stalwart of that decency, but these specific detention measures are a major step backwards for families, for children and for pregnant women.

I welcome Government amendments 134 and 136, and the support for the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, but even with those changes, the Bill does not extend the appropriate protection to children with families or to pregnant women. My amendments have cross-party support, including from the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West, and from the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee, the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes). I hope that the Minister will, even at this late stage, consider again whether anything can be done on the amendments. If he is not minded to do that, I will, if necessary, test the opinion of the House on that important issue.

I also welcome the Government’s change of heart on the ban on future citizenship for children born in the UK to parents who meet the conditions in clause 2. That delivers on at least half of my amendment 8. However, I firmly push back to the Minister that it still cannot be right that an eight-year-old child brought here by their parents would be forever barred from citizenship as an adult. I raised that point in Committee. It seems completely illiberal to punish a child for the actions of their parents or carers. Will the Minister look again at amendment 8?

I have tabled several other practical amendments underlining the protections and considerations for children, which I believe need to be addressed. Those amendments are all supported by the Children’s Commissioner, and some have foundations in the Home Affairs Committee report on channel crossings. I hope that the Minister will consider them in that vein.

The Government’s approach to tackling migrants in the Bill remains problematic in respect of children. There are several measures and amendments before the House that could be adopted while still allowing the Government to deliver—arguably more effectively and practically—on their stated aims. There are other, less headline-catching measures that will also uphold the essential safeguarding provisions that the House has put in place over the years to protect victims of trafficking and modern slavery, unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, asylum seekers and refugees.

Finally, the Home Affairs Committee has started an inquiry on slavery and trafficking. We were very fortunate to have had evidence from Baroness Butler-Sloss last week, and from the former Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, Dame Sarah Thornton, both of whom took the view that the Bill will not help victims of modern slavery and trafficking; it will do the exact opposite. I again ask the Minister to listen to the experts in the field. It is notable that two Conservative Members—the right hon. Members for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and for Maidenhead—made compelling arguments on why the provisions relating to modern slavery and trafficking need to be considered once again.

The other place may take further views, but does the Minister seriously want to make it harder for victims to come forward? If—as Dame Sarah Thornton said—a woman is trafficked into this country after 7 March, taken to a brothel and repeatedly raped, but manages to escape and seek help, does the Minister want to ensure that she is told that no assistance can be given and that she will be removed to Rwanda? Is that how we want to treat people like her?

Illegal Migration Bill

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th March 2023 Commons Chamber

However, although I will support a number of amendments tonight, for me and many other Members, the Bill in its entirety is unsupportable. The Government are facing a growing backlash to their low-pay and poverty agenda, and the Bill is a tool to try to distract, demonise and divide people, and it seeks to isolate a group of vulnerable people on whom to divert that anger. We will not allow that to happen.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. I have just had an email from one of my constituents who works in the health service. She has spoken to me about the immense contribution that has been made by people who have come to this country fleeing persecution, been granted asylum, and are now working in the national health service. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is an important point? I have also had people writing to me about how damaging the Bill is to the reputation of this country as a safe haven, and to the values we stand up for.

Hillsborough Families Report: National Police Response

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

I have just responded on the public advocate point. On the Hillsborough law point, which is different, we will respond to that and the recommendation in point of learning 14 with the rest of it. But as I have said quite a few times, we have already, on a statutory basis, changed and updated the professional standards for policing to include a duty to co-operate with inquiries imposed on the police.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to everybody who has campaigned for justice for the 97. I was a young school teacher in Liverpool when Hillsborough happened, and I remember how traumatised the children were on the following Monday and in subsequent weeks and months. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) for securing the urgent question.

I hear what the Minister is saying about a Hillsborough law, but can he tell us whether, in principle, he agrees that we should have a Hillsborough law that would place a new legal duty of candour on public authorities and officials—not just the police, but all public authorities and officials—and would ensure that victims of disasters or state-related deaths are entitled to parity of legal representation during inquests and inquiries?

[Chris Philp]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question, particularly given that she and many other Members have been affected personally by the tragedy. It has touched an extraordinary number of lives in many different ways, including hers. We will respond fully when we reply to the bishop’s report, and I want to make sure that happens as quickly as possible. It is very important that public bodies respond quickly, openly and honestly, and with integrity, and that they do not try to cover things up, as obviously happened in this terrible case. We all have a shared interest in making sure that it never happens again.

