Domestic Abuse Bill (Second sitting)

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 29th October 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Luke Graham]

Q My question builds on those of some of my colleagues regarding how children who experience domestic abuse link with potential fostering services, the Department for Work and Pensions, and future education opportunities. Having had a number of constituents and some family go through a similar process, I know that there is a lot of opportunity to fall through gaps. What, in your view, are the elements of best practice? If they are not in the Bill already, we can try to add them. Certainly, we can share such best practice more widely, supporting an individual in an abusive situation and then connecting them with DWP services, education and other opportunities.

Sally Noden: I can talk about a case study. I think this will answer your question—tell me if it does not. Within our service, we had a referral of a sibling group. There is a waiting list, and by the time of the referral one of the children had been removed—in fact, all three of them had been removed and one was in a foster placement on their own. We continued with that work; our original piece of work was with the foster carer and the young person.

We linked up with children’s social care and with the foster carer, and we met with mum, because the young child was potentially going to go back home—so we linked up in terms of what sort of therapeutic support we could offer this young person. In fairness, children’s social care linked up with us as well and ensured that we were speaking to the right people. We needed to speak to the foster carer. We might have spoken only to mum, or we might not have spoken to her.

The big piece of work that we did with that young person was trying to work out their emotional responses to the uncertainty that they were going to go through. That was a huge piece of work, because they did not know whether they were going to go home. At one point, the courts were looking at whether dad was a potential caregiver. Dad had been the perpetrator of domestic violence towards mum. We had to do some work, although the child was not really in recovery because they still had lots of uncertainties; they really needed some therapeutic support in working out their emotions and their lack of knowledge about what was going on.

I do not know whether that quite answers your question. We ensured that we connected up, and doing so has to be everybody’s responsibility. It is the same with adult services. Often you see the adult presented, and you do not connect up whether the child will have to move school, and what will happen to them and their education. That is why it is so important to have children named as victims in the Bill, because people then have to connect it up, from all services.

Eleanor Briggs: I would add that if we got a wider duty, looking more broadly than accommodation-based services, that would help because you would have the board and representatives from all relevant partners across the local authority on that board looking at their joined-up response. That would get them talking, and would be such an opportunity. If they were looking more widely than just at accommodation, they would pick up on those issues.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Q It all sounds a bit precarious. A lot of excellent work is going on, but it is not certain that it will continue in a consistent way. You seem to be putting quite a lot of eggs in the basket of the wider duty, which will be a way to drive resource and underpin greater consistency, so that we are not just dependent on lottery funding that is falling. Can you explain how you think that will work?

Eleanor Briggs: I suppose the way the duty will be set up is that the boards will come together and do an assessment of what is happening their area; what the needs are and how they can commission services to meet those needs. I think the current version of it will look at accommodation-based needs, whereas the way that we envisage it, they will look at the whole spectrum. With other organisations, we would like to look at perpetrators as well, so that we can get a proper picture. We are looking to end this problem and that also involves support for perpetrators. They look at the whole thing as a holistic issue and look at where support is needed. Obviously, that demands a good risk assessment and the right people being there, but proper funding is also key. For this duty to be in place will need proper funding, so that once the assessment is done, the right services can be commissioned and funded properly so that that support is in place.

[Nic Dakin]

Q We heard from the earlier witness that these sorts of services are often seen as low-hanging fruit when pressures are on budgets.

Eleanor Briggs: Absolutely. That is why for us this is the part of the Bill that offers us the best chance we have to get those services. People have already talked about how something gets done when you make it statutory. When there is an obligation, it will be provided. We want these services to be a statutory obligation to provide support to children and families and then we will see it funded. As I mentioned, we have seen children’s services, where there is no statutory obligation. Those, as you say, are the low-hanging fruit and the ones that go when there is a problem.

You say we are putting all our eggs in one basket. This is absolutely key for us and the best way that we can see at the moment to secure vital support. We also definitely want to see children in the definition on the face of the Bill. That is really important in getting a response from all services. Zoe has already mentioned that the police are doing much better, which is great to hear, but we know from studies abroad that the police have responded to children much better when children are named as victims in the definition of domestic abuse, so we want to see that here as well.

[Wendy Morton]

Q Thank you for joining us today. I want to touch on the Children Act. You are probably aware that the Government are considering the pre-legislative scrutiny Joint Committee recommendation on the definition of harm in the Children Act and whether it should be amended to recognise the impact on children of coercive control. What are your thoughts on that? What do you think the impact of such an amendment will be? Also, do you foresee any unintended consequences of singling out one form of harm?

