Nationality and Borders Bill

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 22nd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

When people look back on this debate, I think it will be in the same way that we look back on debates around the Poor Law. They tried to solve poverty in those times by being cruel to the poor; I think that is what we are trying to do here. We are not addressing the real issues we face.

I fully concur with everything the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) said. I find it bizarre that we are even considering offshoring at this point in time; I think we all know that, practically, it is never going to come off—it is never going to happen—and this is a wasted debate.

I want to concentrate on employment rights. In my constituency, I have two detention centres, which house nearly 1,000 people. Most of them will be detained, but will then come into the community, and will eventually be allowed to remain. There are 1,700 asylum seekers in hotels in my constituency as well. They are not a burden—I welcome them. They may be a financial burden on local authorities and others—central Government need to support them—but, socially and emotionally, I welcome them completely.

The problem that these people have is that, most of the time, they are trapped in the system. Hon. Members just need to look at the figures from their own casework. Cases take at least six months or a year; I have dealt with cases that have been waiting for four or five years before there is a result. In the meantime, people are denied the right to earn a living. They are told to live off £5.40 a day, and that means they live in poverty.

Someone mentioned Syrian asylum seekers; those I have met are some of the most qualified people I have ever met. They have gone through universities and training; they have skills that they could use to give the country so much, and yet they are trapped in the system, living in poverty. And, tragically, what does living in poverty do, in some instances? People try different angles. Sometimes, unfortunately, they end up in criminality. This system, which refuses to allow people to exercise their skills and devote their talents to our community, forces them into poverty and, in some instances, criminality. All Lords amendment 7 said was, “Just allow these people to work—allow them to support themselves and their families, and to give something back to this country.”

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

As my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend will be aware of the number of asylum seekers in Feltham and Heston who face the challenges that he has outlined. As well as being more humane, allowing people to work would also allow them to make a financial contribution. He will have heard stories similar to those I have—of young people with degrees, who have been tortured, who have fled for their lives, and want nothing more than to start their lives again in a country that they want to call home.

[John McDonnell]

More recently, a calculation was made of the sort of financial contribution that would be made to the country if we allowed people to work six months after they applied for asylum. At least £200 million would be put into our economy. We are denying ourselves these people’s ability to create wealth. I went through the same process when refugee Ugandan families turned up here in the time of Idi Amin; hon. Members may remember that. I have to tell the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) that Hillingdon, then under the leadership of Terry Dicks, whom the hon. Gentleman will recall, was not kind to those refugees at the time. However, eventually those Ugandan Asians settled, and they made a huge contribution to this society, including a massive economic contribution, because we allowed them to use their talents and take up employment. Often, they created businesses. They made a great contribution, certainly in west London, as my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) can tell us.

I cannot understand the rationale for the Government’s approach. There is an argument that allowing employment will somehow add to the pull factor, but having to live off £5.40 a day is not the sort of pull factor that will attract millions to this country. We should look at the issue rationally, and recognise that the large number of people trapped in this poverty trap could contribute so much. That is why Lords amendment 7 needs to be looked at more rationally. Suffering cannot be part of our policy for dealing with the world refugee crisis—a crisis that will, as a result of climate change and other matters, become worse. We have to recognise that there will be movements of people. We have to accommodate that, and that is partly about making sure that those people are welcomed in a way that allows them to make an effective contribution to our society.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 7th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I want first to acknowledge my support for new clause 8, which my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) tabled, and to congratulate her on a very powerful speech on ending the shame of profiteering from child citizenship fees. I also support the arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous).

I will make my short contribution mainly about amendment 12, which is in the name of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and to which I have added my name. It seeks the removal of clause 9—tabled by the Home Secretary—which would deprive UK nationals of citizenship without notice. That is an extraordinary proposal, which has caused shockwaves across communities. In particular, in Feltham and Heston, it has really affected the south Asian community. I am grateful to all who have written in to me and signed the petition, which has almost 150,000 signatures. I also thank the immigration solicitor, Mr Harjap Bhangal, for his work and awareness raising of this issue.

I was born in Britain in Hammersmith in west London, and I grew up in Hounslow. It appears that, under the law, as drafted, I could theoretically be deprived of my citizenship with no notice, and potentially without appeal, because my parents were born in another country, even though they became British nationals and served their community with distinction. Perhaps the Minister will be able to say in his closing remarks whether that could ever happen to anyone. It appears that this proposal is the thin end of an appalling wedge. Members of my extended family were also among those who were expelled from Uganda in mass expulsions of the Indian community. I am sure that the Minister will understand why this has caused such concern.

The Home Secretary’s clause would amend the British Nationality Act 1981, which requires the Secretary of State to give a person written notice of their deprivation order, the reasons for the order and their right of appeal. In clause 9(2), proposed new section 40(5A) of that Act specifies circumstances in which the Secretary of State would be able to deprive a person of their citizenship without notice. That includes when

“the Secretary of State does not have the information needed to…give notice”

or

“it would…not be reasonably practicable to give notice”

for any other reason, or if giving notice would not be

“in the interests of national security”,

in the interests of relations with another country or “otherwise in the public interest”.

Perhaps someone can tell me what “relations with another country” means. If, in theory, a foreign Government with whom the Government are negotiating a trade deal say that they want British citizenship revoked from a group of people they would like to see returned back to their country of origin as a condition, possibly for political reasons, in theory, the Home Secretary could do so without saying why. This is a matter not of what this is likely to be about, but of what becomes possible. There is no practical reason for this change. The present rules governing notice allow for citizenship deprivation letters to be delivered to the individual’s last known address.

I cannot support the Home Secretary’s clause, which has breathed huge distrust and insecurity into the lives of millions of peaceful, law-abiding people. Having this power, without needing to give explanation, could affect not just those people but their children and grandchildren. I urge all hon. Members to support amendment 12 today.

[Richard Graham]

Today’s debate covers many different aspects. I certainly hope that the Government will consider new clause 4 carefully, but I want to focus on new clause 9 and the impact that the change in notification of revocation of nationality has had.

