House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
I beg to move, That the House sit in private.
Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 163) and negatived.
Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Bill
Friday 9th December 2022
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023 View all Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Two weeks ago, a group of more than 50 girls and women walked after dark from Rusthall, one of the villages in my constituency, to the centre of Tunbridge Wells. Those women, several of whom are in the Public Gallery, walked together to make a point. They felt safe together, but had they walked the same route alone at night, they would have felt afraid. Some would not have embarked on the journey at all, and many would have taken avoiding action such as getting a lift, a bus or a taxi. Some would have arranged to walk with someone else. Others would have deployed tactics all too familiar to women and girls across the country such as pretending to have a conversation on their mobile phone to signal that they were in contact with someone else. If alone, they would have been fearful of being followed or of having an offensive, suggestive or obscene comment directed at them, or of being obstructed or intimidated as they walked alone, as well as the fear of being physically assaulted.
For every woman and girl on that walk, hundreds more find that they have to engage in these routines and protections day in, day out to feel safe—and that is in Tunbridge Wells, a place with a strong community, a committed police force and less crime than in many others. When I visit schools, and especially sixth forms, confidence in using our streets, especially at night, is almost always raised by students, including by one young woman who came to see me to describe how outraged she was by the experience of being kerb-crawled by a man in a car when she was out jogging one morning. Why should a woman feel less confident on our streets than a man? The streets are theirs equally, but that is not how it is experienced.
According to the charities Our Streets Now and Plan International, who have done so much to highlight the issue and press for change, twice as many girls and women feel unsafe when alone on our streets as do boys and men. It is not just the commission of physical violence or assault that makes women feel unsafe. Deliberately distressing acts such as following a woman closely through the streets at night or directing explicit, abusive comments at women can and do contribute to that insecurity.
At the moment, there is no specific offence of public sexual harassment, yet in private settings, such as the workplace, everyone knows that sexual harassment is specifically and explicitly prohibited. Other types of harassment in public are identified in law—rightly, in my view—as being especially serious. They include harassment of someone on the grounds of their race or because they are gay. My Bill would close a loophole in the law whereby deliberately harassing another person on the grounds of their sex with the intention and effect of causing alarm or distress would be a specific criminal offence. It would, like harassment on the grounds of sexuality or race, be capable of similar penalties, should the court wish, as those other crimes.
The proposal was subject to a consultation carried out by the Home Office. I am grateful to the former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), for her passionate commitment to confronting the issue and for launching the consultation before the summer. The Bill follows that consultation, and I am grateful for the assistance of the current Home Secretary, and to the Minister and her officials for their help in preparing it.
The Bill is a simple one, as private Members’ Bills should be. It is intended principally to close a loophole and bring into alignment the treatment of harassment on the grounds of sex with harassment on the basis of other protected characteristics. It follows the comments of the Law Commission to its report on hate crime laws in December 2021, which said the Government should consider
“a specific offence to tackle public sexual harassment, which would likely be more effective than adding sex or gender to hate crime laws.”
One reason not to simply add sex to the list of hate crimes is that although harassment on the grounds of race is considered to be driven by a hatred towards a person’s race, specifying hatred or hostility could leave open a legal defence that a man who deliberately harassed a woman in public was not guilty of a hate crime offence, because it could not be proved that his behaviour was motivated by actual hatred of women. The simplest way to proceed, and a subject that the Home Office consultation examined, is to add to the existing law of harassment in the Public Order Act 1986. My Bill would therefore add a new offence of intentional harassment, alarm or distress on the basis of sex to that Act of Parliament.
Under my Bill, if an act of intentional harassment, alarm or distress is carried out in a public place because of the relevant person’s sex, an offence of sex-based harassment has been committed and can be punished, as with offences on racial grounds or grounds of sexuality, at the higher tariff that applies to those crimes by dint of the Crime and Disorder Act 1988—in other words, above the limit set in the magistrates court.
It is important to make a few features of the Bill clear. First, it is not meant to—nor will it—criminalise thoughtless or clumsy words. It is sometimes the case that behaviour, although unwelcome, is not motivated by the deliberate intention to cause alarm or distress. Sometimes, men and boys—even girls and women—can say or do the wrong thing without meaning to make another person threatened or alarmed. Such behaviour is not within the scope of the Bill, neither is behaviour that would be considered reasonable by normal standards. The Bill targets people who deliberately target other people to do them harm.
Secondly, although I referred to sexual harassment, the scope of the offence includes, but does not have to entail, a motivation of sexual gratification. Just as in the workplace, the harassment of women may be based on attitudes towards women that might not be best described as linked to sexual gratification. Thirdly, the Bill is drafted to address the specific loophole in the law about harassment based on sex. That means, in principle, that it applies to women and men if they are deliberately publicly harassed based on their sex. Public sexual harassment can affect men and boys, but we should be clear that it disproportionately affects women and girls.
Some might be concerned that my Bill, if enacted, would place extra pressure on police forces to investigate and arrest those suspected of deliberately sexually harassing women in public places. We all want the police to focus on fighting crimes, but these are serious crimes that affect the lives of millions of girls and women every day, causing them to change their behaviour when they should have no reason to do so. Recent years have shown that it is important that all of us, including the police, give greater attention to the protection of women. The consequence of passing this law to make sexual harassment in public a specific offence, triable if necessary in the Crown court, will be to establish that setting out deliberately to alarm or distress a victim is a serious matter that will be dealt with seriously.
The real purpose of the Bill is to help to change the culture of society so that it becomes even more obviously unacceptable to abuse, humiliate and intimidate women and girls in public. I hope that few prosecutions under the law would ever be required, but it is important that the law is there. We have seen that this is possible. To see someone abusing someone else racially in public is now universally seen as deeply shocking and obviously wrong. In my spare time, I enjoy attending football matches, and it is not many years since it was quite common to hear racial abuse on many terraces. It would be inaccurate to say that it has been completely eradicated, but it is vastly less frequent and is taken with great seriousness not just by the authorities, but by other people present.
Too many girls and women feel unsafe when alone on our streets—twice as many as men. Two thirds of girls and women have changed their plans at some time because they have been worried about or have experienced public sexual harassment. Our streets are their streets, and they should not have to do that. The Bill, if it is supported by Parliament, would eradicate the unconscionable situation in which public sexual harassment is not a specific crime. It will make it clear that the crime is serious and it will provide sanction against those who deliberately set out to frighten women and girls on our streets. It is a tightly drawn but, as I hope the House will agree, valuable step in protecting the more than half of our population who, for too long, have had to change their ways of living their lives when the abusers should change theirs.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making a fantastic point. I fully support the Bill, but it still has to go through Parliament. Is he aware of the StreetSafe service, run by the police, through which any person who feels unsafe can report dark spots, lights that are out and difficult areas? Authorities can then look at and address them to make sure that we are immediately safer in our communities.
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which allows me to emphasise that although I think my Bill will be a great step forward in providing for a specific offence, many other measures are needed. That includes providing information nationally and, especially, locally. I commend the Home Office for its initiative in recent weeks to advertise in public places, encouraging people to step in when they see women and girls being abused. All of us as Members of Parliament and everyone in the community can step up and make a difference through those actions.
Those of us in the Chamber today can go a step further and make it very clear that the offence of harassing someone on the grounds of their sex in public will be taken very seriously. It will provide clarity that people will be arrested for that, and I hope that it will lead to a safer future for women and girls in this country. On that basis, I commend the Bill to the House.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) on introducing the Bill. It reflects not a recent concern, but years and generations of campaigners and women speaking out about the most basic and fundamental thing: freedom. At its heart, the Bill is about our freedom as women to lead the same lives as men in where we go and what we do.
I will start by adding to the list of organisations and campaigners that we acknowledge and recognise for their work on this issue. They include Our Streets Now, Plan International UK, Citizens UK, the Fawcett Society, Stonewall, Tell MAMA, Nottingham Women’s Centre, Dimensions, René Cassin, Refuge, Hope not Hate, Sister Supporter, the Jo Cox Foundation, the Young Women’s Trust, Safe & The City, Nottingham Trent University and the University of Nottingham. I also pay tribute to the work done in the other place by Lord Russell and Baroness Newlove.
The right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells talked about his shock that women in Tunbridge Wells felt unsafe walking their streets. Every woman in this Chamber was not surprised by the picture that he painted. It is the culture we grow up in, and we should start by recognising and naming that culture: misogyny. This is about the sense that 51% of the population do not have the same rights and freedoms to move around and to be seen as others do.
It is fantastic that the Bill learns lessons from what we know from the police about how to recognise that and how it drives crime, and I will root my support for the Bill in that. I hope that the Government will support this move because it reflects Government consultation, and I will make suggestions about how we can further develop the Bill so that it truly is the landmark Bill that it can be. Twelve police forces out of 44 are now united with those campaigners and the people who the right hon. Member talked about in recognising that women are disproportionately subject to harassment.
I say to the hon. Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans): this is not about dark streets. This is one of the few crimes where we always challenge the victim. We query them: “What were you wearing? Where were you going? Did you have your headphones on? Were you carrying your keys? Were you sensible?” We tell young women that it is their responsibility to protect themselves, in a way that we would never do with any other crime. We hold education sessions, which we would not do for burglary. Yet somehow, when it comes to the basic freedom of women and girls to go about their daily business, we ask them to be responsible, rather than holding those who seek to abuse that freedom accountable.
I often hear—from men, I am afraid—this idea of them having had a “revelation” that safety should be an important thing. I hear some men—indeed, men in positions of serious importance—talk about how being a father of girls has opened their eyes to the need to tackle these issues. I like to call that the Jay-Z defence, because he said the same thing about having a girl while being married to Beyoncé. This kind of legislation is not just about daughters. It is about wives, sisters, aunts, grandmothers, friends, neighbours and co-workers. Women are everywhere, but we do not get to go everywhere without being frightened—without that daily experience of thinking, “What route should I take? Should I put my keys in my hand? Should I be frightened about going down this street? It’s a cold night now, so maybe I won’t go out in the dark.” It is not the dark that is the problem; it is the people. That is what we need to tackle and that is what the Bill does.
According to data from the Office for National Statistics, every single day 24,000 women in this country experience public harassment, with those from minority communities much more likely to be affected. Frankly, I will stop campaigning for misogyny to be recognised as a driver of crime when I go to a wedding and the bride gets up and says, “Well, he followed me down a dark street, demanding to touch my breasts, and I thought it was the most romantic thing I’d ever heard. I had to stop and get in his van.” It does not happen. Yet millions of women have a story like that—a story about the fear and the impact it had on their lives.
No other crime is so prevalent that it is shrugged off as a fact of life, yet the harassment of woman has been for too long. Why is that? It is because when women come forward to report, often they get asked whether they did something to generate that experience. Often, the experience women then have is that they are told—I am sorry to say that this goes for both the police and the Crown Prosecution Service—that it is too difficult to find the person or that it was perhaps a misunderstanding.
I want to be very clear in supporting the Bill: this is not about bad manners between men and women. We are talking about crimes and offences. When we started campaigning for misogyny to be recognised as part of hate crime, we were told we were somehow criminalising wolf-whistling. One of the things I find really powerful is that people have now finally recognised that any form of harassment or unwanted attention in the streets is not endearing. It enables a culture in which it is acceptable to target women. That is what we have to change.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for her excellent campaigning in this area, and I thank the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) for bringing forward the Bill in a joint, cross-party way. Does she agree that the Bill will only be successful if the enforcement of this important legislation is properly resourced?
Stella Creasy
I completely agree. Indeed, one of the frustrations that many of us have had through the years has been police sources in forces that do not adopt this approach saying that it is a resourcing issue. There is no other form of crime to which we say, “Look, there’s just so much of it that we’re not going to do anything about it.”
We know how serious these crimes are. We look at the histories of offenders involved in rape or serious sexual assault and we see the escalation process; because, oddly enough, the person who starts by following women down the street does not usually stop there. Tackling that is absolutely crucial to addressing these crimes. That is why I want to pay tribute to Sue Fish. Anybody who has spoken to Sue Fish, who started off by recording misogyny as hate crime in Nottingham, knows how powerful and transformative her approach has been in Nottingham, and there are now 12 police forces taking this approach. They have recognised how it is driving crime. One crucial aspect to this issue is change to the culture within the local police. Some 80% of women do not report crimes to the police, because they do not believe that the police will take them seriously. I have been in meetings where the police have said, “Well, the women have to come forward.” They do not recognise that they are not creating an environment in which women feel they will be taken seriously.
As an MP in London, I am dealing with a dramatic loss of confidence in the police because of institutional misogyny, institutional racism and homophobia. The differences seen in the police forces that have introduced this policy are one reason why I have been such a passionate champion of it and why I have challenged my local police to pick it up too. Misogyny is at the root of many crimes against women. This is not just about public harassment; it is about changing the culture in our police forces and, indeed, as the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells said, in our society. We have normalised the harassment of women and an environment in which it is acceptable to target women, and then we blame women for not taking the joke and not thinking that it is a fair game or that it is nice that somebody is attracted to them—it is never about attraction.
The 12 police forces currently recording where a crime is motivated by a victim’s sex or where their sex is a factor in it have clearly stated the benefits of that approach, and the Bill will underpin and enhance it. One of my frustrations is that, nearly two years ago, the Government agreed that police forces should record that data, but some forces are yet to implement that policy. Therefore, all the benefits of institutional change and reporting change that we have seen in Nottingham, North Yorkshire, Devon, Somerset and Gloucestershire have not yet been rolled out across the country. Residents in those communities are clear that the policy has increased police confidence and changed the way the police deal with serious sexual assault. Oddly enough, when forces have this policy, it is not wolf-whistling that people come forward to report, but rape, kidnapping and assault. People recognise that the police will not only believe them, but treat those things as the crimes they are.
I want to be very clear that, in some ways, we should not need this Bill, because it does not criminalise anything that is not already criminal. Nothing has been more frustrating for me, as the person who secured the Law Commission review into misogyny as hate crime, than hearing people ponder whether we should make street harassment, or public harassment, an offence—it already is. The point about the Bill is the uplift, and that is why this is such a powerful moment, because we are mimicking the idea of bringing misogyny into hate crime legislation. We can argue about and debate cut-outs, where the Law Commission got to and why it has taken so long to get here, but I really welcome the fact that we are here, and I hope the Bill will be the start of something much bigger. This will be the first time that every police force has had to record this data. Therefore, every police force will have to be trained in what it is looking for and how to recognise it.
That change matters, not least for those who are affected by these things. Right now, we ask women to pick a side of their identity in order for a crime to be recognised as targeting them. Particularly with women from minority communities, we have to ask, “Is it because you’re a Muslim? Is it because you’re gay? Is it because you’re disabled?” It may be all those things, but we are asking women to fit a box, rather than recognising all those things. That is why the Bill is so powerful and why it is so important that it is about public harassment, not sexual harassment.
A couple of years ago, somebody in my local community was targeting Muslim women and pulling off their hijabs. That was not just about Islamophobia; it was also about misogyny, because this person was not targeting Muslim men. The offences in the Bill would allow us to recognise that and to see the victims for who they are, rather than asking them to fit a box. The Bill also covers men, which is important, but I note the data from the police forces that are already putting this policy into practice, which show that 80% to 90% of the victims coming forward are women. The Bill will help us to start changing the culture.
Dr Luke Evans
I appreciate the point about data on men and women, and this is predominantly a women’s issue. However, we are also talking about culture, and men might not come forward because they perceive that no one will listen to them. This is about creating a culture where anyone who experiences this behaviour can come forward.
Stella Creasy
I agree that we want people to come forward, but it is also about time that we recognised—and, frankly, apologised to the women of this country for the fact—that it has taken us this long to see that they are disproportionately affected by street-based harassment and that it is curtailing their lives. I go back to my initial point: this is about our freedom. I would hope that nobody in this Chamber and nobody in the times to come will ever experience what I experienced as a woman growing up in that culture—I am middle-aged now—as I know every woman in the Chamber did. I would not wish this for the hon. Gentleman, but we have to recognise that challenge. So, absolutely, we want everyone to come forward, but it is about time women were heard on this issue, and therefore about time to recognise that women will particularly benefit from this Bill. That is a good thing, not something we have to have a qualm about.
If there is one thing I would want to encourage the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells on, it is how we can build on this legislation when, as we hope, the Government accept it. I note what he said about proving hatred, and I think there is a real challenge here. We live in a culture in which it has become so endemic to harass women that often we look at women and say, “Why are you reacting like that?” rather than saying to the other person, “Why are you doing this?”. Even worse, for several years the Met police have been running education sessions in my local community and somehow treating this as a matter of bad manners; it is as though if we talk to men nicely, they will not harass women any more. The time has come to recognise that most men do not harass women and therefore most men know that harassing behaviour is unacceptable. Where the Bill can be further improved is by learning from other parts of the law about the concept of “foreseeable” harassment incidents. So I give the right hon. Gentleman notice that if we do progress this legislation, I would like to see it learn from that concept.
What does “foreseeable” mean? It means that there would not be a defence of someone not realising that a woman would be offended when they were trying to grope her private parts, because most men do know that and it is about time we held men to account for the fact that they should know better. The concept of foreseeable harassment means that we would remove that defence of, “I did not realise that a woman would be offended if I did that.” That is particularly important when it comes to street-based harassment. In normal harassment cases there have to be several instances and a point at which the victim has said, “Stop!”, but with street-based harassment we need to tackle men who think they have a right to harass women and who should know better.
I note that the Minister said that the Government were looking at the concept of foreseeability as part of the consultation, so it would be helpful to understand from her whether that has progressed further. The one gap in the Bill relates to making sure that there is not a defence of, “I just thought she couldn’t take a joke”, because women have had to take those “jokes”—we have had to take those comments. We have had to be the ones carrying keys in our hands, not going out late at night, trying to find somebody else to travel with, and being told by that the police, “Oh, it’s about dark spots”, or, “I’ll tell you what, we’ll walk with you”. That has meant we have not had the freedom that we want for every woman of any age in this country to go where she wants, do what she wants, wear what she wants and be what she wants. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells, because this Bill and the recognition of misogyny as a driver of crime is a start of that process. We have a long way to go. I hope, like him, that in 20 years’ time “jokes” that we see on our television right now and people like Dapper Laughs will never be seen as acceptable ever again. I think this Bill can be part of that, and I look forward to seeing it go through Committee.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Sarah Dines)
I rise with some trepidation, as this is my first debate of this sort in this role, but what a pleasure it is to do so with what I hope will be cross-Chamber and cross-party agreement on this serious issue. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for being here on a Friday to discuss this serious Bill. In particular, I thank and pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark). Members who are here will have heard the real passion and conviction with which he presented his arguments in introducing the Bill. That interest has been inspired by not only his own deep-felt thoughts of what is right, but by hearing individual accounts from constituents, including women who are here today. I am grateful to him for his dedication. One thing I can say is that society is changing for the good in this space, and this Bill will make things better. Things such as intentional kerb-crawling are not going to be acceptable.
I also wish to thank the other Members who will be speaking today and the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), who has already spoken. I know that many have campaigned compassionately and passionately for a long time to introduce this legislation, and I would mention Members who are not here but who have been working hard on this issue, such as the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). Of course, we will be hearing from many other Members shortly.
I pay tribute, too, to the many charities that have worked assiduously for change, such as Plan International UK and Our Streets Now. My ministerial predecessors and I have been in receipt of many letters from hon. Members on behalf of constituents who support the campaign. I know that the efforts of Our Streets Now, in particular, are inspired by the real world experiences of its two founders and of many other young women.
Public sexual harassment is a terrible crime and, as we all know, it is far too widespread. Recent Office for National Statistics data, based on a survey carried out in January, February and March this year, found that one in two women and, indeed, one in six men felt unsafe walking alone after dark in a quiet street near their home. It is important to state that this legislation is not in any way to be construed as being anti-men, anti-women or anti-anyone. This is pro safety and pro people. It is to protect people who might be targeted because of their sex. We know that, by and large, it is women, but it is also boys and men. This is to protect us all.
I am sure that colleagues from all parts of the House will agree when I say that the ONS data contains shocking findings. Public sexual harassment is not only harmful, but totally unacceptable. Why should a woman, or a young man, have to let their friends know which route they will take home and what time they intend to arrive? Why should a woman have to hold her keys in her fist? It is the most basic responsibility of Government to keep our public places safe. Everyone should be able to walk our streets without fear of violence or harassment. Women, and of course men too, should feel confident, safe and secure when they are out and about in our cities, towns and villages.
There has been much discussion generally about non-legislative actions. These matters are, clearly, of the utmost importance and they are being treated as such by the Government. I am really proud of the many actions that we have taken. For example, we have awarded £125 million through the safer streets and safety of women at night funds to help women and girls feel safer in public places and to make the streets safer for all, whether through additional patrols, extra lighting or more CCTV. I know that the figures and sums of money that we cite seem rather abstract, so let me bring them to life with one example. From the safety of women at night fund, we funded West Yorkshire Combined Authority to launch a train safety campaign to promote access to an online link with safety information for public transport users, such as bus tracking. This means that there is no longer a need for someone unnecessarily to stand at a bus stop alone waiting for a delayed bus. That is just one of many examples of how money can help in this area, rather than just giving a nod to what ought to be.
Stella Creasy
Anybody who lives in London and has to wait for buses that never seem to show up would welcome that, but it is also important to say that it is not the case that, if somebody was at a bus stop that did not have any lighting, or if they went somewhere that was still dark, they are somehow culpable for these crimes. The funding that the Minister has mentioned should be about making sure that everybody is safe. Women in particular should not face any challenge that they went somewhere that was not on the list of places where there was the lighting, for example.
Miss Dines
That is, of course, part of the change that we all want to see. As with most Government strategy now, we will be looking in the future at the perpetrators, not the victims. That is a move forward. Although the hon. Lady’s intervention re-echoes what she said a little earlier, I just want to remind the House that there are a number of great initiatives under way. Just yesterday, I had the opportunity to meet Deputy Chief Constable Maggie Blyth, who, as we know, is the national police lead for violence against women and girls. The Government has confirmed, with, I hope, the support of all parties in the House, that we are adding violence against women and girls to the strategic policing requirement. This is that huge shift from victims to perpetrators, which is only right.
Let me provide some other examples of where money is effectively and properly being targeted on these issues. Our safer streets tool is allowing people to pinpoint on a map places where they felt unsafe. This really helps. We all know how digital innovations can make things far easier and far more focused. More than 23,000 reports have been made using that tool. That is empirical evidence. We very much need to base our legislation on the evidence—not on window dressing or what is thought to work, but on what actually does work. This Government, with Opposition assistance, are moving in the right direction.
In addition to what we are instigating, the College of Policing and the CPS have published new guidance for officers and prosecutors on how to respond to reports of public sexual harassment. I know that Members are concerned about enforceability and getting convictions and the right evidence. We are doing that.
Finally for the moment, I ask everyone to look at the Enough campaign, which has been funded and stretched out over the past few months. This communications campaign is giving bystanders—because we are all in this together, and our focus should not just be on particular people experiencing alarm and distress—the confidence to safely intervene when they see harmful behaviour. It is empowering victims and getting to the root of the perpetrator’s behaviour. We all know that it can start young and then gain in momentum.
Dr Luke Evans
I pay tribute to the Government for their advertising campaign and for giving the public strategies to step in, even if just as a distraction by asking for directions, for example. Breaking the behaviour is so important, and everyone in this place and across the country can try to call it out.
Miss Dines
My hon. Friend is right. The campaign has cut through. We see posters and stickers everywhere, even on vape stores. Those who have a lot to do with young men and women have seen a change in the conversation, with young men in particular saying to their friends, “That’s not okay,” and women saying, “We’re not going to copy men’s banter.” We have seen progress, and the campaign is based on empirical evidence and the money is targeted. It is not about how much money we spend, but about how we spend it. I am glad to see progress in this area.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
On offender behaviour, will my hon. Friend give some attention to the work that is being done in prisons to address perpetrators of sexual violence? The projects that support reduction in reoffending by sexual offenders are varied in their effect, and it is worth the Government paying close attention to the varied effect of those programmes. Some are better than others, but those that are good really do work and should be supported.
Miss Dines
One of the joys of being a relatively new Minister is the feeling that we can have substantive change. I would welcome anyone in the Chamber coming to talk to me about issues that have concerned them for years. I say to those in the Public Gallery as well as to hon. Members that every member of society can change something in this area: you can go to school or university and you can change things.
Alongside the measures we have taken, legislation has a key part to play, and that is why we are here today. As has been well set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells and others, the Bill will provide that if someone commits an offence under existing section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986—namely, the offence of intentionally causing someone harassment, alarm or distress—and does so because of the victim’s sex, they could get a longer sentence of up to two years in prison, rather than six months. That is real change.
The Bill is deliberately not prescriptive about exactly what types of behaviour are covered. We do not want to create a tick-box approach that limits the behaviours that could be prosecuted. The explanatory notes will give Members a good idea of that. Cases will, of course, be dependent on the individual circumstances, but examples might include somebody being followed closely at night, obstructing a person’s passage down the street—otherwise known as cornering them—or making an obscene gesture at someone. The offence targets not lawful behaviour but actions clearly intended to intimidate. I know that the issues of intention and intimidation will be looked at very closely. At this stage, the right way to go, in my respectful view as a lawyer, is that there needs to be intent. The House will, of course, look at all aspects of this good Bill.
Our approach reflects our considered view that all the behaviours are covered by existing offences—though I know that others take a different view—so a wholly new offence that duplicated existing ones would not have positive consequences. We cannot just window dress things and bring in laws for the sake of it. We need to be bespoke and clever about what we are doing, and actually get results. There is a real need to provide a clear offence in law that would help to deter perpetrators and give victims the confidence to report what has happened to them. Many victims do not want the aggressor or the perpetrator just to have a slap on the wrist; they want them to have a real meaningful sentence, which will drive change.
I have mentioned intention, but it is so important. The police and the CPS will need to properly gather the evidence that they need, of course—that is the way the system works—but we are working extremely hard to improve that core part of the criminal justice process. One thing that I would like to say at this point in the debate—I know that hon. Members will say more on it—is that there are always concerns that a person could claim that they had an intention other than harassing the other person. We need to look at particular actions, such as wolf whistling. I would not for one minute say that the state needs to intervene on every piece of language used, but when intention needs to be proved we know what a wolf whistle is when it leads to nefarious motives.
This law will not, I hope, in any way say that a low-level wolf whistle gets someone two years in prison. We need to have a sense of proportion. We cannot demonise any section of society, whether it is men or women. We cannot demonise people, but we can stop perpetrators, whatever their sex is. It is disrespectful to women, and wolf whistling, as we know, extends into other behaviours. We need to look at the overall picture, and Enough’s communication focuses on exactly that.
I confirm the Government’s strong support for this excellent Bill.
Dr Evans
The explanatory notes, under “Territorial extent and application”, say that the Bill extends to England and Wales, and that clause 2 will apply only to England. As the matter is devolved to Scotland and Northern Ireland, I wonder whether the Minister is in conversation with the rest of the Union to work out whether a similar piece of legislation is being introduced, or is already in place, there?
Miss Dines
My Department is, of course, in conversation there.
Before we get to other Members who want to add to the debate, I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells for introducing the Bill. I look forward to its swift passage through this House and the other place. It is an issue that goes to the heart of what sort of society we want to live in. The idea that in 2022 anyone should be harassed, intimidated or targeted when simply going about their everyday life is scarcely believable, but we know that it is happening, and too often. It is still, by far, too much of a reality for many people. That is why it is high time that we send an unambiguous message that we will do everything in our power to ensure that women, and indeed everyone, can walk on our streets without fear.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, and apologies for the croaky voice this morning.
Alex Cunningham
It is indeed. I welcome the Minister to her new role. She and I have shared time on Bill Committees, and it is good to be debating these issues again with her. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) on achieving Government support for his Bill. I very much welcome the people from his constituency who are in the Gallery, and who perhaps played a part in helping him to introduce the Bill. Seeing as they are in the Gallery, I reference a television programme called “God Rot Tunbridge Wells!”, which tells the story of Handel’s life. The honourable people in the Gallery and the right hon. Member may like to watch that programme, because they will see that I play a starring role in it. That is something to look out for.
I also pay tribute to Plan International UK for all the amazing work it has done in its “Crime Not Compliment” campaign, launched in 2020 to call on the Government to finally make public sexual harassment a crime. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) has named a large number of organisations this morning that have been working in this space, and my tribute goes out to them, as well.
That we have such behaviour in our society is bad enough, and the statistics in Plan International’s report, “Everything is Racialised on top” make for stark reading. Its work shows that, while 75% of white girls have suffered public sexual harassment, that figure rises to 82% for black, black Caribbean and black British girls, and 88% for mixed race girls. The Bill today does not go quite as far as Plan International would like. It would like a law that criminalises all forms of public sexual harassment and comprehensively closes the legal gaps surrounding this behaviour, but the Bill is a welcome first step in the right direction, and Labour is pleased to support it. That will be of no surprise to the Government, as we tabled many amendments to address sex-based harassment in public when the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 was in Committee last summer. Sadly, the Government voted those ideas down.
We were in the same position last week, with the Offenders (Day of Release from Detention) Bill, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) spoke. We tabled a specific amendment to the same Bill, and I am pleased that prisoners will not now be released on Fridays, when many of the services they need are closing down.
While I am glad that the Government are finally taking action on all these issues we were debating a year and a half ago, the chaos at the heart of Government means that these important reforms are still being delayed time and again. It is simply not good enough, and our constituents deserve better.
I turn to the content of the Bill. We all know that public sexual harassment can have a real and serious impact on those who experience it. It can seriously impact how safe and confident women feel in public places, and it is mostly women who are victims of this abuse at the hands of mostly male perpetrators. However, as has been mentioned, it is also important that male victims are included, and we are glad that the Bill makes such provision.
As we have already heard, sexual harassment in the streets can be a precursor to even more serious kinds of discrimination and violence against women and girls. As Laura Bates, the founder of the Everyday Sexism Project, puts it:
“As a society, the normalisation of sexual harassment in public spaces plays a huge part in creating a gendered power imbalance and ingraining derogatory attitudes and behaviours towards women. What starts in public spaces doesn’t stay there. It plays into discrimination against women in the workplace and abuse in the home. If we say street harassment doesn’t matter, we’re designating women’s bodies public property. And that has a huge knock-on impact.”
As we know, the call for evidence for the Government’s tackling violence against women and girls strategy received 180,000 responses. I wonder how many women out there would have liked to contribute, but did not know that they actually had that opportunity. I suspect that, if they all had known, it could have run into millions of people sharing their stories. However, the fact that there were 180,000 responses is testament to the extent of the problem. Those who have bravely spoken up have contributed to some distressing, although sadly not surprising, findings. One in two women and one in six men felt unsafe walking alone after dark on a quiet street near their home. Some 45% of women and 18% of men felt unsafe walking alone after dark in a busy place. One in two women aged between 16 and 34 had experienced one form of harassment in the previous 12 months, with 38% of women aged between 16 and 34 having experienced catcalls, whistles, unwanted sexual comments or jokes, and 25% of women felt they were being followed in the street.
Last year, research by UN Women UK found that only 4% of women who had suffered sexual harassment reported the crime, and only 45% believed that reporting the crime would make any difference. Among those who did not report the crime to the police were people who had been groped, followed and coerced into sexual activity. It is deeply distressing that women do not feel they can put faith in our justice system when it comes to such abuses. The figures underline the urgency of the need for concrete action from the Government beyond the provisions of this Bill, as so much more needs to be done.
I am encouraged that in this debate there is cross-party consensus that enough is enough. We need to make sure that women and girls can trust the justice system to address these harms in the knowledge that this type of behaviour will be treated with the severity it truly deserves. If we demonstrate how seriously we take such behaviour, the perpetrators on our streets will know their abuses will not be tolerated. The Opposition agree that public sex-based harassment is a crime, not a compliment.
