Assisted Dying

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Monday 29th April 2024 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I have spoken in previous debates since 2012, the year after my father took his life alone and prematurely with terminal lung cancer. However, today’s debate is different, because I believe that we are finally on the brink of catching up with public opinion and bringing about law change—not in this Parliament, but in the next.

Since 2015, over a dozen jurisdictions around the world have introduced laws enabling choice at the end of life. Today, over 30 offer that choice, with protections, covering hundreds of millions of people. In the UK, the medical profession has dropped its opposition. Legislators in Scotland, Jersey and the Isle of Man are crafting laws that will give choice and protection. The Leader of the Opposition has committed to ensuring parliamentary time for proper consideration of a Bill in the next Parliament, and that commitment has been echoed by the Prime Minister. So law change will be debated soon, and we have the opportunity today to inform that debate to some degree. That is what the Health and Social Care Committee report did. I was pleased to be part of that report, and want to confine my remarks to it.

Our report starts by looking at the impact of the current law. So many of the 68,000 submissions we received set out powerfully how the current law is failing people, forcing loved ones with a terminal diagnosis to plan their death secretly and take their lives alone, often violently. I do understand why debate focuses on the consequences of change, but the evidence that we heard underlines the consequences of leaving the law unchanged. It forces those who wish not to end their lives but to shorten their deaths to act while they have the capacity, and too many die too soon.

Our report drew heavily on the practical experience of jurisdictions that have legalised assisted dying. They take two routes, one based on terminal illness and the other on adding wider criteria, such as intolerable suffering. My remarks are based on those opting for terminal illness alone, because it is the approach of most countries and of previous legislation proposed here—and, I am sure, of the legislation that will be proposed in the next Parliament.

We listened hard to the concerns of those opposing law change. They fell into three areas, but our evidence provided reassurance on all three. We found that not a single jurisdiction that opted for assisted dying for terminal illness had extended it beyond that definition, so there is no slippery slope. We found no evidence of coercion in jurisdictions allowing assisted dying. That is not to say that coercion does not exist, but assisted dying laws seek to provide protection, in contrast to our current law. How do we know that the 650 people who take their own lives now are not coerced or did not take that decision because they felt themselves to be a burden? We talk rightly in this debate about safety, but it is the current law that is unsafe. Assisted dying laws are safer than blanket bans.

--- Later in debate ---

[Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)]

I greatly respect the campaigners who are proposing a change in the law and the people who signed the petition. Nevertheless, it is not the case that the majority of the public support what is euphemistically called “assisted dying”. When the details of the proposed law change are explained to people, a majority of people oppose a change in the law. Crucially and most importantly, the doctors who work with the dying—people in palliative care and geriatric care, and GPs—overwhelmingly oppose a change in the law, because they know what we are talking about. Nor is it the case that in countries that have legalised assisted dying—

[Paul Blomfield]

When the BMA consulted its members, more doctors supported a change in the law than opposed it.

[Danny Kruger]

The BMA has decided to be neutral on this matter. Most of the doctors who supported a change in the law are do not work with the dying and the elderly. I accept that a majority of doctors have now accepted a change in the overall position. What I am talking about is people who know what they are talking about—I say that with great respect to the hon. Gentleman, who I understand has a lot of knowledge of this topic, as well. My point is that while there might be overall polls that suggest public support, in fact, when professionals, members of the public and MPs get the chance to look at this closely, they end up opposing a change in the law, and for good reason.

Palliative care services do not rise in countries that have legalised assisted dying compared with countries that have not; they flatline. Of course, all palliative care services are going up because the population is ageing, but they decline in countries that have legalised assisted suicide.

[Paul Blomfield]

Has the hon. Gentleman not read the Select Committee report? We looked at every single jurisdiction. There was no evidence that palliative care declined in countries that adopted assisted dying. There was only evidence that it had opened a debate that had led to an increase and improvement in palliative care.

[Danny Kruger]

The point I just made is not that it declines, but that it does not increase compared with countries where assisted dying is not legal. Often, the increase and investment in palliative care is actually because there is more spending on assisted dying, which has now been legalised in those countries. I am very happy to take up this point offline, because it is very important, and I recognise the Select Committee looked closely at it in its report. However, there is an important point about the investment in palliative care in countries that have assisted dying and those that do not.

I am not sure whether this point was in the report, but what does go up in countries that have legalised assisted suicide is suicide itself in the general population. The fact is that suicide is contagious. Suicides among people who would not be eligible for assisted suicide increase in countries that have legalised it. I am afraid that is understandable when we consider that the Government have told society that some people would be better off dead. We have policies in this country to prevent suicide—we want to stop people committing suicide. It is important that we recognise the potential implication of a change in the law for others.

