Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Temporary Class Drug) (No. 3) Order 2015

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2016 General Committees

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. May I also wish you a belated happy birthday and you and the Committee a very happy new year?

The motion asks us to affirm the Government’s decision to place a temporary class drug order on methiopropamine—may I say that I have both a lisp and no A-level in chemistry?—otherwise known as MPA. Having carefully considered the health risks identified by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, I can confirm that the Opposition support the motion. There are serious health harms associated with MPA. As the Minister said, adverse effects reported by users include tachycardia, anxiety, panic attacks, sweating, headaches, nausea, difficulty breathing, vomiting, difficulty urinating, and sexual dysfunction.

The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction has reported users suffering seizures across Europe, and, most gravely, MPA was implicated in seven deaths in the UK in 2014. There is therefore clear evidence that the substances controlled by the order pose a significant risk to public health.

The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs reports that the number of deaths and harms related to MPA use is increasing, and it could not find evidence of any past or present legitimate medicinal use for MPA. The Government received a recommendation from the ACMD that MPA be placed under a temporary class drug order on 18 November 2015. Given the increased risk to public health posed by MPA, that seems appropriate.

MPA has been on the market since January 2011. For five years MPA has been perniciously branded as a legal high and has brought real danger into our communities. It has been found in head shops since 2012, so it has found its way on to the high streets up and down our country. The delay between MPA hitting the market and finally coming under control demonstrates why we need new legislation that allows authorities to get ahead of the market, which is why we support the Government’s Psychoactive Substances Bill. We look forward to the Bill coming into force as soon as practicable.

The new Bill and a ban on MPA will be futile without a drugs education policy that is fit for purpose. The Government have consistently emphasised the importance of “Talk to Frank”, the Home Office’s flagship drug information service. We support “Frank”—it was, after all, the previous Labour Government that established it—but we are concerned that it is neglected. The Angelus Foundation has argued that there is a strong case for overhauling the service. Release has gone further and described the information that “Frank” provides as oblique. “Frank” received only 29 inquiries about MPA between October 2014 and September 2015. I have looked at the “Frank” website for content on MPA and it is not impressive.

On 16 December, neither the “Drugs A-Z” nor the search function on the “Frank” website had any hits for MPA or methiopropamine. There are no results for the street names of the drugs provided by the ACMD, such as “Ivory Dove Ultra”, “China White”, or “Walter White”. That paucity of content about MPA on the “Frank” website is symptomatic of a stretched information service that cannot keep up with the evolving drugs market. The Government really need an effective drugs education policy, as the laws we pass cannot deal with the problem on their own.

The Opposition support the order before us. The ACMD has made a clear recommendation based on the evidence about the real harms brought about by MPA. A temporary class drug order is an appropriate response, but I urge the Government to look carefully at their drugs education policy.

Healthcare: Yarl’s Wood

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I congratulate hugely my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor), because she has given those women a voice which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) said, is being denied them.

At the moment a great deal of attention is rightly being given to those who are crossing borders to seek safety. It is important that we focus our attention on those who reach the UK and seek our protection, and that we ensure they are treated with dignity and humanity. Every year, around 2,000 asylum-seeking women are locked up at Yarl’s Wood detention centre. Most are survivors of rape, sexual violence or torture. Because of their experiences in their countries of origin, those women are clearly vulnerable and many have serious physical and mental health problems. However, in spite of that, when they come to the UK for sanctuary they are locked up in detention, where they are re-traumatised, and the physical and mental health care available to them is wholly inadequate.

The chief inspector of prisons has called Yarl’s Wood a “place of national concern”. He found in his most recent inspection report that, of all the areas in the centre,

“healthcare had declined most severely”.

His report also pointed to the lack of gender-sensitive health practices in Yarl’s Wood. For instance, women who had newly arrived at the centre were expected to speak to male nurses as part of the health screening process and women who were placed on constant supervision, deemed to be so mentally distressed that they might kill themselves, were being watched by male staff in spite of their previous experiences of abuse and victimisation.

When Maimuna Jawo, who was detained in Yarl’s Wood prison, gave evidence to the parliamentary inquiry into the use of immigration detention, she said:

“Anybody who is on suicide watch has sexual harassment in Yarl’s Wood, because those male guards, they sit there watching you at night, sleeping and being naked.”

The Home Office has promised that a new policy will be put in place to ensure that women are watched only by female guards, but while the proportion of female staff at Yarl’s Wood remains under 50% there are serious questions about whether such a policy will ever become practice.

There are also real concerns about the treatment of pregnant women in detention, as hon. Members have said. Research by Medical Justice found that pregnant women miss antenatal appointments and some do not have any scans while detained. The poor care provided to those women is particularly troubling when we consider that, as has been said, for most of them detention serves absolutely no purpose.

[Mrs Spelman]

I want to highlight one important point: staff from Yarl’s Wood were actually prosecuted for offences against detainees. It is important to place that on the record.

[Sarah Champion]

I am grateful that the right hon. Lady placed that on the record. It turns my stomach that we are in this situation. Ninety of the 99 pregnant women detained in Yarl’s Wood in 2014 were released back into the community to continue with their cases, so they were locked up and re-traumatised for no reason at all. One of the pregnant women who the charity Women for Refugee Women is in touch with, a survivor of trafficking, was recently released back into the community after being detained for almost two months, even though Home Office guidance says that pregnant women should be detained only if their removal is imminent.

[Alex Chalk]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady’s excellent speech, but do we not have to be a tiny bit careful about making the point that people are sometimes released into the community and then continue normally? It happens in the criminal system that people who are remanded in custody subsequently have their trial and are acquitted, but that does not necessarily mean that, in all cases, there is not a public policy reason for such action. I understand her argument, but I wonder whether that is the strongest point.

[Sarah Champion]

I will come on to strengthen my point in a moment. It is welcome news that the Home Office has committed to consult on its policy of detaining pregnant women and I hope that it will engage with a wide range of stakeholders, including women who have been in detention while pregnant, to make sure that the process is meaningful. Standards of healthcare in Yarl’s Wood need to improve as a matter of real urgency, but we must not lose sight of the fact that locking up women who have come to the UK to seek our protection is harmful by its nature. However much healthcare services are improved, detention causes mental health trauma and exacerbates physical problems.

These women do not need to be in Yarl’s Wood in the first place. Their claims could be dealt with much more effectively in the community. In fact, two thirds of asylum-seeking women are released from Yarl’s Wood to do just that. The Home Office’s own evidence on the new family returns process found no rise in absconding among families seeking asylum since children stopped being detained at Yarl’s Wood. We can and should learn from that.

Minister, locking up women seeking asylum is expensive, unnecessary and unjust. It is time that the practice is swiftly brought to an end.

Sexual Exploitation: Protection of 16 and 17-year-olds

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Thursday 17th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Let me first congratulate the hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) on securing this important debate. I would also like to thank everyone who has spoken because they have done so with passion, on the basis of many years of experience and out of a real commitment to using the opportunity we have as parliamentarians to make a difference for the most vulnerable people. I am always most proud when we have debates such as this one.

The clear driver for this debate is improving the lives of the most vulnerable 16 and 17-year-olds. Too often, young people of this age are treated like adults and not afforded the additional protections given in law to younger children. However, teenagers of this age are more predisposed towards risk-taking behaviour. For the most vulnerable—for example, those with earlier experiences of abuse, trauma and neglect—this risk taking can have serious consequences.

Yes, 16 and 17-year-olds can give consent to sexual acts, but is it always informed consent? The law does not recognise that in many cases where children aged 16 and 17 become victims of sexual offences, they are coerced into submission by perpetrators who supply them with drugs and alcohol or of whom the young people are scared. The capacity to consent is impaired through an imbalance of power between a child and a perpetrator, and by the young person’s use and/or dependency on drugs or alcohol prior to the offence.

As far as under-18s are concerned, the law is clear that the sale and consumption of alcohol from licensed premises and from licensed vendors is prohibited, but the law does not specifically address the fact that 16 and 17-year-olds, particularly vulnerable 16 and 17-year-olds, can be coerced to submit to their own sexual abuse through adults supplying them with alcohol on private premises.

It is welcome that the Serious Crime Act 2015 has created an offence of coercive and controlling behaviour in intimate and family relationships, which protects vulnerable individuals, including 16 and 17-year-olds, in cases of domestic abuse. However, similar changes are needed to recognise the fact that 16 and 17-year-olds can be coerced and controlled—either through drugs or alcohol, or through fear—for the purpose of sexual abuse in more transient relationships.

The Sexual Offences Act 2003 defines sex offences against adults and children. In the case of a number of sexual crimes, the Act views young people aged 16 and 17 differently from those under the age of 16, and differently again from adults. For example, young people aged 16 and 17 are recognised as children if they are victims of sexual exploitation. A person who is found guilty of such an offence will incur a shorter prison sentence—up to seven years—than a person whose victim is under 13. That person will be sentenced to life imprisonment, while a person whose victim is between the ages of 13 and 16 will be sentenced to up to 14 years in prison.