I say straightaway to the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), who is not in her place at the moment, that when she describes the Bill as “hostile” and “horrible”, she should consider very carefully, as we all should, the impact on the lives of so many people of those who are killed by terrorists. Whether they are in Manchester, in London Bridge or anywhere else, the important thing about those ghastly incidents is that they affect those from every background, of every faith, of every race and of every colour. Clause 9 is not—

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

We are of course greatly concerned with what happens in-country and in-region. We want to see progress. We want to see the Palestinian Authority extending its governance. But this measure is specifically about the entity of Hamas. It is a proscription of a body because of its involvement in terrorism, and this debate and vote must focus on that specific question.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister clarify what assessment has been made of important discussions that may need to go on in relation to humanitarian issues, education and healthcare, and how that will continue in the very important work that has to be done to support people in the Gaza strip?

[Damian Hinds]

The hon. Lady makes a very important point. If she will forgive me, I am coming to that a little later in my remarks, and I will cover it then.

Hamas formally established Hamas IDQ in 1992. IDQ was proscribed by the UK in March 2001. At the time, it was determined that there was a distinction between the political and military wings of Hamas, and that the only part of the organisation that was concerned in terrorism, and should therefore be proscribed, was the military wing. Over the past 20 years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) said, Hamas’s so-called military and political wings have grown closer together, with any distinction between them now considered to be artificial. The Government’s assessment is that Hamas is a complex but single organisation made up of constituent parts, one of which includes Hamas IDQ. It is clear that these constituent parts are not wholly independent of Hamas’s so-called political wing and that they take strategic direction from it. There is also movement of key individuals across the organisation as well as, of course, a shared ideology. It is clear that the current proscription listing of Hamas does not reflect its true structure, and that is why this order has been laid. The Home Secretary has a reasonable belief that Hamas, in its entirety, is concerned in terrorism. It is our assessment that the group prepares for, commits and participates in acts of terrorism. There is also evidence that the group promotes and encourages terrorism.

Indiscriminate rocket or mortar attacks against Israeli targets are key examples of Hamas committing this terrorism. During the May 2021 conflict, over 4,000 rockets were fired indiscriminately into Israel. Civilians, including two children, were killed as a result. The rocket attacks also targeted airports and maritime interests. Hamas also frequently uses incendiary balloons to launch attacks from Gaza into southern Israel. There was a spate of incendiary balloon attacks from Gaza into southern Israel during June and July 2021, causing fires and resulting in serious damage to property. These attacks were likely carried out by both Hamas and by Palestinian Islamic Jihad, which is already proscribed. Only last summer, Hamas launched camps in Gaza that focused on training groups, including minors, to fight. In a press statement Hamas described the aim of these camps as to “ignite the embers of jihad in the liberation generation, cultivate Islamic values, and prepare the expected victory army to liberate Palestine”. This vile indoctrination of young people into the organisation’s violent ideology shows how diametrically opposed it is to our country’s core values.

The action we are taking is not a commentary on the ongoing tensions in Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories, nor is it a departure in any way from the Government’s long-standing position on the middle east peace process. We continue to support a negotiated settlement leading to a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state. This decision is based on the Government’s assessment that Hamas, in its entirety, is concerned in terrorism and that proscription is a proportionate action to take, and nothing more. Having concluded that the distinction maintained in the list of proscribed organisations is artificial, it is right that this is addressed. Hamas, in its entirety, is a terrorist organisation. We must be clear on this to avoid conferring legitimacy on any element of the organisation.

It goes without saying that this Government do not provide any assistance to Hamas or the Government structure in Gaza that is made up of Hamas members. However, to answer the point made by the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), this proscription will not prevent aid from reaching civilians in need. In Gaza we have strong controls in place to monitor spending and ensure that aid sent into the region reaches its intended beneficiaries.

To conclude, the enduring and wide-ranging nature of the threat from terrorism demands an agile approach and a comprehensive strategy. That includes confronting groups that participate in and prepare for acts of terrorism or unlawfully glorify horrific terrorist acts. We must use every tool at our disposal to prevent them from stirring up hatred and division in our communities. We will never be cowed by those who hate the values we hold dear. The safety and security of the public is our No. 1 priority, and I commend the order to the House.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I thank the Home Secretary for the letter she sent me on Friday, detailing her intention to bring forward this proscription motion and the reasons for its being considered at this time.

I start by outlining that the Opposition agree with the proscription motion and support the decision to proscribe Hamas in its entirety. As the Leader of the Opposition and I have repeatedly said, the first priority of any Government is the safety of its people and the protection of the public. I thank the members of the proscription review group for the vital work they do.

In the past month, this country has yet again faced the horror of two terror attacks. In Liverpool, a bomb was exploded outside the Liverpool Women’s Hospital, with the taxi driver, David Perry, fleeing from the car and fortunately surviving that horrific situation. We think of him and all the people of Liverpool. Only yesterday, I and hon. Members across the House attended Westminster Cathedral for Sir David Amess’s requiem mass, when he was laid to rest. That callous terrorist attack took the life of a much-loved Member of this House, leaving behind his family and friends. We think also of them today. Those incidents are the most sobering of reminders that any act of terrorism is designed to sow division and hatred. We always stand together against these attempts to drive us apart.

As the Minister set out, the proscription tool is a vital one in the fight against terrorism. We on the Opposition Benches appreciate the difficult balance that must be struck when considering the application of the test in section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The previous Labour Government proscribed Hamas’s military wing in 2001 and made the assessment that there was at that time a meaningful distinction between the military and political wings.

Looking at this situation today, 20 years on, the Government have set out that there is now no distinction between the military and political wings. They have said there is an

“interconnectivity (including movement of individuals into different leadership roles across Hamas’ various structures) and cooperation between Hamas’ constituent parts; and that Hamas’ constituent parts are not wholly independent of the so called political wing of the organisation and take strategic direction from it.”

Hamas, the Government have said, is certainly a complex organisation, but it is a “single terrorist organisation”, and the Opposition accept that.

