Immigration Rules: Spouses and Partners

Simon Danczuk Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered immigration rules for spouses and partners.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Ryan, as we debate what I believe is a vital issue to revisit and reconsider. It affects the family lives of many thousands of our constituents in a most intrusive way, and it calls on us to consider where our priorities really lie: in pursuing utterly misguided targets at all costs, or in protecting people’s human rights and the best interests of children? I understand that this is the first time Parliament has considered the matter since a few months after the draconian new rules were introduced in July 2012, so the debate is overdue.

I want to thank those colleagues who helped me secure the debate, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan), who accompanied me to the Backbench Business Committee. I also thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), the hon. Members for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), for Bradford West (Naz Shah), for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), for South Down (Ms Ritchie) and for Bedford (Richard Fuller), and my hon. Friends the Members for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless), for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) and for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) for their support. That is MPs from six different parties and representing everywhere from Shetland to Brighton and from Bedford to South Down, and it is great to see other MPs here today. This issue affects and concerns all corners of the UK and those from all walks of life. Few MPs will not have had at least one tragic constituency case; most will have had several.

Right now, the judges of the Supreme Court are busy again deciding whether the rules are in fact illegal and in breach of human rights. They might force the Government to think again. Regardless of what they do, Parliament should be making the Government think again and rewriting the rules. Many different aspects of the rules deserve criticism and require reform, from costs and complexity to ridiculously restrictive evidential requirements.

I want to focus on two of the rules that work together in an extraordinarily unfair, and I would say inhumane, manner. The first is the financial threshold, which is among the most draconian and restrictive in the world, whether measured in relative or absolute terms. The second is the rule excluding evidence about other forms of income, such as third-party support from family or friends or—even more ludicrously—the potential earnings of the non-EU spouse or partner. That gets to the crux of the matter. Those rules are cruelly and unnecessarily restrictive and draconian, and the consequences for families have been utterly brutal.

The rules mean that we no longer have a fairly light-touch financial maintenance test broadly equating to income support levels of £5,500. Non-EU applicants wishing to join their spouse or partner here are now required to show that their UK-settled sponsor earns at least £18,600, and thousands of pounds extra if there is a child or children involved.

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Ind)]

The threshold is utterly unfair, particularly in places such as Rochdale where wages are much lower than in other parts of the United Kingdom, and London in particular.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I will come to the disproportionate impact of the threshold in just a moment.

When those two rules are combined, astonishingly almost half the UK population would be excluded from ever being able to sponsor the person they love to come and join them, if that person happened to be from outside the EU. As the hon. Gentleman just said, there are disproportionate impacts on some segments of the population, for fairly obvious reasons related to average incomes, so even higher proportions of young people, women and some ethnic minorities, and essentially all those who live outside London and the south-east, are affected.

Tens of thousands of adults have been forced by the Government to choose between the country that is their home and that they love and the people who they want to share their home with and who they love even more. That is a horrible and cruel choice. What is the Government’s justification for that? The official Government position is that it serves to protect the public purse and encourage integration. The first of those is of dubious accuracy and questionable relevance. The second I fail completely to understand at all, so I will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say if he wants to maintain that argument. I simply note that it was comprehensively rebutted in a report for the Children’s Commissioner that I will consider shortly.

On the public purse issue, the Government claimed that the requirement would save £660 million over 10 years —it would be good to know if they are doing up-to-date research on that—but Middlesex University has persuasively argued that the coalition Government, who introduced the rules, did not take into account the loss of the wider economic benefits of migrant partners’ economic activity. In fact, its model suggested a cost to the taxpayer over that period of £850 million.

Needless to say, the Government did not accept that analysis and pressed ahead, fixing a threshold at the level that the Migration Advisory Committee said would be the annual gross pay required for a couple at which they would not receive income-related benefits, assuming weekly rent of £100. I am not criticising the MAC, which functions like a finely tuned, high-spec computer performing some amazing analysis. However, as with such a computer, the principle of “garbage in, garbage out” applies: if a half-baked question is asked, a half-baked answer is given.

As the MAC pointed out, its deliberations were based purely on economic considerations and did not take into account wider legal, social or moral issues related to family migration. That was absolutely correct. Of course, in implementing its recommendation, the Government did not think to factor in that even if £18,600 was the right threshold, both halves of the marriage or partnership should be allowed to contribute to meeting it, not just the UK sponsor. A talented non-EU national could have a job offer—they might even have worked in the UK in the past under a different visa—yet they cannot join their spouse or partner here if their UK spouse or partner is, agonisingly, just a few hundred pounds short of the income threshold. That makes absolutely no sense.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Abbott]

The policy also discriminates against young people who have relatively low incomes. As has become clear in this debate, as a result of the impact on partnerships and families, these provisions may be in breach of fundamental human rights—the right to a family life—as they effectively split up families. The Minister asks, “What would a Labour Government do?” We certainly would not bring forward regulations that could put the Government in breach of the European convention on human rights.

As we have heard from Members from all parts of the United Kingdom, the policy discriminates regionally. Some 30% of British employees in London do not earn enough to sponsor a non-EEA spouse, and that rises to 49% for those in Yorkshire and Humberside while 51% do not earn enough in Northern Ireland—of course in Scotland it is even worse. I will say, as a London Member, that although it is relatively easier for London migrants to hit that income threshold, it is not easy in communities such as Hackney.

[Simon Danczuk]

The truth is that the policy discriminates against people who have less money—against poorer people. That is the simple fact of the matter, is it not?

[Ms Abbott]

This policy is nakedly discriminatory against poorer people. What sort of migration rules say that the poor do not have the same right to family life as the wealthy? That seems contrary to British values, as I think both parties could agree.

It is relatively easier for London migrants to meet the income thresholds, but meeting them is not at all easy in the poorer parts of London. The rules cause a lot of misery and unhappiness and result in unnecessary splits in families, as hon. Members have described. I have always been in favour of an open and frank debate on migration, but I worry about a growing callousness in how we debate the issue. It tends to the conclusion that migrants are not people like us and that they do not have feelings for their family like we do, so the importance of their family to them can then be disregarded. How can it be right that people are separated from their husbands, wives and children by the Government’s regulations?

The Home Office impact assessment estimated that more than £660 million would be saved over 10 years. Anyone who is concerned about the taxpayer has to step back when confronted with that, but that assessment has been disputed by research from Middlesex University, which says that the Government assessment takes no account of the reduced level of employment and therefore the reduced taxes as a result of discouraging both sponsors and their spouses from staying. Middlesex University estimates that the policy could cost the UK £850 million over 10 years.

In conclusion, it is long past time that we moved away from a deficit analysis of immigration that always focuses on the harms and the cost to the public purse. That has happened to such an extent that we have to make a set of rules that are contrary in principle, if not in practice, to the idea of the importance of family life. We all want, as do all our constituents—even those from migrant backgrounds—fair rules and the reasonable management of migration. Nobody doubts that, but we seem to be moving step by step into a realm of callousness, unfairness and injustice, which is counter-productive to building a good society. As many other institutions have done, I urge the Government to review how the rules work and to replace them with a set of fair regulations on income that reflect the overall impact of migration on society, which is actually a positive one. Doing so would mean that we would not have to hear any more of the tragic stories that we have heard this morning of families who are arbitrarily separated by a set of unfair and ill-thought-out rules.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

That point was raised in the debate, including by the hon. Gentleman’s Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin). Employment income from the migrant partner will not count towards a minimum income threshold. We will not take into account the previous, current or prospective earnings, or any job offer of the migrant partner, when they apply for entry clearance to come to the UK. Employment overseas is no guarantee of finding work in the UK. Partners coming to the UK with an appropriate job offer can apply under tier 2 of the points-based system. Those using the family route to come to the UK must be capable of being independently supported by their sponsor or by their joint savings or non-employment income. When a migrant partner is in the UK with permission to work, we will take their earnings from employment here into account.