Despite the age-related gradation in the length of sentences for sexual exploitation, the sentences for offences of rape and sexual assaults do not reflect the age of the victim in the same way. They do not recognise that young people aged 16 and 17 are children, and are therefore more vulnerable than adults aged over 18. The current legislation provides no guarantee that a sexual assault against a 16 or 17-year-old will incur a more severe sentence than an attack on an adult aged over 18.

Child abduction warning notices are used by the police to disrupt contact between a vulnerable child and an adult when it is feared that the child may be at risk of sexual exploitation or harm. They are primarily used to protect children under the age of 16, with the consent of their parents or guardians. Currently, the law also affords protection to the tiny proportion of vulnerable 16 and 17-year-olds who are in local authority care under section 31 of the Children Act 1989. Police protocols specify that only that group can be protected by child abduction warning notices.

Last year 4,510 teenagers aged 16 or 17 became looked-after children, but only 190 were taken into care formally under section 31. The other 4,320 became looked-after children voluntarily, under section 20. As only those who are formally taken into care under section 31 are protected by child abduction warning notices, the vast majority of 16 and 17-year-olds in care are not protected. That denies the police a critical tool to keep them safe from sexual exploitation. For example, when two children are living in the same supported accommodation and facing the same risks of exploitation, and one is looked after under section 31 while the other is looked after under section 20, the police can protect only the first child; the second is left unprotected. As the Minister knows, there is clear evidence that children in care are more vulnerable to grooming and sexual exploitation. I ask her to look at the position again to see whether that highly vulnerable group of 16 and 17-year-olds could be protected by child abduction warning notices.

We must bear in mind that there are other vulnerable 16 and 17-year-olds who are not looked after by local authorities. They include “children in need” under section 17 of the Children Act, who could be disabled or young carers. Those aged 16 or 17 who are assessed as homeless under the Housing Act 1996 are not eligible either. Both groups are at significant risk, and would benefit from the increased protection provided by child abduction warning notices.

In Rotherham there are 2,360 young people aged 16 and 17, and analysis of Department for Education statistics shows that 160 of them have been assessed as “children in need”. I want those 160 to have the protection of child abduction warning notices, so that if they are being sexually exploited—even if the process of sexual exploitation is just beginning—the police can disrupt the perpetrators rather than sitting on their hands until the abuse happens. The Minister has the perfect opportunity to make amends in the upcoming policing and criminal justice Bill. It is an opportunity to send a strong message that 16 and 17-year-olds are children, and that sexual offences against children will always be treated seriously.

Let me end by asking the Minister some questions. Does she agree that the law should make it very clear that a young person who consents to drink alcohol or take drugs should never be seen as also consenting to a sexual act? Does she also agree that the sexual offences legislation could be strengthened with the introduction of a new offence of coercive and controlling behaviour for the purposes of sexual activity with vulnerable 16 and 17-year-olds?

The definitive sentencing guidelines on sexual offences, specifically on offences of rape or sexual assaults, do not include vulnerability due to the victim being under the age of 18 as the harm factor, the culpability factor, or even the aggravating factor. This means that those convicted of these horrible crimes against children aged 16 and 17 may not get a sentence reflecting the seriousness of their crime due to a victim being a child. Does the Minister agree that the sentencing guidelines on sexual offences should be amended to include a victim aged under 18 being listed as a category 2 harm factor? This would strengthen the message that targeting children for sexual crimes will not be tolerated and raise awareness of the vulnerability of children of this age.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karen Bradley]

I join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to the work of that organisation. I will talk about mental health services later, if she will bear with me. I am absolutely sure that the organisation does incredibly important work. The length of its waiting list clearly demonstrates the demand for its services and the fact that it is tackling the issue in an effective way.

We need to work across Government, which is why we have established a cross-Government response to child sexual exploitation. I want to assure all hon. Members that this is a top priority for this Government. The Home Secretary launched the report “Tackling Child Sexual Exploitation” in March this year. It sets out a national response to the failures that we saw in Rotherham, which the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) described, as well as in Manchester, Oxford and elsewhere, where children were let down by the very people who were responsible for protecting them. It sets out how we will continue the urgent work of overhauling the work of our police, social services and other agencies together to protect vulnerable children.

I want to assure all hon. Members that significant work has been and is taking place across Government, but given the time available today, I will not go through all the points that have been raised. My door is always open, however, and all hon. Members are very welcome to come and see me to discuss their concerns and the work that is being done. I will be happy to share in detail the work we are doing across Government.

I want to touch on the issue of terminology in relation to child sexual exploitation. We know that there is an issue with the terminology, so we are reviewing and reissuing the current definition and the statutory guidance on safeguarding children and young people from sexual exploitation. We will make it clear what constitutes sexual exploitation as a form of sexual abuse, and we are working with a number of stakeholders, including the Children’s Society, to sharpen the definition and strengthen the guidance. We will publish a progress report on all actions taken following the “Tackling Child Sexual Exploitation” report early next year.

We recognise that 16 and 17-year-olds are a diverse group and can be particularly vulnerable. They are children, but they are old enough legally to consent to sexual activity where appropriate. We know that that combination can be exploited and lead to abuse. There is a contradiction between the ever-decreasing age of sexual maturity and the age of emotional maturity, which is not going down. The wider that gap becomes, the harder it is for us to deal with these complex issues.

The court process can clearly present a particular challenge to vulnerable victims and witnesses, and everyone involved has a responsibility to manage that impact. In January 2015, toolkits were launched for the police, prosecutors and advocates, addressing the fact that consent is an issue for vulnerable young victims as well as dealing with the context of drugs, alcohol, mental health and learning disabilities. We have also completed the training of all specialist prosecutors, which will include Crown Court cases of child sexual abuse, and in 2016 we are training in-house advocates as well.

The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) talked about the law that applies to the sexual exploitation of children aged 16 and 17. I want to assure her that the law in England and Wales already specifically protects that age group from abuse. For example, sections 47 to 50 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 criminalise payment for the sexual services of a child aged under 18 and provide for the offences of causing, inciting, controlling, arranging or facilitating the sexual exploitation of a child under 18.

The hon. Member for Stockport has campaigned vigorously on this issue. During the passage of the Serious Crime Act 2015, she was a leader in ensuring that the Government removed the terms “child prostitution” and “child pornography” from the law. I know that the guidance has not yet been updated in some areas but we are working incredibly hard to ensure that that happens and to ensure that all agencies with responsibility for that guidance update it as soon as possible. This is the clear message: a child cannot consent to sex. They are forced into sex, they do not consent to it, and there can therefore be no such thing as a child prostitute.

My hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire talked about children in care, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst). Children in care are particularly vulnerable, which is why the Children Act 1989 makes it an offence to take any child in care, including a 16 or 17-year-old, away from the person responsible for them without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. We also know that 16 and 17-year-olds can be vulnerable in a variety of ways, some of which may be directly or indirectly linked to their age. That is also reflected in the sentencing guidelines, in which additional aggravating factors include the use of alcohol or drugs on the victim and the targeting of a particularly vulnerable child.

[Sarah Champion]

I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but I want to go back to her last point. I do not believe that either the police or people working in care homes are aware of that piece of legislation. If there is anything she can do to make them aware, that would be great. When I speak to these workers, they say, “The child is 16, so I can’t intervene if they want to go off with this person.”

[Karen Bradley]

I hope they have been listening to the debate, but we will make sure that even those few people who are not watching the House of Commons on a Thursday afternoon are made aware of that piece of legislation. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran talked about a young person’s consent after taking drugs or alcohol. Let us be clear: the law is clear that a young person’s consent to take drugs or alcohol can never be viewed as consent to sexual acts.

I am making sure that I deal with the important points, so let me move on to the issue of mental health. Some children who experience the kind of trauma associated with child sexual exploitation will need support from mental health services. The Minister for Community and Social Care has just joined us on the Front Bench. He is a Health Minister, and I am working closely with him on the crisis care concordat to make sure that mental health services are appropriately delivered. It is crucial that we get this right for children, including 16 to 17-year-olds. That is why we have commenced a major transformation programme, backed by additional investment, which will improve the support provided to vulnerable 16 and 17-year-olds who have experienced sexual abuse and are in need of mental health and wellbeing services. The programme will place the emphasis on prevention and early intervention, which I know to be an issue close to the heart of the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen), building care around the needs of children, young people and their families, including the most vulnerable.

May I thank the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for bringing the details of the WISH Centre to the Chamber today? I welcome the invitation she made and I hope that we can arrange time in my diary for me to visit.

Draft Modern Slavery Act 2015 (Consequential Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 2015

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Wednesday 16th December 2015 General Committees

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, even if only briefly. As the Minister has said, the regulations make consequential amendments, and I have nothing more to add.

Question put and agreed to.

Female Genital Mutilation

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Tuesday 15th December 2015 General Committees

[The Chair]

We will now move to the questions session. The Minister started speaking at 2.35 pm; we have one hour from then, so I will bring proceedings to a close at 3.35 pm if they have not concluded earlier.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. I would like to put on the record how impressive the Government have been with their zero-tolerance approach to female genital mutilation. I particularly thank the Minister, who has done everything she can to ensure that legislation and guidance are put into practice to prevent the crime.

