Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill [Lords]

Nigel Evans Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 19th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, I thank all right hon. and hon Members for their contributions. This is a complex issue, and that is clear from the level of scrutiny and debate we have seen thus far. The Bill seeks to find a balance—the shadow Home Secretary referred to that very word, “balance”—between necessary investigatory powers and not having a Big Brother, nanny state.

I thank, as others have done, the security forces and those involved in the intelligence sector for all that they do, their work and their commitment and dedication to the job, which have made all our lives safer. Many in this House—I know a few, anyway—could say that they owe their lives to them, and I would be one of them. I thank them very much for all they have done.

I am keen to see work on international terrorism. I was talking to my friend, the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), about how international terrorism works. The Real IRA has contacts in the middle east and eastern Europe. It has contacts where all evil organisations come together, because their ultimate intention is to create havoc and murder innocent people. This Bill is important, because it can address terrorism in Northern Ireland and its contacts with international terrorism. I hope and pray that the work will be successful. As someone who has lived through years of terrorism, I am well used to curtailed freedoms, with checkpoints and stop and search. I have understood the necessity for that and have been thankful for those protections. Let me be clear: I have no issue whatever with this Bill in principle, but I have some questions for the Minister.

Various constituents have contacted me to express concerns, and I want to put those on record, ever mindful of supporting the Government on this issue as measures come forward. I will take a few moments to seek some clarification. First, a concern has been outlined to me about having a notification requirement to require operators to inform the Secretary of State if they propose to make changes to their products or services, and I am sure that other Members have received that briefing. Open Rights Group states:

“While this objective may appear to be reasonable, it would allow the Home Office to prevent secure services from launching in the UK, even where they are rolled out elsewhere. This provision would allow the Home Office to place itself in a position of power over the provider as soon as it hears about the possibility of data being less accessible than it is currently. This situation would take place without reference to an independent authority to assess the rationale or proportionality. Such a move might not be proportionate, for instance, if the security technology had already been introduced safely and with demonstrable benefits to users in other parts of the world.

Open Rights Group is concerned that these powers could deny people the access to technological developments upon which people’s free expression and right to privacy rely. For example, major tech providers such as Apple have stated that they would pull certain services from the UK rather than compromise their security if this power was used to prevent them from rolling out security updates.”

I gently ask the Minister to be clear about why the presumption should not be made in the manner I outlined and what discussions have taken place to ensure that providers such as Apple can work securely in the UK. The right hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman) referred to the dark web and all the things that can happen in it. It is really important that the dark web is taken care of in this legislation.

Also highlighted to me were end-to-end encryption issues and the inability of service providers to see service users’ content in their apps and systems. I am not a technical whizz kid; I am the very opposite. I am of that old generation who can just about do text messages on their phone and turn on Zoom meetings, but if something goes wrong, I am lost. When it comes to technology, I am not au fait with it, but I do know this. I understand the need for people with no question mark above them whatsoever to know that their messages are private and that the Government are not storing information—that could be accessed by others—on them for no reason. It is important that that never happens.

Data breaches affected staff in my office when my accounts in the House were hacked in the last fortnight. We let the security people know, and I understand that it is not unusual for it to happen, but when it does and people’s content is accessed, it is important that such breaches are taken care of. We have also had the breach of data on police officers in Northern Ireland. Those are both testament to the fact that breaches occur. Therefore, only what is essential should ever be gathered and stored. Reference was made to the need to have robust monitoring and regulation. If that had been in place, the Police Service of Northern Ireland data breaches, which I think disadvantaged more than 3,500 people, would never have happened.

While I cannot browse and shop online—I have no interest in doing so—watch TV programmes online or do any of those other things, I do believe that there is a need for privacy. My concern is that the Bill is encroaching too far on those whom the Government have no reason to hold data on. I ask the Minister again to make it clear why any online search history should be stored. These are gentle questions—they are not meant to be intrusive or aggressive—but it is important that I put these matters on the record on behalf of the constituents who have contacted me.

I highlight the concerns of my constituent that the Bill’s proposed measures are poised to

“profoundly impact political dissidents and opposition figures residing in the UK. Refugees, political exiles and human rights advocates who have sought refuge in the UK deserve the assurance of digital safety and security.”

I seek that assurance for those who have fled offensive and oppressive regimes and sought refuge in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I would further appreciate an insight into how we can ensure that there is freedom to express opposition, yet not see harmful rhetoric. That balance is clearly difficult to reach. I seek the necessary clarification that we have struck that balance. I very much look forward to hearing from the Minister, because I believe that his response will encapsulate the questions we have asked and give us the answers that we desire.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We come now to the wind-ups.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I note that there is some interest in this debate. It must end by 1.18 pm, so I ask Members to be mindful of the contributions that they make.

Tackling Spiking

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Laura Farris]

I can provide my hon. Friend with that reassurance. The critical part of our response today is that we are working at every single level from the barman to the bouncer to the statute book. We recognise it as critical that people are protected when they are out at night and if they have cause to go to the police the following day. Our objective is to stamp out spiking.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I would like to thank the Minister for her statement and for responding to questions for over 40 minutes. I am now going to seamlessly hand over to Sir Roger Gale.

Bill Presented

General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules (Amendment) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Daisy Cooper presented a Bill to provide that an allegation concerning a medical practitioner’s fitness to practise may be considered by the General Medical Council irrespective of when the most recent events giving rise to the allegation occurred; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the first time; to be read a second time on Friday 26 April 2024, and to be printed (Bill 142).

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 12th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)]

Public services are on the verge of collapse, the gap between rich and poor has widened, and we are slipping back into the Victorian era. Food bank use is at an all-time high, and workers have not had a decent pay rise in 15 years. But we are not here today to talk about those things—in fact, we are barely ever here to talk about them in any meaningful way. We are here to legislate on the dog-whistle, fantasist policies of the Conservative party, who are electioneering when they should be governing, not offering any real solutions to problems and attempting to divert attention from their own failings as a Government. They are wasting the time of this House and squandering the good will of the people of this country.