Eleanor Briggs: We really welcome that. We were really pleased to see the Joint Committee recommendation. The Children Act is a fantastic piece of legislation. We are excited its 30th anniversary is coming up next month. It is a great piece of legislation because it has adapted and changed as things have moved forward. As part of that, in 2002, the definition of harm was changed to include impairment suffered from seeing or hearing the ill-treatment of another. That was added in relation to domestic abuse, so that recognition was there. We support the Joint Committee’s recommendation for it to be absolutely clear that coercive control is included. Our research with Stirling University, that I referred to, showed that the local authorities we spoke to felt that social workers still did not recognise coercive control and how dangerous it can be. Research shows that children really do suffer when coercive control is going on in the house. It is also very high risk. There is a high chance of very serious violence related to coercive control, so we support that widening.

We would also like to see the definition change slightly so that it talks about children seeing or hearing—experiencing—the domestic abuse that goes on. This point was powerfully made when we went to see one of our services. We did not prompt them or say anything when we did our initial research, but one of the service managers said: “Children don’t witness domestic abuse, they experience it.” She was absolutely passionate about that. They are not sitting there as some kind of secondary part of it; they absolutely are experiencing that. The Bill provides an opportunity to get that into the Children’s Act and to link it to the definition in the Bill. I am not concerned about it limiting, because from my understanding it was introduced in 2002 to be around getting domestic abuse in there. To get that right and to make sure it is up to date with the Domestic Abuse Bill, now feels like a real opportunity.

Gender Pay Gap

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

Thursday 4th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

First, I think businesses realise that if they do not do as the public expect them to, they will face a great deal of public scrutiny and reputational damage. One employer, for example, did not include its partnership figures in its return. The public spotted that and called it out; and, in fairness to that employer, it revised its figures to include the partnerships. That sort of transparency and scrutiny will help businesses to comply with the law.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

I would have expected universities to show leadership on the gender pay gap, so I was surprised to hear it reported earlier this week that they had the widest gender pay gap. If that is true, what is the Minister going to do about it?

[Victoria Atkins]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s concern about that. As I say, I will be writing shortly to every public sector employer reminding them of their duty to meet the deadline but also to set out their action plans. I do not think there is any excuse, frankly, for public sector employers, who want to lead the world in the way that we conduct our business, not to have an idea of how they are going to address the sorts of gaps that he has described.

Draft Immigration (European Economic Area Nationals) (EU Exit) Order 2019

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2019 General Committees

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that we will be transitioning to the new system, so there will be very light-touch enforcement. It is important to reflect, however, that the process is changing until the point at which we introduce the new immigration system in 2021.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Would the Minister like to clarify what “light-touch enforcement” looks like?

[Caroline Nokes]

As we have always said, we will take a proportionate approach to EU citizens. It is important that people have the right to be here, but they must apply for temporary leave to remain. That is an important distinction. It is not our intention to have a robust enforcement process, but from 2021 people will be expected to have leave to be here. It is important that we reflect that, once the Bill that we took through Committee last week is on the statute book, free movement will have ended.

The order also provides that the settlement scheme leave granted to a Crown servant who is an EEA national, a member of Her Majesty’s forces or somebody accompanying them will not lapse because of an overseas posting.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Ninth sitting)

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

At the British Film Institute last week, I saw a documentary called “Island of Hungry Ghosts”, which I commend to all Committee members. It is about the Australian Government’s approach to detention on Christmas Island. The big issues are indefinite detention, not knowing what has happened and the lack of control, which are exactly what my hon. Friend is pointing out.

[Paul Blomfield]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and I will make sure to see the film.

The point was driven home by a detainee who said to us:

“The uncertainty is hard to bear. Your life is in limbo. No one tells you anything about how long you will stay or if you are going to get deported.”

Medical experts told us that that sense of being in limbo—of hopelessness and despair—leads to deteriorating mental health. One expert from the Helen Bamber Foundation told us that those who are detained for more than 30 days, which is relevant to the limit we are looking for, had significantly higher levels of mental health problems.

New clause 1 would have an impact beyond those who are detained. A team leader from the prisons inspectorate told us that the lack of time limit encourages poor caseworking in the Home Office. He said that a quarter of the cases of prolonged detention it had considered were a result of inefficient caseworking.

