Draft West Midlands Combined Authority (Transfer of Police and Crime Commissioner Functions) Order 2024

Shaun Bailey Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2024 General Committees

[Chris Philp]

I have already answered the right hon. Lady’s first question: the Government are very clear that there is a lawful basis on which to bring forward this order in statute. We will also robustly—and, I trust, successfully—defend the judicial review relating to the consultation, which is a separate question. On the outcome of the consultation, about 7,000 replies were received, which is of course a tiny fraction of the population of the west midlands. The responses were fairly evenly split: I think it was 50% against, 46% in favour and 4% undecided, so it was pretty even. However, as the right hon. Lady will know from her long experience in the House, the Government will take the consultation responses into account when they make their decisions. This is not a vote or a referendum, and it is not that the largest number of responses wins; the quality of the responses and the arguments advanced in them will be carefully considered before the Government—in this case, the Home Secretary—take their carefully considered decision.

[Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)]

On the quality of the responses, the Minister will know, as I do as a west midlands MP, that one quite concerning thing was the number of copy-and-paste responses that seem to have come out of the consultation—as if someone was trying to tee it one way. Will my right hon. Friend reiterate the point he made about the quality of the responses to the consultation and ensuring that they are dealt with in an accurate way?

[Chris Philp]

Yes, absolutely. We take into account the quality and weight of the arguments, rather than just the number. A number of copy-and-paste responses appear to have been organised, and that is something we were aware of in considering the responses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shaun Bailey]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I start by commending some of the comments and the tone of the hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton. He took a measured approach to this issue. I appreciate that we are not discussing his geographic area, but he can see how this merger can work. Greater Manchester has gone on a journey, and we have seen consistency there. I appreciate the fact that Greater Manchester has had its issues—we know that and it has been excepted—but I think the hon. Gentleman would agree that, as he touched on to a degree, if we are to see the real genesis of some of these areas, devolution requires more responsibility to come down. We can go back and forth over what that looks like, but granting powers such as those in the legislation before us is a really important part of that.

I must say that the opposition to this change from colleagues in the west midlands just sounds like people trying to save a comrade. That is the brutal part of it. I ask colleagues from the west midlands whether they voted for Comrade Foster in the mayoral candidacy selection last year—the contest in which he came third. That in itself is an indictment of where we are. I have seen exactly what the opposition to the change comes down to: it feels to me, and to many of us across the west midlands, that it is to try and save a mate, and nothing more.

We talk about consistency and the evolution of our areas. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills and my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield touched on, the west midlands is a region of 3 million people. It is the second largest urban conurbation in England and Wales—probably in the United Kingdom—and rightfully wants to evolve to the next level of what devolution looks like, so the opposition seems completely out of sorts. The contrast is also quite stark because, as I say, the shadow Minister gave a perfectly reasonable speech and made some really salient points. From his experience in local government, he knows the importance of managing these processes. Some of the opposition I have seen locally just seems like trying to keep the establishment going.

To touch on the points my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills made, I too have been a victim of this police station closure programme. We stopped one closure—we prevented Tipton police station from closing—but had this structure been in place, with a high-profile Mayor who was actually able to have the community cut-through my right hon. Friend the Minister alluded to, we could perhaps have sorted this situation out sooner. However, what I would say, particularly to Labour politicians locally in Sandwell, is this: shame on you for trying to take any sort of credit for saving that police station. It was not politicians who saved that; it was the community campaign that saved that. Shame on you, because you were not there when your comrade in the PCC’s office was absolutely adamant that that station had to go.

This is what we are on about: lining up responsibilities to enable us to have a more streamlined approach, to stop ridiculous situations such as the one I described and to take a more circumspect view, taking into account not just operational policing matters, which are of course important, but the broader community links that matter within our region. I think that that is what this comes down to.

I and, I think, many in the west midlands want to see our region move on. In the past 10 years, we have seen the way in which our region has evolved and developed, and it continues to do so. Why should we miss out, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield said, on the opportunities that London and Greater Manchester have had? Do not get me wrong; with Greater Manchester as an example, it is not this land of milk and honey, and things do not always go right along the way. But having that accountability—the ability to hold that person to account—but in a broader, community, contextualised way, is absolutely the key pillar behind this change.

We can go back and forth on the responses around this measure; my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield made a valuable point about the engagement on this. The hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton also touched on that when he said that this is not what people talk about over their cornflakes in the morning. However, on the democratic engagement point, I think it is incumbent on all of us in this room to ensure that there is democratic engagement on these issues.

