Outdoor Marriages and Civil Partnerships

Tom Pursglove Excerpts

Thursday 6th January 2022 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)]

On 20 December, the Government launched a public consultation on outdoor weddings and civil partnerships. This consultation sets out, and seeks views on, the Government’s proposals to continue to permit outdoor civil marriages and civil partnerships on approved premises, and to permit outdoor religious marriages in the grounds of places of worship.

Since 1 July 2021, couples have been able to have their civil marriage and civil partnership proceedings in the open air, in the grounds of buildings such as stately homes and hotels which are approved or became approved for these civil ceremonies. Previously, these proceedings could only take place indoors or otherwise within permanently immovable structures. These outdoor ceremonies were made possible because the Government laid a statutory instrument (SI) putting in place these flexibilities, in order to give couples more choice of setting, and to support the wedding and civil partnership sector. However, that SI has effect only until the end of 5 April 2022.

We are now proposing to lay a further SI so that these outdoor civil marriage and civil partnership proceedings can continue beyond 5 April 2022 indefinitely, and to extend the policy of permitting outdoor ceremonies to religious marriages using a separate legislative reform order. Together, these proposals would ensure that the provision for outdoor marriages and civil partnerships on approved premises continues indefinitely and would extend similar arrangements to religious weddings in the grounds of places of worship. The proposals would enable couples to have a greater choice in relation to the location of their ceremonies, and for approved premises and religious bodies to have more flexibility in the locations for ceremonies, should they choose to offer it. No religious group would be obliged to provide outdoor ceremonies, and existing protections to safeguard religious freedoms would remain in place.

The consultation can be found here: https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/outdoor-marriages-civil-partnerships

A copy of the consultation paper will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS522]

Animal Testing

Tom Pursglove Excerpts

Thursday 16th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)]

I thank the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) for securing this important debate and for her kind festive wishes, which are very much reciprocated to her and her family. I am grateful to her and to all colleagues who have raised concerns about this issue in previous debates and in correspondence with Ministers and in various questions for those contributions.

I have the privilege of closing today’s debate on behalf of the Minister responsible for animals in science. In so doing, I would like to thank the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), for closing a Westminster Hall debate on this subject on 25 October. He provided a thorough account of the Government’s position on that occasion, and I hope that I can build on his commentary in my remarks today.

This is an evocative topic. The strength of feeling it generates is entirely understandable and I do not seek to minimise that in any way; I am exceptionally mindful of it. What we absolutely must do when discussing this issue is ensure that our discussions are rooted firmly in the evidence. The use of animals in science lies at the intersection of two important public goods: the benefits to humans, animals and the environment from the use of animals in science; and the UK’s proud history of support for the highest possible standards of animal welfare. I note the hon. Lady’s point that the UK ought to be a world leader. I argue that one of the important contributions that have we made, including when we were a member of the European Union, was that the European directive for the protection of animals used in science was built upon and developed directly on the back of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, so UK legislation was very much at the forefront when it came to shaping safeguards and regulation in this policy space.

The balance between those two public goods is reflected in the UK’s robust regulation of the use of animals in science through a dedicated Act and our strength in science and innovation. The Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, which I have mentioned, specifies that animals can be used in science only for specific limited purposes where there are no alternatives, and provides protection for these animals through the legal requirement to apply the principles known as the 3Rs—replacement, reduction and refinement. The Government are committed to maintaining robust regulatory standards, and to investing in alternatives to animals. I agree with the hon. Lady that that is very much something that the British people want to see happen, which is why we, as a Government, are committed to the three Rs. When we are considering the ongoing need for the use of animals in science, it is essential to look at the impact that would result if it were not possible. Animal testing and research play a vital role in the understanding of how biological systems work in health and disease. They support the development of new medicines and cutting-edge medical technologies, for humans and animals, and they support the safety and sustainability of our environment. From new vaccines and medicines to transplant procedures, anaesthetics and blood transfusions, animal research has helped us to make life-changing discoveries and advances with enormous benefits for society. Indeed, the development of the covid-19 vaccine, like that of all vaccines, was made possible at least in part because of the use of animals in research.

Animal testing is required by all global medicines regulators, including the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. That testing is essential to protect human health and safety. Without the testing of potential medicines on animals, the development, registration and marketing of new, safe, and effective medicines would not be possible.

Although much research can be done with non-animal models, there are still purposes for which it is essential to use live animals, as the complexity of whole biological systems cannot always be replicated with the use of validated non-animal methodologies. That is especially the case when the safety of humans and animals needs to be ensured. Ours is a nation that rightly gives strong support to animal welfare, and I think it fair to say that it is a country of animal lovers, but let us not confuse the issues. I will be clear: animals are only ever used in science when there is a legally permissible purpose that is for the benefit of humans, animals themselves, or the environment. We authorise the use of animals only when the harms caused to the animals are justified by the likely expected benefits, and when there are no non-animal alternatives. We issue licences only when pain, suffering, distress and lasting harm have been minimised to the degree needed to meet the scientific research objectives. There are, of course, various levels and layers of safeguards in respect of this work.

There are three commonly cited but incorrect statements about the use of animals in science. The first is that the use of animals in science is not necessary because all the benefits can be achieved through the use of non-animal methodologies. The second is that the use of animals in science is not valid or useful primarily because data acquired from animal testing cannot predict the experience of humans or other animals. The third is that many potential medicines fail during development, and that this demonstrates that animal testing is not useful or necessary in drug development.

Let me deal first with the claim that there are alternatives to using animals for all purposes. Although scientific progress has meant that many scientific objectives can be achieved without the use of animals, there are still areas in which that is not possible. One example is the assessment of what is described as the “reproductive toxicity” of a chemical or potential new medicine. That means understanding whether a chemical causes abnormalities in fertility, abnormal development of offspring, or even problems with the fertility of the offspring of those exposed to such a chemical. Although some initial screening tests for that purpose can be performed without the use of animals, animal tests are still necessary for the assessments. Such tests have prevented the further development or marketing of substances that would have had significant negative impacts on fertility or developing embryos.

Let me now deal with the second point. Animal models are constantly improving to become more accurate and predictive, and scientists understand progressively more about which biological systems in which animals offer the most scientifically valid results. Improvements in the understanding of the genomes of animals and humans have been critical to ensuring that scientific research in animals is understood and applied appropriately. Data from animal experiments are constantly fed into computer models that analyse their predictivity and enable scientists to use animal models in increasingly smarter and more predictable ways.

As for the third claim—that many drugs fail during development, and that this shows that animal testing is not useful or necessary—although it is correct to assert that there is a high attrition rate in drug development, there are many reasons why drugs that are assessed as potentially effective and safe in animals do not progress to the market, including commercial reasons. Although there are always some effects in humans that cannot be accurately predicted in animals, animal studies are successfully used to characterise toxic effects of potential medicines with respect to the target organs that may be affected, and to understand how such effects vary with the dose of the substance administered. Additional information can be obtained about whether toxic effects seen can be reversed. This information allows for the identification of factors that can be monitored to assess adverse effects from potential new medicines in their first clinical trials and to establish the first dose that can safely be given in these studies. This is a critical part of protecting the safety of the participants in these studies.

Results from animal studies are therefore used as the basis for extrapolation to indicate and manage possible risks to humans. Thus, animal testing is considered not in a stand-alone context but as part of an integrated set of evidence from a variety of sources, including non-animal testing. Should animal testing not occur, more potential medicines would not progress to market, resources would be spent on potential medicines that would have been excluded through animal testing and the risk to humans in clinical trials would be considerably higher.

I commend the hon. Lady for the passion with which she speaks on these matters and the constructive approach and tone that she has taken in this debate, and which I know she will continue to take in raising these matters. I can assure her that the UK aims to be a world leader in the development of, and access to, new and innovative treatments and technologies. We must continue to protect the health of humans, animals and the environment. To achieve these important outcomes, we will continue—until such time as alternatives are achieved for all purposes—to need to use animals in science, but it is right that robust checks and balances should be in place. Importantly, while achieving these outcomes is critical, this Government also remain committed to robust regulation of the use of animals in science through enforcement of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, and to the funding, development and promotion of non-animal alternatives. That is something I know all of us in this House and in our country want to see delivered.

In closing, Mr Deputy Speaker, I should like to thank you, Mr Speaker and the terrific team of Deputy Speakers for everything that you do. I should also like to thank the Clerks, the staff of the House and of course the Doorkeepers. As the final Minister to speak at the Dispatch Box this year, I also want to say an enormous thank you to the officials who have been working tirelessly across Government, particularly during the challenges of the pandemic, which is of course ongoing. I also want to thank those in my private office and my parliamentary staff, without whom I could not do the work that I do. As a Home Office Minister, I would also like to thank and send my best wishes to our emergency services workers and all those working on the frontline this Christmas and new year. And perhaps most importantly for me, I want to thank the good people of Corby and east Northamptonshire, without whom I would not be here.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

On behalf of the Speaker and the three Deputies, I wish everybody listening a very merry Christmas and a happy 2022. It is now my duty for the final time this year—hopefully, I pray—to put the Question.

Question put and agreed to.

Asylum Seeker Accommodation: RAF Manston

Tom Pursglove Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con) (Urgent Question)]

To ask the Minister to tell the House of his proposals to accommodate asylum seekers at the former RAF Manston barracks.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)]

As the House knows, there has been an unacceptable rise in the number of small boat crossings. It is absolutely right that the Government take all necessary steps in response to what is an ongoing challenge. A new triage facility is being established on part of the Ministry of Defence site at Manston in Kent. It will provide safe and secure accommodation for migrants while the Government carry out the necessary checks. Used alongside existing reception arrangements at the port of Dover, the site will enable the processing of large numbers of arrivals simultaneously. We take the welfare of migrants seriously and will ensure that they receive basic welfare provisions, including hot food, fresh clothing, and, where necessary, medical care.

In the new year, we intend to expand activity at the Manston site to conduct more detailed security and initial asylum screening in parallel before people are dispersed. Arrivals will be expected to remain on-site for a maximum of five days while the security and initial asylum processing checks are undertaken, until they leave to go into further, appropriate accommodation. Our aim is to make our processes more efficient and to reduce pressure on the overall asylum system.

However, this is only one part of a wider process. The Government remain committed to bringing an end to dangerous and unnecessary small boat crossings. We are overhauling our asylum system to ensure that people-smugglers cannot profit from human misery. The tragic deaths in the channel last month underlined in horrific fashion just how dangerous these journeys are. Our new plan for immigration will reform the system and build one that is fair on those who play by the rules and firm on those who do not. It will reduce pull factors by making it more difficult for migrants to remain here where they have no lawful right to do so. The British people want to see change, and the Government are firmly committed to delivering that change.

[Sir Roger Gale]

The former RAF barracks at Manston is about to be released by the Ministry of Defence and is required, once the site has been cleared, by local people for housing. It lies adjacent to Manston airport, which we hope to see reopened in the near future as an airfield once the long-awaited development consent order has been determined. This is not an appropriate site for the proposed purpose.

On Friday 10 December, I received an email from the executive officer of Kent Wing informing me that 2433 Air Training Unit had been given until today, 15 December, to vacate premises at the former RAF barracks and fire training school

“in order that an Immigration Centre could be established there”.

This was described as

“not for us to debate; it is an order to us”.

That was the first that I had heard of this Home Office-instigated proposal. There had been no consultation with me, as the Member of Parliament, with the leader of the county council, with the leader of Thanet District Council, or, I believe, with the county constabulary. I spoke to the Minister of State on that day and was promised a full briefing, with civil servants present.

The leader of Thanet District Council was called by Home Office officials at 5 pm on Monday, two days ago, and the leader of Kent County Council at 6 pm. Again, there was no consultation, and to date, Kent’s senior health officer has not been consulted or even informed officially that the Home Office, which has known of the developing cross-channel people trafficking issue for months, and of the developing crisis for weeks, was proposing to create a screening and processing centre at the unsuitable Manston Road site. Neither were proposals for a phase 2 transfer and triage facility from Tug Haven to Manston discussed; nor was a further proposal for a phase 3 expansion of facilities, to handle the still-to-be-determined number of migrants over an unspecified length of time, consulted on. All we were told by the civil servant leading the project who, as I understand, was working from home and has not visited the site, is that the Home Office is establishing a processing centre—not might be, is establishing—before Christmas.

When I met the Minister of State yesterday, I asked that a stop be put on the project and that proper consultation be facilitated, with a degree of courtesy that from the Home Office has been signally lacking to date. From reports of phone calls made last night, it is clear that officials have ignored that request and are blundering on—hence my request for an urgent question, Mr Speaker. It appears to me that the Home Secretary and Minister of State have been blindsided by officials into yet another knee-jerk reaction to a problem that ought to have been foreseen, and should have been avoided.

As it stands, the current dog-whistle proposal appears to transfer arrivals securely from Tug Haven to Manston barracks, where they will be accommodated, in mid-winter, in marquees, and detained securely while they are being processed. There is no indication as to how the site will accommodate those human beings, how they will be made secure, or what facilities will be made available, other than statutory on-the-site medical services. These are real people who have been subjected to great misery as a result of circumstances that we may discuss on another occasion. As a result of the lack of foresight and preparation, it is now proposed that people should be processed under largely unsuitable conditions, simply to satisfy a perceived demand that can, and should, be met by other means.

I have identified at least one clean, comfortable, and secure operational vessel that can, if commissioned, meet the immediate and longer term need, and I am advised that others are available. I would be grateful if the Minister would now instruct the team to do as I have already requested, put this unacceptable and unworkable proposal on hold, and properly, thoroughly, and swiftly examine the viable alternatives. Perhaps while doing so he could conduct the consultations that ought to have been held weeks ago. Trying to railroad a bad idea through the shelter of the Christmas recess can only have unfortunate and undesirable consequences for the communities and people affected, and for the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I gave some leeway to the right hon. Member for North Thanet, because I knew how important it was—in case people are wondering why I allowed the urgent question to go beyond its normal time.

[Tom Pursglove]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his tone in raising this issue on behalf of his constituents, and I fully appreciate the sensitivities he has expressed. I know, not least because he chaired the Nationality and Borders Bill Committee, that he understands and appreciates the pressures that the Department and Government are currently experiencing in relation to the small boat challenge.

I appreciate that the current pressures are real and challenging for our staff on the ground, and we must be responsive to the issues and challenges they face in going about their work. Of course, this issue has come about directly in response to the high numbers of crossings we have seen, which have been so vivid, and about which I know people across our country are concerned. Safety is very much at the forefront of our consideration, not just for the arrivals, but for our staff in the way I have alluded.

My right hon. Friend has raised a number of points that I want to pick up in responding. It is fair to say that consultation is ongoing—I make the point again that we are having to respond to these challenges at pace—including with local authorities, the NHS, him as the constituency Member of Parliament and the police, for example. We have had to move at pace, and the most recent inspection confirms how important it is that we take the steps we are proposing. As I say, my officials spoke about our plans with local political leaders, their officials and the local police at the first opportunity, and they will continue to do so. I welcome their constructive engagement so far.

My right hon. Friend asked when activities at this facility will start. We are planning to have potential overspill facilities in place over the next few days. In terms of volumes, we will keep that under review. At the moment, we are assessing the capacity and capabilities of the site and what is appropriate to it, and there will of course be times when the site is empty, when crossings are not happening. He asked who will go there. This is an overspill site for Tug Haven and initial processing. We would expect men, women and children to go there as necessary, but for a maximum of five days. We will manage unaccompanied asylum-seeking children separately under the existing arrangements with social services.

My right hon. Friend asked whether this is a permanent arrangement. We will keep our use of the Manston site under review, but we expect to continue to use it for some time. He has suggested some alternatives. If he would like to share those details with me, I would be happy to take that away and look at what he is suggesting, but I go back to the key point in all of this, which is that the Government’s objective is to end these channel crossings. That is the objective we continue to work towards, and it is what the British people expect. We have a comprehensive plan of action—I have set it out many times in this House—for how we achieve that. Of course, getting that right means that there would not then be the need for facilities such as the one he has concerns about.

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

I have listened carefully to what the Minister has had to say, and I thank the right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) for having secured this important urgent question. Tomorrow will be a year to the day that the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) secured an urgent question in this Chamber on the Government’s rule changes, which gave the Home Office the powers to deem asylum claims inadmissible. We described the proposals as unworkable then. Here we are, a year on, and people are becoming trapped in our asylum system by the Home Office, having had their claims deemed inadmissible, but without any functioning agreements in place to move anyone through and out of the system. The Minister has said that 4,561 notices of intent have been served, yet only five people have been returned.

The Minister has said that this site is an attempt to improve the efficiency of the system, so can he explain to the House why the Government passed these inadmissibility rules when the consequences are that thousands of people have endured longer stays in the asylum system than necessary? That is to the detriment of a person’s wellbeing and makes no sense for the Home Office at all. The initial asylum decisions taken by the Home Office have dropped from 28,623 in 2015 to 14,758 now, which is contributing to the backlog. Some 64% of those waiting for a decision on their asylum claims are waiting longer than the six-month target, so the backlogs in processing times are crippling the system. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain why progress on the rates of decision making has collapsed.

The Minister says that RAF Manston barracks will be used more as a reception centre than long-term accommodation, but we know that public health and fire safety advice was ignored by the Home Office prior to Napier and Penally barracks opening as asylum accommodation. We have heard once again about how consultation with local agencies has sadly been absent.

Given what we know about the new variant, dormitory-style accommodation must be avoided if we are to protect those accommodated there, staff and the wider community. Can the Minister confirm whether RAF Manston barracks will have an advisory committee? Can he rule out that children will be held there, and can he provide assurances that this is a temporary measure?

Given that this Government have promised the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, why has the scheme still not been established, and why has eligibility for the Afghan relocations and assistance policy scheme been tightened overnight? I would be incredibly grateful for some insight on that decision.

Finally, in September 2020, the Home Office was by the inspectorate about the inadequate facilities at Tug Haven for dealing with vulnerable people, especially children, who may have experienced dangerous journeys. What assurances can the Minister give us that Manston barracks would be a significant improvement on the current situation?

[Tom Pursglove]

I am very grateful to the shadow Minister for her various questions and of course the assiduous way in which she always goes about these matters. We spent quite a lot of time together debating the Nationality and Borders Bill in the Committee that considered it in great detail. The point that I would make initially is that what we are talking about here is a very considerable number of arrivals. Of course, it is right and proper that we have appropriate and safe facilities in place to process those arrivals in a manner that is fitting and of course has safety at the forefront. We believe that the steps I have set out today are necessary to achieve that and to make sure that we have the capacity, with the ultimate aim of course of stopping these crossings from happening in the first place, which is something that we are continuing to work towards.

On the point about inadmissibility, as I have explained several times in different settings in this House, that is very much about our future policy and where we are hoping to get to. We believe very strongly, and I know that Opposition Members have different views on this, that people should seek asylum or claim asylum in the first safe country that they reach. That is of course the quickest route to safety. The shadow Minister will also know that we are continuing to look at what more we can do on the issue of returns along those inadmissibility lines, and upholding that very long established principle under successive Governments of both sides that people should claim asylum in the first safe country that they reach. Those negotiations and discussions are ongoing, as she would expect.

On asylum processing, of course one thing that I very much want to see, as do my ministerial colleagues, is cases decided more quickly. We want to provide sanctuary to those who need it as quickly as possible and to return those with no right to be here without needless delays. That is what our Nationality and Borders Bill and the new plan for immigration are all about. We are getting on: that Bill is passing through the House, and we will operationalise the measures in it as quickly as possible on Royal Assent. I think that is what the British people want to see. It is the right and responsible thing to do, and that underpins the entirety of our policy.