Crime and Neighbourhood Policing

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Suella Braverman]

I pay tribute to the indefatigable work by the campaigners, who have worked for many years to ensure that the truth is known and that justice is done. I am supportive of all work to help them ensure that their voice is heard in the process, but let me take that away and consider it fully before I give a meaningful response.

We have heard from the shadow Home Secretary, and—we are in the awards season—her performance is really worthy of an Oscar. She is strong on alarmism and strong on hysteria, but a little weak on facts. This Government are proud of our record on crime and policing. Since 2010—indeed, since 2019—we have delivered more police and less crime. Thanks to Government funding, our streets are safer and there are fewer victims of crime. I am not complacent, however, and I know that there remain many challenges. I will not rest until we restore confidence in the police and until everyone feels safer in their communities. So let us go through the facts.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

Will the Home Secretary give way?

[Suella Braverman]

I want to make some progress, and I will take some interventions later.

The first fact—achievement No. 1—is that this Government are on track to deliver the most police officers in the history of policing in England and Wales. We are on track to deliver 20,000 new police officers by March 2023, and in that regard I want to pay tribute to my right hon. Friends the Members for Witham (Priti Patel), for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) and for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse)—he was in the Chamber earlier—for their leadership of that mission.

--- Later in debate ---

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

I begin by joining my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary and other Labour Members in calling for a Hillsborough law now.

Under the Conservatives, we have seen the destruction of neighbourhood policing, with a drop of 6,000 neighbourhood police officers and 8,500 police community support officers. The Conservatives’ destruction of neighbourhood policing has consequences, as my constituents know only too well. In Wirral West, we have seen horrific violent crime in recent months, devastating families and leaving communities damaged and anxious for themselves, their families and the future.

Young people from the Woodchurch estate recently took part in a theatre for democracy event organised by the Liverpool Institute for Performing Arts. A statement from the group that worked with the young people in Woodchurch has shared some of its findings with me. It said:

“Crime, gangs, and gun violence were all brought up often when talking about what the young people at the Carrbridge Centre in Woodchurch were worried about in their area. These young people’s ages ranged from 10 to 14, and they felt scared about the issues going on in their neighbourhood, and felt they couldn’t do anything about it”.

These young people have a right to feel safe and the Government are failing them. There have been 11 firearms discharge incidents and two fatalities in Wirral since April 2021, the second highest figure in Merseyside, behind only Liverpool. Violent attacks are harrowing for victims, families and local communities.

Following a spate of incidents in Liverpool last year, the then Home Secretary announced support for the local community, including £150,000 additional funding for trauma-informed support in local schools and mental health provision, and a further £350,000 to expand the “Clear, hold, build” pilot, intended, as she put it,

“to disrupt Merseyside’s corrosive and deadly organised crime groups”,

to other areas in Merseyside affected by organised crime, predominantly focusing on Knowsley and Liverpool. Following the tragic murder of a young woman in Wallasey, the four Wirral MPs and the Merseyside police and crime commissioner, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Dame Angela Eagle), wrote to the Home Secretary to ask for similar support to be provided for Wirral, and asked for a meeting to discuss the issue. We have not yet had a response from the Home Secretary on this most urgent matter—[Interruption.] I see she has just arrived in her place, so I will repeat the point. The four Wirral MPs have written to her asking for a meeting to discuss the crime situation in Wirral and for more support for our communities. We have not yet had a response from the Home Secretary and we desperately need one. I hope she will advise the Minister who sums up the debate when she will respond to our letter and meet us to address the issue of crime in Wirral.

It is the first duty of Government to keep citizens safe and the country secure, and the Government are failing to fulfil that duty. Conservative cuts have led to the loss of 983 police and community support officers in the north-west since 2010—a loss of 47% of the workforce—leaving those left to carry out those duties overstretched and under-supported. In England and Wales, the cuts have led to the loss of 8,655 PCSOs—a cut of 51%. No wonder neighbourhood policing is suffering.

Figures from the House of Commons Library show the impact of Conservative austerity on police officer numbers. They show that in 2010 in England and Wales there were more than 143,000 police officers, but by 2018 that figure had fallen to around 122,000. Last year, the numbers rose to around 140,000 officers, but that is still lower than in 2010 and does not make up for the damage that Conservative cuts have done. It has been a similar story in Merseyside, where in 2010 there were more than 4,500 police officers. Numbers dwindled every year thereafter until 2019, by which time there were fewer than 3,400—over 1,100 fewer than in 2010. Numbers have started to increase again, but, as of last year, Merseyside was still short of 450 officers compared with 2010.