As that suggests, this is a profoundly moral question. I recognise that there are people with deeply held beliefs on both sides. There is a quasi-religious belief in the notion of autonomy and choice as the only moral question in this debate, and I have heard that suggested. It is important to acknowledge that the people with the least agency and autonomy—the vulnerable, the disabled, the mentally ill, the frail, the lonely—are the ones who suffer in every country where the law has been changed. It is not surprising that every country that legalises assisted suicide starts with very tight restrictions, and then the scope and the access expands. I will demonstrate that offline after the debate, because it is true.

[Paul Blomfield]

We looked at this in detail as a Select Committee. Not a single jurisdiction that has defined its law in terms of terminal illness has chosen to broaden it.

[Danny Kruger]

The definition of terminal illness is incredibly difficult, and people can always find a doctor to demonstrate it. That has happened in Oregon, in Canada and other countries. Again, let me take this up offline. [Interruption.] I respect position of the hon. Member for Sheffield Central, but I stand on the point that the scope, access and eligibility expand, and of course it does, because expansion is implicit in the principle.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Lockhart]

As we have heard and as I will go on in my speech to say, when the law is introduced it is expanded and the potential safeguards are not safeguards at all—it is a slippery slope. By investing in social care, by continuing to be a world leader in palliative care, and by being a society that respects life and upholds the dignity of the elderly and of people with disabilities, we can give hope to the hopeless and create a society where assisted suicide is not needed.

The consequences of introducing assisted suicide are not a matter for speculation. The practice has been implemented in other countries not unlike ours, and when assisted suicide is permitted, it is a slippery slope. Whenever assisted suicide has been legalised, however tight the initial safeguards and however sincere the assurances that it will be a narrowly defined law for rare cases, the practice has rapidly expanded.

[Paul Blomfield]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Carla Lockhart]

I am going to make progress. In Canada, it took only five years from the 2016 introduction of assisted suicide for those whose death was “reasonably foreseeable” to be expanded to the ill-defined “serious and incurable illnesses” criteria in 2021. In Oregon, in the US, people have been given assisted deaths because of diabetes, hernias, arthritis and anorexia, with the “terminal illness” interpretation now wide and wieldy. In the Netherlands and Belgium, child euthanasia has been legalised, as well as euthanasia for mental illness and dementia.

I conclude by quoting the national Danish Council of Ethics. Having considered the issue in detail, including examining the evidence from supposedly safe places such as Oregon, it concluded:

“The only thing that will be able to protect the lives…of those who are most vulnerable in society will be a ban without exception.”

It is time to invest in better palliative care and support those who go over and above to support those in their dying hour. Leave the law as it is. We must resist this change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

rose—

[Paul Blomfield]

rose—

[Robin Millar]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) and then to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

I think it is necessary to have accuracy in this debate. I refer the hon. Gentleman to paragraph 7 on page 96 in which the Select Committee says:

“We also conclude that jurisdictions which have introduced AD/AS on the basis of terminal illness have not changed the law to include eligibility on the basis of ‘unbearable suffering’.”

[Robin Millar]

I thank the hon. Member for putting that on the record.

Net Migration Figures

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Tuesday 28th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

I do not think anyone listening to the debate will be fooled by the damascene conversion of the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and her colleagues to controlled migration, when they have spent their entire lives campaigning for completely the opposite. One of the few pledges that the Leader of the Opposition launched his campaign on just a few years ago was freedom of movement. We have committed to controlled migration. We share a deep conviction that we have to get the numbers down. I am hopeful and confident that the package the Prime Minister and Home Secretary will bring forward very soon will do just that.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

International students contribute £42 billion annually to the UK. They are vital to the economies of towns and cities across the country. Most return home after their course. Those who do not are granted a visa for further study or a skilled workers visa, because we want them in the country. Students are not migrants. The public do not consider them to be migrants. Is it not time we took them out of the net migration numbers and brought our position into line with our competitors, such as the United States, whose Department of Homeland Security, as the arm of Government responsible for migration policy, does not count students in its numbers?

[Robert Jenrick]

I do not think fiddling the figures is the answer to this challenge. The public want to see us delivering actual results and bringing down the numbers. Of course, universities and foreign students play an important part in the academic, cultural and economic life of the country, but it is also critical that universities are in the education business, not the migration business. I am afraid that we have seen a number of universities—perfectly legally but nonetheless abusing the visa system—promoting short courses to individuals whose primary interest is in using them as a backdoor to a life in the United Kingdom, invariably with their dependants. That is one of the reasons why we are introducing the measure to end the ability of students on short-taught courses to bring in dependants. Universities need to look to a different long-term business model, and not just rely on people coming in to do short courses, often of low academic value, where their main motivation is a life in the UK, not a first-rate education.

Draft Immigration (Age Assessments) Regulations 2023

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Monday 20th November 2023 General Committees

[The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Immigration (Age Assessments) Regulations 2023.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. The draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 14 September, will improve our age-assessment process, which is under pressure from rising numbers of age disputes. The regulations relate to the introduction of scientific methods of age assessment.

