Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Monday 1st April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

First, I am very sorry to hear about that incident, which must have been shocking for everyone involved. We need to ensure that the police are properly resourced, which is why this record increase in funding since 2010 is hugely welcome. However, when it comes to other types of crime that require more focus, the additional £100 million to tackle serious violence that the Chancellor announced in the spring statement will also help.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

For months, I have been raising the need for the Home Secretary to get a move on and get a grip on this national emergency. We welcome the measures that he has announced to tackle youth and violent crime, but will he commit today to come to this House of Commons every single week to let us know how everything is working, how it is reducing serious violence and whether it is having any impact at all? We will then start to believe him.

[Sajid Javid]

We absolutely should regularly update the House, whether by coming to the House, through “Dear colleague,” letters or by holding meetings with hon. Members who request them. However, it is important, on many of these measures, that we are united as a House. The public health approach, which seems to have united hon. Members, is an example of what we can do if we work together.

Modern Slavery and Victim Support

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Wednesday 27th March 2019 Westminster Hall

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) not only on securing this important debate, but on his excellent presentation and the content of his remarks. I must say that I agreed with every single word.

There are many officers of the all-party parliamentary group here supporting the right hon. Gentleman, and they will no doubt make their own contributions, but I want to start out by echoing what he has just said; this is not a party political issue. From my other challenges to her, the Minister will know that although the Modern Slavery Act was a tremendous, landmark piece of legislation, and it would be ridiculous to say otherwise, it would be remiss of us not to say that there are issues we need to raise. We are not doing that to be negative; we want to challenge the system by saying, “Come on, wake up and let’s do things a bit quicker.”

I will put the matter in context for those who watch our debates. Here we are in this beautiful Parliament, in this wonderful Chamber, yet half a mile away—a quarter of a mile, even—there will be people who are victims of trafficking and slavery. It is unbelievable in 2019 that that is the case. When the right hon. Gentleman spoke with such passion, it was to say to the system, “Surely we can do better.”

The statistics that the National Crime Agency released just a week or so ago are stark. They represent huge increases. I know we can say that that is because of greater awareness and such things, but when we have figures showing a 36% increase in the number of referrals in a year, there is no doubt that they signify a growing problem in our country.

I say to the Minister that it has come to something when the starkest increase in those figures is in the identification of child victims of exploitation. It is unbelievable to see that the referrals for children rose by 48% in comparison with 2017. They come into the care of the state, and many of them are, as the right hon. Gentleman said, going missing. Of course nobody wants that to happen, but when ECPAT UK—Every Child Protected Against Trafficking—is telling us that, according to its research, 15% go missing at least once, and 190 went missing permanently, it is a national disgrace. It is not that the Minister wants that to be happening, but it is a wake-up call for all of us to say that we should do more and do better.

Victim support is a crucial part of this. I say to the Minister that I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government are to an extent resisting Lord McColl’s Bill. Everything that the Government do is to try to improve victim support. If people have a conclusive grounds decision under the NRM, they will get 45 days. For most people, it is just impossible for their immigration status, even if it is a case of special discretionary leave, to be sorted out in that time, so they go into a twilight world. That is the reality.

I say to the Minister again that the whole system is bedevilled by the clash between the desire to support victims, and the immigration system. I think that we have to be a bit braver as a country and say that of course we want a fair and effective immigration system, and one that works, but we are not going to have a system that, because that is our priority, puts victims of trafficking and slavery at risk. There is a policy clash, and I know that the Minister is aware of it. I suspect that she goes and argues that and perhaps does not get the response that she wants, because in my mind I can hear her arguing what I am saying and others in government saying, “Unfortunately, we have to be careful, because it will be a pull factor and people will be swarming into the country on the basis of saying that they are victims of trafficking.” That is nonsense, and the Government need to sort it out. I very much support Lord McColl’s Bill.

I shall conclude my remarks to keep to six minutes, but I want to challenge the Minister. Section 49 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which relates to guidance about supporting victims, has still not been enacted three or four years after the Bill was, so the statutory guidance has not been dealt with. I know that the Minister is to consult on it and that different groups are interested. I should have declared at the beginning of my speech my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests about my links to the Human Trafficking Foundation. I just say to the Minister that there is a desire for broader consultation on the matter with the sector, and I think that that is important.

Finally, if we look at the child victims of trafficking in the system, it is astonishing to see that the majority of those children are British. The majority of trafficked children referred to the national referral mechanism are British. Surely it is a wake-up call to all of us, when we lecture the rest of the world, that we have a real problem ourselves—generally, because of county lines, and because of the experts. All of us know that this is a very real challenge. The children of our country deserve better and the victims of this country deserve much better support than they are getting at present. That is the challenge for all of us, and I know that the Minister will take it forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith) for securing this important debate on support for victims of modern slavery. I thank all right hon. and hon. Friends and Members for their collaborative contributions and for challenging me, the Minister, as they are right to do. I thank them for the tone of the debate; it was as is usual in this arena, particularly with Members who are committed to and interested in this subject.

We all agree that modern slavery is a heinous crime, and protecting victims of modern slavery is a responsibility that the Government take extremely seriously. Colleagues have been kind enough to describe the Modern Slavery Act 2015 as a landmark piece of legislation—it is—but we do not rest on our laurels, and we are always looking to improve on it. I hope colleagues understand that a host of measures support the implementation of the Act. As proof, if it is needed, colleagues can take our decision earlier this year to commission an independent review of the Act. The final interim report was published last week. The reports have been extremely interesting and useful, and I will talk later about one in particular.

I am keen to mention the Prime Minister’s call for action at the United Nations. She challenged the rest of the world to pay the same attention to modern slavery as we do, and to join us in our efforts to tackle it. She has set the ambitious target of ridding the world of modern slavery by 2030. Sadly, we all recognise that modern slavery is a crime that knows no international or geographical boundaries.

The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) rightly challenged me on the transparency of supply chains, as set out in section 54 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. He may be interested to know that after the debate I will be dashing to another part of Westminster to open the 2019 international conference on tackling modern slavery, forced labour and human trafficking in public sector supply chains. At the recent G20 meeting, the Prime Minister announced that the UK would become the first country to publish a modern slavery statement for central Government. We will be publishing that statement later this year, and it will cover work done by all central Government Departments. That is a significant step forward.

My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) challenged us to look at our own supply chains, whether in car washes or nail bars. He was right to mention car washes. I have on my phone the app “Safe Car Wash”, and a very useful app it is too, although I confess I clean my car less frequently than I get my nails done. The hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) is right to ask questions as her various beauty treatments are performed. Funnily enough, when I was talking to our new Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner, we discussed nail bars. As the beauty industry may or may not know—I do not know whether the letter has gone out—I will be challenging it to ensure that the products employed in its name are used in salons that meet our expectations for the way they treat their members of staff, and the efforts they make to tackle modern slavery.