We keep going round and round on this matter. Our Supreme Court has ruled on it: it found Rwanda to be unsafe, a ruling that was based on evidence. Legislating the opposite is not going to rid us of the facts. This is not an exercise in parliamentary sovereignty, but an abuse of this Parliament’s functions. It undermines the rule of law and the constitutional separation of powers. Yes, we are lawmakers and we can make and change the law, but the law cannot be used to change the facts.

Another fact is that the treaty with Rwanda, coupled with the Bill, breaches many of our obligations under international law. If that were in doubt in any way, the Government have helpfully outlined that fact throughout the entire Bill. Clause 3, for example, disapplies key sections of the Human Rights Act. It directly prevents the courts from applying the Bill in a way that is compatible with convention rights, it prevents any consideration of previous rulings of the European Court of Human Rights that have found Rwanda to be unsafe, and it removes human rights obligations from public bodies, including courts. The Bill would place an obligation on every single decision maker who has found Rwanda unsafe to simply rule it as safe. It restricts the courts’ ability to protect people who are at risk of harm, and it restricts individual legal protections. Do the Government fully understand what that means? Do they see how far they have sunk? Are they so fanatical about this flawed policy that they would bar courts from considering the very reasons why Rwanda might be unsafe, stripping people of individual legal protections?

From the very outset, this Bill has been ridiculous. Conservative Members would do well to note that there is no more empire. International law is not whatever we say it is; it is comprised of agreements and treaties adopted by Members of this House, and to dismiss them as the rules of foreign courts is as irresponsible as it is untrue. We signed up to those solemn and binding rules, so the Bill risks our international reputation and makes us hypocrites. How dare we condemn other countries that do not uphold international law, and how dare we preach to them, when we would undermine the rule of law ourselves? This Government do not really care about that, though. They care more about the squabbles of the Conservative party than our standing as a country.

If this Government were serious about resolving the issues surrounding small boats, they would do more to target people traffickers, and they would provide safe and legal routes. People do not take those perilous journeys for fun: they are often fleeing some of the worst persecution. They are some of the most vulnerable people in the world, not the Conservative party’s scapegoats. As has already been said, those who seek asylum from countries such as Ukraine and Hong Kong do not have to come by unconventional means because the Government have given them the ability to come by other means. The Government need to stop misleading the public with their use of the word “illegal”, because seeking asylum in this country is not illegal; it is not against any of our laws, domestic or international.

It is the Government who have exacerbated the problems in the asylum system, not the vulnerable people who are seeking asylum. We know this because the vast majority of claims are justified. After lengthy delays, three quarters of applications are accepted. The longer these processes drag on, the longer refugees and asylum seekers are prevented from rebuilding their lives in this country, and from working and contributing to our economy.

This Government have already spent hundreds of millions of pounds on a policy that is as crap as it is unworkable. [Interruption.] There is nothing more telling than the fact that the Secretary of State has been unable to make a section 19 statement. He could not say that this Bill was compatible with the European convention on human rights. The Home Secretary means to take us all for fools. For the second time this year, he cannot say that his plans for removing asylum seekers to Rwanda will not break international law. The Rwandan Government have been very clear. They have said that they will not continue with this deal if it does not meet the highest standards of international law. This Bill does not do that. This Government are wasting our time. This is not going to work, and I am not even sure it was meant to.

I am sick and tired of being dragged to this House to approve legislation that does nothing to improve the lives of my constituents or uphold the values of our society. This Bill should simply not be allowed to go any further.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I am sure that when Members rush to read Hansard tomorrow, they will read the word “crass”.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

indicated assent.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Thank you, and I am sure that Hansard will have taken note of that.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Daly]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We have heard some blanket statements about immigration, but one of the curious things I found when speaking to people on the beaches was that the people seeking immigration to this country were all males, all single and all of a certain age. There were virtually no females in any of the places we were taken.

We are escaping both from what our constituents want and from the reality that motivates people. When I was in those camps, people told me, “We are told that the United Kingdom’s streets are paved with gold. When we go there, we are going to be provided with a lot of financial support through benefits and other things.” That is what is motivating the vast majority of these people to come to this country. Listening to Opposition Members, we would think that nobody in the world has that motivation to come here; that everyone is fleeing some type of persecution. That is utter nonsense.

Our constituents expect us, as a Government and as a Parliament, to put in place a suite of measures to address the problem happening in the channel. This Bill, as many of my hon. and right hon. Friends have said, is one of a number of measures being taken by this Government, on which they should be congratulated.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness said, although nobody seemed to pick up the point, the French authorities told us that a deterrent effect and policy—the Rwanda policy—is absolutely necessary. We saw, as did the French authorities, that when the policy was first announced, even though people were potentially coming over the channel, there was a drop in cases. The spike came only when it became clear that, through various legal means, the policy would not be taken forward.

Not only do the French authorities think we need a deterrent, and not only are countries such as Germany, the United States, Italy and Austria all saying that they need some type of policy and they need to follow the UK’s lead, but it is what our constituents want. We cannot have a situation where we cannot house people, where people cannot get a doctor’s appointment and where people cannot afford a house. That may be acceptable to Opposition Members, but we cannot have a situation where we have 10,000 foreign national offenders in our prison system. We have to take measures that reflect the will of the people, not the will of middle-class, liberal consciences. I sometimes feel it is more important for some to moralise than actually be concerned about what motivates their constituents and what we should be doing in this place.

I have heard two objections to the Bill, one of which relates to rule 39 injunctions. I wish to ask the Minister about that, because I agree completely with what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox) said. May I ask the Minister to comment on the Government’s legal advice? I say that because, technically, the Government can ignore rule 39 injunctions; that is what the Bill states, although he may be able to tell me something different. I think that is an important part of the Bill and I would be grateful if he would comment on it.