On Napier specifically, we have been responsive. Again, we have set out many times the improvements that have been made to that site. It is right that, for example, when the inspectorates come in, look at these sites and offer recommendations, those are considered properly and thoroughly, and acted on as appropriate. That is why we respond formally to those reports and set out the steps that we intend to take to address any of the issues raised.

On the point about Afghanistan, what I will do—if I may, given that today we are debating the issue of Manston specifically and the triaging facility—is ask my hon. Friend the Minister for Afghan Resettlement to provide an update to the shadow Minister.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

How many hotels have now been contracted to deal with illegal migrants and with asylum seekers under Government contract, what is the current year’s budget for all this work and will the Minister promise that, in future, MPs in any constituency where new facilities are going to be procured will be consulted first?

[Tom Pursglove]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his question. Of course, as is standard practice, budgets are agreed formally with the Treasury in the usual way. I think it is fair to say that, as Ministers, our door is always open to talk to colleagues about concerns they have about particular circumstances in their own constituencies. I think it is fair to say we are facing very considerable pressures at the moment in this space and it is important that all parts of the country do their bit to help to address some of these challenges. I would encourage local authorities that are not currently assisting with that work to look at how they can help, particularly along the lines of the dispersal model. But to be clear to the House, we want to get away from this reliance on hotel accommodation. We are working towards that objective and that is the right approach.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) on securing this urgent question. His point about the lack of consultation with himself, the local authority and health services is frankly appalling. I want to ask the Minister a number of questions. A cross-party report on the all-party parliamentary group on immigration detention called on the Government to end this military-style accommodation for asylum seekers, which it described as “fundamentally unsuitable” for survivors of war, torture or serious violence. So why is the Home Office ignoring these warnings from parliamentary colleagues? The Home Office previously ignored warnings on the use of Napier barracks from the Red Cross and Public Health England, with the inevitable result of a covid outbreak among those being held there. With the pandemic now entering another dangerous phase, will the Government commit to listening to the experts this time and to following their own health guidance?

Can the Minister confirm that parts of the Manston estate are currently condemned as a result of asbestos being found on the site? We know that there has been very little consultation—in fact, none at all—with the local authority and other key partners such as the health services. Will he tell us what consultations have taken place with the non-governmental organisations that work with torture survivors and victims of trafficking and other trauma? Or is there, as with Napier, a lack of proper planning processes? Finally, the Minister mentioned illegal migrants. When will the Department commit to ending this dog-whistle language? There is no such thing as an illegal migrant. Seeking asylum is not illegal, so when will the Government put an end to this language and to pandering to the lowest common denominator?

[Tom Pursglove]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his questions. I do not consider that we are ignoring the concerns that are raised. As I have set out to the House, we have consistently been responsive to the reports of the inspectors, for example, and when they make recommendations, we consider them and act appropriately. He will recognise that there is a need for accommodation, and that the system is under acute pressure at the moment, given the number of arrivals. He will also recognise that we are seeking to reform the system. We are bringing forward the Nationality and Borders Bill, which is all about driving reform, processing cases more quickly, providing sanctuary to those who require it and removing those with no right to be here. That is a firm but fair system, and one that I would argue is right.

In response to the hon. Member’s point about there being no consultation with local partners, that is simply not true. As I have described to the House, that engagement is ongoing. He also asked about areas of the site having asbestos. We will of course act entirely appropriately with safety at the forefront. I have made that point several times. Assessments are ongoing in various parts of the site, and it is right that we always act with safety at the forefront of our minds.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

We should always remember that it is criminal gangs that are ruthlessly exploiting vulnerable people and bringing them to this country. Can the Minister clarify some issues relating to the site? Will it be used for new arrivals straight after they arrive? He said earlier that they would be there for no more than five days. Following the questions from my right hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale), there was a question about how they would be accommodated. Will they be in marquees, in tents, or in barracks accommodation with proper facilities during this, the coldest period of the year?

[Tom Pursglove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the criminal gangs responsible for these crossings are evil, and I would like to think that the whole House would share in that message. As I have said, the intention is for this to be an overspill site for Tug Haven. Work is ongoing on site to assess which areas are appropriate to be used for accommodation, and there will of course be appropriate accommodation on site that is safe and that meets our legal obligations.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)]

The people who are going to be taken into this facility are desperate people arriving from Afghanistan, Kurdistan and many other places, and suffering from the most intense trauma. Everything that the Minister has said, and everything that the right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) asked, sounds awfully like a repeat of the appalling behaviour of the Home Office over Napier barracks. Can the Minister assure us that people are not going to be kept there at all, and that some better, more suitable accommodation will be found—at the end of the five days, where are they supposed to go? Has the Minister consulted? Many local people in Kent are welcoming asylum seekers and are prepared to support them. Has the Minister discussed the matter with local non-governmental organisations, or is this just some immediate reaction to get through a problem for the moment, never mind the appalling conditions that these poor desperate people are going to be forced into?

[Tom Pursglove]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his various questions. This is an overspill site for Tug Haven. At the end of the period spent there in the processing phase, people would enter the dispersal and initial accommodation phase, and would of course be appropriately accommodated.

I have said this to the right hon. Gentleman before, but I will say it again: no one has cause to get into a small boat in order to seek safety. People should seek asylum in the first safe country that they reach.

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)]

Several hundred asylum seekers are currently being housed in a completely inappropriate location in central Blackpool. The Minister will be aware of my concerns about this placement. Does he agree with the people of Blackpool that the plans for an offshore processing centre for asylum seekers simply cannot come soon enough?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Pursglove]

As my hon. Friend knows, in the Nationality and Borders Bill we reserve the right to enter into an offshore processing arrangement. I hear the point that he makes on behalf of his constituents about how strongly they feel about this, and of course we want to operationalise the Bill as quickly as possible.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

We have heard a great deal about the pressure on accommodation, but surely that pressure could be relieved if the Home Office were to act more quickly and fairly in processing claims. Will the Minister tell us what action has been taken to ensure that that can happen?

[Tom Pursglove]

Perhaps the hon. Lady could help us in Edinburgh: perhaps her assistance would enable the dispersal process to take place more readily. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), would be keen to have that conversation with her. Let me also reiterate that our firm objective is to increase and improve the processing of cases in the way that I have described.

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

Stoke-on-Trent is the fifth largest contributor to the asylum dispersal scheme. We have heard from my hon. Friend about the strain on the system caused by hundreds of thousands of illegal economic migrants crossing the English channel from France. Does he agree that the pressure on the system could be relieved if more local authorities, such as Labour-run Islington Council or the 31 out of 33 Scottish authorities, stepped up and played their part in the national effort?

[Tom Pursglove]

My hon. Friend has been a passionate advocate for the work that his local authority has been doing in this regard. I want to place on record my thanks and appreciation to them for everything they have been doing. I think it fair to say that many local authorities around the country could learn a lot from Stoke.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for his answers, and I commend the right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) for his spirited account of the situation at RAF Manston. As others have said, this is about more than secure accommodation. Can the Minister outline further what measures are in place to deliver education and training for the refugees and their families at Manston and across the United Kingdom so that they can assimilate well into local communities?

[Tom Pursglove]

As this is about short-term processing, we would not necessarily expect facilities of that kind on site, but of course they will be a key consideration when it comes to dispersal and initial accommodation.

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

I must say I have some sympathy with the need to act quickly bearing in mind the scale of the problem, so I do not really have concerns about the lack of consultation. Does the Minister agree with me, though, that if individuals are concerned about the quality of the accommodation, the simple answer to that is to not come over here illegally and actually apply for asylum in the safe European country in which they are present? They are not from Afghanistan; they are in France. It is hardly surprising that the Opposition opposes this—I know you would like them all to be in four and five-star hotels; you have made that quite clear—but will the Minister promise me that offshore processing is being looked into seriously?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not refer across the Chamber to the shadow Minister as “you”. I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows by now that when he uses that phraseology he is referring to the Chair, so I ask him to observe the conventions. I call the Minister.

[Tom Pursglove]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The point I make in response is that nobody should be getting in a small boat to find safety—nobody has any cause to do that. That is why we are so committed to safe and legal routes, for the very reasons he outlines: when people come through such routes, we can provide proper accommodation, support and services to support those individuals.

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), the Minister suggested that there was a good level of consultation with local authorities in Scotland. That is not consistent with the view from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, which, I understand, is told after asylum seekers are accommodated—there is no engagement in advance. I wonder whether the Minister might reflect on the comments he made.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the point of order, which is more like a continuation of the urgent question. [Interruption.] I see that the Minister wishes to make a response.

[Tom Pursglove]

For the benefit of the House, I would just confirm that I was talking about Kent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I hope that is helpful. As I say, this is really not a matter for the Chair, but I hope we have had some clarification.

Delivering Justice for Victims

Tom Pursglove Excerpts

Thursday 9th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Tom Pursglove)]

Today, we are publishing a consultation on a new victims’ law to raise the voice of victims in our criminal justice system, expand their role in it and strengthen the accountability of all the agencies charged with supporting victims across the system.

We have a moral duty to protect the victims of crime, improve the level of service that they can expect from the criminal justice system and raise the quality of support that they receive. It is the right thing to do, but it is also essential on a practical level to ensure that in operational terms we have the most effective justice system possible. After all, we can secure convictions and bring down rates of crime only if victims have the confidence to report crimes to the police and engage with prosecutors to make sure that their testimony is heard in court. For both those reasons and at every level, we must do better.

As things stand, too many victims feel that the criminal justice system does not deliver justice for them. Too many feel let down by the system, which compounds the pain and suffering from the original crime. In fact, it is worrying that as many as three in five victims do not even report a crime that they have suffered. A survey by the Victims’ Commissioner shows that, based on their experience of the criminal justice system, a third of victims would not report a crime again. The evidence demonstrates that a third of victims who do go to police will later disengage from the process.

In those cases, justice is not delivered for victims, and the public are left exposed to criminals left to carry on offending. That must change. The Government are determined to improve the service and support that victims receive from the point at which a crime is reported right through to their experience in the courtroom.

We have already taken a range of actions to support victims. We have strengthened the victims code, which sets out the minimum standards that victims can expect. We have invested £300 million this year in victim support services, of which the Ministry of Justice has provided more than £150 million; we announced in the Budget that that will increase to £185 million per year by the end of this Parliament, ensuring that more victims can access what can be life-saving help. We have passed the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 to protect victims and strengthen measures against perpetrators. We have published the end-to-end rape review report, setting out a plan of action to drive improvements for victims across the criminal justice system. We have begun to improve the trial experience for victims by rolling out pre-recorded cross-examination—known as section 28—for vulnerable victims, so that those who want to can give evidence earlier and outside the courtroom, making the process less harrowing so that victims can present their best evidence and helping to secure more convictions.

But we must go much further. I want to guarantee that victims are at the very heart of the criminal justice system. Rather than feeling peripheral to the process, victims should feel supported so that they can properly engage at every step. Our plan for delivering a world-class service to victims has five crucial elements that we will deliver through the victims Bill.

First, we want to amplify the voice of victims and ensure that they are properly engaged at every stage of the criminal justice system. We want to ensure agencies communicate with victims better. For example, we are consulting on the requirement for the prosecutor in certain types of case to communicate directly with victims before they decide whether to charge a suspect. We believe that such direct exposure to the victim is essential to giving them the confidence to go to trial and to see their cases through, and will help to reduce what are known as the victim attrition rates. As well as amplifying the voice of individual victims, these measures will strengthen the voice of whole communities. We intend to put explicit provision for community impact statements in the victims’ law and the victims code, mainstreaming their use in appropriate cases to ensure that the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the courts understand the wider scale and extent to which crime can blight whole neighbourhoods.

Secondly, we will increase transparency in respect of the performance of our criminal justice agencies. Today we are publishing the first national criminal justice and adult rape scorecards. They will bring together data to give a cross-system view of performance, including aspects that matter to victims such as how long it takes for cases to be investigated and charges to be made, how long cases wait in the courts before they go to trial, the number of guilty pleas, and what happens to cases when they reach court. One thing that is immediately clear from the data is that we must do better. Some cases are taking too long to get through the system. Covid-19 may be a factor in that, and we are working to bring down backlogs, but rape cases in particular are taking far too much time to get to court. That is not good enough and we are determined to put it right.

A further set of localised scorecards, giving the more granular local detail, will be published early next year. The scorecards will monitor victim engagement so we can see where in the system victims are being failed and take steps to fix that, and the local scorecards will show us where in the country the system is delivering for victims and where it is not. That data and that transparency will equip victims, and our criminal justice agencies more generally, to better monitor performance, and to better understand the problems in the system and address them more effectively, while spreading the very best practice more widely.

Thirdly, we want to ensure that there are clearer and sharper lines of accountability when victims do not receive the right level of service. We will enshrine the victims’ code in law to send a clear signal about what victims can and should reasonably expect from the criminal justice system. It follows that we must also hold the respective criminal justice agencies to account when it comes to delivering for victims. We will strengthen the oversight mechanisms and their focus on victims across the board, from complaints procedures to reinforced inspection regimes nationally and police and crime commissioners locally. That will give victims more effective redress when something goes wrong and it will improve accountability.

Members will recall the Government’s rape review action plan, which was published in June. Today I can announce that we are publishing a report detailing progress against its aims, so that we can hold criminal justice agencies to account for how much they have improved outcomes in tackling this horrendous crime.

Fourthly, we want to help victims to rebuild their lives through accessible and professional services, and ensure that criminals pay more to support those services. We propose to increase the victim surcharge, which helps to fund victim services; that will mean criminals paying more to right their own wrongs, and in the process help victims to recover from what they have suffered.

Our consultation will also meet the commitment made to the House, during the passage of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, to consult on the provision of support services for victims of domestic abuse. We want to improve the commissioning and co-ordination of services, particularly for victims of traumatic crimes—domestic abuse, sexual violence and other serious violence—so that they can be given the right support at the right time to help them recover. As part of that, we plan to strengthen the support available from independent sexual violence advisers and independent domestic violence advisers, which we know makes victims almost 50% more likely to remain engaged with the criminal justice process.

Finally, we want to ensure there are better tools to protect victims and prosecute culprits. We are already making significant progress, and I can announce today that we are planning a national roll-out to expand provision of section 28 pre-recorded cross-examination for sexual and modern slavery victims to all Crown courts, with the specific priority of ensuring that victims of rape across the country pre-record their evidence and avoid the ordeal of facing the full glare of the courtroom.

Let me explain how this will work. The CPS will decide, in consultation with the victim, whether to apply under section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. The judiciary will retain oversight and discretion to ensure that the interests of justice are properly served. This has the potential to increase the number of successful prosecutions and earlier guilty pleas. The justice scorecards will help us to evaluate progress in this regard, and will highlight any challenges in practice. We will be guided by ongoing evaluation of data from courts already trialling the section 28 arrangements. I am committed to working carefully with the judiciary and criminal justice agencies on this expansion, as are my ministerial colleagues.

This Government will deliver credible change for victims. We will give them a more powerful voice at every stage of the criminal justice system. We will increase transparency and redress in respect of the support that they receive in practice. We will ensure that every criminal justice agency is properly held to account for its role in the wider system. We will better protect victims, especially victims of rape and sexual violence, to give them greater confidence about giving the testimony that can help to secure a conviction. We will make the perpetrators of crime pay more to help victims recover. That is our plan to give victims the justice they deserve, and to build back a better, stronger, fairer country. I commend this statement to the House.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving me early sight of his statement, which is welcomed by Labour Members. Goodness knows it has been a long time coming, having been promised time and again over several years. I only hope that the proposed consultation exercise is dealt with rapidly, that people are listened to and that we see proposed legislation with no further delay. I also hope that the Minister will tell us what he understands to be the timescale for that to happen. I can inform him that we will work constructively with the Government to ensure that the new victims’ law is fit for purpose, and is a law of which we can all be proud. He could even save himself some time by simply adopting Labour’s victims Bill, which actually does the job.

The Minister’s words were not just an illustration of how much the new law is needed, but a damning indictment of the Government’s inaction over the past decade. The number of victims who have dropped out of the system has doubled in the last five years, and a record of number of cases have collapsed over the last year. I know that the Minister has not been in his post for long, but he must be embarrassed to stand before us today and tell us that confidence in the justice system is so poor. Three in every five victims do not even report a crime, a third of victims would not report a crime again, and a third of victims who do go to the police drop out of the process before any case can come to court.

If we are to help victims, we must get the court system correct. In October 2021, the National Audit Office released a damning report on the Government’s handling of the court backlog. It found that the Crown court backlog had already increased by 23% in the year leading up to the pandemic, and had increased a further 48% since its onset. Not to put too fine a point on it, the NAO said that both the Ministry of Justice and its courts agency were not working together properly to solve problems which had their roots in pre-pandemic cuts.

The Government have their work cut out to deal effectively with rape cases alone. One in 67 rape complainants actually see a case come to court, and it can take four years for that process to be completed. The latest data from the Crown Prosecution Service shows that the number of rape convictions fell by 6.7% in the last quarter, and we have seen the conviction rate fall considerably, from 72.9% in quarter 1 of 2020-21 to 66.2% in quarter 1 of 2021-22, a reduction of 6.7%. The number of days from receipt to charge has been increasing quarter on quarter: according to the latest figures, it increased from 125 days to 170 days in the same period. Under this Prime Minister, rape victims are being abandoned by the justice system. At the current rate, it would take the Government 18 years to return to the pre-2016 levels of prosecution, which they promised to reach by the end of this Parliament.

We welcome the fact that section 28 is being rolled out, but it is all well and good for the Lord Chancellor to commit himself to overseeing that national roll-out; what I want to know is why it has taken so long. He could have got it moving much more quickly and saved more victims from the stresses of court if his Government had supported Labour’s amendment to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill back in the summer. Can the Minister tell us what the timeframe is for this roll-out?

As for scorecards, perhaps the Minister can tell us what score he thinks we should give the Government with numbers like these. There are 3,357 victims of violent and sexual crime who have already been waiting over a year for their day in court, and a further 654 victims of these horrific crimes have been waiting over two years. Will he also assure us that he will have the extra resources to ensure that all his proposals can be implemented?

Five previous Justice Secretaries have promised a victims Bill, and all five have failed to deliver. Victims will have very little confidence that the current Justice Secretary will succeed where his predecessors have failed. It is damning that victims now tell us that their experience of the justice system was worse than the crime itself. Just 19% of victims believe that judges take account of the impact of crimes on them, and just 18% believe that they are given enough support. Fighting to overturn CPS decisions not to prosecute, lengthy court delays and people waiting years for their day in court—all this sends a very bad signal about how victims are treated by the justice system. We can see why women and girls, in particular, give up.

Since 2010, the CPS has faced a 25% budget cut and a 30% reduction in staff. Police forces in England and Wales lost 21,732 officers between March 2010 and March 2018—that is 15% of their total number. More than half of all magistrates courts in England and Wales have closed since 2010. It is an abysmal record.

Victims do not want a consultation; they want action. Labour has a ready-made Bill to end violence against women and girls, to clear the backlog through an increase in Nightingale courts and to fast-track rape and sexual violence cases. Our victims Bill would also improve rights, strengthen protections and accountability, improve communications and ensure that victims were no longer treated as an afterthought. This Government have come out with a statement today. They must now match their warm words with deeds and ensure that they fulfil their promise to put victims at the very heart of our criminal justice system.

