Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (High-Risk Countries) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
Robert Goodwill Excerpts(2 years, 6 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
I do not want to detain the Committee long, as I very much support the measures before us today, but will the Minister comment on some of the activity by the financial institutions, particularly the high street banks, which has become more of a box-ticking operation than perhaps an intelligence-led investigatory process? Let me give one example from my own experience as a North Yorkshire farmer with a turnover of less than £200,000.
I was telephoned by my bank, HSBC, some years ago to ask whether I had done any business in Iran. It is a little ridiculous to start interrogating farmers, and crofters in Scotland, about their activities. Many small businesses are being asked a load of questions that can only be seen as box-ticking exercises. That same bank was fined £63.9 million in December last year for not monitoring financial transactions—for a period the whole of Wales was not being monitored—and was previously fined £1.2 billion in the USA for not being on top of money laundering associated with the drugs trade.
Another area where the bank seemed to be overly officious is with regard to politically exposed persons. Every Member of Parliament is a politically exposed person, and in many cases it is almost like we are too difficult. I have heard stories from colleagues whose sons and daughters cannot get mortgages, because it seems too difficult to answer the questions about whether we are subject to bribes or other types of illegal financial activity, when in fact the UK is very high on the global index of non-criminal activity among our political classes; we are one of the least corrupt countries in the world.
Will the Minister talk a little about working with the financial institutions in the implementation of the measure to ensure that we target dodgy transactions and do not just tick boxes for North Yorkshire farmers who might be doing some business in Iran, or indeed for Members of this House and other Parliaments around the world who seem to be getting the glare of attention from these institutions, which should perhaps be looking elsewhere for illegal activity?
Conduct of the Right Hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip
Robert Goodwill Excerpts(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Blackford
Happy St Andrew’s Day to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to all hon. and right hon. Members.
The Scottish National party tabled this motion of censure against the Prime Minister because we believe in a very basic principle, and we believe the public do, too: those in power deserve to face consequences for their disastrous actions, and they need to be held to account.
The charge sheet against the Prime Minister is, indeed, damning. In the past few weeks alone, he ripped up anti-lobbying rules when one of his own was found guilty, he is attempting to restrict the right to judicial review and he is seeking to undermine the independence of the Electoral Commission. But it did not start there, and it definitely does not end there.
Since coming into office a little over two years ago, the Prime Minister has been up to his neck in scandals involving cash for honours, cash for contracts, texts for tax breaks and even cash for curtains. As the motion states, he is constantly breaking the sixth principle of public life, the duty to be truthful.
Month after month, scandal after scandal, the charge sheet gets longer and longer, but not a single person is held to account. If the public are to have confidence in this place, that needs to change, and it needs to change today. Because unless the Prime Minister faces consequences—unless he is censured—he will not just think he has gotten away with the mess he has made over the last few months; he will think he will be able to do it over and over again. Let us be very clear: if the Prime Minister is not properly censured today, it will also be final proof that the Tories really do believe that its one rule for them and one rule for everybody else.
I remind Conservative Members that we have all been witness to events over the past number of weeks. They might want to forget what has happened, but the public definitely have not. The Tories marched through the Lobby—
Ian Blackford
I will give way in due course. The Tories marched through the Lobby to undermine our parliamentary standards process, to tear up the rule books, all in order to protect a friend of the Prime Minister who was found to have broken the rules. This whole sorry episode showed this Parliament at its very worst—and, trust me, that is saying something. The Government Chief Whip and the Leader of the House are easy scapegoats, but we all know that this was orchestrated by a Prime Minister who thinks he is untouchable, who thinks he can do as he pleases. This is a Prime Minister who thinks he can change the rules at will and who believes that if the rules become inconvenient, they can simply be changed. So the question stands today: how much does it really take for Tory MPs to say enough is enough?
How far standards have fallen is shown by the fact that the charges I have made against the Prime Minister are not even in dispute—they are all matters of public record. The Prime Minister has even admitted that in managing these scandals he personally
“crashed the car into the ditch”.
It tells us all we need to know, though, that he did not even have the decency to admit that in the House of Commons. He only felt the need to admit his mistakes and apologise to his Back Benchers in the Tory 1922 committee, and it was only because they were muttering about mutiny. I am not sure that apology counts if he only did it to try to save his own skin.
But no matter how much the Prime Minister tries to publicly wash his hands of responsibility for his actions, the public have already cast their verdict. The Tories may be sliding in the polls, but it is as nothing compared to the hammering the Prime Minister is taking in the court of public opinion. In the last week, his approval ratings have hit an all-time low, and there is one only simple reason behind it: the public know that that the Prime Minister is at the rotten core of all these scandals.
A natural comparison has been drawn with the Major Government in the early 1990s, but even that comparison fails to properly get to the scale of corruption that has occurred, much of it in plain sight. The difference between this Prime Minister and John Major was that Major took action to address the sleaze and corruption. This Prime Minister is at the centre of the sleaze and corruption—he is orchestrating much of it. I am afraid corruption is the only proper word—the only honest word—for what has been going on. As I said at the weekend, the Leader of the Opposition—I do wonder where Opposition Members are—is now very fond of repeating the line that when it comes to the Prime Minister
“the joke isn’t funny anymore”.
But in truth it was never funny, and we are all now living with the consequences of having a man like this in Downing Street.
It is also important to reflect on just how damaging recent weeks and months have been to the public’s faith in politics. Because each and every one of these scandals erodes standards, erodes trust and ultimately erodes democracy itself.
In the middle of the Owen Paterson scandal, the Prime Minister said:
“I genuinely believe that the UK is not remotely a corrupt country and I genuinely think that our institutions are not corrupt.”
The problem for the Prime Minister is that the public disagree with him: a recent Savanta ComRes poll found that 54% of those asked thought that the UK Government were corrupt. If the Prime Minister wants to know why, he has only to look in the mirror.
In the eyes of the public this is a UK Government who have normalised sleaze and are now trying to normalise corruption. This is the Tory Government’s attempt at a new normal in which no one is held responsible, no one is held to account and no one ever—not ever—resigns. That is exactly why consequences are so important and why this censure motion matters: it can only ever become a new normal if we all put up with it. [Interruption.] This is a debate that matters to people in the United Kingdom. We can hear the behaviour and the catcalling of Government Members and it sums up the attempt to shut down democracy and our right to raise these important matters in this House.
A new normal becomes possible only if we do not hold the Government to account and do not make them answer for their actions. I genuinely ask Government Members, if they have any interest in maintaining some dignity and decency in public life, finally to hold the Prime Minister to account and censure him for his abuse of power.
Let me take one example of that abuse of power: the cash-for-honours scandal. Fifteen of the Tory party’s main treasurers who happened to hand over £3 million to the party were somehow given life peerages in the House of Lords, as if by magic. Twenty-two of the Tory party’s top financial backers all happen to have been given peerages since 2010. In total, this group has stuffed Tory party coffers with £54 million— [Interruption.] “Hear, hear!” That sums it up. The Conservatives see it as a virtue that if someone gives multimillion pounds to the Conservative party, they end up in the House of Lords. My goodness! What price democracy?
Let us take Lord Cruddas, a leading donor to the Vote Leave campaign who, let us not forget, bankrolled the Prime Minister’s Conservative leadership bid. He personally gave up to £4 million in donations to the Tory party and affiliates. His reward? An ermine robe and a seat in the House of Lords. What is worse is that the Prime Minister personally overruled the House of Lords Appointments Commission that advised against his appointment. That was the very first time that the watchdog’s recommendation has ever been ignored. Three days after Lord Cruddas was introduced to the House of Lords, what happened? He handed £500,000 to Conservative central office. I will gladly give way to anyone on the Tory Benches who wants to stand up and justify that level of sleaze.