The loss of hundreds of police officers means the loss of a great deal of experience and intelligence, and leaves remaining officers under immense pressure in what is a difficult and important job. I pay tribute to officers and PCSOs in Wirral West for the work they do in difficult circumstances.

We need investment in policing so our communities can feel safe and officers are properly resourced. The next Labour Government will rebuild neighbourhood policing and deliver 13,000 extra neighbourhood officers and PCSOs, putting police back on the beat. We urgently need a Labour Government to ensure that people can live their lives free from fear and anxiety. Our communities deserve no less.

Draft Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Revision of Code A) Order 2022

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2022 General Committees

[The Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire (Chris Philp)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Revision of Code A) Order 2022.

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Latham. The order was laid in draft before Parliament on 13 October and will bring into effect a revised code of practice issued under section 66 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. This is PACE code A, which governs the exercise by police officers of powers to stop and search a person without first arresting them.

For England and Wales, PACE sets out the core powers of the police to prevent, detect and investigate crime. The exercise of those powers is subject to codes of practice, or PACE codes, which the Secretary of State is required to issue and which put in place important procedural safeguards.

We propose to amend PACE code A, on police powers to stop and search individuals subject to serious violence reduction orders, which I shall refer to henceforth as SVROs. Inserted into the sentencing code by the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, SVROs are civil orders that give the police powers to stop and search individuals convicted of a knife offence where the court makes an SVRO. To be clear, an SVRO is handed down by a court only after someone has been convicted of a knife crime.

The Government are determined to crack down on knife crime, which is why SVROs were introduced. An SVRO allows the police to search a person who is the subject of such an order without suspicion, but I re-emphasise to the Committee that they apply only to people who have been convicted of a knife offence when the court has made an order in the interests of public safety. They are designed to deter habitual knife carriers from reoffending, as well as to protect the public, who might otherwise be the victims of knife crime and knife attacks.

It is vital that we build an understanding of how SVROs work in practice, so they will be piloted in four areas: the West Midlands, Merseyside, Sussex and Thames Valley police force areas. The pilot will be independently evaluated before a decision is made about whether to roll the powers out. I should pause to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire who, as Policing Minister, did a huge amount of work to develop this concept. I see that serendipitously he is a member of the Committee today.

We have proposed the revisions to PACE code A to ensure proper guidance and safeguards on the use of the new stop-and-search power during the pilot. We ran a statutory consultation over six weeks on the proposed revisions, which introduce a new temporary annex G that deals with searches in relation to SVROs. In particular, the new annex highlights that the power does not require officers to have prior reasonable grounds but that its use must not be based on prejudice, that searches can be conducted only on those subject to an SVRO—to emphasise the point again, that means people who have been convicted of a knife crime and in respect of whom the court has decided that an SVRO is appropriate—and that officers should seek to confirm the identity of the individual to make sure they do not search somebody as a result of mistaken identity.

The revision to the code outlines that the use of the power, like all other stop-and-search powers, is discretionary. Officers are not obliged or compelled to search the person, but they are expected to use their judgment when choosing when to search using the SVRO. The annex will apply for 24 months plus an additional six-month transition period, although if we can draw conclusions sooner, which I hope we might be able to, we might come back to the House and shorten the pilot.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

The Minister is touching on the point that I wanted to raise with him. Given the issues of disproportionality, such as in respect of ethnicity and gender, would he consider it useful to have a review at the six-month point? Two years is quite a long time for problems to develop; what are his thoughts on having a six-month point at which to look at the data?

[Chris Philp]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Six months is quite a short time: we have to wait for the court to make the orders—this will apply only when the orders are made—and then we will have to wait to see what happens on the streets thereafter. My instinctive view is that 24 months is a long time and it would be good to draw lessons sooner, in part in case any issues such as those she mentioned arise, and in part because if this measure does work, as I hope and expect it will, we want to roll it out as quickly as possible. I do not want to commit to a six-month review, because that is a short period, but I do indicate flexibility: if we can draw conclusions faster than 24 months, we definitely should do, for the two different reasons the hon. Lady and I have mentioned.

The amendments to the code also outline the territorial extent of the use of the powers, which is across all of England and Wales. However, the intention at first is that the SVROs will be issued only in the four pilot areas that I mentioned. Of course, if someone receives an SVRO in one of the four areas but goes somewhere else, clearly the order will still apply if they leave the particular area concerned.