[Tom Pursglove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was sorry to see his announcement last week that he would be stepping down from the House at the next general election. Having been a Government Whip, I have spent many hours with him on Bill Committees, and I have always appreciated the way in which he has gone about his business here in the House. I also appreciated the constructive tone that ran through at least the start of his response to my statement.

One thing that I am particularly concerned about in the approach that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to adopt here is that he keeps talking about a Bill that he and his colleagues have prepared. I do not think that being prescriptive about all this is the right approach. This is a fundamental reform and a once-in-a-generation opportunity to deliver meaningful reforms and get this right, and I think the right approach is to have meaningful consultations with the sector, with victims, and with those with knowledge and experience in these matters, in order to deliver a policy that is fit for purpose and delivers on the aims that I would like to think all of us in this House agree on. At the end of the day, we are talking about the victims of crime. Some of them have been through horrendous, unthinkable trauma, and we owe it to them to come together constructively and responsibly and to debate these matters in a measured way to ensure that we get the response right for them. That is my job, and it is the responsibility of Members of this House and certainly of the ministerial team at the Ministry of Justice to get this right.

We have a strong record on crime, and of course the ultimate objective is to ensure that there are no victims in the first place. That is why we are committed, for example, to rolling out 20,000 extra police officers. We want to prevent crime from happening, and we want more police officers out on the beat catching criminals and deterring crime. That is exactly what we are doing. I repeat that our plan for victims will deliver a world-class service to them by amplifying the victims’ voice, by increasing transparency in the system—Members across the House will recognise the real importance and value of that—by strengthening accountability, by improving support for victims, including through criminals paying more towards the support we put in place, and by generally providing better tools to protect victims and prosecute criminals.

The approach that we take to these matters as a Department and as a Government is one of non-defensive transparency around the policy. Some of what we are announcing today is a starting point. This is an iterative process, for example, with the scorecards. I would welcome input from Members across the House about the scorecards and what more we can do to improve transparency so that we can drive genuine improvement.

The hon. Gentleman specifically raised the issue of the courts backlog. We have taken comprehensive action to address the backlog. As part of the spending review, we are investing £477 million in the criminal justice system over the next three years to help to reduce the backlog and to deliver the swift access to justice that victims deserve. We have taken decisive action, but the shadow team seems to have a pretty short memory. Prior to the pandemic, in February 2020, the courts backlog was 19% lower than it was in the last year of the Labour Government. Meanwhile, we have kept the wheels of justice moving in unprecedented circumstances, so the Opposition really do not have a leg to stand on in this regard. The courts Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), is here in the Chamber and is overseeing this important work.

Despite the Opposition’s criticism, the funding that we are putting in place is far in excess of anything that was ever put in place by the previous Labour Government. Our £185 million package is over four times as much as was spent in the last year of the previous Labour Government. Our record shows that we are on the side of the victims, while Labour failed to support them in the way that we are doing now.

On the issue of rape prosecutions, I would just draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the fact that the data on the scorecards relates to quarter 2. That provides important context, and we are obviously now six months on from that. Our plans will significantly improve the way in which the criminal justice system responds to rape. Before the end of the year, we will publish the first ever adult rape scorecard; introduce a single source of 24/7 support for victims of rape and sexual violence; roll out a new investigatory model—Operation Soteria—that focuses on the suspects’ behaviour rather than that of the victims; and expand pre-recorded cross-examination through section 28 for victims of rape and sexual violence. The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about the implementation of that last policy, and it is of course crucial that we get it right and that it is delivered appropriately and sensitively. That is why we are working with our criminal justice partners and the judiciary to deliver that roll-out as quickly as possible and in an appropriate manner.

The point that I made at the start applies to how we debate these matters. We are talking about victims of crime, and I want us to have a constructive debate over the course of the next eight weeks as we consult on these measures. There is a comprehensive engagement plan in place to do that, and I would really welcome Members from across the House contributing their ideas, helping to shape this, and encouraging their constituents and the organisations that they work with in their constituencies to make their views and experiences known so that we can get this right and deliver the meaningful change that victims deserve.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I very much welcome this statement, and the tone with which the Minister has approached this matter. We need a serious and measured debate about how we best serve the victims of crime, and I particularly welcome the proposal to put the victims code on to a statutory basis. As he notes, this is something that the Justice Committee has called for, and the Committee stands ready to assist with any prelegislative scrutiny in that regard.

The Minister is right to flag up the issue of delays and their impact on victims, and one of the key causes of delay is victim attrition, particularly in relation to rape and serious sexual offences. The most important means of tackling that is sustained financial investment in the system, which, as he rightly observes, has been lacking for decades. It was lacking under previous Governments when I was in practice at the Bar, so no one party can claim a monopoly of concern on that. The current settlement is the best for decades, but will he ensure that it is applied to investment in maintaining the courts in good physical condition, maintaining the supply of good-quality judges—both full time and recorders—and, importantly, funding the legal profession properly so that we have good-quality barristers and solicitors available to prosecute and defend these important and sensitive cases. Good-quality lawyers on both sides speed up cases and give a better outcome for the victims.

[Tom Pursglove]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his sage advice. It is fair to say that on these matters I am keen to have a constructive working relationship so that we can get this right, and I genuinely believe that the Justice Committee has an awful lot to contribute to the consultation process as we shape this policy. He is absolutely right about victim attrition. That has undoubtedly been a barrier to securing the greater numbers of prosecutions that we would all like to see delivered. Of course, section 28 will play a really important part in delivering on that, informed by the work on the trials of that technology that we have seen previously.

Independent sexual violence advisor provision is also important, and engagement with ISVAs has a significant role in helping victims to sustain their participation in the criminal justice system and in bringing perpetrators to justice. My hon. Friend also makes an important point about courts, and my hon. Friend the courts Minister has heard what he said. The £477 million injection that we are making in that regard is also important.

[Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)]

Jackie Wileman was on her daily walk when she was killed by four men who were joyriding a stolen heavy goods vehicle around Barnsley. Those four men had a hundred convictions between them, one had previously killed by dangerous driving and one was in the probation system. The judge gave them the maximum sentence of 14 years but said he would have liked to have given more.

Jackie’s brother Johnny has bravely campaigned on the issue of sentencing for dangerous driving, on which I welcome action, but Johnny and his family feel completely let down by every part of the system. Will the Minister outline how things would be different for Johnny under these proposals?

[Tom Pursglove]

The hon. Lady is a strong advocate for her constituents, and she raises a very difficult and tragic case in her community. I am sure the whole House’s thoughts are with the family and friends of her constituent. It is important to say that we are taking action on this issue through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which I am sure she will welcome, to take sentences from 14 years to life.

[Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I warmly commend my hon. Friend for his statement and the consultation document. As he will know from when he was my departmental Whip, a lot of the language in this document is familiar to me. I am pleased about that, because it is with a proper seriousness of purpose and a sense of acknowledgment of inadequacy that we have to approach this issue.

I put on record my thanks to Emily Hunt, the independent adviser on victims. I appointed her and worked well with her, and I can see her hand in this excellent document.

Will my hon. Friend assure the House that, when this consultation finishes—and in the spirit of what he said about cross-party working, which is hugely important—we will have prelegislative scrutiny to get this once-in-a-generation Bill absolutely right for the future?

[Tom Pursglove]

I am fond of my right hon. and learned Friend, and I thoroughly enjoyed working with him. He made a significant contribution during his time as Lord Chancellor, and it undoubtedly shifted the dial considerably on many areas of policy in relation to the criminal justice system. He was consistently passionate about victims and wanting to see genuine improvement for them. It is fair to say that his hand is most definitely on this work, and I would never want to disregard the very good work that has been done previously. I am grateful to him for everything he has done in this regard, and I look forward to his participation in the consultation. I share in his remarks about Emily Hunt, and it is our intention to have prelegislative scrutiny to allow Members on both sides of the House to scrutinise and help shape the plans.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

As the Minister knows, the Home Affairs Committee has also taken a great deal of interest in these matters. I welcome his statement on the intention of Ministers to make these changes to the criminal justice system to benefit victims. I am especially pleased that he mentioned the scorecards that will help spread best practice to areas that are not doing as well as they could and are basically letting down victims. Why does there not seem to be a specific strategy to tackle gender-based violence? That does not seem to be in this package as clearly or as up front as it should be. When will we get something on that?

[Tom Pursglove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the constructive tone of his question. The tackling violence against women and girls strategy, which was published in July, is fundamental to the work in this area. Separate from this session, I am sure Ministers would be happy to talk to him so that he can further understand our work in this inevitably important area.

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

I very much welcome the Minister’s statement, which emphasised the need for victims to be at the heart of the criminal justice system. I know from my experience as a magistrate that it can sometimes be difficult for victims to fully understand the sentences passed in the courtroom. Does he agree it is important for magistrates and judges to be very clear about how long will actually be spent in prison, or about how a community order will both punish and rehabilitate offenders?

[Tom Pursglove]

My hon. Friend takes a real interest in these matters, and he has also been a tireless campaigner in this space. I am grateful to him for his contribution.

Transparency is always important, which is precisely why we are introducing the justice scorecards so that people can see more about the work that is happening and the state of play as it stands at any given time. For the reasons I set out, we want to drive improvement not just on a national level but in the local context. I hear my hon. Friend’s point, and I will gladly take it back. We should keep under constant review what more we can do to be transparent so that victims know exactly where they stand.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

I visited Woolwich Crown court on Monday to meet the judges, and I saw the excellent work they are doing to keep the system running through these very difficult times. One point they made that echoes the points raised by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) is that they need more recorders and more qualified barristers—there is a problem in identifying the number of barristers needed to keep the system going. They also need covid funding to continue beyond the end of March, especially as we face this new variant. Jurors have no choice other than to be in court, and the court has had to create a safe environment. Some of the funding will disappear and some of the facilities will therefore have to be got rid of. Can we look at covid funding to ensure we keep the court system going and to ensure juries are looked after in court?

[Tom Pursglove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for talking about his experience of visiting his local court. It is important to point out that we are increasing the number of recorders, and of course we work in close collaboration with the judiciary on these matters. Ministers, as would be expected, have a strong working relationship with the judiciary to understand the needs that exist. Again, we are investing £477 million in court recovery.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I thank the Minister, my parliamentary neighbour, for his statement, and I congratulate him on his work on the new victims Bill. Residents in Kettering want to see fewer victims of crime and more criminals in jail paying for their crimes. As well as the national effort to help victims, what work is he doing with the Northamptonshire police, fire and crime commissioner to get more localised support for victims in Kettering, Corby and Wellingborough?

[Tom Pursglove]

I am grateful to my constituency neighbour, who is ever innovative in his questions. It is fair to say that many leaflets have gone out over the years with both of us on them to campaign for more police officers out on the beat catching criminals and deterring crime, which is exactly what we are delivering and what people in Corby and east Northamptonshire want.

We have an excellent police, fire and crime commissioner in Northamptonshire, Stephen Mold. I would urge Stephen to take part in this consultation and to get across the experiences and issues of victims in Northamptonshire so they can be reflected in this work and so we can get the policy right for residents in Northamptonshire and across the country.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

As a former police officer trained in the handling of sexual offences, I know very well that victims must be at the heart of the criminal justice process. Allowing victims to prerecord evidence is a key part of that, and it already happens in Scotland. The Home Affairs Committee discussed the section 28 pilot last week, and concerns were raised in evidence that barristers and recorders have been unable to take on cases because the system is not sitting well alongside the standard court process. I am grateful for the outline of how the Government intend to implement section 28 further, but will the Minister advise me on what impact this feedback is likely to have on the roll-out?

[Tom Pursglove]

I thank the hon. Lady for welcoming the section 28 reforms, and she is right that the reforms are pivotal to helping victims to come forward and to give their best evidence so we can secure prosecutions. She will appreciate that we are consistently discussing these matters with the judiciary, who, obviously, have a significant role in implementing this policy. We will make more detail on that known as the roll-out progresses, but I can assure her that these angles are being looked at closely and those discussions are ongoing.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

I very much welcome this statement. On Tuesday, my hon. Friend said that the consultation was imminent, and he has been true to his word. Does he share my concern, however, that the definition of “victim” within the victims’ code is pretty restrictive, unlike the situation in other jurisdictions, which I touched upon on Tuesday? Will he ensure that as we go through this consultation process the voices of those who have not traditionally been regarded as victims are heard and that as the code moves into statute we do much better by them, so that their situation, and the trauma and tragedy that they go through, through no fault of their own, is mitigated?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Pursglove]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. We had a good debate on Tuesday evening, at the end of business, on these matters, and I look forward to meeting him to discuss this in greater detail. One key issue that I raised in responding on Tuesday night is that there are always needs that we need to look at. It is important that these matters are considered on a cross-government basis and that the support in place for individuals in the many different circumstances they find themselves in, particularly the mental health support, is kept under constant review. I encourage him to take part in the consultation and makes his views known.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement today and I hope that we are able to deliver more justice for victims, because being a victim is for life. It is important to bring personal circumstances to the House, in order for people to understand the situation. In my case, the person who was responsible for the death of my daughter in a hit-and-run accident was sentenced to prison, and so got a custodial sentence, but of course they are eligible for home detention curfew. So this is not just about what happens before and after; it is about what happens throughout the whole process. We got a phone call from the probation service about this home detention curfew process, but it was transactional. I am not criticising the people involved or the system per se, but it was a transactional process. We got no guarantee that we would be listened to, as we were in relation to a victim statement—we got no guarantees that we would be taken into account at all. So it is important that that point is incorporated in this: that victims do have the formal right to be heard even after the actual court process itself.

[Tom Pursglove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing his personal experiences to the House this afternoon. That must have been incredibly difficult to talk about, and I can only imagine the impact that that whole experience has had on him and his family—it is truly heartbreaking. I wonder whether he might be willing to meet me to discuss this in greater detail. The point I would make is that I always expect the criminal justice agencies to be engaging with people in an incredibly sympathetic and understanding manner. I would appreciate the opportunity to understand a little more about his experience, so that we can try to make sure that that never happens again and that any issues are dealt with properly. I look forward to meeting him to discuss it.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend will be well aware, child sexual exploitation is, sadly, an undeniable problem in my constituency. So I am very pleased that the Government are launching this consultation, on a Bill that puts supporting victims of these horrific, horrendous crimes at its heart. Will he explain what further support the Government plan to provide to victims of these horrific crimes, particularly via the independent sexual violence advisers and other services that help those who have experienced child sexual exploitation?

[Tom Pursglove]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is a vociferous champion on these matters on behalf of his constituents. He raises an important issue through his question. Of course, ISVAs are very important in this work, which is why we are committed to increasing considerably the number of ISVAs that are available to support victims. It is also crucial to point out that, as well as the baseline national provision that we help to support, there are of course opportunities for police and crime commissioners to supplement that work, based on local circumstances and local need. I am sure that he will be making his views known as part of this consultation work, as he has a really valuable contribution to make.

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s statement, particularly the commitment to providing additional means by which victims can present their evidence in the courtroom. Does he agree, however, that we need to cast the net a little wider, in order to ensure there are additional means for certain victims to report crimes in the first place? I recall from my time many years ago in local government the success of third-party reporting centres, which were there to ensure that crimes that may otherwise, for a whole number of reasons, go unreported do get into the system.

[Tom Pursglove]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question on this important issue. The Government are clear—and I know that all Members of this House echo this message in their communities—that it is so important that people come forward and report crimes where they exist, in order that we can have a very accurate picture about the state of play in individual communities and ensure that the right resources are directed at those challenges. I have mentioned this previously, but we want more police officers out on the beat catching criminals and deterring crime. That accessibility to the criminal justice system—that confidence that is given as part of visibly seeing police officers out on the beat—is fundamental to confidence and to delivering on reducing crime. He raises a number of important points through his question, and I will gladly ensure that the Minister for Crime and Policing is made aware of what he raises, but the message that must go out is that people need to come forward to report crime where they find it and experience it. If my hon. Friend has suggestions to make, through the consultation, on how we can do better on reporting, I would be appreciative if he would make them known.

Asylum Seekers: Right to Work Policy

Tom Pursglove Excerpts

Wednesday 8th December 2021 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Tom Pursglove)]

Following the October 2018 publication of the Lift the Ban coalition’s report into asylum seeker right to work policy, which concluded that amending the policy could generate £42 million per year for the Government, the former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), committed to a review. Today I would like to announce the findings of that review.

For clarity, current asylum seeker right to work policy allows asylum seekers to apply for permission to work if a decision on their asylum claim has been outstanding for 12 months or more, where the delay is no fault of their own. If granted permission to work, asylum seekers may then apply for jobs on the shortage occupation list.

Lift the Ban’s report recommended relaxing policy to allow asylum seekers to work after six months, with no restrictions on access to the labour market such as limiting eligible jobs to the shortage occupation list. In July 2020, a follow-up to their 2018 report was published with the same policy recommendation but with updated estimated benefits to the Government of £98 million per year. A further update in summer 2021 revised this further upwards to £180.8 million per year.

The Home Office has carried out a comprehensive review of the Lift the Ban report; however, our evidence indicates the assumptions underpinning the recommendations are highly optimistic. Having considered a wide range of available evidence the Home Office believes that a more realistic set of assumptions would present a more nuanced picture. In particular, the Home Office believes that a more realistic set of assumptions would consider the following:

demographic characteristics (such as family groupings and likelihood of care responsibilities impacting access to the labour market)

how employment rates for migrant groups tend to increase gradually over time

the propensity for part-time employment

the likelihood that any employment is more likely to be close to the minimum or living wage rather than the UK median wage.

In addition, a significant proportion of the fiscal benefits calculated by Lift the Ban are predicated on an assumption that once asylum seekers are granted access to the workforce they will no longer require financial support. The Home Office believes that given the likelihood for part-time and insecure employment this benefit is unlikely to fully materialise. This is because it expects that the administrative cost associated with moving asylum seekers on and off support as they cycle through periods of employment and support will be substantial.

The Home Office has therefore concluded that the fiscal benefits arising from a relaxation of the right to work policy are likely to be significantly lower than the figures claimed by Lift the Ban. In light of wider priorities to fix the broken asylum system, reduce pull factors to the UK, and ensure our policies do not encourage people to undercut the resident labour force, we are retaining our asylum seeker right to work policy with no further changes.

It is key this policy continues to protect our immigration system from those lodging unfounded asylum claims in an attempt to avoid work visa rules, particularly at a time when dangerous journeys made by small boat are increasing.

Ultimately we must ensure asylum claims are considered without unnecessary delay. Our resources are therefore better deployed to pursuing an ongoing programme of transformation and system improvement initiatives that will speed up decision making, reducing the time individuals spend in the system awaiting an interview or decision.

We recognise there are extraordinary circumstances affecting certain parts of the labour market at present. In response to these, we are offering time-limited visas to 4,700 HGV drivers in the food supply chain, 5,500 poultry workers, and 800 butchers to ease supply chain pressures this year. We will look at how the sectors concerned make use of these routes which were created in response to their requests.

The Government continue to support industries in solving such issues in the long term through making roles more attractive to UK workers, with better pay and working conditions.

[HCWS452]

Support for Offenders’ Families

Tom Pursglove Excerpts

Tuesday 7th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Tom Pursglove)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) for securing this important debate and doing the cause that he seeks to advance real justice in the way that he presented his case and the arguments that he marshalled.