Ian Blackford
The point is that the Prime Minister must respect democracy. He denies democracy when he stuffs the Lords with his Tory donor friends, but he must respect democracy when people in Scotland have voted for a Parliament that has a right to call a referendum to take us out of this toxic Union and find a way back for us as an independent country in the European Union.
Mr Goodwill
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He understands, I think, that a debate tends to be a two-way thing and not just a diatribe delivered to the House.
May I politely suggest that, if he wishes to restore confidence in this House, he could have chosen a subject for debate today that was of relevance to the people of Scotland—global warming, education, health—and not this rather lame subject, which, I suspect, is something of no consequence whatsoever to most people working very hard in Scotland.
Ian Blackford
Really, really. We are talking about corruption and sleaze—about a Prime Minister who forces Conservative MPs to go through the Lobby to get one of their own off a charge against parliamentary standards, and who rewards those who give money to the Tory party. That is exactly a subject of importance to the people of Scotland.
Nationality and Borders Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
Robert Goodwill Excerpts(3 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury (Craig Whittaker)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Sir Roger, but not particularly in this role. However, as always, it is a pleasure to be sitting on a Committee that you are chairing.
I thank the hon. Member for Halifax for her valuable contribution on this point. Decision making is of course central to our ability to support possible and confirmed victims of modern slavery. That is why, throughout the Bill, as she will know, we have discussed ways for that to be done as quickly and fairly as possible. It is in that vein that we have sought to clarify the reasonable grounds and conclusive grounds thresholds in primary legislation, to support that effective decision making. It is also why we are committed to reviewing the guidance that under- pins the reasonable grounds test to ensure that it best supports that.
Central to that work is the premise that the reasonable grounds decision should be made quickly. Currently, where possible, that is within five working days of referral to the national referral mechanism. That timeline enables us to quickly identify possible victims and ensure that they receive the appropriate support that they need. All decision makers receive robust training to support that process, and any negative reasonable grounds decisions will be reviewed by a second caseworker or a manager/technical specialist to ensure that all decisions taken are in line with the policy. An individual, or someone acting on their behalf, may also request reconsideration of a negative reasonable grounds decision by the competent authority where there are specific concerns that a decision made is not in line with the policy, or if additional evidence becomes available that would be material to the outcome of a case.
At the conclusive grounds stage, we already have a process whereby negative decisions are considered by those multi-agency assurance panels. That process is set out in the modern slavery statutory guidance for England and Wales, under section 49 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, and non-statutory guidance for Scotland and Northern Ireland. We believe that that is the right place for the process, enabling us to adapt it in future to changing needs. To put in place the duty for multi-agency assurance panels to review all reasonable and conclusive grounds decisions would cut across that approach. It is not appropriate for that to be set out in primary legislation, as amendment 185 seeks to do, as that would remove the ability to change such a process to appropriate bodies and needs in the future.
Moreover, the amendment would add a new power whereby multi-agency assurance panels can overturn competent authority decisions, rather than the current approach of asking the competent authority to review a decision in specific circumstances. It is right that only designated competent authorities have a decision-making role. The current approach supports a culture of continuous improvement.
As I have set out, we do not believe that primary legislation is needed here. The current multi-agency assurance panels have been subject to an evaluation, and we will consider the conclusions and lessons learned in due course. If in the future we wished to consider multi-agency assurance panels at the reasonable grounds stage, or to change their remit, it would follow that that, too, would be a question for guidance.
Although I presume not intentionally, the amendment would also remove the provision that clarifies that the conclusive grounds threshold test is based on whether, on the balance of probabilities, an individual is a victim of modern slavery. That is the current test that is applied, in line with our obligations under the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that decision making in such circumstances is made very difficult by the fact that many people who are victims of modern slavery will not declare that because it is part of the deal with the people traffickers, and many people who claim to be victims of modern slavery are not victims but are using it as a way of getting their asylum claim accepted?
Craig Whittaker
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. He is right that one of the key points in the process is that decision makers have the ability and the training to know what they are looking for to identify whether people are victims of modern slavery.
Nationality and Borders Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
Robert Goodwill Excerpts(3 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Blomfield
I understand that the Government seek to delete clause 58 and replace it with new clauses 29 to 37, which provide more detail. However, the detail does not offer any reassurance; quite the contrary.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that new clause 32 makes amendment 150 superfluous, as it talks about the scientific input into age determination?
Paul Blomfield
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but he is completely wrong and I will explain why shortly.
In existing clause 58 and the new Government clauses, the Government want to introduce new regulations and a standard of proof for age assessments, to compel local authorities to assess age, to allow the use of “scientific methods” to assess age, despite widespread concerns from professional bodies about the validity or accuracy of any such methods, and to penalise children for not consenting to these potentially harmful interventions.
Children who come to the UK on their own, from countries such as Afghanistan, Sudan and Eritrea, face a unique problem when asked to prove their date of birth. The registration of births and the importance placed on chronological age differs across the world, and many are genuinely unable to show official identity documents, such as passports or birth certificates, because they have never had them in the first place, they have had them taken away from them, they have lost them in the chaos of fleeing, or sometimes they have had to destroy them en route.
Disputes over age can also arise from a lack of understanding of the way in which dates are calculated in other countries and cultures, and associated confusion over what is being said by a child about his or her age. So, one might reasonably ask, why are the Government making so much of this issue?
Mr Goodwill
Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that there are incentives for adults to pass themselves off as children? If the age assessment is done incorrectly, the result could be adults being placed in schools or local authority care, putting children at risk.
The Chair
I call Robert Goodwill—sorry, I meant Paul Blomfield.
Paul Blomfield
He can have another go if he wants.
I hear what the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby is saying. I remember watching a BBC programme recently—I think it was on the BBC—on the Kindertransport. The same debate was had about Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany after Kristallnacht. Some were slightly older than the age restriction of the time. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks that this legislation would have been appropriate at that time. We could have turned them around and sent them back to the Nazis.
Paragraph 24 of the explanatory notes states:
“Since 2015, the UK has received, on average, more than 3,000 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children per year. Where age was disputed and resolved from 2016-2020, 54% were found to be adults”.
Clearly, 54% is a big number, but the data in the notes is more than a little selective.
According to Home Office statistics, for the most recent normal year unaffected by the pandemic, which was 2019, there were 4,005 unaccompanied children applications. Of those, 748 had their age disputed and 304 were found to be adults. That is just over 7% of child applicants. The problem is that that is in no way as prolific as purported by the explanatory notes. The actual number is likely to be lower, because the Home Office stats do not include decisions later overturned following advocacy or reviews by judges.
Again, the Government have a problem finding evidence to justify a proposal in the Bill. This is clearly not the first time this has happened. I see that the Home Secretary got herself into trouble with the Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee today by being unable to come up with the facts to justify one of her wilder allegations about those crossing the channel. Nevertheless, the Government are ploughing ahead with their plans to use scientific methods to assess age.
I now turn specifically to new clause 32, which does not offer any of the clarity that the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby suggested. Proposed new subsection (2) mentions the
“types of scientific method that may be specified”,
and that the two specified might be included. However, proposed new subsection (9) goes out of its way to state:
“This section does not prevent the use of a scientific method that is not a specified scientific method for the purposes of an age assessment under”
the previous proposed new section,
“if the decision-maker considers it appropriate to do so”.
New clause 32 is therefore saying: “Any scientific method that we can come up with at any time in the future will be legitimate.”
Mr Goodwill
I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make, but I am worried that he is saying, “Well, we’ll give a lot of people the benefit of the doubt”, which could result in large numbers of adults being placed in settings that are appropriate for children. Surely he is aware that since the 2003 case, age assessments have been Merton compliant. Any actions that the Government take to follow through on the Bill becoming law will obviously be tested in the courts in the same way as the early years situation.
Paul Blomfield
I refer the right hon. Gentleman to what my amendment 150 proposes. All it asks is that the Government should be required to take into account relevant scientific and medical evidence, consulting reports of the ethical committees of the appropriate medical and dental professions, on the Government’s planned use of scientific methods for assessing age.