The Minister talked about the money spent on many initiatives throughout the country, and that spend is welcome. She also referred to the fact that many young boys now recognise that the behaviour of some of their peers is far from acceptable, and I agree. It is wonderful that education in schools is perhaps now catching up and boys are getting the right message about how they should treat girls. More importantly, it is tremendously good news that some of them are prepared to stand up and defend women and young girls in their own classroom.
We need changes in the law to ensure that women and young girls can feel safe. The House needs to do so much more to ensure that they feel safer in public spaces. The Government missed golden opportunities to do so in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, but I am glad that today we can at least take another step in the right direction. We will support the Bill.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who has done such an incredible job to get the Bill to this point. I appreciate that it has a long way to go yet, but I welcome the cross-party support for it and the comments made by my hon. Friend the Minister.
I do not recall the first time that I spoke in this Chamber about public sexual harassment, but I vividly recall doing an interview with “Woman’s Hour” in 2019, when I was ridiculed for saying that public sexual harassment should be a specific crime. I remember the commentary on the website afterwards saying I did not know what I was talking about, and I remember the Daily Mail calling me mirthless because I did not think it was funny. The reality is that public sexual harassment is never funny: it is always scary and it dominates the lives of too many women.
There has been some focus this morning on the lives of young women, but the stark reality is that there is probably not a woman in this place who has not experienced public sexual harassment at some point. It can happen at any age to any person, and it does happen to men as well, particularly young gay men. They need our support every bit as much as women do.
I certainly remember why I first started talking about this issue: it was largely because of a coalition of really impressive women and women’s organisations—people who had come to see me and raised the issue with me. I am going to list them all, because I argue that, once we have on our side Our Streets Now, Plan International, the Girl Guides, the Soroptimists and the Women’s Institute, we have brought together a very impressive coalition of women of all ages and backgrounds who are prepared to speak up and determined to do so. When we read the statistics, they are absolutely terrifying. They show the sheer scale of the problem. When an issue dominates the Girlguiding girls’ attitude survey and dominates the experiences of young women at school, college and university, we have to reflect that it is well past time that we did something about it.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister, who will have the pleasure—I suggest—of responding to my right hon. Friend’s Bill, of taking it forward, and of seeing it eventually go on to the statute book. However, there is a long history of other committed female Ministers, many of whom, over the past few years, have sidled up to me and said, “Keep going: keep pushing at that door.”
Let me give some indication of the scale of support there has been. I remember my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), on many occasions in Westminster Hall, begging me to keep going—to keep on asking difficult questions, and to keep on ensuring that this issue remained uppermost in people’s minds—but, of course, she is not the only one. My right hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) has held this brief, as have my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), who was in the Chamber earlier: she too has played a role in keeping this issue on the priority list. There is also, of course, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), not to mention the former Members of Parliament Amber Rudd and Sarah Newton, both of whom also held this brief at various points.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells said, back in December last year we saw the Law Commission’s review, which clearly stated that the Government should consider making public sexual harassment a specific crime, although, interestingly, at that time the commission rejected the idea of adding misogyny to the list of hate crimes. I was not particularly happy about that, but I was prepared to wear it on the grounds that we would see public sexual harassment made a crime. It was a shame that there was not enough time for the Government to do that, but I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for bringing the issue as far as this point.
I want to pay tribute to some of the brilliant women out there in the community who are working both for and alongside the police, whom I consider to be real champions in this regard. The Minister mentioned Maggie Blyth, the deputy chief constable of Hampshire constabulary—my home force—who is also the national police lead for violence against women and girls. I also pay tribute to our police and crime commissioner in Hampshire, Donna Jones. I have attended many events relating to violence against women and girls where she too has proved herself to be a real champion in sticking up for the 51% of the population who are affected by these matters. Another is Caroline Henry, whom I met the day before yesterday to talk about the issues affecting women and girls.
Let me give a specific example to show why I think the Bill is so important. I have heard successive Ministers say that such legislation is not necessary, because there is existing legislation to protect women and girls from sexual harassment. I am going to recount the story of a constituent who spoke to me about it, and my subsequent conversation with the then Minister about what had happened to that constituent. This was a 22-year-old working in the retail sector—a very glamorous job, pushing trolleys around the supermarket car park in the depths of February. I want Members to imagine her uniform: a puffer coat made of hi-viz material, a pair of leggings, heavy boots, a bobble hat, and, because this was at the height of covid, a mask. She said to me, “I hate lunchtime.” I thought that was bizarre: I thought most young people quite liked having a lunch break. She said, “I have to work from 12 pm until till 2 pm, because that is when the supermarket is busiest and I have to return all the trolleys to the front door, and I hate it.” I said, “Why? What is so difficult about lunchtime?”
I apologise for generalising, and I apologise to all those employed in the construction industry who will hate what I am going to say next. My constituent replied, “Because that is when the builders come for their lunch.” When I asked what happened when the builders came to the supermarket to get their lunch, she said, “They make comments about me, they follow me around the car park, they talk about how my bum looks, and this week one of them came up to me, put his hands on either side of my face, and told me that I was too beautiful to be pushing trolleys.” I looked at her in horror, and then I went to see the Minister at the time and said, “You’ve been telling me for months that there are crimes already being committed and that there is legislation to protect people like my constituent who tells me that she hates lunchtime and spends it pushing trolleys back to the entrance of the supermarket as quickly as she can, because that is where the security guards are—she spends her lunchtime trying to be within range of the security guards. What was the specific crime there? What legislation can we use to protect girls like her?” She looked at me and said, “I don’t know. I don’t think a crime has been committed there.” I entirely accept that we must not demonise all men and we must not demonise all builders, but that is the type of behaviour that this legislation is designed to counteract, so I welcome it wholeheartedly.
We know that 50% of young women have experienced sexual harassment in schools or colleges. We know that 37% have experienced it on public transport. I pay tribute to the amazing work done by the British Transport police, among other organisations, to highlight the unacceptability of it and the strategies and tactics that we can all use to stop being bystanders and to intervene and help women in situations where they are uncomfortable and are being harassed. We know that 33% of sexual harassment happens in public buildings and that 75%—three quarters—of all women have experienced sexual harassment at some point in their lives. All of us in this Chamber know a victim of it, which also means that all of us in this Chamber know a perpetrator. It is the perpetrators who we need to identify and we need to stamp out their behaviour.
I want briefly to talk about the cultures behind public sexual harassment. My Select Committee has done and continues to do significant work on this. I remember telling a colleague that we were doing some work on the cultures that underpin male violence against women, and she looked at me and said, “You’re trying to overturn 2,000 years of male behaviour, are you?” I said, “Yes! Absolutely—that is what we have to do.” We have to put a marker down somewhere. If we are not prepared to do it now, today, in this place, then do we wait another 10, 20 or 1,000 years? Are we prepared to do that? I am certainly not. I find that it is very liberating being a woman in your 50s; you suddenly find that you are in a terrible hurry to get stuff done now. Now is today, and the Bill is that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells.
My Committee is doing some great work looking at the experience of young women in education settings, and it is harrowing. I did a roundtable with the Agenda Alliance for women and girls at risk, which includes girls who have been through the care system and girls who have experienced all sorts of horrors in their lives. Many of them told me about their experiences in pupil inclusion units; we have to be careful about the terminology we use, in terms of whether it is exclusion or inclusion. Girls in those settings are heavily outnumbered. In some instances, it is 90% boys and 10% girls. One of the girls told me that there is a poster in her education setting talking about consent, and every day, that poster is slashed and torn off the walls. She said, “How do you think that makes me feel? It makes me feel that I am not worthy. It makes me feel that I am in danger and at risk in my education setting.” She was perfectly happy to accept that it was a suboptimal education setting, and that there were many reasons why she had ended up there, but she said, “I should be valued and protected as much as the boys in that place.”
The work that the Committee is doing is fascinating, important and worth while, but it is harrowing to hear the stories and the experiences, particularly of black women working in the music industry and of how they can be sexualised, victimised and harassed because of their skin colour, their sex and the fact that they want to get on in an industry that is incredibly male-dominated and competitive. They feel that if they make a fuss, their careers will be pushed to one side.
We heard a couple of weeks ago from Fern Whelan, the ex-England footballer, about the experiences she had as a footballer. We like to think that sport is a great leveller and that everybody is equal, but the harassment that women still face in football is significant, and it continues when they move on to careers in the media after they have finished their playing careers. She told a fantastic tale of how she had made a comment and was endlessly trolled for it, with hundreds of comments basically telling her to get back into the kitchen, while her male contemporary had made the same comment and not one single person had reacted to it in any way.
While these incidents may appear to be the less serious end of harassment, it is cultural, and it is embedded in all the places that women go, where women work and the activities they want to take part in. It is crucial that we pursue the culture. I absolutely accept that it is not all men; there are some brilliant men. I think in particular back to 2020, when women were feeling empowered and emboldened to speak up about their experiences walking home, and I shared the fact that, when I leave this place at night, I do so with my flat keys in my hand and wearing a pair of trainers. I know that they are not much beloved of Madam Deputy Speaker, who would prefer none of us to wear trainers in this place, but actually as a woman it is much easier to run home in flat shoes. I suspect that few of my male colleagues have ever reflected on their footwear before trotting home across Westminster bridge.
We must tackle the cultures. We must recognise this good Bill, which my excellent colleague has brought forward, as a first step. There will be a very long way to go yet for all of us to stand up for brilliant young women like Maya and Gemma Tutton, who have been such an inspiration to me and others in this place, and ensure that this is a first step and that we continue the work.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I have a hard act to follow in my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), who made an excellent contribution. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) on one of the many other excellent contributions as well as on securing the Bill and bringing it to this point. I know that he will take it further and get it on the statute book, because everybody in the Chamber wants to see the Bill become an Act of Parliament. He embodies what we need to do, because men are part of the solution.
Men are the problem—there is no doubt about it. We have talked about how the Bill can protect men and women, but women and girls are predominantly the victims of harassment in public, so we need men such as my right hon. Friend to stand up and say “No” and to say that they need to be part of the solution, because the many fantastic women who have campaigned on this for many years will get it finished only if men come on board, too. I congratulate him on his work so far. I know that he will succeed and that he and others in the Chamber and in this place believe that this the right approach and that men need to be part of the solution.
We should be thinking about the safety of women and girls all the time. The media get interested in it only when there are high-profile cases. Those cases are heartbreaking and, every time there is such a case, I, and I suspect every other woman in this place, think how it could have been them. They remember the time they took the short cut home and wondered why they had when they finally got behind their door because that short cut is dangerous. They remember walking home with their keys in their hand. I still do, because if my hands are in my pocket and my keys are in my hand, should someone approach me, I have got a weapon—something that allows me to counteract the strength of a physical attack from, inevitably, a much stronger man.
We have all got the bus to the next stop—one more stop than we would normally go—because that is the lighter walk home, so we feel safer. In these cold, dark nights, we will all think, “Is it the right way to go, or should I walk out of my way and take that different route home that means that I will not be home, enjoying the warmth of my home, until later than a man would?” A man will not think about that. A man will just take that short cut or take the short bus route home. A man will not have to think about it.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) talked about how this is not right. We have to start being able to just live our lives. We should not be saying to women, “Oh, just man up.” Goodness me, that is not right. We should be able to take the bus route that gets us home quickly. We should be able to walk the shortcut. We should not have to have training on how to protect ourselves. This is not what our society should be. The hon. Lady was absolutely right and I pay tribute to her campaigning. When I was the Minister in the place of my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines), the hon. Lady was a thorn in my side, but quite rightly because she said many things that made a great deal of sense. It is great to see that this issue has now come to this House.
I welcome my hon. Friend to the Front Bench. She made a point that I want to gently pick her up on. She said we want to empower victims. We do not want to empower victims; we do not want victims in the first place. We do not want to be in a position where we are apologising and explaining our behaviour. It is about the perpetrators. We want people not to be perpetrators. We do not want the crime to happen in the first place, and we need to send that very clear message.
Let me compare the attitudes on this issue with attitudes on bullying in the playground. Nobody says that somebody being bullied in the playground should man up and learn how to fight back and protect themselves. No, we deal with the bullying. We take the bully and tell them that it is socially unacceptable to be a bully. I have seen the difference in my children’s education from what I received at school. They are told, “No, you can’t be a bully. If you’re a bully, we’ll take you out of the school. You will be excluded.” We deal with the perpetrators of bullying in the playground, yet in the field of violence against women and girls, we far too often look at potential victims and try to stop them from being victims. Everyone should take safety measures. We should lock our front doors when we leave and close our windows with security locks to stop us from being burgled. Of course we should take sensible measures, but we should not have to take additional measures as women just to go about our lives because we may be harassed in public, as if that is okay and acceptable.
I was the Minister with responsibility for this area way back when. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells said, I think I was the first woman in the coalition Government to manage that portfolio. I was followed by Sarah Newton, my hon. Friends the Members for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies) and now for Mid Derbyshire—sorry, Derbyshire Dales. I should know that, as she is my next-door neighbour.
It is a wonderful portfolio, but it can be the most difficult portfolio to deal with emotionally because the depravity that human beings can show to other human beings is sometimes extraordinary. The safeguarding brief is one that exposes any Minister to the depths of human behaviour, but it also shows the best sides of human behaviour. It can be the time when the champion and the hero is found—the person who will stand up and be counted. It can be the most rewarding.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), because when she was a Health Minister she took this issue seriously. It is not just a Home Office response; there has to be a response from across Government. While I am getting tributes out of the way, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) was my boss at the Home Office, she was the Home Secretary who spotted that this victim-based crime needs to be taken seriously. Victims need to be believed, and we need to stop the perpetrators before they even become perpetrators. Too often with this sort crime, we remove the victim from the setting. We take the victim to another place and it is the victim who suffers, rather than the perpetrator. It must not be that way—it must be the perpetrator who suffers. I continue in the theme of congratulating women Ministers by mentioning Amber Rudd and my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel). All those women Ministers in the Home Office have taken this issue seriously.
To conclude on this point, the Bill demonstrates what Parliament and parliamentarians want. We are showing leadership: we are saying that this is not acceptable and society needs to listen and act differently. Taking steps like this—making what appear to be very small changes to the law—can make an enormous difference.
I want to pick up on the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells made about hate crime. He is absolutely right that the more effective way to deal with the issue at this stage, as the legal framework sets out, is to make this change to harassment in public. However, it might not necessarily be the right way or everything we need to do in future, in a different framework. My right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North talked about the campaign continuing, and it does. This is not the end; it is just another step in this long journey that we are taking. But this simple Bill makes a big statement, and I say to police forces, law enforcement bodies, prosecution services and others: Parliament wants you to act in this area; Parliament wants you to take action and make sure these crimes are taken seriously. The greatest success of this Bill after it becomes an Act is that there will not be any prosecutions, because there will not need to be prosecutions, because society will have recognised that this is not acceptable and will start to behave differently.
I again pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells. He has my full support on this Bill, and I look forward to it returning to this place for Report and Third Reading, and then to the other place, and then to my right hon. Friend coming in with Royal Assent at some point in the future.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
It is with great pleasure that I add my support to the Bill of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark). I congratulate him on bringing forward what is actually quite a radical measure. There is an outbreak of consensus across the House today, but we should reflect on the fact that these issues have been causing nuisance and misery for women for generations. We have had women representatives in this place for over 100 years, and it is amazing that it has taken us this long to bring forward a measure that, as the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) said, will be liberating, because we as women have all had our freedoms compromised by having to tolerate behaviour that should have been ruled unacceptable a long time ago.
I listened very carefully to my right hon. Friend’s speech, and he presented his Bill in such an articulate and factual fashion that he made it unarguable. That is a great contrast with what I heard a Prime Minister say from the Dispatch Box only this year: that we should not criminalise this as it would cause too much work for the police. That statement on its own tells us that women remain second-class citizens before the law of this country, because women are not the problem here. Women are the victims; the problem is the behaviour, and that behaviour absolutely must be tackled.
It is also great to follow three great champions of women in this place: we wheeled out the star turns today, in no small part down to my right hon. Friend, who helpfully reminded us all that this Bill was coming forward today, but it is great to see them here. I pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), who has been dogged in her pursuit of Ministers on this issue. As she pointed out, only in 2019 she was vilified for making a public claim on this topic, and in that very short space of time this debate has been transformed. So this is a good day for women in Parliament.
I am pleased that the Minister said the Government support this measure. I am, however, slightly concerned by what she said about establishing intent, because the behaviours that the Bill is designed to tackle should be unacceptable in any context. Let me draw an analogy. When the Mayor of London reduced the speed limit on the Embankment to 20 mph, I got two speeding tickets because I did not know. I did not intend to break the law, but I had committed an offence because the law had changed and I was in breach of it. I had no real grounds on which to defend myself, because the behaviour was wrong. That is exactly the standard that should be brought to bear here, particularly as some of these crimes will be committed by groups of men in gangs, cajoling each other and egging each other on. Somebody may feel that they could argue, “Well, it wasn’t a problem. I didn’t intend to cause any offence. We were just having a bit of fun.” That cannot be acceptable; there can be no question of allowing any kind of loophole.
We have heard repeatedly in this House that women have to take decisions every day of the week about their safety. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North outlined, we need to bring those to life to make the whole House realise what we are talking about. She talks about wearing her trainers to walk home, and that is the kind of thing we do. I am sure I am not alone in putting my hood up to make sure that no one can see me. Even now, as a woman in her 50s, I am still making these decisions; these things do not just affect young women. However, I want to speak specifically about young women this morning, because some of the experiences they have during their teens, as they start to become noticed for being women, can cause real harm. Young girls can be traumatised by the attention they attract from men. I have said before in this place that, for young women going through puberty and through changes in their body that they are not comfortable with, it can be traumatising to have uncomfortable male attention overlaid on to that.
Let me relay a conversation I had recently on a school visit. All of us go into schools and talk about being Members of Parliament. Sometimes those visits are really good, and sometimes they are quite hard work and it takes a while to get the students going and asking questions. This visit was for International Women’s Day, when I went to speak to a group of girls who were all 13 or 14 years old. It was hard work; they were not being very forward. Then, I just chucked in, “So, how many of you in this room have been victims of street harassment?” I am not naive about this sort of stuff, but even I was shocked, because every single one of them had a story. One particular girl, bless her, was quite inspirational. She was 14 but could have passed for much older, and she told a story about how she had been followed. She had started to feel threatened, because this man was coming up quite close and he kept making suggestive comments to her.
Bless that girl, at 14 years old, she deliberately walked to where there were a lot of people in a shopping centre, turned round and hollered at him. I suspect that that was not the first time he had done that to any girl. I also suspect he will think twice about doing it again after she did that. This was a 14-year-old girl doing that. If we are expecting our teenage girls to have that degree of courage, bravado and strength, we are expecting an awful lot of them. The reality is that what should be tackled is that aggressive, entitled behaviour. What that man was doing was basically saying, “My entitlement to get enjoyment from ogling you, young girl, trumps your ability to say no.” The fact is that we have allowed our laws to continue to absolutely embed that principle in all aspects of our law. This Bill will help to change that.
The other aspect of that visit was that a male teacher was in the room, and the beauty of it was that, as each one of their girls shared their experiences, you could see the revelation for him. At the end of the meeting, he spoke quite emotionally to the girls and said, “Look, we need to do something about this in school. We need to start telling the boys how you feel when they behave like this.” I thought, “That’s great. I have done a good day’s work here,” and off I tootled. A few weeks ago, I was attending a church service and this girl up to me, grabbed hold of my arm and said, “I just wanted to thank you, because I was in that room when you came to school. I have now become the head girl and we have a project running all the way through the school and we are all talking about it.” I thought, “Fantastic,” but this is the lived experience of teenage girls up and down the country.
There is lots of criticism of the fact that there are too many cars outside schools. We have to get people on to public transport, but for girls it is like a war zone. We talk about how there is not a single women in this House who has not experienced this stuff, and public transport systems are probably one of the worst places to be. When introducing policies to achieve net zero, we need to think about some of the implications of these things. It is why things such as this Bill are so important to make everybody safe.
I am pleased that opinion is changing, and changing very rapidly. One of the reasons for that is that the terrible incident of Wayne Couzens, and the dreadful crimes that he perpetrated, forced everybody to stop in their tracks, and perhaps tell all the men in this House that it could happen to anyone. These are not crimes that are just directed at people in more deprived communities, lower-income groups or people who have been through the care system. They can, and do, happen to anyone.
I remember speaking to a ministerial colleague who told me that he had gone home and expressed his shock at what happened, only to have the revelation from his wife and sister that this was our lived experience all the time. Another colleague, after I had been on one of my regular diatribes on this subject, told me that now when he gets into the lift in Parliament with a woman he feels really uncomfortable in case he is intimidating her. I thought, “Good. We’re achieving something.” When men start to think about how their behaviour affects women, we are doing something right, so I make no apologies for making him feel uncomfortable.
The truth is that society has looked the other way for too long. We have seen these behaviours normalised, and women have been expected to just suck it up, and we have. Some women still think that it is “just bants”. Well, it is not bants; it can do harm. As I said, this is about power. This is about men using their collective accepted powers to reassert their power over women. Again, it comes as something of a shock that, for all our messages of equalities and efforts to get more women into Parliament and to create more equality of opportunity, some men still use low-level behaviours to intimidate women. They would use powers to intimidate other people as well, but women are perhaps the softest target to make inadequate men feel superior. It just is not okay to do that.
Lewd cat-calling, which covers some of the behaviours that we are talking about, can also make women feel very uncomfortable about their bodies. I return to the issue of how uncomfortable it can be for teenage girls. It is no surprise to me that so many teenage girls are exploring new gender identities at the moment, because the attention that they are receiving from men can be so unwelcome. If I think back to my time as a teenager, we did not have the amount of porn, one click away on the screen of a phone, that we do now. In those days, porn was much more restricted. Highly sexual images of women, and women’s bodies, were not as freely available.
The truth is that boys will have seen the kind of stuff that used to be on the top shelf of a newsagent before they reach their teens. It is no surprise, therefore, that a sexualised view of girls starts to materialise much quicker. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North outlined, so much of the sexually aggressive behaviour that girls experience starts in schools. There is a broader behavioural pattern here. One of the most important things about the Bill is that it will send a message to society that this behaviour is not okay—that it is wrong and harmful. As for the idea that we should worry about the volume of work that the police will have to do as a consequence of the Bill, that is not the issue. This is about sending out the message that we are not prepared to tolerate this behaviour any more.
I want to underline the point that the hon. Member for Walthamstow made about the Bill changing the culture of how women view the police in this area, because the crimes that will be escalated and reported are such things as rape and domestic violence. The message will be sent out that the criminal justice system is on the side of women. Culturally, we have to put up with things that cause us harm but which the law trivialises. Automatically, that does not put us in a good position to have respect for the institutions of the law. The fact that the police will have to record incidents will mean that they take the whole issue of gender crime more seriously.
As consequence of the Bill’s implementation, I would like to see, and I am confident that we will see, much more willingness on the part of victims and law enforcement to pursue these serious crimes. I look forward to the rape conviction rate being higher. We all share that objective, but we have never really examined how the wider aspects of the law affect women and get in the way culturally. That is also the reason why so many incidents of domestic violence go unpunished. It has been a long time since women were treated as the property of their husbands and fathers-in-law, but behaviourally, those issues have left a legacy. That means that women are not treated fairly in the criminal justice system when it comes to getting justice.
In summary, I am hugely supportive of the Bill and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells for promoting it. I am pleased that the Government support it, but we need to challenge much more on the wider issues of the law and the behaviour of all our institutions to make sure that we tackle violence against women—the fact that we call it “violence against women and girls” rather than “male violence against women and girls” epitomises the problem. We have always made it the victim’s problem, a woman’s problem, but it is not; the perpetrators are the problem. The perpetrators are men and we should send a very strong signal that some behaviours will not be tolerated and that we will do all we can to protect women and girls.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
I have spoken before about the serious and outrageous behaviour that girls from Stroud High School in my constituency reported to me. Those girls, in their distinctive school uniform, deal with completely unwanted public sexual harassment from men. There are random comments sometimes, and the comments are sometimes sexualised and are sometimes just really weird. I listened to their experiences. They took the initiative of creating a survey, so they went around their school—these are really smart kids—and they discovered, to their horror, that girls as young as nine had experienced public sexual harassment.
We have all experienced that and we have spoken about that in the Chamber. It ranges from being shouted at to comments by those who think they are being funny, to people being flashed at and far more serious incidents. We saw from the Everyone’s Invited campaign that this is prevalent among schoolgirls and schoolchildren. I started to investigate this, listening even more closely to my excellent colleagues and looking at the fantastic work that went on prior to my joining this House, and it became really obvious that things needed to change.
In Stroud, sadly, we have had a series of rapes and sexual assaults, which is totally devastating for the victims and their families. It has also completely rocked our community. This is a safe, beautiful Cotswolds town, which is similar to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) said about his area and the need for strong police and strong communities. We now have women who are worried about going out. We have women who are worried about going for a run during the day down our championed canal routes, because one of the attacks was in broad daylight. The Bill is not about rape—I get that—but about public sexual harassment. None the less, from speaking to the women and girls in my constituency and from listening to the experienced hon. and right hon. Members in this place, I know that, although the harassment on the streets and the trolling that is happening online daily, even hourly, to women and girls may be down to keyboard warriors being idiots, it is also fuelling physical abuse in the real world.
Caroline Nokes
My hon. Friend is making the important and powerful point that we must never ever forget that there is, uncomfortable though we may find it, a pyramid of offending. Although not every flasher becomes a rapist, every rapist has started somewhere, and public sexual harassment can be the somewhere. Does she agree that that is one of the many reasons why we have to make sure that it is stamped out at source?
Siobhan Baillie
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. That is why I get so frustrated when people dismiss this as unnecessary, going too far, or too heavy-handed. It is a very short hop, skip and jump from someone shouting obscenities or being rude to a woman on the street to being rude in their own home, if that is their mentality. We have to make that connection and we have to keep making it strongly.
When we had those rare horrendous incidents in Stroud, the advice that was immediately given was for women. They were told, “Change your behaviour. Change your clothes.” It was exactly as the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) said. It was also, “Don’t wear your headphones. Think a little bit more about where you’re going to walk”. Where do I want to walk in a beautiful Cotswolds market town? I want to walk everywhere. I do not want my thought processes to be about whether I will get attacked on any given day.
But Stroud fought back. This is a very spirited place, very politically bouncy, as anyone who follows politics will know, and my inbox is very bouncy, too. Anybody who thought that they would get away with attacking women and girls or being rude to them on the streets in my area was very, very wrong. We have all banded together to make changes, which is why I am so much in support of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells is doing. Our voices are being reinforced, although it is not just about our voices: in all of our constituencies, we have Government support for a very important Bill.
I have led a successful campaign, which the Government have now supported, to change the law and reduce anonymous online abuse, which, as I said, is completely connected to the real world. Hundreds of people in Stroud have marched, on a number of occasions now, specifically on these issues. Our police and crime commissioner, Chris Nelson, and our police have joined those marches. That is a really important step. Our PCC has made tackling violence against women and girls a focus of his work. The hon. Member for Walthamstow was talking about police forces that were ahead of the curve; Gloucestershire is one of them and I am very proud of it for that, although the police have a lot more work to do. We held a public meeting about these issues, and even though we have been reporting hate crimes and public harassment for much longer than other forces, women were standing up saying that they still did not feel comfortable going to the police. There is an awful lot of work to do, and I know that the Gloucestershire constabulary understand that.
Two fabulous constituents, Nikki Owen and Sydney-Anne McAllister—I met Sydney quite recently—have launched a pressure group called This Ends Now. They want to change the law and the media, and they are challenging both to do better, particularly on language. Where there is a rape, it should be reported in the media as a rape, not as a sexual assault, and it should not be played down in any way, shape or form. I believe that committed women in my patch will be pleased to see what we are trying to do today.
I encourage all Members of the House to look up the work of the Holly Gazzard Trust, which was set up by a family who were devastated by the loss of their daughter. They have gone on to campaign on domestic abuse and to really change the lives of many other families, and they are front and centre in supporting and fighting for women and girls in Gloucestershire.
We also have Chrissie Lowery, who is winning awards all over the place. Following the rapes and other incidents I have mentioned, and the rise of concern among our school girls about public sexual harassment, she took up the baton and created the Safe Space campaign, which Stagecoach, the police and lots of local businesses are now on board with. After an incident in a very dark, dingy, scary tunnel, Chrissie took the initiative of getting some amazing artists together, and we painted the tunnel, which sounds very simple. My daughter and I went down, and we put butterflies on the wall of this horrendously dark tunnel; it is now a beautiful open space that people are comfortable going down during the day, and we are looking at having lighting and CCTV at night. These efforts are small acts of kindness, but they will all join up to make a difference.
Gloucestershire police have created something called the Flare app, which is being rolled out to other forces. It allows people to put in the details of places they are worried about in the Stroud district and creates a heat map, so the police know to go to specific points of concern and the council can come in and do work on things such as CCTV. It is really innovative, and we can probably do more with it, but 3,000 people have downloaded it, so it is going pretty well for a new piece of kit.
Given that my community and constituents have done so much legwork—there are more examples, but I will not go on and on—it is right that we in this place constantly review the law. Following the advice from bodies such as the Law Commission—where very learned people have spent a lot of time investigating this issue—my right hon. Friend’s Bill assists us in doing that. We are creating a new law that deals with intentionally harassing or seeking to cause alarm, which is a gap in the legislation that we have in this place, so I welcome the Bill.
However, it is right that there is a balance in what we are trying to do and in what happens should somebody be pulled up for sexual harassment, so I welcome the explanation of what will and will not result in imprisonment. The headlines and challenges that we have seen—that someone will be sent to prison because they wolf-whistled—are immediately dismissive. It is therefore right that we are clear about what the Bill does and does not do and about how we have sought to strike a balance. The test is the intention to cause distress. Where somebody is being a plonker, that is a very different test—we could deal with plonkers in other ways. This intention to cause distress is a serious test, which will hopefully lead to prosecutions in the right places and then to deterrence, so that we can start to change society and culture.
Stella Creasy
Does the hon. Lady also recognise the point I made earlier about adding the concept of “foreseeable”? The risk with intent is the young man who says, “I didn't realise that this would be harassment,” when everybody else would. When we look at intent, we have to be clear that it is foreseeable that some behaviour could cause distress; otherwise, we create a big loophole, and we will not make the progress we want to make.
Siobhan Baillie
I heard what the hon. Lady said earlier. It is not something that I have looked at, but I understand that there are already examples in legislation and I heard the challenge to the Minister to look carefully at this. It is important. We cannot create legislation in the knowledge that people are going to get let off the hook or that they will learn how to respond when pulled up by the police. That is why we have to be clear about the balance and about what the Bill does and does not do. We have to think through a range of different examples and about the responses that will be given by the perpetrators, so that the legislation is tight.
As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), made clear, we have to avoid demonising all men and boys. They are not all bad. They are not all plonkers. We know that men and boys are very much part of the solution. Early education in our schools is absolutely vital, but we cannot get away from the fact that the incidents are generally perpetrated by men. It is right to continue that debate and to also be really careful with our language about men and boys.
To conclude, the reality is that only 26% of those who experience public sexual harassment report the incident to the police, no matter how scared, harassed or intimidated they have been by it. We have also heard examples such as that robustly and passionately given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North of the girl in the supermarket. That was a really visual story of the nonsense that girls and women have to go through every single day when they are not asking for it or wearing anything provocative but just trying to do their job. With such examples in our minds and this happening every single day of the week, of the month, of the year, we have to make changes.
I am relieved and really grateful that the next time I am in Stroud with Stroud High School girls or with the campaign group This Ends Now and other teams, or the next time I am on a march or dealing with these issues in front of a group of people in our town hall, I will be able to point to the Government backing this Bill as yet another example of the Government wanting to protect women and girls and being prepared to create the legislation to do so and bring our laws up to date.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
It is almost two years since Maya and Gemma Tutton from Our Streets Now first approached me in Parliament. I pay tribute to them for their campaigning. As the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) points out, there have been many voices along the way, but those two are notable because they are among the youngest campaigners and have been among the most persistent over the past two years. This Bill is in no small part a product of their efforts.