The case that my right hon. Friend has highlighted demonstrates the sometimes overlooked impact that one person’s criminal behaviour can have on their family and friends. It is difficult not to be troubled by the circumstances that he described and the impact that that has on families, as the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) set out in the case of her constituents. Many families, not just those my right hon. Friend alluded to, feel that they are being unfairly punished in the eyes of others for someone else’s actions. The circumstances he described are horrendous and unthinkable. He called it a “wall of misery”, and I think that is rather an apt description.

As my right hon. Friend set out, the consequences of these crimes can be devasting and are felt long after the knock on the door that he described. The empathy that I feel—I am sure all Members feel it—for all those who have been affected in this way in our country is very difficult to put into words. I think the circumstances of that knock on the door are also very difficult to comprehend, not least because of the betrayal of trust that those family members must feel about what has happened. The magnitude of the trauma and the circumstances that they are presented with is unthinkable.

In April this year we updated the victims code, providing victims with a clear set of entitlements and setting out the levels of service that a victim of crime can expect from the criminal justice system. For the purposes of the code a victim is someone who has suffered harm, including physical, mental or emotional harm, directly caused by a criminal offence. A person who has suffered harm as a direct result of witnessing a crime is also a victim for the purposes of the code and is able to access services that support victims.

While I have great sympathy for families in the circumstances that my right hon. Friend described, I recognise that that provision will not automatically apply to families of offenders. However, support is available for those who have been directly harmed. There are of course certain circumstances in which a family member is a direct victim or a witness to a crime perpetrated by their loved ones, and it is right that we offer them support to cope and, as far as possible, to recover from those crimes. For example, our national homicide service works tirelessly to support those bereaved by domestic homicide. We know that being impacted by crime can have a lasting impact, especially for children and young people. That is why in July this year we worked with the homicide service to launch dedicated casework support for children and young people impacted by these crimes.

The crimes my right hon. Friend spoke of are some of the most abhorrent and are often perpetrated in the home and by those we should feel safe in the company of. Where families, following an arrest or a conviction, face the sort of damaging attention on social media that he described, that should be treated with the utmost seriousness. Therefore we are taking steps in the Online Safety Bill to place new duties on companies to keep their users safe online. I expect, this Government expect and I think this House expects—we have seen this reflected in the debates we have witnessed in recent weeks—that the tech companies must take responsibility for these matters and must take robust action when inappropriate content is hosted on their sites. That is a reasonable expectation and one that, time and time again, this House has echoed. Therefore I for one certainly echo the importance of the Online Safety Bill being introduced in due course.

We are determined to improve support for victims of crime so that they can recover and confidently seek justice through the criminal justice system. We continue to invest significant funding in victim and witness support services, given the increasing demand and the impact of the pandemic. This year we will spend £300 million across Government, with the Ministry of Justice providing just over £150 million. That funding will go towards a range of support services, including the national witness service, rape support centres and local organisations commissioned by police and crime commissioners. I can also confirm that we will consult imminently on a victims law so that we can make tangible improvements for victims across the criminal justice system. I look forward to meeting my right hon. Friend to discuss the contents of the consultation as soon as possible after publication.

As I said earlier, I have huge empathy with innocent families who, through no fault of their own, end up in these circumstances. As Members of this House, we can all think of families in our constituencies who have been caught in the sort of trauma we are discussing this evening. I am truly shocked to hear about the levels of post-traumatic stress disorder linked to these cases, but it is not surprising that there are those levels of PTSD.

While the families we are talking about may not fall within the definition in the victims code, that does not exclude them from accessing the support they need to recover from the harm caused. Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service funds the national prisoners’ families helpline, which provides free and confidential support for those with a family member at any stage of their contact with the criminal justice system. The service’s highly trained and skilled staff provide practical information and emotional support for those who simply need reassurance or guidance. They are also able to point families, including children, to sources of additional support should they need it. Several charities also provide support for families affected by the actions of a family member, including PACT, Nepacs, the Lucy Faithfull Foundation and Children Heard and Seen.

The Government are committed to ensuring that everyone who requires mental health support, including offenders’ family members, has access to timely mental health treatment based on clinical need.

As part of the Government’s commitment to build back better, we published our mental health recovery action plan in March 2021, backed by an additional £500 million for this financial year, to ensure we have the right support in place. The plan aims to respond to the impact of the pandemic on the mental health of the public, specifically targeting groups that have been most affected, including those with severe mental illness, young people and frontline staff.

While in some cases further contact between a family and prisoner might not be appropriate, it is right that we reflect that, in the majority of instances, there are significant benefits to both the offender and their family of maintaining the family relationship to help to tackle reoffending when the prisoner is released. The impact of imprisonment on a family member can be significant. For example, for a child of an incarcerated parent there can be social stigma, loneliness and isolation, along with feelings of resentment about being abandoned.

While offenders are in custody, we have an opportunity to support them to appreciate the impact that their offending behaviour has on not only themselves but their family and especially their children. We believe that regular, quality engagement between a prisoner and their children is essential to mitigate the potential harms that a child of an incarcerated parent might experience.

While the focus of the Ministry of Justice’s work is ostensibly on supporting the offender and helping their rehabilitation, there are other initiatives across Government that can support those family members who have to simply carry on. The supporting families programme continues to drive early help and better co-ordination of services for families with multiple and complex needs, including those involved with, or at risk of, crime and anti-social behaviour.

The Government are committed to ensuring that the supporting families programme delivers. That is why the Chancellor recently announced an expansion of the programme, taking total planned investment across the next three years to £695 million, which will enable local authorities and their partners to provide help earlier and secure better outcomes for up to 300,000 families across all aspects of their lives. As well as supporting the recovery of those who have been affected by crime, the programme encourages early intervention to prevent families from entering the criminal justice system in the first place.

To conclude, I hope I have demonstrated the importance we place on supporting children and families of offenders and that, in the time available, I have been able to provide clear examples of how we are working to properly support those leaving prison and their families. I recognise that my right hon. Friend has raised a number of valid points, and there are areas that Government as a whole should reflect on. We should obviously reflect on whether the package of measures and the help that is in place remain appropriate—we must always keep these matters under constant review. I am grateful for the way he introduced this Adjournment debate and for the important matters he raised. I look forward to meeting him to discuss them, and I am very grateful for his contribution tonight.

 

 

Question put and agreed to.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Tom Pursglove Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 7th December 2021 Commons Chamber

Brought up, and read the First time.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 1—Prescribed period under section 94(3) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999—

‘(1) The Asylum Support Regulations 2000 (S.I. 2000/704) are amended as follows.

(2) In regulation 2(2) (interpretation) for “28” substitute “56”.

(3) Subject to subsection (4), this section does not prevent the Secretary of State from exercising the powers conferred by the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to prescribe by regulations a different period for the purposes of section 94(3) (day on which a claim for asylum is determined) of that Act.

(4) The Secretary of State may not prescribe a period less than 56 days where regulation 2(2A) of the Asylum Support Regulations 2000 (S.I. 2000/704) applies.’

When an individual is granted refugee status, their eligibility to Home Office financial support and accommodation currently ends after a further 28 days. This new clause would extend that period to 56 days or allow the Secretary of State to set a longer period.

New clause 9—Settled and pre-settled status under EU settlement scheme: certification—

‘(1) Within granting a person settled status or pre-settled status under the EU settlement scheme, the Secretary of State must require the provision of a physical certificate to that person.

(2) The certificate mentioned in subsection (1) must confirm that the relevant person has the relevant status (settled status or pre-settled status).’

This new clause would require the Government to issue a physical certificate when granting settled status or pre-settled status under the EU settlement scheme, allowing all those with such status to provide documentary proof.

New clause 10—Asylum visa for persons in France—

‘(1) On an application by a person (“P“) to the appropriate decision-maker for entry clearance, the appropriate decision-maker must grant P entry clearance if he is satisfied that P is a relevant person.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), P is a relevant person if—

(a) P is in France on the date of application;

(b) P is not a national of a member State of the European Union or a national of Liechtenstein, Iceland, Norway or Switzerland;

(c) P intends to make a protection claim in the United Kingdom;

(d) P‘s protection claim, if made in the United Kingdom, would have a realistic prospect of success; and

(e) there are good reasons why P’s protection claim should be considered in the United Kingdom.

(3) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(e), in deciding whether there are good reasons why P‘s protection claim should be considered in the United Kingdom, the appropriate decision-maker shall take into account—

(a) the relative strength of P‘s family and other ties to the United Kingdom;

(b) the relative strength of P‘s family and other ties to France;

(c) P‘s mental and physical health and any particular vulnerabilities that P has; and

(d) any other matter that the appropriate decision-maker thinks relevant.

(4) For the purposes of an application under paragraph (1), the appropriate decision-maker must waive any of the requirements in paragraph (5) if satisfied that P cannot reasonably be expected to comply with them.

(5) The requirements in this paragraph are—

(a) any requirement prescribed (whether by immigration rules or otherwise) under section 50 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006; and

(b) any requirement prescribed by regulations made under sections 5, 6, 7 or 8 of the UK Borders Act 2007 (biometric registration).

(6) No fee may be charged for the making of an application under paragraph (1).

(7) An entry clearance granted pursuant to paragraph (1) shall have effect as leave to enter for such period, being not less than six months, and on such conditions as the Secretary of State may prescribe by order.

(8) Upon a person entering the United Kingdom (within the meaning of section 11 of the Immigration Act 1971) pursuant to leave to enter given under paragraph (7), that person shall be deemed to have made a protection claim in the United Kingdom.

(9) The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 is amended as follows.

(10) After paragraph 30(1)(b) of Part 1 of Schedule 1 insert— “; or

(c) are conferred by or under sections [Asylum visa for persons in France] and [Right of appeal against France asylum visa refusal] of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.”

(11) In this section and in section [Right of appeal against France asylum visa refusal]—

“appropriate decision-maker” means a person authorised by the Secretary of State by rules made under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971 to grant an entry clearance under paragraph (1);

“entry clearance” has the same meaning as in section 33(1) of the Immigration Act 1971;

“protection claim”, in relation to a person, means a claim that to remove him from or require him to leave the United Kingdom would be inconsistent with the United Kingdom’s obligations—

(a) under the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28th July 1951 and the Protocol to that Convention;

(b) in relation to persons entitled to a grant of humanitarian protection; or

(c) under Articles 2 or 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms agreed by the Council of Europe at Rome on 4th November 1950.’

This new clause would provide for a person in France to be granted entry clearance to allow them to claim asylum in the UK in certain circumstances.

New clause 11—Right of appeal against France asylum visa refusal—

‘(1) If an application by a person (“P“) for entry clearance under clause [Asylum visa for persons in France] is refused by the appropriate decision-maker, P may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against the refusal.

(2) The following provisions of, or made under, the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 have effect in relation to an appeal under these Regulations to the First-tier Tribunal as if it were an appeal against a decision of the Secretary of State under section 82(1) of that Act (right of appeal to the Tribunal)—

(a) section 84 (grounds of appeal), as though the sole permitted ground of appeal was that the appropriate decision-maker was wrong to conclude that P was not a relevant person;

(b) section 85(1) to (4) (matters to be considered);

(c) section 86 (determination of appeal);

(d) section 105 and any regulations made under that section; and

(e) section 106 and any rules made pursuant to that section.

(3) In an appeal under this section, the First-tier Tribunal—

(a) shall allow the appeal if it is satisfied that P is a relevant person; and

(b) shall otherwise dismiss the appeal.

(4) In an appeal under this section, in deciding whether there are good reasons why P‘s protection claim should be considered in the United Kingdom, the First-tier Tribunal shall apply section [Asylum visa for persons in France] (3) as though for the words “appropriate decision-maker” there were substituted the words “First-tier Tribunal”.’

This new clause would allow a person whose application for entry clearance under clause [Asylum visa for persons in France] has been rejected to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal.

New clause 12—Residence permits: recourse to public funds—

‘Within two months of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations ensure that anyone holding a valid UK residence permit has recourse to public funds.’

Under this new clause, everyone holding a UK residence permit (many of whom currently have no recourse to public funds) would have recourse to public funds.

New clause 13—Undocumented migrants: access to work and services—

‘(1) The Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows.

(2) Omit sections 20 to 47.

(3) The Immigration Act 2016 is amended as follows.

(4) Omit sections 1 to 45.’

This new clause would repeal the sections of the 2014 and 2016 Immigration Acts which sought to further restrict undocumented migrants’ access to work and services.

New clause 14—Immigration health surcharge: abolition—

‘Within two months of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must amend the Immigration (Health Charge) Order 2015 in such a way as to abolish the immigration health surcharge.’

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to abolish the immigration health surcharge.

New clause 15—Time limit on immigration detention—

‘(1) This section applies to any person (“P”) who is liable to detention under a relevant detention power.

(2) P may not be detained under a relevant detention power for a period of more than 28 days from the relevant time.

(3) If P remains detained under a relevant detention power at the expiry of the period of 28 days then—

(a) P shall be released forthwith; and

(b) P may not be detained under a relevant detention power thereafter, unless the Secretary of State or an immigration officer, as the case may be, is satisfied that there has been a material change of circumstances since P’s release and that the criteria in section [Initial detention: criteria and duration](1) are met.

(4) In this section, “relevant detention power” means a power to detain under—

(a) paragraph 16(2) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (detention of persons liable to examination or removal);

(b) paragraph 2(1), (2) or (3) of Schedule 3 to that Act (detention pending deportation);

(c) section 62 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (detention of persons liable to examination or removal); or

(d) section 36(1) of the UK Borders Act 2007 (detention pending deportation).

(5) In this section, “relevant time” means the time at which P is first detained under a relevant detention power.

(6) This section does not apply to a person in respect of whom the Secretary of State has certified that the decision to detain is or was taken in the interests of national security.’

This new clause would prevent people who are liable to detention under a relevant power from being detained for longer than 28 days.

New clause 16—Initial detention: criteria and duration—

‘(1) A person (“P”) to whom section [Time limit on immigration detention] applies may not be detained under a relevant detention power other than for the purposes of examination, unless the Secretary of State or an immigration officer, as the case may be, is satisfied that—

(a) P can be shortly removed from the United Kingdom;

(b) detention is strictly necessary to effect P’s deportation or removal from the United Kingdom; and

(c) the detention of P is in all the circumstances proportionate.

(2) P may not be detained under a relevant detention power for a period of more than 96 hours from the relevant time, unless—

(a) P has been refused bail at an initial bail hearing in accordance with subsection (5)(b) of section [Bail hearings]; or

(b) the Secretary of State has arranged a reference to the Tribunal for consideration of whether to grant immigration bail to P in accordance with subsection (2)(c) of section [Bail hearings] and that hearing has not yet taken place.

(3) Nothing in subsections (1) or (2) authorises the Secretary of State to detain P under a relevant detention power if such detention would, apart from this section, be unlawful.

(4) In this section, “Tribunal” means the First-Tier Tribunal.

(5) In this section, “relevant detention power” and “relevant time” have the meanings given in section [Time limit on immigration detention].’

This new clause sets out the circumstances in which a person to whom NC15 applies may be held in initial detention, and the maximum duration of such detention.

New clause 17—Bail hearings—

‘(1) This section applies to any person (“P”) to whom section [Time limit on immigration detention] applies and who is detained under a relevant detention power.

(2) Before the expiry of a period of 96 hours from the relevant time, the Secretary of State must—

(a) release P;

(b) grant immigration bail to P under paragraph 1 of Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016; or

(c) arrange a reference to the Tribunal for consideration of whether to grant immigration bail to P.

(3) Subject to subsection (4), when the Secretary of State arranges a reference to the Tribunal under subsection (2)(c), the Tribunal must hold an oral hearing (“an initial bail hearing”) which must commence within 24 hours of the time at which the reference is made.

(4) If the period of 24 hours in subsection (3) ends on a Saturday, Sunday or Bank holiday, the Tribunal must hold an initial bail hearing on the next working day.

(5) At the initial bail hearing, the Tribunal must—

(a) grant immigration bail to P under paragraph 1 of Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016; or

(b) refuse to grant immigration bail to P.

(6) Subject to subsection (7), the Tribunal must grant immigration bail to P at a bail hearing unless it is satisfied that the Secretary of State has established that the criteria in subsection 1 of section [Initial detention: criteria and duration] are met and that, in addition—

(a) directions have been given for P’s removal from the United Kingdom and such removal is to take place within 14 days;

(b) a travel document is available for the purposes of P’s removal or deportation; and

(c) there are no outstanding legal barriers to removal.

(7) Subsection (6) does not apply if the Tribunal is satisfied that the Secretary of State has established that the criteria in subsection 1 of section [Initial detention: criteria and duration] above are met and that there are very exceptional circumstances which justify maintaining detention.

(8) In subsection (6), “a bail hearing” includes—

(a) an initial bail hearing under subsection (2); and

(b) the hearing of an application for immigration bail under paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 10 of the Immigration Act 2016.

(9) In this section, “Tribunal” means the First-Tier Tribunal.

(10) The Secretary of State shall provide to P or to P’s legal representative, not more than 24 hours after the relevant time, copies of all documents in the Secretary of State’s possession which are relevant to the decision to detain.

(11) At the initial bail hearing, the Tribunal shall not consider any documents relied upon by the Secretary of State which were not provided to P or to P’s legal representative in accordance with subsection (10), unless—

(a) P consents to the documents being considered; or

(b) in the opinion of the Tribunal there is a good reason why the documents were not provided to P or to P’s legal representative in accordance with subsection (10).

(12) The Immigration Act 2016 is amended as follows—

(a) After paragraph 12(4) of schedule 10 insert—

“(4A) Sub-paragraph (2) above does not apply if the refusal of bail by the First tier Tribunal took place at an initial bail hearing within the meaning of section [Bail hearings] of the Sovereign Borders Act 2021.”.’

In respect of people to whom NC15 applies, this new clause would require the Secretary of State to either release them, grant immigration bail or arrange a reference to the Tribunal within 96 hours.

New clause 18—Illegal immigration: offences—

‘(1) Any person who is present in the United Kingdom without legal authority shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) Any person who enters or attempts to enter the United Kingdom without legal authority shall be guilty of an offence.

(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine (or both);

(b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);

(c) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both).’

This new clause would create offences in respect of persons who have entered the UK illegally or who have remained in the UK without legal authority.

New clause 19—Illegal immigration offences: deportation orders—

‘(1) Any person who is convicted of an offence under section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 shall be subject to a deportation order unless the Secretary of State deems such a deportation order to be against the public interest.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, a deportation order shall be deemed to be in the public interest unless a certificate to the contrary has been submitted by the Secretary of State to the Court.’

New clause 21—Nation of Sanctuary—

‘(1) The Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers must jointly produce guidance setting out how measures under this Act may be exercised in a way that secures compliance with—

(a) the Welsh Government’s commitment to be a “Nation of Sanctuary”; and

(b) the plan published by the Welsh Government in January 2019 entitled “Nation of Sanctuary – Refugee and Asylum Seeker Plan”.

(2) Before issuing the guidance, the Secretary of State must—

(a) in collaboration with the Welsh Minister, prepare and consult on a draft; and

(b) publish a response to the consultation.

(3) In preparing the guidance, consideration must be given to the following matters as far as they relate to refugees and asylum seekers—

(a) conditions in asylum accommodation;

(b) access to public services;

(c) access to language support;

(d) access to education and training;

(e) employment opportunities; and

(f) access to health and social services.

(4) No guidance may be published under this section unless a draft of the guidance has been laid before and approved by Senedd Cymru.’