What do the experts think? The British Dental Association called dental X-rays for age assessments “inaccurate and unethical”, which is a theme that relates to the rest of the Bill—it will not do what it says it will do. The Government apparently told some journalists that they do not plan to use dental X-rays anyway, but the Bill leaves that option open, so forgive us if we do not take casual briefings to journalists on the side as a way to determine the Government’s future conduct on this issue.
The Government are apparently planning to use wrist X-rays, which the British Medical Association tells us it has “serious concerns” about because
“they would involve direct harms without any medical benefit to the individual”,
as radiation exposure over a lifetime should be kept as minimal as possible. The BDA agrees:
“The process of radiography is a medical procedure that should be carried out only for medical purposes, and where the patient stands to benefit. Exposing children to radiation when there is no medical benefit is simply wrong.”
The BMA also warns that
“the evidence supporting the accuracy of the process is extremely weak”.
We are back to the same old theme: there is no real evidence to support what the Government are doing. The BMA goes on to say that the process is particularly weak where,
“as in the case of most asylum seekers, there is a shortage of appropriate age and cultural comparators.”
Yet again, Ministers are introducing ineffective proposals without any evidence, making those seeking asylum—in this case, children—part of the narrative of “Let’s assume bad faith, and let’s assume that everybody is trying to play the system.” It will not work, but it is designed to grab headlines and to make it seem as though the Government are talking tough, rather than dealing with the genuine issues on which we agree, such as stopping those who are forced out of desperation to make journeys across the channel. I urge the Minister to accept our amendment or, better still, to just withdraw the clause.
These difficulties are not going to be overcome by the use of so-called scientific methods of assessment—methods which are absolutely no more scientific than assessment by expert social workers. Indeed, many would suggest that these methods are a lot less helpful. Much evidence has been submitted to the Committee about the lack of effect of these new methods and their unethical nature, as the hon. Member for Sheffield Central referred to. The British Dental Association is clear that dental tests cannot produce accurate assessments and that taking radiographs is inappropriate where there are no health benefits for the individual undergoing the test. The BDA has submitted detailed evidence on that.
Mr Goodwill
I have just had a look at the NHS website and it says that having an X-ray is equivalent to one or two days of background radiation. If someone takes a short-haul flight, the amount of radiation they are likely to be exposed to is probably more than an X-ray, particularly if it is on a limb and not on the main body.
Stuart C. McDonald
I do not have access to that webpage, but the right hon. Gentleman has access to the extensive evidence submitted to the Committee by the BDA. It is a two-sided issue. First, it is not appropriate to subject people to radiation, and in this case there is no informed consent. The evidence is clear. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health is clear that an assessment can be no more accurate than two years either side. The British Society for Paediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes is clear that we cannot assess a child’s age just physically or by analysing bones.
In short, if a decision maker says that somebody is 18 years old, the person is just as likely to be 16 or 20. These new clauses leave the Secretary of State with powers that are far too broad. She should at least be required to have consent and approval from professional bodies, whether medical, dental or scientific. The insistence that so-called scientific methods can be used anyway if the decision maker considers it appropriate—as enabled by new clause 32(9)—totally undermines the other safeguards. It must be removed.
Mr Goodwill
The hon. Member is very generous in giving way. Is he saying, in effect, that in every case we should take the person’s word for how old they are and treat them as children, even if there is scientific evidence that they may be many years older than 18?
Stuart C. McDonald
No, I am not saying that. What I am advocating is the position at present—that the decision maker looks at all the evidence that is available in the round. If somebody is 50, I cannot imagine them needing an invasive scientific procedure to establish that they are over 18. I am not by any stretch of the imagination saying that we just take somebody’s word for it. I am advocating for the status quo. By all means the Government can introduce some sort of advisory board, but that should not supplant and take over the functions of local authorities—but that, unfortunately, is how I see these new clauses working.
The new clauses suggest that there will be implications for a person’s credibility if they choose not to undergo the medical procedures. I object, as a point of principle, to Parliament telling decision makers what to think about someone’s credibility when it is those decision makers—not us—who know the circumstances of the decision that they have to make. It is particularly objectionable given that professional medical bodies thoroughly object to these so-called scientific procedures. Despite the fact that professional bodies have said that these tests are inappropriate, the Government are telling decision makers that, if a young person says, “Well, the medical professionals say this is inappropriate, so I won’t undergo this,” they must find that young person lacking in credibility.
I repeat the point I made in relation to earlier clauses about the impugning of the credibility of those making statements on someone’s behalf. It is especially bizarre that a medical report by a multi-disciplinary panel of experts could have its credibility maligned simple because a child or young adult refuses to undergo one of these so-called scientific methods of testing introduced through regulations by the Secretary of State. Not only is it bizarre; it also undermines the fundamental idea that people should be able to give free consent to medical procedures and examinations, and not be pressured into them. Similarly, it undermines the principle that such a procedure should happen only if it delivers a scientific benefit for that person.
What consultation has there been? We have not been able properly to scrutinise or ask questions of relevant witnesses in relation to these specific provisions. Is consent to be sought from devolved Governments on the basis that large tracts of these new clauses relate to how local authorities should exercise functions related to devolved legislation? In the absence of assurances on any of those fronts—the evidence of problems, proper consultation and devolved consent—the case for change is absolutely not made. On the contrary, there are all sorts of dangers in these clauses that could have serious consequences for children.
Paul Blomfield
The amendment would require the Home Secretary to publish impact assessments on the effect of clause 59 both on nationals from the countries in subsection (3) and on the UK’s economy and trade.
The Government plan to replace clause 59 with Government new clauses 9 and 10. This is a slightly more developed version of the proposal to punish the nationals of countries if the Government consider their Governments to have been unco-operative on returns. The explanatory notes for clause 59 do not explain its purpose—because it was a placeholder clause, there was no detail—so I assume it is to act as an incentive for countries to co-operate with returns, but I hope that the Minister will seek to provide some evidence of that.
The explanatory notes do state that
“a very small number of countries do not cooperate”
with returns, suggesting that penalties would apply only to a limited number of states. However, a report in The Daily Telegraph on 15 October—presumably briefed by the Government, which is the way we seem to get information these days—said that
“Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Eritrea and Philippines”
are countries understood not to co-operate with returns. We know that the majority of those on that list have conditions that mean returns are unlikely anyway, as there are strong asylum cases from them, so we know that the deterrents will not work. So, I would like to press the Minister a little bit more on what the Government expect to achieve with these revisions.
Mr Goodwill
Surely what the hon. Gentleman says defies logic. If we are going to give visas to nationals of a particular country and we know there is a risk they may overstay, surely we can be more generous and more engaged with that country if we know that those overstayers can be removed. In the case of visas, we will have biometric data, so that there is no doubt about a person’s identity.
Paul Blomfield
I hear what the right hon. Member is saying, but the scope of this provision seems to go much wider than that. It seeks to introduce punitive measures, including on visa charges and so on, for individuals who may be applying, and I will develop that point. It is nothing to do with overstaying. This is about countries that are unco-operative on returns in other contexts.
I want to press the Minister on what the Government expect to achieve by this. For example, it is not in our interests to sanction doctors, nurses or engineers who have been recruited to the UK from one country with longer visa processing times or higher charges, and that would be deeply damaging for our diaspora communities. Again, it feels as if we have proposals picked from headlines, which are not in the country’s interests.
Mr Goodwill
It might help some of these countries if we did not plunder their health professionals, who have trained at the expense of that country, and actually trained our own instead.
Paul Blomfield
I am interested in that observation, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will lead the charge to persuade the Government to allocate far more resources for the training of health professionals and to tackle the crisis they have created within our health service over the past 11 years.