To close, I might put one challenge to the Minister. We know that funds are stretched at the moment, and I will not go too much into the judicial review, but I would be keen to understand what advice he has taken about recovering the costs personally from the PCC. The PCC has used public money for this judicial review, when it could have been given to police officers on the beat or used to keep police stations such as that in Wednesbury in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills open. I would be very grateful for that information. I appreciate that some of the advice may be privileged but, from within the realms of what the Minister can share, what advice has he taken on recovering some of those costs? It is an outrage to my constituents that they have had to foot the bill for, as far as I am concerned, saving a mate.

I welcome this measure, as I am sure Members on both sides of the House do. It has opened a broad debate, and I am particularly interested in what the shadow Minister said, because I think this opens up a lot of rabbit holes that we could go down today, although we are not going to. Ultimately, I support this measure. It is the right move for the west midlands—a west midlands that is moving forward in the right direction—and it is putting us on a par with everyone else.

[The Chair]

Before I call the Minister, I would just say that it is always my intention to allow a reasonably wide-ranging debate, with points made in illustration of arguments as long as that is done briefly. However, I would advise the Minister to perhaps respond to the final point about the cost of the judicial review on another occasion, rather than this afternoon.

Points of Order

Shaun Bailey Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman has issued an apology. I require an apology for the use of unparliamentary language, and the right hon. Gentleman, the Home Secretary, has given that apology. It is my understanding that he has also apologised to the hon. Gentleman—whether the hon. Gentleman accepts it or not is a matter for him. I require an apology, the Home Secretary has issued that apology, and the matter is now closed. I must say that the people who elected us to this place expect us to concentrate now on the very serious matters that we have been discussing and that we are going on to discuss.

[Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In response to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s autumn statement, the right hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), whom I have informed of this point of order, stated that the economy would be “£40 billion smaller” in 2027 than the Chancellor forecast in March. The Office for Budget Responsibility has stated that in fact in 2027 the economy will be £15 billion larger than the Chancellor stated in March, so there is a £55 billion gap between Labour’s words and economic reality. Let me ask a procedural point. If the right hon. Lady were a Minister, we could call for an urgent question or demand a statement, but how can Members of this House compel her to come here to correct the record and apologise for inadvertently misleading Members of this House?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s point of order and for his having given me notice that he intended to make it. Will he confirm that he has informed the right hon. Lady of his intention to raise this matter?

[Shaun Bailey]

indicated assent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I see that he is nodding to say that he has informed her. I am glad that he has done so. I have no ability to require a shadow spokesman to come to the House. It is Ministers who are responsible for answering to the House. I also say to the hon. Gentleman that it is not for the Chair to adjudicate on the interpretation of statistics. One person’s statistic is another person’s non-statistic. I have discerned that over many years in this Chamber. The hon. Gentleman has used the opportunity of a point of order to make his point.

Illegal Migration

Shaun Bailey Excerpts

Tuesday 24th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

Absolutely. I hope the letter he has received is written in blood. That hotel will close on the date in the letter.

[Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the work he has done on this issue. I have seen at first hand how hard he has worked over the last 12 months to make sure we make progress. On the upstream work, one thing we need to get a grip of is the industry of producing the crafts that are carrying these people across the channel. What work is he doing with our law enforcement and intelligence agencies to try to smash that industry, which is clearly an important part of the broader picture of stopping the boats once and for all?

[Robert Jenrick]

My hon. Friend, who was a superb Parliamentary Private Secretary in the Home Office until recently, knows that we have worked very hard on smashing the people-smuggling gangs not just on the goal line of the beaches of northern France but further up the pitch in places such as Turkey and north Africa. That involves a lot of work by the National Crime Agency, Border Force and the security services in partnership with allies in those areas. We have signed important agreements on that over the summer, including with Turkey.

Points of Order

Shaun Bailey Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I get what time of year it is, and we all know the game, but sticking to the courtesies of this place outside the Chamber is important. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) has appeared in my patch twice over the last two days, without giving me any notice. I made her aware yesterday of my intention to raise this point of order. She has not even deigned to respond to that in any way, shape or form, and I forwarded that notification to your office this morning. Mr Speaker, I anticipate what your response will probably be, and I appreciate that, but for the courtesy of Members of the House, will you restate the expectation of Members when they attend other constituencies in their capacity as Members of Parliament? We are a very welcoming place, but we want to make sure that everyone plays by the rules.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his point of order. The booklet “Rules of behaviour and courtesies in the House of Commons” makes clear that Members should make “all reasonable efforts” to notify colleagues if they intend to visit constituencies, except on purely private visits. I have said that time and again to Members across the House. I know it is fever time at the moment, but please, they should show the respect that each Member is due by letting them know when a visit is taking place.