As I was saying about the rules relating to the £18,600 threshold, it is right that those wishing to establish their life here can stand on their own feet financially. The previous requirement for “adequate” maintenance meant that any sponsor earning, after tax and housing costs had been deducted, more than the equivalent of income support for a couple—around £5,700 a year—was deemed to have sufficient funds to sponsor a partner. That was not an adequate basis for sustainable family integration and provided little assurance that couples could support themselves over the long term. That is why the minimum income threshold for sponsoring family migrants was introduced as part of the reforms of the family immigration rules implemented in July 2012.

[Simon Danczuk]

The Minister made the point that he has represented parts of northern England. Does he not accept that the threshold discriminates against people in the north of England, such as those in Rochdale and other towns and cities?

[Mr Goodwill]

I am coming to precisely that point. We have heard the Migration Advisory Committee described in glowing terms in this debate, and I pay tribute to the work it does and the analysis it undertakes before reaching its conclusions. Its report, published in November 2011, recommended that the threshold for a couple should be set between £18,600, the level at which a couple settled in the UK generally ceases to be able to access income-related benefits, and £25,700, the level at which the sponsor becomes a net contributor to the public finances by paying more in tax than they consume in public services. The lower figure of £18,600 was chosen, partly because of the points made about incomes being lower in other parts of the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

Basically, the argument behind it, to which the Migration Advisory Committee also subscribed, was that there should not be a burden on the taxpayer. The levels have been set so that people will not be liable to claim benefits. The hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), speaking from the Labour Front Bench, discussed challenges in court, as did other Members. The Government’s position on this issue has been supported all the way through the courts, which is why we are now at the Supreme Court, the last point of appeal.

I will touch on one or two points made during the debate. The hon. Member for Inverclyde mentioned third-party support. Promises of financial support from family and other third parties cannot be counted against the minimum income threshold. We want the couple to demonstrate that they can stand on their own feet financially, with adequate resources that are under their own control and not somebody else’s. Promises of support from a third party are vulnerable to a change in another person’s circumstances or in the sponsor or applicant’s relationship with them.

The hon. Member for Inverclyde also raised the issue of fees. Income from application fees helps provide the resources necessary to operate the immigration system, with the remainder currently provided through general taxation. In the recent spending review, the Home Office set out its objective to work towards a border, immigration and citizenship system that is fully user-funded by 2019-20. The recent fee increase reflects this objective. Fees are set above cost recovery to reflect the administrative cost of processing an application and the benefits arising to those granted leave. It is right that fees are charged directly to users of the immigration system who benefit directly from the services provided.

[Simon Danczuk]

The Minister is doing an exceptionally good job of reading out the policy, but does he accept from all the examples given by various Members of Parliament and many others who deal with such applications that the system does not work and continually falls over for individual constituents?

[Mr Goodwill]

I am certainly more than happy to become personally involved if there are cases where we have not applied the rules correctly. Sometimes we make mistakes—sometimes documents are lost in transmission, for example. I know that the civil servants working in the Home Office who provide support to MPs are assiduous in ensuring that any mistakes that we make are quickly rectified and that the people involved are not put at a disadvantage.

Asylum Seekers: Right to Work

Simon Danczuk Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Ind)]

The hon. Lady is making a good and important speech. There are far too many asylum seekers in Rochdale—more than 1,000—which is unfair in terms of how they are shared out across the country, but I completely agree with the point that she makes about work. Does she agree that if more were allowed to work, it would help with community cohesion in places such as Rochdale?

[Alison Thewliss]

I agree. People often do not understand that asylum seekers are not allowed to work. Media perceptions can be hugely damaging, including, as I mentioned earlier, to asylum seekers’ mental health. Many are keen to contribute but also scared, as I described in the example of my constituent whose volunteering was held against him. That puts fear into organisations that might take volunteers: they do not want to be caught out by the Home Office and get into trouble. Some of them employ people via the visa process. However, volunteers also do not want to come forward; they say, “If it is going to count against me, I am not going to volunteer. I am not going to help with interpreting.” If an organisation such as the Red Cross is seen as giving someone a bad character, that is difficult, and it definitely puts people off.

Another of my constituents has endeavoured to learn English to a high standard, and has taken up volunteering, supporting elderly people at a community centre. She has a clear aptitude for community work, but is unable to develop it because of the ban on work for asylum seekers. My constituent has two children, who go to a local school, but she is held back. She would love to do that work but cannot.

I am lucky to have the organisation Radiant and Brighter, founded by Pheona and Micheal Matovu, in my constituency. They came from Uganda to the UK and were unable to work for years, because of immigration controls. They were a couple with a family, used to working for a living, and found it very hard to be dependent on help from churches, family and friends. Pheona once told me how determined the two of them were not to let their children know they did not have a job, even when they were not permitted to work. Their experiences led them to find others in similar situations, and to discover the support that some asylum seekers and refugees required to transfer the skills they brought from their home countries and take up UK opportunities when they could. Radiant and Brighter provides practical day-to-day support and assistance, including personal coaching, advice on legal and financial matters and help with CVs—something that people might not be familiar with in their own countries—and job applications.

Crucially, Radiant and Brighter recognises the skills, talents and potential of asylum seekers and refugees beyond the narrow bounds of the shortage occupation list, appreciating the fact that asylum seekers can be a bonus to the UK, not a burden; the Minister would do well to speak to Pheona and Micheal and see for herself the work that they do in Glasgow to integrate and support asylum seekers. They have a good model for allowing people to make the jump to being productive members of Scottish and British society, as they want to be, and for supporting them in that.

Allowing asylum seekers to work would enable them to integrate better into society, develop their English and make friends in what can be a lonely environment—and a strange one, depending on where they have come from. Many are professionals, with skills that they would love to put to use and which would benefit our economy. By making a modest change to the immigration rules, so that they are similar to those of other European countries, and by relaxing the restrictions on working, we can give asylum seekers back a sense of dignity and self-confidence, while saving money for the public purse in the long run.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) is sponsoring an exhibition by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants in the Upper Waiting Hall this week. That organisation has campaigned for fair asylum and immigration law since 1967. I urge the Minister and other hon. Members to see the exhibition, if they have not already. It clearly demonstrates the contribution of people who have sought asylum in the UK over the years. Examples include the co-founder of Marks & Spencer, Michael Marks. There is nothing more British than Marks & Spencer. Michael Marks was born in 1859 in Slonim in what is now Belarus, which was then part of the Russian empire, and fled to England in 1882. It cannot be argued that he did not make a lasting contribution to the UK.

The children’s author and illustrator Judith Kerr fled Germany with her family in 1933 aged nine, just days before the Nazi party came to power. It cannot be argued that she is not a beloved part of British society. The supermodel, designer and refugee campaigner Alek Wek was born in 1977 in what is now South Sudan. The singer and actress Rita Ora arrived in the UK in 1991 aboard the last plane to accept Kosovan refugees. There are so many people who have come to our shores seeking safety. We should take pride in that and treat them with the dignity and respect they so greatly deserve. I appeal to the Minister to see the human potential in those whom we have made a commitment to protect.

Operation Midland: Henriques Report

Simon Danczuk Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I thank the hon. Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) for securing this debate, which gives us the opportunity to examine policing in relation to one of the most serious crimes of our age. At the outset, I should say that I have spent a good number of years campaigning on child sexual abuse, and I have met many survivors of sexual abuse. Furthermore, my second wife was sexually abused as a child, as is publicly known, so I know that it destroys lives.