Since 2017, there has been upward trend in the number of unaccompanied children entering the UK: in 2019, 3,775 unaccompanied children applied for asylum; by 2022, that had risen by 39%, to 5,242. There has also been a rise in the number of age disputes: between 2016 and June 2023, 11,275 age disputes were raised and subsequently resolved following an age assessment. Nearly half—49%, or 5,551 of those assessed—were found to be adults.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

My question is about the Minister’s opening statement, which was about not the numbers we are dealing with but the Government’s stated intention to improve the system. I served on the Nationality and Borders Bill Committee, where we spent some time discussing this issue. Will the Minister share with us—because at that stage his predecessor could not—the evidence that biological methods give any greater certainty of age determination than the existing Merton process? Will he also give us an indication of the percentage accuracy of the four different methods included in the draft statutory instrument?

[Robert Jenrick]

I will come to that in my wider remarks, but the first thing to say is that what we are proposing is not instead of the existing Merton process but in addition to it. That is an important disclaimer, because some countries elsewhere in the world have chosen to do one or the other but, given the evidential issues to which the hon. Gentleman alluded, we want to proceed with both together.

The scientific process, which the statutory instrument will enable us to move forward with, will further refine the existing process, getting us closer to the correct result. We are not suggesting that the age-assessment process will lead us to an absolutely precise result, but it will enable us to refine the result of the Merton assessment and get us to a better result. For all the reasons that I set out in my opening remarks, given the sheer numbers of people—adults pretending to be children—we are disputing, and all the problems that flow from that, we think it is important for us to use all the tools in our toolbox to reach the closest we can to a correct assessment of an individual’s age.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

If that is the case, the hon. Member should provide them, but I have never been provided with any data or indeed anecdote of a child deliberately posing as an adult. All the data I have seen goes in the other direction, with adults posing as children in the belief, mistaken or otherwise, that they will receive better treatment here in the United Kingdom. That is the issue we are trying to resolve. Why does that matter? Because none of us want to see adults posing as minors and being placed in the same settings as genuine children. That is not an academic debate; it is a very serious matter. I have seen some of the appalling problems that can arise, including a case in which an individual went into the loving care of foster carers and then into a primary school, and ultimately went on to murder somebody in Bournemouth. Sadly, I could cite other incidents like that. This is what we are trying to stop.

[Paul Blomfield]

rose—

[Robert Jenrick]

I will make some progress.

Age assessment is, as I have described and our brief debate has already suggested, a complex and difficult task. Many unaccompanied young people claiming to be children arrive in the UK without any official documentation, because they have lost it or in some cases deliberately destroyed it, while some are undoubtedly under the age of 18. In many instances it is not clear cut. It is an unfortunate reality that some individuals misrepresent their age to gain unfair immigration advantage. The public would rightly expect us to strengthen our processes accordingly.

The introduction of scientific age assessments is intended to improve our age-assessment system by providing additional biological evidence to aid better-informed and more thorough decisions on age. The existing Merton-compliant assessment process is a holistic, social worker-led assessment that includes interviews, background checks and observations of the young person over a period of time. Scientific age assessment will be one piece of evidence used within such an assessment. It is intended to provide additional evidence and create a more consistent system. Importantly, the UK is one of the very few European countries that does not currently employ scientific methods of age assessment. The regulations will pave the way to the UK being more aligned with international practices.

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank the Minister for giving way again. I have a few questions, because this is an opportunity for him to answer the questions that were left hanging when we debated this issue in the Public Bill Committee. I would still welcome a response to the questions about the Government’s evidence that this change will improve the process and the accuracy percentage because, as he said in reply to my earlier question, we are talking about large numbers. We already have significant issues with delays in the system, so imposing a layer on top of the existing system should be done carefully, and only if we are convinced that it adds value. I welcome the fact that the two systems are to be used together, instead of one as a replacement, but what will happen, and what guidance will be given, in cases in which the conclusion of the Merton process is one age and the conclusion of the biological assessment is another?

[Robert Jenrick]

We do believe that this change will make a material difference; otherwise, we would not proceed with it. We have taken a great deal of time since the passing of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 to refine this policy. We took advice from the specialist Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee as to how best to proceed and whether this policy would make a material difference, and we have concluded that it would.

The evidence from the scientific age assessment will be only one element of the ultimate decision. The decision will be made by a social worker. If that social worker believes, despite the scientific age-assessment evidence, that an individual is a minor, it will ultimately be up to them to make the final decision. If there were a risk of a perverse outcome, it would be up to them to use their professional judgment to determine whether the person was actually a minor and not make a mistake.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

As Members would expect, we have given thought to how we will operationalise the plan, and there are different ways in which one could do that. We have not yet set out a detailed plan in the public domain, but it is likely that the measure will be delivered in the first instance by local authorities in a community setting, but paid for by the Home Office as part of the immigration service. We do not expect the cost to be borne by local authorities. In fact, the policy is likely to reduce the overall burden on local authorities, because today many local authorities, particularly those that encounter a high number of asylum seekers, are spending a great deal of money on navigating the Merton age-assessment process and looking after individuals as a result. If the process can be done in an expeditious way, supported and funded by the Home Office and central Government, there should be an overall cost reduction for individual local authorities.