Prolonged detention does not happen because it is inappropriate for people to be released. Despite these places being called immigration removal centres, we have found—everybody needs to focus on this fact—that most people are released from detention for reasons other than being removed from the UK. They are released back into the community.

The system is not only bad for those who are involved, but expensive, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton pointed out. The recommendation in new clause 1 for a maximum time limit to be set in statute is about not simply righting the wrong of indefinite detention, but changing the culture that is endemic in the system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I am conscious that there are strong feelings on this issue. I am also conscious that in this country we have an ability to remove that in some cases is significantly better than that of our European counterparts and that we do succeed in removing people directly from detention. However, there are a number of challenges, which I will come to.

One significant challenge, and why I have such grave concerns about 28 days, is the time that it often takes to document individuals who may not have evidence of their identity or a travel document from their home country. It would be ideal if we could document people easily without their needing to be present, but unfortunately the vast majority of cases will require a visit from a foreign consulate, which takes time to arrange. In many instances, foreign consulates will not consider a visit until they know the individual is in detention. Although these are only management statistics, it has been indicated to me that it takes in the region of 30 days for an individual to be documented. In those circumstances, when it takes in the region of 30 days to get somebody with the appropriate travel document to be able to return, a time limit of 28 days would simply be unworkable.

[Nic Dakin]

The Minister is making a good point in response to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, but is she indicating that some sort of time limit that was practical would be helpful to everybody?

[Caroline Nokes]

I will come to time limits. We have seen from the amendments that have been tabled and from the commentary that there is no widespread agreement on what the time limit should be. If we look at countries around the European Union, there are differing time limits. One example that springs instantly to mind currently has a limit of 45 days, which is about to be doubled to 90 days.

Stephen Shaw looked at time limits in his re-review and made some comments about that, as Members will have seen. There is certainly scope, as I am sure my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary agrees, for us to look closely not only at different time limits around the world, useful though they are, but at some of the challenges we face in the UK with the documentation of individuals, so that we can best understand, were a time limit to be introduced, what the range might be.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Tenth sitting)

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

Committee Debate: 10th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 5th March 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Alison McGovern]

The hon. Lady is obviously a top feminist, because she identifies probably the single biggest reason why the care sector is low paid. The work done by women has traditionally, for reasons of structural power, been paid much worse than similar jobs that have traditionally been done by men, and that helps to make my point. If we want to increase the pay of women in the social care sector, a good way to go about it would be to encourage those women to join a trade union, so that they can enforce their rights, bargain for better pay and increase their dignity and their control over their workplace. I argue that a restriction on free movement is, at best, not the most effective way to support those women. None the less, it would be interesting to learn, and the Government ought to take responsibility for finding out.

In support of my new clause, I would like the Government to consider not just the impact on our labour market of the policy of ending freedom of movement, but the huge impact that the policy will have on UK nationals—we barely discuss the restriction of fundamental rights, freedoms and abilities that ending free movement will entail—and on some large and, in many cases, fast-growing sectors in our economy.

In the tourism industry, for example, many British workers spend time working in a different country to develop their skills, perhaps before they run their own tourism business or come back to work in the UK. Many such opportunities could be curtailed, and it would be a dereliction of duty for the Government to ignore the fact that that will be a consequence of the policy.

Arts, culture, film, music and sport are all areas in which the UK has traditionally excelled, and I hope it will do in future. They are multibillion-pound industries, and the impact on them of ending free movement will be huge. If we think about the orchestra in the city region that I represent in Merseyside—or the fine Hallé orchestra in the city of Manchester, which you represent, Mr Stringer—the impact of the ending of free movement on those orchestral musicians will be absolutely profound.

We are offering those industries a future immigration policy that is unclear at this point, and yet their ability to move around and work on the continent of Europe is mission critical to them in their great work of producing fantastic music—the best in the world, some would say, in the case of the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic Orchestra. I simply cannot countenance the idea of the Government taking that step without thinking that they ought to report on it.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

What my hon. Friend has said applies equally to dance and theatre.

Knife Crime

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support of the multi-agency public health approach. I hope we will have his full support for that when it comes forward in Parliament. He talked about the importance of resources. He said that there is a piecemeal increase in resources, but the increase in police resources is hugely significant—it is up to £970 million, which is almost double what was there the year before and the biggest increase since 2010—and the £220 million on early intervention is a significant increase.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) rightly said that we need a step change in response to this national emergency. There are two starting points for the Home Secretary: first, he needs to brief the Health Secretary on what a public health response to this epidemic is, and secondly, he needs to advise the Prime Minister to convene Cobra, so that we can focus properly on this issue.

