Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Debate between Michael Tomlinson and Stella Creasy

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 22nd April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Michael Tomlinson]

I will make some progress, as I have given way too much. I have taken criticism for the number of times I give way.

On Lords amendment 10F, as my noble Friend Lord Sharpe and I have said previously, this Government greatly value the contribution of those who have supported us and our armed forces overseas, which is why there are legal routes for them to come to the United Kingdom. There is already existing legislation, including but not limited to the Illegal Migration Act 2023, under which the Secretary of State has a range of powers to consider cases and specific categories of persons. I have already made a clear commitment on behalf of His Majesty’s Government that we will consider how removal would apply under existing immigration legislation, which means that, once the review of Afghan relocations and assistance policy decisions for those with credible links to Afghan specialist units is concluded, the Government will not remove to Rwanda those who receive a positive eligibility decision as a result of the review, where they are already in the United Kingdom as of today. This is an important point, and it is a point that I emphasise to the House today.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister may have read about my constituent in The Guardian today: a man who was originally an Afghan, has British citizenship and served with our armed forces for 15 years. He and his family were called forward to the Baron hotel but could not get there because of an explosion, and they have been in hell ever since. His young children and wife are unable to join him here in the UK. He is not eligible for ARAP because he is a British citizen.

The Government have written to me suggesting that his children might apply to ARAP, but I believe that under-10s will probably not qualify. The Afghan citizens resettlement scheme is in tatters and will not accept them, as the Government are now trying to say that they were invited, rather than instructed, to go to the Baron hotel. If the Minister took five minutes to read the story of my constituent, who gave so much of his life to support our forces in Afghanistan, he would understand why it is not sustainable for him to stand at the Dispatch Box and say that there are safe, legal routes for those who are eminently eligible, and why amendment 10F matters.

[Michael Tomlinson]

This amendment is unnecessary. As I have told the hon. Lady and tried to explain to the House, there is already existing legislation, including but not limited to the Illegal Migration Act. I have confirmed that the Government will not remove to Rwanda those who receive a positive eligibility decision as a result of the review. This Government recognise the commitment and responsibility that come with combat veterans, whether our own or those who have shown courage in serving alongside us. We will not let them down.

Criminal gangs are determining who comes to the United Kingdom, as vulnerable people are lured into risking their lives in unseaworthy boats. Billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money is being spent on illegal migration, and our resources and services are reaching their limits. We must put an end to it. We must pass this legislation and stop the boats.

I urge the House once again to send an unambiguous message to the other place that the time has come for the Labour Lords to respect the views of this House and to let this Bill now pass.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Debate between Michael Tomlinson and Stella Creasy

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 18th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Michael Tomlinson]

This Bill is an essential element of our wider strategy to protect our borders, and to stop the boats to prevent the tragic loss of life at sea caused by dangerous, illegal and unnecessary crossings of the channel. There are 10 Lords amendments. First, I turn to amendment 1. It implies that the legislation is not compliant with the rule of law, but I can confirm that it is. I do not accept that the Bill undermines the rule of law, and the Government take our responsibilities and international obligations incredibly seriously. There is nothing in the Bill that requires any act or omission that conflicts with our international obligations.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister will understand that many of us are deeply concerned that the Bill undermines the Good Friday agreement. He has told us previously that it does not, but he will also know that the Irish Parliament has been considering this matter. Indeed, on 20 February, the Irish Prime Minister admitted that the Irish Government were concerned and were following this debate closely. For the avoidance of doubt, can the Minister tell us when the UK Government consulted the Irish Government about this legislation, and about our obligations under the Good Friday agreement? What was the outcome of that consultation?

[Michael Tomlinson]

I am concerned with this Government and this Parliament. As for our obligations, nothing in the Bill requires any act or omission that conflicts with our international obligations. In fact, this Bill is based on compliance by both Rwanda and the United Kingdom with international law in the form of a treaty that recognises and reflects the international legal obligations of both the United Kingdom and Rwanda.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Debate between Michael Tomlinson and Stella Creasy

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 17th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Michael Tomlinson]

I could not have been clearer. There is the confirmation that we have the power, we would use the power, and the civil service will give effect to it.