I have an additional perspective on this matter: I have been the subject of accusations of sexual abuse, which were investigated by the police. I knew the allegations were nonsense, and it was a very distressing time as I had to wait many months before the Crown Prosecution Service put me out of my misery and dropped the case because there was no evidence. It also cost me a considerable amount of money—the hon. Gentleman talked about that issue. I think I can therefore contribute an understanding not just of the seriousness of this type of crime but of the trauma that innocent people are put through when malicious allegations are made against them.

I have also been critical of the police for the mistakes they have made in investigating sexual abuse. I have had good reason to do so on behalf of my constituents, especially in relation to the Rochdale grooming scandal. Greater Manchester police eventually apologised for that.

I have also read the Henriques report on Operation Midland. It is clear that that investigation also suffered from chronic failures, albeit of a different kind. The pendulum swung from a situation in which the police showed little interest in investigating the crime to one in which, haunted by failures of the past, they became over-zealous and they over-reached. Neither approach is acceptable, and it is right that scrutiny and criticism have followed.

I am pleased that the Home Secretary has announced that the police should have a licence to investigate child abuse to ensure consistent standards and to prevent officers from being forced to take on roles for which they are not prepared. However, I also believe that the Home Secretary should introduce mandatory reporting of abuse, although that is perhaps a debate for another day. As important as it is to scrutinise Operation Midland, we cannot give the public the impression that we are here to protect our own or to make the police think twice before investigating any current or former Members of this House. The police must act without fear or favour. They should not be intimidated or discouraged from carrying out investigations into MPs. It is just as important that justice is applied to a Home Secretary as it is that it is applied to a homeless person.

We must remember that we have had Government Whips such as Tim Fortescue boasting that they could cover up scandals involving MPs and small boys; we have had papers from the head of MI5 sent to the Cabinet Secretary under Margaret Thatcher warning that Peter Morrison MP had a penchant for small boys; and we have had significant allegations of child abuse by Lord Janner. There are currently 29 cases before the Independent Police Complaints Commission involving allegations of the police covering up child sexual offences from the ’70s to 2005. The IPCC has admitted that some of those allegations concern Members of Parliament —people who have been Members of Parliament. I could go on with other examples. It is clear that Sir Ian Horobin, the MP who was jailed for child sexual abuse in 1962, was certainly not the only person in this House guilty of that type of crime.

But that is the wider context. I would like now to focus on my personal understanding of the failings in relation to Operation Midland. After I wrote a book on Cyril Smith and the abuse that he meted out, I was inundated with correspondence making all sorts of allegations about other politicians, including Leon Brittan. I looked into those allegations, but I could find no evidence to suggest that he had done anything criminal. Furthermore, my office spoke to the person known as Nick, who was a key source of evidence during Operation Midland. The feedback that I received was that he had been instructed by the now defunct news website Exaro not to provide details to me about VIP abusers. Nick was clearly a very damaged individual who was struggling to cope, and I do believe that he had been abused. I just did not know by who.

I found all that a depressing tale and decided not to do anything with Nick’s testimony. However, I assumed that the Metropolitan police would not rely on one victim and that there were surely others. It now appears that that was not the case, and it was obviously a mistake to rely on so much from just one person. That said, I will not join in the calls to have Nick prosecuted for perverting the course of justice. I do not think that would be wise. There is some irony, in that we do not have to go too far back in modern history to find a Director of Public Prosecutions stating that it was not in the public interest to prosecute Cyril Smith MP for child abuse, or Victor Montagu MP, who admitted abusing a boy for nearly two years, and yet there are now calls for a survivor of abuse to be prosecuted. I certainly do not think it is in the public interest to prosecute Nick.

The law is messy and imperfect. Child abuse is a difficult crime to investigate, and a combination of disinterest and inadequate police skills over recent decades has resulted in far too many people getting away with a very serious crime. On occasion, that has also resulted in the wrong people being accused, with a lot of unnecessary hurt caused as a result. Finally, the ongoing football scandal shows that we have been far too slow to act. We must be more vigilant about powerful people abusing children.

Asylum Seeker Dispersal Policy

Simon Danczuk Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2016 Westminster Hall

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Ind)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered asylum seeker dispersal policy.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I will begin by touching on the asylum application system as a whole. At present, the system is so inefficient and backlogged that asylum seekers are being housed in hotels and temporary accommodation while endless appeals are dragged out. In the Home Office legacy case statistics, there are people with cases dating back to 2004.

We see the majority of cases turning out to be bogus. In fact, I see many economic migrants who have come to this country illegally clogging up the system with doomed cases, slowing the process for those in genuine need. Statistics from 2012 to 2013 on asylum cases where outcomes have been determined show that only 32% of cases were accepted at the first stage of applying, while 57% were rejected and 11% were withdrawn. Of those cases that were not accepted, 70% were appealed. Of those appeals, 68% were dismissed and 7% were withdrawn. The system is clearly being abused and delayed by bogus claims of asylum, and that cannot continue.

Let me give the House a real-life case study from my constituency surgery on Friday. Hassan is a Sudanese national. He is currently living in Rochdale in a house with four other male asylum seekers. He was 17 when he entered the UK in September 2014 via a lorry from Calais. Before that, he had worked in Libya, earning money in construction. He travelled to Europe by boat. He got off a lorry in Dover. Fingerprints were taken and he was put in a hotel. He spent two months down south. He was then moved up to Rochdale. He has been in Rochdale for one year and five months.

Hassan has been trying to claim asylum. He says there is a conflict between two tribes in close proximity to his village and that a lot of people have been killed. Hassan was interviewed by the Home Office over a year ago in February 2015, but no decision has yet been taken on his case. He now says that he is bored here, has nothing to do and that, if he had the choice, he would return to Sudan. He said:

“I want to feel human, like a normal person.”

He then broke down in tears in my constituency office. That is the reality of the asylum system under this Government.

Whatever we make of this young man’s case, there is no denying that there are failures within the system, and we must remember that the asylum system exists for a very good reason. As a prosperous and tolerant nation, we must play our part in helping those fleeing persecution and horrors in their home country. Earlier this year, a young mother attended my constituency surgery. She had been persecuted because of her Ahmadiyya Muslim faith, and I believed it to be an open-and-shut case. She had been subjected to awful abuse in Pakistan. She was twice violently kidnapped for refusing to abandon her religion. Here was a straightforward case of someone unable to return to their country from fear for their own security. I would always be prepared to support that kind of asylum case. To my complete surprise, her asylum application was rejected. Even though Home Office guidance shows that such cases should be supported, this young woman was denied a safe haven.

I raise that case because it shows the growing strains on our asylum system, which is grinding to a halt. It is being clogged up with economic migrants submitting hopeless cases, while genuine people in need of refuge are told they have no right to sanctuary. The system needs an overhaul. We need a well-resourced and properly funded body that is able to deport quickly those who have no claim and assist those in genuine need of a life away from their home country. We cannot fulfil our moral duty to those in genuine need under the system now in place.

I now come to the issue at the heart of this debate: the unfair dispersal system for asylum seekers. In Rochdale, we have 1,044 asylum seekers at present. That figure represents 3.77% of the 27,650 asylum seekers in England. Rochdale has a population of just over 200,000, so one in every 204 people in Rochdale is an asylum seeker. The situation is worse only in Middlesbrough where there is one asylum seeker to every 152 people. Rochdale has been dumped with an unequal share of the burden. The Minister will say, as he has said previously to me, that this policy was introduced by the previous Labour Government, but that is simply not good enough. He and the rest of his party have been in government for six years now.