[Sajid Javid]

If we take all the responses, especially in the last two years and since the adoption of the serious violence strategy, it is a step change. As I said earlier, I really wish that just one single thing could be done, but this requires action on multiple fronts. That is why the public health approach is so important. The Department of Health and Social Care is an important partner in that, and the Health Secretary understands that.

Immigration and Social Security Coordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 26th February 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Alison McGovern]

I can think of a reason: because they want to take decisions on these rights based on negotiating interests and the potential gain they might get for their agenda. It seems clear that that has always been the manner in which the rights of EU nationals would be treated. I am afraid warm words are not enough. It is perfectly reasonable—and something I would expect every member of the Committee to be able to do—to say that we personally feel no animus towards EU nationals and that people are welcome in this country. However, it is one thing to say those words and another to do what is necessary to guarantee that they are true. I can think of no reason why the Government would not do as my hon. Friend has suggested.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that this is not dealt with in the Bill as clearly as it could be is unsettling for not only EU nationals but businesses? It interrupts business continuity in a way that is not helpful to the UK economy.

[Alison McGovern]

I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a good point. I never thought I would be in Committee lecturing the Conservative party on the needs of British business, but we are where we are. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston made the point very well that we are creating not simplicity but an extraordinarily high level of uncertainty, and uncertainty is costly to the British economy. I am sure we will discuss the costs of the Brexit process during the Bill, but the Government could be handling the Bill better. They could have come up with the immigration White Paper long before they did, and we could have spent time in the past two and a bit years since the referendum discussing that very thing, but they have held off and postponed—and here we are now. People have no real idea what situation EU nationals will be in after the end of March. That is utterly intolerable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

A good number of useful and interesting points were raised by hon. Members. I just want to start by correcting one point made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton who said it was a fact that free movement would end when we leave the single market. Free movement, as hon. Members know, was frozen into UK law last year, which is why we need the Bill so that we can end free movement, which will not happen automatically when we leave the EU.

Hon. Members are right to point out that there may be a gap. There could be a gap either way. It is perfectly feasible that the Bill will not gain Royal Assent until after we leave the European Union and it is certainly possible to envisage the circumstances in which the Bill might gain Royal Assent before we leave the EU. It is an important Bill and, although I have been accused of putting the cart before the horse, that is not the case. It is not premature; it is something that we must do.

Several hon. Members raised the rights of the 3.5 million EU citizens living in the UK and were absolutely right to do so. They will also know that we hope very much to address that in the withdrawal agreement Bill in the event of a deal. I am probably one of the few in the room to have voted consistently for the deal every time it has come before the House [Interruption.] Okay, they are all raising their hands now. I certainly have done. It is really important that we secure a deal and, in so doing, have the withdrawal agreement. I will have the joy of also serving on that Bill Committee and will take through the citizens’ rights principles that we are determined to secure.

I do not intend to bore hon. Members on this subject but it is one of my favourites. They will know that we opened the EU settled status scheme last year in its first trial phase. We are now into the third open beta testing phase. I am not in any way complacent about that. These large projects are opened in private beta testing first in order to iron out the bugs, problems and issues that may crop up. It is fair to say that there have been issues, but we have been able to learn from the process and react relatively quickly to iron them out. I am pleased that so far 100,000 people have gone through the process and more are applying every single day.

That does not mean that I am not alive to the challenges that are part of that. Obviously, 3.5 million is an enormous number and 100,000, although a good start when not even in the open phase of the scheme, is encouraging but I know there is a great deal more to do. I am sure hon. Members will be reassured by the fact that we will open the communications programmes very shortly.

[Nic Dakin]

We heard quite a lot of evidence from people concerned that, if we get this wrong at this point, we could create another Windrush situation further down the line. How will that be prevented?

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. If we have learned one thing from Windrush—and I sincerely hope we have learned many—it is that a declaratory system that does not give people the evidence they need to be able to affirm their right to be in the UK, to work and own property, does not work. That is why we have a scheme that I am confident will give people the evidence they need so that we can avoid a position whereby EU citizens who are here and settled are in the same situation in the future. I am conscious—Members may have heard me say this in Select Committees—that there will be children of EU citizens living in this country today who are well under the age of 16; some will be one or two years old. The hon. Member for Wirral South mentioned an ageing population and longevity, but while we in this room might be lucky to get to our late 80s, there are children who will live to 100 or 110. It is therefore important we have something that is enduring and enables them to evidence their right to be here for a century or more.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Sixth sitting)

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2019 Public Bill Committees

Division 5

Ayes: 8

---

Labour: 6
Scottish National Party: 2

Noes: 10

---

Conservative: 10

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 22, in clause 4, page 3, line 10, at end insert—

“(5A) Regulations under subsection (1) must not be made until the Secretary of State has undertaken and published an impact assessment of the effect of the regulations on the United Kingdom’s health, social care and medical research sectors.