Let me respond directly to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham? She spoke powerfully, as she always does, and I always listen carefully to what she says. She set out a number of cases in which medical reasons were cited in court. Medical arguments were presented that, as she said, frustrated the will of this place. In fact, section 39 of the Illegal Migration Act—the very Act that she took through this place with my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark—addresses that exact point about medical records and medical evidence.

The following are examples of harm that do not constitute serious and irreversible harm. The first is:

“where the standard of healthcare available to”

the person

“in the relevant country…is lower than”

that available in the United Kingdom. It is there in the statute, in the Bill that we passed last year.

The second example is:

“Any pain or distress resulting from a medical treatment that is available to”

a person

“in the United Kingdom not being available to”

a person

“in the relevant country”.

That is not, does not and will not constitute serious and irreversible harm.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham is right to be concerned about that, but those concerns have been addressed and met in the legislation we have passed, and in the legislation that is mirrored in the Bill.

Let me turn to the important provisions of clause 8. I will directly address the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and his submissions in response to new clause 3. Nothing in the Windsor framework, including article 2, or in the withdrawal agreement affects the Bill’s proper operation on a UK-wide basis. Any suggestion to the contrary would be to imply that the scope of the rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity chapter of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement is far more expansive than was ever intended.

[Stella Creasy]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Tomlinson]

I will not give way.

We are unequivocal that that is simply not the case, and article 2 of the Windsor framework is not engaged. I would be happy to write further to the hon. Member for Belfast East and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) on that point to set out further detail. I hope I can reassure the hon. Member that we have already achieved the aim he seeks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Tomlinson]

My hon. Friend has heard what I said on that point. I respect and admire him; he knows the esteem that I have for him. We have a good-faith disagreement on the effect of clause 5, but the clause is clear: it is for a Minister to decide, and a Minister will decide.

[Stella Creasy]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Tomlinson]

May I finish my point in response to the hon. Member for Belfast East? I hope I can reassure him that we have already achieved the aim he seeks. The Bill will apply across the whole of the United Kingdom, in line with the application of our sovereign immigration policy across all four nations of the UK as a territorial whole. I am grateful to the hon. Member for his kind and generous comments about me personally, and for his engagement. I will continue to engage with him on this issue.

We have made progress towards stopping the boats, with small boat crossings down by a third in 2023, but we must do more. The only way to do so is if it is abundantly clear that illegal entry will never lead to a new life in the United Kingdom. The power of deterrence is proven beyond reasonable doubt by the success of our agreement with Albania. Parliament and the British people want an end to illegal immigration, and we need a deterrent. We have a plan—a plan to stop the boats—and I invite all right hon. and hon. Members to back it.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Debate between Michael Tomlinson and Stella Creasy

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 21st June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy]

With the greatest respect, I have listened at length to the hon. Gentleman and I am conscious of time. I simply recognise the parallel with the charge of the Light Brigade in that, at first, the cavalry was lauded, and only later did we see the damage and destruction and only then did the British people hold them accountable. It will be the same when he argues against the very principle of ping-pong, which is about scrutiny.

The hon. Gentleman matches the arrogance of the Minister, who first of all challenged the proposals put forward by the Lords on the basis that they were a novel process—they were not; they were based and rooted in parliamentary expertise from a former parliamentary Clerk, who had plenty of experience of the different mechanisms of scrutiny that can be brought to bear—and now complains that the Lords, having listened to the debate in this place and tried to find a compromise, have come forward with another proposal. That is not good enough for him either.

Yet, all along, the Minister wants to claim that the Government have listened, while the Government have failed to table a single alternative proposal or to make a single suggestion to reassure those of us concerned that, if we give up 4,000 areas of legislation to Ministers to use SI Committees, we may as well all go home, because we will be bystanders to the parliamentary process. It is sheer arrogance to suggest that scrutiny is additional friction; it is called asking questions. Even Back-Bench Conservative MPs would think that that is a good idea, because it is a mistake to think any Government get it right all the time. That is why we have scrutiny and a process of trying and testing legislation.

“Computer says no” speaks to the real truth behind Brexit and behind this legislation, which is that the Government never intended to listen to the British people at all, because they never intended to give powers to the people who represent them. That is why it is an insult to democracy to see all this. Constituents across the country will be deeply concerned about a Bill that will allow the Government to revoke or water down legislation without any scrutiny at all, beyond possibly waving it through a five-minute Committee sitting.