Points of Order

Shaun Bailey Excerpts

Monday 28th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I say to the hon. Gentleman that that is not how we want to behave.

[Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady has just turned around and said, “Do you want to tell me to sit down out there?” To me, that sounds quite threatening. Is that in line with the code of conduct of Members of this House?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Well, I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that I found his conduct about 30 seconds ago not very courteous.

I think that the two hon. Members have put their points of view on record, and I suggest that we leave it at that. That was not a very good advert for how our Parliament should work, so we will move on.

Oral Answers to Questions

Shaun Bailey Excerpts

Monday 20th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

3. What steps her Department is taking to tackle antisocial behaviour.

[Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)]

19. What steps her Department is taking to tackle antisocial behaviour.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rachel Maclean)]

The beating crime plan set out the Government’s enduring commitment to driving down antisocial behaviour. Home Office statutory guidance supports local areas to make effective use of the powers available to them. That includes advice on the community trigger—an important safety net for victims —and we have also provided funding for local initiatives to tackle antisocial behaviour through the safer streets fund.

[Rachel Maclean]

I very much thank my hon. Friend for his question. I know that my colleague the Home Secretary very much enjoyed her visit, and we all wish to thank the neighbourhood policing team for all that they do. We are aware of the impact that antisocial behaviour has, and that is why this Government have introduced round 4 of the safer streets fund, as my hon. Friend said. That is a practical set of initiatives to tackle that behaviour, and it includes improved street lighting, increased CCTV and training to change attitudes and behaviours, all of which tackle antisocial behaviour. I expect to see some real change in his area.

[Shaun Bailey]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her response. Unfortunately, antisocial behaviour continues to blight my residents in Wednesbury, Oldbury and Tipton, nowhere more so than in the Laburnum Road area of Tipton which has seen a spike in reports. Will my hon. Friend touch a little more on the cross-working that she is doing, particularly with stakeholders in the Black Country, such as West Midlands police and Sandwell Council, to ensure we really do have a community-led approach to tackling antisocial behaviour?

[Rachel Maclean]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that this is a multi-agency and community approach. Yes, of course, the police are responsible for tackling and dealing with antisocial behaviour, which is why we are providing £695 million funding to West Midlands police, an increase of £40 million. The force has also been able to recruit over 1,000 additional officers. It is also the case that we have provided the police with additional powers. It is vital that the police work with their local police and crime commissioner and other agencies with responsibility for tackling this behaviour.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Shaun Bailey Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 20th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)]

I am conscious that there have been many contributions, so I fear that this will be slightly repetitive, but my constituents in the Black Country elected me on a promise to sort this out. It is as simple as that. This is the way we will ensure we sort out the issue, which has been going on for decades. I find it absolutely laughable that some Labour Members attack us on our record, when they could not get a grip in their 13 years in government. The fact of the matter is that the small boat crossings that my constituents see on their screens every day are what inundates my inbox. That is not made up; it is not laughable. I can show it.

We talked earlier about whether the Bill aligns with public opinion. I will tell the Labour party how the Bill aligns with public opinion. Last week, on a 17.5% swing, Labour lost a seat in my constituency that it had held in perpetuity, because it had lost contact with the communities that it purported to represent.

[James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend’s description of the by-election in his constituency is absolutely typical. Is it not typical of the Labour party that, in an important debate such as this, on which they express so much passion, so much support, so much belief, there is not one single Labour MP in the Chamber?

[Shaun Bailey]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I have a lot of respect for the hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) and for Newport East (Jessica Morden), but, as I say, where are the rest of them? Where are they? We could all ask that question, and my hon. Friend has articulated it in his unique way. [Laughter.] I assure him that that was a compliment.

I sat here last night and listened intently to the contributions on both sides of the House. I was pretty aghast, to be honest, by some of the stuff I heard—particularly the parallels that people tried to draw between the Kindertransport and this Bill. That was abhorrent. There is no way that any conscionable Government would illegalise the saving of people from a regime such as the Nazis. For Opposition Members to use that parallel in a debate shows, quite frankly, that when they have lost the argument, they just throw mud. That is exactly what that analogy—

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Shaun Bailey]

Not at this point. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I will just make a bit more progress.

I thought that was a disgraceful analogy to make. I also want to draw on a point on the 1951 convention that was articulated very well last night. I agree that we make international agreements and we should abide by those international agreements, but it was interesting to hear in the contributions last night that one of the debates that has had to happen is around how the international community defines “migrant” and “refugee”. We have seen the debate that has been going on, and we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) about the conversations she had had with the UN about really drilling down into what that definition meant. By getting the definition right, and through this Bill, we can ensure that we protect those most vulnerable.