Let me conclude my remarks by simply saying that I should note—

[Paul Blomfield]

Will the Minister give way before he concludes?

[Robert Jenrick]

I think I should probably—

[Paul Blomfield]

It is an important question.

[Robert Jenrick]

I will take one last intervention, but I do not want to delay the Committee, because we may be about to vote in the House.

[Paul Blomfield]

I genuinely appreciate the Minister’s giving way. One of the concerns expressed when we discussed this issue previously was about a child’s capacity to agree to a medical method of assessing their age and what would happen if a child does not have such capacity. The Government’s own advisory committee, to which the Minister has referred, says that the principle of informed consent is vital. In a situation involving traumatised individuals in an alien environment, how will it be judged that informed consent can genuinely be given?

[Robert Jenrick]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. He is right that we have been clear that we will not be taking X-rays or MRI images of an individual without informed consent. The Home Office will ensure that the individuals who undergo the age-assessment process will be supported to provide valid informed consent, and that the individual has the capacity, fully understands the process and is communicated to in a child-friendly and clear way, with interpreters assisting where appropriate. It will ultimately be for the social workers and clinicians who undertake the process, not Home Office caseworkers or officials, to satisfy themselves that informed consent has been provided.

I am conscious that we may be close to a vote in the House, so let me draw my remarks to a close by noting that last week’s Supreme Court judgment in relation to the UK’s agreement on the relocation of individuals to Rwanda does not relate to the draft regulations. Protecting genuine children, preventing the abuse of the immigration system by those who knowingly misrepresent their age and improving our asylum system overall remain priorities for the Government in any event, and it is extremely important that we protect genuine children from all the risks and challenges that come with allowing adults to pose as minors. I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hosie. The Government’s plans to use scientific methods in verifying the age of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children have been long in the making, but we would not necessarily know it from the somewhat sketchy evidence around the SI or the rather flimsy documents published alongside it.

The legislative framework for such assessments was set by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which has been on the statute books for more than 18 months. Yet the Government have still not managed to answer some of the most basic questions that these proposals raise, in particular how much they will cost and what their impact will be on our health services, at a time when our NHS is under unprecedented strain.

These are questions that any reasonable Member would expect the Government to address in their impact assessment. However, no such assessment has been provided, on the basis that, in the Government’s words:

“the policy and design are still under development.”

I note that the explanatory memorandum commits to preparing a full impact assessment as implementation of the policy moves forward. If the Minister could commit to a timely publication of such an assessment, I am sure that Members from all parties would be very grateful.

It is also unclear to me, as it was to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, why the Government should feel the need to move forward with legislation that is still in the process of being developed. We would be very grateful if the Minister could shed some light on that question posed by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

We also find that House of Lords Committee expressing palpable frustration at the repeated running-up against a brick wall of any reasonable requests to Ministers for basic information, in this case about the extent of any further consultation between Ministers and experts from the medical and wider scientific communities beyond the members of the Government’s hand-picked Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee, to which the Minister referred. More importantly, what specific feedback have Ministers received from experts beyond the members of that committee in the course of any consultations that have taken place?

These questions really matter, because there is clearly no evidence of consensus among experts in support of the Government’s plans—far from it, in fact. From a report in a recent edition of the New Scientist, it is clear that a widely shared view among experts is that what the Government describe as scientific age verification is based largely on what those experts describe as pseudo-science. Based on their public statements, a range of expert bodies, representing such diverse fields as social work, paediatrics, dentistry and radiology, also seem to be proactively urging their members to play no part in such practices.

Therefore, my final question to the Minister is this: what thought have the Government given to how they might be able to implement the measures that he has set out today if professionals in the sector are not willing to operationalise them? My question specifically is this: do the Government have a plan B in the event that the key practitioners are not prepared to operationalise the measures that have been set out today?

[Paul Blomfield]

My hon. Friend raises some important questions, as others have, and he will know the concerns that we raised when the Nationality and Borders Act was in Committee. Clearly, we are in a situation where the actual implementation of these measures will fall to a future Labour Government, so I wonder whether he could confirm something. If it is our experience in Government that these measures do not add value and do not assist the process, will we review and scrap them?

[Stephen Kinnock]

We will certainly keep these measures under review, as would be the duty of any sensible Government. Policy making should be based on evidence, on facts and on the law, and Labour Members remain absolutely committed to those basic principles. If our review concludes that they are working, effective and accurate, then we would look to retain them. However, if such a review concluded that they were counterproductive, ineffective or damaging, particularly around safeguarding and so on, then—of course—we believe in evidence-based policy and that is a very important principle for any Government to pursue.