People are concerned about environmental standards, which Lord Krebs is trying so hard to protect, and which the Government say they will protect—yet they will not write that down. That should be very telling, because we shall see that that becomes a developers’ charter. We shall see, for example, people trying to develop Holton Heath, which I am sure the Minister is well aware of, a site of protected heathland in his own constituency. Development was refused for that site on the basis of the special protection areas and special areas of conservation—both regulations that will be abolished under the Bill, unless the Government write them back in.

That development attempt was rebuffed, but the Minister’s constituents can have no confidence that development will not be proposed on that site again if we lose those pieces of legislation. The fact that Ministers will not write in the Bill that that absolutely will not happen, and the fact that we have not had that clarity over those pieces of legislation, should give his constituents pause. It would certainly give my constituents concerns about somebody seeking to develop the Walthamstow wetlands, for example.

The proposals before us today reflect the Lords listening and trying to find a way forward. They are talking about a non-binding form of legislative scrutiny, whereby the Commons could suggest amendments to a statutory instrument. The Government could even refuse to accept those amendments, but it would be a process of scrutiny and accountability—the mildest form we have seen—and yet, still, computer says no.

The Minister might think it is acceptable to be this arrogant about the concept of parliamentary sovereignty. Conservative Members might shake their heads and say, “The good chaps and chapesses of this Government could not possibly do anything wrong. Of course they will be sensitive to the electorate.” I am not sure the electorate think that that is the case. If the only opportunity for challenge and scrutiny is at a referendum or election, our capacity to make good laws—the whole point of this place—is gone.

I am sure, based on what he just said, that the hon. Member for Stone will now be leading the campaign for the abolition of the House of Lords—or at least for an elected House of Lords. Certainly I presume he will not take up a seat in the other place when he leaves the Commons. But that is the point, is it not? Our time here might be fleeting but, if we start unpicking the strands of parliamentary scrutiny, the processes that exist and our capacity to speak up for our constituents when their rights are affected, the damage will be everlasting.

The Minister might dismiss people such as me, still looking for those elusive benefits of Brexit seven years on, but he cannot dismiss the concerns of thousands of constituents. I hope he will finally engage in a serious process with the Members of the House of Lords and stop dismissing them, because they come with the very best of intentions. If we are absent at work and not doing our job of defending democracy, somebody else must do so. I hope that this House will support Lords amendments 15D and 42D, because our environment and our parliamentary democracy deserve better.

[The Solicitor General]

With the leave of the House, I thank all right hon., right hon. and learned and hon. Members for their contributions to this debate. I was going to say I need not go into the fine details but, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) mentioned the “dirty detail”, perhaps I can touch on one or two of them.

I thank the shadow Minister for his engagement, as always, and for giving a welcome to the change of approach—although not a full welcome, of course—during today’s debate. I am grateful to him for his words. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) for reminding us about parliamentary sovereignty and the wise words of Lord Bingham. I know that his words will be studied carefully. I always enjoy listening to the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) during the course of these debates; he is right that he is consistent, as the Government have been consistent throughout the process.

I disagree fundamentally with what the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) says. She reminds us of the charge of the Light Brigade, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon first introduced to the debates on this Bill some two debates ago. She mentioned friction and made a complaint about Back Benchers, but the suggestion of friction came from a Back Bencher, as I mentioned in my opening speech.

The hon. Lady says there is a failure to listen, but I disagree. There is a lot of listening and there is a disagreement. It is not the same. One can listen and one can still disagree; I disagree, having listened to what she says. One thing I am grateful to her for, though, is bringing cricket into this debate. That is always a welcome subject of distraction, so I am grateful to her for that and I look forward to reading it back.

If I may engage directly with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon, I am grateful to him for his words. I agree with him that the example he gave, of 60 sitting days starting in July, is a significant period of time. I am afraid he and I will not agree entirely on that, and he will not be surprised by that. I encourage him to look at schedule 5 and the sifting Committee. I know he understands the point and he heard my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), who explained two debates ago the detailed work that his European Statutory Instruments Committee does. He diligently gets on with that work—he described it as dry work, but it is important work and I know he will continue that work with his Committee.