I respect every contribution made by a Conservative Member, but I cannot believe that anyone thinks—I have certainly not read any legal advice that thinks this—that we should exclude the right of appeal or, in extreme circumstances, the right to challenge whether someone should be taken to a foreign country. There must be such circumstances. Even the star chamber advice says that there must be at least form of allowance in respect of that. The legal test that the Government have put in place, whereby somebody must show “compelling evidence” that they would suffer “serious and irreversible harm”, is a strong one. It will address, both legally and practically, everything that our constituents want us to do.

This is a good policy—one that the Government have worked hard to refine. It is within the bounds of international law and of what this Government have undertaken to the country, which is to tackle illegal migration and stop the boats crossing the channel.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I must now impose a five-minute limit.

UK-Rwanda Partnership

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement about the Government’s plan to stop the boats and tackle the vile trade in people smuggled across the channel.

Three weeks ago, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment on this Government’s migration and economic development agreement with Rwanda. In that judgment their lordships upheld the view of the High Court and the Court of Appeal that it is lawful to relocate illegal migrants, who have no right to be here, to another safe country for asylum processing and resettlement, but upheld the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which means that the Government cannot yet lawfully remove people to Rwanda. That was due to the Court’s concerns that relocated individuals might be “refouled”—removed to a country where they could face persecution or ill treatment. We did not agree with that assessment, but of course we respect the judgment of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court also acknowledged that its concerns were not immutable and were not an aspersion on Rwanda’s intentions, and that changes may be delivered in the future that could address its concerns. Today I can inform the House that those concerns have been conclusively answered and those changes made, as a result of intensive diplomacy by the Prime Minister, by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, by the Attorney General’s Office and by the Home Office. We have created a situation that addresses the concerns.

Our rule of law partnership with Rwanda sets out in a legally binding international treaty the obligations on both the United Kingdom and Rwanda within international law, and sets out to this House and to the courts why Rwanda is and will remain a safe country for the purposes of asylum and resettlement. This is a partnership to which we and Rwanda are completely committed. Rwanda is a safe and prosperous country. It is a vital partner for the UK. Our treaty puts beyond legal doubt the safety of Rwanda and ends the endless merry-go-round of legal challenges that have thus far frustrated this policy and second-guessed the will of Parliament. I want to put on record my gratitude to President Kagame, Foreign Minister Biruta and the Rwandan Government for working with us at pace to do what it takes to get this deal up and running with flights taking off as soon as possible.

Rwanda will introduce a strengthened end-to-end asylum system, which will include a new specialist asylum appeals tribunal to consider individual appeals against any refused claims. It will have one Rwandan and one other Commonwealth co-president and be made up of judges from a mix of nations selected by those co-presidents. We have been working with Rwanda to build capacity and to make it clear to those relocated to Rwanda that they will not be sent to another third country.

The treaty is binding in international law. It also enhances the role of the independent monitoring committee, which will ensure adherence to obligations under the treaty and have the power to set its own priority areas for monitoring. It will be given unfettered access to complete assessments and reports and to monitor the entire relocation process, from initial screening to relocation and settlement in Rwanda. It will also develop a system to enable relocated individuals and legal representatives to lodge confidential complaints directly with the committee.

But, given the Supreme Court judgment, we cannot be confident that the courts will respect a new treaty on its own, so today the Government have published emergency legislation to make it unambiguously clear that Rwanda is a safe country and to prevent the courts from second-guessing Parliament’s will. We will introduce that legislation tomorrow in the form of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, to give effect to the judgment of Parliament that Rwanda is a safe country, notwithstanding UK law or any interpretation of international law.

For the purposes of the Bill, a safe country is defined as one to which people may be removed from the United Kingdom in compliance with all the United Kingdom’s obligations under international law that are relevant to the treatment in that country of people who are removed there. This means that someone removed to that country will not be removed or sent to another country in contravention of any international law, and that anyone who is seeking asylum or who has had an asylum determination will have their claim determined and be treated in accordance with that country’s obligations under international law.

Anyone removed to Rwanda under the provisions of the treaty will not be removed from Rwanda, except to the United Kingdom in a very small number of limited and extreme circumstances, and should the UK request the return of any relocated person, Rwanda will make them available. Decision makers, including the Home Secretary, immigration officers and the courts, must all treat Rwanda as a safe country, and they must do so notwithstanding all relevant UK law or any interpretation of international law, including the human rights convention; the refugee convention; the 1966 international covenant on civil and political rights; the 1984 UN convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings, which was signed in Warsaw on 16 May 2005; customary international law; and any other international law, or convention or rule of international law, whatsoever, including any order, judgment, decision or measure of the European Court of Human Rights.

Where the European Court of Human Rights indicates an interim measure relating to the intended removal of someone to Rwanda under, or purportedly under, a provision of immigration Acts, a Minister of the Crown alone, and not a court or tribunal, will decide whether the United Kingdom will comply with the interim measure. To further prevent individual claims to prevent removal, the Bill disapplies the relevant provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998, including sections 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9. The Bill is lawful, it is fair and it is necessary, because people will stop coming here illegally only when they know that they cannot stay here and that they will be detained and quickly removed to a safe third country. It is only by breaking the cycle and delivering a deterrent that we will remove the incentive for people to be smuggled here and stop the boats.

This legislation builds on the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which the House passed this summer, and complements the basket of other measures that the UK Government are employing to end illegal migration—for example, the largest ever small boats deal with France. Tackling the supply of boats and parts, the arrest and conviction of people smugglers, and illegal working raids have all helped to drive down small boat arrivals by more than a third this year, even as the numbers are rising elsewhere in Europe.

Parliament and the public alike support the Rwanda plan. Other countries have since copied our plans with Rwanda, and we know from interviews that the prospect of being relocated out of the UK has already had a deterrent effect. This will be considerably magnified when we get the flights to Rwanda. This treaty and this new Bill will help to make that a reality, and I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The usual rule applies: only those who have been here for the statement should stand to ask a question. I call the shadow Home Secretary.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cleverly]

The calls for more from the right hon. Lady’s own Back Benchers are well placed. I was hoping that she would speak for longer, so that she would eventually get around to giving us some comments about the Bill, or the policy, or giving us some clue about what on earth Labour would do.