Amendment 151 will try to ensure that the Government are clear-eyed about the impact of their policy and the trade-offs they are prepared to make, as well as the impact on UK public services, communities and businesses. The amendment would allow the public to examine that trade-off, too. It would ensure that the Government track the impact of their policy, and are transparent with business and trade over the impact any visa penalties might have, either through reduced travel or through deteriorating relationships with those countries.
The Government talk a lot about global Britain, but through our examination of the Bill we have seen many threats to that and a lot of ways in which they plan on sowing discord with other nations around the world, damaging our reputation in the international community. I know that the Minister will not vote for clause 59 stand part, but I would welcome his thoughts on the wider impact of the replacement clauses, along the lines of my amendment. I would appreciate it if he could tell us whether any such impact assessments are being considered.
I have an important point to make about new clauses 9 and 10, to which I hope the Minister can respond. There is significant concern that these clauses will prevent people from joining refugees in the UK through the family reunion route. Let us consider the countries cited in The Daily Telegraph again: Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Eritrea and the Philippines. Since the start of 2019, 8,480 people from Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Eritrea have been granted refugee family reunion visas to join loved ones in the UK. That equates to just over half—53%—of all family visas granted over that period. Some 3,584 of those visas were for children and 5,771 for women or girls. The new clause, as drafted, would potentially apply to visas for refugees coming to the UK under one of the Home Office’s resettlement schemes, including the relocation scheme for Afghan nationals who have previously worked with the UK Government or applicants from Hong Kong for British national overseas visas.
So, if the Government are determined to proceed with these new clauses, at the very least new clause 9 needs to be amended to include an exemption for refugee family reunion and other protection routes. I should be grateful if the Minister would indicate whether the Government are willing to do that.
Nationality and Borders Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
Robert Goodwill ExcerptsTuesday 2nd November 2021
(3 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 View all Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 2 November 2021 - (2 Nov 2021)
The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury (Craig Whittaker)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Sir Roger, but not particularly in this role. However, as always, it is a pleasure to be sitting on a Committee that you are chairing.
I thank the hon. Member for Halifax for her valuable contribution on this point. Decision making is of course central to our ability to support possible and confirmed victims of modern slavery. That is why, throughout the Bill, as she will know, we have discussed ways for that to be done as quickly and fairly as possible. It is in that vein that we have sought to clarify the reasonable grounds and conclusive grounds thresholds in primary legislation, to support that effective decision making. It is also why we are committed to reviewing the guidance that under- pins the reasonable grounds test to ensure that it best supports that.
Central to that work is the premise that the reasonable grounds decision should be made quickly. Currently, where possible, that is within five working days of referral to the national referral mechanism. That timeline enables us to quickly identify possible victims and ensure that they receive the appropriate support that they need. All decision makers receive robust training to support that process, and any negative reasonable grounds decisions will be reviewed by a second caseworker or a manager/technical specialist to ensure that all decisions taken are in line with the policy. An individual, or someone acting on their behalf, may also request reconsideration of a negative reasonable grounds decision by the competent authority where there are specific concerns that a decision made is not in line with the policy, or if additional evidence becomes available that would be material to the outcome of a case.
At the conclusive grounds stage, we already have a process whereby negative decisions are considered by those multi-agency assurance panels. That process is set out in the modern slavery statutory guidance for England and Wales, under section 49 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, and non-statutory guidance for Scotland and Northern Ireland. We believe that that is the right place for the process, enabling us to adapt it in future to changing needs. To put in place the duty for multi-agency assurance panels to review all reasonable and conclusive grounds decisions would cut across that approach. It is not appropriate for that to be set out in primary legislation, as amendment 185 seeks to do, as that would remove the ability to change such a process to appropriate bodies and needs in the future.
Moreover, the amendment would add a new power whereby multi-agency assurance panels can overturn competent authority decisions, rather than the current approach of asking the competent authority to review a decision in specific circumstances. It is right that only designated competent authorities have a decision-making role. The current approach supports a culture of continuous improvement.
As I have set out, we do not believe that primary legislation is needed here. The current multi-agency assurance panels have been subject to an evaluation, and we will consider the conclusions and lessons learned in due course. If in the future we wished to consider multi-agency assurance panels at the reasonable grounds stage, or to change their remit, it would follow that that, too, would be a question for guidance.
Although I presume not intentionally, the amendment would also remove the provision that clarifies that the conclusive grounds threshold test is based on whether, on the balance of probabilities, an individual is a victim of modern slavery. That is the current test that is applied, in line with our obligations under the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that decision making in such circumstances is made very difficult by the fact that many people who are victims of modern slavery will not declare that because it is part of the deal with the people traffickers, and many people who claim to be victims of modern slavery are not victims but are using it as a way of getting their asylum claim accepted?
Craig Whittaker
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. He is right that one of the key points in the process is that decision makers have the ability and the training to know what they are looking for to identify whether people are victims of modern slavery.
Nationality and Borders Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
Robert Goodwill ExcerptsTuesday 2nd November 2021
(3 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 View all Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 2 November 2021 - (2 Nov 2021)
Paul Blomfield
I understand that the Government seek to delete clause 58 and replace it with new clauses 29 to 37, which provide more detail. However, the detail does not offer any reassurance; quite the contrary.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that new clause 32 makes amendment 150 superfluous, as it talks about the scientific input into age determination?
Paul Blomfield
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but he is completely wrong and I will explain why shortly.
In existing clause 58 and the new Government clauses, the Government want to introduce new regulations and a standard of proof for age assessments, to compel local authorities to assess age, to allow the use of “scientific methods” to assess age, despite widespread concerns from professional bodies about the validity or accuracy of any such methods, and to penalise children for not consenting to these potentially harmful interventions.
Children who come to the UK on their own, from countries such as Afghanistan, Sudan and Eritrea, face a unique problem when asked to prove their date of birth. The registration of births and the importance placed on chronological age differs across the world, and many are genuinely unable to show official identity documents, such as passports or birth certificates, because they have never had them in the first place, they have had them taken away from them, they have lost them in the chaos of fleeing, or sometimes they have had to destroy them en route.
Disputes over age can also arise from a lack of understanding of the way in which dates are calculated in other countries and cultures, and associated confusion over what is being said by a child about his or her age. So, one might reasonably ask, why are the Government making so much of this issue?
Mr Goodwill
Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that there are incentives for adults to pass themselves off as children? If the age assessment is done incorrectly, the result could be adults being placed in schools or local authority care, putting children at risk.
Paul Blomfield
He can have another go if he wants.
I hear what the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby is saying. I remember watching a BBC programme recently—I think it was on the BBC—on the Kindertransport. The same debate was had about Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany after Kristallnacht. Some were slightly older than the age restriction of the time. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks that this legislation would have been appropriate at that time. We could have turned them around and sent them back to the Nazis.
Paragraph 24 of the explanatory notes states:
“Since 2015, the UK has received, on average, more than 3,000 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children per year. Where age was disputed and resolved from 2016-2020, 54% were found to be adults”.
Clearly, 54% is a big number, but the data in the notes is more than a little selective.
According to Home Office statistics, for the most recent normal year unaffected by the pandemic, which was 2019, there were 4,005 unaccompanied children applications. Of those, 748 had their age disputed and 304 were found to be adults. That is just over 7% of child applicants. The problem is that that is in no way as prolific as purported by the explanatory notes. The actual number is likely to be lower, because the Home Office stats do not include decisions later overturned following advocacy or reviews by judges.
Again, the Government have a problem finding evidence to justify a proposal in the Bill. This is clearly not the first time this has happened. I see that the Home Secretary got herself into trouble with the Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee today by being unable to come up with the facts to justify one of her wilder allegations about those crossing the channel. Nevertheless, the Government are ploughing ahead with their plans to use scientific methods to assess age.
I now turn specifically to new clause 32, which does not offer any of the clarity that the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby suggested. Proposed new subsection (2) mentions the
“types of scientific method that may be specified”,
and that the two specified might be included. However, proposed new subsection (9) goes out of its way to state:
“This section does not prevent the use of a scientific method that is not a specified scientific method for the purposes of an age assessment under”
the previous proposed new section,
“if the decision-maker considers it appropriate to do so”.