On the question of disproportionality, which the hon. Member for Wirral West touched on a moment ago, and its impact on particular communities, our aim is that the orders will enable police to take a more targeted approach, because by definition they will be using the powers only in relation to people who have been convicted of a knife offence and where the court has deemed it necessary to make an SVRO. That is very targeted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Latham.

The Opposition do not oppose the order, but I want to raise a few questions and concerns. First, we must look at the history of SVROs and knife crime prevention orders, which were the starting point. We have now had three different types of this kind of civil order placed on people to try to reduce knife crime and serious violence. Knife crime prevention orders were introduced in 2019. The pilot did not start until July 2021 and I think it has only just finished, so we are three years into something that has not yet started. I question the Minister’s ability to get some of these things done in the timescale that he suggests. I am not saying for one minute that the Government should rush the pilots, though, because they should not.

The big question is about the serious violence reduction orders being limited to four areas but the measures applying nationally, which the Minister mentioned. That was an issue of concern in the Lords. It would be helpful for the Minister to explain whether he knows yet how it will work. When a serious violence reduction order is placed on somebody, through what mechanism will other police forces know that they have the order and can then be stopped? Obviously, the police will not be able to stop anyone unless they are under such an order, so how do we make sure they stop the right people? If a Met officer wants to stop someone they think is the subject of an order, how would they know? How would that work?

The second concern is about the pilot itself. We do not have time this morning—we have done it many times before—to go over the disproportionality issues, but they are vast. Every single survey ever done of any kind of police stop and search shows a level of disproportionality. The concern is that that will apply in this case as well. Will the Minister say more about how the pilot will be independently evaluated and what that means? Is a university or some kind of organisation involved? How will the pilot be repeated? There are lots of different ways of measuring a pilot, but the disproportionality that may be there will be missed if it is not evaluated properly.

[Margaret Greenwood]

My hon. Friend is making really important points. Does she agree that the point about disproportionality is that we want strong measures to tackle violent crime? It is a huge issue in some parts of my constituency. It is about the credibility of the programme, is it not?

[Sarah Jones]

I agree 100%. Knife crime peaked a couple of years ago at levels never seen before. We all want to see the numbers come down. My point about knife crime prevention orders is that they were hailed in 2019 as the answer to serious violence and they have not even started yet. We have to make sure that these things are done properly.

When SVROs were introduced and debated as part of proceedings on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, the Opposition raised lots of concerns about their disproportionality and about police officers completing the College of Policing training on stop and search. There is very good training and guidance from the College of Policing on stop and search and we ask that police officers who are to use the new powers be trained.

We also need to make sure that the pilot is evaluated before any decision is made to permanently roll out SVROs. It would be good if the Minister could say, “If these do not work, we are prepared to look at something else and try something else if we find that the disproportionality or the effectiveness is not what we expected.” As I said, we will not oppose the order, but it would be helpful if the Minister could answer some of those questions.

HM Passport Office Backlog

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)]

I rise to oppose the motion and speak in defence of the excellent Minister, with whom I have had the privilege of working over the last 18 months. I wish him well and congratulate him on all that he has been doing to ensure that Her Majesty’s Passport Office continues as efficiently as possible to clear the backlog. I thank staff, his private office and all HMPO staff for their work to keep Members informed and to work for Members by ensuring that our constituents get their passports replaced as quickly as possible.

It is disappointing that yet again the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), has decided to stand at the Dispatch Box and castigate and criticise, but offered no alternative solution outlining what a Labour Government would do. He did it throughout my time as Parliamentary Private Secretary at the Home Office: he did it about immigration; he did it about policing; and he has done it about passports. All we hear is constant criticism with no plan as to what is best for the country. During the time in which I was privileged to have that job, I would sit behind the Minister and the Home Secretary, and one of the most frustrating things was having to be quiet and listen without being able to come back at the shadow Minister. I am glad that I can do so today—and may I just also congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), for Bosworth (Dr Evans) and for Stockton South (Matt Vickers) on being appointed PPSs at the Home Office?

I perfectly accept that there has been a backlog, but the Minister and the Government have made a consistent effort to sort it. I saw that during my time at the Department and we can see it in the facts. Although the Labour party refuses to acknowledge it, we have just come out of an unprecedented pandemic, during which travel was banned. At that time, there were 5 million applications a year on average. The number of applications this year is at 9.5 million. It is absurd for the hon. Member for Aberavon to say that this Government have not been doing anything—[Interruption.] He can chunter from a sedentary position, but his speech did not deal in facts, so I will be pleased to outline some in my speech.