It is quite interesting that, once again, we see the mask slip on the Opposition Benches. The right hon. Lady was critical about the financial arrangement that goes hand in hand with the agreement that we have come to with Rwanda. It is interesting that hers is the same party that was very critical of this Government when we were forced by circumstances to reduce our official development assistance expenditure. I just want to understand the Opposition’s thinking. They seem comfortable with the idea that the UK gives away money to countries such as Rwanda to help them develop, but they seem deeply uncomfortable when those countries actually earn the money by bringing forward reform. It is, I think, a rather distasteful state of affairs that they would like to view Rwanda exclusively through the prism of development and aid, but are deeply uncomfortable when a country like Rwanda earns the money.

The simple truth is that Rwanda is making huge progress in professionalising and strengthening its institutions, working alongside the UK and other international partners. I believe that we are duty-bound to support countries such as Rwanda when they play their part in addressing the issues that the world is facing. They are helping to resolve problems, rather than being part of a problem, and they deserve our thanks for doing so.

We will pursue this legislation, which supports a treaty that sees Rwanda strengthening its institutions and addressing some of the world’s most intractable challenges, and we support it as it is supporting us.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Can people please focus on asking a question and not making statements, and please can we hear the questions and the answers in silence? There is a lot of calling out on both sides of the House.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Clearly, he is becoming incredibly familiar with the legal challenges that the Government, the country and the nation face when it comes to migration issues. Can he give us details of the assessments that have been made as to whether the disapplication of the Human Rights Act and other laws is robust, will stand up to the legal challenges and, ultimately, will ensure the delivery and the implementation of this policy to curb illegal migration?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cleverly]

The point is that all legal and judicial processes have an appeal process. By extension of my right hon. Friend’s argument, the point that there is an appeal process in UK criminal law, for example, would mean that no one ever goes to prison, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Justice has just been discussing prison places.

The point is that an appeal process is an important part of any legal process. It will not preclude people from being sent to Rwanda. This is a robust scheme that strengthens our position and ensures that the decisions we make in this House—that he, I and others make in this House—define the UK’s immigration policy, not decisions made by unelected people elsewhere.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I remind the Home Secretary to face forward, so that his voice is picked up more easily and so that people can see him.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Home Secretary and the Government will be aware that there has been some surprise at the reciprocal agreement to welcome Rwandan refugees to the United Kingdom. How can he demonstrate the safety of Rwanda as a third country while simultaneously accepting the conditions that produce refugees?

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

It is clear to the country that the Government are riven with division and chaos on this issue. Some still think that these plans are batshit, and some think that they do not go far enough, including the Immigration Minister, who has resigned. In an earlier answer today—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Did the hon. Member just swear?

[Alison Thewliss]

No, he quoted the Home Secretary!

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Please use other words.

[Neil Coyle]

Okay. In an earlier answer, the Home Secretary said that the Immigration Minister would be attending the Home Affairs Committee next Wednesday. Given that he has been embarrassed by his own team today, who will now be attending the Committee to take questions on this issue? Will it be him?

[James Cleverly]

It will be the Immigration Minister.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Thank you very much for your statement, Home Secretary, and for answering questions for well over an hour.

[Alison Thewliss]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Accuracy is incredibly important in this House, and I would not want something incorrect to be on the record. The Home Secretary said in his statement:

“Other countries have since copied our plans with Rwanda”.

I can find no evidence that that is accurate. Can you advise on this point of accuracy, Mr Deputy Speaker, because no country is copying the plan with Rwanda?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On a point of accuracy, those who are being moved to Albania will be under Italian law. That is not the case in the Rwanda plan.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

We will now move on.

Town Centre Safety

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 5th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Gullis]

I think the hon. Lady has forgotten the 7% rise in police officer pay that we saw this year. I have spoken to those officers about their living and how they work on the job, and they have of course raised with me the fact that money can be tight, but they understand that the Government have to be sensible with the public purse and cannot be seen to run amok with it, and they understand that any more money going into salaries may lead to less investment in new equipment and the technology that we need to track more crime. It may deprive them of the additional training for which they are desperate, because that is what enables them to patrol our streets. I am proud that our police are doing such a great job in recruiting 333 brand-new officers for Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire, in addition to the record numbers we are seeing across the United Kingdom. It is great news for our communities.

I like the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) a lot; she is a fine Member of Parliament—I know that will not help her on Twitter and I apologise for the grief she will now get—but she talks about Labour running police and crime, and I cannot think of anything worse, personally. The wokery that we saw the former chief constable bring in will trickle into our police force and we will see the police arresting people for thought crimes and nonsense like that, rather than having bobbies on the beat where they need to be, locking up the scumbags, scrotes and savages—that tiny minority who ruin it for the overwhelming law-abiding majority of our great community of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Follow that, Jess Phillips.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Gullis]

I reassure the hon. Lady that I completely concur with her views that our brave police officers should not have to sit with people with severe mental health disorders to keep them safe, when that is the job of the other emergency services. I will happily stand shoulder to shoulder with her and badger Government in any way necessary if there is time for legislation, because supporting our police officers should be an absolute priority of this Government.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am hoping to get on to the wind-ups by about 4.10 pm, for 10 minutes each, and we can then start the next debate shortly after that.

[Jess Phillips]

I welcome that intervention. Very noisy people from the midlands are my favourite. I actually think Stoke-on-Trent is in the north, but we are splitting hairs now.

I just think the gall to suggest that everything is all right looks really crass to the public. If hon. Members want to electioneer, as many of them seemed to want to do today, I suggest that they change that patter and do the things that they can do centrally, rather than blaming everybody else.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

If the remaining three speakers would speak for about seven minutes, we could keep to time—and Mr Brereton is going to show us how to do it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. That was a very long seven minutes, but I am sure that Kim Leadbeater will do better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Could those who took part in the debate make their way to the Chamber now for the wind-ups, which will start seven minutes after Mr Hunt starts speaking?