New clause 32 is therefore saying: “Any scientific method that we can come up with at any time in the future will be legitimate.”
Mr Goodwill
I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make, but I am worried that he is saying, “Well, we’ll give a lot of people the benefit of the doubt”, which could result in large numbers of adults being placed in settings that are appropriate for children. Surely he is aware that since the 2003 case, age assessments have been Merton compliant. Any actions that the Government take to follow through on the Bill becoming law will obviously be tested in the courts in the same way as the early years situation.
Paul Blomfield
I refer the right hon. Gentleman to what my amendment 150 proposes. All it asks is that the Government should be required to take into account relevant scientific and medical evidence, consulting reports of the ethical committees of the appropriate medical and dental professions, on the Government’s planned use of scientific methods for assessing age.
What do the experts think? The British Dental Association called dental X-rays for age assessments “inaccurate and unethical”, which is a theme that relates to the rest of the Bill—it will not do what it says it will do. The Government apparently told some journalists that they do not plan to use dental X-rays anyway, but the Bill leaves that option open, so forgive us if we do not take casual briefings to journalists on the side as a way to determine the Government’s future conduct on this issue.
The Government are apparently planning to use wrist X-rays, which the British Medical Association tells us it has “serious concerns” about because
“they would involve direct harms without any medical benefit to the individual”,
as radiation exposure over a lifetime should be kept as minimal as possible. The BDA agrees:
“The process of radiography is a medical procedure that should be carried out only for medical purposes, and where the patient stands to benefit. Exposing children to radiation when there is no medical benefit is simply wrong.”
The BMA also warns that
“the evidence supporting the accuracy of the process is extremely weak”.
We are back to the same old theme: there is no real evidence to support what the Government are doing. The BMA goes on to say that the process is particularly weak where,
“as in the case of most asylum seekers, there is a shortage of appropriate age and cultural comparators.”
Yet again, Ministers are introducing ineffective proposals without any evidence, making those seeking asylum—in this case, children—part of the narrative of “Let’s assume bad faith, and let’s assume that everybody is trying to play the system.” It will not work, but it is designed to grab headlines and to make it seem as though the Government are talking tough, rather than dealing with the genuine issues on which we agree, such as stopping those who are forced out of desperation to make journeys across the channel. I urge the Minister to accept our amendment or, better still, to just withdraw the clause.
Mr Goodwill
I have just had a look at the NHS website and it says that having an X-ray is equivalent to one or two days of background radiation. If someone takes a short-haul flight, the amount of radiation they are likely to be exposed to is probably more than an X-ray, particularly if it is on a limb and not on the main body.
Stuart C. McDonald
I do not have access to that webpage, but the right hon. Gentleman has access to the extensive evidence submitted to the Committee by the BDA. It is a two-sided issue. First, it is not appropriate to subject people to radiation, and in this case there is no informed consent. The evidence is clear. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health is clear that an assessment can be no more accurate than two years either side. The British Society for Paediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes is clear that we cannot assess a child’s age just physically or by analysing bones.
In short, if a decision maker says that somebody is 18 years old, the person is just as likely to be 16 or 20. These new clauses leave the Secretary of State with powers that are far too broad. She should at least be required to have consent and approval from professional bodies, whether medical, dental or scientific. The insistence that so-called scientific methods can be used anyway if the decision maker considers it appropriate—as enabled by new clause 32(9)—totally undermines the other safeguards. It must be removed.
Mr Goodwill
The hon. Member is very generous in giving way. Is he saying, in effect, that in every case we should take the person’s word for how old they are and treat them as children, even if there is scientific evidence that they may be many years older than 18?
Stuart C. McDonald
No, I am not saying that. What I am advocating is the position at present—that the decision maker looks at all the evidence that is available in the round. If somebody is 50, I cannot imagine them needing an invasive scientific procedure to establish that they are over 18. I am not by any stretch of the imagination saying that we just take somebody’s word for it. I am advocating for the status quo. By all means the Government can introduce some sort of advisory board, but that should not supplant and take over the functions of local authorities—but that, unfortunately, is how I see these new clauses working.
The new clauses suggest that there will be implications for a person’s credibility if they choose not to undergo the medical procedures. I object, as a point of principle, to Parliament telling decision makers what to think about someone’s credibility when it is those decision makers—not us—who know the circumstances of the decision that they have to make. It is particularly objectionable given that professional medical bodies thoroughly object to these so-called scientific procedures. Despite the fact that professional bodies have said that these tests are inappropriate, the Government are telling decision makers that, if a young person says, “Well, the medical professionals say this is inappropriate, so I won’t undergo this,” they must find that young person lacking in credibility.
I repeat the point I made in relation to earlier clauses about the impugning of the credibility of those making statements on someone’s behalf. It is especially bizarre that a medical report by a multi-disciplinary panel of experts could have its credibility maligned simple because a child or young adult refuses to undergo one of these so-called scientific methods of testing introduced through regulations by the Secretary of State. Not only is it bizarre; it also undermines the fundamental idea that people should be able to give free consent to medical procedures and examinations, and not be pressured into them. Similarly, it undermines the principle that such a procedure should happen only if it delivers a scientific benefit for that person.
What consultation has there been? We have not been able properly to scrutinise or ask questions of relevant witnesses in relation to these specific provisions. Is consent to be sought from devolved Governments on the basis that large tracts of these new clauses relate to how local authorities should exercise functions related to devolved legislation? In the absence of assurances on any of those fronts—the evidence of problems, proper consultation and devolved consent—the case for change is absolutely not made. On the contrary, there are all sorts of dangers in these clauses that could have serious consequences for children.
Paul Blomfield
The amendment would require the Home Secretary to publish impact assessments on the effect of clause 59 both on nationals from the countries in subsection (3) and on the UK’s economy and trade.
The Government plan to replace clause 59 with Government new clauses 9 and 10. This is a slightly more developed version of the proposal to punish the nationals of countries if the Government consider their Governments to have been unco-operative on returns. The explanatory notes for clause 59 do not explain its purpose—because it was a placeholder clause, there was no detail—so I assume it is to act as an incentive for countries to co-operate with returns, but I hope that the Minister will seek to provide some evidence of that.
The explanatory notes do state that
“a very small number of countries do not cooperate”
with returns, suggesting that penalties would apply only to a limited number of states. However, a report in The Daily Telegraph on 15 October—presumably briefed by the Government, which is the way we seem to get information these days—said that
“Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Eritrea and Philippines”
are countries understood not to co-operate with returns. We know that the majority of those on that list have conditions that mean returns are unlikely anyway, as there are strong asylum cases from them, so we know that the deterrents will not work. So, I would like to press the Minister a little bit more on what the Government expect to achieve with these revisions.
Mr Goodwill
Surely what the hon. Gentleman says defies logic. If we are going to give visas to nationals of a particular country and we know there is a risk they may overstay, surely we can be more generous and more engaged with that country if we know that those overstayers can be removed. In the case of visas, we will have biometric data, so that there is no doubt about a person’s identity.
Paul Blomfield
I hear what the right hon. Member is saying, but the scope of this provision seems to go much wider than that. It seeks to introduce punitive measures, including on visa charges and so on, for individuals who may be applying, and I will develop that point. It is nothing to do with overstaying. This is about countries that are unco-operative on returns in other contexts.
I want to press the Minister on what the Government expect to achieve by this. For example, it is not in our interests to sanction doctors, nurses or engineers who have been recruited to the UK from one country with longer visa processing times or higher charges, and that would be deeply damaging for our diaspora communities. Again, it feels as if we have proposals picked from headlines, which are not in the country’s interests.
Mr Goodwill
It might help some of these countries if we did not plunder their health professionals, who have trained at the expense of that country, and actually trained our own instead.