The COMPASS contracts introduced under his Government have made the situation worse. In 2012, when the contracts were introduced, Rochdale was responsible for 371 asylum seekers. At the beginning of 2014, this number went up to 550. By the end of 2015, we suddenly had 1,044. The problem does not stop with Rochdale. Ten local authorities in England have just under 40% of all asylum seekers in the country. That is just 10 out of 322 local authorities, according to research that my office has done. The north-west region has been bearing the brunt, taking 30% of all asylum seekers in England.

In correspondence, the Minister stated:

“Our dispersal policy ensures a reasonable spread amongst...local authorities.”

That is clearly not true. Certain regions and councils have done absolutely nothing. The Minister must answer why this problem has got worse under his Government and why he has done nothing about it. I must add that, if local authorities will not sign up voluntarily, why has the Minister not enforced this on the shirkers using sections 100 and 101 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999? The Act enshrines power in the Home Secretary to ensure that leaders of local authorities co-operate to provide support for asylum seekers. The problem has been growing and the Minister must answer why that power has not been used.

Next, I wish to touch on some of the details of the COMPASS contracts. Key performance indicators within the contracts were to factor in the capacity of local health, education and other support services and the risk of increased social tension if the number of asylum seekers increases within a given area. There has been a clear disregard for those factors. A recent report from the Joseph Roundtree Foundation found that 10 of the 12 struggling towns and cities in the UK are in the north of England. Number one in that analysis is Rochdale. We can argue with the methodology of the research, but there is no doubt that public services are vital for local people in our town. There is a greater strain on services, yet the Conservative Government have added more than 1,000 asylum seekers to the town. Combined with this, we have Serco dumping asylum seekers in our town with hardly any notice given to the local authority. There are waiting lists for housing in Rochdale and a limited number of school places. Some schools are already being challenged to improve performance, but cannot afford the added burden of even more languages to be learned. Waiting times for GPs and access to accident and emergency are already stretched beyond acceptability.

On the changes to spending power from 2015-16 to 2017-18, Rochdale is again among the hardest hit from Conservative Government cuts, which already affect its ability to fund its already overstretched public services. Between those years, Rochdale will have its spending power reduced from £177 million to £165 million: a reduction of £12 million.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I caution the hon. Gentleman against the use of words such as “dumping” to describe the way in which human beings arrive in his constituency. Does he have a view on extending the right to work to asylum seekers? If asylum seekers are allowed to work and actively contribute to their communities, they would pay tax, including council tax, that would provide resources for local authorities. They would be seen to be actively contributing to communities, and that might help with integration.

[Simon Danczuk]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. On the language used, it is not a reflection of the individual asylum seekers, but a reflection of how Serco and the Government treat these vulnerable people. I completely agree about the ability to work. I raised that issue with the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when I was a parliamentary candidate before the 2010 general election, so I have some sympathy with that view.

On spending power in Rochdale, not only are we predicted to lose £12 million, but on top of that there have been £200 million pound budget cuts to the local authority since 2010. I take no pride in saying that Rochdale is one of the most deprived places in the UK. It pains me to admit that. I, the council and other agencies are doing much more to change that, but we have overstretched public services and a very low wage economy. Asylum seekers, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, are not allowed to work and that causes tension within communities. Groups of asylum seekers wander around town with nothing to do. As I mentioned earlier, the Minister’s Department is no good at processing their applications, so they are hanging around for literally years.

Rochdale is not the only example of such unfairness. The top five local authorities with the most asylum seekers are Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, Rochdale and Bolton. All will have their spending power over the next two years reduced by more than 5%, yet they have all taken in more than 1,000 asylum seekers each. So I must ask the Minister why no consideration has been given to the strain put on public services and why tension in the local community has not been factored in.

The irony is that some local authorities see a rise in their spending power and have no asylum seekers at all. It is completely and utterly unfair. I will give some examples. In the Prime Minister’s local authority area of West Oxfordshire, zero asylum seekers are accommodated, despite a healthy 1% increase in spending power over the coming years. The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government’s leafy local authority of Tunbridge Wells is also not taking in any asylum seekers and is seeing only a 1% decrease in spending power. The Home Secretary’s area has taken in only three asylum seekers, despite this issue falling under her remit, and faces only a 1% reduction in local authority spending power over the coming years. The Chancellor’s local authority seems to be reluctant to take any asylum seekers at all.

When we look further into the details, we really start to get a picture of the inherent unfairness of the system under this Government. Labour authorities on average have taken in 244 asylum seekers, yet have been on the wrong side of an average 5% reduction in spending power between 2015-16 and 2017-18. In contrast, Conservative local authorities have taken in only six asylum seekers on average and have suffered a rather modest 1% reduction in spending power. What is evident here is that Labour-run authorities are clearly the more compassionate. When they see vulnerable people, they strive to help wherever they can. That is an attribute that should be celebrated by the Government. Yet those councils have been hit with the largest reductions in spending power. Rather than helping those local authorities, the Government seem hellbent on ensuring that they make things as hard as possible, letting them take in some of the most vulnerable people, while tying one hand behind their back. This is partisan politics at its worst. The Minister must take action to stop it.

The Minister can choose to put whatever spin he wants on the situation, but it is clear that the status quo is deeply unfair to the less well-off. Areas that are struggling the most under this Conservative Government have been made to carry the increasing burden of our overweight and slowing asylum system; they have been doing so while the local areas of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government have done nothing but shirk their responsibilities to the most vulnerable people in society, while shielding themselves from the worst cuts.

Labour-run local authorities have been doing more than their fair share, but Conservative authorities have been ignoring the plight of asylum seekers. The most unjust aspect of the whole situation is that it is Labour local authorities that are being punished the most with cuts, while Conservative authorities are being rewarded for sitting back and watching. I look forward to the Minister’s attempt to address each and every point raised in the debate.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Immigration (James Brokenshire)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson, I believe for the first time. I welcome you to the Chair and to your role.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) on securing the debate, and on his probing questions and focus on the subject. He spoke about the impact on his community, given the pressure from the number of asylum seekers, and he has flagged some of the issues. Let me say at the outset that I hope that we will continue the discussion outside the Chamber, perhaps in meetings between Serco, my officials, him and his council about the pressures and the matters he has brought to the House’s attention this morning.

On the overall background, the UK has a long and proud history of offering sanctuary to those genuinely fleeing persecution. I confirm that the Government remain committed to providing an asylum system that protects and respects the fundamental rights of individuals who arrive on our shores seeking refuge from persecution. The Government also want to send a clear message to those who seek to exploit the system—a point that was clearly made by the hon. Gentleman.

For those asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute, the Government provide access to support services, in accordance with our international obligations. The Government provide that support through the COMPASS contracts, which have been mentioned, with three contractors: Serco, G4S and Clearsprings Ready Homes. The contracts provide asylum seekers who claim to be destitute with full-board so-called initial accommodation while their means are assessed, and then with the dispersed accommodation throughout the UK.

The Home Office is working hard with its contractors to ensure that all the accommodation provided to asylum seekers is safe and secure, and that asylum seekers are treated with dignity and respect, taking account of their vulnerability. We are also ensuring that the system is effective and efficient, and provides value for money for the taxpayer. Since the new approach came into operation in 2012, standards in asylum seeker accommodation have improved.

The specific point that the hon. Gentleman focused on was the policy that follows the period of initial accommodation: the dispersal of supported asylum seekers across a number of areas in the United Kingdom. The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 introduced the policy of national dispersal, which was designed to share the impact of asylum seekers across the whole of the UK. At the time, in how it was constructed, the policy was intended to ease the burden of numbers on London and the south-east.