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

The town centre has become one of the dominant issues in Ipswich. When I talk to constituents, it comes up perhaps more than any other issue, particularly over the past year or two. In the time that I have been the MP, there have been a few tragic cases. A few months after I was elected, my constituent Richard Day was killed on St Matthew’s Street. Early this year, a teenager was killed in a knife attack in broad daylight on Westgate Street. That had a chilling effect throughout the town. Just a few days ago, at the Clapgate Lane Conservative Club, an attacker held a knife to the throat of one of my constituents. I have written to those at the club and will be visiting it soon to discuss how they are recovering from that incident, which was very chilling.

The thing about the town centre is that some of the most inspiring people I have met in Ipswich have been in town centre businesses. Just this Monday, before travelling to Parliament, I visited Miss Quirky Kicks, which has relocated in Ipswich and has a new café-bar—if anybody in Ipswich is listening and wants to go, I suggest that they do. There is also Geek Retreat Ipswich, which of course is part of a national franchise but is actually pretty decentralised. Geek Retreat Ipswich does fantastic work. It had its two-year anniversary recently. Its work to support neurodiverse individuals in particular should be commended.

As the Member of Parliament for an area that has a great history and a town centre with inspirational businesses, but which faces challenges, it is sometimes difficult to get the balance right between representing the concerns of my constituents and not talking the town down. That is a difficult balancing act, and although I do my best to get it right, some people might think that I do not always get it right. I cannot pretend that things are a bed of roses, because I think my constituents would look at me and wonder if I was on something, so I have to speak frankly and directly about the challenges as I see them.

When I knock on doors at the moment, I hear the reality that a lot of Ipswich residents who have lived in the town their whole lives are shunning their own town centre; they are going to Bury St Edmunds, Woodbridge and other areas. That is a problem, and there are many reasons for it. Some of the things that affect our town centre affect town and city centres up and down the country, and they are not easy to tackle: the growth of online retail; empty units; business rates, which need further reform; and, of course, the Labour council’s car-parking charge, which, according to my recent survey, 76% of people think are too high—I am just dropping that one in there.

Safety and crime is probably the No. 1 issue. The reality is that large numbers of my constituents do not go into the town centre because they do not feel safe and secure doing so. On that point, we have had shared prosperity funding to increase the number of PCSOs in the town centre during daylight hours, we have had safer streets funding and, of course, we have had our share of the 20,000 police officer uplift, so we have more bobbies on the beat in the town centre. In the Suffolk constabulary, I deal perhaps the most with Superintendent Martin. I have a huge amount of time and respect for what the constabulary does—it will always have my backing.

What people are saying in their responses to my survey is clear. I personally enter all the survey responses myself. So far, I have entered almost 1,000 responses. It is a bit of a weird thing, but I like to feel the responses, and I can only do so if I enter them myself—it is very strange and is making my flat look a bit of a bomb site at the moment, with envelopes and surveys everywhere. But anyway, the nuts and bolts of the issue are that, when asked, “Do you support a zero-tolerance approach to antisocial behaviour?”, 91% of responding constituents agreed. When it comes to the groups of large men we see—the groups of large men congregating and acting in a very antisocial way in the town centre, who are not dispersed by or engaged with by the police as directly as I would like—some 88% of those who responded to my survey said that they think those groups should be dispersed. Shoplifting is also a problem in the town, and 91% of respondents agreed that there should be tougher punishments for shoplifting, while only 3% disagreed.

The survey asked people which two of seven things would make the biggest difference towards getting them back into the town centre, and No. 1 of the seven was the police adopting a tougher, zero-tolerance approach to antisocial behaviour, so although I have a huge amount of respect for our police, we need more of them in the town centre. In addition, we need them to adopt a more robust attitude to dealing with the individuals in the town centre who are blighting the experience for the majority of my constituents and undermining a beautiful town and its historic centre. If people are not going into the town centre because of the behaviour of a small minority, that is a real problem.

On the shoplifting point, we do need to have the deterrent there. There is a challenge here, however, because some of those engaging in shoplifting are younger. One of the businesses I spoke to earlier this week said that those engaged in shoplifting are 16 and 17-year-olds, so it can be more challenging to deal with them.

In conclusion, based on my survey responses, when it comes to town centre safety, we need to boost the police presence in the town centre, adopt a zero-tolerance attitude and crack down incredibly hard on the rogue minority who are blighting the experience of the majority. We need to disperse the groups of large men who are hanging around and put in place much tougher punishments for those who engage in shoplifting. We have a great town in Ipswich—I am very proud to represent it—but the reality of the situation is that thousands of my constituents are shunning their own town centre because they do not feel safe. That is not me talking down the town; it is me seeking to represent my constituents. I am not going to stand here and pretend that everything is wonderful. Yes, I welcome the uplift and the shared prosperity funding, but we need action. We need to turn the situation around, and I will continue to work with the Minister—for whom I have quite a lot of time—to try to get robust action for my constituents.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the shadow Minister to start the wind-ups.

Criminal Justice Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 28th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Tracey Crouch]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady. People who find themselves sleeping rough on the streets are in a desperate situation, and the provisions in the Bill will do nothing to help them. Our local authorities, which often get a bad rap for the consequences of rough sleeping, have many officers doing brilliant work in trying to support rough sleepers. We need a holistic approach to tackling that issue. We do not need to criminalise them through these provisions, some of which, by the way, are laughable, respectfully. We have the idea that a prevention notice can be served to a rough sleeper at their last known address in writing. I am not entirely sure why that provision is even in there.

The point is that we need to be supporting people who are rough sleeping. I get that there is an issue with aggressive begging. In fact, various mayors across our metropolitan cities have said that, but rough sleeping does not need to be criminalised. We got rid of that as part of the Vagrancy Act repeal, which was supported by the Government. All we are doing is bringing that criminalisation in by the back door.

I will support the Bill on Second Reading because of the other measures, but I strongly urge the Government to remove the clauses on nuisance rough sleeping from the Bill. If not, I will certainly lend my name to amendments to remove those clauses from the Bill, on which I hope I would get cross-party support as a consequence. There are other ways of dealing with rough sleeping, rather than criminalising people.