With that response to my hon. Friend, I conclude my remarks. I thank the Minister for his attention and look forward to hearing his response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Stephens]

I notice that that has been said, but not one country in Europe was actually named. It will be interesting to see whether the Minister mentions countries in Europe, because I find it curious that this approach is said to be standard in Europe, but not one country was named. I am looking forward to the answer, and I am sure it is being handed to the Minister right now on the little green Post-it note he has in front of him—yes, I am observant.

[Paul Blomfield]

I am sure that, like me, the hon. Gentleman is amused by the Government’s reliance on other European countries as a benchmark for good practice. Does he recognise that although many other European countries have the legal capacity to use biological tests, many of them have found that such tests have not worked and have not added value, and they are therefore discontinuing them?

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

I want to follow up my earlier questions with a few comments. I think that the Minister failed, as indeed the Government did when the Nationality and Borders Act was in Committee, to explain in detail—I hope that he will have another go in his concluding remarks—why the Merton process is failing. He talked about other European countries, and many see that as the gold standard in an effective system of evaluating age.

There was, in Committee, a real concern about the Government’s intention, at that stage, to scrap the Merton process and rely wholly on biological tests, so I welcome the fact that the Minister has confirmed that the Government are planning to run the two systems concurrently, as well as his assurance that, where there is a variance between biological tests and the Merton assessment, the decision will remain with the decision maker and there will not be any crude dependence on the biological tests. I do not think that he has been able to convince us that there is accuracy, to the point that is needed, within the biological test. The Government’s own committee says that it will provide an age range, rather than a specific age. I realise that the hon. Member for South Ribble was trying to be helpful by talking about the value of bone testing in archaeology, but when we are dating dinosaurs, we do not do it to the precise year, and, in this context, we are talking about a requirement to get a precise age. I hope that he will have another shot at explaining the scientific evidence for the reliability of biological testing.

I will press a little bit further on the question of consent, because there are real issues of concern there. The Minister will know that section 52(7) of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 places a duty on a decision maker to make a negative credibility finding when a person does not consent to the use of biological methods, and that section 58(2) of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 allows for an automatic assumption of adulthood if the person refuses to consent.

The consequences are serious. Many children could be wrongly declared to be adults, contrary to the advice given by the Home Office’s own advisory committee, leaving them to face the prospect of deportation or—the Minister described the problem graphically—being placed wrongly in an adult setting, which raises serious safeguarding issues. The Minister has not yet adequately explained to us how the Government propose to deal with the child’s capacity to understand and agree to a medical method of assessing their age, or exactly what will happen when a child does not have that capacity. If a child seeking asylum is not looked after, has no legal guardian and does not have the capacity to consent, I hope that the Minister will explain in his concluding remarks who would be able to consent on their behalf. Also, how will that stand up in law?

Additionally, for consent to be valid, it must not be given under duress. That point was made by the Minister’s own advisory committee in its recommendation that there should be, because of—

[The Chair]

Order. I will suspend the Committee to allow for Divisions: 15 minutes for one Division and another 10 minutes for a subsequent one, so we will be back at 6.50 pm or 7 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Paul Blomfield]

When we were interrupted, I was talking about how important it is that if consent is to be considered valid, it should not be given under duress. What could cause more duress than being told, “If you don’t consent, you’re going to be deported”, which is what the powers under the Act imply? That is probably why the Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee, which the Minister has spent so much time assuring us that he has turned to for guidance, says in its recommendations that

“no automatic assumptions or consequences should result from refusal to consent.”

I am interested to hear from the Minister how that relates to the consequences provided for in the Act. The position that the committee took is consistent with that of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, which stated that

“informed consent is fundamental to all medical practice, and by definition must be free from duress.”

There are wider ethical concerns, as has been mentioned. Leading medical bodies have expressed concern about using medical methods for examinations that are not medically necessary. That is not a superfluous concern. The methods proposed will expose children to the potentially harmful risks associated with exposure to radiation. The British Medical Association states that the

“use of such methods in a non-clinical context involves direct harms without any medical benefit”.

The British Dental Association has also voiced its opposition to the use of dental X-rays, saying that they are both “inaccurate” and “unethical”.

There are things that could be done to improve the system. The Minister touched on them but did not follow through on the problems with age assessments at the port of entry. There have been lots of problems with inaccurate age assessments conducted by Border Force officials at the point of entry. The Government do not publish data on the number of children who are incorrectly treated as adults by the officials and subsequently taken into care when referred to a local authority, which has significant consequences. I wish that the Government would look more at the better processes at that point that could make a difference in improving the procedures.

[Robert Jenrick]

I am pleased to wind up this short debate. I will answer as many of the questions as possible. I will begin with the points made by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West. I appreciate that the SNP and others in Scotland are opposed to the measures, but the Government’s sole interest, which I hope commands support across the House, is in safeguarding children. This is a safeguarding measure. It is not a measure to deter people coming to the UK, although we want to deter illegal migrants from taking unnecessary and dangerous journeys across the channel. The measure is purely because we care about protecting innocent children and do not want to see adults posing as minors placed in the same settings as them. That is why we need this measure.