Does the Minister recognise, however, that the figures in the EU document are actually outdated? Will she outline how she is updating the EU with UK-wide figures? Will she also comment on the provision of specialist FGM training for those in child protection roles? She mentioned the mandatory reporting, the guidelines and the specialists, but I am thinking about people who are on the frontline, such as social workers, health workers and teachers. What training provision is there for them? Will the Government consider conducting a review of FGM protection orders to determine if they are actually meeting their objectives?

[The Chair]

I will allow supplementary questions at my discretion. I know that this is the first Committee for a number of Members, so I will be hugely tolerant.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karen Bradley]

We do not yet have the final figures. Protection orders were only introduced on 17 July, so the first set of statistics has not yet come through. We hope to have them shortly, and I am sure the hon. Lady will be made aware of them when they are released.

[Sarah Champion]

Taking the Minister back to her answer about telephone helplines and reporting, I know that the advice on hate crimes is to call 111, but 111 does not have a translation service. Will the Minister tell Committee members, when she reports back to us, whether people are able to report in languages other than English?

[Karen Bradley]

I would be happy to report back to the Committee on that when I write with all the information on the helplines and the other help that is available, including from the FGM unit at the Home Office. We also have a forced marriage unit, which is a joint Home Office and Foreign Office unit working across communities to provide outreach education about forced marriage. It also works across borders with countries where we believe people may be being taken to be put into a forced marriage. I will be very happy to share all that information when I write to the Committee.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the Committee takes note of European Union Document No. 17228/13, a Commission Communication: Towards the elimination of female genital mutilation.—(Karen Bradley.)

[Sarah Champion]

Thank you for calling me, Mr Evans; you are being very tolerant with a novice, and I appreciate it.

I think the whole Committee agrees that female genital mutilation is a fundamental attack on the human rights of women and girls. It has been recognised as such by the United Nations General Assembly and stands in direct violation of the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women and the convention on the rights of the child. Women and girls subjected to FGM suffer lifelong medical and psychological damage. The procedure can lead to gangrene, septicaemia and tetanus. Long-term complications include enduring pain, severe complications during pregnancy and childbirth, higher infant mortality, stillbirth and death in childbirth. In psychological terms, women who have undergone FGM have been found to suffer from a wide range of conditions, including anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.

The elimination of FGM has, rightly, been a key goal of human rights organisations, the United Nations and national Governments for many years. Progress has undoubtedly been made, but FGM remains widespread. As many as 133 million women are thought to be living with FGM across the world. In Somalia, up to 98% of women and girls between the ages of 15 and 49 are thought to have undergone FGM. In four other countries, the prevalence of FGM is thought to be higher than 90%.

We must remember that FGM is not simply an African problem. In Europe, it is estimated that 500,000 women have undergone FGM, and that 180,000 girls are at risk every year. The figures for the UK cited in the communication were collated in 2007, and according to revised figures from 2014, as many as 137,000 women in the UK are estimated to have undergone FGM. The NSPCC has estimated that as many as 23,000 girls under the age of 15 could be at risk. We must therefore ensure that the UK plays a full part in bringing this barbaric practice to an end and continues to promote the elimination of FGM across the globe.

FGM is, in many countries, a deep-rooted cultural practice. Simply encouraging Governments to outlaw it will do little to address the problem. FGM is already illegal in many of the states where it is most widespread, but it remains endemic. We should of course continue to push for Governments to prohibit FGM and punish offenders, but we must energetically promote cultural change. UK Aid and the Department for International Development have done really good work on the subject, and initiatives such as “The Girl Generation”, an Africa-led project to tackle FGM, are positive steps, but eliminating FGM will take time, and the Government must continue their commitment of resources and expertise.

The work of the European Union towards ending FGM is vital. It remains an international issue that cannot be managed by the UK alone. The framework provided by the EU is valuable in co-ordinating and amplifying our efforts. The UK must work closely with our European partners to ensure that the prevention of FGM, the identification of those at risk and the services for those living with FGM are strong across the EU. We must also utilise the EU’s global influence to promote action to challenge the cultural norms and attitudes at the root of FGM.

FGM has been explicitly illegal in the UK since 2004. There have been no successful prosecutions for FGM in the UK, which highlights the lack of awareness of FGM across our services. Positive steps to promote awareness have been taken in recent years, and it is vital that we ensure that practitioners can identify women and girls who may have been subject to, or who may be at risk of, FGM and report that to the authorities.

The introduction of FGM prevention orders in the Serious Crime Act 2015 was a welcome development. They provide a legal avenue to protect girls who are at risk of FGM, but we must ensure that they are effective. The Government should consider, as I have asked them to do in parliamentary questions, undertaking a review to determine whether they are meeting their objective. Victims of FGM, like those of any other form of abuse, are often reluctant to come forward or engage with support services. Health, immigration, child protection and immigration services are all likely to come into contact with those who are at risk. Multidisciplinary co-operation, better understanding and training are essential to protect girls who are at risk.

Education on FGM must be embedded as an integral element in curricula for professions in which practitioners are likely to come into contact with affected women and girls. Guidelines and procedures must be in place across the services to make certain that FGM, and those at risk, are identified and appropriate steps taken. Where FGM is identified, services must be able to provide support for its wide range of physical and psychological consequences.

The communication from the EU identifies a lack of holistic support services across the EU, including in the UK. The needs of survivors of FGM will vary dramatically, and we must therefore ensure that there is a focus not only on gynaecological services but on psychological support and post-traumatic counselling. Services should also share best practice across countries. In many cases, with cultural practices such as FGM, the messenger can be even more important than the message. We must therefore continue to engage proactively with minority communities, particularly those at risk of FGM. Without such engagement, the message that FGM is illegal and abusive will not be heard. Initiatives such as that recently undertaken by the Muslim Council of Britain, which issued explicit guidance to council members condemning the practice of FGM, are crucial and to be welcomed.

The Government should continue to work closely with community groups, third sector organisations and faith leaders to ensure that the message is heard loud and clear. We should also ensure that resources are allocated specifically to African-led organisations, as those might be the most effective at communicating the message about female genital mutilation.

Continued commitment to tackling FGM is vital if we are to ensure that all women and girls are safe from abuse. Many significant advances have been made in the fight against FGM in recent years, but we must not allow our focus to be diverted. FGM remains a widespread and, by some estimates, growing problem. I therefore welcome the EU communication and encourage the Government to engage closely with its recommendations and conclusions.

Serious and Organised Crime: Prüm Convention

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I am glad that we have had the opportunity to debate the business and implementation case for the Prüm decisions. I appreciate the fact that it has been a wide-ranging debate. I support the conclusion in favour of rejoining. I welcome the Government’s change of heart relating to these decisions, even if that has taken them over a year. I am glad they are now listening to the evidence, rather than just to their Back Benchers’ fears about the EU, and recognise that these measures improve policing capability both in the UK and across the EU.

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), who referred to the fact that our freedoms, civil liberties and laws are built on the foundations of security and safety for all our citizens. Prüm seeks to enhance that. The recent attacks in Paris demonstrated the importance of working closely with other member states to ensure that our police forces have the best possible means at their disposal for combating crime and ensuring the protection of our citizens.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Interpol has a motto, “Connecting police for a safer world”. It could do this very well not only in Europe but across the world if it got its act together.

[Sarah Champion]

Personally, I think we should use all the measures and all the tools at our disposal. Particularly in my field, abuse, I see that criminals are working internationally now and we must do all we can to prevent that.

I am aware that opting in to Prüm may seem like a technical matter, but it speaks to a deeper issue—that we can and do achieve more by co-operation with our European partners than we can individually. Labour firmly believes that by working with our European partners on such matters, we are more than the sum of our parts. As we have heard, these decisions establish requirements for sharing data related to DNA profiles, vehicle registrations and fingerprint images. The Labour Government were right to support these as vital means of improving policing across the EU. However, in an attempt to appease their Eurosceptic Back Benchers, this Government opted out of them in 2013, with effect from 1 December 2014.

Although the Government opted back in to 35 EU justice measures, the Prüm decisions were not among them. Labour was opposed to that decision at the time, so we are pleased that the Government have come to their senses and now see the benefit of these measures. Before I come on to why we support rejoining Prüm and set out some outstanding questions that I have for the Minister, it is important that we set the original opt-out in context. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) reminded the House that in justifying the decision not to rejoin Prüm in July last year, the Home Secretary stated that the Government had

“neither the time nor the money”.—[Official Report, 10 July 2014; Vol. 584, c. 492.]

I am pleased that they now have the time and the money to devote to this important issue. However, it is hard to shake the suspicion that apart from time and money, last year they lacked the inclination because of the need to appease their Back Benchers. We all remember the pressure the Government were under with regard to the European arrest warrant, and we have seen today the divisions within the Tory party regarding Prüm. While I welcome the change in stance and the party’s willingness now to stand up to its Back Benchers, I wish that there had not been the need for a delay of over a year. The demonstrated benefits of Prüm mean that this delay is likely to have had a negative impact on British policing, so it is important that legislation is now introduced as soon as possible.

Although the business case and the pilot study clearly show that there would be operational and public protection benefits, there is of course a need for balance and safeguards. I have a number of questions relating to these issues, and I would appreciate it if the Minister could answer them.