Not all asylum seekers are supported by the Home Office. Many are accommodated by their friends or relatives throughout the UK, often in London and the south-east of England, which also has pressure on local services from unaccompanied asylum-seeking children—I might comment briefly on that matter later. The legislation was introduced to relieve the pressures on the local authorities that had previously shouldered a significant proportion of the asylum seekers, given their proximity to the main ports of entry into the UK. The dispersal policy aims to ensure a spread among UK local authorities, and we work to a maximum agreed dispersal cluster ratio of one asylum seeker per 200 head of total population. We would not normally go beyond that ratio without the agreement of the relevant local authority.

Historically, approximately 100 local authorities were signed up to asylum dispersal. We have been proactively engaging with all areas that to date have not participated in asylum dispersal, with a view to negotiating voluntary agreements for them to do so. The number of participants now stands at 103, with approximately 20 more signed up. We are engaging with areas that to date have not participated. Since 2015, 21 new local authority areas have agreed to become dispersal areas, with another 28 areas in discussion with us and our housing providers.

Through regional strategic migration partnerships—which basically group together the local authorities within a particular region and are Home Office-funded forums—we work with the contractors, local government and other local agencies to plan the most appropriate dispersal of asylum seekers. The partnerships consider the impact on communities and local services so that adjustments can be made where appropriate. This is intended to ensure that community cohesion, social welfare and safety issues are properly considered. We judge strategic migration partnerships to be the best mechanism to achieve that focus. We are working in particular with the strategic migration partnership in the north-west, where there have been particular pressures, so that local authorities in the surrounding areas can play their part in assisting the partnership.

Asylum seekers are placed in initial accommodation while their claims for support are addressed. Initial accommodation is short term and, after successfully claiming for support, asylum seekers are housed in dispersed accommodation. In initial accommodation, which tends to be hostel or halls of residence-style accommodation, service users are put in touch with support services and healthcare and provided with meals. Across the UK, there are initial accommodation centres in Croydon, Liverpool, London, Glasgow, Cardiff, Wakefield and Birmingham.

As has been indicated in a number of the contributions to the debate, and as I am sure hon. Members will recognise, global events have meant that the number of asylum seekers—many of them destitute and in need of our support—entering the UK has increased this year. That, and a change in the mix of the nationalities and characteristics of asylum seekers, means increased demand on the asylum accommodation system. As the hon. Member for Rochdale correctly said, the number of asylum seekers accommodated in Rochdale has increased in recent years. I pay tribute to the town for its participation in the asylum seeker dispersal scheme and the support it has provided to asylum seekers for many years.

We work closely with local authorities that raise concerns about dispersal to help to address those concerns. Indeed, my officials and I have met individual MPs to listen and respond to local concerns, and I extend an invitation to the hon. Member for Rochdale to meet us to pursue a number of the points that he has flagged. For example, we have listened to the concerns of the local authority and stakeholders in Prestwick and ceased the use of contingency accommodation there. In Middlesbrough, we have agreed with the Mayor to reduce the number of asylum seekers to the 1:200 dispersal ratio by the end of December, and the population there is already reducing. In Manchester, Birmingham and Cardiff, we have listened to the concerns of local authorities and MPs and our providers are reducing, in a gradual and balanced way, their use of hotels as temporary accommodation.

I remain convinced that increasing participation in the asylum seeker dispersal scheme is the strongest long-term solution for avoiding the use of contingency accommodation such as hotels. The director general of UK Visas and Immigration has written to local authority chief executives to ask them to participate in dispersal, and I plan to write again to local authority leaders following the local council elections.

[Simon Danczuk]

Am I right to say that the Department has the power to instruct local authorities as opposed to asking them to co-operate voluntarily, or does it not have that power to mandate?

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Gentleman made a point in his contribution about the powers in the 1999 Act, which have not been used to date. Our preference is to continue to work with individual local authorities through the strategic migration partnerships to get buy-in from those authorities on broader dispersal. We would face challenges if we were to try to create, effectively, a mandated national dispersal mechanism, which other hon. Members have highlighted their reservations about. Therefore, our focus remains on working with local authorities to establish how we can expand the number of participating authorities; and, as I have indicated, we are starting to see progress. There is clearly more to do, which is why I intend to take further action by writing out following the local council elections.

[Simon Danczuk]

I do not want to be overly partisan, but my office’s analysis shows that Labour local authorities do take asylum seekers and Conservative local authorities do not. That is broadly the situation. Surely a Conservative Minister in a Conservative Government could apply some pressure on his local authorities and local representatives to get them to take some of the burden that Labour authorities carry.

[James Brokenshire]

I can say to the hon. Gentleman that my local authority is a dispersal area; equally, other Conservative authorities do take asylum seekers in dispersal. As I indicated, we seek to expand those numbers further and I will continue on that in the months ahead.

I want to respond to this point specifically: despite the increasing numbers, we continue to process claims promptly. Indeed, the inspection by the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration found that the Home Office had made significant improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness of its management of asylum casework during 2014-15. It had met its aim of deciding all straightforward claims made on or after April 2014 within six months, while successfully clearing all straightforward claims lodged before 1 April 2014 by 31 March 2015. The inspection also found that non-straightforward cases were being monitored effectively and decided quickly once barriers were removed.

We continue to focus on driving further improvement and ensuring that cases are determined promptly. Of course there are some more complex cases, where we may have concerns over issues of previous criminality or perhaps even war crimes that individuals may be linked to in some way. It is therefore appropriate that we consider matters carefully and cautiously in those circumstances. However, I am clear about the need for an efficient and effective service. We have been driving that through change over recent years and we intend to retain a focus on that.

On the COMPASS contracts, the suppliers are contractually required to provide safe, habitable, fit-for-purpose accommodation to comply with the Housing Act 2004 and the decent homes standards. All Home Office contracts include performance standards that are defined in the contract and managed using key performance indicators. Any failure in delivering the critical service levels may result in deductions against submitted invoices in the form of service credits. The Home Office and the providers regularly inspect asylum seeker accommodation. All three contractors are currently meeting the key performance indicators for property standards. When any defects are found through the inspection regime, such defects are being rectified promptly and within contractual time limits.

I stress the change we have made in the inspection regime. We are listening more closely to service users—I think we had not previously listened and had that rightful feedback from them to a sufficient degree—and working with non-governmental organisations to pick up on issues where they arise, so that we are better able to target the inspection regime and address any concerns about the quality of accommodation that asylum seekers use. The Home Office regularly inspects properties in Rochdale and did so only last week. The inspections found that the accommodation was of a good standard and that the asylum seekers living there felt adequately supported.

To take the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the COMPASS contracts, as well as improving accommodation standards, remain on target to deliver £136.4 million of financial benefits during their lifetime compared with the cost of the previous arrangements. As I made clear at the recent, passionate Westminster Hall debate on 19 April on unaccompanied children, the Home Office takes its

“responsibility for the welfare of children seriously.”—[Official Report, 19 April 2016; Vol. 608, c. 286WH.]

We have stringent and statutory policy safeguards in place regarding child welfare. Ensuring that we treat children with care and compassion is a priority.

Last year saw a 56% increase in the number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children arriving in the UK, particularly in Kent. The Government are grateful to all those in Kent and to other local authorities meeting that challenge for the excellent way in which they have responded to those pressures and we are keen that there should be no repetition of the situation that occurred in Kent last summer. That is why I have announced that we will put in place a national transfer scheme this summer to ensure a fairer distribution of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children across the UK. I am extremely grateful for the collaborative way in which the Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Children’s Services have engaged with that work. I will be writing to all local authorities again after the local elections to provide further information about the scheme and the support mechanisms.