This new clause would require the UK and Welsh Governments to jointly produce guidance setting out how measures under this Act can be exercised in a way which is consistent with the Welsh Government’s commitment of being a Nation of Sanctuary. No guidance can be published unless it has been approved by the Senedd.

New clause 23—Illegal immigration: offences and deportation—

‘(1) Any person who travels to the United Kingdom from a safe third country and attempts to remain in the United Kingdom without lawful authority shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable–

(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine (or both);

(b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);

(c) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both).

(3) A person prosecuted for an offence under this section must be held in secure accommodation until the trial and any subsequent appeal have concluded.

(4) Following conviction for an offence under this section—

(a) a person sentenced to a fine must remain in secure accommodation until the person consents to leave the United Kingdom or until execution of a deportation order relating to the person;

(b) a person sentenced to imprisonment must be returned to secure accommodation immediately following the person’s release from prison, and must remain in secure accommodation until the person consents to leave the United Kingdom or until execution of a deportation order relating to the person.’

New clause 24—Indefinite leave to remain payments by Commonwealth, Hong Kong and Gurkha members of armed forces—

‘(1) The Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 68(10), after “regulations” insert “must make exceptions in respect of any person with citizenship of a Commonwealth country (other than the United Kingdom) who has served at least four years in the armed forces of the United Kingdom, or any person who has served at least four years in the Royal Navy Hong Kong Squadron, the Hong Kong Military Service Corps or the Brigade of Gurkhas, such exceptions to include capping the fee for any such person applying for indefinite leave to remain at no more than the actual administrative cost of processing that application, and”.’

This new clause will ensure that Commonwealth, Hong Kong and Gurkha veterans applying for Indefinite Leave to Remain following four years of service will only pay the unit cost of an application.

New clause 26—Age assessments: restrictions—

‘(1) Age assessments under section 49 or 50 must only be undertaken if there is significant reason to doubt the age of the age-disputed person.

(2) A person conducting age assessments under section 49 or 50 must be a social worker.

(3) Age assessments must be undertaken in accordance with the Association of Directors of Children’s Services Age Assessment Guidance or equivalent guidance in the devolved jurisdictions.

(4) When an age assessment is conducted, a process must be used that allows for an impartial multi-agency approach, drawing on a range of expertise, including from—

(a) health professionals;

(b) psychologists;

(c) teachers;

(d) foster parents;

(e) youth workers;

(f) advocates;

(g) guardians; and

(h) social workers.

(5) When making regulations under section 51, the Secretary of State must not specify scientific methods unless the Secretary of State receives written approval from the relevant medical, dental and scientific professional bodies that the method is both ethical and accurate beyond reasonable doubt for assessing a person’s age.

(6) Any organisation developed to oversee age assessments must be independent of the Home Office.’

This new clause would place various restrictions on the use of age assessments.

New clause 27—Unaccompanied refugee children: relocation and support—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act, make arrangements to relocate to the United Kingdom and support a specified number of unaccompanied refugee children from other countries in the European Union.

(2) The number of children to be resettled under subsection (1) shall be determined by the Government in consultation with local authorities.

(3) The relocation of children under subsection (1) shall be in addition to the resettlement of children under any other resettlement scheme.’

This new clause introduces a safe route for unaccompanied children from countries in the European Union to come to the UK.

New clause 28—Immigration health surcharge: exemption for international volunteers—

‘(1) Part 3 of the Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows.

(2) After section 38, insert—

“38A Immigration health surcharge: exemption for international volunteers

(1) A charge under section 38 may not be imposed on persons who have leave to enter, or to remain in, the United Kingdom through a visa to work voluntarily for a period of no more than 12 months, or for such period as may be prescribed by regulations, for a registered UK charity advancing the charity’s primary purpose.

(2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section must not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”’

This new clause would ensure that international volunteers, including those working in health and social care, will be exempt from paying the immigration health surcharge.

New clause 29—Immigration Rules: entry to seek asylum and join family—

‘(1) Within six months of this Act being passed, under the power in section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament rules making provision for the admission of persons coming for the purpose of seeking asylum.

(2) These rules shall make provision for admitting persons who have a family member in the United Kingdom who is ordinarily and lawfully resident in the United Kingdom.

(3) For the purposes of this section, a “family member” means a grandchild, child, parent, grandparent, sibling, uncle or aunt.’

This new clause would require the Government to make provision within the Immigration Rules for people to be admitted to the UK for the purposes of seeking asylum where they have a family member in the UK.

New clause 31—Route to settlement for children and young people who arrived in the UK as minors—

‘(1) Within twelve months of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must amend the Immigration Rules so that – for persons to whom this section applies – the requirements to be met for the grant of indefinite leave to remain on the grounds of private life in the UK are that—

(a) the applicant has been in the UK with continuous leave on the grounds of private life for a period of at least 60 months;

(b) the applicant meets the requirements of paragraph 276ADE(1) of the Immigration Rules or, in respect of the requirements in paragraph 276ADE(1)(iv) and (v) of those Rules, the applicant met the requirements in a previous application which led to a grant of limited leave to remain under paragraph 276BE(1) of those Rules.

(2) This section applies to—

(a) persons who have been granted limited leave to remain on the grounds of private life in the UK because at the time of their application—

(i) they were under the age of 18 years and had lived continuously in the UK for at least 7 years (discounting any period of imprisonment) and it would not have been reasonable to expect them to leave the UK;

(ii) they were agreed 18 years or above and under 25 years and had spent over half their life living continuously in the UK (discounting any period of imprisonment).

(b) persons—

(i) who were granted leave to remain outside the rules on the basis of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights; and

(ii) who arrived in the UK as a minor.

(c) any dependants of a person to whom paragraph (a) or (b) applies.’

Under this new clause, the route to settlement would be shortened from ten years to five years for children and young people who arrived in the UK as minors and have leave to remain on the basis of having grown up in the UK.

New clause 32—Compatibility of Part 2 with the Refugee Convention—

‘(1) The provisions in Part 2 of this Act and any subordinate legislation made under Part 2 are, so far as it is possible to do so, to be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Refugee Convention.

(2) Where a court is required to determine whether a provision of this part, or any subordinate legislation made under it, is compatible with the Refugee Convention, and is satisfied that it is not, then it must make a declaration to this effect.

(3) In this section, “court” has the same meaning as in section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998.’

This new clause would ensure provisions of Part 2 were read as far as possible in a manner consistent with the Refugee Convention, and where that was not possible, this was declared by the Courts.

New clause 35—Refugee Family Reunion—

‘(1) Within six months of this Act coming into force, rules must be laid down by the Secretary of State under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 to allow any person (“P”) who has been recognised as a refugee in the United Kingdom to sponsor—

(a) any child of P under the age of 25, who was either under the age of 18 or unmarried at the time P left the country of P’s habitual residence in order to seek asylum;

(b) any parent of P;

(c) any sibling of P under the age of 25, who was either under the age of 18 or unmarried at the time P left the country of P’s habitual residence in order to seek asylum; to join them in the UK.’

This new clause would expand the range of family members who can apply to be reunited with a refugee in the United Kingdom.

New clause 36—Asylum dispersal – analysis of costs to dispersal authorities—

‘(1) Within six months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a report analysing of the costs incurred by local authorities for undertaking the role of asylum dispersal authorities.

(2) The report under subsection (1) must include a summary of submissions made by—

(a) local authorities who act as asylum dispersal authorities, and

(b) organisations acting on behalf of the local authorities.

(3) The report under subsection (1) must set out the Secretary of State’s proposals for reimbursing the costs incurred by asylum dispersal authorities.’

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament an analysis of the costs incurred by local authorities who host dispersed asylum seekers, and proposals for reimbursing them.

New clause 37—Independent Asylum Agency—

‘Within 12 months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament proposals for an independent asylum agency with responsibility for deciding applications for refugee status, and related protection claims.’

New clause 38—Instructions to the Migration Advisory Committee—

‘Within two months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State must instruct the Migration Advisory Committee to undertake the following work—

(a) a review of the minimum income requirements for leave to enter and remain as a family member of persons who are British citizens or settled in the United Kingdom; and

(b) a report making detailed recommendations on the design of a work visa for remote areas.’

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to instruct the MAC to undertake work reviewing the minimum income requirements for family visas; and on the design of a remote areas visa scheme.

New clause 40—Immigration Rules since December 2020: report on effects—

‘(1) Before this Act comes into force, the Secretary of State must commission and lay before Parliament an independent report on the effects of its Immigration Rules on the UK economy and public services since December 2020.

(2) The areas to be covered by the report must include but are not limited to—

(a) food supply;

(b) fuel supply;

(c) hospitality and tourism;

(d) NHS;

(e) social care; and

(f) construction.’

This new clause would require the Government to commission and publish an independent report on the effects of its Immigration Rules on the UK economy and public services since December 2020.

New clause 41—Asylum seekers’ right to work—

‘The Secretary of State must make regulations providing that adults applying for asylum in the United Kingdom may apply to the Secretary of State for permission to take up employment if a decision at first instance has not been taken on the applicant’s asylum application within 3 months of the date on which it was recorded.’

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations enabling asylum seekers to work once they have been waiting for a decision on their claim for 3 months or more.

New clause 42—Refugee family reunion—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act, lay before Parliament a statement of changes in the rules (the “immigration rules”) under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 (general provisions for regulation and control) to make provision for refugee family reunion, in accordance with this section, to come into effect after 21 days.

(2) Before a statement of changes is laid under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult with persons he or she deems appropriate.

(3) The statement laid under subsection (1) must set out rules providing for leave to enter and remain in the United Kingdom for family members of a person granted refugee status or humanitarian protection.

(4) In this section, “refugee status” and “humanitarian protection” have the same meaning as in the immigration rules.

(5) In this section, “family members” include a person’s—

(a) parent, including adoptive parent;

(b) spouse, civil partner or unmarried partner;

(c) child, including adopted child, who is either—

(i) under the age of 18, or

(ii) under the age of 25 but was either under the age of 18 or unmarried at the time the person granted asylum left their country of residence to seek asylum;

(d) sibling, including adoptive sibling, who is either—

(i) under the age of 18, or

(ii) under the age of 25, but was either under the age of 18 or unmarried at the time the person granted asylum left their country of residence to seek asylum; and

(e) such other persons as the Secretary of State may determine, having regard to—

(i) the importance of maintaining family unity,

(ii) the best interests of a child,

(iii) the physical, emotional, psychological or financial dependency between a person granted refugee status or humanitarian protection and another person,

(iv) any risk to the physical, emotional or psychological wellbeing of a person who was granted refugee status or humanitarian protection, including from the circumstances in which the person is living in the United Kingdom, or

(v) such other matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(6) For the purpose of subsection (5)—

(a) “adopted” and “adoptive” refer to a relationship resulting from adoption, including de facto adoption, as set out in the immigration rules;

(b) “best interests” of a child shall be read in accordance with Article 3 of the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.’

This new clause would make provision for leave to enter or remain in the UK to be granted to the family members of refugees and of people granted humanitarian protection.

New clause 44—Safe and legal routes—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within 30 days of the date of Royal Assent to this Act and annually thereafter, publish a report on—

(a) all current safe and legal asylum routes to the United Kingdom,

(b) the eligibility criteria for legal entry into the United Kingdom, and

(c) details of the application process.

(2) The Secretary of State must publish a report on its resettlement target of refugees per year, and report on this every year.’

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a summary of safe and legal routes to refuge in the UK each year, alongside their eligibility criteria and application process. It would also commit the UK and Secretary of State to publishing its resettlement targets, and reporting on this annually.

New clause 45—Asylum seekers: employment—

‘(1) The Immigration Rules, as laid before Parliament under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971, are amended as follows.

(2) In paragraphs 360 and 360C (right to request permission to take up employment) for “one year” substitute “six months”.

(3) Omit paragraphs 360A and 360D (which place restrictions on the employment that may be taken up).

(4) After paragraph 360E insert—

360F (none) In paragraphs 360 to 360E, the terms “asylum applicant” and “individual” mean—

(a) a principal applicant, or

(b) an adult dependant of a principal applicant in accordance with paragraph 349.”’

This new clause would permit asylum seekers waiting for more than six months for a decision on their claim to take up employment.

New clause 46—Shortage Occupation List—

‘(1) Before a Minister of the Crown makes any changes to the Immigration Rules Appendix Shortage Occupation List as provided for by the Immigration Rules, the Secretary of State must—

(a) consult each devolved authority on proposed changes, and seek their consent; and

(b) lay before Parliament an independent impact assessment of the proposed changes including, but not limited to, the submissions received from the devolved authorities under paragraph (a).

(2) If a devolved authority does not provide the consent sought under subsection (1)(a), the Minister of the Crown may not proceed with the changes.

(3) In this section “devolved authority” means the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers or a Northern Ireland department.’

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult and receive the consent of the devolved governments before making changes to the Shortage Occupation List in order to ensure that it allows additional flexibility and reflects the different needs of each nation.

New clause 48—Family reunion and resettlement: unaccompanied minors—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within a period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, amend the Immigration Rules in order to ensure that an unaccompanied minor seeking asylum in the EEA who has a family member present in the United Kingdom is entitled to claim asylum in the United Kingdom.

(2) For the purposes of this section, “family member” includes—

(a) a parent or guardian of the applicant;

(b) an aunt, uncle or grandparent of the applicant;

(c) a sibling of the applicant;

(d) the spouse of the applicant;

(e) an unmarried partner with whom the applicant is in a stable relationship; or

(f) any children of the applicant.’

This new clause would allow unaccompanied children to have access to family reunion with close relatives in the UK.

New clause 49—Co-operation with European Union on family reunion arrivals and safe returns—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within a period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, produce a report setting out a negotiating mandate for an agreement with the European Union setting out protocols for identifying the state responsible for determining an asylum application using a hierarchy of criteria, including but not limited to—

(a) family unity,

(b) possession of residence documents or visas,

(c) irregular entry or stay, and

(d) visa-waived entry.

(2) The Secretary of State must lay the report before each House of Parliament.’

This new clause would require the Government to produce a negotiating mandate setting out a proposed reciprocal arrangement with the European Union for safe returns and safe legal routes, to cover the issues previously covered by the Dublin III agreement which has now ended.

New clause 50—Advertising assistance for unlawful immigration to the United Kingdom—

‘(1) It is an offence to advertise by any means, including using social media, services designed to facilitate the commission of an offence under section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years, to a fine or to both, or

(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both.’

New clause 51—Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations setting out the terms of a resettlement scheme for Afghan citizens known as the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme (“ACRS”).

(2) There must be provisions within the ACRS to allow those who are fleeing persecution and have family members in the UK to apply for the Scheme.

(3) For the purposes of this section, “family member” includes—

(a) the spouse of the applicant;

(b) an unmarried partner with whom the applicant is in a stable relationship;

(c) any children of the applicant;

(d) a parent or guardian of the applicant;

(e) an aunt, uncle or grandparent of the applicant; or

(f) a sibling of the applicant.

(4) Regulations under this section must be made and the ACRS must come into force within 30 days from the date of Royal Assent to this Act.’

This new clause will place the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme on a statutory footing and ensure that it includes provisions for a family reunion route within it.

New clause 52—Non-UK service personnel: waiver of fees—

‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act, make regulations exempting relevant persons from the payment of fees in respect of the exercise of functions in connection with immigration or nationality under section 68 of the Immigration Act 2014.

(2) For the purposes of this section, “relevant persons” are persons who—

(a) do not hold British citizenship and are serving or have in the past served in the UK armed forces for a minimum period of five years; or

(b) are dependents of persons identified in paragraph (a).’

Amendment 8, page 14, line 4leave out clause 11.

This amendment would remove clause 11, which provides for the differential treatment of refugees depending on their method of arrival in the UK.

Amendment 114, in clause 11, page 15, line 2, at end insert—

‘(7A) Notwithstanding subsections (5) and (6), a person listed in subsection (7B) must not be treated differently from a Group 1 refugee and in particular—

(a) must not face a restriction on their leave to enter compared to any Group 1 refugee;

(b) must have access to indefinite leave to remain on the same basis as any Group 1 refugee;

(c) must not have no recourse to public funds conditions attached to any leave to enter or remain given to them; and

(d) must have access to family reunion on the same basis as Group 1 refugees.

(7B) Subsection (7A) applies to—

(a) an Afghan national who is a refugee because they face a risk of persecution in Afghanistan;

(b) a Syrian national who is a refugee because they face a risk of persecution in Syria;

(c) a Uighur who is a refugee because they face a risk of persecution in China;

(d) a Christian convert who is a refugee because they face a risk of persecution in their country of nationality; or

(e) other persons who are refugees because they are outside of their country of nationality for fear of persecution for a Convention reason as set out in article 1 of the Refugee Convention.’

This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from treating Afghans, Syrians, Uighurs and Christian converts and other people who are refugees at risk of persecution, differently from Group 1 refugees.

Government amendments 19 to 25.

Amendment 132, in clause 15, page 18, leave out lines 27 to 39 and insert—

“(a) there are in law and in practice—

(i) appropriate reception arrangements for asylum seekers;

(ii) sufficient protection against serious harm and violations of fundamental rights;

(iii) protection against refoulement and removal in violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights;

(iv) access to fair and efficient State asylum procedures, or to a previously afforded refugee status or other protective status that is inclusive of the rights and obligations set out at Articles 2-34 of the 1951 Convention;

(v) the legal right to remain during the State asylum procedure;

(vi) a refugee status granted to those who are recognised as refugees that is inclusive of the rights and obligations set out at Articles 2-34 of the 1951 Convention for those found to be in need of international protection; and

(b) it is safe for the particular claimant, taking into account their individual circumstances.”

This amendment modifies the definition of a “safe third State” to limit it to States that are in fact safe, in law and practice, for the particular claimant.

Amendment 133, in clause 15, page 18, line 41, leave out “5” and insert “3”.

This amendment is consequential on a later amendment about the definition of “connection”.

Amendment 134, in clause 15, page 18, leave out lines 43 to 46.

This amendment removes subsection (6), which states that a claimant whose asylum claim has been denied by virtue of their connection to a particular safe third State may be removed to any other safe third State.

Amendment 135, in clause 15, page 19, line 2, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment would clarify that under specific circumstances, an asylum claim that would otherwise be considered inadmissible must be considered under the immigration rules.

Government amendment 26.

Amendment 136, in clause 15, page 19, leave out lines 3 to 10 and insert—

“(a) in the absence of a formal, legally binding and public readmission agreement between the United Kingdom and the State to which the person has a connection;

(b) as soon as the proposed State of readmission refuses to accept the person’s return or if the person’s readmission has not been agreed within three months of the registration of their asylum claim, whichever is sooner;

(c) if, taking into account the claimant’s personal circumstances, including their family ties to the United Kingdom and the best interests of any children affected by the decision, it is more appropriate that the claim be considered in the United Kingdom; or

(d) in such other cases as may be provided for in the immigration rules.”

This amendment broadens the circumstances in which the Secretary of State must consider an asylum application, despite a declaration of inadmissibility.

Amendment 137, in clause 15, page 19, leave out line 21 and insert—

“(a) has been granted refugee status or another protective status in the safe third state that is inclusive of the rights and obligations set out at Articles 2 to 34 of the 1951 Convention.”

This amendment would strengthen the safeguards in place before a “connection” can be relied on for the purposes of inadmissibility, so as to ensure that the right to seek and enjoy asylum is protected.

Amendment 138, in clause 15, page 19, leave out lines 24 to 32.