Of course, the hon. Member is right to say that there are some non-governmental organisations that have opposed these measures. However, we would counter that by asking those NGOs how they propose to protect those innocent minors in settings such as primary schools, our own Home Office facilities or foster care if not by taking forward all of the tools in our toolkit. I think that they are naive at best and at worst making a serious error of judgment in preventing the Home Office from making use of all the tools that are at our disposal.

In response to the hon. Member’s second question about which countries in Europe use these measures, it is not so much a question of which countries use them as which countries do not use them. In fact, the only EU nations that do not undertake X-rays for this purpose are Cyprus, Slovenia and Ireland. Every single one of the other EU member states uses X-rays and many of them use even more sophisticated and advanced processes, including Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium. It is absolutely right that the UK follows suit and makes use of best practice.

[Paul Blomfield]

rose—

Student Visas

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Wednesday 24th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

Immigration is a reserved matter. I would just add that I am seeking a meeting with the relevant Cabinet Secretary in the Scottish Government to discuss illegal migration, but her office has so far not offered a meeting.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

The statement is right to celebrate the huge growth in international student numbers—I assume that is the bit the Department for Education and the Treasury insisted should go in—but within that there is a welcome diversification in that growth away from overdependence on China. That was a deliberate part of the international education strategy. The Minister talks about unintended consequences, but it was entirely predictable that those coming from other countries for masters courses would come from a different demographic from Chinese students, that they would have families and that, like us, they would not want to separated from them. Our competitors welcome students with families, so there is a real risk that a blanket ban on dependants will undermine the Government’s own international education strategy. The statement commits to consulting with universities in developing the approach, so will the Minister confirm there will be no blanket ban on dependants of postgraduate taught students until that consultation has taken place?

[Robert Jenrick]

We will implement the policy we set out yesterday, but concurrently we will launch the consultation with universities and, if we need to refine the policy as a result of that, we will do so. To the hon. Gentleman’s first point, I do not think there is any reason why a Chinese student would be less likely to bring dependants with them to the United Kingdom than a Nigerian, a Vietnamese or a Bangladeshi. I do not follow his logic there at all. We want an entirely non-discriminatory approach and that is what we have said to our international counterparts this week. That has always been our approach to this. We welcome international students from any part of the world.

Illegal Migration Update

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Wednesday 29th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I am not going to comment on press speculation. Obviously, I will make further statements should we proceed with any significant developments in this regard. I have pointed to examples in Scotland and in the Netherlands where the use of vessels has been successful. As my hon. Friend knows, we do not currently have the powers to detain individuals for prolonged periods of time, so any form of accommodation would be non-detained.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

In response to an earlier question, the Minister talked about people “breaking into our country”. The Home Secretary has talked about an “invasion”. Those words, like this statement, are designed for the headlines, but can I ask him genuinely whether he recognises that using that kind of language to describe people, many of whom are seeking refuge from countries such as Afghanistan, Iran and Syria, is inflammatory, divisive and adds to the sort of tensions that other Members have talked about? Will he reflect on his use of language and agree that the priority is to tackle the people smugglers, not to criminalise and demonise their victims?

[Robert Jenrick]

I believe that all of us have a responsibility to choose our words with care, and to accept the occasions where we choose the wrong language. This is an area of public policy where it would be better to de-escalate the current language and tensions. I do not think it is wrong to describe individuals as illegal immigrants or to say that individuals are breaking into our country, because we have borders and they have to be enforced. If the hon. Gentleman or I crossed a national border into another country, we would expect to be met by law enforcement and a robust response.

Illegal Migration Bill

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 13th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I served on the Nationality and Borders Bill Committee, where we were told time and again that that Bill’s provisions to criminalise refugees would break the business model of people smugglers, despite the Department’s own impact assessment saying that the sorts of measures being proposed risked failing and driving people to more desperate routes. That Bill was designed not to work, but to create the appearance of doing something: for the headlines, to provoke a fight with the UNHCR, to attack immigration lawyers, and to provide a platform for the lie—repeated again today—that Labour believes in open borders. Less than a year after it became law, here we are again. The Home Office impact assessment was proved right, the position in the channel is worse, numbers making desperate journeys are higher, the appalling Rwanda scheme is stalled, and what is the Government’s response? To double down on failure. We have a new Home Secretary, but the same approach.

This Bill is even more cruel, and we should look in particular at the Children’s Commissioner’s concerns over child refugees, but the central proposition remains the same: to defeat people smugglers by criminalising their victims. Again, it is not designed to work, but to create the illusion of action—talking up a problem, but offering no solution. It is cynical, irresponsible and damaging to our politics. At Prime Minister’s questions last week, the PM was right to say that there is a global migration challenge, but the Government like to give the impression that those entering Europe do so with the sole intention of getting to the UK, ignoring every safe country along the way. Of course, that is not true. Nineteen other European countries take more refugees by head of population, and the biggest numbers are hosted by countries such Turkey, Colombia, Pakistan and Uganda.