I was delighted to see agreement between my hon. Friend the Member for Stone and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon; it was similar to the agreement between my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson)—a rare moment, but an enjoyable one nonetheless. I simply repeat to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon that our concern with the approach is that, by adding such a significant amount of time, the amendment would place in doubt the effective use of the repeal and replace powers before they expire, and that is an important part of the Government’s programme for smarter regulation.

It is vital that we bring this most important Bill to Royal Assent as quickly as possible. This House has made its view clear twice before and I ask that it makes its view clear for a third time. I encourage their lordships to take note of the strong view from this House and the fact that the will of this House should be respected.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 15D.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Debate between Michael Tomlinson and Stella Creasy

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 12th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General]

May I express exactly the same sentiments as you, Mr Speaker? I know that the hon. Lady’s campaigns will continue outside the Chamber, and I know that she will have plenty to offer between now and the election in any event, not least during this debate. However, I disagree with what she has said, not just because the procedures are novel, although they are. I followed the debate in the Lords very closely, and it is fair to say that it is accepted that these are new measures, but they are also unnecessary, and this is why.

The amendment would unreasonably and unnecessarily delay our important reforms. It would introduce what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) termed “extra friction” during our previous consideration of Lords amendments. He was right to say that, and right to say that the amendment would delay the meaningful reforms that can now be achieved as a result of Brexit. I do not believe that the public would accept those delays, and nor, in my view, should we.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Solicitor General give way?

[The Solicitor General]

I will give way to the hon. Lady, because that will give her an opportunity to apologise for getting the Government’s position on pension reforms so wrong.

[Stella Creasy]

I hope that the Solicitor General will speak to his colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade, who made it clear in Committee on, I believe, 22 November that they were intending to abolish the Bauer and Hampshire judgments. Perhaps he will ask his colleagues to amend that, rather than suggest that I was misleading the House.

I also note—and it is welcome—that the Solicitor General now accepts that there is a parliamentary precedent for amendable statutory instruments. He talks about “friction”. Another way of describing that would be Members of Parliament holding the Government to account if they come up with proposals that their constituents do not like. When Ministers were in front of the European Scrutiny Committee, they seemed to think that it was an impertinence for MPs to have concerns and questions about what might be on the list of measures to be deleted. Is this another name for what we are calling parliamentary sovereignty?

[The Solicitor General]

No, not at all; the hon. Lady is wrong, I am afraid. I will come in a moment to the detail of the parliamentary scrutiny that is already inbuilt in the Bill and the schedule to the Bill. The hon. Lady’s comments over the weekend about pension reform were also wrong, and that is important because people will have been scared by what she said. The Hampshire case clarified that all scheme members should receive at least 50% of their expected benefits in the event of the employer’s insolvency. The Secretary of State has been crystal clear on this and we have announced our intention to retain the Hampshire judgment beyond the sunset clause. The hon. Lady was wrong on that and she is wrong on the provisions in the Bill. I will explain why in a few moments.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Debate between Michael Tomlinson and Stella Creasy

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 24th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention. He has spent a lifetime working on these issues and I look forward to his continuing contribution to this debate. The fact is that by having a schedule, we can set out incredibly clearly what laws will be sunset and when—I will turn to that point in a moment—and we provide certainty. Importantly, it does not prevent our making further reforms in due course, and I will address that point in a few minutes.

Amendment 1 is an amended version of an initial Government amendment. The Government tabled that amendment on Report in the Lords to remove the automatic nature of the sunset clause, as we have heard. This approach will provide legal certainty on which EU laws will fall away at the end of the year and will ensure that Parliament, Ministers and officials are freed to focus on more reform of retained EU law and to do this faster. Let me respond further to my right hon. Friend by saying that that is the great advantage of this approach: we are not going to be upstairs in Delegated Legislation Committees between now and the end of the year. Instead, we will be able to focus important time looking at where we want to make real and proper reforms. The goal of this Bill—to enable revocation and reform, and to end the supremacy and special status of retained EU law—remains fully intact.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

rose—

[The Solicitor General]

I will give way to the hon. Lady first and then of course I will give way to my hon. Friend.