The Minister gave a number of reasons in his opening remarks for why this step has been taken, noting Hamas’s significant terrorist capability, including access to sophisticated weaponry and training facilities. The proscription also affects the ability to raise money and means significant restrictions on any activity here in the UK.

I turn, however, to a wider discussion on the use of proscription. I would be grateful if, when the Minister responds to the debate, he addressed these points in his further remarks. First, public confidence in the process is important. While of course matters must often remain confidential for reasons of national security, to the extent that it is possible, transparency is crucial. Can the Minister reassure hon. Members how often the cross-Government proscription review group considers these matters, and that the decisions are always under review?

Secondly, proscription is only one of the measures available in our armoury to tackle terrorism. At whatever level and wherever it comes from, it depends on the proper resourcing of our counter-terrorist and mainstream policing. When terrible major incidents happen, it is not only the counter-terror budget that is affected; resources are inevitably drawn in from mainstream policing. In addition, I commend neighbourhood policing that provides not only reassurance in our communities but vital local intelligence in the fight against terrorism. Appropriate funding for all those areas of our policing is crucial.

In relation to this proscription, Members on both sides of the House remain committed to a negotiated settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that delivers a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state. We know that meaningful dialogue that brings together those from both sides of the conflict to find a resolution offers the only prospect of a meaningful and lasting peace in the middle east.

Earlier this year, the conflict between Israel and Palestine erupted once again, with lives lost on both sides. Given our country’s important role in supporting peace talks, I ask the Minister to give his assessment of and reassurance on the impact that today’s decision will have on the prospect of securing a peaceful resolution to the conflict, and what he understands the implications are for future engagement with bodies including the Palestinian Legislative Council and the Palestinian Authority.

Similarly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) said, could the Minister outline the impact that he foresees on non-governmental organisations supporting Palestinian civilians in Gaza and on British people who are there at the moment and their safety? He gave a reassurance in his opening remarks about humanitarian aid still getting to where it is needed, but if he could expand on that and set out how he sees that happening in future, that would be helpful for Members on both sides of the House.

[Seema Malhotra]

My right hon. Friend is making an important speech. Does he agree that that must include giving guidance to the British consul general? Important visits happen that have an impact on many areas of policy and supporting NGOs on the ground. It is important to have that guidance to make sure that they can continue as they have been.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I agree with my hon. Friend that guidance is vital and I hope that the Minister will address that point when he winds up.

As the Minister stated, the decision brings the United Kingdom into line with our allies the United States, Canada and the European Union, all of which have already proscribed Hamas in its entirety. I end by thanking our policing, especially counter-terror policing and our emergency services that, sadly and tragically, have been called into action many times in recent years. In the last few years, there have been several appalling attacks from the Manchester Arena bombing to the attacks on our democracy here in Parliament. Our world-leading security services have prevented 31 attacks since 2017; we thank them for their dangerous, careful and painstaking work.

Let us, too, mark the resolve and strength that our communities have shown in the face of such threats, which should give us cause for optimism. We continue to fight terrorism in all its forms and we support the motion.

Amnesty for Undocumented Migrants

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Monday 19th July 2021 Westminster Hall

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hosie.

My constituency of Feltham and Heston had the fourth highest number of signatories to this e-petition, reflecting—[Inaudible.]

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

Order. Can you speak up a little? I think there is something wrong with your microphone. We cannot hear you well at all.

[Seema Malhotra]

Is this any better?

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

That is better, yes

[Seema Malhotra]

My constituency of Feltham and Heston had the fourth highest number of signatories—[Inaudible.]

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry, we simply cannot hear you. Try again, and if it does not work, we will come back to you.

[Seema Malhotra]

My constituency of Feltham and Heston had the fourth highest number of signatories to this e-petition, reflecting in my view—[Inaudible.]

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

Order. Again, I am sorry, but the sound is not working. We will have one of the engineers get in touch and we will come back to you. I call Ruth Cadbury.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra [V]]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Hosie.

My constituency of Feltham and Heston had the fourth highest number of signatories to the petition, reflecting the humanity of our local community and our rich history of immigration and diversity. With over 150 languages spoken in Hounslow alone, our diversity is also our strength. Neighbours, colleagues, business owners and key workers come from all over the world and contribute to our local economy.

This important debate is focused specifically on action to support undocumented migrants. I support the call from my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) for consensus on how we move forward. Caritas Europa defines the challenge well, saying that while the fight against irregular migration has dominated the political agenda for years, undocumented migrants remain a sizeable population in Europe. The lack of regular resident status often goes hand in hand with a huge amount of suffering and vulnerability. Referred to as undocumented migrants or people without papers, these people may find themselves in a protracted limbo situation, living on the margin of society under continuous stress and anxiety, their basic rights often disregarded. As has been said, hundreds of thousands of undocumented migrants are being blocked from booking covid vaccinations, despite Ministers saying that everyone should have access to vaccines regardless of immigration status. As a result, we are all less safe.

This issue is not without complexity, but we cannot be without humanity and compassion. The current system locks people out of vital services—often families with children. Research conducted by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants shows that 82% of respondents to its surveys entered the UK through legal routes and later fell out of status. Expensive and stressful reapplication processes, which can cost more than £12,000 by the time genuine cases are granted indefinite leave to remain, push families into enormous debt that lasts for years. These extortionate fees are not a deterrent. Instead, they push people into exploitative work. These are people who are ambitious to do well for themselves, their families and their adopted country.

That was the case with Navin—not his real name—whom the JCWI noted became undocumented after he was wrongly advised by a lawyer that his leave was still valid. He intended to rectify this when right-to-work checks meant that he lost his steady job in a restaurant. He could not afford to pay the fees required to regularise the status of his entire family, leaving them all undocumented. He took on cash-in-hand work at a car wash. He was regularly underpaid or simply not paid at all, and feared that social services would take his children away if they found out about his situation. He said:

“My kids were born here, and I don’t know where else I would go. I’ve got nothing back in Mauritius at all, no family, no one I know. I left when I was young, a long time ago. Here I have my life, my family.”