Paul Blomfield
I am interested in that observation, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will lead the charge to persuade the Government to allocate far more resources for the training of health professionals and to tackle the crisis they have created within our health service over the past 11 years.
Amendment 151 will try to ensure that the Government are clear-eyed about the impact of their policy and the trade-offs they are prepared to make, as well as the impact on UK public services, communities and businesses. The amendment would allow the public to examine that trade-off, too. It would ensure that the Government track the impact of their policy, and are transparent with business and trade over the impact any visa penalties might have, either through reduced travel or through deteriorating relationships with those countries.
The Government talk a lot about global Britain, but through our examination of the Bill we have seen many threats to that and a lot of ways in which they plan on sowing discord with other nations around the world, damaging our reputation in the international community. I know that the Minister will not vote for clause 59 stand part, but I would welcome his thoughts on the wider impact of the replacement clauses, along the lines of my amendment. I would appreciate it if he could tell us whether any such impact assessments are being considered.
I have an important point to make about new clauses 9 and 10, to which I hope the Minister can respond. There is significant concern that these clauses will prevent people from joining refugees in the UK through the family reunion route. Let us consider the countries cited in The Daily Telegraph again: Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Eritrea and the Philippines. Since the start of 2019, 8,480 people from Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Eritrea have been granted refugee family reunion visas to join loved ones in the UK. That equates to just over half—53%—of all family visas granted over that period. Some 3,584 of those visas were for children and 5,771 for women or girls. The new clause, as drafted, would potentially apply to visas for refugees coming to the UK under one of the Home Office’s resettlement schemes, including the relocation scheme for Afghan nationals who have previously worked with the UK Government or applicants from Hong Kong for British national overseas visas.
So, if the Government are determined to proceed with these new clauses, at the very least new clause 9 needs to be amended to include an exemption for refugee family reunion and other protection routes. I should be grateful if the Minister would indicate whether the Government are willing to do that.
Self-employed Persons: Financial Support
Robert Goodwill Excerpts(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Steve Barclay
On the issue of advance payments and universal credit, the Chancellor has increased the standard allowance. That is not the total quantum that people will get; I referred earlier to those with children, housing needs or a disability, who would get more. We have also made changes to access, so that people can get payment quickly, from day one, without face-to-face meetings. Concerns about subsequent repayments have often been raised in the House, but clearly, the £20 a week increase in universal credit that has been announced eases some of the repayment issues; it means that there is more in the allowance with which to address the issue of repayments. There has been a significant increase in universal credit, in part to address those issues. There is some operational complexity around a shift to a grant system because of the way that the universal credit IT system has been set up. We have sought to address the concern to which the hon. Gentleman refers through the increase, and of course an advance can still be offered.
Changes have been made to facilitate statutory sick pay being paid from day one, and changes have been made in respect of employers with 250 or fewer employees; the Chancellor set out measures to support those businesses with those costs.
The hon. Gentleman made a point relating to what I said about simplicity in a previous answer. Let me clarify the point that I was making. The vast majority of people who are self-employed are suffering; we recognise that. We are looking at how we can design a scheme that addresses the operational challenge that Members have spoken about.
Let me give an example. Part of the merit of the scheme that the Chancellor set out on furloughing members of staff, which is, I think, for many people a new concept, is that it gave clarity about delivery of the scheme. In answer to the previous question and the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, we are looking at what is operationally deliverable quickly; what recognises other challenges in the Department for Work and Pensions and elsewhere; and what will not result in support going to a small proportion of people who should not be getting this targeted action, and instead allow us to focus it on the much larger cadre of people who deserve that help.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
In designing his scheme, will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury recognise that many self-employed people in the tourism sector have very seasonal businesses, so using February, for example, as a reference month would not be appropriate? Will he see what can be done to help recreational charter fishermen, who, because they pay harbour dues rather than business rates, have not been able to access the grant aid that their friends across the road from the harbour have been able to?
Steve Barclay
My right hon. Friend draws attention to the challenge that emerged from some earlier questions: the simpler the scheme, the less it accommodates often legitimate and deserving issues that Members raise on behalf of their constituents. I am very happy to have further discussions with him, but he will recognise the tension between simplicity and addressing all the concerns that colleagues raise.
Communities: Charities and Volunteers
Robert Goodwill Excerpts(5 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mims Davies
The £5 million that the Government invested in creating new places for disadvantaged young people through uniformed youth groups, including Girlguiding and St John Ambulance, shows that we are committed. We also have half a million participants in the National Citizen Service. Working with the National Lottery Community Fund, we are investing another £80 million to help young people be active in their communities. We want our young people to have a voice in decision making, and we are creating two new groups to involve them.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
May I share one slight concern with the Minister? The public sector, including the health service, sometimes leans on effective charities a little too heavily. I was at Whitby and District Community Transport on Friday, and its worry is that the criteria for patient transport are changing, which is increasing pressure when it already has trouble getting enough volunteer drivers.
Draft Merchant Shipping (Recognised Organisations) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Robert Goodwill Excerpts(5 years, 10 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I will be brief.
As the Minister outlined, the regulations bring a series of EU Commission decisions and regulations on merchant shipping marine pollution into UK law under the Government’s European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. They aim to ensure that international criteria for the performance of private sector companies—so-called recognised organisations—contracted to survey regulatory compliance in merchant shipping continue to apply after Brexit.
The areas of compliance are the five key UN conventions underpinning international maritime regulation. Those various regulations and decisions were implemented to tackle marine pollution. Studies show that ships contribute between 2% and 3% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. Roughly 14 million annual cases of childhood asthma are estimated to be related to global ship pollution using current fuels. I am sure the whole Committee agrees that that is shocking. We welcome steps to deal with that problem.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that under IMO rules there are annex VI areas, including many of the affected coastal areas in our country, where heavy marine fuels cannot be used and ships have to switch to diesel? The problem has been mitigated by the IMO in many sea areas, including the English channel and the Baltic sea.
Karl Turner
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I accept that there are some mitigations, but the research clearly shows that this is still a real problem.
The Opposition are supportive of this instrument and do not intend to divide the Committee, but I would like to put on the record and raise some points with the Minister. As ever, I certainly do not expect a detailed answer now, given the constraints of the Committee. I would, however, be grateful if she responded in writing in due course.
First, will the Minister clarify the post-Brexit arrangements with the European Maritime Safety Agency for access to its inspection database ahead of the new IMO restrictions on the sulphur content of shipping fuels coming into force on 1 January 2020? Although we of course welcome action aimed at reducing sulphur emissions from shipping for environmental and health reasons, there are significant challenges for short sea shipping and ferry operators. What recent discussions has the Minister held with UK ferry operators and shipping companies on meeting those restrictions?
Secondly, I would be grateful if the Minister clarified how the international convention on standards of training, certification and watchkeeping for seafarers and the maritime labour convention are included in the responsibilities for the ROs authorised by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to carry out inspection and survey work on its behalf. Also, how does all that tie in with the Government’s 25-year environment plan? I have a note with those questions that I am happy to hand to the Minister and her civil servants and I would be very grateful if they responded to these points in due course.
Homelessness
Robert Goodwill Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Ms Buck
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is a matter of great concern, although not central to this debate, that advice services are being cut all over the country. It does not help that legislation that this Government passed in the previous parliamentary Session removes almost all housing support from the scope of legal aid. Advice services all over the country are reducing their hours and their capacity. Indeed, Westminster city council, which is at the heart of my concerns about homelessness, has just announced plans for a further 10% cut in its advice services, which will inevitably affect such families. On the specific point about intentionality, I have absolutely no doubt from my office’s experience that many families and individuals who apply unsuccessfully to a local authority for appropriate housing support are turned away because they have made a simple error in their application. If they had been given good advice and support through the process, it would have led to a different and more satisfactory outcome.