[Stella Creasy]

I hope I may be defending the rights of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) and the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) here. The Minister has just said how wonderful it will be that we will not be in these SI Committees. Is it not the case that Members of this House with strong feelings about any of this legislation will be reduced to pleading, through question sessions such as this, trying to catch a Minister in the Lobby or lobbying one of those backroom civil servants, to try to amend the SIs that are being put forward? This piece of legislation might set out what the Government plan to revoke at this point in time, but there will still not be any scrutiny in this Chamber or any opportunity for an MP to put forward proposals to challenge them. That is not taking back control—it is giving it away.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General]

I am grateful again to my hon. Friend; I am glad I gave way to him twice and did not leave him there, asking without receiving an answer. I can simply repeat the assurances that Ministers have given—ad nauseam, dare I say—that our environmental standards are world leading and will continue to be so. In reviewing its retained EU law, DEFRA’s aim is to ensure that environmental law is fit for purpose and is able to drive improved environmental outcomes. In light of that, I ask the House to reject amendment 15.

I turn now to Lords amendment 42—I think this is the last one, if I have counted correctly. This amendment inserted a new paragraph into schedule 4 and would require a novel procedure to apply to the use of the powers contained in the Bill. I repeat that the procedures are novel and untested. This Government do not accept the principle that Parliament should be able to amend statutory instruments.

In addition, the procedure would have significant implications for both parliamentary time and the ability of Government to deliver their business. It would bring significant delay to the clarification of our statute books through restatement, and delay much-needed regulatory reform. There is already provision for scrutiny measures within the Bill. All those powers will already be subject either to the affirmative procedure, meaning they must be debated in and approved by both Houses, or to the findings of a sifting Committee in each House. That is a sufficient safeguard.

[Stella Creasy]

Will the Solicitor General give way?

[The Solicitor General]

I will not. The sifting procedure will provide additional scrutiny of the powers, while retaining the flexibility of using the negative procedure when there are good reasons for doing so. I therefore ask the House to reject this amendment. I have set out the Government’s position today—

[Stella Creasy]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Solicitor General just suggested that amendable SIs was a novel procedure—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Stop. That is not a point of order. The hon. Lady has tried to intervene on the Minister. The Minister has already taken her intervention and he is not taking another. It is not a point of order for the Chair. The hon. Lady should not abuse the procedures of the House in this way. I call the Minister.

Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill

Debate between Michael Tomlinson and Stella Creasy

Wednesday 24th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy]

indicated dissent.

[The Solicitor General]

She is shaking her head. Well, she is missing out, because she would enjoy it and do it well. She made an impassioned speech on why she believes that we should have remained in the EU. I want to pick her up on one point: she said that she wanted to know what laws were going to be revoked. Well, I invite her to join us in the Division Lobby, with the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, who tabled an amendment to insert:

“including specifying in a list such provisions of retained EU law as is intended to be revoked or reformed.”

The hon. Lady can join us in the Division Lobby this evening.

[Stella Creasy]

I am so sorry, but the Minister was not in the Chamber, so perhaps he misunderstood or something was lost in translation, as if often can be in this place. What I wanted to know was the direct effect cases, which is what amendment 6 would provide for. I agree with him—although I think that the list has little impact on any changes—but might he join me in voting for Lords amendment 6 to ensure that we know about everything affected by the legislation?

[The Solicitor General]

I can reassure the hon. Lady that I was in the Chamber for the entirety of her speech —from beginning to end. Indeed, even before she stood up and after she sat down, I was in the Chamber. The only speech that I missed was that of the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), who was representing the Liberal Democrats. I heard the first few words and the end, and I apologise to her for that. Other than that, I was in the Chamber for the entire debate.

My point remains that the hon. Member for Walthamstow said that she wanted to know what the Government’s intentions were for revocation. If she does, I invite her to support my hon. Friend the Member for Stone in the Aye Lobby later this evening. That would be quite a coupling, and I very much look forward to that moment.

Let me turn from my introductory remarks to some more of the substance. It is crucial that we continue to progress this Bill over the final hurdles to Royal Assent. The Bill is a key part of the Government’s ambition to reform our economy and to support growth. We must capitalise on the competitive advantages that the UK has, now that we are no longer restrained by membership of the EU. We must ask ourselves which regulations have worked, which further regulations can be scrapped, and which could be reformed.

May I turn to the criticisms levelled at the schedule? I enjoyed listening to the shadow Secretary of State’s speech—I always enjoy listening to him speak. I almost thought that he welcomed the schedule. Perhaps he will join the hon. Member for Walthamstow in the Government Division Lobby, but perhaps not because it was an almost welcome that he gave it. I take what I can from his speech and that was certainly a positive, if nothing else. I am grateful to him for his contribution to the debate. I assure colleagues that this is only part of our reform programme.