In April 2021, the Passport Office advised that people should allow 10 weeks for their passports to arrive. The hon. Member for Aberavon kept going on about “six weeks”. I suggest to him, as I did in my intervention, that he simply checks the HMPO website; for the last year and a bit the consistent guidance of the Government has been 10 weeks, but his motion refers to “six weeks”. Already—at the beginning of the debate—the motion is not worth the paper it is written on, because it is factually wrong and flawed.

What the shadow Minister did not outline in his attack on the Minister is that already—and still—90% of passports are completed in six weeks and 98.5% are completed within 10 weeks. He also knows, as I know as a constituency MP, that if there are special reasons why a passport needs to be expedited, that can happen; it has happened in my case, and it happened to many colleagues in the House who emailed me while I was PPS and we got their cases sorted. He is simply not giving credit where credit is due.

Plenty of Labour MPs have made criticisms this afternoon, saying that they have lots of cases that have not been completed within the guidelines. The shadow Minister outlined his view that we are in backlog Britain and that the Home Office is the most bureaucratic Department. That is a very good soundbite, but it is not accurate. Opposition Members should be looking into backlog Labour. [Interruption.] Would the shadow Minister like to listen? He made an accusation about backlog Britain. I say “backlog Labour”.

We have heard from Opposition Members about passports not being completed on time, and the shadow Minister has outlined how many Opposition Members have contacted him about how long they have been waiting, but I can tell the House that when I was PPS at the Department I did not get a single email from him. I have looked through my records, and he did not email me once; he has not spoken to the Minister either. Opposition Members should all be angry at the shadow Minister for being the backlog and the bureaucratic bottleneck in the Department. He has not once spoken to the Minister to get his constituents sorted out, and he never emailed me.

We will take no lectures from Opposition Members. The Minister is one of the most decent Ministers in the Government and will talk to any hon. Member on either side of the House, so I will give Opposition Members some advice: perhaps they should email the Minister and leave the shadow Minister out of it, because clearly he cannot deliver either for his constituents or for theirs.

The motion requests a censure of the Minister’s handling of the passport backlog, but we should look at the facts and give him credit for his work. The action has been clear, although we did not hear about it from the shadow Minister. Passport Office staffing has increased: there are 500 more members of staff since April of last year, and another 700 are being hired, as the Minister outlined. We now have over 4,000 staff working in Her Majesty’s Passport Office to clear the backlog; I would call that action. More delivery companies are now working on behalf of the Home Office to deliver passports where possible; I would call that action. Telephone lines now have 500 more staff; I would call that action. [Interruption.] I hear “Give him a job!” from a sedentary position. I had one, but I gave it up, so I do not need another. I am here working on behalf of my constituents. I do not need a job to speak the facts. In what we have heard from the Opposition, there has been a consistent absence of facts, so I am very happy to correct the record today.

There have never been so many channels open to Members of Parliament to address the backlog. We have the Portcullis hub, which is for Ukrainian issues as well as passport issues. We have the telephone lines, which have had added investment. We have the Minister and three excellent PPSs—they have a very tough act to follow, but I think they are excellent. The Home Office has consistently had the most open channels for sorting out the issues.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

The provision that the hon. Gentleman has just listed is testament to the Government’s failure to sort out the issue. As I am sure every Member in this Chamber does, I have constituents who have missed out on holidays, weddings overseas and so forth because of the Government’s failure to run a decent Passport Office. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government’s obsession with the small state and their threat of 91,000 job losses in the civil service do not really inspire confidence that they are capable of running public services?

[Paul Holmes]

I say politely to the hon. Lady that, whatever her briefing document tells her to say about the Government being obsessed with reducing the state, what the Minister and I have just outlined is that instead of reducing the size of the state, we have put unprecedented staffing into Her Majesty’s Passport Office. Her argument does not stack up.

[Margaret Greenwood]

I am curious about the hon. Member’s response. The Government have announced that they intend to cut 91,000 civil service posts and have made the explicit comment that they intend to cut the size of the state. That is this Government’s agenda. I do not quite understand why the hon. Member is unaware of that fact.