We need an honest debate. We need to stop the “good refugee, bad refugee” narrative of Ministers. The Government have closed doors to all seeking refuge, except from Ukraine, from Hong Kong and the desperately difficult route remaining from Afghanistan. Ministers should stop demonising economic migrants. Clearly, we cannot accommodate everyone who wants to come here, but it is not a crime for them to seek a better life for themselves and their families—it is what people have done since the beginning of time. There is an irony that as Ministers demonise those coming for work, they are actually opening up new routes, as the Financial Times reported last week.

We need a joined-up discussion on migration and asylum, and we need to take care with the language. When Ministers talk up problems around refugees and raise false expectations about the legislation, it damages democratic politics and opens opportunities for the far right, as we have seen in recent weeks. Let us tone down the rhetoric and look at real solutions. We can start by voting down this Bill.

Western Jet Foil and Manston Asylum Processing Centres

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Suella Braverman]

We have already several safe and legal routes through which people who are genuine asylum seekers can make the application. As I have said, I am proud of our record of welcoming people who are genuinely fleeing persecution, war, conflict and human rights violations, but we cannot accept a situation where people are bypassing those routes—jumping the queue, effectively—on illegitimate bases and making fabricated claims to be victims.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary blamed her predecessor for the crisis that she has inherited twice. Indeed, the Home Office’s own impact assessment of the Nationality and Borders Bill said that it risked leading more people to taking desperate routes to the UK, as we have seen, so why is she doubling down on the same approach? I have many constituents who have been waiting years for asylum decisions. What is her target for processing claims? When will she clear the backlog? Does she agree that the cost to the taxpayer would be reduced by granting the right to work to those whose claims have not been processed within six months, as is supported on both sides of the House and overwhelmingly by the public?

[Suella Braverman]

I have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of what I have just said. I do not criticise my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel). She achieved a huge amount during her time as Home Secretary, including passing the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which will take a massive step forward in dealing with the problem. That is something that the hon. Gentleman voted against. She also secured the Rwanda agreement, a landmark partnership with our friends in Rwanda, to tackle this problem head-on for the first time. I am very grateful for her work and her contribution.

Windrush Review

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2022 Westminster Hall

[Kate Osamor]

I thank my hon. Friend for that powerful intervention. I will pick up on that in my speech. I urge the Minister to ensure that the guidance issued to caseworkers on the levels of awards is urgently reviewed by the Home Office. The awards must reflect the life-changing trauma inflicted on victims of the scandal. Those who are not happy with their compensation offer are faced with a so-called appeals process that is neither truly independent nor transparent. Claimants can request a review of a decision by the adjudication officer, but ultimately the Home Office has the right to refuse a decision reached by the adjudicator. The Department is marking its own homework.

Although the number of claimants who request reviews is published, we have no idea how many appeal results have led to increased or reduced offers of compensation. There is no external scrutiny of a process through which we hope to achieve some justice for the Windrush generation. I urge the Minister to make public the outcome of the compensation appeals process, publish appeal outcomes and work to make the process as independent from the Home Office as possible.

Given the concerns I have outlined, it is clear that Windrush compensation is anything but rooted in humanity. In her progress report, Wendy Williams pointed to a lack of empathy on the part of the decision makers and said that caseworkers often fail to signpost vulnerable claimants to services that could offer non-monetary support. The claims are as complex as the humans making them and must be treated as such.

My constituent, Joel, who submitted a claim on behalf of his 89-year-old grandmother, spent 14 months going back and forth with the compensation scheme, repeatedly providing information and evidence that was requested time and time again, until suddenly, for no apparent reason, his caseworker stopped communicating with him. He feared that his grandmother would die without seeing a penny in compensation.

My constituent’s grandmother, who lives in Jamaica, has now received notice that she has been deemed not in a position to be offered any compensation. Joel is an articulate lawyer, familiar with navigating bureaucracy, yet even he was unable to navigate the compensation scheme without my intervention. It is clear that the culture change called for in the lessons learned review has not taken place.

In conclusion, all these failings amount to a second trauma for the victims of the Windrush scandal. They continue to be treated inhumanely, being forced to navigate a compensation scheme not fit for purpose. The scheme has been too slow and does not provide a transparent, independent appeals process.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case about the way the scheme has been mishandled and about compensation. Will she forgive me if I ask about a policy issue arising from the Williams review? She mentioned Williams’ statement that migration policy should be about people. One issue in the discussion was the treatment of those who came to the UK as small children—or were even born here without citizenship—and who grew up here, were schooled here and shaped here, and were then deported as adults.