In so many cases, falling out of status is due to situations outside the control of the migrant. JCWI’s research found that this can happen for a variety of reasons too, including relationship breakdown, domestic violence, poor legal advice, inability to pay those extremely high fees, or a simple mistake. However, once the migrant falls out of status, it can be difficult to obtain it again. The impact of falling out of status results in people being trapped in limbo. As in these stories, the vast majority of undocumented migrants have been settled in the UK for more than five years, or indeed 10, and arrived legally. The UK has the second largest number of undocumented migrants in Europe behind Germany. The insecurity and, often, destitution of these families has worsened through the pandemic, with many also dependent on food banks.

This intractable problem needs a different approach, which is why I believe it is time that the Government reformed the current system to create a simplified route to regularisation, so that migrants can access services, rent a home, work and pay taxes, and live a life free from fear. Addressing the damagingly high application fees alongside simplifying the process is an approach that has been taken in Ireland. According to the Institute for Public Policy Research, there are also precedents for an amnesty policy intervention. It is interesting that Greece, Italy and Portugal all implemented amnesty programmes in recent months. There is also clear economic evidence that if undocumented migrants can move out of informal employment and into more secure jobs, there are many benefits for wider society. According to The Economist, studies in America suggests that citizenship for its 11 million undocumented immigrants could boost the economy, with GDP rising up to $1.5 trillion over 10 years.

In conclusion, undocumented migrants clearly need a different way so that they and their families can move forward. The JCWI powerfully remarks that

“once someone becomes undocumented, the criminalisation of their everyday lives drives them into exploitation. Their voices are silenced, and they are unable to…tell anyone about their plight. Under the Hostile Environment, almost everyone who should keep them safe…is part of the system of immigration enforcement and surveillance trying to rip them away from their families”

and their homes. We need a sensitive, long-term solution to the undocumented migrants crisis. As a first step, we should simplify the process to make it easier for those who are undocumented to become regularised, and reform the extremely high fees, which mean that people cannot pay for visa applications. Surely, in the interests of our economy and effective administration, which covid now demands, and in the interests of humanity, there needs to be a much better answer to the issue of undocumented migrants.

No Recourse to Public Funds

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Thursday 8th October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) on securing this debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for tabling it.

I want to make it clear that this matter is urgent for families in my constituency, and indeed across the country, as we are hearing today. It is urgent particularly for hard-working parents who are struggling to make ends meet and who, through no fault of their own, now face huge uncertainty over their homes and their futures, with their family and children being pushed into poverty.

No recourse to public funds impacts on most non-EEA national migrants with temporary permission to remain in the UK. As we have heard, the visa condition prevents them from accessing most state-funded benefits, tax credits and housing assistance. The Institute for Public Policy Research think-tank warns that the covid-19 pandemic could have particular financial and health consequences for such migrant households, with migrants more likely to be working in industries affected by the crisis, to be in temporary work or self-employed, and to be living in private rented and overcrowded accommodation.

The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants has said that the NRPF restrictions have pushed working families into abject poverty, forcing them into unsustainable debt and into homelessness or overcrowded and insecure housing. Right now, it matters more than ever, because covid-19 has made the situation much worse, particularly for those in insecure employment or on zero-hours contracts, which are at a record high of 1.05 million in this country. Many others have had their hours cut or lost their jobs completely.

A significant number of migrants are from BAME communities. We know that members of BAME communities are more likely to be in insecure employment, and they are being hit harder on two fronts. First, they are more likely to have lost income or work, and secondly, they are at a higher health risk from the virus. There are serious concerns about whether our welfare state is fit for purpose, certainly for the circumstances that we find ourselves in.

Today we are looking at the facts relating to those with the status of NRPF, who are often in the toughest of conditions and who are now struggling to fend for themselves. That is why the Labour party, cross-party committees and charities have called on the Government to suspend the “no recourse to public funds” conditions in response to the pandemic. That is also why, back in March, I raised this matter in the House of Commons. I was told that the Government were looking at a range of measures to support this group, which may include the self-employed, business owners and those who work in our public services, as well as students and many others. Along with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, I then wrote to the Home Secretary to ask for advice that we could pass on to our constituents to reassure them that by staying at home in line with Government guidance, they would not be forced into extreme financial hardship. We received no reply to our letter.

Later, the Government did bring in some concessions, which have been referred to. They allowed local authorities to provide some basic safety net support. Food banks have taken up some of the challenges, and there was also the temporary extension of free school meals to families with no recourse to public funds. Quite clearly, it has not been enough.

There have been all too many occasions when all we could do was to refer people with no recourse to public funds to a local authority hub, to get the most basic of support. As family savings dry up and as people struggle to find work, the strain and stress is having an enormous impact on our fellow citizens and neighbours, who want to do nothing other than continue to support themselves, their families, their communities and, indeed, this country.

To illustrate what it has all meant, let me share just one heartbreaking story from my constituency. A constituent with three children, one of whom has special needs, has been receiving only £345 per month of income through furlough to survive on, and that is now uncertain. Her husband lost his job because of covid; they are unable to pay their rent or afford food and are now at risk of homelessness. Just think about the impact on those children. As well as having a disrupted year of education, they are worrying about where their food will come from and where their home might be in six months’ time.

Crisis has talked about marriages breaking up and the rise of rough sleeping. We cannot wait any longer. Winter is coming. Times are getting tougher, with rising cases of coronavirus and increased local lockdowns and restrictions. Casual or temporary work that has kept people going is drying up. Constituents are telling me that their other sources of income—family and friends who they may have been able to draw on in hard times—are themselves facing hard times, and that route is now not available to our constituents.

This is about fairness, compassion and humanity. It is about a Government’s responsibility. I urge the Government to suspend the “no recourse to public funds” conditions in response to the pandemic, so that families are not forced to choose between their health and food on the table, and so that they have the support they need to keep themselves and their communities safe at this incredibly difficult time.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for that, which is very positive. I always expect positivity from the Minister whenever the opportunity arises, and it very clearly has tonight.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the hon. Member for his very important contribution. Does he agree with me that it may be useful to hear from the Minister about updates in relation to other police forces, and whether there could be a more systematic way in which police forces, perhaps like the Met, update Members of Parliament about where there may be growing threats in our regions or local areas?