Similarly, I had the pleasure of visiting Paris just before Paris fashion week for a conference hosted by our British ambassador. The world’s fashion industry, from haute couture all the way through to wonderful high-street brands such as Zara, was in the room to talk about how it can ensure that its supply chains are transparent. As a result, a number of British businesses are designing apps that can help consumers decide whether to purchase an item of clothing, depending on what the app tells them about the transparency and compliance of supply chains in the business that made it. All sorts of things are going on to enable us, as individuals, to do our bit to ensure we do not inadvertently support modern slavery.

Colleagues have rightly and understandably mentioned Lord McColl’s Bill, and I thank Lord McColl for his continued vital work in this arena. I understand that he is supporting the review with his expertise, and I am delighted to hear that. I am sorry to say to Members present that the Government do not support the assertion that victims should be automatically granted leave to remain for 12 months. Consideration of whether an individual is a victim of modern slavery and any decisions as to their immigration status are, and must remain, separate. Such decisions are made on an individual, case-by-case basis, and modern slavery is a broad umbrella term that covers a wide spectrum of crime. As we have heard, victims can have very different experiences and needs, so it is right that our approach to granting discretionary leave takes account of that.

We have concerns that a blanket policy of discretionary leave to remain risks incentivising individuals to make false trafficking claims, diverting support and time away from genuine victims. Indeed, on occasion, caseworkers hear very similar stories from victims, which lead them to think that a claim may not be legitimate. However, we are concerned with ensuring that the immigration system runs alongside the national referral mechanism as efficiently as possible. Non-EEA nationals will receive a conclusive grounds decision at the same time as their discretionary leave decision, unless they are claiming asylum; if they are, they will be considered for asylum before they are considered for discretionary leave, because asylum has its own different forms of leave. All victims are supported until they receive a conclusive grounds decision, regardless of how long that takes—the minimum is 45 days, but it may be longer—and confirmed victims get a further 45 days after that. Non-EEA nationals will receive a conclusive grounds decision and a discretionary leave decision, and they will then have 45 days of support.

Hon. Members rightly and understandably raised concerns about re-trafficking, which is one of the great fears of those who work to support victims, whether in the charitable, third sector or law enforcement space. A number of the reforms I will speak about aim to reduce the risk of re-trafficking. For example, we have extended move-on support from 14 days to 45 days so that victims have more time to transition out of NRM support. We are also testing six new approaches with six local authorities, of which Nottinghamshire is one, to identify best practice in linking victims with local services at the end of the NRM process. That is to increase resilience and guard against further exploitation.

[Vernon Coaker]

I thank the Minister for the contribution she is making, and I ask her to reflect on whether it is possible for us to collect data on what happens to people when they leave the system after 45 days. At the moment, that data is not collected, so we are unaware of what is going on and what happens to people in those circumstances.

[Victoria Atkins]

The hon. Gentleman has raised that point with me before; I take his point, and I am alert to it. The process will be complex, but that is not a reason for not doing it, so I am looking into that issue.

There have been reforms to the national referral mechanism, and we have already begun to improve the support that victims receive. As I have said, we extended the period of move-on support in February. Victims now receive 45 days of move-on support, in addition to the minimum 45 days of support received during the recovery and reflection period.

The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) challenged me about the statutory guidance under section 49 of the Act. Guidance is in the process of being drafted, and it has been shared with NGOs. I am keen to get this done as quickly as possible; the hon. Gentleman asked me whether we could have a wider consultation, but frankly, I think we need to get this done. We have shared that draft guidance with NGOs for their feedback, but I am also mindful of the judgment in the case of K & AM v. Secretary of State for the Home Department. I would rather get this done than wait three months, or however long a public consultation takes. However, if colleagues have any observations about the guidance, that would be welcome and gratefully received.

We are identifying more victims than ever before. Last week, the National Crime Agency released the 2018 NRM statistics, which were chilling: 6,993 potential victims were referred to the NRM in 2018, representing a 36% increase since 2017. We are obviously pleased that there is greater awareness of the NRM and how we should treat victims of modern slavery, but it leaves us with the great challenge of how hidden this crime is and the need to help the many thousands of victims who are coming forward. Sadly, we also know about the impact that the phenomenon of county lines is having in this area, which is a subject that many Members have raised. I will address that issue when I come to talk about children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

We are not building the system around abuse. We are building the system around the fact that, as has already been mentioned, the largest cohort of referrals to the NRM are British. Modern slavery exists in and of itself, and it sits separately from the asylum system. We must ensure that we have support for victims of modern slavery, as we do through the national referral mechanism. Questions of immigration are in addition to the support they will get through the national referral mechanism. Not every victim of modern slavery or human trafficking is a non-EEA national. The statistics, sadly, show that very clearly.

We are launching a digital system later this spring to help to make our delivery of support much more efficient, and that will help first responders to ensure that victims get into the system as quickly as possible. We are seeing faster decision-making times than ever before. We have more than doubled the number of caseworkers working on the NRM. The single competent authority launched in its shadow form in January 2019 and is on track to be fully launched in April. That single, expert unit will make all NRM decisions, regardless of the potential victims’ nationality. That will be a significant step forward, and I hope it will help victims once they are in the system.

[Vernon Coaker]

In this part of her speech, will the Minister say something about the review process of the Modern Slavery Act 2015? Deliberations are complete and will be with the Government, including measures or recommendations about victim support. For the benefit of the debate, does she know what the consideration of that will be, when the Government expect to respond and whether that response will be published for Parliament so that we can all look at it and discuss it?

[Victoria Atkins]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has helped the review with his expertise. I cannot recall the date off the top of my head, but we have been considering the interim reports as they have been published. We do not want to rush; we want to get it right. Alongside the work on the statutory guidance we are drafting, I am clear that we want a response in good time. We are not going to hang around, but we want to get it right. I very much want to publish it, because Members will want to look at our response.

I must thank the reviewers—the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) and Baroness Butler-Sloss—and the secretariat for their work in formulating the reports, which have been incredibly thoughtful and focused in their recommendations. I am considering each interim report. I do not know whether the reviewers want to tie all the reports into one big report at the end, but we will be responding soon.

We are conscious of the responsibilities to ensure that the next victim care contract meets the expectations of everyone involved in tackling modern slavery. It will include landmark reforms such as places of safety, which will provide up to three days of immediate support to victims rescued out of a situation of exploitation by law enforcement. It will include an inspection regime for safe houses. We are working with the Care Quality Commission to develop that, and it will be underpinned by the slavery and trafficking survivor care standards. I am grateful to the sector for its work in drawing that together. In providing support to victims, we must remember that every victim’s journey is different. I visited a safe house recently, and that point was re-emphasised to me by every person and resident I spoke to there.