(5B) An impact assessment under subsection (5A) above must include, but is not limited to, an assessment of the regulations impact on—

(a) the health and social care workforce;

(b) the cancer workforce; and

(c) the medical research workforce.

(5C) An impact assessment under subsection 1 must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cancer, it is also a pleasure to take this opportunity to raise these issues by moving amendment 22. The measure has wide-ranging support from the cancer sector, with no fewer than 18 cancer charities urging support for it, namely Macmillan Cancer Support, Cancer Research UK, Bloodwise, Bowel Cancer UK, the Brain Tumour Charity, Brain Tumour Research, Breast Cancer Care, Breast Cancer Now, the cancer counselling group, CHAPS, CLIC Sargent, Ovarian Cancer Action, Pancreatic Cancer UK, Prostate Cancer UK, Sarcoma UK, Tackle Prostate Cancer, the Teenage Cancer Trust and Tenovus Cancer Care.

We all agree that ending freedom of movement is one of the most significant changes to immigration policy in decades. It is therefore imperative that people know what the impact of that change will be on the health and social care workforce; indeed, we touched on some of those issues in an earlier debate. Making sure that the Government are taking steps to understand fully the impact of ending freedom of movement on the health and social care workforce is important to the organisations I listed, and to the people whom they exist to support. As the Minister has said, this is something that is in the Government’s mind, but these proposals make it more important that things are carried through to a conclusion.

The purpose of the amendment is to require the Government to make arrangements to conduct an impact assessment in both Houses on the implications of ending freedom of movement for the health, social care, cancer and medical research workforces, prior to the change coming into effect. The amendment is focused on the principle of ensuring that any change of such scale and importance is not undertaken without the Government demonstrating that they have prepared properly. As the Minister is well aware, getting the preparation right is key for the future health and social care system.

Historically, the NHS workforce has relied on the support of professionals from across the world coming to the UK. In recent decades, that has included a supply of EU nationals. Nearly 10% of doctors, 8% of social care staff and 6% of nurses working in the UK are from the EEA. The Government have acknowledged that there are already pressures facing the health and social care workforce. Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland are all experiencing high vacancy rates. Given the worrying trends that we have seen since June 2016, we must ask whether leaving the EU will create further pressures.

[Maria Caulfield]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very important point. I have worked in lung cancer research. Although researchers from the EU make up 10% of the workforce, a significant problem is trying to get researchers, PhD students and scientists from around the world. The current immigration system is not working for cancer research, and reforming the whole system would greatly benefit research across the board.

[Nic Dakin]

That really underlines the importance of having a proper impact assessment so that we can minimise the risks and maximise the opportunities, to ensure that this crucial workforce can continue to deliver to the people it serves.

There has been a 90% fall in the number of European nurses coming to the UK over the past year. In addition, 14% of European doctors in Scotland and 19% in England are already in the process of leaving. The Government need to consider whether ending freedom of movement will exacerbate the issue or, as the hon. Member for Lewes said, provide opportunities that reduce the problem, which is what an impact assessment would do.

[Paul Blomfield]

Opening up opportunities from around the world is clearly an issue that we will return to, but is it not unwise to close down a particular sector of recruitment while the Government have no such proposals on the table?

[Nic Dakin]

My hon. Friend makes a salient point. As we go through the Bill in Committee, there seems to be a recurring theme of the danger of gaps. One of the issues is that if we have gaps, there is a danger that people fall through them. In this particular area, the people who might fall through them are those in need of specialist healthcare, support and treatment. None of us would want that to happen, which is why planning and preparedness are so important. Such a significant change further underlines the necessity of planning and preparedness.

Across the wider workforce, primary and acute medical and social care shortages are already impacting on people’s access to cancer care in hospitals and communities. We know that demand is growing at the same time. Macmillan Cancer Support has said that cancer is a key proxy through which to understand the importance of supporting the health and social care workforces. Improvements in diagnosis and treatment mean that more people than ever are surviving or living longer with cancer, which is a very good thing. Across the UK there are now 2.5 million people living with cancer, and the figure is expected to rise to 4 million by 2030.