I am sure hon. Members will agree that the outpouring of support we have seen in response to the Syrian crisis has been incredible, from local authorities that have volunteered to take refugees as part of the Syrian resettlement programme, to offers of help from the general public, businesses and voluntary organisations. Less visible is the ongoing support in communities such as Rochdale and what they have been doing to provide for asylum seekers over a number of years. I pay tribute to those communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Danczuk]

I will be brief. I thank you for chairing the debate, Mr Hanson, and I thank the Minister for his contribution and some of the answers he has given. I have concerns about the dispersal system, which is why I called for this debate. I appreciate that the Government are beginning to move towards a wider dispersal strategy, but some speed would be appreciated.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered asylum seeker dispersal policy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Danczuk Excerpts

Monday 11th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, Simon Danczuk.

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Ind)]

T9. The Minister wrote to me saying that 33,000 asylum seekers were spread across 95 local authority areas. If they were spread across 326 local authority areas, there would be 101 in each area. Why does Rochdale now have 1,071 asylum seekers?

[James Brokenshire]

We have maintained the dispersal arrangements that were agreed by the last Labour Government, and we continue to operate those arrangements with strategic migration partnerships to ensure that people are well settled in this country.

Child Abuse Inquiry

Simon Danczuk Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issues that have been looked at by the Communities and Local Government Committee. Of course, the Secretary of State asked Louise Casey to review Rotherham council, and she has been doing that. The Secretary of State for Education is part of the Secretaries of State group that I mentioned in response to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), and that group is looking at all aspects. It is looking not just at the local authorities’ response and the policing response, but at parts of the response under the remit of education and the role of Ofsted is coming into that. Work is therefore already being done, but of course the panel inquiry will be looking across the board at the state and non-state institutions that have a duty to protect children and how they are doing their job, and looking at what can be done to ensure that they are properly protecting children in future.

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

I have always held the Home Secretary in high regard, but this inquiry has become something of a complete shambles. It is so badly run that it is starting to make Chilcot look punctual and efficient. We now have no chair, no proper panel and no apparent means of finding any files. The Home Secretary mentions the file dealing with unnatural sexual behaviour at the top of Government. Why do the Government not now publish that file so that we can judge its importance, and who is going to be held accountable for the failure of this inquiry so far?

[Mrs May]

I recognise the significant campaigning the hon. Gentleman has done on this issue, as have other Members. A number of other Members of this House have been prepared to put their heads above the parapet on an issue that has sometimes not been easy to talk about, particularly in relation to some of the individuals who have been involved.

The hon. Gentleman said that there is no panel. There is a panel, which continues to meet and to do work. Since the last chairman resigned, it has continued to hold meetings with survivors and listening events. The panel has indicated that it will now delay any further listening events until the chairman is appointed, and I have said to this House, as I have to the panel members, that it was my intention to take a decision on the chairmanship by the end of January.

My understanding is that the Cabinet Office file to which the hon. Gentleman referred is being looked at to make sure that it can be passed to the National Archives, which would effectively make it public. That may require some redaction to take place, but I think everybody is aware that we want to ensure that the information that needs to be available is available.

Historical Child Sex Abuse

Simon Danczuk Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered progress of the historic child sex abuse inquiry.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving the subject of the historical child abuse inquiry so much prominence and time.

I would like to celebrate the campaign of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood, which has, first, given a voice to the voiceless; secondly, stimulated the media to act; thirdly, engaged many hon. Members in this place; fourthly, shone a light on a dirty secret and made child abuse more unacceptable than ever before; and fifthly, and probably most importantly, is now resulting in many perpetrators being arrested and dead perpetrators rightly being shamed.

I think we can all agree that this subject is both diverse and full of detail, and it would not be difficult to speak for quite a long time. I hope that hon. Members will bear with me, because although I do not usually take up too much time in this place, on this occasion I would like some time to develop some important points. First and not least, I want to set out how we have got to where we are today; secondly, I want to talk about—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman, who is quite right about the time he usually takes, that the normal expectation for opening speeches in all Back-Bench debates is 15 to 20 minutes. That is much longer than he usually speaks for, so I am sure he will be able to put his points very eloquently within that time.

[Simon Danczuk]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Let me start with William’s story. I have changed his name to protect his identity. He is in his late 50s and his wife does not know that he was abused. He believes it would ruin his relationship if she found out. You could not wish to meet a more polite, intelligent and endearing gentleman. He does not look like a gentleman: he has tattoos, his face and skin are weathered, and he is quite dishevelled. William came to see me four months ago to tell me what had happened to him as a child. In 1970, he had been placed in Knowl View residential school in Rochdale, a place for youngsters with behavioural problems. The initial ethos was caring and supportive: the hitting of children was frowned upon and children were to be listened to.

As William pointed out to me, that ethos did not last very long. Within weeks of him arriving, he was being abused, both by teachers and by fellow pupils. Physical and sexual abuse was meted out on a daily basis. From the age of 13, he was bullied and abused, both physically and sexually. Sobbing, he explained to me how he was pleased when a younger boy who was more attractive was placed in the school, because that child became the focus of attention. One day, Cyril Smith tried it on with him, but one of the good teachers saved him. Obviously, at the time, William did not know that Smith was part of a paedophile network operating at the school. It was just one of the networks to which Smith would belong in his long paedophilic career.

William eventually escaped by running away and he has spent the rest of his life working on fairgrounds, an articulate, smart lad whose life chances were limited by his abusers. Needless to say, he is sad and wants justice. Only time will tell whether Greater Manchester police will deliver that for him.

Let me turn to John, who came to my office a few months ago. He suffered a similar fate at Knowl View school. He attacked one of his abusers and ended up going to prison. Years later, he sat in my office seeking help to find accommodation because he was homeless. Abuse had destroyed John’s life.

It is for those people—William and John—that we are here today. They are the survivors. As children, they suffered horrendous abuse. Now, as adults, they are determined to share their stories and bring the abusers to justice.

That desire to get to the truth about child abuse, however, has not been universally shared. We now know that from at least the 1970s up to the present day, there have been not only people in positions of power who have sexually abused children, but powerful people willing to cover up that abuse and obstruct justice. People were more concerned about their own careers and protecting the system than they were about the lives that were being shattered. From the systematic abuse by Jimmy Savile, which has been well documented, to the continual abuse committed by Cyril Smith, which Matt Baker and I have detailed, it is clear that there was a culture of acceptance of child sex abuse by the powerful and well connected.

Amazingly, that attitude seems to have been well known at the time. Indeed, I was recently shown an episode of “Spitting Image” that was produced and aired in June 1987. The sketch mocks Conservative youth unemployment policy by joking that the Government had been very good at

“getting to grips with youngsters”

through their “rent boy scheme” The joke was on the Conservative policy, but it was also on the boys who were raped and abused by politicians.

In addition, we have seen the shocking spectacle of a former Whip, Tim Fortescue, openly telling the BBC that the Whips in the 1970s would help MPs to cover up scandals, including incidents with small boys. It seems that the culture of child abuse around politics was an open secret, yet nothing was done and children continued to be abused.

This problem was not confined just to politics and broadcasters. There are many instances, which I and others have documented, of the police ignoring child sex abuse. Let us not forget that this is the agency charged with keeping children safe, yet there was systematic ignorance by the police of the abuse that was going on.

During my own investigation, Cyril Smith was found to be the subject of multiple police investigations, all of which were dropped. There are many examples of retired police officers offering powerful testimony to me and my staff about past investigations of child abuse. They were shut down once it was apparent that high-profile politicians and other establishment figures were involved. They include Operation Circus, which focused on what was known as the Piccadilly Circus “meat rack”, where men would pick up adolescent boys for sex. Cyril Smith was among the powerful politicians spotted here taking boys back to a flat in north London. Questions must be asked about why those investigations did not continue.