I will address some of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset. He said that this was the perfect opportunity for reform, and it still is, not least thanks to him, his hard work and drive, and the dashboard that he has championed throughout. Thanks to that, it is not only Members in this House but people throughout the country and, if they are interested, across the world who will be able to look at regular updates on our retained EU law.

There has been some criticism and some mention of inertia and delay. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes mentioned Whitehall. The Attorney General has arrived at absolutely the right moment, because I would like to pay tribute to the Government Legal Department, to Government lawyers who have been poring over retained EU law. When my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset introduced the Bill, the explanatory notes estimated that there were some 2,400 pieces of retained EU law. But that was not so. Thanks to the diligence of civil servants, the Bill team and Government lawyers, more than double that number have been identified. The 600—the Light Brigade—are not the limit of the Government’s ambitions.

More reforms are planned. I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam that this approach has the potential to lead to greater reform than might otherwise have been the case. Others have asked if this is a change in direction. No, it is not. It is a different way of doing the same thing, potentially with better and faster results. I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend was right, and I am grateful to him for his engagement in this debate.

Children and Social Work Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Michael Tomlinson and Stella Creasy

Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 15th December 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I hope that everybody had an excellent lunch and was able to think about the question that I posed before lunch, which is at the heart of the amendments. How did we get to a place where two young men felt there was so little hope in the world that they would rather kill themselves than go on? The two young men are refugees from Afghanistan, who had been escaping the Taliban. Both of them had been victims of gangs, had ended up in Calais and had willingly got on buses to go to child protection centres around France, having been told through a leaflet that they were one step closer to getting to Britain.

The amendments speak to that question and reflect the Government’s statement of 1 November, which committed to safeguarding refugee children in Europe—not just those who end up on our shores. Many of us may have dealt with children who have arrived in Britain, perhaps through illegal routes. Today, we are talking about how the safeguarding legislation that the Government will bring in by 1 May will reflect that commitment to safe routes and address legally working with those young people.

[Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Stella Creasy]

I will happily give way, because I was reading over lunch of the support and commitment of the hon. Gentleman when it comes to helping refugees. I am sure he is going to speak in support of the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Tomlinson]

The hon. Lady is wrong: I am not going to support the amendment. She mentioned the ministerial statement of 1 November. Before we adjourned for lunch, she was right to give credit to the Government for the steps that they have already taken. She was right to do that because the Government have taken great steps. Does she not take comfort from that ministerial statement? Does that not cover the points she is seeking to address?

[Stella Creasy]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is here this afternoon because I will explain exactly why I am concerned that the actions of the Home Office directly undermine that statement. Those of us who were involved in drafting the second Dubs amendment to ask the Government to extend safeguarding—as I think the hon. Gentleman is agreeing is the right thing to do for these young people—were very disappointed to see, not seven days later, guidance coming out from the Home Office that we consider directly undermines that commitment. I hope I can explain to the hon. Gentleman why. I hope I can also persuade him that, if—as he has said publicly—the situation in Syria challenges him, those concerns about young people should not be defined by nationality; they should be defined by need.

We are talking about the most vulnerable young people in our world. They have come, whether legally or illegally, to Europe in need of assistance. This is about how we, as Britain, play our part to help and support them. I would suggest to the hon. Gentleman—

[Michael Tomlinson]

And others.

[Stella Creasy]

Particularly the hon. Gentleman. I understand and agree with his statement that he was deeply challenged by the situation in Syria.

[Michael Tomlinson]

The hon. Lady is being very gracious in giving way to me twice in a matter of as many minutes. She will recognise that there is great compassion on both sides of the divide on this very point. She and her party do not hold the preserve of compassion, as she is recognising in her very generous and gracious speech. She can surely recognise the honest and honourable motives on this side of the House as well as on her side when it comes to this issue.

[Stella Creasy]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman had left early to get ahead in the lunch queue so he did not hear me saying before lunch that I absolutely commend what has happened so far. The amendments simply reinforce that. I have not yet heard a good argument from the hon. Gentleman—I am hoping to hear one from him—on why he would not want to ensure that we treat all young refugees equally and fairly, which is what the amendment would do. Let me explain why.