To support the growing number of people living with and beyond cancer, there must be an immigration system in place to underpin and support a workforce that is capable of delivering this, alongside an appropriate skills and development system. The immigration system must also complement the very welcome long-term ambitions of this Government, and the Scottish and Welsh Governments, to improve cancer care across the United Kingdom. The plans set out in the immigration White Paper do not include a detailed analysis of the impact of ending freedom of movement on the cancer workforce or those working within the wider health and social care sector. Plans to use salaries as a barometer by which to identify skilled workers are concerning given the large number of professionals who would not meet the threshold that may be established at £30,000. I recognise that the Minister has consistently said that the threshold is being consulted on and is under review, which is a welcome message for her to continue to repeat. I hope that that message is properly delivered on as we move forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the future system is intended to be introduced from 2021 and of my commitment to achieving a deal with the EU that is supported by Parliament, so that we can have transitional arrangements, which are crucial. However, now is not the appropriate time to publish impact assessments, which will come forward at the relevant time. I therefore invite the hon. Member for Scunthorpe to withdraw the amendment.

[Nic Dakin]

I will withdraw the amendment but I would like to thank my hon. Friends for their support and for the helpful comments from the Government Benches, including the Minister’s recognition that this issue needs to be grappled with. I welcome her commitment, in the course of her roundtable meetings, to meet these groups so that the issues can be properly explored with the cancer community.

I also welcome her comments in the exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central that she is confident that at an appropriate time an immigration Bill will come forward to deal with these issues more comprehensively. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Kate Green]

I beg to move amendment 27, in clause 4, page 3, line 10, at end insert—

‘(5A) Any regulations issued under subsection (1) which enable children of EEA or Swiss nationals to be removed from the United Kingdom must include—

(a) a requirement to obtain an individual Best Interests Assessment before a decision is made to remove the child; and

(b) a requirement to obtain a Best Interest Assessment in relation to any child whose human rights may be breached by a decision to remove.

(5B) The assessment under subsection (5A) must cover, but is not limited to—

(a) the ascertainable wishes and feelings of the child concerned (considered in the light of his or her age and understanding);

(b) the child’s physical, emotional and educational needs;

(c) the likely effects, including psychological effects, on the child of the removal;

(d) the child’s age, sex, background and any characteristics of the child the assessor considers relevant;

(e) any harm which the child is at risk of suffering if the removal takes place;

(f) how capable the parent facing removal with the child, and any other person in relation to whom the assessor considers the question to be relevant, is of meeting his or her needs;

(g) the citizenship rights of the child including whether they may be stateless and have rights to British citizenship.

(5C) The assessment must be carried out by a suitably qualified and independent professional.

(5D) Psychological or psychiatric assessments must be obtained in appropriate cases.

(5E) The results of the assessment must be recorded in a written plan for the child.”

This amendment would ensure that before a decision is taken to remove an EEA or Swiss national child from the UK a comprehensive best interest assessment is obtained.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Alison McGovern]

I can think of a reason: because they want to take decisions on these rights based on negotiating interests and the potential gain they might get for their agenda. It seems clear that that has always been the manner in which the rights of EU nationals would be treated. I am afraid warm words are not enough. It is perfectly reasonable—and something I would expect every member of the Committee to be able to do—to say that we personally feel no animus towards EU nationals and that people are welcome in this country. However, it is one thing to say those words and another to do what is necessary to guarantee that they are true. I can think of no reason why the Government would not do as my hon. Friend has suggested.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the fact that this is not dealt with in the Bill as clearly as it could be is unsettling for not only EU nationals but businesses? It interrupts business continuity in a way that is not helpful to the UK economy.

[Alison McGovern]

I agree with my hon. Friend, who makes a good point. I never thought I would be in Committee lecturing the Conservative party on the needs of British business, but we are where we are. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston made the point very well that we are creating not simplicity but an extraordinarily high level of uncertainty, and uncertainty is costly to the British economy. I am sure we will discuss the costs of the Brexit process during the Bill, but the Government could be handling the Bill better. They could have come up with the immigration White Paper long before they did, and we could have spent time in the past two and a bit years since the referendum discussing that very thing, but they have held off and postponed—and here we are now. People have no real idea what situation EU nationals will be in after the end of March. That is utterly intolerable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

A good number of useful and interesting points were raised by hon. Members. I just want to start by correcting one point made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton who said it was a fact that free movement would end when we leave the single market. Free movement, as hon. Members know, was frozen into UK law last year, which is why we need the Bill so that we can end free movement, which will not happen automatically when we leave the EU.