I have asked for laws on public sexual harassment a number of times in this place and have been met with two objections, both of which are legitimate and which I want to deal with at the outset. The first is the point about wolf whistling. Are we creating a de minimis criminal offence that will result in the police going on a wild goose chase after builders who have happened to wolf whistle at somebody? Gemma Tutton was asked that question when interviewed on the “Today” programme this morning. I will return to it later in my speech, but her answer was no and that what we are talking about is “really sexual intrusive abuse”. When we mention that in any roundtable we conduct in our constituencies or when we meet women’s groups, everybody knows an example of what is being referred to. The language used in that context would be completely unacceptable to repeat in this place, but such behaviour is pervasive and serious and the purpose of the offence is to address it.
The other objection that I have encountered in the past is that it is already a criminal offence under the Public Order Act 1986. The truth is that that is true in principle, but it is not really true in practice. Very rarely do women even know that they would have a right to go to the police to report public sexual harassment if someone said something really obscene to them in the street. On the very few occasions that I have encountered somebody who has been to the police, they tell me that they have been met with a really inconsistent and imperfect response by police officers who—and I say this respectfully—sometimes do not really know that there is such an offence and are unfamiliar with what they are required to do under the Public Order Act. I think that creates two imperatives to look at this.
I was very glad to hear the Minister respond positively at the Dispatch Box. I am going to expand on why the Government need to be enthusiastic about the Bill. It is right that the Government are responding to the recommendation of the Law Commission. I know that, when the Government have developed their work on tackling violence against women and girls, they have always wanted to do so following consultations and with a proper evidence base. After the comprehensive work the Law Commission did, it is difficult to say now that that has not come forward.
It is true to say that, in the last two to three years, the Government have increasingly shown that they are willing to enter the public sphere—the public, rather than the private—in the treatment of women. An example of that is when they outlawed upskirting. We are currently discussing the Online Safety Bill and the sharing of intimate images. My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Dame Maria Miller) is leading the charge on this, but the Government have made positive indications, and downblousing, another form of intrusive imagery, is likely to be included.
It was this Government a decade ago who created a distinct offence for stalking. I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not suggesting stalking is comparable to public harassment. It can be a much more serious offence, but at its inception, the first time someone acts, there is the idea of fixating on somebody and thinking about how to encroach on their public space in a way that will humiliate them, cause them fear or have a predatory impact. That offence has something in common with what we are trying to achieve today.
The purpose of this commendable private Member’s Bill from my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) is in some way to draw all these strands together. I would respectfully say that it is far better that we talk in the wider language of public sexual harassment, rather than in a piecemeal way, where we deal with individual acts and offences as they arise, such as upskirting and downblousing. Even those slightly contrived expressions show that we are dealing with the issue in a piecemeal way, rather than looking at it in a more cohesive sense.
There is also an important point to be made about consistency with the law. Since 1975, there has been a prohibition on sexual harassment in the workplace and in educational settings. That was set out in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, but it now appears in section 26 of the Equality Act 2010. It is clear that the 2010 Act has informed this Bill, because I notice that some of the statutory language is replicated. It is not as if the Government are unfamiliar with the law of sexual harassment, or that it does not exist anywhere. It does and it has been borrowed a bit here.
The whole sense of sexual harassment is something that has been brought into sharp focus since #MeToo particularly. We talk about sexual harassment in the workplace, but in the last year or so, particularly in educational settings such as universities, we have talked about non-disclosure agreements. That has been a big topic, and it is another part of what we are discussing today.
Another point, which we have all been tiptoeing around a bit, is how we draw the line at reasonableness and find the minimum threshold at which it would not be appropriate to criminalise somebody’s conduct. I would respectfully say that that already exists in law. I refer the House to section 26(4) of the Equality Act, which sets out a reasonableness condition that is necessary to establish, whatever the conduct complaint in the workplace, that it meets the threshold for unlawful harassment. It is not simply enough for somebody to assert that something has happened and on proving those facts establish that a civil tort has been made out. They must meet the reasonableness threshold set out in the Act, and I see no reason why equivalent terms could not be transposed into the criminal law, because the law is already used to looking at this.
It is true to say that there is a pervasive problem about women’s safety in public places. When I did a women’s safety survey in my constituency, 85% of respondents gave me an example of somewhere in the town of Newbury where they had felt unsafe. When specifics were given, they were much analogous to the kinds of harassment this Bill seeks to proscribe. Nearly every incident that I was given detail about had occurred in Newbury and at night, and I note that there have been two sexual assaults reported to the police in Newbury alone.
I want to pick up on another point that many MPs have made. I represent a market town in Berkshire; it is a low-crime area. None the less, in the three years since I was elected, the area has seen one violent murder of a woman by her partner, for which Christopher Minards was sentenced to life at Reading Crown court last September; a rape, for which Mark Tooze was sentenced to five years at Reading Crown court last July; a former Newbury police officer given a three and a half year sentence for abusing his position by coercing vulnerable women into sexual relationships; and a number of sexual assaults. Even in a low-crime area, very serious violence against women is happening, and therefore I do not take gateway issues, which I believe public sexual harassment can be, lightly.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) said, public sexual harassment is particularly directed at younger women and girls. Like her, I did a roundtable with some schoolgirls, and the girls at Park House, a big secondary school in Newbury, told me about being particularly targeted when wearing their uniforms and the men who kerb-crawl at the end of the day or wait at certain junctions, saying obscene things out of the window. The girls definitely thought that there was a link to wearing the school uniform and felt more vulnerable when wearing it. My constituency of Newbury is far from alone in this. Plan International gave me some data when I was preparing for the debate, and it shows that 75% of girls and women aged 12 to 21 have experienced some form of sexual harassment in a public space.
This is a very important and helpful Bill because it creates for women a clear set of contours so that they know when their rights have been infringed. It is also helpful to the police, because the words “public order offence” are quite vague, and if there is a public sexual harassment offence and police have training on it, it will be much clearer to them what they are expected to do and how they are expected to act when it is drawn to their attention. We can probably all agree that there has never been a more important moment for the police to reinject confidence in their relationship with the public, particularly in terms of how they are prepared to deal with violence against women and girls.
I want to end by agreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price): I cannot bear the expression “tackling violence against women and girls”. I regret that we use it and that we tolerate it in the passive voice. It is male violence against women, and as lawmakers, we should call it what it is; I really feel strongly about that. Overall, this Bill is an important and valuable tool in our long battle to completely overhaul women’s safety.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris), and I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) for bringing this Bill before the House. Listening to the speeches this morning has been a real eye-opener. We have heard some powerful arguments from Members across the House for why this legislation is unfortunately still necessary.
I repeat the plea of my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes): hopefully this legislation will never have to be used. What I am hearing from across the House is that lived experience needs to be more widely shared. I became an uncle again last week to a beautiful little girl who we have nicknamed Jingles while her parents think of a more appropriate long-term name, and I want to be able to say to her and my other nieces, as well as to my sisters-in-law, my parents and all my female friends and family that we are on a journey to making sure that this is stamped out.
I was brought up in the Greater London area, and I remember walking the streets of east London and how I was intimidated back then. If I could speak to an equivalent of myself at that age now, I am pretty sure their life would be a lot easier, but that journey has not been as quick for women in this country. As a House, we recognise that, which is part of the reason we are debating this today, but there is much more that can be done. As someone who has spent a bit of time in the Home Office, I know that the Government are doing a lot on this. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) spoke about the terminology used in a particular report, and I hope that those on the Front Bench listened to that.
We need to continue to make men a bit more self-aware. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock spoke about a colleague being a bit self-conscious in the lift; that is absolutely the right type of attitude that we want to instil. We need to be conscious that when men walk down the local street or home from the tube station, we generally do not bat an eyelid in respect of our safety. When I was at university—I remember this shocking me at the time—each and every one of my female friends at the time had a story about feeling scared. If I repeated that exercise today, the likelihood is that unfortunately each person would have the same answer.
We have spoken about some stats; I would argue that a lot of those stats are probably hiding a lot of the issues. Although the stats show that 75% of females feel intimidated, I am pretty sure it is closer to 100%, but the other 25% do not yet feel confident enough to start to say, “Actually, I may have been a victim of harassment or other issues.”
We need to be more socially and culturally aware. As someone who thinks about doing the right things even when no one is watching, I know that there will have been instances when I was with a bunch of predominantly male friends, especially in my younger days, when we may have ended up with a herd mentality. We need to nip that in the bud.
I compliment British Transport police: on my commute in recent weeks and months I have seen advertising hoardings that tell people to call out bad behaviour and explain how to intervene safely and securely if they see a potential domestic violence issue on the London underground. Part of what we need to do today—I hope to take this away afterwards—is encourage further education for us all on how to nip things in the bud at an early stage. We spoke earlier about the pyramid model, and I do think that is correct. If we do not deal with bad behaviour early in someone’s trajectory, they could go on to bigger and worse offences that none of us wants to see.
I am conscious that I have probably spoken for longer than I intended, but I am grateful for being allowed to contribute.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who is very well respected in Scunthorpe because of his work on the steel industry some years ago. I thank him for that work and for bringing forward this very important private Member’s Bill. It is a pleasure to be here to speak about it. It is important that we recognise that we are having this debate during the UN’s 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. This is a matter of interest to many of my constituents and I am pleased to represent them today and to talk about this issue.
I am also here as a person who completely understands, as we all do, the fear of being inappropriately approached in public. I am here as a parent, as an aunty and as a member of our society who understands. There cannot be anyone present who has not had a friend, a sister, their mum, their aunty or somebody they know ring them up and say, “Can you just stay on the phone with me please? I have got off the bus and I think maybe there is someone behind me,” or, “I feel a little uncomfortable; will you stay on the phone with me until I get home and let you know that I’m safe?” We will all have experienced that.
As the Office for National Statistics tells us, one in two women feels unsafe walking home at night. The proportion for men is much lower, at one in six. It is no wonder that the calls for change we have heard so passionately expressed by so many colleagues today are so loud, because we all understand, instinctively and innately, that this is an issue of concern that affects our families, friends and constituents. We all understand that it is right that we address it, so I am grateful that we have the opportunity to do so today.
We have seen various petitions and many of our constituents have expressed concerns. As has been said, we have to acknowledge that legislative change alone will not address this issue in its entirety. It has to be a much wider conversation that we start with our own children, nieces and nephews and other children we spend time with, and part of the conversations we have in schools, colleges, universities and the workplace. It should be a conversation that we continue to have and revisit throughout our whole lives.
I want to recognise the work in my local area through my local police and crime commissioner, Jonathan Evison. He has opened a community safety fund that supports projects that, among other things, improve the safety of outdoor public spaces and support those most at risk of crime. I absolutely take on board the points that have been made today. We should be safe to walk anywhere at any time, whether the lighting is good or terrible, and whether it is an alleyway or a wide open space—whatever it is. It is helpful and right that we make those spaces as safe as we can by making them well-lit and by recognising areas where it is less pleasant and where we feel less safe and addressing that.
The police and crime commissioner’s strategy emphasises the collation of data and understanding some of the root causes we have heard about today. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells mentioned the thousands of years of history and some of the root causes of the behaviour that we still see. The strategy seeks to put forward some solutions to this violence that women and girls face.
We also saw the launch of the safety of women at night fund, which is specifically targeted at public spaces at night. We all know of areas in our constituencies and places where we spend time that feel safe, open and well-lit in the daytime, but which at night can be a completely different environment where we do not feel comfortable or safe spending time. I congratulate the police and crime commissioner on that work, because this is real money going to real effective projects, and we can see the results.
We also have, as was mentioned earlier, the StreetSafe project. I have spoken to young women and girls in my constituency who have told me that they know areas where they expect this kind of behaviour to take place. I have spoken to local police officers who were genuinely concerned and understood the issues. They, too, knew where some of these places were. The StreetSafe tool, which is a mapping tool that I have advertised on my Facebook and encouraged people to use, allows us to share information, build a picture and collect the data about areas where this behaviour is taking place. The police can then understand that and show that resources need to be allocated to those spaces.
In terms of the wider legal context, I am not a lawyer. I understand the arguments about existing legislation, and what that does and does not cover, and I defer to my more learned colleagues who do understand that. I am well convinced by the words of hon. and right hon. Members that this Bill is required and that we are not able to take the steps we need to take, to send the messages we need to send and to make the changes we need to make with what is available to us at the moment. I am completely convinced on that matter.
My view is that the intention of this Bill is good. It is needed, and we can see that it has cross-party support in the House today. This Bill should only ever have been rejected if the Government could show that the existing framework would put us in a position where we can tackle this issue. I am pleased to hear the Government’s response today. I want us to reach the end of this process and be able to say clearly that the law is written in the most optimal way it can be to prevent further instances of sex-based harassment on our streets. I wish my right hon. Friend the very best with this Bill as it continues its progress, and I commend him on the work he has done so far. I hope we reach the correct outcome.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
It is a great privilege to speak in this debate and in support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark). Like many Members, I am new to this House and sitting here this morning I was starting to think that, as a new MP, sometimes we are away from home for quite a lot of time. This week has been a full week, before I go back to North Norfolk to switch on a few Christmas trees in my constituency tonight. I have sat here listening to the contributions, some of which have been extremely powerful. I think it was the one from my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) that made me suddenly think for a moment about how I would feel.
Sitting here, we begin to think about going back home to our families. I have two little girls; I have often spoken about them. Like their father, they are quite nice little dots. Isabelle and Eleanor are 11 and seven, with blonde hair. I sat here, as a father, listening to what my right hon. Friend said. I think that I speak for every father, and indeed mother, in this place when I say that if one day I had to come home and hear about one of my little girls being spoken to by a man about what she looks like, or what her bottom is like, and having had a man touch her while she was waitressing or putting trollies away in the supermarket, I would want the law to protect her. What we heard from my right hon. Friend was disgraceful, and well done to her for looking after her constituents so well. I am very honoured to support the Bill based on what was said this morning.
Turning to the Bill and some of the research that I have done, harassment in public on the grounds of race or disability is rightly treated extremely seriously. Following what I have just said, I firmly believe that to harass someone due to their sex is absolutely no different, and should incur exactly the same response. I have heard over the last three years from constituents, usually women and girls, about their own lived experiences. To hear some of those stories, just like what has been spoken about this morning, is deeply saddening, and in many cases they feel powerless to get something done about it.
I find the statistics extraordinary, with 75% of girls reportedly experiencing unwanted sexual attention in public and over 30% of girls receiving verbal harassment at least once a month. It is unthinkable, and clearly something must be done about it. We need to ensure not only that sexual harassment is punished, but that the victims know who they can report it to, and where they can receive the necessary aftercare. I find the statistic of 68% of adult women experiencing sexual harassment since the age of 15 deeply disturbing.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
That is a really important statistic. Has the hon. Gentleman heard the term “adultification”, which sadly a number of young black girls suffer from? They are perceived as being much older than they are, and they are treated unfairly, including unwarranted sexual assault and sexual touching.
Duncan Baker
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I am not an expert in this area, and it is not something that I know a great deal about, but I have had the privilege of sitting here this morning and hearing and learning. I will certainly go away and look at her point, and I thank her for making it.
To sum up my thoughts, I will go back to my two little girls, whom I look forward to seeing later. I, like every other Member of this House, want my daughters to be able to walk home at night feeling safe. I want them to be able to feel confident that the law will protect them. I find the statistics that we have been given a sad reflection on society. We have a society that seems to tacitly tolerate so much sexual harassment, and turn a blind eye to it. For too long, women and girls have had this experience of deliberate harassment intended to raise alarm and cause concern when they are just going about their everyday lives. I entirely support the Bill, and commend it to the House.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker), and to take part in the debate.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) on his Bill. I have the privilege of serving on his Select Committee, the Science and Technology Committee, and the Bill bears all the hallmarks of his forensic attention to detail and, indeed, fundamental decency. I also pay tribute to Safenet, Rochdale Women’s Welfare Association, Independent Choices Greater Manchester, and Superintendent Nicky Porter of Greater Manchester police, who is the VAWG lead for GMP and also my local superintendent. She does remarkable work, and I look forward to supporting her in that regard.
I was struck by something that the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) said in her speech. We often talk about oppressed minorities in this place, but in this instance we are talking about an oppressed majority. She said something thoroughly depressing: “Women are everywhere, but we do not get to go everywhere without being frightened.” What an awful statement that is, and how awful it is to have to realise that that is the truth, the lived experience for the majority of people in the country. It is flabbergasting; it is horrendous.
Safety is not something we should ever be able to take for granted. Walking down the street at night, travelling to school, going to the gym—these are things that women and girls, and men and boys, should be able to do without fear. However, that is just not the case. It is not the lived reality. According to Plan International, 62% of women have avoided doing something routine because they have either experienced sexual harassment or feared it. That is a disgrace, and that is why the Bill is so important. By amending section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986, it will make public sexual harassment a sex-specific offence for the first time. Some have suggested that it might be simpler to add misogyny and misandry to the list of hate crimes. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells pointed out, we do not want to leave open a loophole enabling an abuser to simply say that the harassment was not motivated by hatred of a particular sex. While I agree that this is a good first step, I think we need to think about how, technically, we can make those offences work in law.
More important is the fact that the changes proposed in the Bill have not come out of the blue. I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) that the passive term “violence against women and girls” is not an appropriate moniker, and I hope we will start to change that language, but it was the Government’s VAWG strategy that highlighted the need to take public sexual harassment more seriously. The Law Commission then suggested that more attention should be paid to legislative changes. It was therefore good to see the Home Office launch its consultation over the summer to determine how best the law can protect individuals from public sexual harassment.
I say “individuals” because it is important that to remember that this behaviour does not just affect women and girls, and that men can also experience harassment based on their sex. As was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), it disproportionately affects the LGBT+ community. I certainly do not wish to diminish the experience of the women who are in the Chamber today, but I myself have experienced a form of sexual harassment. I am a member of that community, and it is pervasive. Even if only one in six men fear it, I think we need to keep an eye on it.
I hope that the Bill will enable us to give more support to victims of public sexual harassment so they are able to identify instances of criminal behaviour, and to feel confident that once they have been reported, their cases will be dealt with properly. Only through greater clarity in the law can the public have confidence that intentional harassment based on sex will be dealt with swiftly and appropriately by the police.
Stella Creasy
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case about the importance of being specific, and I think we need to be clear about the fact that this is not about sexual harassment alone. It is about sex-based harassment, because these behaviours are about power—the power to demean and insult somebody, with that sense of entitlement. It must be made clear that, in the case any of the victims, this does not have to involve sexual words or behaviour to be sex-based harassment under the Bill. Whether it constitutes misogyny or misandry, it is unacceptable.
Chris Clarkson
The hon. Lady makes an extremely important point, and I absolutely agree with her; these behaviours are entirely about power, and therefore a sexual element is not always necessary in order for them to permeate. I am simply speaking to the use of the language. As I said, this Bill is a good starting point. We need to have a broader conversation about how we specifically make misogyny and misandry hate crimes, but obviously the technical implementation of that will take time. We need this legislation in place now, which is why I will be actively supporting it.
We have heard some powerful speeches today. People have said, “As a father”, “As a husband”, “As an uncle”, and so on, and those are laudable reasons to give. I am not a father, which will not surprise anybody. I am not married to a woman. I have female relatives, but that is not the reason I am supporting the Bill. I am supporting it because it is morally the right thing to do. It is completely unsustainable that the majority of the people in this country live in constant fear of injury, harassment and simply not being able to go about their lives as I can.
I have the privilege of being a white middle-aged man. I live in a society that was specifically designed by people who look like me for people like me; that is fantastic, I can breeze through life and 90% of the time I will not be affected by anything. I am a member of a particular protected characteristic, but perversely the law already protects me. I can be protected on the grounds of my sexuality but not on the grounds of my sex, which is not an appropriate way for the law to operate in this day and age. So I will be supporting the Bill because it is morally the right thing to do. It is the decent thing to do and, once again, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells on having the initiative to do this, because it has been far too long.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I, too, want to start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) on introducing this important Bill. It is humbling to speak after so many passionate speeches; there have been more than in any other debate I have been involved with, particularly from the female Members. I think in particular of the speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Newbury (Laura Farris) and for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) and for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes). We heard a lot of incredibly informed and powerful speeches.
I think it is important for me as a man also to speak about this, for two reasons. The first is that this Bill is about a problem that affects us all. As other Members have mentioned, we men have daughters, wives, mothers, sisters and we are also directly affected by this; I want all my loved ones not to have to live in fear. Secondly, it is important for men to speak about this because although this problem primarily affects women—it does affect some men as well—it is primarily and overwhelmingly men who are the perpetrators of it. The problem is not women’s behaviour. The problem is men’s behaviour and it absolutely need to change, and that is what we hope this Bill will succeed at. We also need to educate men about the importance of changing behaviour and about how a lot of what they currently do is unacceptable. Wolf-whistling is unacceptable, so is deliberately following women down streets at night and so is leering over them in the tube and making sexual comments—it is not okay. Men have to change their behaviour, and we need to educate young men, boys, children in schools that that behaviour is unacceptable.
Attitudes have changed over time. I recall as a child going past a building site where various builders cat-called, wolf-whistled out to a woman, who was clearly very distressed by it, and other people nearby found it acceptable that that was happening. It was a sort of “joke”, although clearly it was not a joke for her. Nowadays, people would find that far less acceptable, but clearly attitudes need to change far more. One clear lesson from this morning’s debate—I will not recite all the statistics that other Members have used, although I have them here—is that this is still a very widespread problem. It is far too prevalent. Clearly, it is completely unacceptable that the majority of the population live in fear and we absolutely have a duty as a Parliament to deal with it.
As the hon. Member for Walthamstow mentioned, we already have a law for this. The Public Order Act 1986 does cover harassment, not sex-based harassment, and there are penalties for it. Clearly, however, the current legal framework does not work, because this is still a problem. That is why it is clearly necessary to up the ante, have a particular sexual harassment-based crime and increase the penalties, as this Bill does. That should sent out a message to three different groups: the police, the victims, and the perpetrators. The message to the police, law enforcement agencies, courts and judges is: society and Parliament expect you to treat this with the seriousness it deserves; this is not something you can expect victims to shrug off or “man up” and deal with. Some people have talked about that.
The police and the courts have an absolute duty to clamp down on this. Increasing the penalties and having a specific law for it will make it clear to them that they need to do that. It sends a message to victims as well that it is important that they get the protection that they want.
It sends a message to victims as well that it is important that they get the protection that they want, and that there is a law out there to protect them. The law enforcement agencies, if they step up to the plate—we expect them to—will make it clear to victims that the harassment they are experiencing is not acceptable. The victim should therefore feel more empowered to come forward and report it. At the moment, few do so, because they know that it will be ignored, but the Bill will ensure that such cases are taken seriously.
The third message—this is perhaps the most important one—is to the perpetrators: that such behaviour is totally unacceptable, that they absolutely must stop doing it and that, if they do not, they could face up to two years in prison. Perpetrators should know that cases will be taken seriously, that victims will report them and that the law enforcement authorities will treat them with the seriousness that it deserves.
I am proud to speak in favour of the Bill and glad that the Government are supporting it. Again, I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells for bringing it forward.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne). I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) on bringing forward the Bill. He is taking the opportunity to raise a hugely important issue and has introduced a Bill that will better protect our constituents. We have heard some excellent and moving speeches, and with good reason, because this is an important issue that affects everyone, either as a victim or as a relative of a victim.
Having served on the Women and Equalities Committee under the excellent chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) and on the Bill Committee for the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, together with regular engagement with my local police, my local domestic abuse refuge and the night-time economy, including a recent shift at the newly established night-time hub in Darlington, I am only too well aware of the need for our society to do more to protect people, and particularly women and girls. I am therefore pleased to support the Bill, which will help to put in place further measures that will improve the safety of our constituents.
The Bill is undoubtedly another good step forward. It is simply wrong that, in modern Britain, women and girls still face harassment and fear being in public alone. Victims of abuse and harassment—predominantly women and girls—have been failed time and again by the criminal justice system. We can always do more, and we must do more to prevent that from continuing.
I again commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells on bringing forward the Bill for its Second Reading. It will provide another layer of protection in our society and is a great move in the right direction. It is vital that we see it progress through its legislative journey, and I offer my services on the Bill Committee should he require them.
Miss Dines
With the leave of the House, I will make a few comments about the way in which the debate has been conducted. It has been a pleasure to respond on behalf of the Government to the excellent Bill promoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark). Sitting next to me is the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), who previously held my role.
On the history of this issue, I want to give thanks not only to the parliamentarians on both sides of the House but to those who have held office and fought really hard continuously to get this moving. I must also mention the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), all the senior parliamentarians who have held ministerial posts or the Chairs of Select Committees, and everyone who has worked so hard on this. The joy of this place, and not only for those watching our proceedings at home, is that there is a learning curve. The pace of change gets faster, and this issue is one on which we can look forward to seeing real, radical change brought in by the Government, hopefully with cross-Chamber support.
Another joy of this place is that I, as a member of the 2019 intake, can look around me and see a wealth of experience, which, may I say, comes in all shapes and sizes, let alone sexes and appearances, and haircuts? It is just so wonderful that, with every election, we have a new intake in this wonderful place, which brings fresh ideas, fresh experiences and fresh ways of engaging with communities. We have heard a lot about the good work with communities.
I pay tribute to many of our police and crime commissioners who are stepping up to the plate. We have heard numerous examples from Members across the House of their own initiatives brought forward by police and crime commissioners. That is exactly what this is about: change from the police as well as change from perpetrators. I thank the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) for her hard work. She spoke about freedom; it is always wonderful when Members of all parties use that word. That is what we are here for. It is all about freedom, in contrast to many countries in the world. We are leading the world in this piece of work, and it is wonderful it is cross-party.
On the challenges moving forward, a few Members mentioned that I said I want to empower the victim. I do not say that with any exclusivity, to mean that the victim is at fault or that is the only forward. It is not mutually exclusive. The Government’s focus is on perpetrators—it is about gathering information and evidence on perpetrators with new initiatives, not least on rape and serious sexual offences and violence against women and girls. That is wonderful. It is exactly what will cut through. I apologise for having said “empowering victims”—I mean that in the context of empowering them to go to the police and expect to be taken seriously, rather than being brushed off and told that it does not really matter because it is part of being a young girl. That is the empowerment I meant, though the emphasis may not have been quite right.
I thank all those who intervened and did not make a substantive speech, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans). Some very serious points were made. In response to the forthright and useful comments made by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), I reassure him that when he said enough is enough, that resonates with the Enough media campaign. I paid quite a harrowing visit to Charing Cross police station with the public protection unit yesterday. I heard horrendous stories, as hon. Members can imagine. Some of the senior officers were saying that enough is enough. These are words that resonate and have the power to change.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) has done a huge amount of powerful work. I thank her for the explanation that she gave of constituents and other people who have spoken to her and given evidence to her in her work over the years. She mentioned Donna Jones, the police and crime commissioner for Hampshire, whom I met just a few weeks ago. She is leading in this field. I am so pleased that women—men, too, but it seems to be mainly women—can work together to cut through this issue. It is useful, and I thank her for that. The right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley) has worked closely with others in the field and was a Minister in the role that I now hold. We need trailblazers to kick us in the right direction, and I thank her for her work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) is always an impassioned speaker, and I always listen carefully to what she has to say. For MPs from the 2019 intake, such as me, it is wonderful to have depth of experience from across the House to help us. She spoke about mens rea and whether there needs to be intention to commit an offence. She made a comparison with speeding, which is a straightforward, strict liability, no-defence case. There will be further discussion. As mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells, we need to prove the defendant’s mental state. That is a well-established legal tradition over hundreds of years, and we have to be careful if we go in a totally new direction. We will look at each of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock raised.
My hon. Friend also raised, as did many Members, the need to put together better male education together for our young boys—also girls, but particularly boys—so that they do not get peer pressure towards certain behaviour when the hormones kick in and think that it is okay. The sooner we shout out that sort of behaviour, the better. As a basic comparison, it is like when we teach a child not to steal 50p from the table. It means that they are less likely to steal 50p from a shop and go on to commit fraud. In the same way, failing to call out harassment when someone is very young can lead to much more serious crime in future, as many Members said. It is important to tackle that, and education across the board is needed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) is very experienced in this field, as are all the other Members who have contributed today, and has done commendable work. It is startling to hear of such serious crimes being committed in Stroud or in Newbury; it is shocking to think that sleepy places experience crimes as serious as those anywhere else. This truly happens across the country. In my new role, sometimes eyebrows are raised and I am asked which part of the country this affects—people ask whether it happens everywhere or is geographically specific. We need a bespoke approach to dealing with certain issues in certain areas, but we need to improve on this across the board. It does not matter where we live: girls and boys must have the same rights.
We need to empower girls and boys who have suffered from sex-based harassment to go to the police. A lot has been done on this, and my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) set out the new laws and the work we have done: there is the new law on upskirting, and we are working on downblousing and online safety. This is important, innovative work, and I am very pleased to be part of a Government who are taking this issue by the neck and shaking it. I was particularly interested in the discussions my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury has had with secondary schoolchildren, especially girls. That takes us back to the need for better education across the board.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) for his intervention. It is always touching to hear a few heartfelt words from a Member who has thought deeply about these matters; everybody has thought deeply, but that came over very well and clearly from South West Hertfordshire’s eloquent MP. He mentioned education again, too.
We cannot the forceful points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft), not on this occasion about steel, but about the equally important subject of her police and crime commissioner Jonathan Evison and the use of mapping tools. I am sure the police use those tools in other areas, not just in constituencies represented by Conservative MPs, and mapping tools that are adapted to each locality have proved very effective and a good use of money. I look forward to them being used more.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) movingly described his concerns for his daughters, but, as others have said, it is no longer just fathers and uncles who should talk about these things; everybody must speak out now. I also thank the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), who is not in the Chamber at present, for her brief intervention, and my hon. Friends the Members for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) and, last but not least, for Darlington (Peter Gibson) for their comments.
I thank all Members for their useful contributions, but finally I once again thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells for introducing this really good Bill and I look forward to it progressing.
Greg Clark
I would like to briefly respond to this excellent Second Reading debate. I thank all colleagues for coming in, and we have heard powerful contributions from all parts of the House. As the Minister said, it is particularly good not only that we have heard from the accomplished Women and Equalities Committee Chair, my right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), but that a galaxy of former holders of office are represented here. I welcome the Minister stepping into her new responsibilities, and she clearly has plenty of good advisers.
I will not comment on every speech, as some Members want to get on to the business to follow, nor will I add to the long list of organisations outside this place that have been mentioned, but I do want to emphasise one that was mentioned, the Soroptimists. They are very active and important members of the Tunbridge Wells community, and they are represented in the Public Gallery, today so I emphasise my welcome to them.
It is clear from the speeches made today that there is universal recognition that public sexual harassment is an all too frequent experience that women and girls, especially, endure every day in all parts of the country. The most powerful change we can and must make is cultural—it must become as obviously unacceptable to abuse a woman on the streets of our country on the basis of her sex as it is to abuse someone on the basis of their race or sexuality—but the law can play an important role in accelerating that cultural change. As we heard, the lack of any specific crime of public sexual harassment can contribute to uncertainty on the part of victims as to whether it is worth reporting it to the police, as well as to uncertainty, I dare say, in the minds of perpetrators who might commit these crimes that this is a crime. They should be well aware of that. The Bill will make a significant step in establishing that deliberately intimidating and abusing women is a crime.
Good suggestions have been made about how the Bill might be improved and I hope that the Bill Committee will provide that opportunity. That said, I am conscious that, for a private Member’s Bill that does not have the luxury of Government time attached to it, what might be the Bill’s ideal scope and coverage has to be proportional to the opportunity that we have, which is to change the law to make public sexual harassment an offence for the first time in our history, and to do so before the summer. Future Bills, whether they are Government or private Members’ Bills, could make further reforms, and I hope that Members will have that in mind in Committee.