[Paul Holmes]

I am perfectly aware of the facts. Nowhere does it say that we want to reduce the civil service payroll in Her Majesty’s Passport Office. All the hon. Lady has to look at is the fact that we have put more staff into that office, with more staff on the telephone lines and more staff in HMPO at the level of processing passports. The hon. Lady’s argument and her accusation towards me and the Government are not substantiated and have no basis in fact whatever.

A record number of passports have been allocated and processed under this Government in the past year. I have just spoken about the actions that we have taken; now let us see the results. In March 2022, 1 million passports were issued, which is 13% more than in any month last year. Usually, 7 million passports are issued in a whole year. We are on track to more than match that figure: more passports have already been processed this year than in the whole of last year. That is because of the action that the Minister and this Government have taken.

Rather than censuring the Minister, the Opposition need to understand the context and the reason for the backlog: the covid-19 pandemic. They somehow live in a utopian world. Instead of acknowledging that all parts of local and national Government and business struggled in the pandemic, they say that it should not have had an effect. They offer no alternative either.

Yet again, the shadow Minister has carped instead of taking a constructive view of how we can help the backlog to clear even faster. He spoke for more than 15 minutes, but not once did he come up with a solution or an alternative from the Labour party. If he really believes that he can show the people of this country he has a better solution that could help us to clear the backlog, he should stand at the Dispatch Box and say so. Once again, he has not done so.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 25th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

The point we are trying to make is that there is a balance to be struck between what is reasonable in protests and what is not. We believe that the right to protest is not an absolute right; there have to be provisions in place to ensure that protests are reasonable, and do not put out the public too much. These provisions on noise are almost impossible to interpret—they are really unclear—and the police and the public have not asked for them. There are existing rules to ensure that reasonable, peaceful protest can take place, and the Bill rides roughshod over those genuine rights.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making some good points, particularly around interpretation. In Wirral West, we had a successful campaign against underground coal gasification after the coalition Government granted a licence for drilling in the Dee estuary underneath Hilbre island. People were very concerned about that, and we had a mass demonstration on the beach. When people go to a demonstration, they do not know who else will be there. I am concerned that people will feel intimidated by this law, and will perhaps feel that they should not attend a protest that they want to go on because of concerns that they will not be in control of the noise volume.

[Sarah Jones]

That is an interesting point. Thank goodness for those protests and for our right to protest in that way. It is not fair and not right to force the police to make political decisions about how much is too much noise. Imagine a scenario where two sides of a public debate are protesting, with one group on a street where there is lots of double glazing and the other on a street where there are old houses and no double glazing. Are we really saying that the police, who might close one protest for being too noisy and not the other, would not find themselves in a difficult political situation, with criticism from the public?

Nationality and Borders Bill

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 8th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bone]

I can give the House an update: birth has not yet occurred and she is watching today’s proceedings. I wish her very well with the new baby.

Let me go back to the national referral mechanism. One thing that people misunderstand about new clause 47 is that they think it refers to when people go into the NRN, but it does not. It would apply for people who have “conclusive grounds”—people the Government agree are real victims of human trafficking. The difference between me and the Government is about what happens next. We have always looked after victims of human trafficking—it has been a really sensible process, with overall control given to the Salvation Army and then distributed through all the different charities and voluntary and religious groups that help to look after victims. But I want there not to be any victims in the first place. I want these evil gangs stopped. By the way, this is organised crime: they are ruthless and horrible and they do not care about people. They are quite happy to murder people. If we can shut them down, we will not have the victims, which is why the prosecution of these gangs is so important.

When we have discussed the failure to secure prosecutions in the past, it was argued, “Well, we prosecute on lesser offences so that we get convictions,” but these people are put away for only a small amount of time. We want to nail the people at the top and put them away for a very long time, to make it a dangerous thing to be involved in. If it is dangerous and they are likely to get caught and put away for a long time, they will not carry out this evil trade and will try something else.

The difference between me and the Government in respect of leave to remain, which is the crux of new clause 47, is that I think it should be given as a right to people who are confirmed as victims of trafficking if their immigration status is irregular. I say that for two reasons: first, they are much more likely to help to prosecute the evil gangs if they know that their immigration status is secure for a year; and secondly, if we do it not that way but on a piecemeal basis, there is a possibility, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green referred, that the lawyers will go to the court and say, “The only reason why this person is saying that is because it is the only way she could have got leave to remain,” whereas if it is a right, they cannot use that argument at all.