The Bill also contains welcome measures to improve public confidence in policing after significant failings within forces to identify and investigate criminal behaviours. Those are welcome, given the shocking high-profile cases of recent years, but I suggest we reflect on how we protect good officers who do their job in challenging and fast-moving situations from prosecution. The Times on Saturday reported on the prosecution of PC Paul Fisher, who crashed en route to south London, where Sudesh Amman, a convicted terrorist, had stabbed two members of the public. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley said that it

“undermines the confidence of all officers using their powers to keep the public safe.”

He is spot on.

A constituent of mine—a frontline Metropolitan police dog handler—was sentenced today having been found guilty of actual bodily harm after apprehending a dangerous criminal, who was subsequently sentenced to 14 months in prison. At the time, he was hailed “brave” and a “hero”. A complaint made from prison was dismissed by every level of the internal standards process, and it was only when the prisoner appealed again that it ended up in court, with the shocking guilty verdict. My constituent’s 21 years of exemplary service are in tatters due to a system that actively works against frontline officers and instead advocates for passive policing. We do need to improve standards of policing across our forces, but, at the same time, we need to protect those officers who are doing their jobs.

I turn to issues that would be helpful inclusions in the Bill. This morning, the first part of the inquiry into the depraved acts of David Fuller in the mortuaries of the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust was published. The families of the victims of Fuller are always at the front of our minds when we, the MPs whose constituencies are covered by the trust and where many of them live, are informed about the inquiry. We collectively agree that the Government, the NHS and the trust should accept and act on the recommendations of Sir Jonathan’s report without delay.

Fuller will rightly serve the rest of his life in prison for the heinous crimes he committed, but there are two additional aspects of his crimes that the Government must also act on. First, the woefully short maximum sentence of two years for anyone found guilty of the sexual assault of a dead body needs to be substantially increased to at least 10 years, as per Baroness Noakes’s amendment to the previous Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. Secondly, the current legislation applies only to the sexual assault of a dead body that involves penetration. Given the sensitivity of this matter, and on this day when coincidently the inquiry published its report and we are debating the Bill, I do not want to go into further details, but, in short, non-penetrative sexual assault of a dead body is not included under existing legislation, and that needs to be changed. I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who is currently abroad on Government business, will table an amendment to the Bill to that end. I truly hope that we will never see such depravity again, but in memory of those who were victims of Fuller’s crimes, we must ensure that the offence covers all acts of assault and that sentences are increased significantly.

I turn to an entirely different point. I am surprised not to see in the Bill a specific offence of tailgating at football matches. The House will have seen Baroness Casey’s report following the violence at the Euro 2020 finals. Tailgating causes significant operational, safety and security problems for major events at Wembley stadium as well as other football matches across the country—I witnessed that as I experienced the surge of those illegally attempting entry to Wembley as I queued to get into the final. I understand that the Home Office agrees with the recommendation for a specific offence and that King’s counsel has recommended to the FA that that can be done through either an update to the Football (Offences) Act 1991 via statutory instrument, or adding it to the Bill. Given that the Bill is in front of us, it feels like a missed opportunity not to include that offence in it, so I will happily table an amendment to ensure that it is in place long before we host Euro 2028.

Finally, there is one other point that I was surprised not to see in the Bill. There are many reasons for us to be disappointed that the Government dropped the kept animals Bill, but one particular reason, which is relevant to this Bill, is that it would have introduced a specific pet abduction offence. Given that there is no debate about the harm and impact of pet theft, I was surprised not to see the offence included in this already wide-ranging bill. There has been an increase in pet theft, and the Government’s pet theft taskforce believes that pet owners should not live in fear of this cruel crime. Since this was in our manifesto, I hope the Government will either table an amendment or support a Back Benchers’ amendment that creates a stand-alone offence and bring reassurance to the millions of pet owners across the country.

I appreciate that I have raised a varied list of points, and that others wish to speak and I am running out of time. In summary, this is an important Bill—our last Criminal Justice Bill before the election. There are things in it that we need to do. There are things in it that we do not need to do. There are still things that we need to put into it. Fortunately, we have an excellent ministerial team responsible for the Bill. I look forward to working with them as it progresses through Parliament.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

Dangerous Drugs

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Before I call Alison Thewliss, I point out that, as Members can see, there is a bit of interest in the debate. I will not impose a time limit, but I intend to call the Minister no later than 6.30 pm. If there are to be Divisions, they will come when the Minister sits down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

As I said, I will be calling the Minister at 6.30 pm, if not before. Three Members wish to speak. If you could all help one another so that everybody gets in, that would be really useful. I call Ronnie Cowan.

Illegal Migration Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 11th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Lords amendments 2, 6 to 9, 12, 20 and 22, Government motions to disagree and Government amendments (a) to (o) in lieu of Lords amendments 2, 12, 20 and 22.

Lords amendments 23 and 30, and Government motions to disagree.

Lords amendments 31 to 36, Government motions to disagree and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendments 31, 35 and 36.

Lords amendments 37 and 38, Government motions to disagree and Government amendments (a) to (e) in lieu of Lords amendments 37 and 38.

Lords amendments 39 to 67, and Government motions to disagree.

Lords amendments 73 and 74, Government motions to disagree and Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendments 73 and 74.

Lords amendment 90, Government motion to disagree and Government amendments (a) to (c) to the words so restored to the Bill.

Lords amendment 93, and Government motion to disagree.

Lords amendment 95, Government motion to disagree and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.

Lords amendments 102 to 104 and 107, and Government motions to disagree.

Lords amendments 3 to 5, 10, 11, 13 to 19, 21, 24 to 29, 68 to 72, 75 to 89, 91, 92, 94, 96 to 101, 105, 106 and 108 to 114.

[Robert Jenrick]

This Bill is vital to stopping the boats and preventing the dangerous, illegal and unnecessary journeys across the channel. The Bill as passed by this House made it unambiguously clear to illegal migrants and people smugglers alike that, if they come to this country by unlawful means, they will not be able to stay. Instead, they will be detained and swiftly removed either to their home country or to a safe third country.