I want to end by thanking the Home Secretary and the Minister for their support and for the hard work of their excellent officials in advising me on the Bill’s contents. I am grateful to the Government Whips Office and its officials. In particular, my hon. Friend the Comptroller of His Majesty’s Household is very effective, and she is assisted very ably today by my equally honourable Friend, the Vice-Chamberlain of His Majesty’s Household. I also thank the superb Clerk of Private Members’ Bills in the House Service, Anne-Marie Griffiths, and the print team for its patience and responsiveness when the deadlines for printing the papers for the Bill sometimes went close to the wire. In the hope that we might make the first big step towards safety and confidence for women and girls right across the country, I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).
Child Support (Enforcement) Bill
Friday 9th December 2022
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Child Support (Enforcement) Act 2023 View all Child Support (Enforcement) Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
It should not be controversial across the House that parents should be responsible for their children unless they really cannot do that and need help. That parental responsibility is in all of us and the state welfare benefits and state systems in many other ways will step in to support families when it is absolutely necessary to do so. However, parents are too often let down by ex-partners for a range of reasons and they do not receive the support that they are due financially or otherwise.
In the case of child maintenance issues, parents who are receiving that money and, in many cases, relying on it to live on should be able to trust the child maintenance system to move as swiftly as possible to help them to recover maintenance arrears when it becomes necessary to do so. I am interested in that area through my experience as a family law solicitor, for my constituents who regularly bring incredibly complex child maintenance matters to me, and because this is an area of Government business—in a fantastic Department that works incredibly hard to help people who come to it with their issues—that can actually lift children out of poverty. I want to give the Child Maintenance Service, my constituents and everyone involved as much support as possible to do their job, which is where the Bill comes in.
This is an important measure to improve the recovery of arrears from parents who fail to meet their financial obligations to pay child maintenance. Before going into more detail about what this Bill aims to achieve, it may be helpful if I explain the purpose of the Child Maintenance Service for anybody who is not aware. The CMS is to facilitate the payment of child maintenance between separated parents who are unable to reach their own agreement following separation. That is an incredibly challenging job done in very difficult circumstances. Many Members will have experience of the CMS through their constituents. Some of that will be positive and some will be negative, but those Members who remember the Child Support Agency will I am sure acknowledge that the CMS, which was launched in 2012 to replace the Child Support Agency, is performing relatively well and is much better than previous systems. My parents are separated. My dad has some war stories about the Child Support Agency. We must not forget that that thing was on the front of newspapers, and that is not something that we see with this system, even though I am here in the Chamber saying that we can make improvements.
To emphasise the importance of the service, I should say that, in the past 12 months, more than £1 billion of payments were arranged or collected through the Child Maintenance Service. Under the Child Maintenance Service Act 2012, payments are calculated so that they are fair and affordable for both parents. That is key for these things to be successful.
The CMS uses gross income for calculation, whereas the old system was based on net income. To keep the impact of the calculation broadly the same, the 2012 scheme introduced modifications to the percentages with the banding system. In family law, it should be known that we would do the calculations for child maintenance for the parent client before us in our office before we turned to the other parent for other maintenance payments, so these calculations and the formula are important and it does work in many cases.
The statutory scheme is designed to limit the number of changes throughout the year. That is why the threshold for in-year changes to income is set at 25%, so that the liability remains consistent and parents can factor this into their own financial planning. Children are expensive. We need to be able to plan.
The CMS manages cases through one of two services. The first is direct pay and the second is collect and pay. Direct pay does what it says on the tin. The CMS provides a calculation and a payment schedule, but, effectively, the parents arrange the payments between them. For collect and pay, the CMS calculates how much maintenance should be paid, collects the money from the paying parent and pays it to the receiving parent, so it is a much more interventionist activity. Cases in collect and pay tend to include parents where a collaborative arrangement has either failed or has not been possible to achieve. Paying parents on collect and pay are therefore considered to be less likely to meet their payment responsibilities.
The difference that child maintenance payments make to children’s lives is critical, and the CMS takes action to tackle payment breakdowns at the earliest opportunity, to re-establish compliance and to collect unpaid amounts that have accrued. I give credit to groups such as Gingerbread, which often raise with MPs and Select Committees the impact on single parents; often, we are trying to help single parents through the CMS support schemes.
Where compliance is not achieved and the parent is employed, the CMS will attempt to deduct their maintenance, including any arrears where appropriate, directly from their earnings. Employers are obliged by law to co-operate with that action. Enforcement powers also allow for deductions to be taken directly from bank accounts, including joint accounts and business accounts, either as a lump sum or regular amounts—so far, so good. That is the run of the mill enforcement stuff. Members needed to understand that to understand the more severe enforcement measures used to collect child maintenance, which is what the main part of the Bill deals with.
The CMS is committed to modernising and improving and, as part of that commitment, it is reviewing the enforcement powers to make them as effective as possible in recovering arrears from parents who are failing to meet their financial obligations to their children. Under current legislation, the CMS must apply to the magistrates or the sheriff courts to obtain a liability order before the use of enforcement powers such as instructing enforcement agents or sheriff offices, or the use of more stringent court-based enforcement actions. So there is an extra step to go to court to get that stage of enforcement. Enforcements can include disqualification from driving or from holding a UK passport, or committing a non-compliant parent to prison. So it is serious stuff.
Obtaining a liability order through the courts is time-consuming. At the moment, the Government website tells parents that it can take anything from a few weeks to a few months. We know that there are now also an awful lot of delays in the courts—there was a pause during the pandemic, when the courts were closed—so I imagine it has been even more difficult recently to obtain these things.
That delay in receiving child maintenance has a consequence for the receiving parent and the children. Delay is bad for children, and we know that that principle underpins much family law. Furthermore, this additional step in enforcing debt is no longer required by other Departments, such as His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Other Departments are doing what my Bill is trying to achieve, so give me those powers so that the CMS can do the same.
We are also trying to introduce a lot of speed. The Bill will repeal the sections of the Child Support Act 1991 requiring the CMS to apply to the courts to obtain the liability order. It will stop applications to the courts by making amendments to uncommenced powers in the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008. Those powers, once enacted, will allow enforcement measures to be used more quickly against parents who have failed to meet their obligation.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes the good point that the procedural step in the current system of requiring the CMS to apply to the courts for a liability order creates delay. Can she give the House an indication, based on her experience, of the sort of delay we are talking about?
Siobhan Baillie
I have been looking through my casework, and the delay has been months in some cases. What is worse is that, even though the system we have is well-meaning, few parents have trust that anything will ever happen. Even where there have been successful liability orders—they are in the hundreds, and I have figures here—any delay becomes the chat in the communities and there is no trust. Any delay or confusion about what can and cannot be achieved is damaging to these families. I thank my hon. Friend for his important intervention.
To preserve the safeguards for paying parents, the Bill makes provisions for secondary legislation to allow the paying parent a right of appeal to a court against an administrative liability order—so there will be appeal rights. The first regulations relating to appeals against liability orders will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
The Bill will operate across England, Wales and Scotland, as they are all part of the same child maintenance regime. The court system governing the enforced collection of child maintenance is governed by broadly the same statutory provisions in England and Wales. In Scotland, however, the judicial system is devolved, so provisions in the Bill allow for a later commencement date, by which time changes to the appropriate court processes can be made. For that reason, the Child Maintenance Service will work with legal colleagues in the Scottish Government to ensure that the policy is effectively delivered in Scotland. I would also say, to those colleagues who always are interested in devolution issues, that Northern Ireland has its own arrangements.
To conclude, this is quite a techie thing—it is nerdy, which is why I like it. However, it introduces a genuine change for families on the ground by avoiding delay, which is harmful for children.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech and bringing forward a great piece of legislation. I was in the House only a few weeks ago supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart), who was making changes to the CMS for those suffering domestic abuse who are trying to get payments. Has my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud had a conversation with her about how this Bill can dovetail with her Bill? Perhaps the Government can take both Bills forward to provide extra protections for those who are struggling to get payments for their children.
Siobhan Baillie
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I actually read all of that debate in Hansard, including his many interventions on my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye, so I think he just wanted to show you that he really knows his stuff, Mr Deputy Speaker. He is absolutely right that my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye is taking a Bill through the House that will protect people who have experienced domestic abuse, because so often, where there has been domestic abuse and a breakdown of a relationship, there is then no payment between the parents. It is probably very unusual for the Department to have to deal with two Bills, but we have very enthusiastic Members of Parliament who want to help families caught up in this system. I have real confidence in the Government teams and the Ministers to use the corporate knowledge for both these Bills and get this done.
This Bill will introduce a quicker and cheaper process to pursue enforcement, not just for the taxpayer but for the people who are waiting for their money, and it will ensure that more money is collected for more children. These are often children of single parents and children who desperately need £5, £10, £15, £20 or £100 a month—whatever the amount is, it will make a difference. I thank all Members in the Chamber for being here to debate the Bill and the Department for helping me with the drafting, and I very much hope it will receive support today.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
We have heard much about the Bill already, so I do not want to go into the detail of it, but I do want to commend my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie), who is an outstanding MP and a fantastic champion for her constituency. What she has done in this place in the short time since 2019 for families and family law is amazing, so I congratulate and thank her.
This Bill is a no-brainer—it is an easy one to support, and I know that the Government are supporting it, so I will not talk for long, but I am delighted to support it. The bit that really interests me is that, where the Department for Work and Pensions agrees that a person has failed to pay an amount of child support maintenance and a deduction from earnings has not been possible or is not appropriate, the Bill will enable the DWP to make a liability order in respect of that amount against the person. There is an element of coercion that we have not seen before, and it is absolutely justified.
The bit of the Bill that really matters relates to direct pay. Where a parent does not pay their liability in full and on time, the so-called person with care should inform the Child Maintenance Service, which will take swift action to move the case to collect and pay to enforce payment. Without a court order, the Child Maintenance Service may collect arrears through a deduction from earnings order, a deduction from earnings request or a deduction order. The bit I really like is that, with a court-obtained liability order, the Child Maintenance Service may instruct bailiffs to take control of goods and apply to the court for an order of sale of an asset once it is registered with the court.
This is really important, because we have seen over the years so many cases of absent parents, errant parents and non-resident parents who have an obligation to provide for their children but do not. Constituents in Bracknell come to see me all the time for help in chasing these absent, errant or non-resident parents, and I feel their angst. I can now at least reassure them that the law is being tightened, that non-resident parents can now be held to account much more forcefully and that means now exist whereby they will be forced to make good. This is a step in the right direction. I commend my hon. Friend for all the work she is doing, and I fully support the Bill.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
I will speak very briefly on the Bill. The non-payment of child maintenance is an issue that disproportionately affects women, who make up more than 90% of single parents, but more importantly, it is a principal driver of child poverty. Victoria Benson, chief executive of the single parent charity Gingerbread, said:
“Research shows that 60% of single-parent families living in poverty and not receiving child maintenance would be able to escape the poverty trap if they were paid the money they’re owed. Parents have a legal and moral duty to contribute to their child’s upbringing whether they live with them or not, and where this money isn’t paid willingly the CMS needs to step in.”
I know that the CMS does its very best, but if we look at the statistics for the collect and pay service for the quarter ending June 2022, we see that it remains the case that more than a third—36%—paid no maintenance at all, and only 44% of all the people using the collect and pay service paid 90% or more of the child maintenance owed. That creates a huge poverty hole through which some of the most vulnerable families in this country are falling again and again.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) has set out beautifully all the mechanisms that exist, but there is a persistent problem with the amount of time it takes for them to be activated. This year’s National Audit Office report says that
“it can take years before payments are made to receiving parents if the paying parent refuses to comply”.
That was certainly echoed in what I heard when I visited the family centre at Hungerford Nursery School in my constituency, which deals with vulnerable families. In every single case, it was a woman that I met and, without exception, they were not receiving the child maintenance payments to which they were entitled. I heard really grim anecdotes about one woman who tried to enforce but had hit a wall because her former partner was still paying off a car loan, which apparently took priority over what was owed to his children. I do not know whether that was the case, but it was certainly the perception and there was also a sense that there was no point in pursuing it any further.
Even if that was only perception, it is to some extent mirrored by the conclusions of a recent Mumsnet survey, which illustrates the despondency with which some parents view the current system. Eighty-three per cent. of respondents told Mumsnet that they never expect to receive what they are owed in arrears, and nine out of 10 respondents said that they thought it was too easy for their former partners to evade paying child maintenance.
I welcome any Bill that will give the CMS more teeth—this Bill does so through liability orders—and, in particular, that reduces the wait that families face to get the money to which they are properly entitled.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
I, too, rise to support this Bill and the great efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) in support of families.
Relationships are a wonderful thing. From my personal experience, they are the aspect of life that gives me greatest fulfilment. What lies at the core of our relationships provides the value of life, much more so than careers, even careers in this place. We have to recognise, however, that they do sometimes go wrong and that the negative experiences can be as intense as the positive ones.
Although relationships can change, responsibilities for our actions remain. That is particularly the case when children are involved. A person’s livelihood and support for their children are factors when it comes to a broken-down relationship. It is very important to say that when relationships that involve children break down, in the vast majority of cases the absent parent continues to provide financial support on a voluntary basis. Negotiations take place, often without solicitors or lawyers, and an informal arrangement is reached that is satisfactory to both parties. What we are dealing with here, however, is the small minority of cases where negotiations have failed or where an agreement that has been reached is subsequently breached. That is why the CMS is such an important agency to provide support for those families who are most in need.
Existing child support legislation is intended to provide a mechanism for the collection of support funds when voluntary agreements have failed. My hon. Friend set out in her opening speech the various mechanisms that are currently available. It is true that under the current scheme, the CMS can apply to the court in certain circumstances in order to get a liability order to seize, through the bailiffs or the sheriff courts, assets to satisfy a debt. The reason I intervened earlier was to highlight the hugely significant role that delay plays in frustrating the needs of families and, in particular, the children. That is particularly the case in the covid aftermath, when delays in the civil justice system are very substantial. I am sorry to say that even before covid, there was significant strain in the civil court process, leading to lots of delay. That delay matters, because we are dealing with the financial support necessary to feed, clothe, heat and support children.
Right hon. and hon. Members will be intimately familiar with the problem, because of the casework that they receive. To my mind, the Bill is very timely, because just last month a constituent came to me who was owed by the absent—non-resident—parent the sum of £136,833 in arrears of child maintenance. We have to stop for a moment and consider the profound impact of that non-payment on the children. It is simply not good enough to say, “You can go back to the CMS, which in time can make an application to the courts for a liability order. Once that has been processed, we can apply to the bailiff court, and in due course we will get an order to seize goods,”
I welcome the Bill’s intention, which is to cut out the delay of having to apply to the court, and to give powers to the DWP to make a liability order in certain circumstances that allows assets to be targeted via the bailiff or sheriff courts, without the additional factor of delay. Essentially, the Bill aims to fill a lacuna in the armoury of the recovery of funds to support children, and maintain financial responsibility for children from a non-resident parent. It will help my constituents, and for that reason alone I support it.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew), and to speak for the second time today, this time in support of the Second Reading of the important Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie). It is important to highlight that the Bill closely complements another private Member’s Bill, as has already been alluded to, currently progressing its legislative journey: the Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Bill, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart). Both Bills will significantly improve the child support system. I was delighted to support the Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Bill, and I am equally delighted to be here to see today’s Bill pass its Second Reading, as I am sure it will.
It is absolutely right that all parents have a legal responsibility to support their children financially, quite apart from any moral responsibility that they have too. Child maintenance is key to reducing the number of children in low-incomes households through family- based arrangements and Child Maintenance Service arrangements. Parents in separated families receive approximately £2.4 billion a year in child maintenance payments, which are essential to those families’ wellbeing and financial security. There are an estimated 2.3 million separated families in Great Britain, with 3.6 million children in those families, and 60% of separated families have child maintenance arrangements.
The Child Maintenance Service manages cases either through direct pay or, as we have heard, collect and pay. In both cases, the Child Maintenance Service calculates how much maintenance should be paid. For a direct payer, the money passes directly from one parent to the other. For collect and pay, the CMS collects the money from the paying parent and pays it to the receiving parent, but there are collection charges for the use of collect and pay—20% on top of the liability for the paying parent, and 4% of the maintenance received by the receiving parent.
Under current legislation, direct pay is the default option unless both parents request collect and pay, or the receiving parent requests collect and pay and the paying parent is deemed unlikely to pay by demonstrating an unwillingness to pay their liability. That is so that paying parents have the option not to incur additional charges should they pay in full and on time. Some 846,300 children are covered by CMS arrangements, of whom 526,500 are covered through direct pay and 298,400 children are covered by collect and pay. Given the growing number of children covered by CMS arrangements, the Bill is welcome.
The Bill deals largely with the way in which child support payments are recovered in cases in which arrears have accumulated. Currently, if arrears have accumulated under the collect and pay system, the non-resident parent is usually sent an arrears notice. Caseworkers may negotiate and put in place a repayment plan. The Child Maintenance Service aims to recover arrears within two years and expects the non-resident parent to pay up to 40% of their net income to clear it.
In March 2022, the National Audit Office published a report on child maintenance that said that parents now rely less on the state to help them to make maintenance arrangements—an aim of the Government’s 2012 reforms. Although the number of people who make a family-based arrangement has increased as intended, there has also been an increase in the number of people with no maintenance arrangement. The report said that, as a result, there has been no clear change in the number of families with effective child maintenance arrangements since the Government reformed the system in 2012.
It is estimated that only one in three separated families in Great Britain has a child maintenance arrangement for which the agreed maintenance is paid in full. Indeed, at the end of June 2022, cumulative arrears stood at £493.5 million and the National Audit Office projection is that at current rates the amount will reach £1 billion by March 2031. That figure is far too high. It is absolutely right that we have in place a system that ensures that we can and do enforce payments effectively. The House will be aware of the National Audit Office report that highlights ongoing issues with Child Maintenance Service collection and enforcement activities. I doubt that any Member has no constituency cases on the issue; indeed, I have had more than two dozen in my case load.
If the paying parent refuses to comply, it can take years before payments are made to the receiving parent. Enforcement in respect of arrears does not always ensure future compliance. It can take years before payments are made to receiving parents if the paying parent refuses to comply. In addition, enforcement has not been properly built into the universal credit system. Currently, the Child Maintenance Service can deduct only a flat rate of £8.40 of maintenance from a person’s universal credit award and cannot deduct partial deductions. Before 2019, the maximum that the Child Maintenance Service could deduct from benefits towards arrears was a mere £1.20 a week.
There are currently four ways for the CMS to collect arrears without a court order: a deduction from earnings order; a deduction from earnings request for those in the armed forces; a deduction order from bank accounts; and the collection of assets from a deceased non-resident parent’s estate. A court order gives much stronger powers of collection, with the use of bailiffs in England and Wales and of sheriffs in Scotland.
Following the removal of a parent’s right to enforce themselves in 2005, the state now has sole responsibility for enforcing obligations and has discretion over whether to pursue enforcement. It is clear that the state must do more to ensure the enforcement of child maintenance collection. The Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud would do just that. Her Bill would alter the current regulations to ensure that if the DWP agrees that a person has failed to pay an amount of child support maintenance and a deduction from earnings has not been possible or is not appropriate, the DWP would be able to make a liability order in respect of that amount against the person. This will replace the existing system whereby the DWP must apply to the courts for a liability order, thereby streamlining the system and removing the unnecessary delay to the recovery of child maintenance arears that the process of applying for liability through the courts can create. The Bill would give the CMS the ability to ramp up the enforcement of collection much quicker than it has previously been able to.
I see how this Bill complements the Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye. It would allow child maintenance cases to be placed on the collect and pay service if there is evidence of domestic abuse, providing another layer of protection to some of the most vulnerable in society by preventing survivors of abuse from having to engage directly with their abuser through the CMS. However, on the collect and pay system an abuser may seek to continue to torture their victim by not paying the child support they owe. The Bill from my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud will ensure that swift action can be taken in such cases, so that an abuser cannot evade paying child maintenance.
I am delighted to be able to support this Bill, which will streamline the child maintenance system and enable us to ensure that more people can pay child maintenance on time and in full. I am sure it will command cross-party support, and I offer my sincere thanks to my hon. Friend for bringing it forward today. I wish her all the best as she continues to guide it through the legislative process, and I hope to see it pass all its stages very soon. I have got into the habit of offering Members my services on their Bill Committees, having offered once already this morning, so I offer the same to her.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
We are talking about the saddest thing possible, the breakdown of the relationship of a couple with children—and not just the pain of the breakdown, but an ongoing feud that often lasts for years, re-traumatising the children and embittering the parents. We must always remember that the effect of divorce or separation is usually impoverishment, both for the adults involved and for their children—and indeed for elderly parents; they should not be forgotten in this, nor the capital that is lost to them and their future care. The effect on whole families of divorce and separation and the loss of half a child’s adult world when his or her parents separate acrimoniously can often cause a lifetime of emotional damage.
I start by stating plainly that there is nothing more important we can do as a society or in this place than to help people to form stable, lasting and loving relationships, particularly in the context of bringing up children. I am conscious that we spend a lot of time in this place debating means of mitigating the effects of family breakdown, but not a lot of time debating how to prevent the breakdown in the first place. We discuss how to provide ambulances at the foot of the cliff to pick up people who are falling off, but spend very little time discussing how to put fences at the top of the cliff to prevent the damage in the first place.
Nevertheless, when the worst happens, it is right that we do what we can to ensure that the obligations of parents to support their children are upheld. That is why we have the Child Maintenance Service. I want to reflect on the work that the service does. Its work is increasing; as we have been hearing, the CMS manages over 600,000 arrangements for child maintenance, up 9% just in the six months to last December. We have also seen an increase in the collect and pay arrangements—a bad sign in itself—with 37% of the total number of CMS arrangements now managed through collect and pay, up from 30% just a few years before. Compliance is running at around two thirds, which is understandable, but sad and essentially unsatisfactory.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) mentioned the 2012 reforms, which were partly designed to encourage voluntary and family arrangements, and have been successful in that regard. I agree with her about the success of those reforms and that those arrangements have increased, but we must recognise that the number of separated couples without an arrangement has also increased. According to the National Audit Office, it appears that there is no clear change in the number of families with an effective arrangement in place.
The fact is that only one in three separated families have arrangements that are working and in which payments are made in full. For all the progress that has been made—and I recognise my hon. Friend’s point that the CMS is dealing with very many difficult cases—we still have too many non-payments or payments not made in full. At any one moment, we are all dealing with many cases of constituents reporting their frustrations with the CMS. It is very frustrating for our offices to deal with them, too. I want to quickly pay tribute to my senior caseworker, Camilla Jequier, who is dealing with so many of these cases any one moment—I am sure that we all have a Camilla in our offices battling with the CMS on behalf of our constituents. She does tremendous work, patiently and sympathetically supporting constituents.
I will give a couple of examples on both sides of the parental dispute. A caring parent reports that the non-resident parent has another job and has increased their earnings, with that apparent to HMRC, but the CMS will not increase the payments that the non-resident parent—the father—is making. Another non-resident parent has continued his old business using cash. He is claiming universal credit fraudulently—a CMS financial investigation has confirmed that—but, because the UC claim is in place, it cannot collect the child maintenance that is due. I spoke yesterday in support of keeping cash in our economy, and I very much support that, but I recognise opportunities that that gives for such fraudulent behaviour.
On the other side, there is the case of a paying parent who has been out of work for six months. The collect and pay arrangement has continued, and the father’s home is now under threat because the CMS has not recognised the loss of earnings. There is another case where the CMS is using gross earnings from before the pandemic, not recognising the substantial loss of earnings that that parent has endured in recent years. It is not able to use up-to-date HMRC data.
I reference those as examples of the frustrations that constituents have, while also acknowledging the very good work that the CMS is doing. We do not get reports of good work from Government agencies; we just report the bad ones. However, I am afraid that there are still too many of those.
I support the Bill and pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, who has been a tremendous campaigner on the issue. It is a good Bill, and I am pleased to see that the Government—and, I am sure, the Opposition—supporting it. It is an important step to ensure that we can improve compliance. I also thank the DWP for its support for this important Bill and for enabling the CMS to do its work better. I hope that we will see the same from HMRC in due course.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
Who would have thought when I went to conference four or five years ago and was joined by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie), who is sat next to me, that we would both be here in the Chamber having this debate, almost three years to the day since our election? Actually, it was patently obvious at that point that she was going to become an MP, because she is diligent and driven. Her introducing the Bill is testament to that.
On reading my hon. Friend’s comments from her Westminster Hall debate last month, it was so sad to note that about 280,000 children see their parents separate. That is a hugely concerning statistic, and a figure that we need to closely reflect on, as my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) pointed out. I am lucky and eternally grateful to have benefited from a being in a loving and stable family for nearly 40 years, but I appreciate that that experience is not universal.
We all have CMS cases in this House, and we have often seen the anguish and the upset that the process generates. More broadly, before I came to the House, I saw in hospitals and GP surgeries the anguish that a given mental or physical issue would bring. A medical professional’s starting point is: how can I make things better? While I often could not solve the problem, I could help inform and equip people and ensure that the process ran smoothly. This Bill gives people a real chance to try and make these things better.
I fully support this important legislation, because I believe that it sits well with the Government’s wider reforms to ensure that the work of the Child Maintenance Service is effective in preventing parents from evading their financial obligations to their children. While couples may fight and frustrate, we must keep in mind the best outcome for the children’s sake. When I was researching for the debate, I was surprised to see that more than 30 years have passed since the Thatcher’s Government critical “Children Come First” White Paper. Society has made changes since then, and methods to collect payments have certainly changed over those years. Much scrutiny and change has taken place, substantial amounts of water have passed under the bridge, and we have seen major systems redesigned.
I note the important work of the Labour and coalition Governments to encourage and support family- based arrangements, and the fact that that work, and wider policy, have progressed with, seemingly, some decent success. Changes to the Child Maintenance Service have built on earlier reforms to ensure a fairer assessment of parents’ earnings, helping to prevent them from evading their financial obligations. These powers make a real difference in compliance by closing loopholes and strengthening enforcement.
We must be thankful for this progress. We must never give up on the ideals, but we must balance them with the reality. According to a report from the National Audit Office published in March 2022, while the number of people making a family-based arrangement has increased as was intended, there has also been an increase in the number of people with no maintenance arrangement, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson). I sense that the CMS is facing a considerable workload. At the end of December 2021, it was managing more than 600,000 arrangements for 560,0900 paying parents, a 9% increase in the number of arrangements since the end of June 2021.
We must also consider those who fail to pay any amount of child support maintenance, especially when deductions from earnings are not possible. I think that enabling the DWP to make administrative liability orders is a step forward, and I also think it right that those who are subject to such orders are able to appeal. I believe I am correct in saying that they can appeal but cannot challenge the amount that has been decided by the CMS, and I think that is the right approach.
I hope the Bill is successful, and I also hope it can be seen in the wider context of the Government’s work to ensure that the child maintenance system has the legislation and the resources to enable it to manage modern Britain. No two cases in the UK are the same, and there are nuances that play out in all our constituency surgeries. We know that these have real, far-reaching consequences, but I sense that the Bill can be a key part of a wider commitment among my ministerial colleagues to ensure that, over time, everyone pays, everyone receives the right amount, and, most importantly, the child—
Danny Kruger
It is important for my hon. Friend to experience what it is like to be on the receiving end of an intervention.
My hon. Friend said earlier that many couples did not have an arrangement at all. What does he think we can do about not just the couples whose arrangements have broken down, but those who did not put one together in the first place?
Dr Evans
That is a very good question—and I am so grateful to my hon. Friend for his sword-like intervention, cutting me off with one word to go before the end of my speech!
It is important to engage with couples and ensure that they know where the resources are to enable them to have the necessary discussions, and I think that that is starting to happen as a result of signposting to, for instance, health visitors, GPs and schools, so that parents have an opportunity to speak to someone establish what their options are. Enabling them to have that dialogue is part of the work that the DWP and the Government as a whole should be doing. People need to understand fully what is available to them, and going through the court system may not be the right way for that to happen.
I am hugely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, and I welcome the Government’s support for the Bill. I hope that it makes much haste.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
We wholeheartedly support the principle that non-resident parents should pay child maintenance, and that there should be enforcement when absent parents fail to pay. I thank the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) for her work on the Bill and, indeed, for her wider work on this complicated and important matter.
Too many absent parents fail to pay child maintenance, often leaving children and families in desperate need and emotional distress, which, as we heard earlier, can have very serious consequences for them. I pay tribute to those families who are suffering as a result of terrible backlogs and delays, and the whole House is deeply concerned about them. Many Members have tried to help constituents facing these dreadful problems, and will have responded through their casework. I also want to put on record my support for the work of charities such as Gingerbread that support parents, and to thank the Child Maintenance Service for its efforts in this important area. It continues to chase non-payment despite a series of difficult challenges, to which I shall refer later in my speech.
Turning to the substance of the Bill, as I said at the outset, we completely support the principle that non-resident parents should meet their responsibilities for child maintenance, and where they fail to do so the state must step in to enforce payment. The CMS manages over 500,000 arrangements for child support, affecting 750,000 children. Maintenance payments are very important in reducing child poverty, as the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) mentioned, and it has been estimated that as many as one in five single-parent families on benefits are lifted out of poverty by receiving child maintenance payments; that is an important point for us to consider. Not only do we support the principle, therefore, but we recognise that the enforcement of child maintenance obligations needs to be improved.
Enforcement action was affected by the pandemic. CMS staff were redeployed to manage the surge in universal credit claims, and the courts were closed. The number of liability orders in process fell from 6,900 in March 2020 to 2,400 in September 2020. That was a considerable drop, but since 2020 there has been only a partial recovery, and the most recent figures, for June 2022, are not only far lower than before the pandemic at 4,200, but are lower than in June 2021 by over 1,000 cases. The CMS therefore clearly faces some serious issues. The number of enforcement agency referrals now in process is less than half the number before the pandemic. The system for ensuring that child maintenance is paid needs to be efficient and fair, and we must address these points and discuss them thoroughly in this House.
Although I understand the principles behind the Bill, I therefore have some questions. As I understand it, the purpose of the Bill is to make changes to powers introduced in the Child Maintenance and Other Payments Act 2008, but it seems that some of the powers—those that allow the Secretary of State or Department to make an order without having to go to the courts—have not been used by the Government. I realise this is a detailed point, but I ask the Minister to address it in her reply and to reassure me on it.
The Bill makes provision for the Secretary of State to issue regulations governing appeals, and the powers granted are wide-ranging. For example, the Secretary of State will be able to make
“provision with respect to the period within which a right of appeal under the regulations may be exercised”
and
“provision with respect to the powers of the court to which the appeal under the regulations lies.”
This wording seems to give the Secretary of State a great deal of power to limit the grounds on which appeals can be made and the opportunity to appeal. Why are these powers being sought?
Time is limited today, so I will conclude. We whole-heartedly support the principle that non-resident parents should pay child maintenance and that there should be enforcement for absent parents who fail to pay. I again take this opportunity to thank the hon. Member for Stroud for her excellent work on this; she has a great deal of expertise and the House and country is benefiting from it. I also pay tribute to parents and families affected by this terrible problem, as well as charities and campaigners, and to CMS staff working on those parents’ behalf. I hope the Minister will address my questions; they are somewhat technical, however, and I would be happy for her to write to me with further detail on them.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
It is an honour to speak in this debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) for introducing the Bill and raising this important issue. I am pleased to confirm that the Government intend to support the Bill.
I was going to start by providing a brief background on the purpose of the CMS, but many Members have done a brilliant job on that so I will instead turn to the context of the Bill, making a couple of points and answering some questions, of course. I also want to pay tribute to all the DWP teams that work tirelessly in this space delivering the CMS service so diligently. As a constituency MP and a friend to many single parents, I have seen cases where help from former partners is needed to support children; making sure positive arrangements are in place is crucial to youngsters in every constituency.