I understand that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the situation in Syria. Let me give him some testimony from a young man from Sudan, who said, when asked why he left Sudan:

“There is war in Sudan. Lots of my family have been killed over the years. My mother was killed when I was a baby. I have been running away from the Sudanese government since I was 7 years old…In Sudan, the government pay people to kill and rape innocent people so that it does not look like they are doing it.”

That young man ended up in the Calais refugee camp. There were an estimated 2,000 unaccompanied children in that camp by the end—the kind of children who the Dubs amendment, which had support across the House, was designed to cover. As I said earlier, this is not about Britain taking every single one of those children but about how we do our fair share and ensure that we treat all children equally when we commit to safeguarding them, as the Minister did in his statement on 1 November.

That young man ended up in Calais. He then went to a child refugee centre, on the basis that he was told he would be treated fairly and given the opportunity to come to Britain. He said:

“When I heard Calais will be destroyed, we were told so many different things from the UK and the French government. We were told that all the minors will go to England. But now we are scared we will be refused by the UK. I find this so strange as we are only 1000 minors. This is nothing for a country like England…If the UK government does not hear or understand well we are telling them now: we left our country because we are dying and now once again we are dying as we hope to make it to the UK.”

His story is not unique. There are stories of Oromo children from Ethiopia and children from Afghanistan being threatened with persecution. Yes, the situation in Syria is deeply troubling, but children are caught up in conflicts in many areas around the world. Those children are running, and many of them—90,000, as we heard earlier—have ended up in Europe. The question is: what do we do to help? How do we ensure that we treat those children fairly?

Amendments 16 and 17 are important, because last Friday the Government ended the fast-track transfer scheme for the children who were in the Calais “jungle”. Although that camp has been destroyed and the children evicted, the issue of what happens to them next has not gone away. Although 750 children have come to the UK, I am sorry to report to the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole that the majority of them are Dublin children—children who would have had the right to come here anyway.

The thing stopping us from helping those children, who have no one else in the world, is the guidance that says how we decide what is in their best interests. The problem that we have—

Children and Social Work Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Debate between Michael Tomlinson and Stella Creasy

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 13th December 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Stella Creasy]

It was on the tip of my tongue. The hon. Lady put it very well when she argued that our benefits system, especially when dealing with young people, is designed on the principle that even if they do not live at home, they probably have a home relationship on which they are able to draw; that they can draw not only on financial support, but on support to be able to budget and to manage at that point in life when we start to get our own rent and bills. That group of young people do not have such support as a background, so we have to make specific arrangements for them. That is what the amendment would do.

As I said to the hon. Member for North Dorset, in places we do not do that, which costs us more as a result, so again I ask the Minister to do something, even if not in this legislation. I completely take the point of the other hon. Gentleman for—I am doing terribly this morning at remembering constituency names—

[Michael Tomlinson]

Mid Dorset and North Poole.

[Stella Creasy]

How could I forget Mid Dorset! What a wonderful community. The hon. Gentleman will have seen even in Mid Dorset, as I see in Walthamstow, young people struggling to make sense of what rights and entitlements they have as they take that first step. They struggle even when they have their mum and dad with them to help, yet we are talking about young people who do not have that support. He is right to point to the Homelessness Reduction Bill as having such provision, but his case is to marry that with what we do in this Bill—that is exactly what the amendment would do. It simply states that we have to continue thinking about that group of young people needing a particular level of support because we can see their problems. The two are not contradictory; in fact, they are complementary.

I ask the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole to think about that. Perhaps in the lunch break he will make the case to the Minister that we should be looking at the financial support we give to our young people. The evidence tells us that our benefits system is not working for them, which is costing us money, and it is not joining up with other pieces of legislation. As a result, very vulnerable young people are being left at risk.

There are ways in which we can save money in the system and get a better outcome. The amendments are trying to get us there. I think that Government Members share the same objective. The question is this: if they will not accept the amendments on those three core principles, what would the standards be beyond which we will never let a young person fall? If we accept that a younger person is vulnerable, how do we ensure that we do not discriminate against them on the basis of nationality? How are we addressing the clear and obvious problems that our young people in care have with financial management, which manifests in how they deal with the benefits system, and comes from not having the safety net of mum and dad?