It is right and proper that we send information abroad only about people actually convicted in the UK, and that additional requirements be applied prior to the release of information relating to minors. The risk of false positive matches is another serious issue. While it is promising that the Government’s business case found that there was increased convergence in DNA testing standards across member states, we would like a requirement under Prüm that data is collected using a system of quality assurances for crime scene examination. Will the Minister confirm that the standard requirement prior to transferring DNA information will be maintained at 10 loci rather than the minimum of six loci required by Prüm?

I have a number of questions about the proportionality test mentioned in the implementation case. Will the Minister give an example of when he thinks that the test will prevent personal information from being sent abroad due to the offence under investigation being insufficiently serious? Given that the proportionality test is not explicitly included in the Government’s proposed draft legislation, will it be contained in any legislation, and who will be responsible for taking these decisions?

In addition to those concerns about sufficient safeguards being put in place, I have a number of other outstanding issues that I would like the Minister to clarify. The business and implementation case estimates that the cost of Prüm will be £30 million, although it acknowledges that there will be additional downstream costs. How are the savings of £18 million being made from the previous estimate of £31 million? What are the annual costs expected to be for the rest of this Parliament? It is important that ongoing transparency and scrutiny is applied to ensure that the measures are operating effectively. What plans are there to publish details of the number of pieces of information being sent abroad from the UK, as well as the number being denied due to failing the proportionality test?

Will the Minister tell the House about the timeframe for bringing forward the legislation needed to give effect to the decision to rejoin Prüm, and how long it is expected to take for the system to become operational? Given the delay already caused by the initial opt-out from Prüm, preventing any further delays should be a matter of priority for the Government.

In summary, Labour supported the Prüm decision when in government and opposed the initial opt-out from these measures during the previous Parliament. We are therefore happy to support this motion authorising the Government to rejoin.

Immigration Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Tuesday 17th November 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful. I did think that that was what the Minister had said, and I just wanted that assurance.

Turning in a little more detail to the provisions in paragraph 2 dealing with those leaving care, former looked-after children who require leave to enter or remain when they turn 18, but do not have it or are not asylum seekers, will be excluded from receiving accommodation, financial support, a personal adviser, a pathway plan, funds for education or training and any other assistance under various provisions of the Children Act 1989 and from staying put with foster carers or maintaining contact. The Minister says that that is because the needs of those who have no right to be here are different from those of people who have their future in this country. Such individuals are former looked-after children who have just turned 18, and care leavers in such circumstances include those with no immigration status, those who arrived as children and sought asylum and were granted UASC leave, and those who came to the UK at a young age but were never helped to regularise their status.

Such people can only claim access to accommodation and other assistance in limited circumstances. The first is if they are destitute, have been refused asylum and are eligible for support and there is a genuine obstacle to them leaving the UK. The second is if they are destitute and have a pending non-asylum immigration application or appeal. The third is if their rights are exhausted, and regulations will set out the limited circumstances in which they can receive support.

The concern here is that specific provision was made in the Children Act for all children leaving care in recognition of their additional vulnerabilities and the need for additional support in order for them to have the same chances as other young people entering adulthood. The new clause and new schedule fundamentally change that position. There is a real concern that someone who has just turned 18 and who, as a matter of fact and possibly because of vulnerabilities, has simply not regularised their immigration status will be denied support under this provision, which cuts across the thrust of the 1989 Act.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I want to speak against new clause 17 and new schedule 3. I want to start by asking the Minister whether he has the approval of the Minister for Children and Families, because the provisions seem to challenge much of the core principles for which he has been arguing. The changes have far-reaching impacts on the core definitions and duties of the Children Act, and it is strange that such dramatic changes are being housed within an immigration Bill.

Section 23(4)(c) of the Children Act places a duty on local authorities to give care leavers assistance to the extent that their welfare requires it. While the young person was a looked-after child, the local authority was their corporate parent. That duty recognises the legacy of the parental role and allows the local authority to step in and protect a care leaver in crisis. The Government’s Staying Put initiative explicitly recognises the need for care leavers to have “stable and secure homes” and to

“be given sufficient time to prepare for life after care.”

The Department for Education care leavers’ charter outlines key principles that will

“remain constant through any changes in Legislation, Regulation and Guidance”,

including the provision of advice and practical, financial and emotional support. Such initiatives are entirely undermined by the proposals.

Migrant children in care often face additional difficulties to British children. They are particularly likely to have faced trauma. They may experience language and cultural barriers. They are less likely to have any contact with biological family members. Care leavers often need their personal adviser or advocate to help to identify and even instruct an immigration lawyer. Barnardo’s conducted a child advocacy pilot for the Home Office that by all accounts seemed to be very beneficial. It helped the young person enormously to make informed choices and it helped the state to provide the level of support that was needed, so it seems odd that the new clause will undermine the Government’s pilot.

Not only is it discriminatory to remove support from young people leaving care on the basis of their immigration status, but in order for migrant care leavers to enter adulthood successfully it is vital that they can access a care plan under the 1989 Act. They are very young adults who often have no one else to turn to. The Government’s changes will remove all possible support usually provided to care leavers—including a personal adviser, a pathway plan and funding for education or training—other than, as the Minister confirmed, basic accommodation and financial assistance for certain groups.

It is not clear from the new clause whether it is envisaged that local authorities or the Home Office will be responsible for providing the support set out in proposed new paragraph 10B. Although I oppose the changes as a whole, at the very least local authorities should be responsible for providing support if the Government are not, and that should be stated in the Bill.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

We have spoken at length about the complexities of immigration law. In introducing yet another Immigration Bill, the Government had the opportunity to simplify some areas of the law. In areas such as appeals, the Government have, to their shame, done so by removing the right of appeal from the majority and proposing that the few who retain it might have to exercise it from outwith the country.

Some of the strongest arguments in the whole debate have been about the support we give to migrants and refused asylum seekers, particularly the children involved in such situations. The Government’s proposals on support for 18-year-old care leavers and destitute families with children in new clause 17 and new schedule 3 are nothing short of a dog’s breakfast, and are potentially dangerous. Either by accident or design, we could very well see support removed from the most vulnerable groups.

Under the existing system, Home Office support is provided under two relatively—I stress: relatively—broad provisions, namely sections 4 and 95. We will now have heavily caveated and more complicated support available across four provisions, including new paragraphs 10A and 10B of new schedule 3. The new clause and new schedule will sow confusion at a local authority level, and dangerous gaps in support can and will occur.

The changes relating to section 17 of the Children Act 1989 will prevent local authorities from providing accommodation and support where there are

“reasonable grounds for believing that support will be provided”.

That will prevent local authorities from supporting families on the basis that they might receive support in future, even though they are not currently receiving any support. It could prevent a local authority from providing emergency support if a family are destitute and have been unable to access immediate support from the Home Office. It will also prevent local authorities from providing support to families who in principle would be entitled to support under new paragraph 10A but are not receiving it in practice.

I am sure the Minister is well aware of the case of child EG, a one-year-old who died in 2012, followed two days later by his mother, when they were left in limbo between two different types of support. It is people like that who might be affected by the Government’s proposals. On the topic of vulnerability, there cannot be many more vulnerable people than young adults who have just turned 18 and have spent long periods of their childhood in care. Indeed, as has been alluded to, the Minister for Children and Families described them as “highly vulnerable” when calling for more support as part of a leaving care strategy as recently as July this year. It seems that our commitment to providing more care for this vulnerable group depends on where they were born or have come from.

The Minister for Children and Families is not alone. The Joint Committee on Human Rights also stated that unaccompanied migrant children must be properly supported in the transition to adulthood and receive bespoke and comprehensive plans that focus on educational goals, reintegration and rehabilitation. That includes planning for possible return to their country of origin and the provision of support to young people leaving care whose appeal rights are exhausted. The Joint Committee also stated that it would be difficult to reconcile the removal of support from young people leaving care on the basis of their immigration status, rather than on assessment of need, with the non-discrimination provisions of the UN convention on the rights of the child. Article 2 of the convention requires that states respect and ensure the rights of each child in their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind.

During the evidence sessions, we heard time and again from expert witnesses that the proposals in the Bill run counter to the provisions and principles in the Children Act 1989 and the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. The hon. Member for North Dorset mused that it might be easier just to amend the 1989 Act, much to the dismay of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North-east. The Government may not have gone that far, but they are trying to make changes to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 that will have a similar effect. Be in no doubt: the Scottish National party will be voting against these retrograde proposals.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

As the hon. and learned Gentleman has already highlighted, support is provided to a child within the meaning of the Children Act. The point we are making is that when someone becomes an adult who is appeal rights exhausted, it is appropriate for the state to seek the removal of that adult from the UK in those circumstances. We are making an in-principle point about facilitating the removal of those with no rights to be here. The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be suggesting that because someone came to this country as an unaccompanied asylum-seeking child, they have an enhanced right to remain in this country. We are saying that that is not correct. We should of course work with the Home Office to see that someone returns in those circumstances and that they are assisted to do so. Fundamentally, the provisions in the Children Act are designed for those who are likely to stay in the UK. Therefore it is our judgment that they should not apply and that is why we are bringing forward these provisions.