I must declare an interest as a single mum. I know personally how important it is for children to know, where possible, that they have the support of both parents, both financially and emotionally. I thank the Gingerbread charity for its advocacy work. I concur with many of the points made today. Our Minister in the other place, Baroness Stedman-Scott, who has day-to-day responsibility for the policy, is strident in her support for reducing parent conflict and making sure that children get the backing that they need and deserve from both parents. We are determined to ensure that the CMS process improves.
I thank all hon. Members who have contributed, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans), who raised the CMS process and the other private Member’s Bill, the Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Bill, which will be in Committee very shortly. I am delighted to have his support. There were thoughtful contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Newbury (Laura Farris), for Darlington (Peter Gibson) and for Bracknell (James Sunderland). My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) rightly paid great tribute to MPs’ caseworkers, who deal with the challenges and manage both sides of this issue day in, day out. We are grateful to them. On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) about the delays in court and liability orders, it takes three to six months from the case being referred to court for a liability order to be granted. We expect that to reduce significantly.
On the wider point about the Child Support Collection (Domestic Abuse) Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart), I am glad to endorse what many Members have said. The Bill will allow for cases to be moved from direct pay to the collect and pay service when one parent is a victim of domestic abuse. That is an important measure, and I am grateful to hear further support for it in the Chamber today. Its Committee stage is forthcoming.
On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury about why compliance figures have been decreasing, the Child Maintenance Service has been experiencing falling compliance figures since March 2021 after a period of improving compliance. A key driver of falling compliance is the difficulty of deducting child maintenance from universal credit payments. Universal credit prioritises other third-party deductions ahead of child maintenance deductions. Let me reassure the House that work is ongoing with universal credit policy colleagues to identify how deductions for child maintenance can be rightly reprioritised, and to recognise that collect and pay deals often with the most difficult cases. Parents can co-operate and make their own arrangements—that is one scenario—but we are talking about the difficult scenarios.
I thank the hon. Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) for raising concerns about backlogs. The CMS is committed to delivering service of the highest standards and has been recognised with customer service accreditation, an independent validation of achievement. It responds quickly to parents using the service. In the quarter ending June 2022, 84% of changes in circumstances had been actioned in 28 days. I say to parents that, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes, if something has changed, they should let the CMS know. Call handling has been improved, with calls directed to the most appropriate person.
I would like to pick up on what my hon. Friend said about why maintenance calculations changes are factored in. Parents are able to report changes of income at any time. I reiterate that to him and any of our caseworkers. Where that change is greater than 25% of the income we hold on our system, we will alter their liability. Parents can ask for a calculation decision by the CMS to be reviewed through the mandatory reconsideration process within 30 days. If they are still not satisfied, they can appeal to the tribunal service.
Danny Kruger
I very much appreciate that point and that is indeed the case. I just wonder why 25% is the cut-off. It is quite a large amount. If a change comes in just underneath that, why should not that be considered as well?
Mims Davies
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that. I do not personally know the answer, but I am happy to look at that point and write to him.
James Sunderland
The Minister is talking eloquently about the need for courts to uphold and the need for parents to be chased for the money that they owe through the CMS. By the same token, although it is not within the scope of the Bill today, could she comment on the ongoing plight of those who do not have access to their children—those who are prevented from seeing them? We can all recall the plight of Fathers 4 Justice—Spiderman hanging from the gantries on the M25. It is important that we discuss, or at least raise today, the issue that it works both ways and that we also have to give deference in law to those seeking access to their children.
Mims Davies
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that. He is right to say that. We have seen this in our constituency surgeries: there are always two sides to every story. It is right that we have processes that are able to respond to that and that parents are able to see and engage with their children. I reiterate that my hon. Friend in the other place, who has day-to-day policy responsibility for this matter, is very much focused on reducing parental conflict. Above all, this is about supporting children, getting them the best start and ongoing support to thrive in life.
Let me make some progress on the importance of today’s Bill. Child maintenance payments provide vital support to separated parents. Approximately 140,000 fewer children are growing up in poverty as a result of child maintenance payments. This includes payments through the family-based process and through the service. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud has already stated, in the past 12 months, more than £1 billion-worth of support was arranged and collected through the Child Maintenance Service. That exemplifies the intent of the service, which is to promote collaboration between separated parents and encourage parents to meet their responsibilities in providing for their children, meaning that youngsters get the financial support that they need for that good start in life.
Research shows that children tend to have better emotional wellbeing and higher academic attainment growing up with parents who, together or indeed separated, have that good-quality relationship and are able to manage conflict well. Child maintenance cases are managed by two processes, as we discussed earlier. The collect and pay caseloads are more challenging. That is where a collaborative arrangement has either failed or not been possible. Therefore, these parents are considered less likely to meet their payment responsibilities.
We know the difference that child maintenance can make in people’s day-to-day lives, so unpaid child maintenance should be paid immediately. We know that the vast majority of parents want to do the right thing to support their children financially. Where a parent fails to pay on time or in full, our strategy is to tackle payment breakdowns at the earliest opportunity and to take action to re-establish compliance and collect any unpaid amounts where they have been accrued.
The Child Maintenance Service is able to deduct £8.40 a week towards ongoing maintenance or arrears from certain prescribed benefits, as I have discussed. Where measures prove ineffective or inappropriate in collecting arrears, the CMS will apply to the court service or the sheriff court for the liability order.
The liability order enables the use of more stringent powers, as we have heard, and we are able to take more serious action. Since June 2022, the Child Maintenance Service has collected £2.7 million from paying parents with the court-based enforcement action in process. We regularly review processes and policies in line with best practice to deliver the best outcomes for parents and children, and I note the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes.
Mims Davies
I just wanted to turn to the hon. Gentleman’s point. I would like to write to him on that as I am not the Minister responsible for that day to day. I hope that he will understand.
The details of these powers will be set out in secondary legislation, with the right for a liable parent to appeal against an administrative liability order. Regulation powers and other provisions will be included. That means that proper scrutiny can be undertaken by the Government and the relevant Committee. We can then make sure that the regulations include the right to appeal. Those regulations will also be subject to the affirmative procedure.
The Bill is of great importance for the Child Maintenance Service. It will make sure that we make the necessary improvements we have heard about today to the enforcement process and, above all, that we get the money to children more quickly. I am pleased that the Bill has been introduced, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud for bringing it to the House.
Siobhan Baillie
With the leave of the House, I would like to thank all the hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, and particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Bracknell (James Sunderland), for Newbury (Laura Farris), for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew), for Darlington (Peter Gibson), for Devizes (Danny Kruger) and for Bosworth (Dr Evans). I have notes of all their key points, and I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell who said that the Bill is a no-brainer.
The thing we have to be clear about is that family breakdown is absolutely devastating and often incredibly fraught. If the basics are wrong—if money is not flowing between the parents and payments are not being made—the fracture is compounded, and that is very damaging for children. The CMS plays a role not just as a calculator or a money box for people to get cash out of; it is actually fundamental. That is why I have been quite narrow in my scope today, although, unfortunately for the Minister and the Department, I am interested in many other areas of the Child Maintenance Service and universal credit and in the issues that the National Audit Office has raised.
The Bill will achieve administrative efficiencies for the Child Maintenance Service. That is better for the taxpayer, and it will get money into the pockets of the parents looking after the children, which is where it should be. I really hope the Bill makes progress in the House, and I thank everyone.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).
Powers of Attorney Bill
Friday 9th December 2022
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Powers of Attorney Act 2023 View all Powers of Attorney Act 2023 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
I beg to move that, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Powers of attorney are important legal arrangements that allow people to appoint others—the donees of the power, known as attorneys—to act on their behalf. The powers normally relate to financial matters, and the attorney must act on instructions from the donor of the power—the person who made it.
Lasting powers of attorney, or LPAs, are a specific type of power of attorney with even wider scope. Such arrangements allow someone to appoint another to act on their behalf after the donor has lost the mental capacity to make their own decisions and give instructions. LPAs can apply to not just financial decisions but health and welfare decisions too.
Powers of attorney generally, and lasting powers of attorney specifically, are incredibly powerful and useful appointments. They allow people to retain control over aspects of their lives, in circumstances where they might not otherwise be able to make decisions or take actions. LPAs, in particular, ensure that people have the opportunity to make provision for a future where they may no longer have the mental capacity to understand what is happening to them and therefore to make decisions about the things they care about.
With the prevalence of dementia increasing and our population ageing, these documents will become ever more important in ensuring that people can continue to live the lives they want to. They will be even more important in protecting people who might otherwise be the target of fraud, scams and abuse. I have seen that in my constituency and on a personal level. These are powerful documents, and they need to be used carefully.
Lasting powers of attorney are part of the toolkit to ensure that people can live the lives they want to. That is why I am delighted to bring forward this Bill in my name. It delivers two important changes to legislation around powers of attorney. First, it will reform the process of making and registering a lasting power of attorney to make it safer, easier and more sustainable. Secondly, it will widen the group of people who can provide certified copies of powers of attorney to include chartered legal executives.
Before I get into the detail of this Bill, I will set out the history of these documents and the problems that have arisen as a result. Under the Power of Attorney Act 1971, the power of attorney is a formal appointment whereby one party, the donor, gives another party, the attorney or donee, the power to act on their behalf and in their name. Power of attorney, in contrast to appointing an agent, can only be created and valid where certain legal formalities are observed, and they must be granted by deed. The ordinary or general power of attorney is for when the donor only needs help temporarily, for example when people are in hospital or abroad and need help with everyday tasks such as paying bills.
Ordinary powers of attorney are common in the commercial world, where they may be used in a number of ways, most typically to enable another person to execute documents on the donor’s behalf or in a transactional context. Another use is in appointing a power of attorney to manage financial or property matters in a donor’s absence. However, there were issues with these powers of attorney, as the power ceases to have effect when the donor lost mental capacity to make decisions and give instructions. As the Law Commission pointed out in 1983:
“at a time when the assistance of the attorney has become for the donor not merely desirable but essential, the attorney has no authority to act.”
This resulted in the introduction of the Enduring Powers of Attorney Act 1986. As the name suggests, enduring powers of attorney endure past the loss of mental capacity, allowing an attorney to continue acting on a donor’s behalf. Individuals concerned about their ability to control their own lives in future could now ensure that the people making those decisions were the people they had chosen and that they trusted.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an important speech and highlighting the legislation that brings us to today and his important Bill. I just put on record the importance of those enduring powers of attorney that predate the current lasting powers of attorney and to highlight to the House the necessity for people to register them when capacity is lost. Many mistakenly believe, where an enduring power of attorney is in place, that there are no steps to take in order for it to be used.
Stephen Metcalfe
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his clarification. Obviously, he knows considerably more about the history of this than I have perhaps been able to gain during my research. In the 1990s, there were greater concerns about the abuse of enduring powers of attorney. I am told there was concern that between 10% and 20% of enduring powers of attorney were potentially being used in an abusive way. To resolve that, and following extensive work by the Law Commission, the Mental Capacity Act was passed in 2005. Enduring power of attorney was replaced by lasting power of attorney, or LPA, in 2007.
New safeguards were introduced—primarily the requirement for the LPA to be registered by and with the new Public Guardian and their office, the Office of the Public Guardian, before it could be used, whether before or after a loss of capacity; and the role of the certificate provider, who must confirm that the donor understands their LPA and that there was no fraud or undue pressure.
Fifteen years on, the system is in need of an update. The Government’s 2021 consultation on modernisation clearly set out the issues, and media coverage over the past year has further emphasised the need for reform. First, people wishing to make LPAs struggle to understand the system and to complete their LPA accurately. Guidance can be overwhelming and full of jargon such as “donor”, “attorney”, “certificate provider”, “execution” and “jointly and severally”. This is specifically daunting in urgent circumstances—for instance, due to a recent diagnosis of dementia or terminal illness.
The reliance on paper also makes it more complicated than necessary. The legislative framework and operational process involved mean that, even where the LPA is filled in online, each LPA has to be printed off and signed on paper in five places in a specific order by at least three people to be valid. The possibility for error to creep in is high, and the Office of the Public Guardian indicates that as many as 11% of LPAs sent to the OPG cannot be registered because of signing mistakes. Donors cannot understand why the LPA process does not make use of technological improvements since 2007. They want to use a digital system to fill in, sign and submit documents. As the Government set out in their consultation, that would allow a speedier process, reduce the administrative burden on people and help to reduce or even remove many of the errors in the process.
Secondly, the OPG is drowning in paperwork, and that does not allow the OPG to deliver the service that its fee payers expect. Many in this place will know about the media reports on the backlog in registrations. The OPG reports that it is taking up to 20 weeks on average to process an LPA application, against its target of eight weeks. Others will be receiving letters from constituents asking for assistance, as they are left unable to support their loved ones because an LPA is currently sitting in that backlog.
We all agree that this situation is unsustainable. The OPG carries out manual administration checks. It stores 11 tonnes of paper at any one time, and LPA applications are generally increasing, with the number of LPAs submitted for registration more than doubling between 2014-15 and 2019-20. That is creating an ever increasing need for staff, equipment and storage space. The ability to use a digital channel—alongside, I stress, a paper route—to make and register an LPA would help to resolve some of those issues. Most of the current manual checks could be automated. Physical storage requirements could be reduced and, critically, it would increase the OPA’s resilience to backlogs caused by the disruption of paper processing.
The third point, and probably the most important one, is that while a digital channel is desirable for donors, attorneys and the OPG, it must be balanced against the need for suitable safeguards. The risk of fraud is small, but it is a real risk. The BBC Radio 4 programme “You and Yours” reported last year on the case of Marie—not her real name—who was a victim of LPA fraud when someone took out an LPA in her name and attempted to sell her home. Concerns about undue pressure and abuse are also common. Earlier this year, in parallel with another report by “You and Yours”, a debate was held in the other place on LPAs and the economic abuse of older people.
I firmly believe that LPAs are a positive way for people to control what happens if they lose mental capacity. They are an insurance policy that people should take out to appoint people they trust to make decisions in their best interests, should the worst happen. But I cannot ignore that there must be protections in the system to reduce the chance of it being manipulated by those who intend ill will towards others.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
I am not a lawyer—heaven forbid!—but my understanding of the Bill is that it will do a number of really important things. It will provide much better safeguards on financial and property issues, and it will provide safeguards where there is loss of mental capacity and against abuses of power. It will also make the process a bit more streamlined, as we will not be so dependent on expensive lawyers now that legal executives can do this. My question for my hon. Friend is, will it be any cheaper?
Stephen Metcalfe
My hon. Friend asks a very good question. Although I cannot guarantee it will be cheaper, I can say that it will be no more expensive. We need to make the system sustainable and the relatively straightforward reforms in my Bill will allow that to happen, while keeping the price competitive, as it is at the moment.
My hon. Friend has hit upon the point at which I am going to describe some of the detail of the Bill and how it resolves some of the issues to which I have alluded. It makes a number of changes to the Mental Capacity Act 2005, specifically to schedule 1, which covers provision for the making and registration of LPAs. The most crucial change is that the Public Guardian will verify the identity of certain parties as part of the registration. It is important to strengthen safeguards in that way on a document that can confer such wide powers on access to savings, investment and property. The Government’s consultation indicated that these proposals were well received by respondents, including the public, as a necessary safeguard. This will be a key protection against the horrible position Marie found herself in, by increasing confidence that the people named in the LPA have actually been involved in the process of making it. This provision is even more important now, with identity fraud on the rise and perpetrators making use of ever-more sophisticated methods for targeting their victims. Removing loopholes in the system before they can become further exploited and other members of the public are put at risk is one reason I chose to take this Bill through Parliament.
The second main change is on the requirement for the application to register, requiring the donor to apply and changing what must accompany the application—currently, the instrument intended to create the LPA and the fee. This will facilitate a flexible system, so that instead of just a paper channel or a digital channel, each actor, whether they are the donor, the attorney or the certificate provider, can use the method that best suits their needs to complete a single LPA. This will reduce the administrative burden on donors and attorneys, while automated and early error checking will help to reduce the potential for signing and other errors that prevent registration.
Changes to the notification system will also facilitate this flexibility. The system requires that people the donor named in the LPA are informed by the applicant when the LPA is sent for registration, so that they can raise any objections. In the future, the Public Guardian will send these notifications. This change is made for three reasons. First, the Public Guardian can be certain that the notifications have been sent, increasing the protection provided. Secondly, it removes the administrative burden from the donor. Thirdly, the Public Guardian will be co-ordinating the execution of the document, so is best placed to send these in a timely manner.
That links to changes to the process for objecting to the registration of an LPA. The current process is complex, with different routes for different people, depending on the type of objection. People and organisations not named in the LPA do not even have a formal route to raise objections. That group currently includes organisations such as local authorities, which have a statutory safeguarding duty but no formal way of raising related concerns about an LPA’s registration with the Public Guardian. Although the Public Guardian currently processes these objections, because it is the sensible thing to do and offers the best protection for the donor, the scope of the current legislation is limited and creates ambiguity. To rectify this issue, the Bill introduces a single route for all objections, starting with the Public Guardian and ending at the Court of Protection, if that is required. It applies to all individuals and organisations, even if they are not included in the original LPA. So there is more clarity about where and how to raise concerns about the registration.
Let me turn to increased protection for donors. Finally, to modernise LPAs the Bill changes the evidence of registration of the LPA. As I said, LPAs are currently paper documents. That means that if there are changes—for instance, if an attorney is removed because of abuse—the Public Guardian needs to amend the paper documents. As I am sure the House can imagine, why would someone who has been removed from an LPA because of abuse want to return it to the Office of the Public Guardian? The LPA will therefore be registered as an electronic document. That will create a single source of truth that can be accessed in real time by third parties, but more importantly, updated in real time by the Public Guardian without requiring the paper to be returned.
I recognise, however, that some individuals and third parties will remain unable to use an electronic system. For that reason, the Bill also provides for other methods of physical proof. I believe that those will be set out further in regulations.
As I stated, my Bill seeks not only to modernise LPAs, but to amend section 3 of the Powers of Attorney Act 1971 to enable chartered legal executives to certify copies of a power of attorney. That Act sets out how a copy of a power of attorney can be made and who can certify or sign copies, stipulating that only
“the donor of the power…a solicitor, authorised person or stockbroker”
can sign or certify
“that the copy is a true and complete copy of the original”.
The Bill seeks to include chartered legal executives among those who can certify a copy of a power of attorney.
We have come a long way since 1971; it is more than half a century since that Act came into force. Chartered legal executives are allowed to provide legal services under the Legal Services Act 2007 and now provide many of the same legal services as solicitors. It is therefore completely right that chartered legal executives have the ability to certify copies.
I am conscious of time, so I will draw my remarks to a close. I have outlined a number of specific changes that the Bill will make. It is a relatively straightforward piece of legislation, but is important none the less. It will make the Office of the Public Guardian more sustainable; streamline the process; increase the number of people who can authorise copies of lasting powers of attorney; and introduce some important safety checks. I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I thank him and his Department for working with me to bring the Bill to this stage and I hope that, after today’s debate, we can take it further forward. I commend the Bill to the House.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) on promoting this private Member’s Bill and on introducing it today. He made his case very well; this is a matter of great importance that can affect so many of us.
Last year, I wrote to the then Justice Minister overseeing this portfolio, the hon. and learned Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk). I had several concerns, particularly regarding the lack of training and awareness on the limits of power of attorney, that had been brought to my attention by a number of practitioners. The then Minister’s response was reassuring and I am glad that the agenda in this area is moving forward with Government support, but there is still much to be done to improve the system beyond the Bill’s parameters. That said, Labour supports the Bill’s aims and welcomes the modernisation of the process for making and registering lasting powers of attorney.
It is of cardinal importance that donors are protected. If technology can provide more effective ways of strengthening those protections, we should make full use of it. Furthermore, although I understand that the strain on the Office of the Public Guardian has reduced in recent times with the recruitment of more caseworkers, the staff there are still stretched and delays are still being experienced. I hope that the modernisation process provides the necessary streamlining to ease the burden on the Office of the Public Guardian.
We welcome the Bill’s amendment to section 3 of the Powers of Attorney Act 1971, which the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock mentioned, which will enable chartered legal executives to certify copies of powers of attorney. It is good to see that particular matter addressed. However, there are several areas on which I would welcome the thoughts of the hon. Member or the Minister to inform my understanding of why they have been omitted from the Bill. One notable absence from the Government’s response to the consultation was the Law Society’s recommendation that certification should expressly include consideration of the donor’s capacity. This seems like a sensible proposal to me, and I am interested to hear why the Bill has not taken it on.
While LPAs are one important mechanism by which it is possible to support the exercise of legal capacity, as Alex Ruck Keene KC notes in an article on his excellent website about mental capacity law and policy, it is certainly not the only mechanism. He notes that it would be possible within the same zone of endeavour as this Bill
“to flesh out the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to secure that a person is recognised as being able to make their own decisions in more situations than is currently the case.”
Should we expect further legislation that would provide for wider reforms, or is this Bill the extent of the Government’s ambition for legislative work in this area? I ask with genuine interest, as we are looking forward to working with the Government, and the hon. Member, on introducing reforms in this important area.
I was pleased to read in the Minister’s foreword to the consultation response that
“it remains for me to emphasise again the importance of us modernising LPAs in a way that is right for donors. They are the ones who choose their attorneys, they are the ones that should set the scope of the powers they wish to confer under an LPA, and they are the ones whose rights and freedoms must be protected and facilitated through this service. It therefore remains the case that their needs are paramount and must come before those of any other party as we seek to make changes.”
We very much agree with this sentiment and are looking forward to scrutinising and potentially improving these measures at Committee stage.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) for bringing forward this private Member’s Bill. If I may, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would also like to thank you, as the right hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Dame Rosie Winterton). I carried out some research before I came today, as I have worked on lasting powers of attorney in a previous life, and I note that you have done an awful lot of work in the background on this subject. I want to put on record my thanks for that work and what that has brought about today.
I wholeheartedly support this private Member’s Bill. I absolutely understand and have seen first hand the need for the measures in it. I would like to put on record my thanks on behalf of this side of the House. I wish my hon. Friend well with his Bill.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
I aim to be as brief as my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft). I want to put on record my support for this Bill. Often in Friday sittings we talk about photogenic furry animals, but this is very different. This is an important Bill that will affect us all. To take the example of just one disease, it is estimated by Alzheimer’s Research UK that there are 944,000 people in this country suffering from dementia. The estimate is that one in three children born this year will develop and suffer from dementia in the future. This is an issue that affects us all now or will do in the future.
I want to highlight the importance of lasting powers of attorney and point out that there are not one but two different types. There are the ones that affect property and affairs and there are, crucially, the ones that affect welfare and health. From personal experience as an attorney in this area, I found the current system surprisingly complex, and that was as a qualified barrister. To be using only paper is surprising in this day and age. The complexity of sequential signatures was also surprising, and the identity checks relying on witnesses are frankly inadequate in modern times. I welcome the intention of the Bill, which is to make it easier to create LPAs, using digital facilities where appropriate. I recognise that about 25% of those over 65 do not have easy access to the internet, although on many occasions it will be younger family members whom they will be appointing as attorneys, and in those circumstances many of that 25% will be given assistance to use digital access as well. However, it is important that a paper alternative continues to be provided, and I am glad that is recognised in the Bill.
My final point is that it is great that the Bill contains increased protections from abuse, particularly in paragraph 7(2) of schedule 1, which makes reference to the process for objecting to registration for third parties. That is a useful addition, and I thoroughly welcome this Bill.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to be called to speak for the third time this day; I draw the House’s attention to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. As a solicitor, I have prepared many hundreds of lasting powers of attorney for both health and welfare and property affairs and, before their advent, many enduring powers of attorney. I still act on a regular basis to take care of the affairs of individuals who have appointed me as their attorney, often in circumstances where they had no family to act for them or they did not want to entrust such responsibility to a family member. Indeed, I know I have many more future nominations that will require me to act.
I welcome the steps the Bill takes to update the process of preparation for LPAs, which have been around for well over a decade, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) on bringing it forward. An LPA is a very powerful document, and we should always be aware, in making changes to them, that they can, in the wrong hands, be open to abuse.
In my personal opinion, the engagement of a legal professional to assist in the preparation can be invaluable, but not essential. My own uncle, always keen to save a bob or two, especially in order to avoid legal bills, recently prepared powers of attorney and decided to do it himself, which in actuality involved him making many telephone calls to me while he filled the forms in. Sadly, his forms were rejected by the Office of the Public Guardian and he had to start all over again. At the end of the saga, he concluded that he wished he had gone to a lawyer to get the job done in the first place. I welcome the measures in my hon. Friend’s Bill, which would certainly have streamlined the process for my uncle.
My final point is about we are with powers of attorney in respect of the high street financial institutions. There seems to be a great lack of training among our high street banks on how to engage with people who have been appointed as attorneys and the security measures involved. They make it almost impossible to deal with them in a co-operative way as an attorney, and I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that. I wish my hon. Friend well with his Bill and, should he require assistance on his Bill Committee, I would be delighted to serve.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
I will be brief: I completely agree with the purpose of this Bill and will be supporting it, but I want to speak briefly in recognition of the great significance of LPAs. I quote from Stephanie Boyce, the President of the Law Society, who has said:
“LPAs are arguably one of the most important legal documents that a person will make because they delegate such wide-reaching powers over their life…the consequence of an attorney making a poor decision could result in the loss of all their assets, being put into a care home against their current or past wishes, or even their premature death”.
It is death that is on my mind, because of my role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for dying well, which campaigns against a law for assisted dying in this country. The problem of elder abuse is sadly endemic in our society, and I am afraid that ensuring that we get the signature or the verbal assent of an elderly person is not always enough to protect their interests. We must always hold to the essential dignity of a person in old age. The more dependent they are, the more dignity they need.
I spoke yesterday about my concerns about the drift towards a cashless society. We are moving towards a paperless society as well. That may well be a good thing for older people, but it can also become more bewildering and expose us to greater potential for abuse. I think we need a grand review of the effects of digitalisation in our society, on our communities, on vulnerable people and on liberty.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mike Freer)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) for promoting this vital Bill. I look forward to supporting him as the Bill completes its journey and, I hope, makes its way on to the statute book.
My hon. Friend did an effective job of laying out the provisions of the Bill and its purpose. It is immediately clear both from his words and from the contributions of Conservative colleagues—I will turn in a few minutes to the question raised by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham)—that we all recognise that a lasting power of attorney is a vital resource and how important it is to ensure that the process has sufficient safeguards, while remaining accessible and efficient.
It is a deed that gives peace of mind and assurance to individuals, should there be a time when they lose mental capacity to make decisions for themselves. It gives them peace of mind that there is a pre-selected loved one or professional there to help them, whether to provide support and make decisions about managing their financial affairs, or to make decisions relating to their healthcare. A lasting power of attorney ensures that a person’s wishes and preferences can be taken into account, and reduces the stress and burden on families when capacity is lost unexpectedly.
My hon. Friend rightly highlighted in his opening remarks that we are living in a society with an ageing population. One of the implications of this is that we are likely to see an increase in people who lack mental capacity due to age-related conditions. For example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) mentioned, the Alzheimer’s Society says that there are currently around 900,000 people with dementia in the UK. That figure is projected to rise to 1.6 million by 2040, meaning an increase in the number of families who will find themselves faced with the reality of needing to make critical decisions about their loved one’s finances or welfare.
I know that those can be difficult decisions, talking about and preparing for the worst-case scenarios, including preparing for loss of capacity. It can be harrowing for people, their friends and their family. However, preparing early is the key to ensuring that life can continue in the way the person wanted. Putting in place a lasting power of attorney gives family and friends an insight into a person’s wishes and preferences and who they would like to make decisions on their behalf when they are unable to do so. Given the importance and significance of the document, and the gravity of the power it confers, it is absolutely right that we look at how we can make the process for making and registering a lasting power of attorney safer, simpler and more accessible.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock for setting out so eloquently the problems that exist in the current system. Members of this House will be aware that the Ministry of Justice has consulted on potential solutions to some of those challenges, and I am delighted that the Bill promoted by my hon. Friend reflects and builds on the Government’s response to the consultation.
Turning to the question raised by the shadow Minister, in terms of the capacity issue, the Government remain committed to the principle of supporting decision making but believe that that is provided best by the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The proposals in the consultation were carefully considered by the Government, but we still have concerns that a formal framework may be unnecessarily legalistic and would overlap with other provisions, such as advocacy.
I want to give a commitment to the House that we are seeking to ensure that the system is as simple and easy to navigate as possible. My hon. Friend talked about the current backlog in the Office of the Public Guardian, which is leading to longer waiting times for LPA registrations. That has been exacerbated by the limitations arising from the current legislative framework and the operational practice it requires. My hon. Friend explained that all LPAs are currently made on paper, which creates a huge logistical burden on everyone involved. It is also not reflective of the needs of users in today’s society, but I take on board the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) about ensuring that, as we embrace technology, we must also ensure that there are sufficient checks and balances for those who may be vulnerable to abuse.
Frankly, people expect Government services to be available online, while also having the option to do things on paper when they prefer to. I am pleased that the Bill will create a digital channel to make an LPA, while also improving the paper channel for those who need or choose to use paper. A digital route will make LPAs more efficient and realise many benefits. It will allow for a speedier process, reduce the administrative burdens on individuals and automate many checks that should reduce the risk of errors in the paperwork that often delay registration and therefore the ability to use the LPA.
The Bill goes further than simply the digital and paper channels. By facilitating a more flexible system, the ability to move between the channels to create a single LPA will provide a far more flexible service and far more benefits to a wider group of people. Even those who want to use paper will benefit from others using digital elements in the process. The challenges faced by the OPG cannot be solved without reform, which is why I am grateful for the improvements that the Bill seeks to facilitate. I am confident that by introducing a digital process and automated checks and reducing some of the burdens on the organisation, we will build resilience into the process, meaning that people will be able to register their LPAs more quickly. It should also significantly reduce the chances of backlogs forming.
I assure the House that the vast majority of LPAs—there are currently more than 6 million on the register—are used properly to provide the support they are intended for. However, we know that LPA fraud and abuse takes place, and steps must be taken to address it. In 2021-22, the OPG investigated 2,408 LPA cases in response to concerns received. Of those, the OPG took remedial action in 649 cases. Such action can include an application to the Court of Protection to remove an attorney or revoke an LPA, as well as working with the attorney to provide education and guidance on how they should carry out their role.
Although the matters I have outlined apply to a very small proportion of the LPAs registered by the OPG, the impact on the individuals who experience abuse can be significant, which is why I am pleased that the Bill includes provisions to make the process more secure, especially for the donor, and lays the groundwork for further changes to be made in regulations.
In line with the Government’s consultation response, the Bill introduces identity checks as a requirement of registration. This is an important safeguard that will assure the OPG that those who claim to be involved in the LPA are who they say they are and reduce the risk of fraud by false representation. Regulations will support the change by specifying who will be subject to checks—the donor and the certificate provider—as well as how those checks will be carried out and which documents will be acceptable. I am committed to providing a wide range of options as soon as possible, given that the average age of a donor is currently 74 and most are over 65.
Provisions are being made to streamline and improve the objections process so that it is easier to lodge a concern with the OPG. That is a vital safeguard that will include those with a legitimate concern—such as local authorities, care workers and even the police—who previously did not have a formal route through which to express their concern.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock pointed out that the Bill gives us the levers to make further changes in regulations that will improve other protections, including the role of certificate providers. By having the certificate provider take on the role of witness, we are strengthening safeguards. In addition to this increase in safeguarding, by combining the roles of certificate provider and witness we will also reduce the burden on the donor.
I am pleased that the Bill also addresses the role of chartered legal executives. It cannot be right that a chartered legal executive—a legally qualified Chartered Institute of Legal Executives lawyer—who legitimately participates in the creation of a power of attorney should be rendered unable to certify as genuine a copy of the same document that they were instrumental in creating. The Bill will address that anomaly.
In closing, I reiterate how vital the improvements in the Bill are to support individuals to make a lasting power of attorney and to certify copies of such important documents. The efficiency savings will ensure that donors and attorneys have a better system, with the savings made reinvested to increasingly improve the service, so it is an all-round benefit.