This amendment changes the definition of a “connection” to a safe third State by deleting the possibility of finding someone inadmissible on the basis of having been granted nothing more than protection against removal in a third State.

Amendment 139, in clause 15, page 19, line 33, leave out “3” and insert “2”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 138.

Amendment 140, in clause 15, page 19, line 37, leave out “4” and insert “3”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 138.

Amendment 141, in clause 15, page 19, leave out lines 43 to 45.

This amendment changes the definition of a “connection” to a safe third State so as to prevent a person being found inadmissible on the basis of a connection to a State to which they have never been.

Amendment 142, in clause 15, page 20, leave out lines 1 to 4 and insert—

“for refugee status or other protective status that is inclusive of the rights and obligations set out at Articles 2 to 34 of the 1951 Convention.”

This amendment changes the definition of a “relevant claim” to a safe third State to ensure that inadmissibility is based on access to a protective status consistent with the Refugee Convention.

Amendment 14, in clause 17, page 21, line 16, at end insert—

‘(1A) The Secretary of State may not serve an evidence notice on a person who was under 18 years of age at the time of their arrival in the United Kingdom.’

This amendment would remove the ability to serve an evidence notice on children and young people who arrived in the UK before the age of 18.

Government amendment 27.

Amendment 118, page 21, line 27, leave out clause 18.

Government amendments 28 to 30.

Amendment 119, page 24, line 30, leave out clause 21.

Government amendments 31 to 38.

Amendment 145, page 25, line 11, leave out clause 22.

Government amendments 39 and 40.

Amendment 146, page 26, line 7, leave out clause 23.

Government amendments 41 to 43.

Amendment 120, page 29, line 2, leave out clause 25.

Amendment 15, in clause 25, page 29, line 13, at end insert—

‘(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2), “good reasons” include, but are not limited to, the claimant having been under the age of 18 years at the time of their arrival in the UK.’

Under this amendment, a claimant who was under the age of 18 at the time of their arrival in the UK would be regarded as having good reasons for providing evidence late.

Government amendments 44 and 45.

Amendment 121, page 30, line 2, leave out clause 26.

Government amendments 46 and 47.

Amendment 11, in clause 28, page 32, line 1, leave out paragraph (a).

This is a paving amendment for Amendment 9.

Amendment 150, in clause 28, page 32, line 4, at end insert—

‘(2) This section and Schedule 3 will have effect notwithstanding—

(a) the Human Rights Act 1998;

(b) the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms agreed by the Council of Europe at Rome on 4th November 1950 as it has effect for the time being in relation to the United Kingdom, including any Protocol to that Convention;

(c) EU derived law and case law retained under sections 2 to 7 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018; and

(d) the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28 July 1951 and its Protocol.

(3) No law or requirement identified in subsection (2) shall affect the interpretation or application of any provision of this section, including restrictions on the actions or policies of public authorities.’

This amendment is to ensure that the provisions in clause 28 and Schedule 3 are not open to judicial interpretation or disapplication under the measures listed in subsection (2).

Amendment 144, page 33, line 21, leave out clause 31.

Amendment 147, in clause 32, page 34, line 24, leave out subsections (2) to (4).

Government amendments 48 to 50.

Amendment 115, in clause 39, page 38, leave out lines 15 to 23.

This amendment would remove certain criminal offences relating to entering and arriving in the UK.

Government amendment 51.

Amendment 102, in clause 39, page 38, leave out lines 19 to 23.

This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to prevent ‘arrival’ in the United Kingdom without a valid entry clearance, rather than ‘entry’ into the United Kingdom without a valid entry clearance, becoming an offence.

Government amendments 52 and 53.

Amendment 116, in clause 39, page 39, line 9, at end insert—

‘(F2) No criminal offence is committed under subsections (B1) to (D1) where a person enters or arrives in the United Kingdom for the purposes of making a claim for asylum or humanitarian protection, if the person is one of the following—

(a) an Afghan national who is a refugee because they face a risk of persecution in Afghanistan; a Syrian national who is a refugee because they face a risk of persecution in Syria; a Uighur who is a refugee because they face a risk of persecution in China;

(b) a Christian convert who is a refugee because they face a risk of persecution in their country of nationality; or

(c) other persons who are in need of international protection; or who are refugees because they are outside of their country of nationality for fear of persecution for a Convention reason as set out in article 1 of the Refugee Convention.’

Clause 39 as drafted would involve the criminalisation of the arrival and entry of asylum seekers and refugees with an offence subject to up to four years imprisonment. This amendment would prevent this from happening.

Government amendments 54 and 55.

Amendment 103, in clause 39, page 39, line 30, leave out subsection (4).

This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to prevent the offence of facilitating a breach of immigration law being extended to include facilitating ‘arrival’ in the United Kingdom without a valid entry clearance in addition to facilitating ‘entry’ into the United Kingdom without a valid entry clearance.

Government amendments 56 to 59.

Amendment 104, in clause 39, page 40, line 2, at end insert—

‘(10) In section 31(3) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (defences based on Article 31(1) of the Refugee Convention), after paragraph (aa) insert—

“(ab) section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 (illegal entry and similar offences)”.’

This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to extend the statutory defence based on Article 31 of the Refugee Convention to offences of illegal entry under section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971.

Government amendments 60 and 61.

Amendment 105, in clause 40, page 40, line 7, leave out subsection (2).

This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to maintain the current position that the offence of helping an asylum seeker to enter the United Kingdom can only be committed if it is carried out “for gain”.

Government amendments 62 and 63.

Amendment 1, in clause 40, page 40, line 8, at end insert—

‘(3) In section 25A(3) of the Immigration Act 1971 (helping asylum seeker to enter United Kingdom), for paragraph (a) substitute—

“(a) aims to—

(i) protect lives at sea, or

(ii) assist asylum-seekers; and”’.

This amendment would add people working on behalf of organisations that aim to protect lives at sea to those who are exempt for prosecution for helping someone seeking asylum to enter the UK, as long as those organisations do not charge for their service.

Amendment 106, in clause 45, page 43, line 12, at end insert—

‘(6B) Nothing in this section, or in sections 10A to 10E, permits a person to be removed from the United Kingdom if that removal would violate their common law right to access justice.’

This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to make clear that the regime for providing notice to persons liable to removal remains subject to the common law right to access justice, which in the asylum context is mirrored by Article 13 ECHR.

Amendment 107, page 49, line 3, leave out clause 47.

This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to prevent it being compulsory for decision makers and tribunals to take into account whether a person has failed to cooperate with any immigration process when making decisions on immigration bail.

Amendment 122, in clause 48, page 49, line 34, leave out

“has insufficient evidence to be sure of their age”

and insert

“has reason to doubt that the claimant is the age they claim”.

This amendment to Clause 48(1) would align primary legislation to current practice as set out in statutory guidance to ensure children are not subjected to age assessments if there is no significant reason to doubt their age.

Amendment 123, in clause 49, page 51, line 9, leave out “must” and replace with “may”.

Amendment 124, in clause 49, page 51, line 17, leave out subsections (4) to (8).

Amendment 125, page 52, line 1, leave out clause 50.

Amendment 126, page 52, line 22, leave out clause 51.

Amendment 13, in clause 71, page 69, line 38, at end insert—

“(c) the individual is travelling to Northern Ireland on a local journey from the Republic of Ireland.”

Under this amendment, persons who are neither British nor Irish would nevertheless be able to make local journeys from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland without the need for an Electronic Travel Authorisation.

Government amendments 91 to 93.

Amendment 9, in schedule 3, page 82, line 36, leave out paragraphs 1 and 2.

This amendment leaves out paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule 3 to the Bill, which would amend section 77 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (no removal while claim for asylum pending).

Amendment 10, in schedule 3, page 84, line 2, leave out paragraph 4.

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.

Government amendments 94 and 95.

Amendment 96, in schedule 6, page 95, line 25, at end insert—

‘(4) Authority for the purposes of subsection (3) may be given in relation to a foreign ship only if the Convention permits the exercise of Part A1 powers in relation to the ship.’

This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to follow the drafting in the equivalent paragraphs of sections 28M, 28N and 28O of the Immigration Act, and ensure that enforcement action complies with international maritime law, similar to other enforcement action under Schedule 4A to the Immigration Act 11.

Amendment 97, in schedule 6, page 98, leave out lines 6 to 11 and insert—

“(a) every description of vessel (including a hovercraft) used in navigation, but

(b) does not include any vessel that is not seaworthy or where there could otherwise be a risk to the safety of life and well-being of those onboard.”

This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to ensure that enforcement action such as pushbacks could not be taken against unseaworthy vessels such as dinghies.

Amendment 98, in schedule 6, page 98, line 20, at end insert—

‘(1A) The powers set out in this Part of this Schedule must not be used in a manner or in circumstances that could endanger life at sea.’

This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to ensure the maritime enforcement powers cannot be used in a manner that would endanger lives at sea.

Amendment 113, in schedule 6, page 99, line 37, at end insert—

‘(13) Nothing within this Act or this paragraph B1 authorises any action or measure which is inconsistent with the United Kingdom’s international legal obligations.’

This amendment seeks to ensure the consistency of Part A1 paragraph B1 (power to stop, board, divert and detain) with the United Kingdom’s international obligations, including under international refugee law, international human rights law and international maritime law.

Amendment 99, in schedule 6, page 102, line 31, at end insert—

‘(2) Force must not be used in a manner or in circumstances that could endanger life at sea.’

This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to ensure that the use of force in maritime enforcement powers cannot be used in a manner that would endanger lives at sea.

Amendment 4, in schedule 6, page 102, leave out lines 35 to 40.

This amendment would remove the provision granting immigration and enforcement officers immunity from civil or criminal liability for anything done in the performance of their functions.

Amendment 100, in schedule 6, page 102, line 36, leave out “criminal or”.

This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to remove the immunity from criminal proceedings for “relevant officers” for criminal offences committed whilst undertaking pushbacks or other maritime enforcement operations.

Amendment 101, in schedule 6, page 102, line 36, leave out lines 36 to 40 and insert—

“J1 The Home Office, rather than an individual officer, is liable in civil proceedings for anything done in the purported performance of functions under this Part of this Schedule.”

This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to ensure that the Home Office is liable, rather than immigration officers and enforcement officers being personally liable for civil wrongs that may occur whilst undertaking pushbacks or other maritime enforcement operations.

[Tom Pursglove]

I am conscious of the wide interest in a significant number of these amendments, so I will predominantly focus my remarks on the Government amendments in this first instance and address other matters in the wind-up.

Our asylum system must not reward those who enter the UK illegally from manifestly safe countries where they cannot possibly still be fleeing persecution and fear. People must claim asylum in the first safe country they come to, and making a secondary and unnecessary move to the UK puts lives needlessly in danger while pushing aside other vulnerable people, including women and children.

We must break the criminal networks that facilitate illegal immigration and exploit people. People who come to our shores illegally will be treated differently. Although we cannot resettle everyone who needs sanctuary, the large numbers we resettle in the UK will be made very welcome. We will be fair but firm in how we continue to embark on this landmark reform of our asylum system.

New clause 20 is a minor, technical amendment that will ensure a small number of references to justices of the peace in immigration legislation in the context of obtaining entry and search warrants in Northern Ireland instead become references to lay magistrates. This is a simple measure that tidies up the statute book.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The Minister makes a critical point about claiming asylum in the first safe country. People traffickers rely on the idea of selling a destination, regardless of where the person starts. The measures my hon. Friend describes will frustrate the people traffickers and do a great service both to this country and to their many victims.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Pursglove]

Not for the first time, I find myself agreeing with my right hon. Friend wholeheartedly. It is fair to say that nobody needs to get into a small boat to reach safety. France is a safe country with a fully functioning asylum system, and the same applies to Belgium, Germany and countries across the European Union.

All people do by getting into a small boat is hand over significant sums of money to evil individuals who treat people as cargo and have no regard for human life. We have to bring it to an end, which is precisely what we seek to do with this Bill. I look forward to my right hon. Friend’s support in the Lobby, as we have had throughout the Bill’s passage.

Government amendments 19 to 25 to clause 12 make small technical amendments to apply the provisions in the clause to asylum seekers or failed asylum seekers who are supported under existing legislation if and when uncommenced provisions come into force.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

What my hon. Friend just stated is not unique to him but was stated by the former Labour Home Secretary Charles Clarke, who said:

“It is simply not acceptable to destroy identity documents, use false passports, lie about your personal history, refuse to say how you reached this country or any of the other devices which the people-smuggling gangs employ to make their money. Asylum seekers who knowingly commit such acts should lose their right of asylum in this country and be returned as soon as possible to their country of origin.”

He was right, wasn’t he?

[Tom Pursglove]

Any right-minded or fair-minded person would think it was entirely appropriate for people to engage with the immigration system in this country in an appropriate manner that complies with our evidential requirements. People should comply in the spirit of good will, because inevitably we want to provide sanctuary to those in need of sanctuary at the earliest opportunity possible. That is entirely what our reforms seek to achieve. We also think it is right and proper—as do, I think, the British people—to remove those who have no right to be here.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

If the legislation is carried in the way the Minister wishes, what impact will it have on the awful, vile trade through small boats? Will it stop it? Is there a danger that the UK courts will overturn the intent?

[Tom Pursglove]

The measures in the Bill are significant. We have recognised—the Home Secretary has consistently recognised this and I recognise it as the Minister responsible for tackling illegal immigration—that the asylum system in this country is currently broken. The length of time it takes to process claims is unacceptable and we need to improve the situation. The Government’s intention is clearly stated: to improve the way we process claims. We expect individuals who seek to claim asylum in this country to comply with the requirements, but of course safety nets are in place, for good reasons, so that it will be taken appropriately into account if people cannot meet the deadlines. We believe that progressing on the basis of processing claims more quickly and removing those with no right to be here will make quite a significant difference. Importantly, it is also about the work that we do not just with our nearest neighbours in, for example, France and Belgium—that collaboration is important and is delivering results, and we want to secure a returns agreement that will help to build on that—but further upstream in removing those with no right to be here back to source countries.

[Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

Yesterday, in a scathing attack on this Bill, Welsh Government Cabinet Ministers issued a statement saying that the Bill undermines Wales’s desire to be a nation of sanctuary, and will exacerbate inequality and harm. In their words:

“Wales is a welcoming nation and we will always stand with those who need us the most.”

Yes, Minister, we do keep a welcome in the hillsides and valleys of Wales. Will he scrap this inhumane Bill, end the hostile environment, put in place safe and legal routes, and stop undermining the responsibilities and aspirations of the devolved nations?

[Tom Pursglove]

The short answer to that rather long intervention is no. It is not the first time that I find myself disagreeing with Labour politicians, and I am afraid that I disagree with the Welsh Government on this point. All parts of this United Kingdom have a proud record of welcoming to this country people from around the world who are fleeing persecution and conflict; that tradition will continue, as I am sure the hon. Lady knows.

This country has to have a system that is fair but firm, and that brings to an end the abuses in the system previously and to date. Those who are not acting in the spirit that I think all of us would like to see are actually making it more difficult for genuine asylum seekers who are seeking sanctuary, and there are inevitably considerable associated resource implications.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Would the Minister just think for a moment what it is like to get into a small dinghy and try to cross the channel, and imagine what sense of desperation people must have to risk their own lives to try to get to what they believe to be a place of safety? I am not defending people traffickers or criminal gangs. I am just saying that we have created a situation, in this country and across Europe, where we leave desperate people with no alternative but to turn to ruthless people to try to get to a place of safety and contribute to our society. I ask him: has he got any humanity?

[Tom Pursglove]

I am afraid that the intervention is a disappointing one, in the sense that I would not for a moment suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is doing anything that supports people traffickers—of course not. However, I think he is giving credence to their business model, and that is highly unacceptable and disappointing. He should reflect on his position on these matters. As I have set out, nobody needs to get into a small boat to seek to cross the channel to reach safety. The idea that anybody is in danger in France is utterly farcical. The bottom line is that France is a safe country with a fully functioning asylum system. That is a fact and he needs to reflect on it.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Of course, what the former leader of the Labour party was trying to say was that the French are failing to look after the people in their own country. In that regard, he is right, isn’t he?

[Tom Pursglove]

It is probably fair to say that those on the Benches of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) quite regularly try to reinterpret his comments. In the end, it is highly unacceptable for anybody to get into a small boat for this purpose. I think it is fair to say that this House speaks with one voice in saying that people should not be making dangerous crossings, and we perhaps just disagree about how to render the route unviable.

The Government have brought forward a comprehensive Bill as part of the wider package of measures that we are seeking to introduce to address this issue. It is disappointing that some of us in the House seem to have quite a lot to say in complaining about our approach, but do not actually have a viable alternative to our policy.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

I have sat through hours of this debate and have been shocked—although I should not be surprised—by some of the smearing and scaremongering that we have heard. Is it any wonder that we receive some of the communications that we do? There is much to support in the Bill. As the Minister says, the immigration system is clearly not working. I am struggling on one point around resettlement, on which we may be able to take more people with us. The Government have rightly promised that the Bill will provide new, safer routes that can help to address the channel crossings. Will the Minister tell us whether the Home Office now has plans, and can provide more detail on those plans, for more resettlement schemes through safe routes?

[Tom Pursglove]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. One of the things we have been very clear about is that we want to expand community sponsorship in particular, but a number of schemes that are already being delivered are making a considerable difference. We should not forget that 15,000 people were airlifted out of Afghanistan over the summer. Nor should we forget that the BNO route in relation to Hong Kong is a valuable and important route that is helping to provide sanctuary to many individuals. That is an ambitious offer that we have made.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

Is not the reality that there are people who come to France fleeing their country of origin with the desire to come to the United Kingdom? Will the Minister look at new clause 10, in the name of the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), of which I am a co-sponsor and which puts forward a humanitarian visa scheme to enable people who are in France to start their application process off in France to come to the United Kingdom? We spoke about this in the Joint Committee on Human Rights last week and the Minister said he was going to go away and verify whether that suggestion had ever been put to the French. Has he been able to verify that for me?

[Tom Pursglove]

The hon. and learned Lady comes to this debate with ideas and suggestions about how we tackle this issue, but I disagree with her in terms of the suggestion she makes. In order to have a system like that in place, the French would have to agree to it. I think it is fair to say that there is considerable concern about the number of movements across France as things stand already. That is where, I am afraid, her suggestion, while offered in a spirit of co-operation and trying to be constructive, falls down.

[Joanna Cherry]

rose—

[Tom Pursglove]

I would like to make some progress, if I may.

Amendments 39, 40 to 43, 46 and 47 clarify the Government’s intention that appeals should remain in the expedited appeal process wherever possible. The revised text, which reflects wording in the primary legislation that sets the statutory framework for tribunal rules, specifies that judges should only remove an appeal from the accelerated or expedited process where there is no other way to secure that justice be done.

Amendments 48 to 50 are minor and technical amendments to clause 34 on internal relocation. They clarify the ambiguity in the current drafting that has the potential to be interpreted in an unintended way, where an individual could only be internally relocated within a country where they had previously been in that part of the country.

The purpose of amendments 51 to 59 is to increase the maximum penalty for the existing statutory offence of overstaying, which is currently six months’ imprisonment. That maximum penalty dates back to the original legislation—the Immigration Act 1971—and is no longer considered sufficient for the present day. Given how much the world has changed over the past 50 years, the existing penalty hinders our ability to deter overstayers, and we consider that raising it would encourage better compliance. Clause 39 introduces a new maximum penalty of four years to align with illegal entry and other similar offences that have already been amended during the passage of the Bill.