[Jim Shannon]

Yes, I wholeheartedly agree. I think there probably is a method in place for doing that already. I believe there is—I know it is done in different ways in this House and outside this House—and I know that the Minister’s role as a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland gives him a real insight into what happens in Northern Ireland.

I wanted to ask that question because my understanding is that there is a growth in right-wing extremism in the Province, probably masquerading under the proscribed organisations already there. I know it is very important, so could I, for the record, gently refer to the IRA dissident threat? It is still very clearly there for police officers and prison officers, with booby-traps under their cars. A large bomb, destined for the Larne ferry, was found and thwarted by the police and intelligence officers—and a real biggie that would have been for the IRA. Again, however, it shows that police forces are on top of that. It is very clear to me that this is a salient reminder that IRA terrorists and IRA dissidents in particular are just as dangerous in the United Kingdom, as indeed are ISIS terrorists.

The Minister referred to going for the assets. I welcome his comment, but could we have a bit more detail, if possible, for the record? It is so important that the assets of such organisations are targeted and focused on in order to take away the money and the opportunity that they quite clearly have. In Northern Ireland, paramilitary groups are involved in drug dealing, trafficking, protection rackets and all of those things. Again, I understand that the close contacts between paramilitary and right-wing organisations in Northern Ireland and those on the mainland involve all the spheres of fundraising that they are trying to use.

Policing and Crime

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

It is an opportune moment to be having this debate. I am particularly proud to take part following two exceptional maiden speeches this afternoon.

I welcome a number of the decisions this Government have taken recently. They have listened to communities and to chief officers and delivered a significant uplift in spending on policing. However, it is not unrealistic to say that this demonstrates nothing short of a complete U-turn in their approach to policing, given the Government’s conduct between 2010 and 2019. We have lost 21,000 police officers and 600 police stations have closed across England and Wales. One of those stations is in my constituency: Sowerby Bridge police station, where “Happy Valley” was filmed. The building was sold off at a time when the West Yorkshire police force was doing all it could to generate the cash needed to keep funding boots on the ground. That station simply is not coming back.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making an important point about the closure of police stations, which we have also seen in Hounslow. Such closures contribute to the feeling of greater distance between the police and our communities. Does she agree that that is part of the reason why there has been a reduction in people’s confidence in the police, both in terms of dealing with crimes and achieving the detection rates that we need?

[Holly Lynch]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that very important point. She is quite right that, as those 600 police stations have closed in our communities and the numbers of officers has declined, people are feeling that that access to justice is further away from them than ever before, and that is contributing to that lack of confidence in the ability of our police officers to secure the results that we so desperately need in our communities.

In addition to reductions in officers and police stations, there have been changes to officer recruitment and training. I do not necessarily disagree with those changes, but they do mean that the new officers promised by the Prime Minister will not be operational until 2023. We have a long way to go before we start to the feel the change in approach from this Conservative Government towards policing on our streets and in our communities.

I look forward to the police powers and protections Bill which, as I understand it, will legislate for the creation of a police covenant; like the hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley), I am very much in favour of that. It will also allow special constables to join the Police Federation and allow another look at the legality of emergency driving, to ensure that all police officers know where they stand when tasked with driving in an emergency situations. I know that all such measures will be welcomed by both the public and the officers themselves.

I am currently taking part in the police service parliamentary scheme, which I recommend to all colleagues, particularly our new colleagues. It offers a truly insightful frontline experience of what is going on right across policing. Having had to call 999 from a police car for urgent back-up for a single-crewed officer whom I was shadowing on the front line, I decided to start the Protect the Protectors campaign, which finally resulted in law changes introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) in 2018.

The Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 created a new offence of “assault against an emergency worker” with the maximum penalty increased from six months to 12 months. The Act also created a statutory aggravating factor within a raft of other offences including sexual assault, actual bodily harm, grievous bodily harm and manslaughter, which means that the judge must consider the fact that the offence was committed against an emergency worker as an aggravating factor, meriting an increase in the sentence. I was reassured but somewhat taken aback to hear the Minister in his opening remarks talk about the Government’s plan to double sentences for those who assault police officers. Although the 2018 Act was very much a step in the right direction, I cannot stress enough how hard we had to fight Ministers to secure the increase from six months to 12 months; they rejected our initial proposals for 24 months. We very much welcome that step to double sentences, but it is hard to describe how hard we had to fight for it. We had our proposals rejected by the then Government just 18 months ago.

While we make the laws in here, we ask the police to uphold and enforce them out there, and we certainly agree that to assault an emergency service worker is to show complete disregard for law and order. It is a breakdown in our shared values and in democracy itself, and that must be reflected in sentencing, particularly for repeat offenders. It saddens me to say that the changes in the law are having a minimal impact. There were over 30,000 assaults on police officers in England and Wales in 2018-19, as well as a 13% increase in attacks classified as assault without injury on a constable, and a 27% increase in assault with injury on a constable, compared with the previous year. There were 1,897 recorded assaults last year in West Yorkshire alone—the highest figure in England and Wales outside the Met area. Will the Minister reopen this issue as part of the police powers and protections Bill, and look at minimum sentencing, enhanced penalties for repeat offenders and the abolition of suspended sentences for such crimes?

The other element of the “Protect the Protectors” Bill that we were not able to nail down in statute related to spitting. I have shared horror stories on several occasions in this Chamber about emergency service workers having been spat at, and the anxiety of having to wait up to six months for test results to determine whether they have contracted a potentially life-changing communicable disease, having to take antiviral treatments as a precaution, and on occasion having to adhere to restrictions about interacting with close family and friends, based on advice given by medical professionals. We initially wanted to introduce a new law to require someone who spits at a police officer or any other emergency service worker to provide a blood sample in order to determine whether they have a communicable disease. Such a measure would give the victim some clarity about whether antiviral treatments would be required. The new law would have made it a crime for the perpetrator to refuse to provide a sample.