Like unemployment, losing the roof over one’s head is traumatic and can have deep and damaging consequences, particularly for children. Evidence is growing about the impact of homelessness and enforced mobility on vulnerable families, their well-being and their educational outcomes. Nearly half a century ago, the campaigning organisation Shelter grew from one particularly vivid representation of what homelessness could do to a family: the film “Cathy Come Home” exposed its devastating consequences. We have come a long way in our attitudes since then. We have also come a long way since the homelessness catastrophe that engulfed this country during the late 1980s and early 1990s, when 1,000 home owners a week were losing their homes, and there was an extraordinary escalation in the number of families found homeless or in temporary accommodation. However, we have not come far enough. By the late 1990s, the number of people treated as homeless was declining significantly from that peak, but even so, when I was first elected to Parliament, families were spending months and sometimes more than a year trapped in a single bedroom in bed-and-breakfast accommodation with no facilities, sometimes in the most shocking conditions, involving pest infestations, violence and disruption.
I was delighted by the Labour Government’s decision in the early part of the last decade to limit the time that any family with children could spend in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I hope that I made a small contribution to that decision by taking the then Minister around a hotel in Bayswater to meet families caught in those unfortunate circumstances. However, the truth, then as now, was that bearing down on one manifestation of the problem—in that case, bed-and-breakfast accommodation—does not resolve the underlying problem if other factors are not dealt with, in particular the supply of affordable housing. We accept the Government’s criticism that one thing that the Labour Government did not do as well as we should have was build a sufficient supply of affordable homes. We built homes and introduced the decent homes initiative, and much progress was made during our later years in Government, but we did not build enough homes. However, the bed-and-breakfast crisis was largely resolved by legislation and support. It did not lead to a knock-on catastrophe, as happened in the previous decade, because other economic and social conditions did not underpin a worsening of the problem.
Where the last Government went wrong, I am afraid, is in deciding to seek to halve the number of households in temporary accommodation. It was an arbitrary decision that would have knock-on consequences, which are part of the problem that we are dealing with now. The Government made a well intentioned decision to reduce the number of people in temporary accommodation by diverting families and vulnerable individuals into the private rented sector under the prevention and relief of homelessness duties. Cumulatively, 200,000 or so families have been placed in the private rented sector as a consequence.
This Government have made that reorientation of homelessness duties into a crisis by restricting housing benefit. Unquestionably, we would all like the housing benefit bill to be cut, families to be housed in lower-rent accommodation and rents to come down, but if the Government choose to place vulnerable and low-income families in the private rented sector while at the same time removing the means for them to sustain their tenancies, it will be no surprise to anyone that the consequence is a rise in homelessness, which is exactly what has happened.
Some £2 billion in cuts have been made to housing benefit, the number of working people relying on Government help to pay their rent has increased dramatically and the number of affordable homes being built has collapsed. New statistics just released confirm a 68% fall in affordable housing starts in the year 2011-12, the first full year for which the Government are responsible. The Government are now reaping what they sowed. They were warned in a letter sent by the Department for Communities and Local Government to the Prime Minister last year saying that the housing benefit cuts would lead to a rise in homelessness, which was adamantly denied.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that one factor in making those on housing benefit less attractive to private landlords has been the decision to give rent directly to the tenant? Therefore, unfortunately, in some cases, it is not passed on to the landlord.
Ms Buck
The Government were warned that direct payment in a housing market as unstable as ours now is would have exactly those consequences. Yes, direct payment is a concern. It is of grave concern to social landlords, who need a reliable income stream against which they can borrow to invest, and it is of concern to private landlords, but it is not the only problem.
Part of the problem—it is particularly pronounced in London—is that the private rental market is booming. Huge numbers of people can no longer afford to buy their own homes, so they are moving into the private rented sector. Competition is strong for homes there, and low-income families whose only bargaining tool is housing benefit can no longer compete. That is the absolute opposite of what we were told by Ministers. We were told, particularly by Lord Freud, that because housing benefit is such a major purchaser in the private rented sector, rents would fall for people on low incomes. That has not happened. Westminster council has managed to reduce the number of families on housing benefit in the private rented sector by only 52, from 6,000. It is a complete and catastrophic failure of the policy, and the Government were warned about it.
What are the statistics? In 2011, 106,070 people approached their councils as homeless—an increase of 10% from the previous year. Of those, 48,510 households were accepted as being owed a homelessness duty—a 14% increase from 2010. Government street counts and estimates show that 2,181 people across England sleep rough on any given night—a rise of 23% from the previous year. Homelessness agencies report that 3,975 people were seen sleeping rough in London in 2010-11—an 8% rise from the previous year. The number of new rough sleepers rose by 73% compared with the same period last year. The number of people in London living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation increased by 26% last year. The number of families now forced to stay in bed-and-breakfast accommodation for longer than the maximum of six weeks increased threefold between 2010 and 2011.
London Councils warns that housing benefit restrictions are
“leading to a lack of private rented supply in which to place homeless or potential homeless households…which results in an increased number of borough placements in expensive bed-and-breakfast accommodation. This situation is deteriorating and is expected to continue to deteriorate”,
and the introduction of the universal credit is expected to worsen the scenario further.
We cannot say that the Government have been idle in responding to the situation. They have written a letter to local authorities in breach of the six-week limit on families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. The Minister, whom I am sorry is not in his place, wrote to my council and others saying:
“Whilst this Government has removed targets in the area of homelessness and elsewhere, this does not mean that I am relaxed about local authorities placing families in B and B for extended periods. The detrimental effects of B and B on families are well documented… I do understand that some local authorities are facing increasing homelessness pressures… However, I urge you to prioritise this issue.”
Westminster council—a cheerleader for the restrictions on housing benefit and other measures supported by the Government—is understandably irked at having received that letter. It points out, not unreasonably, that the increase in bed and breakfast is due exclusively to a set of measures introduced, not, to be fair, by the Department for Communities and Local Government, but by its evil twin, the Department for Work and Pensions.
Westminster council said in its response:
“The use of non-self-contained TA—Bed and Breakfast—is the result of demand for housing from homeless households outstripping supply and a shortage of accommodation for households where a duty has been accepted… When Housing Benefit caps were introduced, the Council planned for an increase in homelessness applications”.
That is strange, because Ministers were arguing at that point that there was not the slightest risk that there would be any increase in homelessness as a result of the housing benefit caps. Westminster council was telling us something completely different, as were most other local authorities. Westminster council went on to say that
“it is proving very challenging to procure new units in sufficient volumes to meet demand. The fact that the current funding framework runs out in 9 months and there has been no announcement of any replacement formula and how the LHA and household benefit caps will be applied in practice means it is difficult to provide landlords with surety of income.
The market for properties available for letting within the funding framework is reducing as landlords move away from letting to benefit dependent groups and have alternative markets”.
Stripped of the diplomatic language, that means that homelessness is rising, as families lose their private rented homes because of housing benefit cuts, that the council cannot find anywhere to put them, because homelessness accommodation is also being capped, and that landlords are leaving the market. On top of that, on the one hand, local authorities are being told by the DCLG that they are not supposed to send their homeless households to other parts of the country, while on the other hand, they are being told by DWP that they cannot afford to keep them where they are. Those two Departments are fighting each other in the trenches, leaving vulnerable families caught in the middle.
It gets worse. Even if it is possible to put households in temporary accommodation, under the household benefit cap, which will be introduced in a few months, they will not be able to pay their rent. This is a mystery to everyone. I have not found a single person—I would love it if the Minister, who is not yet in his place, could answer this question—who has been able to tell me what will happen. Last week, two families approached me—they were the first of many—because when their housing benefit is deducted they will be left with nothing. They will not have a single penny to pay for the temporary accommodation that the council has placed them in. They will not be left with £50 to buy food, or £30 to pay their electricity bill and for food. They will be left with nothing. That cannot happen, but nobody has been able to tell me what will happen in those circumstances.