To the hon. Member for Rotherham I would add that we have consulted the Department for Education closely in the preparation of these provisions. The schedule therefore reflects a whole of Government view, rather than just a Home Office view.

[Sarah Champion]

May I have a brief clarification from the Minister? My understanding is that, if the child or young person is in a care home, the Minister is absolutely right—the age of 18 is the cut-off. If a child or young person is in foster care, I thought we had changed it so that the age at which they stop receiving support is now 21. Would that apply to an unaccompanied asylum seeker, or will they be discriminated against?

[James Brokenshire]

The point is that there is no discrimination. As I have already indicated, we are talking about children and the support provided under the Children Act. When someone turns 18, they are an adult and therefore we judge it is appropriate that the new provisions should apply. I think that the hon. Lady was highlighting the staying put duty in respect of foster parents. We are saying that, at the point at which someone becomes an adult, they should be leaving the UK and not staying put within the UK. Obviously, we have a strong desire to work with local authorities and with the young people themselves to support them in their departure from the UK.

I want to address the point about gaps made by the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, which was also made in the briefing from the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association that I am sure hon. Members have received. We do not agree with the analysis that is given. Indeed, we think that the provisions in the new schedule will assist, because we can see that support is being provided. We are simplifying the basis on which the principal need of families without immigration status can be met by local authorities. That need is for accommodation and subsistence support to prevent destitution, as is clearly shown by the study I have highlighted and previously referred to. In respect of family groups, we are clear that section 17 of the Children Act will remain the basis on which local authorities will meet any other social care needs beyond destitution—that is, what they consider to be necessary to safeguard or promote the welfare of a child pending resolution of a family’s immigration status or their departure from the UK. I intervened on the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras on that point.

The individual case that the hon. and learned Gentleman highlighted involved moving to DWP benefits rather than asylum support. As has been flagged previously, there have been delays in respect of some of the provisions. The Immigration Act and schedule 3 provisions we are discussing are about simplifying the process, so that there are not those laborious human rights assessments that replicate a number of other assessments in the system. The intention is to close some of the gaps, rather than extend them. That is why we take a different view from the analysis articulated by the hon. and learned Gentleman and set out in the ILPA briefing notes. We can see a difference of principle in the Committee this morning on the appropriateness of continuing Children Act provisions beyond the age of 18. Our judgment is that at that stage people should be leaving the UK rather than staying, and therefore we are talking about two distinct mechanisms and two distinct means. I hope that the Committee will be minded to incorporate the new clause into the Bill.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Clause 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[Sarah Champion]

On a point of order, Mr Owen. May I have clarity on when amendment 70 will be considered?

[The Chair]

We will come to it shortly.

[The Chair]

When we come to clause 54, amendment 221 can be moved formally at that point. That will be followed by amendment 70. Ms Champion, are you happy with that?

[Sarah Champion]

Happy? I am delighted.

Clause 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 53

Regulations

Amendments made: 37, in clause 53, page 44, line 15, after “State” insert

‘or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’.

Part 7 of the Bill currently requires the Secretary of State or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to prepare a code of practice in respect of the English language requirement for public sector workers. The code comes into force in accordance with regulations. This amendment and amendments 38 and 39 ensure that clause 53 applies to regulations made by either the Secretary of State or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster under Part 7.

Amendment 245, in clause 53, page 44, line 23, at end insert

‘() regulations under section (Private hire vehicles etc)(2),’.

This amendment provides for regulations making provision regarding taxis and private hire vehicles in Scotland and Northern Ireland to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

Amendment 38, in clause 53, page 44, line 39, after “State” insert

‘or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’.

See the explanatory statement for amendment 37.

Amendment 39, in clause 53, page 44, line 42, after “State” insert

‘or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster’.—(James Brokenshire.)

See the explanatory statement for amendment 37.

Clause 53, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 54

Commencement

[The Chair]

Amendment 221 is to be moved formally.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

It is clearly important that we tackle gang violence and look at the exploitation within gang culture, which sees very vulnerable young people exploited and forced into gangs. I will of course be working with all to ensure that there is appropriate support for combating that.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

The British crime survey shows an 87% rise in the reporting of rapes between October 2012 and March 2015. Sexual violence investigations need specialist expertise and supervision to ensure that cases are handled correctly and prosecutions are brought. What assurances can the Minister give that the proposed police cuts will not impact on the training and supervision of officers working on sexual violence cases?

[Karen Bradley]

The hon. Lady, who has significant experience and expertise in this area, will know that the increased recording of violence against women and girls is good news, because it means that more victims are prepared to come forward. I am very impressed by the work that I have seen police forces doing across the country to ensure that victims come forward and receive the right specialist and multi-agency support that they need.

Immigration Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Keir Starmer]

In earlier debates on clause 34 and schedule 6, we have touched at great length on the subject of amendment 226, which is intended to reverse the removal of support altogether. A number of Committee Members quoted from the available evidence. In those circumstances, I do not propose to dwell heavily on amendment 226, but amendment 227 has not been dealt with.

The rates for asylum seekers supported under section 95 of the 1999 Act were originally set at 70% of income support, on the basis that their accommodation and utility bills would be paid for separately. As of August this year, asylum seekers, including children, on section 95 support who would otherwise be destitute now receive the same flat rate of support, as opposed to varying amounts for single adults, lone parents, families with children and so on. That rate set at just £36.95 a week, or just over £5 a day. A number of groups have looked at that rate of support, which is manifestly very low. In 2013, a cross-party parliamentary inquiry into asylum support for children and young people, which took evidence from 150 local authorities, found that

“the levels of support for asylum seeking families are meeting neither children’s essential living needs, nor their wider need to learn and develop. The levels are too low and given that they were not increased in 2012 they should be raised as a matter of urgency and increased annually at the very least in line with income support.”

The inquiry further recommended:

“The rates of support should never fall below 70% of income support.”

The Home Affairs Committee picked up the theme in October 2013, highlighting

“concerns about the level of support available to those who seek asylum in the UK.”

It concluded:

“This relative poverty of those on section 95 support is compounded by the fact that the vast majority of asylum applicants have not legally been allowed to work since 2002.”

We will come to that issue later. Amendment 227 would ensure that any asylum seeker who would otherwise be destitute received no less than 60% of income support, which is currently equal to £43.86 a week.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I am going to speak to amendments 226 and 227, because they are both fundamental and speak to the humanity that I believe we have in this country.

I shall speak to amendment 226 first. Our immigration system has long recognised the need to afford special protection to families with children. It is heartening to hear the Minister reaffirm that position. However, the Bill will remove those protections by withdrawing support for refused asylum-seeking families with children. Irrespective of whether families should or should not return to their country of origin, it is incumbent upon us to ensure that the wellbeing of children is at the forefront of our asylum policy. The Government, by contrast, are seeking to withdraw all support for children when their parent’s application is refused, and to prevent statutory services from assisting children who become destitute.

The consequences of the complete withdrawal of support are severe. We have heard from witnesses that when refused asylum seekers have their support cut off, it both causes illness and complicates existing health problems. Those effects are even more pronounced given that asylum seekers will have been living below the poverty line, on just over £5 a day, for many months or even years while awaiting a decision. The pilot of section 9 of the Immigration Act 2004, which introduced similar measures, clearly demonstrated their negative impact on the health and wellbeing of refused asylum seekers. Refugee Action and the Refugee Council’s study of the pilot revealed that the majority of families with whom they worked had mental or physical health problems that were exacerbated by section 9. Some 80% of parents were found to have mental health problems and some 36% had significant physical health problems.

The risks to children are worsened still further by the potential to force families into exploitative situations in order to survive. Provisions in the Bill would see the criminalisation of illegal workers, the loss of the right to rent, the closure of bank accounts and the freezing of assets. In such an environment I am gravely concerned that exploitation will increase dramatically and that many of the positive steps made by the Modern Slavery Act 2015 may be fatally undermined.

The Bill will inevitably mean the cost of supporting families being passed to local authorities. The costs will be huge. As asylum seekers are overwhelmingly located in deprived areas, those with the least ability to absorb those costs will be faced with the highest bill. The north of England, for example, has about a third of the UK’s population, but Migration Yorkshire estimates that it will face half the cost. It has also highlighted that the societal impacts of such deprivation will be disproportionately felt in the north of England.

The Government’s view is that the changes are necessary to encourage refused migrants to leave, but a huge weight of evidence, including from the Home Office itself, suggests that that will simply not work. Indeed, the Bill is likely to make effective immigration control still harder. When parents think that their children’s life may be at risk if they return home, whether that fear is justified or not, they will generally opt for destitution in the UK as the lesser of two evils. The impact of the removal of support will be the removal of any incentive for failed migrants to maintain contact with the Home Office. The Bill will not only force migrants from the address at which they were known to the Home Office but ensure that migrants do not contact the Home Office again. How is immigration control to operate under those conditions? How is the Home Office expected to track and ultimately remove migrants with whom it has no contact and for whom it has no address? The Bill fails to address those serious questions.