I will listen with great interest to what the Minister says in response to the debate. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green pushes new clause 47 to a Division, I will indeed support it. I know that the Minister and the Government share my desire to get these evil gangs; we just have a little difference on this point. Why doesn’t the Minister accept the new clause and perhaps add a sunset clause in the other place? Put two years on it, and if in two years nobody extra is prosecuted, we were clearly wrong. But if a lot more people are prosecuted, as I believe they would be, the Government could renew the sunset clause.

Everybody is trying to do the right thing here; we are just discussing the best way forward. I go back to the start and say well done to Anthony Steen and to all the Governments who have moved forward and made our country the best place to prosecute modern-day slavery. But we can do better, and we can and must do better with children. New clause 47 would help us to prosecute more evil gangs, so I very much support it and hope that the Government will accept at least its principle.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

Numerous constituents have written to me with their concerns about the Bill. They fear that it will harm refugees and victims of trafficking and slavery and that it undermines our international commitment to human rights and the right to asylum. I share their concerns.

The Children’s Society has said that it is

“concerned that the provisions of the bill will have a significant impact on all child victims of trafficking”.

Notably, the charity has expressed support for Labour’s new clause 6, which would exempt victims of modern slavery, exploitation or trafficking from many of the provisions in part 5 of the Bill if they were under 18 when they became a victim. Statistics show that 3,140 potential victims of modern slavery were referred to the Home Office in the second quarter of 2021—the second highest number of referrals since the national referral mechanism began in 2009—and 43% of them claimed exploitation as children.

Serious concerns have also been raised about, and many Members have referred to, the proposals in the Bill to allow the Secretary of State to serve trafficking information notices on potential victims of modern slavery and expect a response within a fixed timescale. Dame Sara Thornton, the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, has said that

“will make it harder to identify those who have been exploited… Traumatised victims cannot disclose their suffering to order—it takes time to build trust and confidence.”

That is absolutely right.

The Government’s own statutory guidance on modern slavery states:

“Victims’ early accounts may be affected by the impact of trauma. This can result in delayed disclosure, difficulty recalling facts, or symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.”

Why do the provisions in the Bill run contrary to the evidence in the Government’s own guidance? This point relates to amendments 5, 6 and 7, which were tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and have cross-party support. I also support my right hon. Friend’s incredibly important new clause 3, which would create an offence for arranging or facilitating the travel of another person with a view to that person being sexually exploited in the UK.

We debate the Bill less than two weeks after the tragic loss of 27 lives in the English channel, yet the Government are intent on pushing ahead with their cruel pushbacks plan, despite Border Force officials saying privately that it is dangerous and unworkable, and despite the Joint Committee on Human Rights having said that pushbacks would

“create a situation where state actors were actively placing individuals in situations that would increase the risk”

On behalf of my constituent, who has more than 10 years’ experience in maritime rescue, I ask the Minister how the Government expect Her Majesty’s Coastguard to operate in a situation that it deems to be search and rescue but that the Home Office considers to be a pushback situation? He wants to know who will have the veto authority in such situations?

As Families Together has pointed out:

“No one chooses to cross the channel…unless they have no other option.”

Amnesty International has said that the Bill

“will cost not save lives. It will enable and empower ruthless criminal gangs not break them. It closes safe routes and opens none. It will harm women and girls along with the men seeking asylum, to whom Ministers appear to take such exception”.

I urge members from all parties to vote against the Bill on Third Reading.

[Mr Carmichael]

I am grateful for the opportunity to make a few remarks about the amendments and new clause tabled in my name and the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends and others. I put on the record my support for the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), by the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), by the official Opposition, by the Scottish National party, and by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). I think you can take it from that selection, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the view of many of us here is that part 5 of the Bill requires some fairly urgent and radical surgery. In general terms, that is something to be regretted.

The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) was absolutely right to remind us of the history in relation to human trafficking in this House. He mentioned Anthony Steen, who ploughed a lonely furrow in the early days but was dogged in pursuit of that. I fear that it may not always be what he is remembered for, but ultimately he did a great deal of good in relation to this matter.

I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who, as Home Secretary, drove this with an unquestionable commitment—I saw that for myself in government. The fact that we now find the salami slicer starting to work and that, piece by piece, the provisions and protections that we have brought into operation to protect the victims of modern slavery are being taken away is, I think, a matter of regret.