In practice, families who have lost their homes because of a benefit shortfall of £50 or £100 a week are now spending months—I know of families who are spending 10 months—in bed and breakfast accommodation, which is costing the state far more than the amount saved by the cap on housing benefit. That is madness. The situation also means that councils are being forced, with varying degrees of reluctance, to choose which order they break—the time limit on the use of bed and breakfast, or the guidance on local connection, even for those families with many years residency, jobs, children in schools and other family ties.
I will highlight a few cases to illustrate that point. The first reads:
“I am a single mother with a hearing impaired 4 year old and a 6 month old baby girl with hemangioma on her back which is badly ulcerated. I can’t work to rent a flat as my deaf son has speech therapy and audiology appointments at least twice a week, and when I’m not attending therapy or appointments, I’m at Great Ormond Street Hospital for my daughters back.”
She goes on to say that her mother, with whom she was living until being made homeless recently, is a very sick lady. She has cancer and multiple sclerosis and has recently been diagnosed with diabetes. As a consequence, my correspondent and her two sick children were unable to remaining living with her mother. She goes on to say that, fortunately, the council
“put me in a hotel in Victoria which isn’t too far from my sons school, but unfortunately, it’s literally one room with a bathroom”.
There is no fridge or cooking facilities, which is
“very difficult as I’ve been having to go out every time my children get hungry. This is very expensive and even if I can afford it now, in a couple of days I won’t be able to.”
She called the council’s housing department
“and asked them how do they expect me to feed my children if I haven’t got a cooker or a fridge in my room. They said they can’t do anything. Do you know if that’s true? All I want is a self contained place so I can feed the children.”
That letter was written at the end of March; at the end of May, the family were still there. In April, when I asked the council whether they could be moved into self-contained accommodation with cooking facilities, it told me:
“Unfortunately we have had to use the 2 self-contained units which have become available in Westminster or surrounds since your email for even more pressing cases”.
The second case involves Ms E, who was in a privately rented flat off the Harrow road in Westminster. Sadly, she suffered a stroke, was in hospital for seven weeks and is now restricted to a wheelchair. She is 81 years old. During her stay in hospital she was evicted from her home for non-payment of rent. Since being discharged she has had to spend one month in a hotel in the west end, six weeks in a hotel in Kensington, and she is now in another hotel. I am told that housing options is trying to find somewhere suitable for that wheelchair user, who is 81 years old and has suffered a stroke, but surely, after almost 14 weeks, the search should be complete.
In another case, a lady wrote to me:
“I need your help, I am in a complex situation. I am in a private flat and housing benefit will be cut by 30th July 2012.”
She is a single mother with three children, aged nine, seven and six. The oldest is disabled: he has severe sickle cell disease, chronic hypoxaemia and low oxygen. He is at high risk of a stroke and has abnormal transcranial dopplers, and a hospital is monitoring him closely during his painful crises. They have been in their flat since 2009 and in the Westminster borough for 10 years. She continued:
“On 5th March I went to housing options, I asked the housing adviser for them to find us a property because the land lord is not going to accept the new housing benefit rate. He also phoned the land lord and he told me he is not going to lower the price. He told me that I can apply for the DISCRETIONARY HOUSING BENEFIT, but if it is awarded it will be for a limited period till November 2012.
I DO NOT WANT TO BE HOMELESS AND I DO NOT WANT MY CHILDREN TO SUFFER.”
Those are random examples of the kinds of cases that we have been dealing with over the past few weeks, but there are many more.
I am glad to see that the Minister is now in his place. I have talked so far about the pressures driving the increase in homelessness and the increased reliance on bed and breakfast, but I want to turn now to local connection. It has always been my belief that we should find a way to share responsibility for families with no local connections to any area—they should be more fairly distributed among different local authorities—and that we should also make it easier for families who want to move to other parts of the United Kingdom to do so. I know of families who would love to move. They tell me that they have family members in Manchester or elsewhere in the north of England and that they would love to be able to move there, but that there is no mechanism available for them to do so. I know of the HomeSwapper scheme, but if that does not work, there is no statutory framework available that allows people to move.
Those people who have local connections, such as children settled in schools, work—it is a complete myth that everybody who is homeless or on housing benefit is workless; that is not the case—caring responsibilities or other family and voluntary duties, should be supported, and that duty should not cease simply because the home borough happens to be in central London.
I am talking about people like Carol—I have not used anyone’s real name—who is a lifelong Westminster resident. She became homeless after suffering domestic violence and was given temporary accommodation in Dagenham. Her three children attend a school on Church street, where one of them, who has a speech problem, sees a speech therapist, and another receives additional, special learning support. Moving school is therefore not an option. Carol travels from Dagenham to Church street every day to take her children to school and to care for her disabled grandmother and agoraphobic mother. She spends four hours a day travelling, with her small children, from and to her temporary accommodation in east London.
Maryan is homeless due to the housing benefit cuts and currently lives in a hotel in Barnet. She is 29 weeks pregnant and suffers from endometrioses and related problems, which recently resulted in the removal of part of her bowel. Her placenta is not located correctly and moving around or taking the stairs is risky, but she has no choice because her room is on the hotel’s second floor.
Ms T was placed in private accommodation three years ago by housing support. It had an extra and illegal bedroom that was only discovered when we sent an environmental health officer to visit. Her violent ex-partner found out where she lived. She therefore had to make a second homelessness application, and at the time of writing, she was in a hotel where she has been for 10 weeks with her young son and newborn baby.
Family V are homeless owing to housing benefits caps. They have one child with hemiplegic cerebral palsy who attends St Mary’s hospital and is at a special school in Hammersmith. The family have two babies at home and a child at school in Paddington. They are in east London, and they are getting up every morning at 5 am to get to school.
Those are the kinds of cases where families have been located in other London boroughs. Local connection is very strictly defined and usually applies only to people who are taking public exams. That is not right and is not in line with DCLG guidance. The impact of that issue on families is devastating and counter-productive. Yet everything that the Department for Work and Pensions is doing, and that it is underpinning the DCLG to do in terms of housing supply and the weakness of the guidance for local authorities, is driving more and more councils to place their disabled and vulnerable families miles from their schools, caring responsibilities and work. That makes any attempt to rebuild their lives impossible.
Hammersmith council’s draft homelessness strategy has just been published and confirms that point even more strongly. Absolutely in contravention of the Minister’s words and flying in the face of the guidance given to local authorities, that strategy states:
“There is expected to be a reduction in the amount of locally available temporary accommodation… Due to rising local private rents”—
I thought that the Minister told us that they were not rising, but Hammersmith council does not agree—
“and the change in the Local Housing Allowance methodology, the private rented sector outside the borough will be increasingly used to meet the council’s statutory homelessness duties and other housing obligations”.
Considering those words from the mouth of the local authority and the cases that I and other Members increasingly have coming to our doors, it cannot be the case that the Minister is correct in saying that there is a duty to maintain local connection. He cannot be correct in saying that, other than in the case of genuine and short-term emergencies, local authorities are not placing families far outside their local authority and that families are not staying for more than six weeks in bed-and- breakfast accommodation, because all those things are happening.
Everyone we talk to in London Councils, local authorities, the housing sector and the specialist agencies that deal with homeless families tells us that the problem will get significantly and possibly dramatically worse in the coming months. Hardly anyone affected by the housing benefit cap has lost their home yet. A very small proportion of those people have got to the end of their lease, gone to court, perhaps seen a bailiff and ended up making a homeless application. The worst is very much still to come, because temporary accommodation has not yet been brought into the housing benefit regime. That is why local authorities are struggling so hard. In addition, the household benefit cap has not come into effect, which will make it impossible for families even to pay the rent for the accommodation that the local authority has placed them in. It is time for the two Departments to sit down, work this out, get a grip and prevent what is currently a crisis from turning into a catastrophe.