Offensive Weapons Bill

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 26th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I must move on because I am conscious that others wish to speak.

Let me return to KCPOs. I know that the shadow Minister has tabled some amendments, and I will deal with them in a moment. On the question of age and the concern that youth offending teams must be consulted, we have included in the Bill a requirement that youth offending teams must be consulted on any orders for people under the age of 18. We have also said that we will consult publicly on the guidance with community groups, youth organisations and others before these orders are brought into force.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

Before the Minister finishes discussing prevention orders, will she tell the House a little bit more about the pilots? How many pilots are there going to be, when are they going to start and how long will they last? Given the urgency of implementing this legislation and the concerns that have been raised, will the Government report back to the House on how the pilots have operated, so that we have a further opportunity to amend and adapt the measures if necessary?

[Victoria Atkins]

Yes. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the pilots. Some of the concerns raised today were also raised in the other place, so their lordships saw fit to insert an amendment regarding piloting. I hope that it gives some comfort to the House that we will pilot the provisions in one or more specified areas in England and Wales. We have not yet determined which forces will have the privilege of starting these pilots. The second condition of piloting is that the Secretary of State will lay before Parliament

“a report on the operation of some or all of the provisions”

relating to KCPOs, so the House will be fully updated on the progress. I am sorry that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman more details regarding the operational aspects of the pilots at this precise moment in time, but I want to deal with the amendments tabled by the shadow Minister.

Amendments (b) and (c) to Lords amendment 7, and amendment (a) to Lords amendment 14, would make it a requirement for the police to obtain—and, by implication, for the youth offending team to produce—a pre-injunction report, including an assessment of the defendant, before making an application on conviction, or otherwise than on conviction if the defendant is under the age of 18, and to provide that report to the court as part of their application. It follows from this proposed amendment that the outcome of the consultation should be available to the court. The requirement to consult is an important safeguard to ensure that the youth offending team has a chance to influence the process, and we expect the YOT’s view to be before the court when it is considering the application. We will state in guidance that we expect the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to share with the court the outcome of the consultation with the youth offending team, and we will reinforce the message during the pilots that the applicant police force should share the outcome of the YOT consultation with the court.

Amendment (c) to Lords amendment 12 would also set down a requirement in relation to a pre-injunction report. Again, we believe that the requirement to consult the youth offending team addresses this, and I am not persuaded that it would be appropriate to include a requirement to consult the youth offending team if an application without notice were made, given the urgency of such applications. However, the consultation requirement must be fulfilled before the full hearing takes place.

Amendment (d) to Lords amendment 7 is not needed. The Bill already provides a power for the court to require evidence from the individual responsible for promoting, supporting and monitoring compliance with any requirement included in the order. That individual could be the youth offending team, but it could also be a community group or a charity, for example. Let me remind the House that the police fully support the provisions in the Bill as they stand in the Lords amendments that we have tabled in the Home Secretary’s name. There are already safeguards in the Bill to ensure that the orders are proportionate and that the views of the youth offending teams are taken into account during the application process. I therefore ask the shadow Home Secretary and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) not to press their amendments.

Amendment (a) to Lords amendment 23 requires a report to be laid before Parliament on the outcome of the pilots. I would expect that, as has already been set out in our amendment, a report will be laid before Parliament about the success or otherwise of the pilots, and that KCPOs will be the subject of ongoing scrutiny.

Draft Immigration (European Economic Area Nationals) (EU Exit) Order 2019

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2019 General Committees

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

If someone is automatically granted entry, there will be no stamp or visa in their passport, so how will we know when the three months are up and they have to apply to stay on?

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Gentleman makes a point. I gently remind him that they receive no stamp in their passport now; they travel through e-gates with no stamp, and the order extends that right.

[Vernon Coaker]

Will the hon. Lady give way again?

[Caroline Nokes]

If the hon. Gentleman stops chuntering from a sedentary position, that will allow me to finish responding to his first intervention. Those citizens will come through the e-gates and receive their automatic three months’ leave to enter, but beyond that it is important to reflect that we will have left the European Union and there will indeed be a change.

[Vernon Coaker]

I apologise for chuntering; I do not normally chunter—I normally shout. My question is: how will we know when the three months are up? Currently, they have the right to stay, but they will presumably have to leave after three months unless they apply to stay for longer. How will the enforcement authorities know that the three months are up?

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that we will be transitioning to the new system, so there will be very light-touch enforcement. It is important to reflect, however, that the process is changing until the point at which we introduce the new immigration system in 2021.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vernon Coaker]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Austin, and to follow the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, who, with my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton, has made several important points. I say to the Minister, and the Committee, that this measure is hugely important. Statutory instruments are not regarded as being on the Floor of the House, but they are important pieces of legislation that have a dramatic effect and impact on people’s lives.

As I say in virtually every statutory instrument Committee—I will repeat myself—we all often get people coming to our surgeries who say, “This has happened. Why did you pass it?”, and we then have to trawl back through the statutory instruments to find the regulation that implemented it. One of the processes that I think Parliament has a problem with is that, even if it is a good idea, an SI cannot be amended—it is a case of take it or leave it. That causes all of us, across the House, great problems at times, and is perhaps something that we should address on another occasion in a different forum.

The order is one part of a complex set of arrangements about the status of non-EU nationals, EEA nationals, EU nationals—people leaving, staying or short-term working, and also students. I cannot keep up with those arrangements, but on the particular issue in question, the Minister should give us some clarity about the points made by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire. All of us want people to be clear about what it is they have to do in order to stay here. To be honest, when I was doing research to prepare for the Committee, I found it difficult to unpick the various websites and understand things myself.

This is not just a matter of the various Opposition parties, whether the SNP or ourselves. The House of Lords Select Committee that looks into SIs has written to the Home Office to raise certain concerns about the practical implementation of the policy. The European Union sub-committee in the Lords has written to the Home Secretary about the matter.

There are very specific concerns that I ask the Minister to address. First, at the end of free movement, for three months somebody can automatically come into the country. The Minister says that the normal processes will apply, but when somebody has come in automatically—they will have come through customs and immigration—how on earth will the Government know when the three months are up? There is no system because such people will automatically come in. It is not right for the Minister to say that the normal process will apply, because there is no process. What is the process? There is no stamping.

I am not saying that the policy is wrong or right. It is good that people can come in, but the law says that after three months they have to either get indefinite leave to remain or go. That implies enforcement action. What is that enforcement action? How will the authorities know when to start enforcement action? There is no form to tell them that the three months are up. The Minister needs to explain that to all of us. Otherwise, whether it be in north Cornwall or other parts of the country, we will have people turning up at our surgeries after seven or eight and a half months—or, as sometimes happens, after a couple of years—saying, “I’ve been here for years and my kids are going to school, and now the Home Office is banging on the door saying I’ve got to go.” That causes huge problems. Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the policy, if its bureaucratic implementation is not right, how can it work?

[Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that our backlog of casework and constituency problems will be added to with this huge load of additional legislation and bureaucracy that we have to try to understand, and that our case workers have to understand? Does he share my concern about whether the Home Office itself, as well as us MPs, will be fully educated on how the whole new system will work in the first place?

--- Later in debate ---

[Vernon Coaker]

I agree absolutely. That is the point I am making to the Minister. By the way, I agree with the hon. Member for Lichfield about reciprocal arrangements. The Opposition Front-Bench spokesman made the same point, and the Government will no doubt be arguing the point with other EU countries. Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of the policy, however, the least that the public can expect is that it will be bureaucratically cohesive. My point and that of the House of Lords is this: how can it be when we have no idea about how the three months will be judged? Will it be guessed? Will the employer, the university, the college or somebody in the family have to say? I say honestly to the Minister that nobody has a clue and that she needs to have a better answer about how enforcement will take place.

Let me ask another point about the bureaucracy. How long will the process take if somebody thinks, after a couple of months, that they might need to stay? What happens if they go beyond the three months but they are applying for indefinite leave to remain? Does that stop the enforcement action? I am saying this because sometimes I contact the Home Office and it takes months to get a reply. Again, the issue is the bureaucracy. I am not saying whether the policy is right or wrong, but what will happen? Is the enforcement action automatically put on hold if somebody has applied and they go beyond the three months? Is the enforcement action automatically stopped? I hope that I have made sense.

The Minister has confirmed that the application is free, but how long will it take? It would be helpful if she explained to the Committee what will happen with respect to all that process. Can she explain what “enforcement” means? Is it gentle persuasion, or what? Enforcement sometimes means people going round and forcibly removing individuals. Is that what we expect to happen in the worst circumstances? Is it a possibility?

Let me move on from the three months. If somebody gets indefinite leave to remain, is that forever? Does indefinite leave mean that they can stay? If somebody then leaves the country—

[Caroline Nokes]

I want to make to the hon. Gentleman a really important point of clarification. He has repeatedly used the phrase “indefinite leave to remain”. That is not what we are discussing: we are discussing temporary leave to remain.

[Vernon Coaker]

So after the three months, somebody has temporary leave to remain. Then they go back—outside the country. The Minister, in the measure, extends the period from two years to five years, when that temporary leave presumably stays—the Minister will have to explain that, because there is confusion. The explanatory note talks about this, and the House of Lords Committee has written about it. In relation to the temporary arrangements, if the period for which somebody can be outside the country is extended from two years to five years, how will they prove that they have that entitlement if there is no stamp in their passport, or no document?

[Caroline Nokes]

It is important to make this distinction. The five years for which somebody can be outside the country does not relate to the European temporary leave to remain; it relates to the EU settled status scheme. Those are two quite separate things.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vernon Coaker]

I take the point that the Minister has made, which is perfectly fair, but the point that I am trying to make—and probably have not made very well—is that I accept that this is under the EU settlement scheme, but the period for which somebody can be outside the country is extended from two years to five years. Again, it is the House of Lords asking this; it has written to the Government about it. The Minister needs to explain not only to this Committee, but to the House of Lords. The House of Lords is expressing concerns.

How will somebody who has been outside the country for four or five years, and then decides to come back, prove to the Home Office that, because the period is now five years, they have the right to return? What document is available that will demonstrate to the Home Office authorities that they have the right to come back into the country and remain here? That is the point that the House of Lords Committee makes. Again, it is wondering about the documentation.

This is the point that I am making to the Minister. In every area, whether we look at the EU settlement scheme or the temporary arrangements, the bureaucracy is unclear. It does not matter which part we are talking about—if the bureaucracy and documentation are not clear, we will be in a really difficult situation. Each and every one of us, including the Minister, will have individuals coming to our constituency surgery. We will be writing to the Minister, saying that we have real problems with this temporary leave because there is no way of providing proof; somebody is telling us that they have been here, but there is nothing to prove whether they have or they have not.

It is ludicrous to pass the order when I honestly believe that, bureaucratically, it cannot work. Why are we passing it? I will finish, because I am repeating myself.

This is ludicrous. We have no way of demonstrating whether somebody has been here for three months. The Minister cannot explain it, yet, according to the regulations we are passing, people will be chucked out with enforcement action. However, we will not know whether they have been here for three months, because there is no document in their passport to tell us, unless they put their hand up and say, “By the way, I have been here for three months—I need to go.” I say to the Minister, in all honesty, that we have to have greater clarity.

I have been in this place for a little while, as you know, Mr Austin. Regulations passed when they clearly have faults cause immense problems down the road. This is not about whether the policy is right or wrong; it does not stand up bureaucratically. It is a nonsense for us to pass it.

[The Chair]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I am afraid that I will have to suspend the sitting for a couple of minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Lady may be aware that as part of the future immigration system, I am consulting on specific issues, along with Home Office colleagues and officials across the whole United Kingdom. The 36-month temporary leave to remain is uppermost in the minds of organisations such as Universities UK, and representations were made about it in the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill Committee’s recent evidence sessions. Home Office officials and Ministers are very much alive to the issue.

The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton mentioned the fee level for the European temporary leave to remain. He will be aware that we do not comment on leaks, but the announcement on fees will be made shortly. The European temporary leave to remain scheme is being developed, and would be delivered, using infrastructure already in place for the EU settlement scheme. In the event of a deal, we will not need the temporary leave to remain scheme; in the event of no deal, we would not expect the inflow of EEA citizens to be any greater than the number of people arriving during the implementation period between exit and 31 December 2020 in a deal scenario, who would otherwise have been eligible for the EU settlement scheme. We are therefore confident that we will have sufficient capacity to process applications.

Hon. Members asked about the EU settlement scheme, which is in its third public testing phase. I would like to give an update: there have now been more than 160,000 applications under the scheme, of which the vast majority have been settled within three days. We are pleased with the progress made, but of course we continue to keep it under very close observation.

[Vernon Coaker]

For the benefit of the Committee, that is 160,000 out of how many?

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Gentleman will be very well aware of the figure used: 3.5 million. I am sure that he cannot be unfamiliar with that figure, because we mention it a lot of the time.