The findings of the section 9 pilot clearly demonstrate the effect on immigration control of removing support. The Home Office’s own report stated that 39% of migrants from whom support was withdrawn absconded, compared with 21% of those who remained supported. Only one family was successfully removed, compared with nine in the control group, and there was no significant increase in voluntary returns. Section 9 almost doubled the rate of absconding, greatly decreased the chances of successful removal and had no impact whatever on families choosing to leave the UK. How can that possibly achieve the Government’s objectives?

We are facing, then, changes that will place families in poverty, cost local authorities and have a disproportionate impact on poor areas. The changes will make it more difficult to remove failed asylum seekers and will do nothing to encourage them to return of their own accord. The Government should reconsider this ill thought out step and support amendment 226.

In the Bill the Government have sought to withdraw the pitifully low level of support currently provided to asylum seekers. The question of if and when the support should be withdrawn has been widely discussed in Committee. Amendment 227 would instead address the support itself, to ensure that it provides the most basic needs for asylum seekers. As currently calculated, section 95 support unquestionably does not do so. Over recent years, Government cuts and a four-year freeze in the rate of the support have seen its value fall well below the level of 75% of income support at which it was originally set. That level in itself was determined as the absolute bare minimum necessary to stave off poverty.

Section 95 support is currently £36.95 a week, or a little over £5 a day. With that money, asylum seekers must pay for food, clothing, toiletries, transport and all necessities. Asylum seekers’ situation is made even more precarious by the fact that they often arrive in Britain with nothing at all and in many cases are already malnourished and in poor health.

Repeated studies have found that section 95 support fails to meet basic needs. Research in 2013 by Refugee Action found that 70% of those surveyed were unable to buy either enough food to feed themselves, or fresh fruit and vegetables, or food that met their religious or cultural needs. Similarly, all respondents to a research survey by Freedom from Torture stated that their income was insufficient to meet their basic needs. Both surveys indicated that asylum seekers usually had to sacrifice one essential need to meet another.

A 2013 cross-party inquiry found that support was not meeting children’s basic needs. Children seeking refugee protection are some of the hardest hit by the lowest levels of support. Children under 19 recently saw their weekly payment under section 95 slashed from £52.96 a week to £36.95. That will leave a single parent with one child struggling to survive on an amount that is less than 50% of income support, despite the fact that children require extra support, especially to fully meet their social, educational and health needs. Even prior to the cuts, all lone parent respondents to Refugee Action’s research survey reported that they could not buy items for their children’s education and wellbeing, such as toys, books or stationery. No children should be forced to live in poverty as a result of Government policy, especially not those seeking protection from persecution.

One of the stated justifications for keeping asylum support rates low was that both section 95 support and section 4 support were only temporary. However, in the second quarter of this year, roughly 60% of the 29,586 pending asylum cases had either been waiting over six months for an initial decision or were awaiting further review. The Home Affairs Committee has already raised concerns about the impact of living off asylum support for extended periods of time.

In complying with a 2014 High Court judgment, the Government calculated the level of support necessary to meet asylum seekers’ most basic needs, based upon expenditure data from the Office for National Statistics for the lowest 10% income group in the UK. However, the Home Office saw fit to revise those figures downwards. In doing so, it introduced a subjective element to the calculation and ensured that support levels are vulnerable to political or budgetary pressures. Amendment 227 would introduce a level of support based on ONS data for the current financial year and ensure that it was adjusted according to the consumer prices index each year. Without those adjustments, support will continue to be eroded and asylum seekers will be pushed deeper into poverty.

Uprating asylum support levels would ensure that those seeking protection were able to meet their most basic needs. The level proposed in amendment 227 can hardly be described as profligate, amounting to only the absolute minimum necessary to stave off poverty. It is vital that we act now to address what amounts to state-enforced poverty. Failure to do so will inevitably lead to more and more vulnerable people being driven into increasingly desperate circumstances.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I always find—I am sure everyone will agree—that when looking at legislation it is important to remember who we are talking about and think through who will be affected by legislative changes. I will focus on one reason why amendment 226 is so important. I want to share with the Committee the story of Zara, whom I came to know extremely well, though not as well as my sister came to know her.

It took a long time for the trust to build up with Zara. She was extremely religious, came from a middle eastern country as an asylum seeker and had been refused asylum. She was therefore destitute. She came to trust my sister and, in her broken English, eventually managed to tell her what she needed. I do not want to say the words I am going to say, but I am going to say them anyway. What she needed was sanitary towels. She shared two stories—this came later, after more trust was built up—of cringe-worthy, humiliating experiences that she had gone through because she was destitute and had no support.

Once, when Zara was coming off the bus—and before anyone complains that if she had money for bus fares she had money for hygiene products, those bus tickets were given by a Glasgow charity that helps people with getting about—she heard a little boy saying something to his mum. She could not quite make out what he was saying, but he was pointing at her, and she realised was bleeding. Any woman would feel the horror and humiliation of that, but she was extremely religious and that was just the end for her.

Another experience came when a charity had made it possible for Zara to have three nights’ accommodation in the home of a very kind person. The Committee will be able to imagine what I will say. She bled through the night—because of her erratic lifestyle she had no idea that her period was about to come—and she was horrified when she woke up in the morning, went to clean the sheets and discovered the blood had seeped through to the mattress. There was no way of hiding from that very kind person, to whom she was extremely grateful, what had happened.

[Sarah Champion]

As I listen to the story, my heart is being ripped out, but I think what disturbs me most is having to justify someone going on a bus, as if that is an extravagant luxury. Is that what we have come to?

[Anne McLaughlin]

The hon. Lady raises an important point, and I gave the justification I did because in this Committee I think I am getting to the stage when I can read the minds of some of the Conservative Members. As they did not intervene I explained how Zara managed to get on a bus.

I want to make it clear that I appreciate how uncomfortable people in this room might feel at hearing me talk about bleeding and sanitary towels. I would not normally do that; I am normally discreet, easily embarrassed and notoriously squeamish. I feel extremely uncomfortable standing here forcing myself to talk about periods, bleeding and sanitary towels, and repeating myself again and again. I am doing it because I want everyone to feel uncomfortable; I want us all to feel that discomfort, because we need to realise that whatever we feel now is a minuscule fraction of what the women I am talking about experience.

To continue reading minds, some Members might think that there are charities and good Samaritans, and ask whether help could not be got from them; but it was so painful for Zara to ask for that help. There are charities that go out to offer help, but they are primarily focused on putting a roof over someone’s head, and, if they cannot do that, on feeding them, because food is essential and hygiene products are not. They are essential only to someone’s mental wellbeing, and the charities obviously must concentrate on keeping people alive.

Again, to use telepathy—it is working well—Conservative Members may be thinking that the simple solution would be just to go home. That is all very well, but as we have heard so many times, a significant proportion of the decisions made about people are wrong. It may therefore be assumed that a significant proportion of the people who some Members may think choose to stay here and humiliate themselves with having to ask for sanitary products have no choice.

I cringe when I talk and think about Zara. I do not imagine that anyone in the room is not cringing, and I understand that, but we can do something about it. In this amendment, we are not asking for money for fripperies; we are asking for money for absolute essentials, so that people can, first, stay alive; and secondly, and just as important, are allowed their dignity. Anyone who votes against this amendment today must be honest with themselves and know that they are consciously and deliberately denying that dignity to these women and to many others. I appeal to the Minister and to Government Members to defy their Whip and vote aye—vote in favour of dignity for everyone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

I beg to move amendment 228, in schedule 6, page 100, line 16, at end insert—

‘(43A) The Immigration Act 1971 is amended as follows.

(43B) After section 3(9) (general provisions for regulation and control) insert—

“(10) In making rules under subsection (2), the Secretary of State must have regard to the following.

(11) Rules must provide for persons seeking asylum, within the meaning of the rules, to apply to the Secretary of State for permission to take up employment and that permission must be granted if—

(a) a decision has not been taken on the applicant’s asylum application within six months of the date on which it was recorded, or

(b) an individual makes further submissions which raise asylum grounds and a decision on that fresh claim or to refuse to treat such further submissions as a fresh claim has not been taken within six months of the date on which they were recorded.

(12) Permission for a person seeking asylum to take up employment shall be on terms no less favourable than those upon which permission is granted to a person recognised as a refugee to take up employment.””

This proposed amendment would provide for asylum seekers to be able to work if their claim is not determined within the Home Office target time of six months.

The amendment follows amendment 227 in that it would provide for asylum seekers to be able to work if their claim was not determined within the Home Office target time of six months. One of the injustices here is that those who have to exist on the low rates that the Committee has just discussed must do so under a system that prohibits them from working.

More than 3,600 asylum seekers currently wait more than six months for an initial decision on their cases. They are the individuals surviving on just over £5 a day, as we have just discussed. As things stand, they can apply for permission to work only if they have been waiting for more than a year for an initial decision. If that permission is granted, they are allowed to seek employment only in an occupation listed on the shortage occupation list.

This system has changed over the years as a result of a number of challenges and different policy decisions. The evidence that not allowing people to work deters them from coming to the UK is extremely hard to maintain when the position in other EU countries is taken into account. Some 11 EU countries grant permission to work after six months or less, if a decision has not been made on the asylum application. All those countries have had policies in place for many years. The recast EU reception conditions directive reduces the period an asylum seeker can be excluded from the labour market in an initial decision to nine months. Some 27 EU states have more generous policies than the UK as a combined result of those provisions.