Advice provided by the NHS at the time argued that the chances of contracting such diseases were so low that any such testing was not necessary, as contracting the disease from being spat at or bitten was almost impossible. The problem is that even today the advice given to frontline officers presenting at A&E having been spat at is a course of antiviral treatment and six months of testing as a precaution. Will the Minister agree to have another look at this issue with colleagues in the Department of Health, to ensure that we are removing as much stress and anxiety from the situation as possible for dedicated police officers and their colleagues across the emergency services who have been subjected to such vile behaviour in the line of duty?

I want to take this opportunity to highlight the issues of recruitment and retention in police leadership. Last summer I invited doctors from Calderdale to meet the then Health Minister to discuss how the annual lifetime allowances on their pensions were affecting them. Although the Government have found a temporary sticking plaster for this issue for clinicians, the same problem persists right across the public sector—not least in policing. In a letter to the chair of the Police Pension Scheme Advisory Board sent just this week, the Policing Minister argued that although he is open to the reform of police pensions, the case

“does not demonstrate evidence of recruitment and retention problems and a resulting impact on operational service delivery”.

Having recently taken part in the police service parliamentary scheme, I can tell the Minister that, anecdotally, this is certainly discouraging officers from seeking promotion to the higher ranks, and senior officers openly tell me that this is the case.

Research undertaken by the National Police Chiefs’ Council shows that the number of applicants for chief officer jobs is declining, as is the length of tenure in those roles. My own force, West Yorkshire police, had just one applicant on the previous two occasions it needed to fill the post of chief constable, and Northumbria police force recently had to open recruitment for a chief constable three times. Will the Minister have another look at the issue, given that, perversely, senior officers are receiving bizarre yearly tax bills that are greater than their annual salary?

I very much welcome some of the decisions taken, but there is certainly a long way to go for the Government to win back trust from communities and from within policing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

I add my voice to that, particularly in the light of the work that the show has done around Feltham young offenders and some of the very complex issues that have arisen in relation to youth crime.

[Vicky Foxcroft]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.

Youth violence has devastating consequences for individuals, families, communities and society as a whole, yet under the current Government knife crime is at its highest-ever levels and shows no sign of decreasing. Ten years of Tory austerity and cuts to policing have had a hugely damaging impact. In September 2019, the Prime Minister announced a target to recruit 20,000 new police officers over the next three years. This is welcome, but it is still down on the 2010-11 figures when Labour was last in power. What worries me is whether these will be frontline community police officers. Nothing shown to me suggests that they will be. We need that community policing to ensure that people feel safe in their communities, that there are these strong relationships, and that trust between the public and the police is restored. We need to see them on the frontline of community policing, building relationships with young people, schools and youth services.

But increases in police funding are only the tip of the iceberg. If we are to stand any chance of providing long-term solutions to knife crime, it is absolutely vital that we tackle the root causes of youth violence rather than simply addressing the symptoms. Those root causes are complex and deeply ingrained. I set up the Youth Violence Commission in 2016 after seeing several young people in my constituency lose their lives to youth violence in my first few months as an MP. Over the past three and a half years, our commissioners and core team have gathered evidence from a wide range of academics, practitioners and other experts in the field—including, most crucially, young people themselves. We published an interim report on our findings in May 2018, and our full report, to be launched in March this year, proposes how we should move forward.

First and foremost, the commission believes that we must develop a consistent, long-term public health approach to tackling youth violence. I was really sad not to hear the Minister talk about that during his opening remarks. As referenced by the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), Scotland’s Violence Reduction Unit is widely recognised as the UK’s most successful example of this. We welcome the fact that similar violence reduction units are being set up in other parts of the country, including London. However, it is becoming more and more apparent that the term “public health model” is being used without a proper understanding of what is required to effect lasting change. As we have learned from Scotland’s success, a public health approach requires whole-system cultural and organisational change, supported by sustained political backing. Anything short of this will fail. Under the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), the last Conservative Government professed to have adopted this approach, but in practice we saw little evidence of it. We now have a new Prime Minister and even less of an idea of whether this approach will be taken seriously. It has to be taken seriously.

Our findings also stress the importance of early intervention. The emotional and economic cost of failing sufficiently to address early trauma is huge. This includes costs incurred through funding statutory services such as those for children in care, meeting the most immediate impacts of educational failure, and income support for young people who are not in employment, education or training, as well as the more obvious frontline pressures such as youth crime and criminal justice.

Moving forward, our goal must be to ensure that the public health approach stays at the top of the political agenda. I hope that the Minister, in her closing remarks, is able to say that this will be the case. We must also push for long-term, sustainable funding that will not be at the mercy of every change in government. As chair of the Youth Violence Commission, I will continue to push for this in Parliament, alongside my colleagues in the all-party parliamentary group on knife crime and the many individual MPs who have brought their own experiences, and those of their constituencies, here to the Commons.

Time and again I hear from constituents who are scared for young people in their families, for their friends, and, sadly, for themselves. Since 2015,1 have seen far too many young lives cut short by knife crime. These are preventable deaths, and we are seriously failing our young people if we do not succeed in finding sustainable, properly funded long-term solutions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

Despite what the Minister said in his opening remarks, the Government’s announcement on police funding provides only limited clarity for forces for the next financial year and leaves serious questions to answer about the long-term strategy for funding our forces. We need a long-term strategy for funding our forces, after years of hard cuts and the impact that they have had on our communities—communities that need to see more police on the beat, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) said so eloquently. I pay tribute to her for not only her speech but the work that she does as chair of the excellent Youth Violence Commission.

While any new police officers are welcome—I say that having attended a number of passing out parades, often with my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones), to welcome new recruits in the last year to Gwent police—the Government’s Operation Uplift programme does not make amends for the 21,000 officers cut under Tory austerity since 2010. In Gwent, which saw its budget slashed by an eye-watering 40% in real terms over the last decade, the new recruitment programme will only take officer levels back to where they were in 2010, if that. That is not to mention the loss of civilian staff, whose work is often unseen.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) said, it was the Welsh Government who stepped in to fund 500 police community support officers in Wales when police numbers were cut. We need some answers from the Government about what funding will be made available to recruit, train, equip and locate these additional officers. As well as the loss of officers over the past decade, most forces have had to reduce their support departments, facilities and other functions that are vital to the successful training and deployment of police officers.