As I said, the scheme is still in a testing phase. It is important to emphasise that it is still not fully open; if the draft order is approved, the scheme will open on 30 March and will then be free. I am sure that hon. Members will be relieved to hear that last week we laid before Parliament the statutory instrument that will enable us to make the scheme free and effect refunds to those who have already been through it. Individuals will not have to apply for refunds; they will be made automatically to the card originally used to pay the fee. In the relatively few instances in which the card has expired in the meantime, we will make provision to contact the relevant individuals and ensure that they are refunded.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

I want to cover some more ground, because I am conscious that if I do not complete my comments, there will be a vote at 7.30 pm without my having responded to many of the points that have already been made.

The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire raised the issue of how individuals would know whether they had met the conditions to qualify for automatic leave. The draft order sets out the conditions that need to be met to qualify for automatic leave. They include a person being an EEA or Swiss national; holding an EEA or Swiss passport or national identity card; requiring leave to enter—that is, not having been previously resident in the UK before it leaves the European Union; and being entitled to apply for the EU settlement scheme.

A number of Members raised the issue of enforcement and how we would establish whether people had been here for more than three months. Those EEA and Swiss nationals who arrive after free movement has ended, in a no-deal scenario, should apply for European temporary leave to remain if they wish to stay longer. I am clear on the importance of clear communication, so that individuals understand their status. Upstream communications would seek to ensure that individuals are aware of the requirement to apply for European temporary leave to remain if they wish to stay longer than three months.

The Home Office is working closely with other Departments on communicating the immigration arrangements in a no-deal scenario to key sectors and stakeholders. That includes information on gov.uk to reassure inbound travellers, which went live on the 4th of this month. In addition, preparations are under way for a comprehensive communications campaign in two weeks. As I mentioned, the EU settled status scheme has so far received well over 160,000 applications. I have referred to the SI that will ensure that the scheme fee is lifted and that refunds will be possible.

A number of Members mentioned Windrush; the scheme’s design anticipates many of the Windrush issues. EEA nationals will have plenty of time to make an application. There are dedicated caseworking teams. Support is available for the vulnerable on the phone, in local libraries, in a dedicated call centre, and even in people’s homes. The Home Office has made available £9 million of grants to organisations working with the vulnerable, to enable them to assist those people in the process.

It is important that we provide clear communications on the rights of those in the UK before the UK leaves the EU, and on the requirements for those who arrive after the UK leaves. If EU citizens in the UK prior to exit fail to apply under the settled status scheme, they will not be here actively unlawfully in the same way as clandestine entrants or overstayers. We will give those who have reasonable grounds for missing the deadlines further opportunities to apply.

There was mention of entry via Ireland. We do not operate routine immigration controls on journeys from within the common travel area to the UK. However, EEA and Swiss citizens entering from Ireland will benefit from the leave by order provisions. Those entering from the Crown dependencies will already have leave granted by the islands, recognised by the UK under our integrated legal framework.

The hon. Members for Central Ayrshire and for Glasgow Central raised the subject of women who might be in abusive relationships. We accept a wide range of documents to evidence five years of residence, and dedicated casework teams will help applicants to prove their residence. As I said, we are providing £9 million of funding to help those with vulnerabilities, which is important to ensure they can access the support services we have targeted specifically at them.

I was asked in which circumstances leave would be cancelled at the border. The automatic leave to enter provision will ensure that we can continue to smooth the passage of legitimate travellers through the border, while maintaining the security of the borders. The ability to cancel leave is therefore a key element in making sure we maintain the correct balance.

A question was raised about whether the EU settled status scheme was compliant with the requirements of the general data protection regulation. We take our data protection and security responsibility very seriously. All our data activity must be compliant with the data protection legislation. We want to reassure applicants that we do not allow access to their information by any unauthorised person or body, and can share data only where it is absolutely necessary and where we have a legal basis for doing so.

There are some good examples of where the ability to share data has been of benefit, not least in the settled status scheme’s ability to share information with HMRC and the Department for Work and Pensions; that has enabled a significant majority of those going through the process to have achieved settled status already, without having to provide any additional information. The hon. Member for Gedling spoke about the complexity of the immigration rules, and I have some sympathy with his view. He may not yet be aware of the Law Commission’s consultation on the immigration rules, which is specifically designed to make them simpler and more straightforward, but I urge him and all hon. Members to participate in it.

[Vernon Coaker]

I wish them luck!

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Gentleman wishes them luck; on my first day as Immigration Minister, I made the point that the more than 1,000 pages of immigration guidance and rules was excessive, and asked what steps we could take to simplify them. I very much hope that this process with the Law Commission and, indeed, the future borders and immigration system will be simpler and more straightforward than our current system, which of course has evolved over many decades.

Questions were raised about how long the European temporary leave to remain applications would take. As I have said, we intend to use the architecture of the EU settled status scheme and for the applications to be similarly streamlined. Some 75% of applicants in the most recent phase of the EU settled status scheme received their decision within three days.

There were also questions raised about the automatic leave provisions allowing individuals to travel into and out of the UK, and to be granted leave to enter for three months at a time on each arrival. This arrangement is absolutely intended to avoid a cliff edge and to smooth the passage of legitimate travellers across the border after the end of free movement. My hon. Friend the Member for Poole stressed the importance of avoiding cliff edges and allowing ourselves time to transition to the new borders and immigration system, which of course will not be introduced until January 2021.

The arrangements are, as was intended, similar to the status quo under EU law. EU nationals can live here for three months, but their right to stay in the UK for longer than three months is conditional; they must be a worker, a student or self-sufficient. Temporary leave to remain, just like settled status, will have a digital status, so people will be able to provide evidence of their right to be here. Non-EEA dependants will have biometric immigration cards.

The hon. Member for Glasgow Central mentioned allowing EEA nationals to travel into and out of the UK frequently. That is absolutely our intention. We want them to be able to travel smoothly and easily. Some of her other comments related more broadly to the immigration White Paper, which she will be aware we are engaging on over the course of this year, and not necessarily to the statutory instrument before us.

Knife Crime

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

My right hon. Friend yet again attempts to skewer a Minister with a short, direct question. He knows that I must, and will, defend the independence of the judiciary, but my colleagues in the Ministry of Justice and I do emphasise the point to the judiciary about the public messaging of sentences. We impose mandatory minimum sentences for those who are found in possession of knives precisely to get the message out there that this is simply not on.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

Can I tell the Minister what the country is saying to the Government? It is saying, “Get a grip of this, and get a grip of it urgently.” Let me give her an example of what I mean. We had a crisis meeting yesterday where the police chiefs demanded emergency funding. The Home Secretary supported that and said that he wanted £15 million of emergency funding. The Chancellor then went on the radio this morning and said that it was a question not of additional resources but of re-prioritisation by the police. Absolutely pathetic! It is about time the Government listened to what the police chiefs are saying. This should not be a matter of debate. They want emergency funding so that they can surge police numbers into those areas where there are real problems. In the short term, that is what works, although of course we need a public health approach in the longer term. Surging police numbers into those areas requires emergency funding, so the Chancellor should be told where to go and the Home Secretary should be supported by the Prime Minister. The whole of this House will say, “Give the police the money they need to tackle this scourge.” The public of this country will have no idea what we are doing if we do not do that, so get a grip and give the police the money they need.