This simple amendment would put people who have had to wait more than six months for their decision in a position where they can work, which is what many of them want to do. The net result for the taxpayer is likely to be a saving rather than a cost.

[Sarah Champion]

I would like to build on my hon. and learned Friend’s well made argument. I thank the Regional Asylum Activism Project for Yorkshire and Humberside for their help.

Despite often arriving in the UK with a host of skills and experiences gained in their country of origin, hardly any asylum seekers are allowed to work while their claim is being assessed by the Home Office. Only asylum seekers who have waited over 12 months for an initial decision on their case are eligible to apply for permission to work, but even those granted permission to work are not allowed to work in a self-employed capacity, set up a business, or take up a job that is not included on the highly specialised shortage occupation list. The current restrictions on accessing employment for people seeking refugee protection stops many highly skilled, experienced and educated individuals from contributing to the UK’s economy and society. For example, refugees started Marks & Spencer and brought us fish and chips and the Mini. People seeking refugee protection today will include, among many others, entrepreneurs, doctors, nurses, engineers, teachers, scientists and solicitors. Fundamentally, allowing asylum seekers to work will make economic, social and political sense.

First, on economics, if asylum seekers were granted permission to work, they would be able to contribute to the UK economy immediately through income tax, adding directly to the UK’s coffers. Equally, amounts spent on asylum support would decline, resulting in a net benefit to the economy. That has been recognised by the European Commission, which states:

“Mandatory unemployment… imposes costs on the State through the payment of additional social welfare payments.”

Government research has also recognised that delayed entry to the labour market, loss of skills and confidence, and difficulty getting qualifications recognised in this country can cause problems even when status is granted, leading to high levels of unemployment and underemployment. Allowing people to work while waiting for their asylum claim decision will not only allow them to start rebuilding their lives free from persecution, but allow them to start the journey towards meaningful employment as soon as possible.

Secondly, the indirect costs of enforced poverty are significant. Without the right to work, people in the asylum system are forced to rely on Government support to survive, but with asylum support rates set at £5.28 a day—barely 50% of the income support equivalent—many in the asylum system are forced into institutionalised poverty. As I and other hon. Members have said, extended periods living in poverty have huge impacts on physical and mental health and self-esteem. For some, a reliance on Government support is considered shameful, as they are unable to support themselves and their families; that concern has been raised by the cross-party parliamentary inquiry into asylum support for children and young people. Research from the University of Leeds and the University of Salford found that the experience of poverty was a key factor in pushing many individuals in the asylum process into exploitative and precarious working conditions. I suggest that providing those in the asylum process with the legal permission to work is in line with the Government’s commitment to ending modern day slavery.

Thirdly, the rationale for the current policy does not hold up. The reasons for restricting permission to work for asylum seekers hinge on the idea that it will act as pull factor, but it is important to remember the conclusions of research the Home Office commissioned in 2002:

“There was very little evidence that the sample respondents had a detailed knowledge of: UK immigration or asylum procedures; entitlements to benefits in the UK; or the availability of work in the UK.”

That was confirmed by a review of the 19 main recipient countries for asylum applications in the OECD in 2011, which concluded that policies that relate to the welfare of asylum seekers did not impact on the number of applications made in destination countries. All but one of the countries that granted permission to work to people seeking asylum received fewer asylum applications than the UK in 2012 and 2013.

A change of policy to allow asylum seekers the permission to work is long overdue. In 2007, the Joint Committee on Human Rights described the denial of the right to work for asylum seekers as part of a “deliberate policy of destitution”, which was breaching human rights. In 2013, the cross-party parliamentary inquiry into asylum support for children and young people called for parents and young people to be given permission to work while their claims were being decided. Thirteen local authorities have passed motions condemning the destitution of people seeking asylum. To date, 71 current Members of this House, of all political persuasions, have signed Still Human Still Here’s declaration on permission to work. They join the Trades Union Congress and a broad coalition of organisations, from Refugee Council to Crisis, Doctors of the World to The Children’s Society, in their call for people seeking refugee protection to be allowed to live in dignity, not destitution.

Allowing asylum seekers permission to work will enable many to support themselves through the asylum process. We should grant permission to work to all asylum seekers if they have been waiting more than six months for an initial decision, up until their protection needs are recognised or a safe route back to their country of origin has been negotiated. For this reason, I urge the Minister to support the amendment.

[James Brokenshire]

This is clearly a debate that has been going on for some time. I know there are differences of opinion on the time period that should or should not operate for those who have claimed asylum in this country. The amendment would radically change existing permission to work arrangements for asylum seekers, allowing permission to work where an asylum claim is still outstanding after six months instead of 12 months, removing the caveat that any delay must not be of the asylum seeker’s own making and lifting all restrictions on the type of employment available. Those are the three elements that have been advanced by Opposition Members.

The amendment would enable persons to take any employment of their choice, rather than be restricted to those on the shortage occupation list published by the Home office. The arguments made were initially about compliance with some of our EU obligations and what other EU partners are doing—I will come on to that—and then, separately, what those who are working could contribute. Also, some evidence was adduced on whether permission to work is a pull factor. Let me deal with each in turn.

On the issue of the EU, our current position is consistent with our obligations under the EU reception conditions directive, which sets out the minimum benefits and entitlements afforded to asylum seekers while they await a decision on their claim. That is reflected in part 11B of the immigration rules, but we decided not to opt in to the recast reception conditions directive requiring member states to grant automatic access to the labour market for asylum seekers after nine months, regardless of a decision at first instance being taken, because we considered the Commission’s proposal could undermine our asylum system by encouraging unfounded claims from those seeking to use the asylum system as a cover for economic migration.

It is important to understand that asylum claims cover a range of different circumstances and scenarios. Someone might have claimed asylum at their point of arrival, or been smuggled into this country and then claimed asylum. Someone may already be in the UK, having come via a lawful route, and circumstances change in their home country, so they might claim asylum, or they simply seek to stay here and they use an asylum claim as a means of extending their stay in this country. Sadly, that is the reality of some of the asylum claims that we seek to respond to within the system.

The amendment poses a challenge. Should we be taking steps that are more consistent with our EU partners? I think that in the UK it is right that we should form our own decisions, based on our assessment of our asylum system and what we judge is in the best interests of this country, while supporting the processing and the proud tradition that we have had in this country of granting asylum in this country.

On the labour market issues, an argument was advanced in the context of the asylum support budget, but that argument does not take into account the potential to open up the resident labour market in a way that could blur the distinction between economic migration and asylum. I genuinely worry about measures that blur that distinction. People could apply for asylum but not engage with the process, with the deliberate intent of delaying the process so that they can then be granted the benefit of being able to work after the end of the six-month period. We are concerned that this may lead to an increase in asylum applications that would divert valuable resources away from ensuring that those genuinely in need of protection are recognised quickly, enabling them to integrate and begin rebuilding their lives. That is the approach that we have taken in seeking to ensure that the processing of asylum claims is much better than it was when this Government came in.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Gentleman makes the point that I was underlining about the need to see that asylum claims are processed as efficiently and effectively as possible. However, I do think that the amendment would blur the lines and might well lead to spurious or inappropriate asylum claims being made, perhaps by people already in this country coming to the end of their stay, whether they came as visitors, students or via other routes. That is a real challenge. The amendment would undermine the integrity of what we all believe in: providing protection to those who are fleeing persecution, ensuring that we have a system that is efficient, effective and focused on making those decisions and seeing that people receive support as recognised refugees at the earliest opportunity. It risks more claims, of whatever character, being made.

We also have to bear in mind the resident labour market. It is argued that if you give an asylum seeker the right to work, you are, in essence, denying a job to someone who is already living in this country lawfully. Because of the implications of that we judge that it is right to have a system that recognises that if there is delay—we judge that 12 months is the right period—people can work, but they should not be seeking to frustrate or delay the system; that test has to be captured as well. It is about shortage skills, those that are needed. That is why the focus is there, otherwise we get into a blurring of issues in relation to economic migration. We must do our utmost to ensure that people in this country who have the skills and the ability are able to access the job market.

[Sarah Champion]

I hear the Minister’s argument. Does he know—if he does not, perhaps he will write to us—the average length of time that an asylum claim takes? From the casework that I get, it seems to be considerably more than 12 months normally, so does his argument stack up? What is the difference between six months and 12 months if the average is 18 months?

[James Brokenshire]

I can tell the hon. Lady that 85% of cases are straightforward and we have a service standard of dealing with those within six months. We dealt with a big backlog earlier this year—that is why I make the point about the effort that has gone in. Many people in the asylum processing system will say that asylum processing is probably in as good a place now as it has been in for many years, but of course I look for further improvements; we do not sit back. Equally, it depends on some of the pressures in terms of changes or increases in the numbers of those who are claiming asylum. We are very vigilant in monitoring how we are dealing with this. I can say to the hon. Lady that 85% of cases are straightforward and that our service standard is to deal with those within six months. Obviously, it is difficult to know what proportion of the people in her constituency may be in the situation she describes; it is difficult to draw that parallel. However, I hope that it is helpful at least to set out the approach that we are taking and that balance in terms of how asylum claims are dealt with.