In his review of immigration detention, conducted for the Home Office, Stephen Shaw recommended that the Home Office should no longer seek to remove those who were born in the UK or had been brought up here from an early age. There are countless examples, of which my hon. Friend will be aware. I tabled an amendment to the Nationality and Borders Bill to prevent the deportation of those who arrived here before they had reached the age of criminal responsibility; obviously, the Government rejected that. Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK has a responsibility to those who have never, in practical terms, known another country, and for whom the UK has been home from before they reached the age of criminal liability?

[Kate Osamor]

My hon. Friend will not be surprised that I agree wholeheartedly with everything he just said. Wendy Williams’ report highlighted the fact that Home Office policies are not rooted in humanity. They do not reflect a caring society; people who have lived here all their lives are no longer welcome by a click of the finger. We need to change that, and we are now in a position to do so. The Home Office is actually in a position to make a difference and a change, to help those people who need it now.

There are so many people watching this, or stuck in the Caribbean or west Africa, who cannot get back into this country because they are not deemed British, even though they have lived here all their lives. In many instances, they actually have passports but cannot get into the country. We need to look at this wholeheartedly. The Windrush generation and scandal is one part of it, but the hostile environment is overarching and overbearing. It dictates the way that the Home Office responds to people who are, let us be honest, very vulnerable. They need our support right now; they cannot wait. They have waited long enough.

Unfortunately, we are where we are, which is why this debate is important. Claimants must be offered a complete package, not only guidance and advice. We also need the Department to reach out to those victims who have not come forward. I am not surprised they have not come forward if they have seen how those who have come forward have been treated.

The Government must look at the damage they have done. They need to fix the compensation scheme or hand it to an organisation that can deliver it, and give justice to those who need it. The Windrush generation need us to step in for them now. The Windrush generation need us to ensure all the damage and everything that they have been through is righted. At this point, it has not been, which is an injustice. We must look at everybody as a victim and make a difference for them.

Foreign National Offender Removal Flights

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Wednesday 18th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Tom Pursglove]

It is fair to say that the Chairman of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee always asks incisive questions of his witnesses, and he asks an incisive question of me. There is a public interest in explaining to the House the situation that we have seen overnight. I can confirm that the manifest originally had 112 individuals on it; in the end, only seven left our country on the flight.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

The Minister will know that in November 2020 the Home Secretary and her team negotiated an agreement with the Government of Jamaica not to remove people who came to the UK under the age of 12, because they believed that we had some responsibility for those whose lives were shaped here. Will the Minister confirm whether that agreement is still in place?

[Tom Pursglove]

We debated these matters in the Nationality and Borders Public Bill Committee. A person’s age upon arrival to the UK is not an exception to deportation. The length of time that a person has lived in the UK as well as the strength of their social, cultural and family ties are factors that are considered under the article 8 requirements of the immigration rules. Of course, there is ongoing dialogue with all our returns partners and all such matters are discussed as part of those deliberations and discussions.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Paul Blomfield Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 26th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Tom Pursglove]

I am afraid that we often hear long and convoluted explanations of why we should just accept the status quo, why we should do nothing and why all the interventions are wrong. We hear no credible alternative for putting right the problems in the system. Reform is required and is overdue. That is why we are determined to get on with delivering it.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

The Minister will recognise that, when we last debated the Bill, the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), pointed out that one alternative for dealing with the asylum backlog is investing in the current system.

The central premise of this Bill is that, as an alternative to irregular routes, there should be safe and legal routes. Aside from the specific programmes for Ukraine, Afghanistan and Hong Kong, will the Minister spell out clearly to the House what legal routes are available to asylum seekers?

[Tom Pursglove]

I will not repeat the many, many occasions on which I have set out on the Floor of the House and in Committee during the Bill’s passage the many and varied safe and legal routes that exist. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the Chair of the Justice Committee, has rightly touched on the need to reform the casework situation, which is precisely what we are doing through the new plan for immigration. I encourage him to be in the right Lobby this evening to help us get on with delivering on that priority, which is one priority among a number as we reform the system.

It is simply unnecessary, inappropriate and unconstitutional for the courts to have a duty to make declarations of incompatibility in circumstances where questions of compliance have already been determined by Parliament, so we cannot accept Lords amendment 5D.

On differentiation, Lords amendments 6D to 6F would make it harder to differentiate by placing significant evidential burdens on the Secretary of State. They would also set out our existing legal obligations on the face of the Bill, such as our duties under the refugee convention and the European convention on human rights, especially the article 8 right to family life. All of this is either unnecessary or unacceptable. We therefore do not accept these amendments.

Finally, the arguments on the right to work have been well rehearsed at several points in the passage of the Bill. In principle, we are concerned about the way in which this would undercut the points-based system, which we believe is the right system for facilitating lawful migration into our country—that skills-based approach, exactly as the British people voted for in the referendum in 2016. I go back to this point: our objective is to speed up caseworking, which then, of itself, ensures that we do not need to go down the route—