Finally, I reiterate my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock and thank my hon. Friends the Members for Devizes, for Darlington (Peter Gibson), for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) and for Broadland for their contributions.
Stephen Metcalfe
With the leave of the House, I will draw together some final remarks. This has been a short but interesting debate. The scope of the Bill, as I expressed, is relatively tight, but it will make some important changes. It will improve access to lasting powers of attorney through a new technical and digital route while—I stress—maintaining a paper route. It will put in some additional checks on identities to ensure that those claiming the powers are who say they are. As we have heard, there will be a better route for raising objections when we think such powers are being misused and a simplification in the process of applying for an LPA by making it quite so onerous in timing and the order of signatures. In addition, there is the increased and enhanced role for chartered legal executives.
As I said, the Bill is relatively straightforward. I am grateful to have heard support from both sides of the House, including from the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham). I look forward to taking that further as we go into Committee. I am also grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft), for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) and for Devizes (Danny Kruger), and I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) for offering to serve on the Committee. If any other Member wishes to serve on the Committee, please do feel free to volunteer.
It has been an enjoyable debate, and I look forward to the Bill moving on to the next stage. I place on record my thanks to the Minister, the officials and all those involved in helping get it to this point. I also thank the Whips, and especially my neighbour, the Comptroller of His Majesty’s Household, my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris). I would not live it down if I did not mention that.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time; to stand committed to a Public Bill Committee (Standing Order No. 63).
Short-term and Holiday-let Accommodation (Licensing) Bill
Friday 9th December 2022
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Short-term and Holiday-let Accommodation (Licensing) Bill 2022-23 View all Short-term and Holiday-let Accommodation (Licensing) Bill 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Housing matters. Our communities matter. There can be no greater human right than having shelter, yet in many of our communities housing is being flipped over to short-term holiday lets amid a housing crisis. Housing is snatched to make wealth for investors while housing poverty’s grip freezes families out of their homes and out of their communities. Children are being taken out of school and people are being forced to leave their jobs as they cannot find somewhere to live, all so that others can profit from those dwellings. Villages are becoming desolate and urban streets are being turned into party metropolises. There is something very wrong in what is happening, and our constituents are suffering. My Bill would fix that.
Rural, coastal and urban communities are at the centre of an extraction of wealth and housing that is leaving destitution and despair. For the Government not to license short-term holiday lets but just to register them will let landlords off the hook and deepen the housing crisis. A registration scheme will appease the industry, landlords and short-term holiday let platforms but fail to give local authorities the tools that they need to protect residents. That is why I call for support for my Bill, which would bring fair and balanced changes into legislation.
I am grateful for the support of housing campaign groups such as Generation Rent, Acorn and Action on Empty Homes, as I am for that of Members across the House in the other place. Other countries are years ahead of us, yet the obsession with deregulation has caused the Government to hesitate. It is now incumbent on MPs to ensure that we legislate.
The Government’s new plans to register short-term holiday lets will not give local authorities opportunities to create controlled zones where Airbnbs are banned or numbers limited, nor to raise penalties where breaches of locally determined criteria occur so that fines can be issued or licences removed. My Bill would legislate to achieve that. Measures have been already deployed throughout Europe and in many places across the world. With the Bill, we would simply catch up by addressing the challenge.
A registration scheme tells us simply where holiday lets are, but we already know that because they are listed on public platforms. My Bill would add controls to that and do something about it, unlike the Secretary of State’s current approach. The Government are also calling for a new use class consultation up to the summer, but that concerns me, as a new use class will lock in short-term holiday lets, making it more difficult for such properties to return to residential use. Under my Bill, when the owner changes the property will automatically return to residential use—quick and simple.
The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020 amended the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 to introduce a new use class, stating that buildings or lands that were in those particular use classes prior to transfer would be treated as automatically moving into the new use class, according to the House of Commons Library. That would mean that 330,000 short-term holiday lets would be automatically deemed for that purpose. With the stroke of a pen, the Secretary of State is taking a third of a million properties out of residential use, and then requiring a full planning process for each to return to being a residential dwelling—difficult, timely and costly. This has not been thought through.
My legislation would be far more receptive to reversing properties back to housing. In April 2016, just 76,000 properties were marketed on the Airbnb website. That has risen substantially just in the last year by another 14%, but there are many other platforms out there. Every day, 29 more properties flip from residential use to short-term holiday lets. So much time has been lost, which is why we cannot delay.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. This is clearly a huge issue across the country, including in my constituency in Reading. Does she also believe that more action needs to be taken on the wider range of temporary lettings that can take properties out of use by families, such as some types of student lets and some other temporary lettings?
Rachael Maskell
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. So many things need to be done on housing, and I know that a Labour Government will put it foremost in their agenda, to ensure that everyone has a home to live in. In York, we have over 2,000 short-term holiday lets. The Government consulted over the summer about a registration scheme, but that horse has bolted. The market is out of control. It needs regulating, and my legislation would achieve that. With a licence, people do not get just a register but safety certificates, ensuring that standards are in place and complied with. If not, the licence can be revoked. Those are the challenges that we want to be addressed.
We have clearly seen a massive growth in this industry. What started off in San Francisco as an air mattress on a floor is now a £57 billion industry worldwide. That is why we have to get a grip on it. It is not just about a spare bed in the shared economy; whole swathes of streets are now pepper-potted with residential accommodation turning into holiday lets. In my constituency, we have seen a particularly sharp rise. It seems to be an issue for holiday destinations.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
I know only too well some of the issues that the city of York has faced over the years, particularly having introduced its own specific rules with regard to houses in multiple occupation in recent years. I wonder whether the hon. Lady has engaged with my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken), who has also raised this issue in the House?
Rachael Maskell
I have indeed. Many MPs across the House share an ambition to control this market. At the heart of the issue is the fact that we are losing housing that is desperately needed by our constituents. Also, villages are being hollowed out, which is impacting communities. In places such as York, as these properties spread along family streets, families are being hemmed in by party homes. The trolley comes up the road on a Friday night, and dread grips the community, which knows what lies ahead of it, starting with the music turning up and then sleepless nights, and profane language coming over the garden wall until quiet comes again on Sunday evening. People are desperate for measures to be introduced to control that environment. This impacts greatly on the property market. Demand outstrips supply, and costs in the private rented sector and in owned housing are extortionately high. That is why we need to ensure that good regulation is in place.
Local authorities are also missing out. They are not getting council tax from these properties as they are flipping over to become small businesses, enjoying small business rates exemption. Local authorities are losing millions of pounds, but local authority services are still required. Labour in Wales introduced a doubling of council tax and that is now rising to 300%, making sure it benefits from this situation in order to pay for the services that are often required.
I have mentioned the impact on the local community, but the economy is also impacted as we struggle to recruit, whether, ironically, in the hospitality sector, the NHS, or the perma-crisis that is causing a real challenge in social care. Bed and breakfasts and guest houses are struggling to compete with these deregulated forms of accommodation, too. That is why it is so important that we introduce a licence scheme, which will make such a difference to all our communities.
There is always a darker side with unregulated markets. The lack of accountability harbours an even more worrying trend. In York, we have seen pop-up brothels in short-term holiday lets, businesses that come and are then gone after the weekend. This summer I had a case of a property being used for drug dealing; the landlord knew and did nothing. County lines gangs have learned the benefits of this unregulated industry, as have those exploiting others through modern slavery. I dread to think what is happening around child sexual exploitation. The law is lax and that is why we must legislate.
I therefore say to the Minister that we need to move urgently to get a licensing scheme in place for short-term holiday lets. Let’s licence these lets.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for her hard work on this issue and congratulate her on introducing the Bill, which Labour strongly supports.
Short-term letting, facilitated by businesses such as Airbnb, could be positive for our tourism sector and local economies, but short-term letting is only a good thing if it is sustainable and strengthens communities, rather than weakening them, and currently the unchecked prevalence of short-term and holiday lets is causing harm. First, there is a stream of temporary visitors who are not invested in the place in which they are staying; they may not follow rules on noise levels or health and safety. But even more fundamental, as my hon. Friend described, is the problem of what happens to a community when too many residential properties become short-term or holiday lets. Instead of the investment, employment opportunities and strong tourism industries that communities need to thrive, this kind of letting is causing a housing and public services crisis across coastal and rural parts of the UK and her area of Yorkshire.
Areas such as Shropshire, Northumbria and Cornwall are seeing house prices soar and availability drop as wealthy outsiders buy up second homes to let out. That squeezes the affordability and availability of homes, particularly for local first-time buyers and private renters. It also results in houses left empty for large chunks of the year, reducing permanent populations. That can impact the local community disastrously: schools become unsustainable and close as local families are forced out, transport services are cut, and health and other services disappear as demand drops.
This Bill would help communities to regain control and is in line with the findings from Labour’s commission on the UK’s future. As we have heard, the Bill proposes to give local authorities the powers to implement licensing schemes for the conversion of domestic properties into short-term and holiday-let accommodation. It would also, importantly, give them the right to exercise appropriate powers over those schemes: issuing fines or removing licences where key conditions are not being met; varying local tax rates in relation to such properties; limiting the number of days a year that short-term holiday lets can be rented; and banning their licensing in certain areas.
If this Bill becomes law, places will be able to reap the rewards of thriving tourism, without the risk of communities becoming ghost towns when the holiday season ends, and locals will no longer be priced out of their own neighbourhoods. Getting this right quickly is essential, as my hon. Friend has been saying. Our tourism sector is doing all it can to attract visitors, but is doing so while grappling with the slow recovery from covid, a cost of living crisis and rising energy bills and inflation. I urge Government Members not to talk out this Bill today, but to join Labour in supporting it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)
I thank the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for bringing this important debate to the House and for her diligence in continuing to highlight this important matter. I know that we had a lot of exchanges while I was the Minister for Housing, and I am sorry that we never got around to doing the roundtable I promised to do with her in her constituency.
The short-term and holiday letting sector is a matter of considerable interest across all parties, and many hon. Friends have raised it with me, too. I am sure it will continue to be a big issue. The voices that we have heard are key to keeping this debate going and I offer my thanks to the hon. Lady.
The short-term and holiday letting of residential accommodation to paying guests is not a new phenomenon in this country. We have long been able to boast about the quality and range of England’s guest accommodation offer. The quintessential English bed and breakfast, holiday cottage or homestay have been important parts of our accommodation offer for many years. They have long catered for the needs of tourists, those travelling for work or people in need of temporary accommodation. However, it is clear that, over the past 10 to 15 years, there has been a rapid and significant growth in the short-term and holiday letting market, which has changed the shape and size of England’s guest accommodation sector.
At the heart of that change has been the emergence of the sharing economy. Online platforms have played a key role in making it easier to connect homeowners who want to rent out their accommodation with people who are looking for a place to stay for a short period. I want to be clear that the rise of these online platforms and the subsequent expansion of the short-term and holiday let market has been beneficial for hosts, consumers and the wider visitor economy. I am sure that many Members attending the debate today will have made use of them themselves, as will many of their constituents. At the same time, however, we must recognise that this expansion has created challenges and concerns in some of our communities.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
Obviously we are still facing a housing crisis in this country and, while I completely agree that short-term lets go some way to helping our tourism economy recover from the after-effects of covid-19, does the Minister agree that we need to strike the right balance between the usage of private rented accommodation for short-term lets and ensuring that there are enough good-quality affordable homes available for people who would want to buy or rent them?
Stuart Andrew
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that we need to have a measured and effective approach, and I will come on to that shortly.
Rachael Maskell
On the issue of the private rented sector, the reason why so many are flipping is the inequality within the tax system, where landlords can no longer gain tax benefit as a result of the improvements they make to their property. We clearly now have an inequitable situation. Does not the Minister agree that that is why it is so important to bring forward tighter regulation to license these properties?
Stuart Andrew
I do. There are many complex issues around this important point, and the hon. Lady highlights one of them. During my time as the Minister for Housing, I was speaking to colleagues across Government about various solutions we could come up with, and I hope to elaborate on that a bit more in a moment.
Our ambition has been and will continue to be to ensure that we sustainably reap the benefits of short-term lets and holiday lets, while protecting the interests of holidaymakers and local communities. The Government have recently taken a series of steps that we are confident will help us to achieve our ambition for the sector. The Government have recognised for some time now that there are significant concerns that need to be investigated further. That is why, in last year’s tourism recovery plan, we set out our intention to consider a tourist accommodation registration scheme in England. That forms part of the Government’s ambition to create a more innovative, resilient and data-driven tourism industry.
There is, unfortunately, a lack of information and data on the short-term lets market in England. That is why our first step was to carry out a call for evidence, which ran from 29 June to 21 September this year. We had two key aims for that call of evidence. Our first aim was to hear from a range of stakeholders, to help us to develop a fuller understanding of the current market. Our second aim was to use the data and information we gathered to develop policy options. To do that, we asked questions about the changes and growth that have been evident in the market, the benefits and the challenges of short-term lets and the impact of potential policy responses. In total, we received 4,000 responses from all manner of individuals and organisations located throughout the country. Those included hosts operating in the market, guest accommodation businesses, online platforms, enforcement agencies such as local authorities and representative bodies and groups.
That brings me on to the next steps we are taking to improve the short-term lets sector. The call for evidence highlighted that there is a case to introduce light-touch regulation in this currently unregulated sector. The Government are therefore introducing a registration scheme for short-term lets through an amendment to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill tabled on Wednesday 7 December. There are a number of benefits to introducing a registration scheme. It will deliver much-needed data and evidence on short-term letting activity across England, providing transparency on the numbers and locations of short-term lets for local authorities, central Government and enforcement agencies. It will improve consistency and coherence in the application of statutory health and safety regulations. It will boost England’s reputation as a destination for visitors, and it will help to attract more international visitors by giving a visible assurance that we have a high-quality and safe guest accommodation offer for all. Finally, it will support local authorities where a high number of short-term lets are deemed to be impacting their local housing market.
Local authorities have highlighted the challenge of accurately assessing the scale of short-term lets in their areas, often having to rely on data from third party providers. As there are some questions over the reliability of that data, a registration scheme would provide local authorities with better information on short-term letting in their area. A consultation on the design of the scheme will be carried out next year before the summer recess. For those reasons, the registration scheme should be seen as a significant step in our policy approach to the short-term lets sector.
Rachael Maskell
Does the Minister realise that over that period, another 6,525 properties—29 a day—will flip over to become short-term holiday lets? Surely we need to get on with licensing now.
Stuart Andrew
I hope that I have indicated how seriously the Government take this issue, but it is right that we do this properly and make sure we get as much data as possible, so that we really know the position we are facing.
The registration scheme is an altogether different step from the licensing scheme put forward in the Bill. As the Government are already progressing with the registration scheme that I have outlined, I am afraid we cannot support the Bill. None the less, the Government recognise that a registration scheme alone will not address all the challenges that have been highlighted today, particularly in the case of housing. The Government are aware of calls for changes to the planning system. Currently, planning permission is not normally required when an existing house starts to be used as a short-term let. We therefore propose to consult next year on whether planning permission will more often be required when a house seeks to start to be used as a short-term let and for new short-term lets, especially in tourist hotspots.
Today’s debate has also touched upon concerns that landlords may be prioritising short-term letting activity instead of long-term tenancy agreements. This has limited the ability of local people to secure affordable private rented sector properties. The Government are also committed to giving private renters a better deal, with greater security of tenure and safer, higher-quality homes. On 16 June, we published our White Paper, “A Fairer Private Rented Sector” which sets out our plan to fundamentally reform the sector and level up housing quality in this country. Since then, we have also committed to banning section 21 no fault evictions to protect tenants.
Business without Debate
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March.
Former Ministers and Prime Ministers (Abolition of Payments) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 24 March.
Independent Adviser on Ministers’ Interests (Appointment by Parliament) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 20 January.
Public Advocate (No. 2) Bill
Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (15 July), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 3 February 2023.
Pre-Payment Meters (Self-Disconnection) Bill
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Bill to be read a Second time on Friday 20 January.
Carbon emissions (buildings) Bill
Resumption of adjourned debate on Question (25 November), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Hon. Members
Object.
Debate to be resumed on Friday 24 February 2023.
Ballot Secrecy Bill [Lords]
Motion made, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Question put and agreed to.
Baby Banks: Government Support
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Children are expensive and wasteful. The amount of stuff they go through and the cost to a parent’s pocket is horrific. In this country, it should be our collective mission to put food banks out of business, because nobody should go hungry in a modern, dignified democracy. But would we have the same ambition for baby banks? What, Madam Speaker, do I mean by baby banks? I promise you that this is not about a very strange form of deposit, or loan or even withdrawal. This is about how we change the stigma that somehow says that sustainability is a middle class indulgence, because in the time of a cost of living crisis, we cannot afford to do anything but for our parents’ pockets and for our planet.
To date, those efforts about being green have focused on things such as jobs and wind farms, but now it is time to focus on the role of give and take. I would venture that everybody in this Chamber—those who are left—probably remembers that from being a child. I was the youngest of a number of cousins. During the 1980s, I did not want for leg warmers, because I had multiple pairs of those donated to me. The truth is that for parents facing those costs of children, sharing is absolutely integral.
Research from the Child Poverty Action Group shows that it costs around £160,000 to raise a child. For single parents, it is £190,000. Every penny matters. But it is not just about the costs; it is about the cost of carbon and the waste that it means when a parent has to buy new things for every individual child. Parents are facing a cost of living crisis as never before. Since 2020, the costs facing new parents have risen by a third, as the cost of living and inflation have pushed up the price of essential goods such as nappies. Indeed, over the last two years, the price of a pack of nappies has risen by a shocking 75%, meaning that, for most families with a new baby, the spend on nappies alone has gone up by £41 a month. The prices of other consumable goods have also gone up, with baby formula costing an extra £12 a month, and baby wipes up 16%.
It is not just about those everyday costs when someone has a new baby; it is also about the one-off, massive purchases. Car seats and pushchairs cost 38% and 25% more respectively than they did in 2020. Yet, during the same period, statutory maternity pay has risen by only 3.6%.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The hon. Lady is making a good case. I wonder whether safety is a big aspect where children are concerned. If parents cannot afford to buy new all the time, the children’s safety might be compromised. That is where food banks, by providing safe alternatives, could be helpful.
Stella Creasy
It is precisely this issue about how parents make sure they look after their child, which is what every parent wants to do well. That is why baby banks need to become the norm; I want to put food banks out of business, but I want baby banks to become the norm.
One of the issues for us in the This Mum Votes campaign is that we need to understand the pressures on families across the country and to join up Government action. Baby banks provide a solution by giving parents the opportunity to swap and reuse equipment, toys and clothes, as well as access to vital support networks. They are a response to two challenges at the same time: the deepening poverty we see in our communities and the need to care for our environment through the greater reuse of items. There are currently around 200 baby banks in this country. They are often run by women—by volunteers—who have recognised the need to join up the dots to help everybody share. That is as much about bringing those new parents together as it is about the practicalities and the costs that families face.
Half of the 4.2 million children living in poverty in this country live in a family with a child under the age of five. Younger children, in particular, who go through so much stuff and need so much stuff so quickly, are expensive. That is why having the This Mum Votes perspective and understanding should be part of our policymaking. Some 1.3 million of those 4.2 million children are babies and children under the age of five. The total number of children in poverty is predicted to rise in the next year alone to 5.2 million—that is an additional 1 million children, many of whom will be of that younger generation.
We know that investing in the early years reaps a reward, but we do not always invest in helping parents with those early years. That is why fantastic organisations such as Little Village, which supports families with children under five living in poverty across London, are such a godsend, and why I am calling on the Government to make sure that every community has a baby bank—somewhere that collects and distributes pre-loved clothes and equipment. As Little Village’s amazing chief executive, Sophie Livingstone, points out, it fixes the systems that trap families in poverty.
Since launching in 2016, Little Village has supported over 25,000 children. Last year alone, it supported over 6,000 children, including 1,000 new-born babies. It takes referrals from across our statutory sector, because anyone working with young families knows about baby banks. In my community, we have a brilliant baby bank run by the Lloyd Park children’s centre, and I make referrals to it, as do midwives, social workers and health visitors. Baby banks aid the work of our statutory sector.
Baby banks also help at that immediate crisis point. We have maternity wards saying that they have mums without anything and that they will not let them leave the hospital. It is the baby banks that step in to help, providing vital goods for those newborns, whether it is the nappies, wipes, creams, clothes, blankets or hats that people will not be allowed to leave the hospital without.
Baby banks are also often a vital link for parents who are sceptical about the statutory sector. These are organisations that those parents can trust and that definitely have their child’s best interests at heart. They can also be a bridge to further services.
This week, we have seen the worrying reports from the British Pregnancy Advisory Service of families who are watering down their baby formula to save money. Little Village’s work shows similar horror stories about what is happening right now in this country: a family that was using sanitary towels as nappies because they did not have the money to buy nappies; a mum of three who could not afford to heat her home was coming to the baby bank with her child to keep warm; a child with grade 3 pressure sores due to the extreme rationing of nappies; a parent who was reusing nappies that had already been soiled in order to save money; and a family rationing Calpol in order to get through the day.
Despite the amazing work that baby banks do in this country to try to tackle these problems, not every local authority welcomes them. Some refuse to provide access to community spaces that are vacant because they do not want to admit that that kind of poverty exists in their local community. Space is crucial. Any parent knows that new children take up a lot of space, so just imagine a baby bank having to find space for multiple buggies, cots, baby baths and jumperoos. Having local authority support with space is crucial, as is taking into account the costs of running these places, including the costs of energy and of buying things such as nappies to hand out.
Ministers and people listening may think that this is a debate about poverty, but it is not just about that; it is also about the planet, because an estimated 350,000 tonnes of clothing goes to landfill every year. Even if we ended poverty in this country tomorrow, we would still want baby banks to exist, in order to tackle that problem at the same time and to promote the reuse, repair and sharing of items. Little Village gifted 26 tonnes of clothing, 26 tonnes of furniture, 3.5 tonnes of small electricals, 2 tonnes of books and more than 1 tonne of small plastics last year alone, and that is just one baby bank. That saved 85 tonnes of carbon dioxide-equivalent emissions , which is the equivalent of taking 18 cars off the road. More than 8.5 million new toys are thrown away—they head to landfill or incinerators—in the UK every year. There is a mountain of clothes, toys, plastic and tat that every family acquires and then no longer needs because their child has grown out of it and is then abandoned on an almost weekly basis. These things also represent a cost that a lot of families feel they have no choice but to incur.
We saw that most clearly in Walthamstow with our amazing “swap shop” project. I wish to pay testament to it, because it shows a model of a way forward. We have been running swap shops in our local community, where parents bring items they no longer need and take the items they do need; we have helped thousands of parents since we started doing this in August, enabling them not only to take items out of our landfill and our incinerators, but to manage the costs that they face. I wish to say thank you to my local Salvation Army; The Mill community centre; Waltham Forest Council; our amazing Walthamstow toy library; all the volunteers; the 17&Central shopping centre, which hosted us so that parents could find us easily; and, in particular, the members of my team, Safa, Jess and Ashley, who helped to run that project, which meant that during the weeks it was open nothing that came into our centre went to a landfill or an incinerator.
Failing to reduce waste and deal with climate changes often hits the poorest in our communities, as we have seen with those who have been repeatedly flooded out of their houses or from the evidence that shows that incinerators are three times more likely to be sited in areas of deprivation than affluent regions. Yet asking the public to look ahead to that green future and to be more climate conscious is impossible to do when they do not know where the next meal is going to come from for their families or they are thinking that they cannot afford to put their baby in warm clothing that evening.
If Ministers will not listen to me about why we should make sure that every community has access to baby banks, please listen to the Princess of Wales, because she has been championing them. She has visited Little Village and she is bringing together 19 British brands to donate to these baby banks so that they have items to hand out. The Minister may be wondering and saying, “This is all very well, but what does this MP want the Government to do?” There are some simple things they could do. First and foremost, we should invest in baby banks as a way of saving money, because this country is spending hundreds of thousands of pounds every years on sending things to landfill and to incinerators. Baby banks are not recognised in this country in the way that food banks are. That is what we have to change, because this is as much about the donations and the networks that come from that, as it is about the people who need their support. The Trussell Trust does amazing work for food banks; it is an almost £60 million a year organisation. We need to invest in baby banks in every community as a way of matching that, so that it becomes the norm to reuse, repair and support your local community and other local parents in the same way.
Little Village, the Baby Bank Network in Bristol, Save The Children and the Association for Real Change are working together to create a new national baby bank network. I ask the Minister to put on record the Government’s support for that process, along with a commitment to do what they can to roll it out as quickly as possible. It is not enough for these organisations to be scrabbling around for funds with which to do the work they are doing; we should be investing in them. There are some minor things we could do to raise the money, because we are not talking about hundreds of millions of pounds, and we are not talking about a state-run initiative. The brilliant volunteers do not need us to do it for them; they need us to work with them.
If we were to make a small increase—0.2%—in the stamp duty paid on second homes to provide for our nought to two-year-olds, we could raise £880 million a year. We could invest all that and have a baby bank overnight. I know that that may not be something to which the Minister would want to commit herself, so let us look at something a bit simpler. The landfill tax is currently set at £96.70 a tonne, and is raising £660 million this year. Even an increase of a mere £4 would raise £687 million, creating an additional £27 million that could be put towards funding baby banks and could help to remove items from landfill and incinerators altogether.
There are other things that local authorities could do with the Government’s help. For many parents, it is the size of the item that they want to donate that creates the risk of their not donating it. Those who are dealing with fly-tipping are often taking out goods that could be reused for children. We could also advertise those services. The point is that this is a win-win for all of us. Kids may be expensive and wasteful, but they are going to inherit this earth, and right now millions of them in this country are living in poverty. Baby banks are not the only solution, but they are absolutely the one investment, the one deposit, that the Government could make that would give a better future to millions of us overnight.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
It is a pleasure to respond to the debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) on securing it.
This is a time of—understandably—great public concern about the cost of living. I personally was so grateful, as a new mum, for the advice that I received, along with the bargains, hand-me-downs, products, ideas and insights on what really matters in that bewildering time. Who knew that you needed a Bumbo seat? I never thought I would use that term here in the House of Commons, but it is an infant seat to help babies to sit up when they are taking their first solid food, especially during baby-led weaning.
My mum’s Poundland box, of which she was incredibly proud, was an absolute marvel. We still have it, with all of the paraphernalia inside. The hand-me-downs mentioned by the hon. Lady, such as smocked dresses, came my way. I was very proud when I arrived home last night to find my oldest doing a shoes and clothes clear-out to help others, mindful of both need and the environment. There is currently a coat exchange to help people in my town of Haywards Heath. There is huge pressure on new parents to have new things and buy new things, and to make sure everything is perfect, but we know that our lovely little terrors get their sticky mitts on everything and draw on everything, and they do not really care. Sharing advice, products and information about what really works makes a big difference.
As Minister responsible for social mobility, youth and progression, I fully understand the hon. Lady’s point about “invest to save”. It is my mission in Government. I also note the points that she made about the landfill tax, fly-tipping and other matters. I will keep this debate in mind when we come to the next stage of the design of the household support fund, and will think about how we can reach parents and understand the pressures they experience.
Let me reassure the hon. Lady and the House that the Government are committed to providing key support for families with new babies and very young children through targeted support and more general schemes, and by expanding both employment and skills opportunities for parents. Many mums, as we have heard, use the opportunity to grow their thinking and turn things they have learned into future businesses—never more so than in the mum arena.
The support schemes available include the Sure Start maternity grant, the NHS’s healthy start scheme, family hubs, our childcare offer for recipients of universal credit, cost of living payments, the household support fund and the wider universal credit payment system, which got a significant uprating from April 2023. However, I take the hon. Lady’s point and, as a former charities Minister, I always admire the great work people take on for causes that matter to them, nationally, internationally and locally.
Baby banks are independent charitable organisations that help local communities to come together to support people nearby and are another example of the generosity of spirit in our great country. They are very welcome as a support network, as the hon. Lady mentioned, and as a showcase of community kindness. They are also environmentally friendly and positive. In researching for this debate, I found it eye-opening to see just how many brilliant organisations and individuals are aiding mums in that time of need.
Christine Jardine
On that point about environmental damage, one of the things the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) mentioned was the impact on the environment when she spoke so movingly about mothers reusing nappies. I find myself, in this recycling age, doing things my mother did, such as having glass milk bottles and paper bags in shops. Would there be a way of encouraging the comeback of reusable nappies such as those we used to have when I was a child? I remember, although it was a while ago now, just how expensive and what a drain on someone’s income the constant buying of nappies can be.
Mims Davies
The hon. Lady makes an important point. Speaking to many mums and grandmums, having baby in the garden in the pram and pegging out the reusable nappies—those lovely white nappies—is a moment of pride: “I’m getting this right and it’s going well.” It is extortionately challenging to try to balance the environmental problem with nappies and also reusing; I know many mums who have managed to do that successfully; I must admit, to my shame, that that was not me, but I was very admiring of anyone who did manage it. We need to make those schemes more acceptable and understandable. Some people think they are strange and that the only option is disposable.
Stella Creasy
I hope the Minister will agree perhaps to meet me and representatives of Little Village and my own local baby bank to discuss this point. Many of our environmental organisations, particularly within local government, have schemes to encourage reusable nappies and recycling. However, that does not join up with a recognition of how that can help to tackle poverty, and it is baby banks that are doing that joining up. I am pleading for Government to do that joining up as well, so that is not just brilliant volunteers at a local level saying, “Actually, there is a scheme for reusable nappies from our local environmental charity”, but Government helping to make that network happen. If she meets the organisations I mentioned, she will find people who would be fantastic advocates to take to other Government Departments on these issues, for example.
Mims Davies
The hon. Lady makes in important point: the cost of living, nappies and the environment, Healthy Start and ensuring that those most in need know where to turn and are not overlooked are all cross-Government issues. I will take her point away across Government to look at the right way to take forward what she is asking for. I hope that is helpful to her.
I want to mention the work that many people do knitting hats and supporting newborns. One of the biggest things I learned as a new mum is how much warmth newborns need. People in this space add so much that, whether through knitting, advice, or creating baby banks. I was certainly quite surprised to see just how much the sector has grown. I understand the hon. Lady’s passion for and interest in this particular area, and this debate has certainly sparked my interest, so I thank her very much for bringing it to the House.
The Sure Start maternity grant provides £500 in England, Wales and Northern Ireland for costs associated with the expenses of caring for a baby—as we have heard, becoming a parent is a very expensive business—if there are no other children under the age of 16 in the claimant’s family. The Sure Start maternity grant was devolved to Scotland in December 2018, and the Scottish Government have established alternative support through the Best Start scheme.
The NHS Healthy Start scheme also provides £4.25 a week to eligible low-income families in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to buy fresh fruit and vegetables, with recipients also eligible for free Healthy Start vitamins to help them to boost their children’s long-term health.
To give families holistic support, family hubs are bringing together services for children of all ages. I am particularly interested in how that links into the start for life offer, which is at the core of those. The Government are investing more than £300 million jointly with the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care to transform our start for life services from conception to age two. That includes boosting family support services in 75 local authorities in England.
The Government are providing a network of family hubs. I note that that is not the same thing that the hon. Lady talked about, but that is how we assist positive parent and infant relationships, support perinatal mental health and infant feeding, and boost and help people with their parenting skills. In addition, the DFE will ask all those 75 local areas to publish their start for life offer and will provide funding on innovative trials of workforce models for a smaller number of authorities. I wonder whether that is a way to link in some of what has been discussed today.
I reiterate that the Government’s universal credit childcare offer aims to make it easier for low-income families to choose to work, stay in work and progress in work, so that after the baby comes, parents can move to a point where they can be more financially resilient. I remind people that eligible UC claimants can claim back 85% of their registered childcare costs each month, regardless of the number of hours that they work, compared with 70% in tax credits.