[Seema Malhotra]

In Hounslow, around 10% of our officers have been cut. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is extremely important to locate the new officers not only on the streets but in institutions such as schools, given the threats that young people face, including grooming at school gates, which we have seen in my area?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I rise today not so much to deliver a speech, but to ask the Minister for help because I do not know what else I can do as an MP to get justice, to get prosecutions and to get accountability when it comes specifically to grooming gangs exploiting children.

I am incredibly grateful for the hard work of South Yorkshire police. The frontline officers have been exemplary in both listening to and supporting victims, survivors, parents and the broader community. However, we must also accept that there is reputational damage to South Yorkshire police from past failings. They have yet to be recognised in full, and they have yet to be resolved. I want a line drawn under this so that our police force can have both the respect and the trust that it needs, and I need the Government’s help to be able to do that.

Five years ago, almost to the day, on 4 February 2015, I had a meeting with the then Prime Minister, David Cameron. I presented him with a five-point plan for tackling this scourge, and I will read my introduction to that:

“From my experience in Rotherham I am convinced that we need a national strategy to tackle organised child abuse. Criminals do not observe local authority or police force boundaries. Locally, there are neither the resources, or expertise, to tackle organised child abuse, by which I mean gang-related child sexual exploitation, institutional abuse, paedophile rings and prolific abusers.”

Sadly, I could be reading that today—indeed, I am—because the situation has changed very little. I am incredibly glad and grateful that the Government have introduced relationship education—one of the things I am proudest to have campaigned on.

[Seema Malhotra]

My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful speech. I pay tribute to her work in her constituency on these difficult, complex and devastating issues, and in seeking justice for those who have been groomed. Paedophile rings behave in ways that we cannot imagine, and people continue to pursue those who are victims in their rings, even once they have gone to jail. Resources must be made available to deal with that issue far more comprehensively than is currently the case.

[Sarah Champion]

My hon. Friend is right, but the difference between paedophile rings and grooming gangs is that for the former, the police have the research and understanding to know what the motivators are. A police force can look at patterns of behaviour or get ahead of the abuse because they see those patterns, and then they can disrupt it. Sadly, for all the promises that the Government made, we still do not have that research about grooming gangs. That is something I asked for, and something I would like the Minister to reassure me about.

I sent a letter to the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid)—I have been working on this for a while—and on 6 December I received a reply:

“Thank you for your letter of 3 September to the Home Secretary seeking an update on Home Office activity to understand the characteristics of group-based child sexual exploitation…In your letter you emphasise the need for research and the importance of sharing relevant findings with agencies tasked with protecting vulnerable children and young people and disrupting offenders…I recognise that the Home Office is uniquely placed to provide some of this insight, protecting operationally sensitive information where it is appropriate and necessary. Officials will consider the most appropriate approach in sharing this work and will advise Ministers, including the Home Secretary, in due course.”

I hope that officials have now advised the Home Secretary about a matter that is pressing, up and down our country.

The Government have committed to publishing a national child sexual abuse strategy that will look at all forms of abuse, but I am talking specifically about research that is used to disrupt grooming gangs, which should be published imminently. Will the Government make a commitment on timing, and say how that information will be shared nationally? How will police forces, local authorities and the voluntary sector be resourced so that they can use that data to disrupt such behaviour?

I turn now to the historical failings of our police forces. Two weeks ago, the Mayor of Greater Manchester published a report into Operation Augusta, which was about trying to disrupt a grooming gang and seek justice. The headlines from that report are shocking. It found that police and social services failed the girls, and that police resources were insufficient to deal with the issue. The girls were seen as prostitutes and as somehow complicit in their own abuse. Greater Manchester police dropped an operation that identified up to 97 potential suspects, and at least 57 potential victims. Eight of those men went on to rape girls. As recently as 2018, the chief constable refused to reopen the dropped operation.

The following week, the Independent Office for Police Conduct released a report into one strand of its investigation into the handling of past child abuse cases by South Yorkshire police. I wrote to our chief constable, and stated:

“The report’s conclusions make profoundly disturbing reading. South Yorkshire police failed the child multiple times, and by doing so, led her to be exposed to long-term horrific abuse. It is particularly concerning that the report upholds a complaint against a senior officer and that it has not been possible for this officer to be identified.

As I am sure you would agree, I do not believe it is possible for Rotherham to have confidence in its police force whilst officers found to have failed so badly, and with such catastrophic consequences, are not held to account for their actions. I would therefore welcome your assurances that every effort will be made to identify officers involved, and that any possible misconduct will be both investigated and action taken, including where appropriate, disciplinary action.”

I have still not received a satisfactory response to that, although I hope I will receive one. This not a witch hunt; this is about restoring confidence in our local police force. This is about victims and survivors feeling that they have had closure, and that what they went through will never happen to anybody else. I ask the Minister: please, let us look at transparency and accountability in our police forces.

I ask all hon. Members present, including the Minister, to ask their police forces for information about the caseloads of officers who are dealing with child sexual exploitation, compared with those dealing with other crimes. How many dedicated child sexual exploitation officers are qualified in the professionalising investigation programme—PIP2—and what is the ratio of uniformed police officers to detectives assigned to CSE investigations? What is the retention rate of investigating officers on CSE cases, and what is the average level of experience among officers assigned to CSE investigations? I say to all of you: if you think you do not have child exploitation in your patch, you have. Ask those questions and make sure that your force is properly resourced to protect everyone in your constituency.