Let us just remind ourselves of one thing. We are not trying to turn away refugees and people that need our help. I am sure that my hon. and right hon. Friends who have been lambasted today and yesterday by some of the most disgraceful slurs I could possibly have heard would agree that we uphold our place in the international community to protect the most vulnerable.

[Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that when we have genuine asylum seekers, we want to make the system fairer? In fact, we have resettled directly the most of any European country in the last six years.

[Shaun Bailey]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which leads me to the point I am trying to make: we need to ensure that we are best placed to help those most vulnerable, by ensuring that the people we are helping are the ones that truly require that help. The ancillary support—ensuring that things such as education and housing and the right skills are in place—is so important as well.

I am a fervent believer that there is a promise that this country has to offer, that there are opportunities here that people can take advantage of and that we are a safe haven for people. I do not think anyone across this House would deny that for one minute, but it has to be done in the right way. It has to be done for those people who are truly vulnerable, and I am sorry, but my hon. and right hon. Friends are right when they say that a lot of the images we see are of economic migrants. I am sorry, but I would rather be taking in people that are fleeing war-torn countries and need that help and support, and I will not take lectures from Opposition parties on that. I fundamentally believe that we do have an international conscience, that we are—

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

rose—

[Shaun Bailey]

I give way to my hon. Friend.

[Alexander Stafford]

On the economic migrant point, did my hon. Friend see the reports in the paper yesterday about the small boats, with people paying more than £8,000 to criminal gangs to come over? Not only are these economic migrants coming over, but they are funding these gangs—gangs that traffic humans, supply drugs and arms, and bring death and destruction to our streets. Does he agree that the Bill not only helps the most vulnerable coming over, but undermines and destroys some of the criminal gangs and takes the blood off our streets?

[Shaun Bailey]

My hon. Friend has articulated that really well. Obviously, the Bill is part of that wider jigsaw. We have to nip this because all of us see the impact that these criminal gangs have on not just the migration debate that we are having today, but the follow-through in our communities and the blight of drugs and knife crime that he talked about. We get abhorrent stories in our mailbags—I am sure he gets them just as I do—and the fact is that this underpins so much of our society, not just in the migration debate, but more broadly. He is absolutely right to make that point.

We, as Government Members, are not saying that we do not have international obligations. If anything, we are trying to ensure that we can actually follow through on those international obligations. When I hear the arguments that we are somehow ignoring or riding roughshod over them, I think it truly is laughable.

Let me turn to the citizenship provisions of the Bill. We have heard some quite inflammatory arguments about the migration debate today, but on the citizenship requirements, the Bill reforms the British Nationality Act 1948 and the British Nationality Act 1981. On a broader point, that is the right thing to do, because we have to accept that society has changed in the last 70 years—and in the last 40 years, if we are talking about the previous Act. In my examination of the Bill I noticed particularly the point about family circumstances, and we have to recognise that the family as we see it today is not what it was 70 years ago. It is therefore right that, in drafting the Bill, my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench have recognised that fact. Our citizenship provisions allow us to ensure that citizens of Hong Kong, for example, can apply for their British citizenship and that we can continue to protect the most vulnerable.

I turn to the notion of the first safe country, which I have touched on slightly in my other remarks. I appreciate that Opposition Members have shouted about the unfairness of that, but I must bring this back to the fact that, ultimately, we have to ensure that within our asylum system, we are protecting the most vulnerable. I will always bring it back to that.

I have raised previously with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the cost of this system: £1 billion. When I think of the communities I represent in my constituency, an example that comes straight to mind is an area called Princes End. It is in Tipton, the beating heart of the Black Country, and has some of the highest rates of child poverty and of unoccupiable social housing. Do you know what £1 billion would do for a community such as that? Of course I am not saying that there is a like for like, but I am saying that by getting these systems right and by ensuring that they are cost effective and streamlined—that has been such an important part of the discussion today—we will have the resource to invest in communities such as that.

There are people in Princes End who, quite frankly, feel, after listening to the debate today, that this House is just talking at them. These are the people raising concerns about small boats with me, and they feel that this place is saying that they are racist and that they are bigoted. No, they are not. They are just concerned about the country that they are in. They are angry about what they see and they have been promised time and time again—[Interruption.] I will not take interventions. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) was trying to intervene, but I did clock her. It is absolutely wrong that they are rubbished like that, because their opinion matters just as much as anyone else. That is the frustration that comes through in my mailbox. It makes me so angry, particularly with the Labour party who purported to represent this community for 50 years and whose Members sit here now and rubbish them.