Additionally, those who need extra financial support with their first set of childcare costs or when moving into work or taking on additional hours can apply for further help from the flexible support fund. That discretionary, non-repayable payment will pay their initial childcare costs directly to the provider. Help is available for eligible universal credit claimants through budgeting advances.
I say to anybody struggling, listening, or helping and advising in the sector, “Please look at the benefits calculator on gov.uk and at the cost of living website. Please make sure that you are claiming everything that you are entitled to, because there may be further help out there that you are not aware of. There is also the Help for Households campaign. We are helping with £37 billion of support for cost of living pressures between 2022 and 2023, and an extra £26 billion was announced for that purpose in the autumn statement, so please make sure that you reach out. For households on eligible means-tested benefits, up to £900 in cost of living payments is available for people to take up.”
Stella Creasy
The Minister is setting out the help that the Government believe there is for those on low incomes. Baby banks are a big boost for tackling poverty, but there is an environmentally sustainable element. We want to encourage everybody, whether they are wealthy or not, to donate, because families do not need a cot or a pushchair for that long. They will be perfectly serviceable for someone else to use. One of the benefits of baby banks is that they ensure that the quality of the items is such that people will want to reuse them. That revolution in thinking is not one for those on the lowest incomes alone but for everyone if we are to save the planet as well as saving parents cash.
Mims Davies
I absolutely agree. This is not revolutionary thinking but old-fashioned sensible thinking that is suitable for our environment and our families. An issue that parents often worry about is quality, and sharing and responsibility when it comes to reusing items. I take the hon. Lady’s point about safety. We have seen that particular charities are willing to take some products but not others. That means that, as she pointed out, sometimes very large, useful products are the things that you see stuck on the side of the road, creating fly-tipping problems. But they could be incredibly useful for young families if they can be accredited.
I want to reassure the House that the Government are taking action to support families on low incomes. We will continue to remain vigilant about what people need in these challenging times, particularly those who are most vulnerable, or indeed those who are on the just-about-managing list—a lot of people who have come into focus due to the impact of the covid pandemic. I urge those people to reach out and know that there is help for them.
I thank the hon. Lady for her work and for securing this debate on the value of baby banks. I remind people of the Sure Start maternity grant, Healthy Start, family hubs, the childcare offer, cost of living payments, the household support fund and our benefit uprating. We will tackle the root cause of poverty, but it is right that, where communities can, they do everything they can to help families in need.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Government Chemist Review 2021
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Science, Research and Innovation (George Freeman)
The 25th annual review of the Government Chemist has been received. The review will be placed in the Libraries of the House plus those of the devolved Administrations in Wales and Northern Ireland. The review will also be laid before the Scottish Parliament.
The Government Chemist is the referee analyst named in Acts of Parliament. The Government Chemist’s team carry out analysis in high-profile or legally disputed cases. A range of referee analysis work was carried out during 2021, which included the evaluation of genetically modified organisms in rice products, pesticide detection in an organic peanut product, aflatoxin in dried figs, and structural data around a liposomal vitamin C product. The Government Chemist continues to work closely with Government Departments, their governance group, devolved Administrations, non-governmental organisations, and industry to identify tools, standards, and guidance to facilitate effective testing for food fraud and to grow knowledge transfer activities.
[HCWS427]
UK Measurement Strategy
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Science, Research and Innovation (George Freeman)
A measurement strategy for the national measurement system in being published today. The national measurement system (NMS) is an essential part of the UK’s research and innovation infrastructure that is critical for science, innovation and trade.
This strategy describes how the UK will capitalise on its world-leading national measurement system in the 2020s.
The national measurement system will focus on three challenges where enhanced measurement capability and expertise will support the UK:
The health and wellbeing of a growing population
The national measurement system will support the UK’s position at the forefront of leading-edge healthcare, enabling people to live longer, healthier and safer lives.
Managing and reducing our environmental impact
The national measurement system will provide the critical measurement infrastructure needed to help the UK improve energy efficiency, transition to clean energy sources and mitigate and adapt to the effects of climate change.
Increasing prosperity and supporting innovation
The national measurement system will support new and existing innovative businesses, providing access to the measurement capability and expertise needed to translate new ideas into products.
[HCWS426]
Financial Services
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Jeremy Hunt)
In the autumn statement, I set out the Government’s strategy for boosting growth by investing in our people, in the infrastructure that connects our country, by creating the right environment for business investment, and by supporting our world-leading financial services companies and innovators. Alongside this, I identified five growth sectors—one being financial services—for which the Government will prioritise the review of retained EU law, to ensure we identify changes that will support these sectors to grow.
I am today setting out a bold collection of reforms taking forward the Government’s vision for an open, sustainable, and technologically advanced financial services sector that is globally competitive and acts in the interests of communities and citizens. These reforms will create jobs, support businesses, and power growth across all four nations of the UK.
The UK is one of the world’s leading financial centres and our financial services sector is one of the engines of the UK’s economy. Financial and related professional services employ over 2.3 million people, two thirds of whom are outside of London, with hubs in Belfast, Birmingham, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Leeds, and Manchester.1 In 2021, the financial services sector contributed £173.6 billion to the UK economy, 8.3% of total economic output.2
The announcements being made today build on the reform agenda the Government are taking forward through the Financial Services and Markets (FSM) Bill. The Government’s approach recognises and protects the foundations on which the UK’s success as a financial services hub is built: agility, consistently high regulatory standards, and openness. This approach will ensure that the sector benefits from dynamic and proportionate regulation, and that consumers and citizens benefit from high-quality services, appropriate consumer protection, and a sector that embraces the latest technology.
I have set out below details of the measures being taken forward, which I look forward to delivering in close collaboration with our vibrant financial services sector.
A competitive marketplace promoting effective use of capital
Building a smarter regulatory framework for the UK
The Government have today published their policy statement “Building a smarter financial services framework for the UK”. A copy will be deposited in the Library. This is an ambitious plan for repealing retained EU law in financial services and replacing it with a new framework tailored to the UK, embracing the new opportunities presented by our position outside the EU.
Our approach includes:
Publishing draft statutory instruments to demonstrate how the Government can use the powers within the FSM Bill to reform the prospectus and securitisation regimes and to ensure the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has sufficient rulemaking powers to regulate payments services and e-money. Overhauling the prospectus regime will enable the Government to implement recommendations from Lord Hill’s UK listing review, helping to widen participation in the ownership of public companies, simplify the capital raising process for companies on UK markets, and make the UK a more attractive destination for initial public offerings. The Government are also committed to working with the FCA and Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) to bring forward relevant reforms identified in HM Treasury’s 2021 review of the securitisation regulation.
Plans to repeal the regulations for the European long-term investment fund (ELTIF), without replacement. This reflects the fact that no ELTIFs have been established in the UK, removing unnecessary retained EU law, and that the newly established long-term asset fund (LTAF) regime provides a fund structure better suited to the needs of the UK market. Firms have already begun to seek FCA authorisation for funds taking advantage of this new structure.
Publishing the short selling regulation review, a call for evidence on the UK’s regime for regulating short selling, with the aim of putting in place a regulatory regime tailored to the UK, which supports market integrity and bolsters the competitiveness of UK financial markets.
Publishing PRHPs and UK retail disclosure, a consultation on a proposed alternative framework for retail disclosure in the UK. Following the repeal of the packaged retail and insurance-based investment products (PRIIPs) regulation, the new framework for retail disclosure in the UK will work more effectively with the UK’s dynamic capital markets and foster more informed retail investor participation.
Publishing the information requirements in the payment account regulations consultation which examines proposals to remove unnecessary customer information requirements related to bank accounts imposed by the EU in the payment accounts regulations. This would reduce unnecessary regulations on banks, freeing them up to better meet the needs of UK customers.
Updating banking regulation and the ringfencing regime
The Government will bring forward secondary legislation in 2023 to improve the functionality of the ringfencing regime. These reforms, in response to the independent review on ringfencing and proprietary trading, will benefit customers, the financial services industry, and the economy, while maintaining appropriate financial stability safeguards. The Government will also issue a public call for evidence in the first quarter of 2023 to review the practicalities of aligning the ringfencing and resolution regimes.
The PRA intends to consult on removing rules for the capital deduction of certain non-performing exposures (NPEs) held by banks. This would allow the PRA to apply a judgment-led approach to address the adequacy of firms’ provisioning for NPEs, help to simplify the UK rulebook and avoid the unnecessary gold plating of prudential standards. Such an approach would be possible only because of our regulatory freedoms outside the EU.
The PRA intends to consult on removing rules for the capital deduction of certain non-performing exposures (NPEs) held by banks. This would allow the PRA to apply a judgement-led approach to address the adequacy of firms’ provisioning for NPEs, help to simplify the UK rulebook, and avoid the unnecessary gold plating of prudential standards. Such an approach would only be possible because of our regulatory freedoms outside the EU. The Government will also legislate, when parliamentary time allows, to amend the Building Societies Act 1986 to give building societies in the UK greater flexibility to raise wholesale funds, enabling them to grow and compete on a more level playing field with retail banks, while retaining their mutual model. As part of this, the Government will also modernise relevant corporate governance requirements in line with the Companies Act 2006.
Ensuring a regulatory focus on growth and competitiveness
The Government are legislating through the FSM Bill to introduce new secondary objectives for the FCA and PRA to provide for a greater focus on growth and international competitiveness while maintaining their existing primary objectives. To further support this aim, I will today lay before Parliament new remit letters for the FCA and the PRA which will set clear, targeted recommendations for how the regulators should have regard to the Government’s economic policy.
Separately, the Government and regulators will separately commence a review of the senior managers and certification regime in Q1 2023. The Government will launch a call for evidence to look at the legislative framework of the regime, and the FCA and PRA will review the regulatory framework. The Government’s call for evidence will be an information gathering exercise to garner views on the regime’s effectiveness, scope and proportionality, and to seek views on potential improvements and reforms.
Wholesale markets reforms
The Government are committed to strengthening the UK’s position as a world-leading wholesale capital markets centre, and is taking forward reforms to the markets in financial instruments directive (MiFID) framework through the wholesale markets review. Measures in the FSM Bill deliver key elements of this. To further support this agenda, the Government:
Will today lay before Parliament the Markets in Financial Instruments (Investor Reporting) (Amendment) Regulations 2022, which will remove burdensome EU requirements related to reporting rules. This also builds on the reforms brought forward through the Markets in Financial Instruments (Capital Markets) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 laid in June 2021.
Will bring forward secondary legislation in Q1 2023 to remove burdens for firms trading commodities derivatives as an ancillary activity, for example, when manufacturers seek to fix the future price of their purchases of specific raw materials.
Are committing, alongside the FCA, to having a regulatory regime in place by 2024 to support a consolidated tape for market data. A consolidated tape will bring together market data from multiple platforms into one continuous feed. This will improve market efficiency, lower costs for firms and investors, and make UK markets more attractive and competitive.
Will launch the investment research review: an independent review of investment research and its contribution to UK capital markets competitiveness. The review is part of the Government’s wider commitment to enhance the UK’s ability to attract companies to list and grow.
Will establish a new industry-led accelerated settlement taskforce to explore the potential of faster settlement of financial trades in the UK. Reducing settlement times from the current industry standard of two days could reduce counterparty risk and increase operational efficiency. The taskforce will bring together industry stakeholders to recommend an approach that works for the UK.
Unlocking investment to drive growth across the whole economy
The UK’s financial services sector is an engine for growth across all four nations of the UK. The Government are therefore bringing forward measures that will unleash the sector to drive investment and growth.
The Government set out their plans to reform Solvency II at autumn statement, unlocking more than £100 billion pounds for UK insurers to invest in long-term productive assets. HM Treasury is working with BEIS to deliver the recommendations made to Government as part of the secondary capital raising review, and more broadly on reforms to corporate governance, to further enhance the attractiveness of UK public markets.
Going further, the Government announce today that they:
Will, in early 2023, consult on new guidance to the local government pension scheme (LGPS) in England and Wales on asset pooling. The Government will also consult on requiring LGPS funds to ensure they are considering investment opportunities in illiquid assets such as venture and growth capital, as part of a diversified investment strategy.
Are committed to accelerating the pace of consolidation so that no pension savers are left in poorly governed and underperforming schemes. In the new year DWP will lead the way by consulting on a new value for money framework, alongside the FCA and the Pensions Regulator, which will set required metrics and standards in key areas such as investment performance, cost and charges and quality of service that all schemes must meet.
Will amend the tax rules for real estate investment trusts (REITs). With effect from April 2023, new rules will remove the requirement for a REIT to own at least three properties, where they hold a single commercial property worth at least £20 million; and amend the rule that applies to properties disposed of within three years of significant development activity, to ensure that this rule operates in line with its original intention.
Have today published a technical consultation, VAT treatment of fund management: consultation, which sets out proposals for legislative reform intended to codify existing policy to give legal clarity and certainty, not to make policy changes. The consultation seeks input on whether the proposed changes achieve this objective.
A world leader in sustainable finance
The Government are ensuring that the financial system plays a major role in the delivery of the UK’s net zero target, and are acting to secure the UK as the best place in the world for responsible and sustainable investment. The UK is the world’s premier financial centre for sustainable finance.
The Government are acting to ensure the UK retains global leadership in this rapidly growing sector. To deliver on their commitment to align the financial services sector with net zero and to support the sector to unlock the necessary private financing, the Government:
Will publish an updated green finance strategy early 2023.
Will consult in Q1 2023 on bringing environmental, social, and governance (ESG) ratings providers into the regulatory perimeter. HM Treasury will also join the industry-led ESG data and ratings code of conduct working group, recently convened by the FCA, as an observer. These services are increasingly a component of investment decisions, and the Government want to ensure improved transparency and good market conduct.
A sector at the forefront of technology and innovation
Our regulatory framework for financial services must support innovation and leadership in emerging areas of finance. To ensure the sector is prepared to embrace and facilitate the adoption of cutting-edge technologies, the Government are:
Setting up a financial market infrastructure sandbox in 2023, and is legislating to implement this in the FSM Bill. This will enable firms to test and adopt new technology and innovations, such as distributed ledger technology, in providing the infrastructure services that underpin markets.
Working with the regulators and market participants to bring forward a new class of wholesale market venue, which would operate on an intermittent trading basis. This highly innovative approach would be a global first and would act as a bridge between public and private markets, boosting the UK as a destination for all companies to get the investment they need to create jobs and grow.
Legislating in the FSM Bill to establish a safe regulatory environment for stablecoins—which may be used for payments—and ensure the Government have the necessary powers to bring a broader range of investment-related cryptoasset activities into UK regulation.
Publishing their formal response to the consultation on expanding the investment manager exemption to include cryptoassets, which will facilitate their inclusion in the portfolios of overseas funds managed in the UK. The Government intend for this change to be made through HMRC regulations this year
Bringing forward a consultation in the coming weeks to explore the case for a central bank digital currency—a sovereign digital pound—and consult on a potential design. The Bank of England will also release a technology working paper setting out cutting-edge technology considerations informing the potential build of a digital pound.
Delivering for consumers and businesses
The Government are committed to a financial services sector that supports the real economy and will continue to work with the regulators and industry to ensure that the sector is delivering for people and businesses across the UK. The Government:
Have published a consultation, Reforming the Consumer Credit Act 1974. By modernising the regulation of consumer lending, reform will update consumer protections and ensure they work well in a modern and increasingly digital economy. It will also increase accessibility of credit products by allowing firms to better serve consumers through more innovative credit products.
Have consulted on reforms to remove well-designed performance fees from the pensions regulatory charge cap and will lay regulations early in the new year. This will provide clarity for industry and ensure pension savers can benefit from investing in UK innovation.
Are committed to working with the FCA to examine the boundary between regulated financial advice and financial guidance, with the objective of improving access to helpful support, information and advice, while maintaining strong protections for consumers.
I am confident that the measures announced today, in tandem with the work taken forward through the FSM Bill, will deliver for this key growth sector, and the people and businesses that rely upon it.
Documents relating to all announcements can be found on gov.uk www.gov.uk/government/collections/financial-services-the-edinburgh-reforms.
1 TheCityUK calculations based on Nomis, “Business register and employment survey: open access”, (May 2022), available at:
https://www.nomisweb.co.uk/query/construct/components/date.asp?menuopt=13&subcomp=
2 House of Commons Library “Financial services: contribution to the UK economy”: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06193/
[HCWS425]
Combat Air: Tempest Aircraft
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
In the summer I updated the House on progress under the UK combat air strategy, setting out the crucial importance of combat air to the nation’s security, sovereign industrial base and to our role in international affairs. I outlined the significant progress being made to develop a next generation combat air system, highlighting the substantial work underway with close and valued partners Japan and Italy.
It is with great pleasure that I now offer a further update on international partnering for our future combat air capability. In a landmark announcement, the Prime Ministers of the UK, Japan and Italy announced that we will work together under a joint programme partnership, the next step in deepening our collaboration. Within the UK, the aircraft under development will be known as Tempest.
Together, our ambition is to develop a next generation capability designed to outmatch adversaries even in the most highly contested environments, by utilising a network of cutting-edge capabilities such as advanced sensors, weapons and data systems. Due to enter service in 2035, it is being developed to keep ahead of the threat for decades to come and undertake a wide variety of missions within our wider military, across all domains.
Tempest will be developed by the newly formed Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP), under a spirit of equal partnership, created by the merging of Japan’s FX programme with the UK and Italy’s Future Combat Air System (FCAS). This new programme will take forward our joint concepting activity and support technological and operational sovereignty across partner nations.
This announcement represents a major opportunity to develop our sovereign defence-industrial capabilities, demonstrating our commitment to the 2018 combat air strategy and the 2021 defence and security industrial strategy. The programme is delivering an uplift in skilled jobs for all three partner nations, providing a launchpad for careers in science and engineering. The enterprise already employs over 2,500 highly skilled personnel in the UK alone, including engineers and programmers, with recruitment expanding rapidly.
This programme will also be important in supporting economic growth across the country, with key combat air hubs in the north-west and south-west of England and in Edinburgh, supported by a supply chain of hundreds of organisations from one end of the UK to the other. It is a key avenue for investment in research and development, both public and private, with MOD and our industry partners having already invested well over £1 billion in developing the skills and technologies needed to deliver at pace.
This capability will be designed by some of the world’s leading defence companies. In the UK, these include BAE Systems, Leonardo UK, MBDA UK and Rolls-Royce, working closely with the Ministry of Defence. The international partnership includes MHI, IHI and MELCO for Japan; and Leonardo SpA., Avio Aero, MBDA IT and Elettronica for Italy.
This is a truly strategic endeavour, demonstrating our commitment to maintaining the capabilities needed to defend the UK, protect and reassure our allies and partners and deter those who would threaten international security. It is a clear sign of a global Britain working with like-minded partners from across the world to deepen our defence capabilities, grow our advanced industrial capacity, and demonstrate our shared commitment to international security.
[HCWS428]
App Security and Privacy Code of Practice: Response to Call for Views
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Julia Lopez)
I am pleased to inform the House that the Government have published two documents titled “Code of Practice for App Store Operators and App Developers” and “Call for Views Response on App Security and Privacy Interventions”. This follows on from a call for views held between 4 May and 29 June 2022 where we sought feedback on our proposed interventions to protect users’ security and privacy from malicious and poorly developed apps.
We are publishing a world-first voluntary code of practice that sets minimum security and privacy requirements for app store operators and app developers. Given that people's lives are dependent on apps to use services, such as online banking, health and entertainment services, this code is essential as malicious and poorly designed apps continue to be accessible to users on app stores which can result in the loss of personal data, money and access to devices. This work will help deliver an objective within the national cyber strategy to reduce the cyber risk at source by ensuring that app stores—and app developers—follow better levels of cyber security.
This code will improve the security and privacy practices of both developers and operators and therefore ensure that apps are more suitably built. The code, and the eight principles within it, have been informed by feedback from operators, developers and security experts following the call for views, and received support from a vast majority of respondents. It has been thoroughly tested to ensure it strikes an appropriate balance in protecting users whilst also not overly burdening operators and developers. Furthermore, the code will ensure that more information about an app’s data practices is conveyed to users so they can make informed decisions when deciding whether to download an app.
Given the global nature of cyber security issues and digital markets, we plan to prioritise creating international alignment on the code’s security and privacy requirements. We will do this by engaging with international counterparts to promote the need for the requirements, particularly in the context of future competition regulation, and explore the viability of creating an international standard based on the code.
I will place a copy of both the “Code of Practice for App Store Operators and App Developers” and “Call for Views Response on App Security and Privacy Interventions” in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS429]
Human Rights and Democracy Report 2021
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Cleverly)
I have today laid before Parliament a copy of the 2021 Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) report on human rights and democracy (CP 768).
The report analyses human rights developments overseas in 2021 and illustrates how the Government worked to promote and defend human rights globally, including our work to stop sexual violence against women and girls in conflict around the world and to eradicate modern slavery, to defend those who are abused, targeted or killed for their religion or beliefs, to promote media freedom and to support human rights defenders.
Against a backdrop of violations of human rights and increasing authoritarianism in the world, the UK remains steadfastly dedicated to protecting and promoting human rights.
[HCWS430]
Sanctions Designations
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
On 9 December, to mark International Anti-Corruption Day and Human Rights Day on 10 December, the UK announced a package of 30 sanctions under our global human rights, global anti-corruption and geographic sanctions regimes. Travel bans and/or asset freezes have been imposed on designated individuals and entities.
Covering targets from 11 countries, the package demonstrates the UK’s continued determination to take action to tackle corruption and to hold to account perpetrators of human rights abuses and violations.
Under the Global Anti-Corruption Regulations 2021, sanctions can be imposed for involvement in serious corruption, which covers bribery and misappropriation of property. The sanctions announced today include designations of individuals and entities involved in serious corruption in the western Balkans and Moldova.
Under the Global Human Rights Regulations 2020, sanctions can be imposed for involvement in serious violations and abuses of certain human rights: the right to life, the right to be free from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and the right to be free from slavery, not to be held in servitude or required to perform forced or compulsory labour. The sanctions announced today include designations addressing serious violations and abuses of human rights in Nicaragua, Pakistan, Russia and Uganda.
The UK’s geographic sanctions regimes are also a powerful tool for targeting perpetrators of, and those involved in, human rights abuses and violations that involve specific countries.
Designations announced today under our Mali, Myanmar, South Sudan and Iran regimes aim to send a strong signal about respect for human rights and the UK’s preparedness to take action. Designations under our Russia sanctions regime target those who have destabilised or threatened the territorial integrity of Ukraine.
The UK is also using all the levers at our disposal to prevent conflict-related sexual violence and to ensure that perpetrators are held to account. This is why today some of these designations specifically address the abhorrent crimes of sexual violence.
The full list of designations is as follows:
Western Balkans
Slobodan Tesic: Serbia/Bosnia, dealer of arms and munitions in the Balkans
Milan Radojcic: Kosovo, Vice President of Serb List (SL)
Zvonko Veselinovic: Kosovo, businessman and leader of an organised crime group
Moldova
Vladimir Plahotniuc: businessman and former chairman of the Democratic Party of Moldova (PDM)
Han Shor: businessman and Member of Parliament and chairman of the Sor Party Nicaragua
Yohaira Hernandez Chirino: Deputy Mayor of Matagalpa
Sadrach Zelodon Rocha: Mayor of Matagalpa Pakistan
Mian Abdul Haq: cleric of Barchundi Sharif shrine
Russia
Colonel Ramil Rakhmatulovic Ibatullin: Commander of the 90th Guards Tank Division
Valentin Aleksandrovich Oparin: Major of Justice and an investigator of the 534 Military Investigation Department of the Armed Forces of the Black Sea Fleet of the Russian Federation
Artur Rinatovich Shambazov: former senior detective in the main department for the protection of national statehood of the Ukrainian security service (SBU) in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea
Andrey Vyacheslavovich Tishenin: former senior detective in Ukrainian security service and former officer in Russian federal security service in Crimea
Oleg Vladmirovich Tkachenko: former head of the Department for Public Prosecutors for the Rostov region
Uganda
Kale Kayihura: former Inspector General of the Ugandan Police Force
Mali
Katiba Macina: jihadist armed group in Mali led by Amadou Kouffa and founding member of the AQ-aligned JNIM terror group
Myanmar
33rd Light Infantry Division of Myanmar Army: part of the Myanmar armed forces under the command of Brigadier-General Aung Aung
99 Light Infantry of Myanmar Army: part of the Myanmar armed forces under the leadership of Brigadier-General Than Oo
Office of the Chief of Military and Security Affairs (OCMSA)
South Sudan
Gordon Koang Biel: County Commissioner for Koch, Unity State
Gatluak Nyang Hoth: County Commissioner for Mayendit, Unity State
Iran
Iman Afshari: Presiding Judge of Branch 26 of the Tehran Revolutionary Court
Ali Alghasimehr: Public Prosecutor of the Revolutionary Court of Shiraz and Chief Justice of Fars province
Mohamed-Reza Amouzad: Presiding Judge of Branch 28 of the Tehran Revolutionary Court
Allah Karam Azizi: Head of Rajaei Shahr prison
Hassan Babaei: member of the Iranian Judiciary in Tehran province
Ali Cheharmahali: former Director of Greater Tehran Penitentiary and former Director of Evin prison
Mousa Gazanfarabad: former Head of the Revolutionary Court in Tehran
Seyed Ali Mazloum: Presiding Judge of Branch 29 of the Tehran Revolutionary Court
Mustafa Mohebi: former Director of the Prisons Organisation in Tehran
Gholamreza Ziyayi: former Director of Evin prison and Director of Raja’i Shahr prison
[HCWS432]
Advertising Restrictions on Less Healthy Food: Delay in Implementation
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Neil O’Brien)
The Government are delaying the implementation of the introduction of further advertising restrictions on TV and online for less healthy food and drink products until 1 October 2025.
Due to a delay to Royal Assent of the Health and Care Act 2022, and recognition that industry needs more time to prepare for the restrictions, in May 2022, Government announced a year delay to the implementation of these restrictions to 1 January 2024.
However feedback from industry and the regulators is now clear that there is insufficient time to prepare for implementation on the previously announced date of 1 January 2024.
This is because ahead of implementation there are a number of steps that need to be taken including: a Government consultation on draft regulations that are required to set out the details of the advertising restrictions, such as the definition of product categories in scope of the advertising restrictions and the definition of the exemptions for small and medium enterprises, audio only content and services connected to regulated radio; the subsequent making of such regulations; a consultation from the statutory regulator (Ofcom) on the designation of a frontline regulator; the possible designation of a frontline regulator by Ofcom; and publication of guidance to support business compliance with advertising restrictions, following consultation on such guidance from the frontline regulator.
Through discussions with key stakeholders it is clear that this process cannot be delivered by January 2024.
We have listened carefully to the concerns raised by advertisers, broadcasters and regulators about the importance of having sufficient time with these documents to fully prepare and restructure their advertising. We also recognise that businesses need time to reformulate their products. This is why we have decided to delay implementation of this policy until 1 October 2025.
Parliament included a power in the Health and Care Act to delay implementation of the advertising restrictions if necessary. We will be utilising this power to amend the date of implementation for the advertising restrictions by secondary legislation, which we are laying today.
To illustrate our commitment to this policy, we are also launching a consultation on the definitions included in secondary legislation, to provide detail to that included in the Health and Care Act. This consultation will run for 16 weeks, until 31 March 2023.
This consultation will not be inviting opinions on the policy or looking to deviate from anything announced in the consultation response in June 2021—it will be to confirm the clarity of the definitions used and that the text in the secondary legislation is fit for purpose.
Addressing obesity remains a priority for the Government. Having a fit and healthy population is essential for a thriving economy and we remain committed to helping people live healthier lives.
New regulations on out of home calorie labelling for food sold in large businesses including restaurants, cafes and takeaways came into force in April 2022 and restrictions on the promotion by location of products high in fat, salt or sugar came into force in October 2022.
[HCW433]
UK-South Korea Trade Agreement: Update
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Kemi Badenoch)
Today the Department for International Trade has launched a public call for input on a future free trade agreement between the United Kingdom and South Korea. The call for input can be accessed via the following link— https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/trade-with-south-korea-call-for-input.
The UK is committed to building on our strong, existing trade and investment relationship with South Korea. South Korea is our 20th largest trade partner with bilateral trade worth £14.3 billion in 2021.
The UK’s current trade relationship with South Korea is based on the EU-South Korea trade agreement, which was negotiated by the European Commission in 2011 and, after a further negotiation, formed the basis of the UK-Korea trade agreement on 1 January 2021. We now have the opportunity to update the agreement, ensuring it is a modern and fit-for-purpose arrangement that meets the specific needs of the UK. This will include important areas such as digital trade, enhanced climate provisions and further support for small and medium-sized businesses.
South Korea was the world’s 10th largest economy in terms of GDP in 2021, with a population of almost 52 million people. An updated agreement could provide the UK with the opportunity to increase the value of UK exports to South Korea, which were worth £8.1 billion in 2021. With updated modern provisions the UK can seek to expand our key exports in digital, business and financial services, contributing to domestic growth at a time of global economic hardship.
Opening discussions towards a modern deal will assist both nations to take an ambitious, progressive, and sustainable step towards shared growth and job creation. As two countries with a strong record of co-operation, resting on shared democratic values, a bespoke trade agreement will provide a foundation for further growth in our trading relationship.
The Government have been clear that when we are negotiating trade deals, the NHS will not be on the table. The price the NHS pays for drugs will not be on the table. The services the NHS provides will not be on the table. We will not agree measures which undermine the Government’s ability to deliver on our manifesto commitments to the NHS.
As we committed to in our manifesto, in all of our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards.
The call for input will run for eight weeks and invite businesses, public sector bodies, individuals, and other interested stakeholders to set out their priorities for a closer trading relationship with South Korea.
The information that the Government receive through this exercise will be crucial in shaping our approach to negotiations and our priorities and objectives, ensuring that our final approach is informed by stakeholder needs and the demands of the British economy.
Next steps
The UK and South Korean Governments share a desire to develop closer ties and we have jointly agreed to aim to launch negotiations as soon as possible next year, after we have fully reflected on the results of the call for input and developed a negotiating mandate. Prior to launching negotiations, the UK Government will publish their approach to negotiations. This will include a response to the call for input and our strategic objectives, as well as an economic scoping assessment. We will continue to keep Parliament, the devolved Administrations, UK citizens and businesses updated, as we make progress towards seizing the opportunities presented by a new, modern trade agreement with South Korea.
[HCWS431]
House of Lords
UK Asylum and Refugee Policy
(1 year, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Archbishop of Canterbury
That this House takes note of the principles behind contemporary United Kingdom asylum and refugee policy, and of the response to the challenges of forced migration.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, I am very grateful to the usual channels for facilitating this debate, to those among the staff of the House who have had to work extra hard to come in today, and to so many noble Lords for being present. I look forward to hearing the maiden speeches of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, the noble Lord, Lord Sahota, and the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, on this subject.
This will not be a sermon. As my last well-attended sermon was four and a half minutes long, that may be a disappointment to noble Lords. It is, nevertheless, underpinned by deeply held spiritual principles deriving from the words of Christ, beginning over 1,000 years ago, in terms of our policy and the application of them. The last time I delivered a sermon on this subject, it gained more than the usual attention; so much so that I see some of our newspapers this week have rebutted the arguments I am about to make before I have had a chance to deliver them—or even, for that matter, to prepare them. I am glad they have such gifts of mind-reading. “Get your rebuttal in first,” Willie John McBride, captain of the 1974 Invincibles, almost told his teammates; I think he said “retaliation”. For the avoidance of doubt, my intention today is to examine some of the moral considerations that should drive our policies in this area and then to propose some practical ways forward for the short, medium and long term.
The Church is often, and quite often rightly, criticised for talking about morality in isolation from the complexity of the real world, but when it comes to the treatment of refugees and those seeking asylum, it is the Church, here and abroad, which is doing so much of the heavy lifting of meeting and supporting, of healing and advocacy, right around the world. We look into the faces, we listen to the voices and we speak from that experience.