The Government brought forward a number of amendments in the Lords to enhance the Bill. These are largely of a technical nature, so I will not detain the House by setting these out now. Instead, I will confine my remarks to the non-Government amendments passed by the other place. I am grateful to the House of Lords for undertaking its proper role as a revising Chamber. Some of the changes made by the other place are, however, little short of wrecking amendments, and are not ones that the Government can support. There are a few honourable exceptions and I will deal with those first.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am looking to see whether people are standing who did not put in to speak, and there are a couple at least. Thank you very much. You can resume your seats.

Royal Assent

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that His Majesty has signified his Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Finance (No. 2) Act 2023

Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Act 2023

National Security Act 2023.

Illegal Migration Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 11th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. It is clear to me that this debate is going to go the distance, and a number of people are trying to catch my eye. We have only two hours left, so may I ask for brevity, as it would be incredibly useful in trying to get everybody in? I call Theresa May.

[Mrs May]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to concentrate my remarks on Lords amendments 2 and 56. I welcome the Government’s movement on the issue of retrospection. Whatever the motivation, it does mean that people who come here and are subjected to slavery, and who arrived after 7 March and before the commencement of the Bill, will get support. I welcome that.

However, of course I want support to continue for the victims of modern slavery here in the UK after commencement of the Bill. Hence my interest, as a former Home Secretary and long-standing Member of this House, in Lords amendment 56, which was tabled by Lord Randall. The Bill has been marketed as a stop the boats Bill. We all want to stop the boats. Nobody wants to see people risking their lives in small boats going across the channel, as we do not want to see people risking their lives in unseaworthy vessels going across the Mediterranean. However, this Bill is not just written to stop the boats; it covers all illegal migration and its unwritten subtext is the “stop certain victims’ claims of modern slavery” Bill. This is not about stopping false claims of modern slavery; it is about stopping all claims, full stop. That is where I depart from the Government.

When I was Home Secretary, we were very clear that modern slavery should not be seen as part of the immigration issue, but the Government are now taking those two together, and that is one of the difficulties. It is not clear what problem will be solved by saying that people who are here illegally cannot claim modern slavery and cannot be afforded the support and protection afforded to modern slavery victims, and, therefore, it is not clear why the Government want to reject Lords amendment 56.

Perhaps the Government’s concern is that people will come off the small boats and claim modern slavery, but the amendment does not allow them to do that. It has been suggested to me that a boat might land and not be apprehended, and when somebody is caught a couple of days later, for example, they would then claim modern slavery. First, let me say that the first responders, aided by the changes in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, should be well able to see through that. Secondly, the purpose of the Bill is to stop the boats, so if the Bill is successful, that situation will not occur.

Lords amendment 56 is not about small boats. Almost no one arriving on a small boat after commencement of this Bill will be covered by it, but I do want to set out the type of victim who would be covered by that amendment and, therefore, is now going to be denied support as a victim of modern slavery.

Let us imagine a young woman—it could be a young man but, given the numbers, it is most likely to be a young woman—who is persuaded by a male friend to come over to the UK for what he says will be a great job and a wonderful life together. Perhaps she thinks that they are in love, that this is a way of getting out of the debt she is in, or that she wants to leave a difficult family relationship or an abusive relationship. She comes with him, probably on illegal documents, but that is unbeknown to her. As soon as she gets here, she is put into prostitution and he benefits financially from that. Forced into sexual exploitation, living in appalling conditions and not paid, she is in slavery. After several months or perhaps after years, she manages to escape. Under the Modern Slavery Act 2015, she could be provided with the support needs to get her life back and enable the police to identify and prosecute the perpetrators.

Under this Bill, the Government’s response would be quite different. She would get no support. The Government’s response would be, “We don’t care that you have been in slavery in the UK. We don’t care that you’ve been in a living hell. We don’t care that you have been the victim of crime. We do care that you came here illegally, even though you probably didn’t know it. So we are going to detain you and send you home, even if it is into the arms of the very people who trafficked you here in the first place. Or we want to send you to Rwanda.” No thought would be given to whether the young woman would get her life back and, crucially, no thought would be given to catching and prosecuting the perpetrators. The evidence of the police is clear: if we want victims to provide evidence to bring slave drivers to justice, the victims need time and support, and they need to be here. This Bill ties the hands of the police and undoes the good work of the Modern Slavery Act.

I know that Ministers have said that this Bill will enable more perpetrators to be stopped, but on modern slavery I genuinely believe it will do the opposite: it will enable more slave drivers to operate and make money out of human misery. It will consign more people to slavery. There is no doubt about it: if Lords amendment 56 is overthrown, that will be the impact.

The Minister has shown a willingness—he has described this at the Dispatch Box today—to look for mitigations. However, as he said, so far those mitigations have been offered as limited change and only in guidance, not in the Bill. The best mitigation would be not to press the objection to Lords amendment 56 and allow it to stand in the Bill. In the absence of that, I hope that the Government will stand by assurances they have given to find some workable compromise, but to put it in the Bill. The Government want to deny certain victims of modern slavery support, which will deeply damage the operation of the Modern Slavery Act. The alternative is to let Lords amendment 56 stand. If the Government persist in disagreeing with Lords amendment 56, I will have to persist in disagreeing with the Government.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Dame Diana Johnson.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I start by agreeing with the Minister on the vital role that the other place plays as a revising Chamber—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Sorry, Dame Diana. You are the next one to speak from your party, and I have made a faux pas. I should call Stuart C. McDonald.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I absolutely forgive you for that, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I offer my apologies to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. I look forward to hearing her remarks shortly.

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), and I echo everything she said about modern slavery. I would like to say it is a pleasure to be taking part in a debate on this Bill again, but unfortunately it most definitely is not. Members will not be surprised to hear that the position of my party is that this remains a rotten, utterly misconceived and cruel Bill that will not stop boats but will cause immense human suffering to people who have fled persecution and harm. For the reasons we have just heard, it is a traffickers charter. It has been rushed through Parliament in a most appalling way, without consultation or proper scrutiny.