[Victoria Atkins]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, although I might not have employed all the language that he used. Yesterday’s meeting was not a crisis meeting; it was part of a programme of meetings that the Home Secretary has regularly with chief constables, precisely as one would hope.

On the hon. Gentleman’s point about resourcing, we voted recently to provide just under £1 billion to police forces, with the help of police and crime commissioners. We are actively looking at what the chiefs are saying and what more they need. We are conscious of the need to ensure, over the long term, that in the surge exercises that they conduct regularly as part of their operational policing powers, they can get their officers to the places where they need to be. So I do not think there is any disagreement here about operations; about how the police can crack down on this. The Home Secretary discussed that in detail yesterday with the chiefs precisely because we want to listen to their needs and take the matter forward.

Knife Crime

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I join my hon. Friend in the condolences he just expressed; it is a truly senseless loss of life. He is also right to commend the response of Greater Manchester police to the tragedy.

My hon. Friend asked about resources. In terms of the increase in funding I referred to earlier—£970 million this year—it is good to see that almost all police forces across the country, including GMP, have responded by saying they will be hiring a significant number of officers to add to the frontline. The figure is almost 3,000 in total so far, but it is good to see that police forces across the country are looking to see what they can do to make a real difference.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

No one doubts the Home Secretary’s desire to do something about knife crime across the country, but does he not recognise that for months this House has been crying out for the Government to get a grip: it has been crying out for the Government to do more about this? Belatedly, we all seem to be recognising that it is a national crisis—a national emergency. In the face of national emergencies—whether terrorism, flooding, or foot and mouth—the Government convene Cobra, because Cobra drives the Government forward with an urgency and passion that is lacking at present. Will the Home Secretary go back to the Prime Minister and say that we need to convene Cobra—we need to bring the right people together to drive forward with the enthusiasm and desire that this needs to be tackled as the national emergency that it is?

[Sajid Javid]

This is a hugely important priority issue across the Government: it was discussed very recently, just in the past few weeks, in the Cabinet, and just a couple of weeks ago we had a debate in this House on serious violence, both to set out the Government’s plans but also to listen to hon. Members across the House on new initiatives that can be taken forward. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to talk about this being an urgent priority, and it is important that we all work together to see what more we can do.

Seasonal Agricultural Workers Scheme

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Mr Hurd]

I certainly note that point, and I quite understand where it comes from, given the constituency my hon. Friend represents. I will ensure that the Immigration Minister takes that on board.

As the House knows, we have published an ambitious White Paper, setting out proposals for our future skills-based immigration system. That includes introducing, as a transitional measure, a new temporary short-term workers route to ensure that UK businesses, irrespective of sector, have the staff they need, including seasonal workers, and to help employers move smoothly to the future system. However, this debate is principally about the two-year seasonal workers pilot, which allows non-EU migrants to work on UK farms for six months, specifically in the edible horticultural sector, and I will use the time remaining to focus on the concerns the hon. Member for Nottingham North raised.

We are very clear that we want to support UK businesses, but it is just as important to us that everyone working in our economy is safe and is treated fairly and with respect. Exploiting people for their labour, subjecting them to horrific conditions such as those we have seen in the past, and denying them basic employment rights is of course a form of abuse.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

That is the fundamental point. We must give people not only the right to complain but the confidence to come forward. Will the Minister consider talking to the Immigration Minister about how to give that confidence to people who come to work on these schemes, both when they arrive and before they leave their countries?

[Mr Hurd]

I certainly take on board that point and give that undertaking. We are determined to protect workers from abuse and to crack down on employers who try to profit from exploiting people. The Modern Slavery Act 2015 is a world-leading landmark that gives law enforcement agencies the tools to deal with offenders and provides enhanced protection for victims, but we recognise that the nature of labour exploitation continues to evolve. We believe we are keeping pace with that, having introduced further measures to tackle exploitation through the Immigration Act 2016. We have widened the remit of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, giving it new powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to investigate serious labour market offences, including modern slavery offences, in all sectors. Those principles underpin all our immigration employment arrangements.

Let me turn to the clear and robust protections we have built into the design of the pilot, which were central to the line of inquiry from the hon. Member for Nottingham North. At the heart of those protections is our sponsorship system, which will be used to manage the licensing of the organisations—the scheme operators—selected to manage the pilot. The sponsor licensing system places clear and binding requirements and obligations on scheme operators, including robust responsibilities to ensure the welfare of participating migrant workers. Critically, it also gives the Home Office clear powers to revoke an operator’s licence if it falls short in its duties. That will be underpinned by a robust monitoring and compliance regime, which will include site visits by Home Office sponsor compliance teams.

On the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), the Home Office is working closely with the GLAA to share best practice for conducting such compliance visits and to share intelligence about our respective findings. We are absolutely determined to get this right. We have no desire to go backwards. We need to learn from the past.

The tier 2 and tier 5 sponsor guidance published by the Home Office on 11 January sets out organisations’ full responsibilities towards their seasonal workers. Those include ensuring that the work environment is safe and complies with all relevant health and safety requirements; that workers are treated fairly by their employer and are not threatened with or subjected to violence; that workers are paid properly, with time off and proper breaks; that workers are housed in hygienic and safe accommodation, although it is not mandatory for workers to live in accommodation provided by their employer; that workers’ passports are not withheld from them; and that procedures are in place to enable migrants to report any concerns and to move to another employer.

Should either of the selected operators fall short in those duties, action will be taken, up to and including the revocation of their sponsor licences. As a prerequisite for becoming a scheme operator, each organisation must hold and maintain licencing from the GLAA. Should a scheme operator lose its GLAA licensing at any point, its sponsor licence will be revoked with immediate effect.

I understand that the issue of debt bondage is of particular concern to the hon. Member for Nottingham North. Placing someone in debt bondage would constitute a failure to comply with the licensing standards and lead to the revocation of the operator’s licence. That in turn would lead to the revocation of its licence to act as a scheme operator. We therefore believe we have the sanctions in place to tackle that unacceptable practice. It is, however, important that we are alive to that risk and remain vigilant to any risk of exploitation.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether the GLAA requires additional resources as a result of the pilot. I reassure him that the pilot is very much business as usual for the GLAA. We believe that an additional 2,500 workers will not place a significant additional burden on it, especially at a time when the sector tells us the overall number of seasonal workers is decreasing.