Last Sunday, events took an even more sinister turn and there were allegations that sexually abused children had been murdered and that they involved people with a connection to this House. As shocking as those claims are, I am wholly convinced that we should take them seriously. When responding to the Wanless and Whittam review of missing files at the Home Office, the Prime Minister described those who believed in child abuse cover-ups as “conspiracy theorists”. My view is that those comments were extremely insensitive and I think he will regret them in the months and years ahead. I have to admit that some of the claims that sometimes surround child abuse in that period can seem extreme, but from what I have seen and heard it is not hard to conclude that there was a paedophile network at Westminster during that period. The network organised child abuse and conspired to protect each of its members from exposure. Cyril Smith was certainly a part of it.

Earlier this year, I told the Home Affairs Committee that a dossier containing allegations about child abuse by politicians had been handed by Tory MP Geoffrey Dickens to the then Home Secretary Leon Brittan. That revelation helped lead to the Wanless and Whittam review and to the establishment of the overarching inquiry, but not everybody was pleased with the idea that I might challenge Lord Brittan. The night before my appearance before the Committee, I had an encounter with the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier). After the 10 pm vote, he drew me to one side outside the Chamber and warned me to think very carefully about what I was going to say the following day. He told me that challenging Lord Brittan on child abuse would not be a wise move and that I might even be responsible for his death, as he was unwell.

I understand that people are cautious about naming parliamentarians, but I think that people who might know about child abuse allegations should answer questions, whatever their position. We should not shy away from that.

I move on to the inquiry itself. It is fair to say that we are in a bit of a mess. First of all, I want to make it clear that I do not necessarily blame the Government or, indeed, the Home Office, but it is clear that mistakes have been made. What the Home Office permanent secretary told the Home Affairs Committee on Tuesday is quite revealing. He said that the Home Office had not appreciated the emotional nature of the inquiry when setting it up and appointing the chair. I was pleased to hear the permanent secretary say that this is now one of the top three priorities for the Home Office.

I do not want to dwell too long on false starts and the progress that still needs to be made. Too much time has been lost already. On the chair, however, I understand that the Home Office is now considering 100 names. Clearly, the process will not be quick and I do not think it should be rushed, but we need to get the right person in place. To do that, it is clear that we need more scrutiny and transparency of the appointment process. I am still confused and disturbed by the role of the Home Office in drafting the letter from Fiona Woolf to the Home Secretary. On the new chairperson, it is important for the Home Office not to have any involvement in any letter to or agreement with the Home Secretary—it should stay well out of it.

It is now clear that we cannot have another chair with significant links to people who might be investigated in the course of this inquiry. I am pleased that the permanent secretary has said that they are looking “further afield” and considering people from outside a narrow Westminster circle.

The other thing that is clear is that there needs to be a much greater role for survivors. I started my speech with two stories about survivors, to remind the House that this inquiry should always be focused on them. I am sure that meeting groups and representatives will redouble the Home Secretary’s efforts to make sure that the inquiry gets to the truth. It is not enough, however, simply to meet survivors—the Home Office needs to listen to them, too. For example, I understand that at a recent meeting with the Home Secretary, there was a vote on whether the inquiry should be a statutory one. I am given to understand that the vote was unanimously in favour. May I ask the Minister whether these views are really being taken on board?

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On the question of having a statutory inquiry, I take it that the hon. Gentleman means an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005. We had considerable experience of trying to get such an inquiry on Mid Staffordshire: I had to campaign almost unimaginably hard to get one under the 2005 Act. The reason for having one is simply that evidence can be given on oath and there can be a proper inquiry; anything less would simply not be adequate. Indeed, the Attorney-General will need in some way to be brought in to ensure that the very important people who might be involved in all the investigations are aware that the inquiry is being undertaken at that level.

[Simon Danczuk]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his valuable intervention, which should inform the inquiry and its work.

I know that the new chair of the inquiry, when eventually appointed, will have some scope to alter the terms of reference. It is especially important to concentrate on the geographical scope. If I have learned one thing from studying child abuse networks, it is that there are lots of connections that are difficult to spot or to understand. I am worried that drawing arbitrary boundaries that stop us from looking at Scotland and Northern Ireland might prevent some connections from being made and some lessons from being learned. In Northern Ireland, I am particularly thinking of Kincora boys’ home and the alleged involvement of the security services. I want the new chair to consider the geography of the terms of reference.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

One of my concerns is that I am confused about the relationship between the new inquiry that my hon. Friend is speaking about and the inquiries currently under way, such as the Macur review of the Waterhouse inquiry. Can my hon. Friend enlighten me about that relationship?

[Simon Danczuk]

The short answer is no, because the terms of reference are very brief and not very detailed. We need to be given more of an understanding about that relationship. The idea is for the inquiry to bring all such investigations together, but we still need to be told how that will work in practice.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

On the issue raised by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), surely the point is that we are talking about an overarching inquiry—it is not a prosecution, or an investigation into criminal activities to bring somebody to justice now—whereas the other inquiries, reviews and investigations that are going on might just deliver that, but will do so in parallel to this inquiry. The two are not mutually exclusive.

[Simon Danczuk]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which has shone some light on the questions that need to be answered.

For every person who commits child abuse, very many people are complicit in that abuse or know information that could help, and it is absolutely vital that those people—they could be civil servants, cab drivers or even neighbours—come forward. More significantly, a large number of police officers, both retired and serving, have information to give. We simply need to get the full picture, and to get those people to speak at the inquiry. The Home Secretary must ensure that there is a full amnesty for any officer, so that they are not worried about the Official Secrets Act or their pensions.

We must make sure that we create the best possible conditions in which survivors can come forward and speak to the inquiry. I know how hard that will be for many of them. I have spoken to many survivors who have been silent for decades, and they are struggling to come to terms with what happened to them. That can be a hugely painful and traumatic experience. We need to provide full support and access to therapies that might be required by those people. We have failed them once, and we must not do so again.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

I apologise for not being in the Chamber for the start of the hon. Gentleman’s speech.

On the issue of support, what is the hon. Gentleman’s view of the financial implications of what he is saying? It seems to me that there is a need for money to support counselling services across this whole area. Will he say what money might be needed for the survivors in relation to the inquiry?

[Simon Danczuk]

I have made no calculation of what the cost might be of therapies or support for the survivors, but it is minuscule in comparison with the damage done to them. I have no doubt that the Home Office will consider the point that the hon. Gentleman has made.

Another group of people should come forward to the inquiry—the perpetrators of child abuse. To those people, I would say: “I urge you to think about the people you have abused, and to think about your victims. Damaged as children, they continue to suffer now, well into their adult lives. You have inflicted untold misery on them and their families. In many cases, what you did has made it impossible for them to live normal lives. Now they must suffer again by coming forward and speaking about what you did to them. They will have tried desperately to bury the memories of abuse, but they will now have to drag them back into the light. They will have to relive that trauma. But you can spare them some of that suffering. You can come forward and admit your guilt. If you admit what you have done, some of that pain can be saved, and some people can begin to rebuild their lives. So I say again: as a perpetrator of these crimes, you must come forward to the inquiry and take responsibility for what you have done. You can never undo the wrong, but you can at least prevent further agony.”

So far, my speech has focused on the historical aspects of child abuse, but the grim reality is that child abuse is a fact of life for hundreds of children in modern Britain. In places such as Rochdale, Rotherham, Oxford and Telford, children are still being abused. This is not a thing of the past; this is happening to our children in our towns now.