We have to get this right. I will support the Bill. The amendment by the Opposition just reeks of procedural ignorance, really, and as far as I am concerned, I commend the Bill to the House.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Shaun Bailey Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 19th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In reality, this is a Bill based on an immigration plan that is harmful. Just listen to the story of Waheed Arian, now an NHS doctor who escaped the Taliban in Afghanistan as a child. These are his words:

“When I arrived alone in London, a bewildered 15-year-old with nothing to my name but $100 and my hopes and dreams, I had no idea I’d end up two decades later working as an NHS doctor fighting Covid-19 on the frontline in A&E. As a former child refugee from Afghanistan, under the UK government’s so-called New Plan for Immigration, it is doubtful I would be here at all.”

I repeat:

“It is doubtful I would be here at all.”

We also know the serious concerns that have been raised by campaigners across the LGBT+ community about the Bill. The way it is so badly drafted risks us turning our back on people fleeing persecution. This is particularly chilling when we know the scale of the dangers faced by so many LGBT+ people across the world, including state-sanctioned persecution. The plan is wrong and it is wrong-headed.

[Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)]

If the right hon. Gentleman had listened to the Home Secretary, he would realise we are not on about Waheed. We are not on about stopping him from achieving what he wants to do. We are on about people who are coming here through safe routes, often adults using the child route, and stopping them from abusing that system. If the right hon. Gentleman had actually listened to my right hon. Friend, he would have probably picked that up.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

With the greatest respect, if the hon. Gentleman had listened to me, he would realise they were not my words I was quoting—it was Waheed Arian himself I was quoting.

The Government say that the asylum system is broken. I totally agree. And it is the Conservative Government who have broken it over the past 11 years. Under this Conservative Government, the asylum processing system has imploded. Their own incompetence, removing targets from the system and failing to run it properly, has completely undermined it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that. Unfortunately, I have had no such indication beyond leaks to the media, a fact which will probably not surprise him.

Last month, the High Court judgment on Napier barracks found inadequate health and safety conditions and a failure to screen victims of trafficking and other vulnerabilities. The Home Office continued to house people against the advice of Public Health England, endangering those in the accommodation, staff and the local community. It resulted in what the Court described as an “inevitable” covid outbreak in January 2021, with nearly 200 people testing positive for the virus. No wonder the independent chief inspector of borders and Her Majesty’s inspector of prisons published an emergency report that raised “serious safeguarding concerns”. On asylum accommodation, this Government have failed and failed dangerously.

The idea that this Bill helps those fleeing violence and persecution does not stand up to scrutiny. Let me take one example, because the former Prime Minister raised it a moment or two ago. The Bill says that evidence submitted late without good reason should be given only “minimal weight” by asylum judges. Asylum seekers have been required for the past 19 years to submit arguments and evidence at an early stage. Now it seems we are going to have a situation where judges are directed to have minimal regard to evidence being given late. But there are many reasons why refugees, and particularly victims of human trafficking, cannot provide evidence at an early stage, not least the fact it is difficult for survivors of trauma to talk about their experience immediately, including—and, indeed, especially—women and other survivors of sexual violence. That shows the real failure at the heart of this Bill. It fails victims of human trafficking, and it is a glaring missed opportunity to address the vile crime of people smuggling. Instead, the Government will turn their back on some of the most vulnerable people on Earth.

The Bill changes the law so that helping an asylum seeker will no longer need to be done “for gain” to attract criminal liability. That is what the Bill does, and it is a profound and dangerous change in the law. It could criminalise the Royal National Lifeboat Institution for saving people at sea, and it seems to take no account whatsoever of the international law of the sea, which requires ships’ captains to assist those who are in distress. Let us be frank about this. Had this measure been in place when Sir Nicholas Winton was rescuing hundreds of children from the holocaust on the Kindertransport, he would have risked being criminalised—[Interruption.] There is no point in Members shaking their heads, because this legislation risks bringing into the scope of the criminal law those who are helping people for humanitarian reasons.

[Shaun Bailey]

Disgusting.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The hon. Gentleman says that that is disgusting, but it is what is in the Bill. I suggest he takes it up with the Home Secretary. The Bill is wrong, it benefits nobody and it sends out the worst possible signal about the Government’s intentions.

Let me turn now to what the Government should be doing instead. First, we need legally binding targets for clearing asylum cases and proper resourcing for Border Force. The Government are failing, and they are not acting in the national interest. The system is hugely costly for the taxpayer, and it leaves people in the asylum system stuck in limbo, unable either to properly enter society and rebuild their lives or to be returned to a safe country. There is little wonder that performance has been so poor due to the cuts to Border Force.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

No, I have already given way to the hon. Lady.