The Immigration Minister and I would be happy to look at any proposals put forward by Unite, as the hon. Gentleman suggested. I hope he is reassured by the range of protective measures we have put in place and by the clear requirements on scheme operators. We are confident that we have designed the scheme in a way that addresses his concerns.

Question put and agreed to.

Knife Crime Prevention Orders

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Monday 4th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary if he will make a statement on knife crime prevention orders.

[Mr Speaker]

Before we proceed further on this matter, let me say this. I warmly welcome the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office, and I am sure I speak for colleagues in saying that we look forward to her characteristic competence and commitment at the Dispatch Box. That said, let it be crystal clear that the Secretary of State for the Home Department should be in this Chamber answering this urgent question.

I know the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), and I have known him since he entered this House in 2010. For what it is worth, I am sure he is a very clever fellow, and on a one-to-one basis I have always found him unfailingly courteous. However, for him to fail to be in the Chamber on Thursday to make a statement about his new anti-knife crime initiative was at best ill judged and at worst rank discourteous to the House of Commons. If the right hon. Gentleman was able to find time to brief or to ensure that others briefed the newspapers on his behalf, and he managed to scuttle off to do a radio interview and then to pop up on “The Andrew Marr Show” yesterday to give viewers and the nation the benefit of his views, the right hon. Gentleman should have been here.

If the Secretary of State for the Home Department aspires to something a little more elevated than to be a jobbing functionary of the Executive branch and wants to be a serious and respected parliamentarian, he has to develop antennae and respect for the rights of the House of Commons. In the circumstances—and he has had notice that he should be here—it is both ill judged and rude of the Secretary of State for the Home Department to send his, admittedly brilliant, junior Minister into the Chamber when he should be here. I am sorry; I take no view on the policy because that is not for the Speaker to do, but in procedural terms it really is time that he upped his game.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)]

Mr Speaker, if I may, I will address that point before we move on to the very important issue at hand. I know that the Home Secretary means absolutely no discourtesy—he is a regular and assiduous Minister. I hope that I will be able to answer questions today in a way that meets with the House’s approval. Please do not think that this in any way undermines our commitment to this important topic. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will hear what you have said, Mr Speaker.

Knife crime is devastating for victims, families and our communities. The Government are determined to do all they can to tackle it, along with our partners across civil society, including local government and those in education, health, policing and the charitable sector. We have a comprehensive programme of action set out in the serious violence strategy to tackle knife crime and prevent young people from being drawn into crime and violence. This public health approach includes support for prevention projects through the early intervention youth fund and the anti-knife crime community fund, support for police weeks of action under Operation Sceptre, and our ongoing media campaign #knifefree to encourage young people to understand that there are alternatives to carrying knives.

We will also be building on longer-term intervention work, with the new £200 million youth endowment fund, and consulting on a new legal duty to underpin multi-agency work to tackle serious violence. However, it is also vital that the police have the powers they need. That is why we listened when the police—those on the frontline in confronting knife-carrying young people—told us that they required additional powers of intervention to deal more effectively with people being drawn into knife crime, and we have acted.

The police asked us to introduce knife crime prevention orders to reach young people before they are convicted of an offence. These orders are aimed at young people who are at risk of engaging in knife crime, at people the police call “habitual knife carriers” of any age, and at those who have been convicted of a violent offence involving knives. The orders will enable the courts to place restrictions on people, such as curfews and geographical restrictions, as well as requirements such as engaging in positive interventions. The intention is that the new orders will be preventive and will support those subject to them in staying away from crime.

We have therefore tabled amendments to the Offensive Weapons Bill, which is currently before the other place. The amendments were tabled last Tuesday, and in line with parliamentary convention, a letter was sent to all noble peers who spoke at Second Reading, as well as to the Chairs of the Home Affairs Committee, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Delegated Powers Committee, and to shadow Ministers from Her Majesty’s Opposition and the Scottish National party. A copy of the letter was placed in the Lords Library, and a copy is being placed in the Commons Library.

The amendments to the Offensive Weapons Bill, which introduce these orders, are due to be considered in the other place in detail this Wednesday. The Bill will, of course, return to this House after it has completed its passage through the Lords, and I hope all Members on both sides of the House will lend their full support to this important new preventive measure when the Bill returns to this place.

[Vernon Coaker]

I appreciate the Minister being here, but this is a matter of national significance, which has been raised in this House by Members on both sides. The Home Secretary has one of the most important positions in Government; he is looked to by the public of this country to be a lead in tackling these issues—not just in London, but right across the country. Time and time again in this Chamber, I and others have asked where the Home Secretary is. I tell the Minister this: the British public will look at this, and they will find it incredible—absolutely incredible—that the Home Secretary can appear on the television and go to various places to address meetings, but that he cannot turn up in this Chamber to explain an initiative that he has put forward. The public of this country will be asking the simple question: where is he? I said on Thursday that he was invisible; he is not just invisible—he has vanished from this Chamber. It is not good enough, and something needs to be done.

According to the police, 10,000 children are involved in county lines. Knife crime offences across the country are at record levels. Homicides are at record levels. Children are being slaughtered on the streets and these orders are what the Government come forward with. It is simply not good enough.

Why is it necessary to have knife crime prevention orders when it is already a criminal offence to have a knife in public without good reason? The Minister talked about “habitually” carrying a knife. For goodness’ sake, it is not habitual. Something needs to be done! Instead of introducing new laws, why does not the Minister, with others, support the police to enforce existing laws? Why have we seen a reduction in police numbers, when her own evidence tells her that they make a difference in tackling this issue? Is it not the case that knife crime prevention orders merely paper over the cracks? Of course we want to prevent young people from becoming involved, but where are the youth services? Where are the street workers? Where are the people out there working with young people who have been excluded from school to prevent them from getting into trouble in the first place?

How will knife crime prevention orders tackle the huge crisis facing our country? Instead of introducing the orders, the Home Secretary should be chairing Cobra. This is a national emergency. This is a national crisis. Up and down the country people will wonder why the Government are not using the full force of the state to tackle it. They need to help the young people who are having problems with knife crime and tackle the criminal gangs who ruthlessly exploit them.

MI5, GCHQ, MI6 and the National Crime Agency, led by the Home Secretary, should be reporting regularly to Parliament. Anybody would of course welcome serious crime prevention orders if they helped, but the British public and Members will all want to know, from the Minister and from the Government, why the state will not respond with ruthlessness and determination to take on the criminal activity that is putting so many of our young people in danger and ruining the lives of countless people in communities across the country. If there was a terrorist act, the state, quite rightly, would respond. I tell the Minister this: this is a national emergency. The lives of countless families and young people are being ruined. We need to step up to the mark. The British public demand no less of all of us.

[Victoria Atkins]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his impassioned question. He will know, from the discussions we have constantly on this topic, that the Home Office is a team. Colleagues will have noticed the Policing Minister sitting next to me. This is a team effort, not just in the Home Office but across Government and across civil society.