We know from the Jay report on Rotherham that there were more than 1,400 victims over a six-year period in just one town. The Communities and Local Government Committee, on which I sit, conducted an inquiry into Rotherham, and our findings were worrying. The same failures and bad practices that allowed children to be abused in Rotherham are common across local government areas. Rotherham is simply the tip of the iceberg. We are yet to discover the true horrific extent of child abuse in this country. When it is revealed, nobody will be in any doubt that this is one of the most appalling crimes of our times.

In these circumstances, it is vital that the police get to grips with the issue and that resources are made available to solve abuse cases and catch the abusers. I am not convinced that that is happening. I have spoken to serving Met police officers, and they have described in graphic detail abuse crimes that are being committed, but are being ignored. I have the same concerns with regard to Greater Manchester police, my local force.

Victims have been ignored by the police because they were poor, white, working-class kids. Police and social workers have insulted them and left them to be abused. The survivors—often as young as 11—were accused of making lifestyle choices. The attitude in one agency was so warped that when an abuser got a young victim pregnant for the second time, the social worker insisted that the rapist, who was married with a family of his own, should attend the antenatal classes. I am still struggling to believe that such a culture could exist in our public services. As a result of that culture, the police failed to arrest rapists, who moved on to new victims year in, year out, and the perpetrators’ confidence was bolstered so that they thought they were untouchable.

My own town of Rochdale has also suffered from this crime. Not only did Cyril Smith and others abuse children in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, but we had the Rochdale grooming scandal just a few years ago. It does not stop there. Yesterday, eight men were arrested across Rochdale, Oldham and Manchester, accused of grooming three children—one was 15, and two were just 13—in our town. I am glad that the police are acting and making arrests, but it is shocking that after all the town has been through, people are still out there trying to sexually abuse children on our streets. In this case, the abuse is alleged to have occurred between September and October this year, so the accusation is that at the very time we were all learning about the horrendous abuse in Rotherham, these men were still brazenly continuing their abuse. It is just sickening.

Before I bring my remarks to a close, I want to reflect for a moment on the consequences of child abuse. It is a difficult and distressing subject. I know that it is all too easy to turn away from the distasteful headlines and harrowing stories, and to think that it is something that will never touch us. We think that this kind of abuse could never happen in our town or to anyone we know, but it affects all of us. Child abuse ruins lives, strips people of their dignity and is creating a growing underclass of people who have been abused.

We must think about the consequences of child rape: it sets people back in school and damages their life chances; it pushes people to the margins of society, where they often end up involved in crime and drugs, putting pressure on the police and other agencies; and it leaves people with terrible physical problems, often preventing them from having children of their own. It is a crime that stores up all sorts of problems that are felt across society. Like all violent, senseless crimes, its consequences are felt long after the crime is committed. The psychological damage that it causes to survivors is impossible to overestimate.

With that in mind, and considering the hurdles that we must cross to get the inquiry moving, I am hopeful that the whole House will unite and renew its efforts to bring justice to the victims of child abuse. The survivors are crying out to be heard. It is time we started listening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Danczuk]

I thank the Minister for her contribution. Some of the problems that we are encountering are to do with the delay in appointing the chair, which falls fairly and squarely at the door of the Home Office. Many of the questions that hon. Members have posed about the geography and the terms of reference cannot be answered because there is no chair in place. It is therefore important that progress be made on that.

The shadow Minister made some good points and has clearly been listening to survivors of child sexual abuse. She made some constructive criticisms in discussing how we should move forward.

To finish off, I will trot through some of the contributions that have been made and highlight some important points. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) rightly mentioned Jersey. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) said how important it was to prevent documents from being destroyed. He also spoke about the role of the intelligence services and asked whether they will co-operate fully. It has been alleged that D notices relating to Elm guest house have been destroyed. That matter is important.

I was very interested to hear from the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford). I was not familiar with the work he had carried out in years gone by. He was right to say that this abuse was going on well before 1970. He was also right that it is not just about high-profile cases. On the contrary, much abuse is not high profile at all.

Finally, I come to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). The question of whether the inquiry should be on a statutory footing is critical. He also spoke about help and support for survivors. He finished on an optimistic point, which we must all concentrate on, about the progress we are making not only in this place, but in getting the inquiry to move forward.

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered progress of the historic child sex abuse inquiry.

Child Abuse Inquiry

Simon Danczuk Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My right hon. Friend is right. I am not able to give him an absolute timeline on the other reports he referred to, but I am very happy to write to him, or for the Secretaries of State responsible for the Departments affected by those inquiries to write to him, to indicate where they are at the moment. It is important that all the evidence that is brought before this panel inquiry is available to it and it will obviously be looking at both historical cases and, as the reviews become available, looking into those reviews.

As for investigations taking place, it is not the task of the inquiry to determine criminal or civil liability for any individual. Where it is the case that allegations are made against an individual as a perpetrator, those allegations will be passed to the police. There will be an ability, through setting up various processes, to ensure allegations go to the police and are properly dealt with. So the investigation into specific allegations will be a matter for the police.

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

I also welcome the Home Secretary’s statement, but does she agree that the role of the Home Office in the redrafting of Fiona Woolf’s letter in many ways displays the kind of self-preservation instincts held by the Home Office that got us into this mess in the first place? Who instructed the civil servants to assist Fiona Woolf in redrafting that letter?

[Mrs May]

The process, as I understand it, was that Fiona Woolf wanted to ensure that she was as transparent as possible in the information she gave in the letter she sent to me, and therefore went through a number of drafts in order to ensure that all information was available. As I have indicated, I was not aware of those iterations of drafts of the letter. I think it is important that we have ensured that there was transparency from Fiona Woolf, but, of course, other members of the panel were also asked to write to me to indicate whether there were any matters they felt should be known and people should be aware of before the panel started its work.

Oral Answers to Questions

Simon Danczuk Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Norman Baker]

That is an operational matter for the police, rather than a matter for Ministers. However, we take these matters extremely seriously and all Ministers have made it plain that we expect the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and others to take all the necessary steps to bring those who are responsible for heinous crimes to justice.

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

Brave survivors of child sex abuse have done a fantastic job of lobbying on this issue over the past week. Are the Secretary of State and the Minister satisfied that the victims of child sex abuse are receiving all the support that they should be receiving from policing and health bodies?

[Norman Baker]

We published a new victims code in December 2013, which sets out the entitlements of victims of the most serious crimes. Other steps are being taken, such as the videoed pre-trial cross-examination pilot, to ensure that we make it as easy as possible for children to give evidence and to ensure that they are not re-traumatised by the process.

Child Abuse

Simon Danczuk Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I take very seriously the point made by my hon. and learned Friend. In a sense, we are dealing with two types of allegations. The first are allegations that may be made in cases relating to the information given to the Home Office in the 1980s. There are also allegations about activities at children’s homes in different parts of the country. I will reflect on my hon. and learned Friend’s comment about the appropriate way in which those allegations can be made and properly investigated. I also echo his other point, because I think we have all seen, in interviews given by people who are well into their middle age or older and who were abused as children, that this is not a matter that goes away. It is not something that can be forgotten. It lasts with people for the rest of their lives and we owe it to them to give them truth and justice.

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. Survivors of child sex abuse are very brave in dealing with the horrific attacks that they have had to endure. How will the proposed inquiry engage with and thoroughly involve the victims of child sex abuse?

[Mrs May]

I think it would be most appropriate for the chairman and panel themselves to decide what to do on that matter, rather than Government trying to tell them what to do. Once the name of the chairman is announced, I am sure that Members of this House who have experience of dealing with these matters will wish to make their views known, but I think it is best to leave it to the chairman and panel to identify how they wish to work and take evidence and comments from people. May I commend the hon. Gentleman, who is another Member of this House who has done a great deal of work on this matter in trying to uncover the truth about those who have been victims?