In Committee, I promised to bring forward amendments to protect Royal National Lifeboat Institution individuals rescuing persons at sea and those in charge of vessels who find stowaways on board. I am pleased to say that this is now set out in amendments 60 to 63. I am grateful to Members across the House who have raised concerns in relation to this matter, and I am delighted to be able to put it beyond doubt this afternoon.

[Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)]

My constituency may be landlocked but I grew up on the Kent coast, where many of those who cross the channel land, and I continue to donate to the RNLI, as do many of my constituents. We all know that those who volunteer to serve do so selflessly and often leave their place of work in order to go to sea or to provide support from the land. Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking those who volunteer for the RNLI from the Dungeness, Littlestone, Dover, Walmer and Ramsgate stations?

[Tom Pursglove]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes the case so eloquently for the RNLI, and sets out the incredible work that its volunteers and others do to protect life at sea, along with many other agencies, such as Her Majesty’s Coastguard, which works tirelessly around the clock, often in very difficult circumstances. I certainly join her in placing on record the Government’s thanks and appreciation for everything they do, and for the individuals in her area who do this tireless work, day in, day out, and week in, week out.

--- Later in debate ---

I have sought assurances from my hon. Friend the Minister about whether the offshoring policy will apply to children. I very much hope that an assurance that it will not will be included in the Bill, and that we will not seek to remove vulnerable young people to any other country, whether it is a member of the refugee convention and signatory to the European convention on human rights or not. I also seek assurances from my hon. Friend that we will not seek to offshore women, who will perhaps be pregnant women. If pregnant women are making these dangerous crossings, what are we doing to make sure they are safeguarded and not shipped off to another country? That is crucial.

[Tom Pursglove]

My right hon. Friend speaks with great passion on this issue, and I am grateful for the constructive way in which she has gone about raising concerns in this policy area. I wish to emphasise that we will always act in accordance with our international obligations, and to be very clear that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children will not be subject to inadmissibility or transferred for offshore processing. It is also important to say that we will not split family units, because that would be contrary to our international obligations.

[Caroline Nokes]

I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will not mind my instantly picking up on the fact that he very specifically said that “unaccompanied” asylum-seeking children would not be sent offshore, and that we would not split families. I also seek his assurance that we will not send whole families to have their claims decided offshore, and a further assurance that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who have been accepted into the asylum process will not fall out of it again once they turn 18. To me, it is absolutely imperative that if somebody’s claim is to be decided here, it should be decided here, not diverted midway through the process because they pass an arbitrary age.

I have real concerns about the creation of two tiers of asylum seeker. I tend to use this illustration. We saw horrific scenes in Afghanistan when female judges and female Members of Parliament sought to flee that country. We have put in place some schemes—it is important to emphasise that they are not yet up and running—around the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. Let me draw for the House the image of one female judge who comes to this country under that scheme when it is up and running. She is accepted into our country and is promptly given indefinite leave to remain and the right to work. A second female judge arrives on a small boat, but otherwise the circumstances are the same, in that she would be at risk if she returned to Afghanistan. We seek to offshore her. It causes me real concern that we will create a two-tier system in which people with identical claims to safety—at identical risk from the Taliban—are treated very differently.

I wish to raise concerns about where we might send people. I do not presume to know which countries the Home Office is in discussions with, but they might include Albania, which is in mainland Europe and not part of the European Union. There is already a well-established route from Albania to this country in the back of a van. We could be in a situation where we pay a third country a significant amount of money to accept someone into their asylum system—this is different from the model outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden—but they are then refused. At that point, what is there to stop that person seeking to come back to this country immediately? There could be some sort of circular trade, in which people end up back on our shores, whether in the back of a van or a small boat, and so the cycle goes round and round.

I have some experience as a former Immigration Minister, so I know full well that at this time of year, there is a very popular journey using the return flight to Tirana. [Interruption.] I can see that you want me to hurry up, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will. There is the question of whether people might see an opportunity to head off to a different country, and then end up back here, whether their claim was accepted or denied in that third country.

We must get the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme up and running, and make it effective. We should also fulfil the commitment we made to vulnerable people when the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme and the vulnerable children’s resettlement scheme came to their conclusion. We cannot talk about safe and legal routes unless we actually have some, and it is imperative that we have them.

I am now stretching your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, but let me finally address the comments of the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) about push-back. I was the Immigration Minister who rejected that idea because I thought that it was too dangerous to do in one of the busiest shipping lanes in the country, with vulnerable and overladen boats carrying women and children, in choppy seas. We should think very carefully before going down that route, because no Minister at all wishes to be responsible for more loss of life in the channel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I will now call the Minister, but I am sure he is aware that there may be people who might like to intervene.

[Tom Pursglove]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions to the debate and for the way in which most of those contributions were expressed. We are dealing with difficult matters, on which Members have strongly and deeply held convictions.

As I have said, it is vital that we do everything in our power to break the business model of evil criminal gangs and reform the broken asylum system. I am conscious of the time constraints, but I will address a number of amendments that have sparked a lot of today’s debate.

Let me start by addressing amendment 150 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) on removal to safe third countries. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) also raised that, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) has been following it. My right hon. and hon. Friends are absolutely right in the sentiments that they have expressed in the amendment. I thank them for their full support on the policy intention, including on third country processing of asylum applications.

There is a recognition that certain existing laws may prevent the Government from achieving our aim to remove those with no legal basis to remain in the country. The legal barriers associated with the removal of failed asylum seekers and foreign national offenders are well known. That is why there is work under way across the Government to look at the further legal barriers to removal.

I therefore reassure my right hon. and hon. Friends, and colleagues more widely, that there are no insurmountable domestic legal barriers to transferring eligible individuals overseas under an asylum processing arrangement. Schedule 3 to the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 allows the Secretary of State to remove an individual with a pending asylum claim from the UK to a safe third state if a relevant certificate is issued. The Bill amends section 77 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 to make it easier to remove someone to a safe third country without having to issue a certificate.

Obviously, the Bill complies fully with our international obligations, but the Home Secretary fully agrees with the sentiment that is expressed through amendment 150 about the challenges that frustrate the will of the British people in terms of our ability to remove people with no right to be in the UK. I can therefore confirm that the Government have imminent plans to consult on substantial reform of the Human Rights Act, which will be announced imminently in Parliament.

The Home Secretary also recognises my right hon. and hon. Friends’ concerns about aspects of the ECHR and other international agreements. I can therefore confirm that we are committed to reviewing and resolving these issues with the urgency that the situation warrants.

[Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)]

I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend. He says that the Government are committed to resolving these difficulties. Can he confirm that by “resolving” these difficulties, he means that the Government will be legislating so to do?

[Tom Pursglove]

I refer my right hon. Friend back to the point that I have already made. We intend to consult on substantial reform of the Human Rights Act and will set out our plans imminently in that regard.

Work is under way to develop a new phase of measures to ensure that the clauses in the Bill are not undermined and that legal processes cannot be instrumentalised to circumvent the will of the British people. As we have said, the Government have imminent plans to consult on reform to the Human Rights Act, which are under consideration as we speak. Likewise, work is under way in relation to resolving the question of retained EU law.

[Joanna Cherry]

It sounds like the Minister is announcing something a bit more radical than perhaps we had anticipated in relation to the Human Rights Act. Can he confirm that the Government are still committed to remaining a signatory—a full signatory—to the European convention on human rights?

[Tom Pursglove]

The point that I would make is that the Government will set out their intentions in due course. I think it is right not to pre-empt. It is important to make sure that this House is kept updated as to that work, and we will be very clear in our intentions.

[Sir John Hayes]

It is extremely encouraging news that the Government are going to—at last, I have to say—consider the Blair legacy of the Human Rights Act, but to substantially reform it will require legislation. That much is implicit, is it not?

[Tom Pursglove]

As I say, Ministers will come to the House with further details in due course.

Work is under way in relation to resolving the question of retained EU law, led by Lord Frost, with input from the Attorney General and the Ministry of Justice. For these reasons, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to withdraw their amendment 150.

I turn to new clauses 18 and 19 on illegal immigration offences, tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) and for Kettering (Mr Hollobone). I hope that they and other hon. Friends supporting the new clauses will recognise that, as part of our groundbreaking new plan for immigration, the Government have sought robust changes to the law around illegal entry and similar offences through the very Bill we are discussing today. The Bill, which my hon. Friends seek to amend, already addresses and indeed exceeds the changes proposed in new clause 18.

Let me turn now to new clauses 24 and 52, tabled by the hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) and for Halifax (Holly Lynch), my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) and the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis). As both new clauses regard settlement fees for non-UK members of our armed forces, I would like to debate them together. It is a fact that our Government and our nation highly value the service of all members of the armed forces, including Commonwealth nationals and Gurkhas from Nepal.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

I am pleased to hear how valued members of our service community are. This is a good opportunity for the Government to give way on new clause 52, tabled by myself and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer). Can the Minister give an assurance that the Government will support it?

[Tom Pursglove]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making his case in the eloquent way the House is so used to. Members will be aware of the measures that the Home Secretary and the Defence Secretary announced in the summer for Gurkhas from Nepal, who have a long and distinguished history of service to the UK, both here and overseas. We also remain extremely grateful for the contribution made by former British Hong Kong service personnel. That is why the Ministry of Defence, together with the Home Office, ran a public consultation between 26 May and 7 July 2021 regarding a policy proposal to waive settlement fees for non-UK service personnel in Her Majesty’s armed forces. A response to that consultation is coming out shortly, but I recognise the strength of the hon. Gentleman’s feelings and those of the Royal British Legion on this issue. To that end, I thank him and other colleagues for raising these matters, and I invite him and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View to meet Ministers and the legion next week to make sure that the concerns and realities of non-UK service personnel dealing with the immigration system are fully understood. I am under no illusions about how strongly my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View, in particular, feels about this issue, along with colleagues on both sides of the House.

[Johnny Mercer]

Many Ministers before my hon. Friend—many Defence Secretaries and many Prime Ministers—have said, “We feel”, “We value” and “We are adamant that we are proud of our armed forces.” However, a Fijian family in Plymouth is still being split up because the visa fees have not been sorted out. Tonight is an opportunity to go beyond meetings and words and to actually waive visa fees, which everybody, irrespective of party, knows is the right thing to do. Whether the Government will do that will test their character.

[Tom Pursglove]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and note the conviction with which he speaks about these matters, and I reiterate the offer that we have made to meet next week to discuss them. He will appreciate that the consultation has been ongoing and that we would expect to hear more on that in short order.

I would like to pick up on the proposals tabled by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) presented to the House—I would like to say how sorry I was to hear that she will be standing down from the House at the next general election. It is fair to say that the Committee has raised important matters, and I would respond by saying that we have always acted in accordance with our international obligations in relation to matters at sea. On the international convention for the safety of life at sea and search-and-rescue operations, that has consistently been, and will continue to be, the position in the work that we do.

I want to conclude by again thanking hon. Members for their proposals and the lively debate we have had today. Following the tragic events in the channel over the last few weeks, I know that all Members take this debate with the seriousness and concern it deserves. However, the only way we will solve these long-term problems is by delivering a long-term solution. Ultimately, that is exactly what this Bill delivers.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 20 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 50

Advertising assistance for unlawful immigration to the United Kingdom

“(1) It is an offence to advertise by any means, including using social media, services designed to facilitate the commission of an offence under section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years, to a fine or to both, or

(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both.”—(Bambos Charalambous.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Pursglove Excerpts

Monday 22nd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

18. What steps she is taking to speed up the removal of illegal migrants.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)]

Our new plan for immigration makes it easier to remove illegal migrants who have no right to be here. The one-stop process that we are introducing through the Nationality and Borders Bill will be fundamental to delivering on that in future. The Home Secretary has also been setting up a mix of formal and informal returns agreements with other countries, in order to tackle the drivers of illegal migration. Examples of that work include our new formal arrangements with India and Albania.

[Tom Hunt]

Does the Minister agree that when millions of people voted to leave the European Union, they did so to take back control of our borders—no ifs, no buts—and on our own terms, not only if the French agree? Does he also agree that, in a spirit of taking back control, we need to intensify our movements towards offshore processing, which we know was successful in Australia where, when it was introduced, the numbers fell of a cliff straightaway?

[Tom Pursglove]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a passionate advocate for his constituents on this issue. I, too, was on the frontline of that campaign in 2016, and I am very sympathetic to the point that he makes. There is no one single solution to this problem. The measures that we are introducing through the Nationality and Borders Bill are comprehensive, but we also need that co-operation with our French partners, and to tackle this issue upstream.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

22. What steps she is taking to (a) prevent and (b) speed up the removal of illegal migrants using small boats to cross the channel; and what recent representations she has made to her French counterpart on intercepting attempted small boat crossings.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)]

Our Nationality and Borders Bill sets out comprehensive measures to deter illegal crossings, tackle the criminal gangs responsible and protect lives. We are using all available options to bring crossing numbers down. The Home Secretary and the French Interior Minister agreed to accelerate the delivery of their joint determination to prevent all crossings and make this deadly route unviable.

[Mr Hollobone]

Given that we have given tens of millions of pounds to the French, including in night-vision equipment, automatic number plate recognition technology and access to drones, is it not completely disgraceful for large groups of French police to be pictured on the beaches in France waving large boats of migrants across the channel, as we have seen in recent days? If we are giving the French this money, please can we insist that they use it to stop this illegal flow?

[Tom Pursglove]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour for his question. The Home Secretary had a constructive conversation last week with the French Interior Minister. He has repeatedly said that the determination is to stop 100% of these crossings. We entirely support that endeavour, and we must work towards that end. Clearly, the policing response on French beaches is integral to that, but it is also welcome that, for example, there has been a greater effort to disband some of the camps that we have seen around beaches.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

A few moments ago the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds), quoted the number of people who had crossed the channel in small boats, and used that number to attack my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the best way to deal with people crossing to these shores illegally is to support the Nationality and Borders Bill, and will she join me in condemning the Opposition parties who vote against every single measure?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)]

My hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely right. It is particularly staggering that in Committee the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous), condemned the record of the previous Labour Government, who used to argue that people should not be making crossings of this sort, and that they should claim asylum in the first safe country that they reach. That is exactly what should happen.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chairman of the Select Committee, Yvette Cooper.

--- Later in debate ---

[Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)]

Does the Home Secretary agree that the single most important step any sovereign nation can take in protecting its own borders against illegal immigration is offshore processing?

[Tom Pursglove]

It is fair to say that, through the Nationality and Borders Bill, we are putting in place a comprehensive package of measures to deal with this issue. Central to that work is the issue of offshore processing, and we reserve the position to do exactly that.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

The Home Secretary will be acutely aware that Colin Pitchfork, the double child rapist and murderer, is now back behind bars. The fact that he was released in the first place shows that something is profoundly wrong at the heart of the system. What conversations is she having with the Justice Secretary to ensure that this never happens again?

Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Bill

Tom Pursglove Excerpts

Friday 19th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Tom Pursglove)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) for introducing this important Bill. It was terrific to have the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), with us at the start of the debate. There was what I would characterise as an immaculate baton passing from him to my hon. Friend to allow this private Member’s Bill to progress in this Session. I look forward to her taking the Bill further and hope to see it complete its journey so that we can bring this law to the statute book. Perhaps all hon. Members will accept that, in the last few weeks, we have seen a lot of adversarial politics in the Chamber. I think it is refreshing that, this morning, the country sees a House of Commons coming together to deliver an important reform that we can all support.

The hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) spoke eloquently. I also found it chilling when she spoke of the experience of her friend. What her friend went through was horrendous, and it is right that we are coming together to take action to stop young people going through such experiences in future. It is impossible for anybody not to be hugely troubled by those experiences. The hon. Lady put her case well and effectively.

My hon. Friend the Member for Member for Mid Derbyshire did a brilliant job of laying out the provisions of the Bill, the purpose of which is to end child marriage and civil partnerships in England and Wales. There are two ways in which children can currently marry. First, they can have a legal ceremony at 16 or 17 with parental or judicial consent. That includes both civil and religious ceremonies such as those in the Church of England. That aspect of child marriage would be solved by raising the minimum age to 18. Secondly, children of any age can take part in marriage ceremonies that are non-legally binding, which often take place in a community or traditional setting. Those unregistered marriages will be addressed by expanding the offence of forced marriage to make it illegal to arrange for a child to enter marriage where coercion is not used.

Statistics demonstrate that girls are more likely to enter a legal marriage under the age of 18 and, therefore, more likely to be impacted by the adverse effects of child marriage that were so helpfully set out by my hon. Friend. In 2018 in England and Wales, 28 boys under the age of 18 married, compared with 119 girls.

[Mr Mohindra]

I welcome the Minister to his place—it is the first opportunity that I have had to do so. Does he think that Northern Ireland and Scotland will follow suit?

[Tom Pursglove]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. We are, of course, considering measures that relate to England and Wales. That sends out a very clear message about what our intentions are in this House and, as has been mentioned several times today, the point about the international example that we want to send out is an important one, too. I want the United Kingdom to live up to the rhetoric towards which we ask others to work. That is made more challenging when our law in this country does not reflect what we are asking others to do.

[Mrs Latham]

Was my hon. Friend aware that Northern Ireland is consulting on changing the law there? Obviously, he will be aware that Scotland has the same obligations as us to follow the United Nations sustainable development goals. They may end up being complete outliers and not following through, but they may also end up being dragged through with this, which has to be a good thing for children in the whole of the United Kingdom.

[Tom Pursglove]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend. Of course, devolution and the devolution settlement is very sensitive, and it is right that directly elected politicians in Northern Ireland and in Scotland reach the decisions that are appropriate for the communities that they serve. However, what we are dealing with here is a very serious matter that relates to the welfare and wellbeing of young people. I would like to think that the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly will want to level up their provisions in the way that we are doing today with this Bill, so that, as one United Kingdom, we have a consistent position. None the less, I am proud of the fact that, across this House, we are coming together to send out a clear message of our intentions in this area. This is a long-overdue reform and I hope that we will see the other nations of the United Kingdom coming together to follow suit. It is welcome, too, that Northern Ireland is about to embark on a consultation on this issue.

The Bill plays an important role in the Government’s ambitions to end crimes that disproportionately involve violence against women and girls—in this case girls. Indeed, in our tackling violence against women and girls strategy published in July, we committed to ending child marriage as soon as a legislative vehicle became available, which it now has.

The UN sustainable development goals require all countries to

“eliminate all harmful practices, such as child, early and forced marriage and female genital mutilations by 2030”.

The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has recommended that there should be no legal way for anyone to marry before they turn 18, even if there is parental consent. The fact that it is currently possible to marry at 16 is setting the wrong example both at home and abroad. Having laws that enable child marriage weakens our voice in discussions with other countries and damages efforts to end child marriage globally. This is an area where we should be leading by example, and this Bill will enable us to do that.

This may be a slightly technical point, but it is an important one to make. The Bill will act as a further obstacle to those seeking to take children abroad to marry. That is not covered in the Bill itself, as it relates to the common law, but we anticipate that, following the changes made by the Bill, the common law in England and Wales will not recognise marriages taking place abroad involving under-18s where either party is domiciled in England and Wales. “Domiciled” is a legal term, which, in its simplest form, means the place where a person’s permanent home is. To give an example of this in practice: if a 16-year-old girl, whose permanent home is in England, is taken abroad by her parents over her school holidays to enter into a marriage that is legally recognised in that country, that marriage will no longer be legally recognised in England and Wales.