Although the House of Lords has done some decent work to date, forgive me if we are not popping the champagne corks at this stage. The 20 Lords amendments add a bit of polish, but they barely scratch the surface of the problems with the Bill, and experience tells us, unfortunately, that their lordships will be bargained down to three or four moderate concessions. They have already passed up the chance to refuse the Bill a Second Reading, with Labour peers abstaining for utterly unconvincing reasons. If it was a revising Chamber with any sort of teeth or credibility, it would at least be using its powers to delay this Bill and let voters decide this issue for themselves at the next election.

In that context, it is vital that we remember during today’s debate and the whole ping-pong process that only one solitary sentence in the Government’s 2019 manifesto referred to asylum. It was a very benign sentence:

“We will continue to grant asylum and support to refugees fleeing persecution, with the ultimate aim of helping them to return home if it is safe to do so.”

That was it. This Bill, and every single one of the Government’s motions to reject the Lords amendments, is completely and utterly contrary to that pledge. Without the amendments, the Bill will essentially stop the grant of asylum to almost anyone. Instead of offering support or an assisted return home to most refugees, it will enforce unlimited detention at the whim of the Home Secretary, permanent limbo, or threatened removal to Rwanda. Even children and trafficking victims are not to be spared, and the consequences for them will be horrendous.

This outrageous Bill, which rides roughshod over international law without any electoral endorsement, is precisely the sort of Bill that the House of Lords should be voting down and delaying. We can make that less necessary by agreeing to all the Lords amendments. That is the least we should do, and it really should not be too much to ask.

As we have heard, we are talking about amendments that will ensure compliance with our international obligations under vital international treaties such as the refugee convention, the European convention on human rights, the trafficking convention and the convention on the rights of the child. We are talking about basic respect for the rule of law, and my party wholeheartedly endorses Lords amendment 1, which incorporates those obligations into the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I will call Tim Loughton first, and then it will be Dame Diana take two.

[Tim Loughton]

I will aim to complete my speech in less time than it took the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) to start talking about the Lords amendments, which is what we are here to do—but we will see how we go. I declare an interest as the chair of a safeguarding board of a children’s company.

I thank the Minister for the extensive discussions that we have had about the Lords amendments. I fear that we have not quite got there, so we may be back here again in a while. There has been an inordinate amount of debate on the Bill, and a lot of work has been done in the Lords, which is why we have so many amendments.

I support the Bill and I want it to pass, but it needs properly to balance safe and legal routes, and assurances about looking after the most vulnerable—particularly children—with coming down hard on people who are gaming the system and do not have a legitimate case for claiming asylum in the UK.

I do not have time to talk about every Lords amendment, so I will focus on two main areas: child detention, and safe and legal routes. I am pleased and grateful to the Government for the progress that we have made on the detention of pregnant women; that was a no-brainer, frankly. I also have some concerns around the treatment of people being transported back to other countries on the grounds of sexuality, and I want further assurances on that from the Minister. I also have concerns about accompanied children. There is a real problem with so-called families, who have been put together by people smugglers, as the Home Affairs Committee saw when we went to Dover. We came across somebody claiming to be the uncle of a young girl and they did not even speak the same language. There are problems here, but I absolutely want to concentrate on unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.

I am also pleased that Lord Carlile’s amendments around retrospectivity have been accepted. The Archbishop of Canterbury’s 10-year strategy has some merit in it, but I do not think that it is for this Bill; it is a strategy for a Government rather than being for a piece of legislation such as this.

On the subject of child detention, despite the substantial discussions I mentioned, it would appear that the Government are setting out only a very narrow concession, just to give the possibility of bail after eight days to one small subgroup of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children detained on the grounds of removal only. The Government themselves said in March in guidance:

“A period of detention can have a significant and negative impact on a child’s mental or physical health and development”.

I think that we would all agree with that, so such detention needs to be used sensitively and sparingly.

This is a really sensitive issue. I think it was a proud achievement of the coalition Government when, after a Citizens’ Assembly back in 2010, David Cameron said that child detention was not acceptable and pledged to end it. It was part of the coalition programme in May 2010. Detention policy changed in 2011 and was codified in the Immigration Act 2014. Large numbers of children were being detained before 2010. There were 1,065 children being detained in 2009 alone. There was a case of a three-year-old girl who had spent 166 days of her life—her short life—in Yarl’s Wood detention centre. That was completely unacceptable, so it was right that the law was changed.

At the time, guarantees were also made in a debate on the Nationality and Borders Bill. The Government made explicitly clear their commitment to the rationale that unaccompanied children should not be blocked from claiming asylum and would be exempt from the inadmissibility process. As the Minister set out on Report of that Bill:

“I wish to emphasise that we will always act in accordance with our international obligations, and to be very clear that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children will not be subject to inadmissibility or transferred for offshore processing.”—[Official Report, 7 December 2021; Vol. 705, c. 311.]

There was merit in that then and there is still merit in it now.

This matter was raised as a priority issue in the Committee and Report stages of this Bill. The Minister promised us changes in the Lords. That is why we did not push to a vote the amendments tabled in my name and the names of other right hon. and hon. Members at that stage. However, I am afraid that the promise did not materialise in the House of Lords, and only now, with amendments in lieu, are we seeing some concessions at this late stage, which, frankly, is not good enough. That is why, I am afraid, there is some scarcity of trust in the assurances given from the Dispatch Box, rather than stuff written, prima facie, in the Bill, or in specific guidance linked to undertakings in the Bill. We need to see more details in the Bill, not just assurances from the Dispatch Box, which have not always been forthcoming.

In changing the law, we need to comply with a clear set of principles when we are dealing with vulnerable children. Children should be treated differently from adults. Any child in the United Kingdom is entitled to the same protections whether they arrive on a boat or they were born here. Whether we like it or not, a child is a child and, as such, should be subject to the safety of the Children Act 1989, which is as relevant today as it was when it was first legislated for.