TOEIC: Overseas Students

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

It is worth reflecting on the fact that many of those caught up in this attended a very small selection of colleges, which have subsequently been shut down. There were very close links between colleges being found to be operating outside their licences and these accusations of cheating. However, I must reflect on the fact that there were over 30,000 cases where there was absolute evidence that people had cheated. There were also 22,000 cases where there were questionable results. All those people were given the opportunity to resit a test. However, it is important to reflect on what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in his statement yesterday: we are looking at the other issues and particularly at whether we can give people who maintain their innocence another opportunity to challenge the finding of deception. However, the independent expert found that the likelihood of false matches was very small indeed and likely to be less than 1%.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the Minister’s reference to understandable concerns, and I get the sense that she will want to see this issue concluded as quickly as possible. I have been contacted by at least six constituents who are unable to work and support their families as a result of the alleged cheating in TOEIC. They have lost their visas and been threatened with deportation, and their children’s education has been put at risk. They have not had the chance to prove their innocence. Their lives are on hold, and their families are under great strain. They are living in limbo. How reassured should my constituents feel by the Minister’s statement that they will be able very soon to get the chance to clear their name and, indeed, to get justice for what they have been through?

[Caroline Nokes]

As I have said, those with questionable tests were given the chance to resit the test at the time. We are clearly stating that the route via an article 8 claim to a family life is one that we wish to enable people to pursue, and they should make another claim. Obviously, I cannot stand here and comment on individual cases, but we are giving people the opportunity to make an article 8 claim, and I hope that that provides a mechanism going forward.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

One of the saddest things to have come out of the Brexit referendum vote on 23 June 2016 has been the rise in racism, and the fear and uncertainty felt by EU citizens living in the UK and also by those from non-EU countries living here. I have heard from my constituents in Enfield, Southgate who are EU nationals, married to UK citizens, working in UK institutions, paying taxes in the UK and making a positive contribution to our society that they are now seriously worried about their future, fearing that their family will be torn apart by the confusion caused by the Government’s position on EU citizens living and working in the UK.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is also having a huge impact on children? I recently met such children at a primary school, and their parents are unsure about their future, let alone about where their children will be going to school.

[Bambos Charalambous]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. That is something I have noticed from speaking to children—I am a governor of two schools—and that factor has also been raised with me.

Although the Government’s proposed settlement scheme may help some of my EU constituents living in Enfield, Southgate, the withdrawal agreement does not guarantee that the rights of EU citizens living in the UK and of UK citizens living in EU countries will be protected. If my previous and current experience of the Home Office is anything to go by, I have no confidence that the Home Office will be able to cope with the 5 million or so settled status applications that it will have to process. The Home Office is struggling even to cope with some of the Windrush claims, so how it will cope with settled status applications is anyone’s guess.

It is a shame that the Government have not produced their immigration White Paper yet. We are being asked to approve this deal blindly, when immigration was one of the reasons why people voted to leave. The truth is that for years the Government have been trying to show that they are tough on immigration. However, rather than have an honest debate about it, they have decided, just to look good, to kowtow to every knee-jerk reaction to every negative news story about immigration.

The latest net migration statistics, out last week, show that the number of EU migrants coming to the UK was 74,000, whereas the number of non-EU migrants was 248,000. It seems that the Government have been unable to control migration since they promised to do so when they came into power in 2010.

We need a sensible debate about migration to this country. This country needs migrants. On 1 January 2018, the UK was ranked 153rd in the world for percentage population growth, with a rate of just 0.52%. Considering that we are all living longer and that population growth in the UK is stagnating, we need migrants to keep the NHS running, work in our care industry, work in the hospitality sector, collect the crops and package the produce from our farms.

We live in a global world where collaboration is part of everyday working life. In May, I visited the Institute of Cancer Research, where I met scientists, researchers and doctors from all over the world who are all working together to help develop a cure for different types of cancer, trying to discover the relationship between lifestyle choices and causes, and looking at genetic cell mutations and how they can be prevented. All this collaboration is done for our benefit, and the idea that barriers would be put up to restrict this good work is just madness.

Collaboration on a global level takes place in virtually every sector, whether it is finance, advertising, creative industries, the nuclear sector or even the creative industries. Many orchestras, artists and performers work with international colleagues, and they need to be able to do so if they are to ensure that we have the very best cultural enrichment and that it is shared across the world.

My parents were immigrants. They came to the UK from Cyprus in the 1960s. They worked hard and made a positive contribution. A significant number of hon. Members who have a claim to immigrant heritage have similar stories to tell. We should celebrate the contribution of immigrants to UK life. It makes us all the richer, as I have outlined above.

I have heard stories of non-UK workers being picked up in vans on street corners to go to work on building sites and being paid a fraction of the minimum wage, thus undercutting what UK workers would be paid. Let us go after those using such sharp employment practices, and make sure that no one can be paid less than the minimum wage, and that people’s employment rights and health and safety at work are protected.

The Prime Minister described the withdrawal agreement as taking back control of our borders. Well, the current immigration figures show that nothing of the sort is happening right now. The Prime Minister also said that the UK’s immigration policy will be based on the skills and talents that someone has to offer. That fails to take account of the EU workers who provide seasonal unskilled labour in the agriculture and hospitality sectors, to name but two. Worse, we have yet to see the draft immigration White Paper. The withdrawal agreement makes us worse off. It is not good for jobs and the economy. I will vote to reject the deal on Tuesday.

TOEIC Visa Cancellations

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Tuesday 4th September 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Wes Streeting]

I give way to my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes).

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting]

I strongly agree. In fact, when I come to describe the Home Office’s handling of this, we will see that an independent inquiry is necessary.

[Seema Malhotra]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and on his excellent speech. Does he agree that, as well as the incredible social injustice that has happened under this Government’s watch, the reputational impact that families have suffered, which has led to depression and affected whole families, including children, demands an extensive apology and potential compensation? Does he also agree that the huge cost to the taxpayer of enforcement action and otherwise should be investigated?

[Wes Streeting]

I strongly agree and will talk in some detail about those issues. The UK is highly regarded around the world as a country that has respect for the rule of law and an independent judiciary. It also has a Government who are supposed to respect that rule of law, but in too many cases I am afraid we have seen blanket decisions and people deported without an opportunity to defend their innocence. I believe the Government have acted unlawfully and I am afraid that this country’s reputation for respect, access to justice and upholding the rule of law is not warranted in this case.