I do not often tell tales from outside the Chamber, but I went up in the lift in Portcullis House with the right hon. Member for Maidenhead yesterday—I hope that she will not mind me referencing this—and apropos the House’s consideration of the Bill yesterday, she asked what sort of a debate it had been. I replied, “Suffice it to say that I don’t think anybody would refer to it as being the House at its best.” It is to be welcomed that the temperature of debate today is perhaps a bit more measured. It also illustrates that, on a matter such as this, if one looks around the Chamber and sees the range of interests that have brought forward amendments, it is very easy still to build a consensus around this. The fact that the Government show no inclination or enthusiasm for building or maintaining that consensus is a matter of deep regret.

The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) referred to the credibility provisions. He is absolutely right. The idea that legislation should interfere with the assessment of something around credibility is fundamentally obnoxious. If any right hon. and hon. Members have ever spent any time in the Appeal Court, they will have seen advocates being pulled up occasionally for trying to reopen questions of credibility. The Appeal Court always says, “We are not interested. That was heard by the judge at first instance, and he or she alone can be the judge of these matters.” Trying to set out parameters around credibility in the way that is sought here is dangerous to say the very least.

I will touch on the matters that stand in my name. Amendment 3 seeks to leave out clause 62. The hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire made an excellent dissection of the effect of clause 62. He said that it was the wrong measure in the wrong place, and he is absolutely right. What we have brought here is more of a scalpel to the Bill, to remove the clause completely. It does sit with other measures in clause 5 in restricting the protections that are available to victims of modern slavery. In our view, this breaks our obligations to support the victims of human trafficking and undermines the fight against slavery and human trafficking. It will make victims less likely to come forward and to co-operate with law enforcement. Ultimately, the effect of it will be to strengthen the hand of the slavers.

Clause 62 works to exclude potential victims of slavery or human trafficking from protections on the grounds that they are a threat to public order or have claimed to be a victim in bad faith. I can put the concerns about this clause no better than Dame Sara Thornton, the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, who, in a letter to the Home Secretary, warned:

“I have grave concerns about this clause because it casts a wide net with the potential to prevent a considerable number of potential victims of modern slavery from being able to access the recovery and reflection period granted through the NRM. Without such support prosecution witnesses will be unable to provide witness evidence and this will severely limit our ability to convict perpetrators and dismantle organised crime groups.”

Those are the concerns of the Government’s own Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner. We have to wonder why we have people in such positions if their advice is to be disregarded in this way.

In promoting new clause 43 and amendments 130 and 131, I fully declare that I am something of a cipher for the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association—a declaration I make with absolutely no shame or embarrassment. ILPA has a long and distinguished record in this area and it comprises people whose views should be listened to.

Channel Crossings in Small Boats

Margaret Greenwood Excerpts

Monday 22nd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend has raised some important points. He asked about the discussions taking place with France, Belgium and Germany. There are plenty of discussions. In the past two weeks, I have had discussions with all three of those countries in terms of the work that needs to happen. I should also emphasise for the benefit of the House that it is the EU Commission that leads on illegal migration and that member states themselves are not supposed to engage on a bilateral level, and they are all breaking out of that cycle right now because of their own frustration with the Commission’s inability to grip this issue.

My hon. Friend asked about the issue of accommodation, about which his constituents are absolutely right to be angry. As I said in Home Office questions, we want to end the use of hotels. As part of the new plan for immigration, the Home Office and others across Government are looking to deliver reception centres.

Finally, my hon. Friend mentioned holding groups in Germany, Belgium and France. France, in particular, is clearing the camps. It is literally seeing the type of patterns that it has seen over the last decade, with migrant camps now reforming. Those camps are being cleared on a regular basis, and one of the largest camps was cleared last week.

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

One of my constituents, who has worked for maritime search and rescue, and has been saving lives at sea for more than a decade, is extremely concerned about the inherent risks of pushbacks at sea, as they can be highly dangerous manoeuvres and lead to loss of life. He is concerned, as am I, that the Government are proposing pushbacks in one of the busiest shipping lanes in the world, so on his behalf I ask the Home Secretary: what legal advice have the Government taken on pushbacks; and if a migrant were to die during a pushback, who would be legally accountable for the death?

[Priti Patel]

It is important to say that all operational work—with Border Force and the maritime tactics team—is based on Government legal advice. Extensive legal advice has been taken on the issue. Specific training has taken place on operationalising tactics, alongside all the investment and the resources that have been put in place. The hon. Lady will be well aware, through her constituent, that there is an operational gold command that has responsibility for exercising the operations, and all the authorisations and powers within the legal framework to deliver those tactics.