We are introducing the orders because at the very end of August last year the police asked us for a preventive order to get to a very small cohort of children, who have not yet been convicted of criminal offences but on whom the police have received intelligence, in an effort to intervene before they get a first conviction, with all the terrible repercussions that can have both for the victims of any crimes they commit but also for their own life chances. These orders are about prevention. We want to give the police the power, through the Bill, to seek an order from a court, on a civil standard of proof, so that the state can wrap its arms around children if schools and local police officers think they are at risk of carrying knives frequently. The orders mirror similar prevention orders we have, such as sexual harm prevention orders, by placing negative and positive requirements on children who do not necessarily have a criminal conviction, to try to drag them away from the gangs that the hon. Gentleman rightly identifies as being central to this criminality.

Last week, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) invited me to his constituency. I heard from a group of people who are on the frontline tackling these crimes how young vulnerable children are being targeted by criminal gangs. This is why we have the serious violence strategy. This is why we have the cross-party serious violence taskforce. This is why we have the serious organised crime strategy. We want to tackle not just the exploitation of children, but the criminals behind it. We can agree on one thing, which is that we all want this to stop. We will achieve that by working together and by intervening early.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to speak in the debate. I was reflecting, as I think the country is, on how we arrived at this point. It seems that a catastrophic failure of leadership has brought us to within a few weeks of when we are supposed to leave the European Union without us having any clear plan for what that should look like. There is no clear consensus in Parliament, or indeed our country. When the history books are written, they will see the way that the Government have run things since the referendum as absolutely catastrophic. History will also write that, at this time, particularly yesterday, Parliament recognised the importance of reasserting its authority to try to ensure some sort of reason was brought to the chaos all around us.

How can a Government be held in contempt by the Parliament that they are supposed to control? That has never happened in our history. It is simply astonishing that that just seems to have been swept away. So I say with sorrow that we are in a situation now where as a Parliament we are looking to say what sort of future we want for our country and how we try to resolve this. Parliament is about trying to say that we need to re-establish and rebuild consensus. There will be a variety of views on how that is done but let us be clear: Parliament—virtually everyone who has spoken—has said that there is not a binary choice between what the Prime Minister has put before us and no deal. That is not the choice that faces all parts of the United Kingdom; it is a false choice. It does the Prime Minister—and, moreover, the country—no good at all to have that presented as the choice.

Parliament’s decision yesterday that we will not allow no deal should reassure the country, but it is unclear what happens after Tuesday if the deal, as we all expect, is voted down, as it should be. I for one will join my colleagues in happily marching through the Lobby to vote against the deal, in the belief that Parliament will ensure a better deal for all people of the United Kingdom as a result of our standing up and saying, “We will not be bullied by the Executive.”

So what does that actually mean? It may be that we have to extend article 50. It may be that we have to go back to the European Union. It may be that there will be a general election. It may even be that there will be a second referendum. All those things are unknown, but step by step and bit by bit, this Parliament will look at the facts and govern in the interests of the country. That is what is important, and that is why what happened yesterday was significant.

Let us also say in this debate that we can, as a Parliament, start to reassert some of the values that perhaps should have been spoken about more loudly during the referendum campaign. Let me start with immigration. I think immigration has been good for this country. I think it has benefited this country. That should be said loudly and clearly, time and again, because it is something that virtually every Member—sorry, I shall correct myself and say every Member—in this Parliament would agree with. Why do we not shout it out? Why do we not take on the bigots and the racists much more assertively? I say this about migration, not just immigration. There have been problems with migration, but migration overall has been good for this country as well. That is not to say that there are not problems with it, and of course those need to be dealt with, but as soon as we give ground on these things, into that space flows populism and all the anti-establishment rhetoric that we hear. That was a failure in the referendum campaign.

It does no good for the Government—the Executive—to pretend that this deal sorts anything out. If we do leave at the end of March 2019, what will be important is the fact that nothing is decided. My constituents and many constituents around the country thought—to be honest, until a few weeks ago I thought this as well—that, on leaving the European Union, large numbers of things would have been sorted out, such as trade and security. However, when I read the political declaration, not much has been decided, other than that we are going to leave—if that happens. What does the political declaration say about what happens after that? It says, “We will consider”, “Our aspiration is”, “We look to”, “We hope that”. My goodness me, Mr Speaker—is that what we are asking the British people to accept as a result of our withdrawal from the European Union?

I do not quite know where we will go, but I do know this: the fact that this Parliament has reasserted its authority means that we will be able to stand up, in whatever way we feel is correct, in the interests of the British people and that we will put them first, whatever part of the United Kingdom we represent.

Offensive Weapons Bill

Lord Coaker Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 28th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

Forgive me, but it is not a question of deferring responsibility. It is the responsibility of the local police and crime commissioner and the chief constable, under our system of policing, to decide local policing priorities. That is why we had the police and crime commissioner elections a couple of years ago.

The right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson) is assiduous in his parliamentary questions to me about retail crime, but if hon. Members have concerns that retailers and retail staff in their local area are not being looked after, I encourage them to take it up with their police and crime commissioner, because it really is their decision as to how local resources are prioritised.

[Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)]

Does the Minister not realise quite how this looks? Shop workers across the country—in every part of the country, every constituency and every region—the frontline workers, their union and the police are saying, “We do not need consultation; we need a change in the law to protect us.” What the Minister is saying, and I say this with respect, is that she and her officials know better. I say we should listen to what the shop workers of this country are telling us and mend the gap in the law.

[Victoria Atkins]

I do listen—I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman on that. The point I am making is that the laws that can protect shop workers are already in force, so it is not a question of making a new law because we hope that that will address the criminality, because those laws are already in place. There are public order offences, so where someone is rude or abusive, that is a criminal offence already. Our job here is to make law, but this is also sometimes about how it is applied on the ground, and that is what I am talking about. I am talking about saying to the NPCC and others, “What’s happening on these concerns colleagues are raising about how retail workers are being treated in their shops?” I know that this is an important issue, not only to Labour Members, but to my colleagues and to me. That is why if we can do nothing else, we should get the message out there that the law already exists to protect shop workers. We should focus on how that is pushed and put into effect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham]

I am not sure this is how these things often work on the Floor of the House, but this is a helpful way forward for all sides. I am grateful to the Minister and the right hon. Gentleman.

On that note, I have said all I want to say on new clause 16, which I think is good, and new clause 1, which will be taken away for consideration.

[Vernon Coaker]

Let me start by saying that I think we are all pleased with what the Minister has just said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (David Hanson) about his new clause 1. The shop workers of the country, the unions and people across the whole of our nation will be pleased with that and will look forward to what we come up with in due course.