We judge that the current policy strikes the right balance. Asylum seekers are provided with support and accommodation, but if their asylum claims are undetermined for 12 months for reasons outside their control, they can apply for permission to work. We believe that that is a fair and reasonable policy that we should keep. For the reasons that I have outlined, we ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

Immigration Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Sarah Champion Excerpts

Thursday 5th November 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I think we have different recollections of the evidence sessions. I do not recall just one organisation doing that.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I agree with my hon. Friend; I did not hear only one organisation say that. I will say that I used to run a children’s hospice and, even when people were told the reality of what was going to happen, they always had hope. Even if it is to someone through the entire process, not everyone listens to reality.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I believe it is clear that whatever happens, the Government intend to introduce stricter conditions than currently exist for supporting failed asylum seekers, to try to encourage people to leave the UK more quickly once an asylum claim has failed. There is one obvious problem with that approach, which is that the evidence shows that it simply does not work. I will return to that when we discuss later amendments, but for the moment it is enough to say that cutting off support will make families less, not more, likely to engage with the Home Office and leave the UK voluntarily. Denying people support will be counterproductive if the Government aim to increase the number of voluntary returns. If those are the consequences of withdrawing support, having a proper right of appeal becomes even important.

The reason to support the amendment is simple. The right of appeal is needed because on far too many occasions, initial decisions are incorrect. Nearly two thirds of appeals are successful, and that amounts each year to hundreds of cases or, to put it another way, hundreds of people and families. When new section 95A comes into force, those people will be wrongly deprived of food and shelter.

The Home Office’s assessments of destitution are very poor. The asylum support tribunal overturns a high proportion of decisions; in 2011, the figure was an incredible 82%. If those people had not had a right of appeal, how would they have accessed the support that they were entitled to? How will they be able to do so in future? Without a right of appeal, the only recourse for those individuals would be judicial review, which is no substitute for a proper right of appeal. Judicial review, as we all know, requires time and money, which are things that people whose asylum claim has failed simply do not have.

Inevitably, hundreds of people who will have every right to support under new section 95A will be unable to access it. I cannot accept that the Minister and the Government are comfortable knowing that hundreds of people who are legally entitled to support will be left with nothing, but that will be the effect of schedule 6 if it is not amended. Ultimately, the debate is about the quality of decision making. Are the Government prepared to accept poor decision making and the injustices that stem from it? If they are not, they should accept our amendment.

[Sarah Champion]

I, too, want to speak in support of amendment 222. Throughout the Bill, the Government propose various measures to remove the right to appeal against Home Office decisions. Reading the Bill, one cannot but conclude that the Government are fundamentally opposed to their decisions being challenged in anything approaching an independent manner.

The consequences of the decision to deny support are potentially catastrophic. A migrant who is denied support has no right to work and no right to rent. Their bank account is closed and their assets are frozen. The choices that people in that position face are bleak. The Bill acknowledges the need to support refused migrants who have genuine obstacles to leaving the UK, but it has not been made clear what a genuine obstacle will be, even though my Opposition colleagues have been pushing for clarity. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields has just raised the matter yet again. What is clear, however, is who decides whether the obstacle exists. It is the Home Office, without scrutiny, oversight or effective challenge. That is bad practice in any process, but in the light of the Home Office’s frankly miserable record of making the correct decision the first time, it will be disastrous.

There is currently a right of appeal on decisions made about section 4 support. Statistics from the asylum support tribunal should make for uncomfortable reading for the Government, because 62% of appeals between September 2014 and August 2015 were successful. The claims were allowed, sent back to the Home Office for a fresh decision or withdrawn in acknowledgement of a flawed decision.

The Home Office has a similarly poor record in assessing destitution. In 2014-15, the Asylum Support Appeals Project represented 168 asylum seekers whom the Home Office had denied support on the grounds that it did not believe that they were destitute. Of those decisions, 70% were overturned on appeal. Such figures cannot but lead us to the conclusion that there is a serious problem with Home Office decision making. During the Committee’s evidence sessions, witnesses offered various explanations for those failings, from inadequate training to overly complex immigration regulations, and Ministers have given other examples. Whatever the reasons, however, when nearly two thirds of decisions are being overturned on appeal, something needs to be done to address the problem.

The Government’s solution in the Bill and in previous immigration legislation is indeed novel: simply abolish the right to appeal. That will certainly result in far fewer Home Office decisions being reversed, but it is hardly a solution that will in any way contribute to better decision making. Children and families will be badly affected by the loss of appeal rights. Section 95 support will no longer continue for families with children at the end of the asylum process. That poses a serious risk of leaving children destitute with no judicial oversight, as was clearly detailed by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields.

Given the high proportion of Home Office decisions that will be overturned by the tribunal, the lack of appeal rights will inevitably transfer the responsibility for supporting destitute children to local authorities. We have heard from the Minister that the Department is in good consultation with local authorities, which is great, but the reality is that children who should be being supported by the Home Office will instead have to rely on overstretched local authority budgets to meet those most basic needs.

Much has been said of the need to ensure that our immigration system is one in which the public can have confidence. However, the way to achieve that confidence is not to pander to sensationalist headlines, but to ensure that most of the time the Home Office gets it right first time. Abolishing the right to challenge poor decisions and forcing people into the most abject poverty will not in any way contribute to achieving a goal that I am sure we all share.

[Paul Blomfield]

I am pleased to have an opportunity to contribute to this debate. I will not repeat the woeful statistics that others have mentioned in relation to successful appeals, but I think that all those points should draw the Committee’s concern to the appropriate response, which must be about getting the process right, as opposed to abolishing people’s rights, because the net effect of the proposals will be that people who could otherwise win appeals will be left destitute.

The Minister talked at length about the dialogue between the Home Office and local authorities. I would like to share some concerns that local authorities in the region that I represent have expressed. They come together in an organisation called Migration Yorkshire, from across the entire county. They are anticipating that the impact of the provisions will be to leave significant numbers of refused asylum seekers destitute. They make a point, which is worth bearing in mind when the Minister says that measures such as this are about encouraging people to return: they ask, “Return to what?” We are talking about people who, in many cases, come from unstable and dangerous states. In their evidence, they cite Eritrea, Iran and Sudan. The choice of returning, or being destitute in Britain might not be a hard choice to make for many people, actually. Destitution in the UK is probably better than going back to a war zone and being destitute there.

It is clear that, under this policy, more refused asylum seekers will become destitute without the right to appeal. The local authorities’ concern is that the amount will increase in several towns and cities across Yorkshire, with all the related health and cohesion issues that will disproportionately affect some of our bigger cities, where we already face problems with the rise in rough sleeping and wider destitution. They are worried that local agencies will lose contact with refused asylum seekers, who will have very little incentive to stay in touch. They are concerned that unsupported, refused asylum seekers will feel compelled to use illegal forms of accommodation —to be in overcrowded, unhealthy conditions, potentially putting their friends in breach of tenancy agreements—and that they will feel compelled, in conflict with the Government’s policy objectives, to undertake illegal forms of employment to survive, opening themselves up to exploitation and abuse.

In Committee so far I have cited the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary; now I will turn to the thoughts of another member of the Cabinet. The comment is not contemporary, but arose from a 2008 study by the Centre for Social Justice, which, incidentally, stated:

“Making refused asylum seekers homeless and penniless is hugely counterproductive: it makes it much more difficult to work with them to encourage voluntary return or to ensure timely removal, and in driving them underground makes it harder to keep track of them.”

The foreword to the report was provided by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith), now the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who has provided inspirational guidance to the Government in a number of areas. We should pay serious attention to his words. He said:

“It also appears that a British government is using forced destitution as a means of encouraging people to leave voluntarily. It is a failed policy…still driven by the thesis, clearly falsified, that we can encourage people to leave by being nasty.”

I rest my case.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I will come to that. The issue is equally one of fairness to those who play by the rules—those who put in applications, are here lawfully, and have not sought to overstay their visa or put in an asylum claim to try to drag it out in a further attempt to remain in the country. It is fair to those people who have done the right thing that people who do not have that right should leave. We need a better basis of incentives and possible sanctions and, together with local authorities, we need to engage with families in the process to secure more returns and to underline those clear messages.

[Sarah Champion]

I genuinely do not think that any of my colleagues are disagreeing that we want a strong, robust system. We are trying to argue that, looking at the number of appeals decisions that are overturned, the system is not strong and robust. We want a fair system too, but there are people falling through the net, who then get a fair outcome on appeal. To lose that right of appeal does not seem to provide that justice that the Minister seeks.

[James Brokenshire]

Obviously we have existing arrangements under sections 95 and 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. We are moving towards a different arrangement under proposed new section 95A, which will apply where there is a genuine obstacle to departure. To be clear, that will be defined in regulations. We expect that obstacle to be either the lack of necessary documentation or a medical reason. Of course, the person will need to show that they are making reasonable steps to obtain the relevant documentation. The Bill does not provide a right of appeal against the decision that no such obstacles exist because that should be a straightforward matter of fact for which a statutory right of appeal is not needed.