The Bill will not change the age of marriage in Scotland or Northern Ireland, as marriage is a devolved matter. Therefore, the age of marriage in Scotland will remain at 16 and in Northern Ireland it will be 16 with parental or judicial consent. Someone who arranges for a 16 or 17-year-old to get married in Scotland or Northern Ireland cannot be prosecuted for forced marriage under the law of England and Wales, unless they had used coercion to do so. That applies even if they, or the party to the marriage, lived in England and Wales. However, as explained above, if a couple travels to Scotland or Northern Ireland to marry, and either of them is 16 or 17 and has their permanent home in England or Wales, that marriage will not be legally recognised in England and Wales. It will also not be legally possible for that couple to marry in Scotland, due to existing Scottish law. This will add an extra layer of protection for children, and will provide clarity to teachers and social workers, enabling them to report all concerns about children being forced to marry—having a marriage arranged for them here or being taken abroad to marry—to the police.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend for the repeated use of the word “child”; we are talking about children. We have seen with many other issues an inability to allow kids just to be kids, so I thank him for the work that he is doing and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) for her Bill.

[Tom Pursglove]

My hon. Friend is very generous. It is fair to say that this has been a team effort, spearheaded by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire with support from Members across the House, which is extremely welcome.

I invite our friends in Scotland and Northern Ireland to review the position in their respective countries. I believe that Northern Ireland has just issued a public consultation, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire has alluded. I really do hope that this Bill will be the catalyst for levelling up across the whole United Kingdom, so that we have a consistent position and are able to send out this important message internationally.

[Anthony Mangnall]

When I hear my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) and the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) speak, I always feel very fortunate to be able to serve in the same place as them. So much of what is in the Bill is dependent on prosecution and enforcement. I wonder whether the Minister can go further on this, because we need to ensure that we bring people to account. As has rightly been said, this is about not making the child someone to prosecute, but supporting and helping them as victims.

[Tom Pursglove]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. He, too, has been a vocal champion on these issues—not just here on the domestic stage in the United Kingdom, but globally—including on the issue of overseas aid. Let me speak to the point that he has just raised, particularly regarding how the police will be able to enforce this new offence.

We should be under no illusions about the fact that forced marriage remains a challenging crime to prosecute, but we would like to see more prosecutions. The Government are working closely with the police to achieve this, but the situation will not change overnight. Forced marriage is often a hidden crime and children are understandably reluctant to criminalise their parents, but this change could make prosecution easier—not only for the behaviour that it specifically encompasses, but for cases already covered by forced marriage law. If there is no need to prove coercion, the burden on the prosecution is easier and there would be less of a role needed from the child victim.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), raised the wider point about the work that the Government are doing to tackle forced marriage. The joint Home Office and Foreign Office Forced Marriage Unit helps many hundreds of victims and trains many hundreds of professionals every year, and carries out wider outreach activity. The Home Office provides £150,000 a year to the charity Karma Nirvana to run the national honour-based abuse helpline, a large proportion of whose cases relate to forced marriage. The joint police and Border Force operation, Operation Limelight, works to raise awareness of harmful practices at the border, including forced marriage.

The Home Office provides multi-agency guidance and a free e-learning course on forced marriage to assist professionals. The tackling violence against women and girls strategy, which was published in July, confirms that it will develop a new online resources pack to offer further support. The Home Office has produced a leaflet about forced marriage, which is available in 12 languages, and that is also welcome. The Department for Education has added forced marriage to the relationships and sex education curriculum in schools, because it is so important that there is that awareness around the issues.

[James Daly]

My hon. Friend touches on an important point. The criminal justice system at present does not deal with matters such as this immediately. The alleged perpetrator will either be released on bail or under investigation, which can lead to many months of delay in any potential criminal prosecution. The period between complaint and charge is therefore crucial, and we need the support in place to ensure that victims are not penalised any further for having the bravery to stand up and make the complaint to the police in the first place.

[Tom Pursglove]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, which I am mindful of as the victims Minister in my Ministry of Justice capacity. As I said clearly in the House only a few weeks ago, when asked about progress towards a victims Bill, we need improvements to the process right from somebody reporting a crime in the first instance to the courtroom. We are working towards that objective as we hopefully introduce the Bill in due course, because there is room for improvement.

My hon. Friend’s point is well made and we need to be mindful of that in the context of these offences, particularly for the simple reason that we are dealing with children who require comprehensive wraparound support in the circumstances. We are talking about members of their own family putting them in that position which is actually very difficult for all hon. Members to comprehend.

[Sarah Champion]

I will make two points. First, relationship education, where the issue could have been explained to children, should have been mandatory from September 2020. It is still not in force and only one in five teachers have taken the Government’s training on it. Secondly, does the Minister know about the teaspoon campaign, which is worth mentioning? If someone feels that they are being coerced out of the country, they can put a teaspoon in their pants so that when an alarm goes off, the guard knows exactly what they are saying and will put the necessary support around them.

[Tom Pursglove]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for those points. I was not familiar with the teaspoon campaign, which is clearly valuable and important; Members on both sides of the House will find that intervention informative and useful. I would be delighted to receive more information from her or have a conversation about that work separately after the debate. On the point about teaching, I will pick that up with colleagues in the Department for Education and make sure that she receives a full answer.

I touched on the tackling violence against women and girls strategy in my earlier remarks. I will say a bit more about it and the work that is going on through it to tackle forced marriage and other forms of honour-based abuse. We will seek out community advocates who can talk to community audiences and explain why forced marriage and other honour-based abuse crimes are wrong. We will provide them with resources to back up their messages.

The College of Policing will also produce advice for police officers on honour-based abuse, so that first responders and investigators know how to deal with cases. The product for first responders will be published soon. We will also produce a resource pack on forced marriage for local authorities, the police, schools, healthcare services and others, similar to our existing one for female genital mutilation.

The Home Office will explore options to better understand the prevalence of FGM and forced marriage in England and Wales, given their hidden nature and the lack of robust estimates. We will work to criminalise virginity testing and will bring forward legislation when parliamentary time allows, which will be accompanied by a programme of education in community, education and clinical settings to tackle the misperceptions and misbeliefs surrounding the practice.

The Department for Education will work with a small number of local authorities as part of the children’s social care covid-19 regional recovery and building back better fund to identify the challenges and barriers in effective safeguarding work addressing FGM and to develop and disseminate good practice to other local authorities. Various other general commitments are relevant to tackling forced marriage such as our £3 million programme on what works to prevent violence against women and girls and the appointment of Deputy Chief Constable Maggie Blyth as the first full-time national policing lead for violence against women and girls. That is all important.

[Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham) for an excellent private Member’s Bill. I am delighted that the Government are favourable to it.

Given what the Minister has said about the violence against women and girls strategy, does he agree that it is important that local authorities play a massive role and that, as part of that, perhaps there should be some training for local councillors? Perhaps the Home Office could work alongside the Local Government Association to ensure that there is training for best practice, so that local councillors who are not from communities involved in practices such as marriage under 18 for their children can understand the cultural differences, be more understanding and protect our children.

[Tom Pursglove]

My hon. Friend is a distinguished former council leader in her own right, and she brings an awful lot of experience and knowledge to the proceedings in this House by virtue of that experience at Westminster City Council. I think her point is well made, and it is one that I am very happy to share with the safeguarding Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean)—who I know looks at these matters very attentively and is always mindful of them.

As someone who has just come into ministerial office, one of the points I have regularly made in the many conversations I have had with officials over the last two months is that cascading best practice is often so important. I always want to be satisfied that we are doing everything we can to cascade best practice where it exists. There are lots of examples out there in lots of different areas of policy, and we do not always need to reinvent the wheel. What we need to do is pick up what is done well, cascade that throughout the wider system and drive forward improvement. My hon. Friend’s point is well made, and I will gladly ensure that it is flagged up.

[Anthony Mangnall]

I apologise for interrupting, but the Minister made reference to a commissioner. I am interested to understand the remit of that commissioner, the response time and the number of reports that will be put forward, how they will act and their purpose, and whether the Government will take on board those things, as we do with the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner.

[Tom Pursglove]

I think my hon. Friend is probably referring to deputy chief constable Maggie Blyth being the first full-time national policing lead for violence against women and girls. I am certainly very willing to go away and try to find out more information on the points he has raised about her remit and precisely how that new role is going to make sure that he is aware of that important work. I think introducing that role was an important breakthrough. Again, that does not sit directly within my portfolio, but I am keen that my hon. Friends engage with him about that work.

[Mr Virendra Sharma]

I am so glad to hear that the Minister has recognised the best practices in many local authorities, including mine in Ealing. With such best practice, the number of forced marriages and honour-based abuse will be reduced. I am glad to be the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on honour-based abuse, and we promote that best practice. Can I ask the Minister if he is looking to make more of the relationship with India through the British high commission? India has recently increased its marriage consent age from 18 to 21, so could he take the best practice from there? We can get best practices from outside Britain as well, although the outside world is looking to Britain to be a guide on that.

[Tom Pursglove]

I thank the hon. Member for talking about the experiences in Ealing and the work his local authority is undertaking, as well as for the point about the international example, which we have talked about in some detail in this debate. Again, if I may, I will feed back to the safeguarding Minister the points he has raised, so that she is mindful of them in the work she is doing in this space.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire has explained, this Bill will also strengthen existing forced marriage legislation. It is critical that we end legal child marriage, but as long as children can be part of a ceremony of so-called marriage that is not recognised by the law, as many now are, the evil of child marriage will persist. We know that it is illegal to force a child—or, indeed, an adult—into marriage, but if coercion is not used there is no criminal sanction against the parent. To eliminate this loophole, the Bill rightly updates forced marriage legislation to ensure that it is always illegal to arrange the marriage of a child, whatever the practices used to bring it about.

This Government are committed to making sure that children and young people are both protected and supported as they grow and develop, in order to maximise their potential and their life chances. That includes having the opportunity to remain in education or training until they reach the age of 18. Child marriage can deprive them of these important life chances. The age of 18—not 16—is widely recognised as the age at which one becomes an adult. The Government believe that full citizenship rights should be gained at adulthood. A marriage or civil partnership is a lifelong commitment with significant legal and financial consequences, and this change will allow individuals more time to grow and mature before making a commitment of this nature.

In closing, I reiterate the key point that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire made in her remarks. I want to be crystal clear that this law is not about criminalising children who get married; it is about prosecuting the third parties that arrange the marriage. That point needs to be underscored at every turn and placed on the record. This debate is a big moment for my hon. Friend, who has run an exceptional campaign over many years. When we look back at this debate and the passage of this Bill, we will genuinely look at this as a significant social reform for the better, and probably one that we will think was long overdue. Hearing the stories of girls such as Payzee brings this issue to life and serves as a sobering reminder of why this legislation is so important. With that, I can confirm with great pleasure that the Government will be supporting the Bill’s passage through this House, and I look forward to its making speedy progress.

Funeral Director Services Regulation

Tom Pursglove Excerpts

Wednesday 17th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I will start by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) for securing a debate on a most important issue for his constituents. He is absolutely right to draw the House’s attention to such a serious issue this afternoon. He has highlighted an experience with which we will almost all inevitably have to deal at some time in our lives—the burial or cremation of a loved one. Very sadly, that has become a reality for many families over the past 20 months. I offer my sincere condolences to all who have been bereaved, and pay tribute to the fortitude with which they have faced a most distressing experience during the difficult circumstances of recent months.

The loss of a loved one is a painful burden that, naturally, we prefer not to consider until we are forced to do so. When it does happen to us, we are often at our lowest ebb, so it is never easy. The pain that comes with losing someone we love or care for is something that all Members of this House will be familiar with. However, in the vast majority of cases, we are supported by the commitment and professionalism of the funeral director in whom we put our trust at this most difficult of times. They have an enormously important and significant position of responsibility at what is a very distressing time for all those involved.

As right hon. and hon. Members have done this afternoon, I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the crucial contribution of the funeral sector throughout the difficult circumstances of the pandemic response, and also more generally. We can all think of examples of funerals for our loved ones or friends and associates where services have been conducted sensitively and sympathetically and with real professionalism. The sector has been central to the Government’s objective of ensuring that the deceased are treated with dignity and respect, and the bereaved with compassion. Again, I want to record my sincere gratitude and that of the entire Government for that work.

Unfortunately, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen illustrated in his speech, things can sometimes go wrong. First, may I offer my sincere condolences on the death of his constituent’s relative and say how shocked and sorry I am for what the family have been through? The events that he described are truly shocking, and no family suffering real grief following the death of a loved one should ever have to go through that. I can only imagine how difficult and traumatic the experience has been for them, without that being compounded by the events that he described. It will have been distressing not only for them, but for all the individuals in attendance. I note the professionalism of the individual in charge of the ceremony in helping all those affected to deal with it, and the professionalism that they showed in the impossible circumstances that they were presented with. I trust it was a rare and isolated incident, but that does not diminish or excuse the impact on those involved.

Quality standards in the provision of funeral director services are not prescribed by law. However, there is a broader regulatory framework with which funeral directors must comply, including health and safety legislation covering the safe handling and storage of bodies by funeral directors and their staff, and consumer protection measures, about which I will say more in a moment.

Inconsistency in quality standards was one of the issues identified in the report by the Competition and Markets Authority on its market investigation into the funeral sector, published last December. The report recommended that independent regulation of funeral director provision was needed to raise and maintain standards, and to standardise some practices, for example in the transport and storage of bodies

The Government’s response to the Competition and Markets Authority’s report was published on 7 April this year. While we accepted that there could be improvement in the sector, we did not propose moving to a full independent regulator at this stage. Given the impacts of the extreme pressure on the sector during the pandemic, the Government considered that this was not the time to implement significant changes. However, the pressures of the pandemic have undoubtedly strengthened the relationship between the funeral sector and Government, which is, of course, a good thing. We have built on this to support the sector in improving the effectiveness of its self-regulation of quality standards. In our response to the Competition and Markets Authority, we said that we would introduce a set of quality standards and principles to which funeral directors should subscribe. We planned to do so by the end of this year, and to review its effectiveness within 18 months of implementation.

[Jake Berry]

The Minister is talking about a set of standards and principles to which funeral directors should subscribe. Does he mean “should” subscribe or “must” subscribe?

[Tom Pursglove]

At the moment we are looking at a self-regulation approach to this issue. There are challenges in going down the route of formal regulation, which, of course, takes time because it needs statutory underpinning, often involving primary legislation. We expect the sector to look intensively and at speed to improve the situation. There is an onus on all those providing these services to live up to the standards that we would all expect funeral directors taking care of our loved ones or friends to live up to, for the reasons so eloquently outlined by my right hon. Friend.

[Sir John Hayes]

My right hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) has done a great service to his constituents. He has been their champion and drawn this tragic case to the attention of the House. Out of the tragedy, the family will be hoping that something positive will come, and today can be the beginning of that. My right hon. Friend drew attention to the work of David Heath, who recently met the all-party parliamentary group. Will the Minister agree to meet the all-party parliamentary group to take these matters further, in exactly the spirit of my right hon. Friend’s speech?

[Tom Pursglove]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I want to really engage with this issue in the spirit in which all Members have come to the debate. With that in mind, I would be delighted to meet the APPG and to hear the concerns of its members. In fact, my right hon. Friend has pre-empted what I was going to offer later in my remarks. As a parliamentarian, he is very good at teasing out these sorts of commitments.

[Sir John Hayes]

I have stood in the Minister’s place many times.

[Tom Pursglove]

My right hon. Friend has indeed. He has managed to extract that commitment from me and I will certainly look forward to that discussion. As he has described, none of us in this House wants to see any other family go through the wholly unacceptable distress that the family in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen have been through, at a most difficult time for them. We cannot allow that to happen in future. There is an enormous onus on the sector to drive forward this improvement and these quality standards. At this point, we think it is right that they take responsibility for achieving that, but we reserve the right to have a greater involvement in these matters if we do not see the sort of improvement that I think we would all expect.

In light of the Competition and Markets Authority’s recommendations, both the sector’s representative organisations—the National Federation of Funeral Directors and the National Society of Allied and Independent Funeral Directors—are taking positive steps to introduce and embed improved self-regulation and complaint-handling arrangements. Encouraged by the sector’s proactive approach to the Competition and Markets Authority’s findings, we are continuing to work closely with it throughout the implementation of its new self-regulation regimes, with a view to assessing their effectiveness once they have bedded in. I hope that that gives some reassurance as to the improvement that my right hon. and hon. Friends are seeking.

Where funeral directors are not members of these representative bodies, I would expect them to look to the standards that the bodies are developing and to adopt and advance those standards within their own set-ups. I think that that is an important point to make. Cost, which Members have raised, is of course a matter for the representative bodies, but I know that the NAFD in particular is looking to make improved regulatory structures accessible across the profession, which again is very welcome.

In addition to its findings on quality standards, the Competition and Markets Authority made recommendations to address the lack of accessible and comparable information on the products and services that funeral directors provide. In the light of pandemic pressures on the sector, the Competition and Markets Authority has not pursued remedies to address that issue fully. Instead, it has introduced a range of “sunlight” provisions to support customers in making choices about funerals, and to ensure that the pricing, business and commercial activities of funeral directors, as well as the quality of the service that they provide, are exposed to greater public and regulatory scrutiny. The remedies include an obligation for all funeral directors to set their prices out clearly and prominently so that families needing to arrange a funeral can, if they wish, compare that information before deciding which provider to use. The Competition and Markets Authority has also recommended that, once conditions are more stable, it should consider whether a further market investigation is needed to identify whether additional customer protections are needed.

To return to the regrettable experience of the constituents of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen, there are numerous pieces of legislation with which all traders, including funeral director businesses, must comply. In particular, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 sets out the standards that consumers can expect when they contract with a trader or business for the provision of services, and the remedies if those rights are breached. Where a trader or business fails to meet the standards for the supply of a service required by the 2015 Act, or the service does not conform to the contract, that could potentially be a breach of contract, and if so, the consumer is entitled to seek a remedy. If that cannot be agreed in correspondence, the consumer could then pursue a claim against the funeral director in the courts.

I want to pick up on the point made about the cross-Government nature of this issue, which again is important. I have made the point that, as a result of the pandemic, what we have seen is a stronger working relationship between Government and the sector. It is essential that that is reflected across Government, given the fact that elements of policy in this area intersect with various Departments. My right hon. Friend referred to there being silos and the fact that we do not want operations within silos. I hope that he will be slightly reassured by the fact that, as a joint Minister, across both the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, I am quite well versed in ensuring that elements of Government do not act in silos. In that spirit, I would want to engage with colleagues across Government to ensure that we get this right, and that is precisely what I intend to do. He has my reassurance on that.

I conclude by again thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen for introducing this debate this afternoon. It would be impossible for anybody—any Minister or any Member of this House—not to be affected by hearing about the experience that he has described with real understanding, care and sympathy for his constituents who have been caught up in this terrible situation. I am very grateful to him for bringing this to the House’s attention. I want him to know that I am very mindful of the situation that he has described, that this is something that I want to go away and look at further, that I do want to engage with the APPG that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) chairs, and we will ensure that that happens, and that, as I have described, there is a piece of work going on at the moment around self-regulation, but we need to monitor that closely, to see whether it achieves the objectives that I think all of us wish to see, and if that is not the case, we reserve the right to look at this issue again and to take matters from there.

I hope that that will provide my right hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen with some reassurance. I would also ask whether he could please express my condolences to his constituents family. They have been through a terrible time, and it really is very important that no other family go through the experience that they have.

Question put and agreed to.