Hon. Members are right to point out that there may be a gap. There could be a gap either way. It is perfectly feasible that the Bill will not gain Royal Assent until after we leave the European Union and it is certainly possible to envisage the circumstances in which the Bill might gain Royal Assent before we leave the EU. It is an important Bill and, although I have been accused of putting the cart before the horse, that is not the case. It is not premature; it is something that we must do.

Several hon. Members raised the rights of the 3.5 million EU citizens living in the UK and were absolutely right to do so. They will also know that we hope very much to address that in the withdrawal agreement Bill in the event of a deal. I am probably one of the few in the room to have voted consistently for the deal every time it has come before the House [Interruption.] Okay, they are all raising their hands now. I certainly have done. It is really important that we secure a deal and, in so doing, have the withdrawal agreement. I will have the joy of also serving on that Bill Committee and will take through the citizens’ rights principles that we are determined to secure.

I do not intend to bore hon. Members on this subject but it is one of my favourites. They will know that we opened the EU settled status scheme last year in its first trial phase. We are now into the third open beta testing phase. I am not in any way complacent about that. These large projects are opened in private beta testing first in order to iron out the bugs, problems and issues that may crop up. It is fair to say that there have been issues, but we have been able to learn from the process and react relatively quickly to iron them out. I am pleased that so far 100,000 people have gone through the process and more are applying every single day.

That does not mean that I am not alive to the challenges that are part of that. Obviously, 3.5 million is an enormous number and 100,000, although a good start when not even in the open phase of the scheme, is encouraging but I know there is a great deal more to do. I am sure hon. Members will be reassured by the fact that we will open the communications programmes very shortly.

[Nic Dakin]

We heard quite a lot of evidence from people concerned that, if we get this wrong at this point, we could create another Windrush situation further down the line. How will that be prevented?

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. If we have learned one thing from Windrush—and I sincerely hope we have learned many—it is that a declaratory system that does not give people the evidence they need to be able to affirm their right to be in the UK, to work and own property, does not work. That is why we have a scheme that I am confident will give people the evidence they need so that we can avoid a position whereby EU citizens who are here and settled are in the same situation in the future. I am conscious—Members may have heard me say this in Select Committees—that there will be children of EU citizens living in this country today who are well under the age of 16; some will be one or two years old. The hon. Member for Wirral South mentioned an ageing population and longevity, but while we in this room might be lucky to get to our late 80s, there are children who will live to 100 or 110. It is therefore important we have something that is enduring and enables them to evidence their right to be here for a century or more.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Nicholas Dakin Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Q Finally, some of the witnesses in Tuesday’s session were concerned about the prospects of exploitation in a minority of cases because, if workers were tied to a particular employer or were towards the end of a visa that lasted for only a year or less, there was limited prospect of anyone else taking them on. One solution might be to have a multi-year visa so people at least have the opportunity to come back for a future season somewhere different.

James Porter: That sounds quite sensible. We had the SAW scheme previously, and we worked with it until it was ended when the EU accession countries came in. The agencies are quite closely on top of communicating with the people they place on farms, but I can understand that if someone was compelled to stay on one farm, it might be quite difficult for them to speak out if they did not have alternatives. I am sure there may be ways of trying to make that simpler. Perhaps if they received a visa to work in agriculture and were not compelled to stay in one place, that would give them a bit more freedom if they were not happy where they were.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Q Going back to tier 2 visas, at the moment the fee to recruit a tier 2 worker is more than £1,000. If that type of system went forward, would that present any difficulties, or does that seem a reasonable level?

James Porter: One thousand pounds per seasonal worker?

[Nic Dakin]

That is the cost for tier 2 at the moment.

James Porter: We are working to a pretty tight budget, so I would not be over-keen to pay that. It does not make sense to me. I can understand if there were rational reasons for putting in restrictions to labour, such as a ready and willing labour pool in the UK that was able to do those jobs, but that simply is not there. I do not understand the rationale for adding costs on an industry where things are already tight. There is no doubt about that.

[Nic Dakin]

Q You have illustrated very well the tightness of the industry. We had Alan Manning from the Migratory Advisory Committee here on Tuesday, who seemed to say that people just need to pay more.