The Government should seek to rebuild the system so that it is fair. Quick, effective decision making is in the best interests of everyone, and Ministers should be legislating for legally binding targets for processing asylum cases. We need a proper plan to deliver deals with international partners to tackle gangs, because the measures outlined in the Government’s plans completely fail in their own terms. The measures are all dependent on deals with international partners, both to stop criminal gangs operating on the French coast and to replace the Dublin III regulation allowing those registered in a “safe country” before they reached the UK to be returned after a failed claim.

The existing arrangements with France on stopping gangs exploiting people and putting them into boats in the English channel are clearly not working. The Minister for immigration compliance has talked about his joint operational plan. He said that he would be completely cutting this route and that he would be working at pace “in the coming days” to make that a reality. That was 11 months ago. The Government talk about safe countries, but Ministers have not signed any of the required deals with any of the European Union countries to return those whose claims have failed. The Government have shown a complete inability to deliver these deals, which risks leaving people stranded in the UK, unable to be returned and in limbo. Yes, there should be full life tariff sentences for human traffickers and tougher sentences on modern slavery. The problem is that under these plans the Government will weaken protections for victims of modern slavery—

[Shaun Bailey]

What?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads clause 48 of the Bill, because he will discover in it a higher bar for people receiving support as victims of human trafficking. That is despite the fact that recent reports show that four out of five rejected trafficking claims are overturned on appeal. These reforms risk leaving greater numbers of victims without support and more gangmasters free to commit further crimes. Human trafficking and modern slavery are vile crimes and those responsible should face the harshest penalty. Yes, there should be a full-term life sentence for those convicted for human trafficking and increased sentences for perpetrators of modern slavery, but such measures will not be effective if we withdraw support from victims.

I come to the issue of safe routes for claiming asylum and helping unaccompanied children. Following the outbreak of the Syrian civil war and the resulting refugee crisis, the Government agreed to Lord Alf Dubs’ amendment to accept unaccompanied children to the UK. The initial pledge was understood to have committed to provide support to around 3,000 unaccompanied children, but the scheme closed with the number having been capped at 480. It was wrong to close the Dubs scheme after helping just a fraction of the number of children promised help. It has meant that under this Government the UK has looked the other way when unaccompanied children have faced dire consequences, including when the Moria refugee camp was ablaze last summer.

Worse still, clause 9 introduces a new requirement for the registration of a stateless child aged five to 17 as a British citizen or a British overseas territories citizen, and maintains existing requirements in relation to those aged 18 to 22. No wonder there is concern about leaving children stateless, which would run contrary to the UK’s obligations under the 1961 UN convention on the reduction of statelessness.

New Plan for Immigration

Shaun Bailey Excerpts

Wednesday 24th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

First, let me take the right hon. Gentleman’s distasteful comparisons to Windrush head-on. Members of the Windrush generation came to the UK lawfully to help rebuild Britain, and they were wronged by successive Governments, including Labour Governments. It is simply insulting to attempt to draw parallels between them and those entering our country unlawfully.

Not only are this Government ensuring that Windrush victims receive compensation—the compensation that they deserve—but today I am announcing new measures to fix historical anomalies in British nationality law to ensure that members of the Windrush generation can receive British citizenship more easily. That is a Conservative Home Secretary, and a Conservative Prime Minister and Government, righting these wrongs. As I have set out previously in the House, the Home Office is absolutely committed to supporting victims of the Windrush generation, and that is why today I have launched the biggest and most wide-ranging consultation when it comes to this new plan for immigration.

Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman commented on the record of Conservatives in government, so let me just set out some facts for him. From the expulsion of Ugandan Asians, such as my own family members, from a repressive regime; to proudly resettling more refugees than any other EU country, as he heard me say in my statement; to supporting campaigners fleeing political persecution in Hong Kong—that is the record of Conservatives when it comes to humanitarianism. Under the Conservative leadership of this Government, the United Kingdom will always provide sanctuary to people who are having the light switched off on their own liberty and personal freedoms, and this new plan will build on that.