James Porter: I think I have quite clearly illustrated how much more we have paid over the last 20 years—it has gone up significantly in the last five. It is all very well saying you have to pay more. We are paying more but we are not getting paid any more for what we produce, and we have no prospect of being paid more. The alternative is to say, “We will just export that production and we will pay someone £2 a day in Morocco or somewhere to grow it.” I do not think that is productive.

[The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)]

Q You have been very clear about the investment and innovation that have gone into the sector, with table-top growing, and so on. How far off do you think mechanised picking of soft fruit is?

James Porter: It could be a little like nuclear fusion—it might always be five years off, because it is so complicated. One of those robots takes about 10 seconds to pick one strawberry. They are really not quick. There are research and projects ongoing, but certainly, for the near to medium term I do not see it. You have to remember that you might get a strawberry picking machine, but you then have to develop a blueberry one, a raspberry one and a blackberry one. It is not in the near future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Eleanor Smith]

Q You mentioned the Americans and the figure of 45%, and we keep saying that it is realistic that we are trying to get 95%. Is that realistic? How is it feasible for the Home Office to do that in two years?

Joe Owen: It is very unrealistic that there will be 100%, although I may come to regret saying that. Considering that we do not entirely know how many EU citizens are in the UK and exactly where they are, trying to target them is a huge challenge. You have already heard from a number of people about the can’ts, the don’ts and the won’ts. There will be some who cannot get status, even if they want to, because they do not have the right information, they cannot access the internet or for other valid reasons. There will be the don’ts—children or elderly people, for example—who do not know that they need to apply. Then there are the won’ts, who are the people who say, “I completely disagree with this as a policy; I think it is ridiculous and I am not going to do it as a matter of principle.”

Those people will exist. The first two categories are likely to be filled with more vulnerable people, as previous people giving evidence have attested. There needs to be a recognition that designing for 100% is the wrong way to go. The right way to go is to make sure that there are sufficient safeguards and clarity in the system about what happens to people who do not have settled status at the end of the two years, possibly for very good reasons, and what will happen to those who we think do not have good reasons as to why they do not have settled status. Having clarity about what will happen to those people—they will inevitably exist—at the back end of the two years is really important.

[Nic Dakin]

Q What is your view about the proposals outlined in the European temporary leave to remain scheme for EU citizens who arrive in the UK after 29 March, in the event of no deal?

Joe Owen: As I have previously said, it seems like a workaround to a problem. There is a political imperative to do something to end free movement, but practically it is really difficult, because EU citizens need to be given time to apply; you need the White Paper and the new system needs to be up and running. Until there are those two things, it is almost impossible to meaningfully end free movement. We therefore have a system where, for citizens coming into the UK, it will be exactly as it is now; and then after three months, if they want to stay longer, they can apply for temporary registration, which will be largely a security check. There is nothing to enforce whether people have that or not. If I go to my employer at the end of 2020 with a European passport, they do not know if I am someone who has lived here for 30 years and has not claimed settled status yet, or if I turned up a year ago and I have not bothered to do the registration scheme. There is a real difficulty about how this will practically be enforced.

As I said, another issue is what happens at the back end, when the new system comes into place and people who are here—who have either registered or have not registered—apply for the new system. If they are unsuccessful, what happens to them and what is the treatment of them? What kicks in around that, again knowing that large groups of people are likely to be in that situation? People will be expecting that to be dealt with in a way that carries public confidence.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Q You spoke a couple of times about the possibility that the enforcement system would have to adapt or changes would have to be made to the back end of the system, as I think you referred to it, to do with the large group of people that will inevitably miss the deadline. Can you say any more about how you can see this system adapting? How far can it really change from what it is? What sorts of things do you have in mind?

Joe Owen: There are some questions around built-in safeguards in the immigration enforcement and caseworking system within the Home Office. There have already been quite positive steps, with a team of senior caseworkers being established in response to Windrush last year. They are there to provide a bit more discretion—a second pair of eyes—on some of the difficult cases. How do we build that into the system to ensure that there is a safeguard for people who have characteristics that make you think that the person has been caught up without the right paperwork, but would have been covered under the withdrawal agreement? Addressing some of the structural and process questions—assuming that the policy around the hostile environment or compliant environment of enforcement through public services, landlords and employers continues—would seem to be one way. There is also more that can be done with people who end up being the arm of immigration enforcement, such as landlords and employers, through education and outreach. Those are some of the more processy things, rather than questions of policy.