Thirdly, I am quite astonished by the tone of the right hon. Gentleman’s comments, repeatedly suggesting that we just turn a blind eye to people attempting to come into our country illegally—people being smuggled in small boats and in the back of lorries. He will well know that we in this House have stood too often to hear about the tragedy of people who have died, whether in the channel or the back of refrigerated lorries. I will not apologise for being abundantly clear that an illegal journey to the UK is not worth the risk. That is what this plan is about: tackling illegal migration, protecting lives, and, of course, alongside that creating new routes.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman accuses me and the Government of lacking compassion. He accuses me of taking an inhumane approach. I suggest politely to him that he should not resort to personal attacks of that nature. I, and my own family in particular, understand what oppression is like and, after fleeing persecution, sought refuge in the United Kingdom, just like millions of others who have successfully rebuilt their lives. That lack of substance is not surprising, because the Labour party has no plans to fix the broken system. In fact, I understand that last night, the Labour party’s response to my plan was very much to look at my plan. As long as Labour Members are devoid of a plan of substance, they are defending a broken system that is encouraging illegal migration and supporting criminality. They are defending a system that is enabling an established criminal trade in asylum seekers, and causing human misery. It is a system that disregards the world’s most vulnerable, elbowing women and children to the side. It is a system that all too often, as I have seen, results in the tragic loss of life.

A family of five drowned on their way to this country—our country—only last year; in 2019, 39 victims were found dead in Purfleet in the back of a refrigerated lorry. That is inhumane. If the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour party are prepared to be associated with that criminal trade in asylum seeking and human misery, he is the one who lacks compassion. That is not a position that we will take, and I will not be complicit in defending the indefensible on that basis.

Finally, it is extraordinary to hear lectures about our border from the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour party, when it is still official Labour party policy to maintain and extend free movement rights, as per its party conference motion. In effect, that is to have open borders. We are the only party that is prepared to tackle illegal migration, show compassion to those who have been trafficked in the world, and create safe and legal routes, so that we help to save lives.

[Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con) [V]]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement because, just like my constituents, I am angry at the images we are seeing of small boats coming into the channel, and the skyrocketing costs of our asylum system—resources that could be used to tackle inequalities in areas such as the “lost city” in Tipton, and give kids on that estate the chances to succeed. The broader issue is this: our European neighbours need to step up. It is as simple as that. Will my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents in Wednesbury, Oldbury and Tipton, who have put their faith in her, that she will continue to make the point to our European neighbours that they have got to step up? It is not fair on the United Kingdom to take the lion’s share of protecting some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We are a compassionate nation, and we stand by everything we do when it comes to providing humanity and protection to individuals who are being persecuted. He has made the point incredibly well on behalf of his constituents, and we will continue—as I will today with the G6, our international counterparts, and across European Union member states—to say that they also need to do more. Until they do, people will continue to die. We all have this collective responsibility.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Shaun Bailey Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Monday 19th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)]

I am pleased to speak in support of the Lords amendments. I am proud to come from Liverpool, a city built on immigration from all corners of the world, which has contributed to the diversity and vibrancy of our culture and history and is what makes Liverpool great and the best city in the world. Liverpool is home to the longest-established black, Chinese, Yemeni and Somali communities, who have contributed massively to the development of our city. We have faced and continue to face discrimination and oppression, but despite that I am deeply proud that Liverpool is a city of sanctuary, welcoming people fleeing wars and oppression, with the devastation that that brings.

As a black woman, I am appalled by this Government’s treatment of asylum seekers, refugees and many migrants who seek to come here to contribute to our society. We witnessed the injustice of the Windrush generation, who came here after the war, at the invitation of the British Government, to help to rebuild the country. We took their service, their contributions and their taxes; then, towards the end of their lives, we took away their citizenship.

I know from first-hand experience the contribution that so many of our migrants—especially those in the care sector, in our NHS, in care homes and in the domiciliary care sector—have made to our society, but their reward is to be undervalued and poorly paid. The Home Secretary’s proposed immigration system does not even count workers in the social care sector as skilled. Care workers, who are low paid but in reality highly skilled, are an essential workforce for our most vulnerable residents, yet they do not even rate a mention in the Home Secretary’s plans. The average salary for a care worker is £19,104, meaning that they do not reach the £26,500 threshold that she proposes.

We currently have a national shortage of 100,000 care workers—or we did before covid—and projections show that that could double by 2030. We have a growing, ageing population, with many people with complex health needs, including dementia. We are going to need more care workers, not fewer, so why has social care been excluded from the shortage occupation list? Because this Government do not value them.

The pandemic has shown, like nothing else has or will, the crucial role that care workers play in keeping our elderly and vulnerable citizens safe and cared for. They put their lives on the line every day without sufficient safeguards, yet the IPPR found that 79% of the EEA employees working full time in the UK would be ineligible to work in the UK under the skills and salary threshold that the Government want to impose. As a former Liverpool City Council worker who worked in adult social care, I know only too well the crucial work that carers undertake, often without recognition, on low pay and with zero-hours and precarious contracts. I urge the Government to rework the shortage occupation list to include these jobs.

I want to live in a country that welcomes immigrants and the contribution that they make and that offers a refuge to those who need it. I support all the Lords amendments, but especially the call for an impact assessment for our care sector as a matter of urgency to provide the actual data on how the proposed legislation will affect the provision.

[Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)]

I am very conscious of time, so I am going to get stuck in straightaway.

I want to try to cover as many of the Lords amendments as I can, but I want to start by looking at social care. I represent an area where 16,000 people work in social care. I just want to pick up on one of the comments made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson). She made a very eloquent speech, but I will say this. I care about my social care workers. I care about making sure they get the wages they deserve. I care about making sure they have the conditions they deserve. However, the amendment runs a real risk of tagging the social care debate—which we need to have, gloves off, because there are issues we need to discuss in an adult and appropriate way—into the migration debate. If we do that, we run the risk of pigeonholing it and not having the full broad-brush debate we need that covers everything from conditions to pay to the expectations we have of the sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Shaun Bailey]

I am really sorry, but I have not got the time. I am more than happy to pick up with the hon. Gentleman outside the Chamber if he wishes. [Laughter.] I am always open to a debate, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have been very open-minded in this place.

I am conscious of time, so I will turn to Lords amendment 5 on the IT system. It is important to have this discussion because one thing we have noticed during these times is the digital disconnect—the digital lockout. Hon. and right hon. Members on all sides of the House have pointed that out. I accept the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Minister on the merits of using a digital system, but we need to be really careful that we do not lock a generation out.

I know from my area that there are many people who do not have access to computers and digital. There is a reliance more widely across Government on digital—obviously, we are going into the future and it is going to be there—but we cannot lock people out. From discussions with the Minister, I am heartened by the way in which the Department is open to being agile in that space, but we need to be mindful that we cannot lock out a generation.

I want to wrap up my comments, because I am conscious I have only 30 seconds left, but I will just say this. I stood on a manifesto in my constituency to get Brexit done. I stood on a manifesto to bring in a fair immigration system that my constituents felt ultimately stuck by that principle of fair play. I believe the Bill, unamended, does that. However, there are operational points, which I am sure the Minister will pick up in his winding-up speech, that we need to address. If we do that, we can be absolutely sure that we refine this and make it work for that sense of fair play that my constituents voted for.

[David Simmonds]

Like my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey), I am very much of the view that the Bill has the purpose of replacing the arrangements we had in the European Union. I will not be supporting the amendments this evening, because I feel very much that the issues highlighted are principally about matters of management and administration of the process, rather than operation of law. That said, I hope those on the Government Front Bench are paying close attention to what has been said across the House this evening about a number of particular points. The two I would especially like to draw attention to are: the circumstances of undocumented children in the care system, and the point about documentary evidence in the hands of those who are applying for settled status.

I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his time and attention to the first issue relating to undocumented children. However, we heard Members across the House emphasise the vulnerability of those in the care system to finding themselves at risk of a future Windrush situation because of the retroactive nature of some elements of the applications for settled status. While it is welcome that the Home Office accepts that people will be able to apply in effect out of time—that is a positive thing—it does not address the fundamental problem that a local authority with care responsibilities, or indeed a family member with a special guardianship order for a young person, would face if they do not have the necessary documentation proving that young person’s nationality in obtaining settled status for them in the United Kingdom. Although I think we recognise that that group is a relatively small group, it is vital that their needs are addressed to ensure that we do not, in 10 or 15 years’ time, find ourselves regretting that we did not take more action on that tonight.

Another point which arises from that of course is the one raised by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), which is the significant cost of this. Local authorities paying that cost to the Home Office is simply a cost shunt from one taxpayer to another taxpayer, and I would urge the Home Office to give consideration to ensuring that, for children in care, those costs are either waived or substantially reduced to remove a final barrier.

I will finish on this point, time being tight. A number of Members have raised the issue of documentary evidence in the hands of the citizen. We have seen many examples in all different walks of life where we would have legitimate concerns about whether the digital record keeping, of all kinds of organisations and for all kinds of reasons, is sufficiently accurate. We all hear, as Members of this House, from our constituents about the issues that that causes them in their day-to-day life. For people who may be refugees, who may be facing a degree of digital exclusion or for whom English is not a first language, that is an even greater problem. I am reassured by the message from the Home Office that everybody who makes an application will receive a written response, with a number on it, that provides evidence of the status that has been granted, but I think it would be useful for all of us to hear a bit more in due course from the Home Office about how it proposes to ensure that that is something people appreciate the value of, and that it is kept and preserved so that the evidence is there for the future.

The UK has much to be proud of in the way that we respond to immigration. It is right that we keep this tight to the matters under consideration, but I trust that colleagues have heard the concerns across the House and that the Minister will address them in his summing up.