Two weeks ago, I visited Mozambique to inaugurate a new province in the Anglican Communion. While there, we went north to the area where ISIS is very active indeed. It is a beautiful country, with generous people recovering from civil war and now facing an atrocious extremist insurgency. I met a young woman who had fled Daesh. She had seen beheadings in her village, she herself had been raped and then she had watched them smash her three month-old baby’s head against a tree. That is one reality.
Last week in Ukraine, standing by a mass grave, I met people who, with astonishing resolve, face a winter under Russian bombardment explicitly to destroy civilian infrastructure; a winter where, next month, it will fall probably to minus 20 degrees centigrade, and they will have neither electricity nor, because of that, water or the ability to heat.
These are two images of suffering which could be replicated in more than 50 other countries around the world. We know—and I make this absolutely clear and underline it—that Britain can neither resolve these problems by ourselves; nor can or should we take everyone who flees such devastation. It is beyond our capacity. But we do need to take a lead: how we shape our policies must look into the faces and listen to the voices.
Recognition of human dignity is the first principle that must underpin our asylum policy. A hostile environment is an immoral environment. Each human being has an inherent and immeasurable worth, regardless of their status, wealth, heritage or background. The Book of Genesis tells us:
“God created mankind in his own image.”
In chapter 25 of the Gospel of St Matthew, in the parable of the sheep and goats, Jesus tells his followers, about those who are strangers:
“Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers or sisters of mine, you did for me.”
Care for the stranger has long been embedded in societies of Christian and Jewish roots and of other faiths right around the world. The welcome arrival in the UK of other religious faiths deepens these traditions of compassion. A compassionate asylum system is one that sees the faces of those in need and listens to their voices. A compassionate system does not mean open borders, but a disposition of generosity and a readiness to welcome those whose need is genuine and where we are able to meet that need.
It also means compassion and generosity to those communities that will receive refugees, which are often neglected and forgotten. I have seen this with my own eyes around the diocese of Canterbury in east Kent, which I serve and which perhaps bears the heaviest weight of this great crisis.
A compassionate policy is one that has confidence to reject the shrill narratives that all who come to us for help should be treated as liars, scroungers or less than fully human. Compassion is not weakness or naivety. It recognises the impact on receiving communities, which includes the need to limit numbers and maintain security and order. Compassion means ending the criminal activity of people smugglers—perhaps one of the biggest industries in the world, after drug smuggling. It must distinguish between victims seeking help and criminals who exploit them.
So much of the public and political debate on migration is driven by fear linked to change and a fear of loss of control. Some of these fears are understandable. Many people are concerned that their communities and local services risk being overwhelmed. In east Kent, local schools, businesses and hospitals have risen amazingly and magnificently to the challenge. The RNLI and Border Force have carried out their mandate of saving life at sea, despite the disgraceful politicisation of their work by some. There is real pressure on housing, schools and GP surgeries, to which they respond superbly. By the way, refugees have not caused our housing crisis; we are around 40 years behind in our investment in housing stock. There would be a crisis anyway.
The number of asylum seekers has dropped in the past two decades. In 2021, 48,540 asylum applications were made in the UK; in 2002, there were 84,132—almost twice as many. Other countries have taken significantly more refugees. In the year ending September 2021, Germany received over 127,000 applications and France over 96,000. It is not a competition, but we need to face the fact that the UK ranked only 18th in Europe for our intake of asylum applications per head of population in that period. It cannot be repeated enough that four out of five refugees stay in their region of displacement, hosted by even poorer nations. If you spoke to Uganda and other countries in that area, they would call 45,000 a rounding error.
When we fail to challenge the harmful rhetoric that refugees are the cause of this country’s ills—that they should be treated as problems and not people, invaders to be tackled and deterred—we deny the essential value and dignity of fellow human beings. The right to seek asylum and the duty of the global community together to protect refugees has been politically degraded in this country, when it should be a positive source of pride. I am not addressing only the Government Front Bench; this has been a decades-long downward slide over successive Labour, Conservative and coalition Governments.
Noble Lords would expect me to say something about the Rwanda policy. We cannot separate the policy from the moral arguments. The Government did not do this when they announced the policy in Holy Week this year—the most sacred week of the Christian calendar—on Maundy Thursday, when in Christian belief Jesus was washing the feet of his disciples, including Judas Iscariot. The Prime Minister of the time gave a speech in which he used the word “compassion” six times and described the policy as
“the morally right thing to do”.
In my sermon on Easter Sunday, I gave a brief view on this—five lines in a three-page sermon—and shortly afterwards, every one of my colleagues on these Benches issued a statement concluding that this was an “immoral policy” that “shames Britain”. It is very rare on these Benches that we are united on almost anything. I congratulate the Prime Minister on managing to unite the Bishops’ Benches. What a miracle. It is a good reason for the other 53% of the population to click the census to say that they are Christian.
The Government have said that the Rwanda policy aims to deter people from arriving in the UK through
“illegal, dangerous and unnecessary methods”.
There is little or no evidence that this deterrence or the hostile environment works; the Government’s own impact assessment confirms that. The complaint I make is not about Rwanda, a country that I know well and in which there is much that I admire. A compassionate policy is one that recognises that we have a share of global responsibility; outsourcing our share creates more opportunities for people smugglers to operate in and around Rwanda. It is not a solution; it is a mistake, and it will be a failure.
Furthermore, the desire for orderly migration to discourage people from “skipping the queue” is absurd if there is no legal queue. This is a point that the Home Secretary and her officials recently conceded at the Home Affairs Select Committee in the Commons. There is no “safe” or “regular” route for an Iranian Christian or a gay man or woman from Eritrea to come to the UK to claim asylum, yet both would be highly likely to have a valid claim if they got here. Unless you are coming from Ukraine, Afghanistan, Syria or Hong Kong—and that, by the way, is not asylum but financial visas—or are eligible for the restrictive family reunion criteria, there is no regular route that you can use. It was reported this month that not one person has been accepted and evacuated from Afghanistan under the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. The Minister has very kindly written to me to correct that report, which was in the newspapers last Sunday; I hope in his response that he will clarify that correction for the whole House.
When migrants arrive here, our system is grossly wasteful—in both human and financial terms. Control has become cruelty. Staggering inefficiencies by successive Governments trap people in limbo—at incredible expense to the taxpayer—in the system for years, unable to build a life or to contribute to our society. I recently came across someone who had been in the asylum system for 14 years—14 years, my Lords. Evidence from the Home Affairs Select Committee shows that, of all the people who arrived in the UK by boat and claimed asylum in 2021, only 4% of claims had been processed by the Home Office by October 2022. This does not treat people with dignity or compassion, nor is it control. As well as the overcrowded and disease-ridden conditions exposed recently—which the Government are now addressing—camps and hotel accommodation keep migrants separate from the rest of the community. That segregation feeds concerns about lack of control. It fails to treat asylum seekers and refugees as neighbours who are to be loved, or citizens in waiting. We miss out on the gifts they bring and want to contribute. I met someone yesterday who is now a citizen. He is incredibly proud of his citizenship and is contributing enormously to our society by working with people in prison to help them go straight when they come out.
Solidarity with others is built by contact and building relationships. Instead, we feed the politics of suspicion and division. There are real alternatives to this. We have seen in the Ukraine scheme that asylum seekers and refugees can live within existing communities. Such communities should receive prompt and adequate government support. It does cost money, but it is cheaper than exporting our responsibilities and much cheaper if the system is compassionate, clear, efficient, accurate and effective. We are clear that the UK cannot take everyone, but it can make its decisions through a system which balances effective, accurate and clear control with compassion and dignity—a system based in our history and proper moral responsibilities. We used to talk of no recourse to public funds. A system of segregation risks creating a policy of no recourse to public compassion. We should take heart from the magnificent public response to refugees of recent years. In this country, there are still profound reserves of kindness and good will to draw on.
What can we do in the short, medium and long term which is underpinned by these principles? In the short term, we can combat smugglers and prevent small boats from crossing the channel. To minimise irregular arrivals, we need to provide safe and legal ways for people to get here and receive assessment and, where appropriate, protection. Approaches for this can include expanding the family reunification models, community sponsorship, and humanitarian visas and corridors from a far greater number of countries. We cannot continue with the tenfold increase, between 2010 and 2020, in the number of people waiting more than a year for an initial decision. The average processing time for an asylum case is currently around 15 months—it should be a maximum of six. In Germany in 2021, the average asylum procedure took 6.6 months despite a far higher refugee and asylum-seeker population. Nearly one-third of those who have been waiting more than six months are made up of nationals from 10 countries that have a successful application rate of between 75% and 99%. It is ridiculous and disgraceful that people fleeing Afghanistan and Syria have to wait so long when their applications will almost certainly be granted.
It is right that safe countries are currently determined by statutory instrument; Parliament is then able to democratically scrutinise those decisions, altering them, where needed, on the views and needs of the population. We need a triaging system to cut back which distinguishes quickly between people, based on the likelihood that they will be granted asylum; it would speed up decision-making, and allow those who almost certainly would not be granted asylum to be removed almost immediately. That is not so far from our current policy but, in practice, it is not happening. The Home Office could do that. Removing people whose claims are unsuccessful can happen in a dignified way. There has been real success with voluntary removals in the past when the Government collaborated with civil society. Returns have been on a downward trajectory, however, for a number of years. Removals will be swift, just and fair only if the system is clear, accurate and not overwhelmed. In the meantime, I propose we should also make one major change: asylum seekers should not be just allowed to work but expected to work, except in limited circumstances where it would clearly be inappropriate. This combines and matches the right to fair and dignified protection with a responsibility to their new society and the common good.
I have four seconds left. In the medium term, we suggest that people smuggling, like piracy, should become an international crime and that the UK should take the lead in the struggle against people smuggling by forming an international body to track it down and attack it everywhere. It is what we did in the 17th century against piracy and in the 19th century against slave trading. Surely this is as serious.
Finally, in the longer term, we need to update the 1951 refugee convention, which is hugely valuable in maintaining the importance of protection for all refugees but must be made fit for the new challenges that we face. A recent report by the Legatum Institute lays out some areas of ambiguity, including the role of the safe third-country principle, the responsibility to report other countries that are hosting many refugees, guidance on return and readmission and the eligibility of people fleeing new drivers of displacement, such as climate migrants. This problem is going to get worse. Britain showed global leadership in 1951, and we can do so again. We need more ambition in our policies. Time is not a luxury. Climate change and conflict risk driving migration for future generations at a rate we cannot imagine today—perhaps tenfold more.
Of course, we do not have the answer on these Benches, but the Church of England, together with many others, plays a leading role in dealing with the consequences of our present policy and its chronic dysfunction. We have done so for quite a while. In a chapel in Canterbury Cathedral, there is an inscription several centuries old that bears witness to the protection given to French Huguenots who fled persecution in the 17th and 18th centuries. The community needed a place to worship, and a chapel in the cathedral was offered to them by a simple exchange of one-page letters. They are still there. The French Protestant Church of Canterbury is there today, next to the plaque which heralds
“the glorious asylum which England has in all times given to foreigners flying for refuge against oppression and tyranny.”
This is our tradition, our history and our pride. Let us make it our future. I beg to move.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, it is a great honour to follow the most reverend Primate. I must start by commending him for his choice of topic and for giving us the opportunity to debate immigration and asylum today. I also commend him for his comprehensive opening speech, particularly his acknowledgement towards the end of the need to revisit the refugee convention.
During the passage of the Nationality and Borders Act earlier this year, several Peers justified their opposition to it by claiming that most voters who wanted greater immigration controls did so on a false understanding—basically, that these voters could be ignored because they were not sufficiently informed. According to YouGov’s latest tracker poll, published on Monday this week, 56% of all UK adults believe that the rate of immigration to the UK is too high. In my remarks, I want to focus on why more than half of us who contribute to our economy and our local communities take that view and are demanding action. Let us be clear: they are people of all colours, faiths and religions. Some are immigrants themselves or the children of immigrants. They deserve to be heard and understood.
What we have learned about the divisions in our society exposed by recent democratic events helps us to understand what unites this diverse group. They are likely to work hard, do their best for their family, be good neighbours and enjoy living and working in a place to which they have a sense of belonging. Instinctively, they will share a commitment to social norms, standards of behaviour and common courtesies which support good order and represent fairness and the consideration of others. It is obvious stuff that costs nothing or very little, such as taking our turn and not jumping queues; being reliable and keeping our word; caring about the general upkeep of public spaces; or dressing smartly when the place or occasion deserves a demonstration of respect. These are important shared standards, because they are acts of self-discipline which demonstrate respect and help us to form bonds that cross boundaries and build trust. They are standards that are neither beneath anyone nor beyond anyone. People expect those of us in positions of authority—in politics, business, media or the Church—to help protect and promote these common standards by sharing them too.
But what have we relegated our common bonds in favour of? Something more exclusive. When did virtue signalling to one another within the elite become more important than keeping faith with the values we all have in common, regardless of our status? We have allowed criminal gangs and opportunists to weaponise our differences and endanger the lives of economic migrants in the process. If that is not bad enough, at the same time, we are increasing the divisions in our society by suggesting that the democratic wishes of the majority do not matter. That is why we need to get a grip of illegal immigration.
We should not be surprised that people become distressed by increased pressure on local services. When it comes to those who do unskilled work—in warehouses, distribution centres or factories—we fail to understand that what makes those jobs bearable, alongside decent pay and working conditions, is creating a sense of community through camaraderie, collective effort and friendship. A working environment that is attractive to people doing repetitive jobs is difficult to create when no one cares if the workforce can relate to each other and technology, not human beings, determines operational standards and whether someone is doing a good job.
No one expects or wants zero immigration, and people want to help and support refugees fleeing war and persecution. However, successful and effective immigration and asylum policy relies on us understanding the valid concerns of the majority of our citizens who are opposed to the current rates of people entering the UK. The first step has to be implementing tighter controls. High-minded pronouncements, hand-wringing and the free-for-all it is creating are what is putting lives in danger, not by not doing everything we can to deter people from illegally crossing the channel. I would support any further measure to that end brought forward by the Government, and I hope that serious consideration is given to the recommendations in the CPS report by Nick Timothy and Karl Williams published this week. I hope my noble friend the Minister will comment on that when he comes to wind up.
What I know is that dismissing people’s concerns fuels division and drives distrust in the democratic process. If we are serious about building a more prosperous and cohesive society, we need to show that we are proud to be living alongside the great people of this country, who are what makes us successful and whose good character is what attracts talent and like-minded people from all around the world.
Baroness Twycross (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I am pleased and very honoured to make my maiden speech today. I thank your Lordships for the kindness and support I have received since entering this House. I also thank my noble friends Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Lady Smith of Basildon for introducing me to the House and for their advice and guidance over the past few weeks. I am grateful as well for the advice and guidance of all colleagues from across the House. I have hugely appreciated the warm welcome and answers to my many questions from the doorkeepers and other staff. I particularly give thanks for the welcome and assistance given to my parents and parents-in-law on the day of my introduction. I feel blessed that they could attend, along with my stepchildren.
If this country is built on migration, then the same is true for my family. My husband is Norwegian, and my interest in politics was inspired by my Irish grandfather who spent part of his childhood living above a laundry on a country estate, his family in service. My grandfather, Jack Campbell, went on to become a civil servant. I did try to follow in his footsteps but was rejected for being too opinionated at my interview. This rejection, however, has led to me having the most interesting life and career so far and was arguably one of the best things that ever happened to me.
I have been fortunate to work with some incredible people and to study, live and work throughout the UK. My current role is Deputy Mayor for Fire and Resilience. I am grateful for the opportunity the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, gave me by appointing me to this role, which saw me taking a lead in London’s response to Covid. I owe a lot to those I have worked for and the confidence they have shown in me over my career. Indeed, I have worked out that I have well over half a dozen former bosses in this House, mainly from my time working for the Labour Party but also from my time at the health charity Diabetes UK. This alone will make me mind my behaviour. My goal is to avoid faux pas and I aim, as we all do, to make a difference through my work here. At the moment, however, I am trying my hardest to figure out the correct times to stand, where to walk and not to walk, where to sit and how to make sure I do not get shouted at.
My experience here so far reminds me of my early days as a London Assembly member, when everyone else seemed to understand the unwritten protocols and the unspoken rules. I thank all those who are helping to guide me through these rules, in particular the noble Baronesses, Lady Donaghy and Lady Wheeler.
I am also grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. Immigration is an issue I feel passionately about, and I agree strongly with the sentiments so eloquently expressed in the most reverent Primate’s excellent speech.
I declare an interest at this point as chair of the London Resilience Forum. The forum has over 200 member organisations. These are generally organised into sector panels to ensure that the voices of all those organisations that may be called upon to plan for or respond to an emergency are heard. Today’s debate is particularly appropriate in recognition of the work of the Church of England in leading the faith sector panel in London, and the work the Church undertakes in similar roles on LRFs across the country. Along with the voluntary sector, including both national and community-based organisations, faith organisations representing all faiths provide the welcome those fleeing conflict or injustice deserve. They play a vital role in the work of LRFs in relation to forced migration.
Local resilience forums over the past few years have become in some ways the go-to partnerships of last resort, often picking up issues where government cannot identify another obvious way to deal with a crisis. LRF preparedness includes responding to support colleagues from other agencies and partnerships, such as regional strategic migration partnerships, when forced migration does not run as smoothly as it might. Over recent years we have seen forced migration increase with conflict overseas. We should be particularly proud of how the British population stepped up to welcome Ukrainians to this country. There is much to learn and ponder in the context of this debate. However, I will briefly refer to the Afghan relocations and assistance policy— the ARAP scheme—which was set up in April 2021.
A number of those with local government expertise have already described the admirable work carried out during this period, and also how numerous people, including families, pregnant women and children, have been accommodated, sometimes for months and years, in overcrowded hotels. It is clear that the Government could have been far better prepared when planning the airlifts from Kabul which took place in August 2021. However, I want to refer instead to the role of the London Fire Brigade.
As your Lordships know, the London Fire Brigade has had some very challenging press over recent weeks, and some of its problems in relation to culture were debated by this House yesterday. I am proud that the LFB is facing its problems head on. However, I would also say that, despite its issues, the LFB is the best type of emergency service when called upon in a crisis. The fire brigade is made up of doers: the type of people who run towards a problem, rather than run away. Therefore, on the August bank holiday last year, when I was told that there was a problem with basic items reaching immigrants and a lack of drivers to deliver them, I picked up the phone to the fire brigade to ask if it had the capacity to deliver essentials such as nappies and sanitary towels to hotels housing recent arrivals from Afghanistan. It sorted the vital deliveries within hours.
In conclusion, it has been an honour to be able to make my first speech in your Lordships’ House in this debate and on this important subject. I look forward to making future contributions on this and other matters.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on her excellent maiden speech. She brings with her a great deal of experience of the sort we want to hear more of, both from the voluntary sector and from local government, and I am sure she will make outstanding contribution to future debates. I also welcome the fact that she has chosen this particular debate to make her mark, and I hope she will contribute to many of the discussions we are going to have on asylum and refugee policy in the future. This is not the end of it—there will be many more debates.
I must also say how delighted I was when I learned that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury had chosen this subject, of all possible subjects, for his debate this year. It is one we have all been talking about, it is an issue that matters, and it gives us a chance to talk about many of the things that are relevant and which he raised in his excellent speech this morning.
The refugee issue is testing our humanitarian principles to the ultimate. Our response will determine what sort of country we are, what sort of country we want to be seen as, but particularly how we value our fellow human beings who have suffered greatly from persecution due to wars and conflicts. We have to stand firmly behind the principles established by the most reverend Primate this morning.
There is a plaque off Central Lobby in the House of Commons which is a thank you from the 10,000 children who came on the Kindertransport to this country in 1938 and 1939. It is a thank you from the people—I was one of them—whose lives were saved by the fact that this country took them in. There are other people today whose lives have been saved because we are taking them in. I agree with the most reverend Primate that of course we cannot take everybody, but we should accept our share of responsibility.
There is both a positive and a negative side to all this. The positive is that there are some wonderful people, groups and organisations. I will mention just four of them. The faith groups have stood firmly by the principle that we should treat our fellow human beings decently—all of the faiths: the Church of England, Jews, Muslims, and so on. They have all stood firmly by the need for us to be supportive of our fellow human beings. I find it exhilarating and rewarding to talk to schools. Sometimes, when I talk to schools about what is going on, I can hardly stop the children leaving school and rushing off to Calais to help refugees, which is not what the teachers want. The fact is that, in the jargon, they get it. They really get it—more than most people. Also, there are the NGOs that work with refugees. Safe Passage is one of them, and there is the Refugee Council, of which I am a patron, but there are others as well, such as Care4Calais. They are doing an excellent job of being supportive of their fellow human beings.
Lastly, there are the ones who often tend to be forgotten. In visiting some of the refugee camps, or what is left of them in Calais and on the Greek islands, you come across the volunteers—many from this country but not exclusively so—often young people who are willing to devote a year or two of their lives to help their fellow human beings. They do not get all the accolades or the praise, but they should. It is a tremendous sign of how young people are prepared to work for the most vulnerable of their fellow human beings in difficult and uncomfortable circumstances.
In looking at the asylum and refugee issue, I, among others, have clearly said that this must not be the property of one political party; we have to look across the board. What I found with some of the amendments and arguments in which I got involved was that even Ministers came up to me and said, “Never mind: keep going with your amendment”, even though the official government policy was to deny the amendment. That was pretty exhilarating. I said to one or two Ministers, “But you shouldn’t be saying this to me.” I know for a fact that at quite senior levels there was support for some of these amendments. The Government are not monolithic—they are not saying, “We only have one view on this”—and I am delighted.
Having said that, it is important, in order that we can welcome vulnerable people to our communities, that senior people in government send out the right signals. Public opinion needs to be won over to the arguments we heard from the most reverend Primate this morning. Public opinion matters. It was public opinion that persuaded the Government to accept one of the amendments I put forward, because public opinion was pretty forceful. I remember walking down the road in west London, and somebody shouted at me. Normally, when people shout at politicians it is hostile, but this was not. A voice said, “Keep going with your amendment.” I took a great deal of comfort from that. Although I get a few hostile emails and so on, the number of supportive messages from the public far outweighs the hostility. Maybe that is not a good statistical sample, but I believe that one of our challenges is to keep public opinion on our side. I remember how, at the time of that amendment, public opinion was won over at the sight of a Syrian boy, Alan Kurdi, drowned on a Mediterranean beach. Public opinion responded to that positively, and that helped to sway the argument.
However, we have voices going the other way. The most reverend Primate referred to the use of “invaders”. Throughout history, invaders have been the enemies of this country. We should not regard people who come here for safety as the enemy.
I finish with two brief comments. I went to a large refugee camp in Jordan called Zaatari. That camp is physically better than many because it has electricity, sanitation and prefab buildings. I got talking to a Syrian boy who had just finished his education in the camp. I asked him, “What now?” He said, “I can’t get a job in the camp or outside the camp. What hope is there for me?” One of our main responsibilities is to give hope to our vulnerable fellow human beings. It is hope that is important.
Secondly, as somebody who came here as a refugee, let me say that this country has been pretty terrific to me. I value that, and I know that the refugees who come here today also value being able to live in this country, find safety, get on with their education, get work and become part of our local communities. Surely that is the aspiration we should all aim for.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has been valuable to this country. I should say that I chair the House’s Justice and Home Affairs Select Committee although I will speak for myself, not the committee, today; however, I am of course informed by the committee’s current work on family migration.
Families and migration are significant not only to people who are struggling—it can be a great struggle to be with family now—but to those of us who owe our presence in the UK to our family’s decision to come here, as the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, reminded us. As recently as the previous generation, many are in high places now—and a good thing, too. That is in my mind when I hear about the increasingly exclusionary and unworkable policies. I hear them as rhetoric, not reason, when it is leadership and the calming of suspicions that are needed.
The first time I stood for election, more than 40 years ago, someone said to me, “Where will my grandchildren live?” This is not a new issue. However, the provision of housing, education and a range of other services for the settled community should not be a matter for competition with newcomers. Both groups need them. The House is grateful to the most reverend Primate for articulating what some of us struggle to express.
The Home Secretary is reported as saying that we need a Bill of responsibilities, as distinct from a Bill of Rights. Are both not important? I would hope that that includes a responsibility towards, for instance, employees of the British Council and their families who are stuck in Afghanistan, whose plight I do not need to describe, and those who have provided security for our diplomats—there are lots of examples that one could give. Can the Minister say something about the number of people who have actually been assisted under the ACRS and ARAP? Also, how many are eligible for those schemes but have not been able to take advantage of them?
There is a sort of contract between those whom the UK welcomes and this country, although “welcome” is not the right word given how much of the process is working. Perhaps it is the company I keep, but I have never met an asylum seeker or refugee who is not grateful, keen to contribute to our society and frustrated by the rules that preclude it. Of course, the irony is that the skills, talents and characteristics that many refugees bring are needed here. Would I have had the gumption to get up and go, or would I have put my head in the sand? There are particular character traits involved alongside the external imperative; these are traits that we know employers welcome and are needed.
Slavery and trafficking are not unrelated to asylum seeking. Yesterday, I heard conscription in Eritrea be described as “state slavery”. Not every slavery claim is false. Are the Government retreating from their work on modern slavery? What should we read into the delay in appointing a new Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner? Is every Albanian to be disbelieved? Who can be surprised that Albanian children are going missing? It is a well-known pattern because traffickers and abusers are trusted by victims more than they trust the UK authorities. I understand that 88% of Albanian women have succeeded in their asylum claims; that figure is not an outlier.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, referred to the Centre for Policy Studies’ publication of this week, endorsed by the Home Secretary. The centre’s website page on the publication refers to the views of Conservative switchers who voted Conservative in 2019 but have since drifted away; they seem to be the audience. Importantly, we must distinguish asylum seekers and refugees from immigrants who come here for various reasons and make up the greater number by far.
Years ago, I heard the term “detained fast track”. I thought that it was benign, fast-track acceptance. In 2015, the system was declared unlawful by Lord Dyson in the Court of Appeal, primarily because
“the time limits are so tight as to make it impossible for there to be a fair hearing of appeals in a significant number of cases.”
Are we heading for “seek asylum” detention, fast-tracked away without assessment? The new tier system means no assessment at all.
The Government seem to focus on excluding asylum seekers. What we do not hear about is the effort that is going into dealing with the criminal smugglers, as distinct from revictimising their victims. The criminals are able to tweak their business model or move it to say, Rwanda, if they are not prosecuted and penalised.
Today’s Motion refers to “forced migration”. Climate change is forcing it, with migrants displaced far and wide within their own regions. People will take avoiding action—that is not economic migration—and will be planning ahead. So should the UK, and with compassion, confidence and practical common sense. We are left with this question: in the context of the current and anticipated international situation, what do the Government regard as the UK’s fair share?
I wish that we had longer for this debate.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury for this important debate. Much of what he told us has resonant echoes in Sikh teachings. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, for her moving maiden speech. I look forward to the other maiden speeches, in particular that of my friend and fellow Sikh, the noble Lord, Lord Sahota.
In the past, it was normal to look on people in distant lands with suspicion and fear as likely to harm us and our obviously superior way of life. In Shakespeare’s “Richard II”, John of Gaunt underlined this way of thinking when he described Britain as a
“precious stone set in the silver sea”
to guard us
“Against the envy of less happier lands”.
Today, the internet and television have brought distant and supposedly lesser people into our living rooms. We see and share the sorrow of people, as far apart as Ukraine and Afghanistan, who have lost family members and their homes as a result of conflict.
Today, we live in a smaller, interdependent world. The war in Ukraine has repercussions all over the world, with famine in Africa. Although it started in China, the Covid pandemic caused death and suffering across the world. The challenges of climate change and global warming threaten future generations and can be met only by co-operation in universal action. As a Christian hymn reminds us:
“New occasions teach new duties,
Time makes ancient good uncouth;
They must upward still and onward,
Who would keep abreast of truth.”
It is inevitable that people suffering man-made conflict or natural disasters will try to better themselves and move to areas of greater safety and opportunity. Sadly, they are often met with irrational hostility to foreigners, rooted in the mindset of the past. Religious leaders have long been aware that seeing others as lesser people is a recipe for conflict. More than 300 years ago, the Sikh gurus looking at the bigotry and conflict-producing claims of superiority in the India of the day boldly declared that, for peace and justice, we must recognise that we are all members of one interdependent human family.
What was desirable 300 years ago is an imperative today. Despite this, those seeking asylum in this country are seen as alien invaders by many, including our Home Secretary. In a callous desire to appeal to latent bigotry, she even went further, in putting blame for the insanitary conditions and overcrowding at the Manston processing centre on the asylum seekers themselves. With the very same logic, it could be equally argued that patients are to blame for delays in admission to hospitals.
As we have heard, we are not even in the top 10 countries that show generosity to strangers per head of population. Today, there are chronic labour shortages in hospitals, care homes and elsewhere, while at the same time, we are trying to send refugees desperate for work to places such as Rwanda.
In the Prayers that begin our daily sittings, we are urged to put aside our prejudices and use Christian teachings to underpin political decision-making. Deuteronomy reminds us to be kind to strangers,
“for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.”
Leviticus reminds us that, when a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not wrong him,
“you shall love him as yourself”.
These far-sighted teachings, echoed in Sikhism and other faiths, are the very opposite of today’s harsh attitudes to those seeking asylum, which harm not only those seeking refuge but our standing in the world. They should be re-examined with urgency.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, for her gracious maiden speech and for mentioning the role of churches in local resilience forums. I look forward to hearing the two maiden speeches to come. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester and I were formerly colleagues when I was Bishop of Loughborough, and I look forward to working with him in this House.
I thank my right reverend friend the Archbishop of Canterbury for securing this timely and important debate. This past year alone, we have seen multiple developments of concern, with an increase in forced migration due to conflict around the globe and over a third of Ukraine’s population displaced by war, with millions seeking refuge beyond their borders. A record 40,000-plus people have made the precarious English Channel crossing. We have also seen deeply troubling conditions faced by people once they are in the UK: overcrowded processing centres, threats of deportation to Rwanda, and a lack of resettlement through the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme.
In the swirl of revelations and challenges, it is easy to be swept along by the immediate, looking for a quick fix before the next issue comes along. There is of course real value in reacting effectively in the moment, particularly from those meeting humanitarian need, as seen in the extraordinary response of the British public to the Homes for Ukraine scheme. But there is also value in reflection on the principles that guide such actions and the system that they exist within.
What is the purpose of our migration system and who is it for? To echo the words of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, at the heart of the matter is the recognition that every one of us is created in the image of God, with intrinsic worth and dignity. Scripture calls on us to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and welcome the stranger. In our contemporary context, what does welcome look like for those seeking refuge today?
This is the very question that the Woolf Institute’s newly formed and independent Commission on the Integration of Refugees is exploring. I declare my interest as vice-chair of the commission. It is an honour to be involved under the excellent chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. As I am sure he will shortly outline in greater detail, we are seeking to bring together a range of views and experiences from our commissioners and from others across the country. Those with very different opinions and approaches are agreed that the system is broken. We have come together to move towards a vision for the better integration of refugees. As the Good Faith Partnership wrote in its report for the commission, published just last month,
“the stage is … set for those with practical ideas to tap into this widely held desire from the British public to integrate newcomers into their homes and communities.”
I and many others believe that one of those key practical ideas is the provision of housing. Good refugee integration requires good housing solutions. I declare my interest as lead bishop for housing. I arrived in this country with my parents at the age of 13, while the Iranian revolution gripped my homeland. I arrived as a refugee. We were able to build our lives here, in large part thanks to the housing provided to us when we arrived, first in a theological college and later in a vacant vicarage. We had a home again; we had stability and safety from which to build our lives again. It is out of that that my own life has grown. Creating this rootedness remains a key factor for successful refugee integration today.
The report of the Archbishops’ Commission on Housing, Church and Community, Coming Home, concluded that
“good housing should be sustainable, safe, stable, sociable and satisfying.”
However, for many refugees, this is not their experience. Countless refugees remain in overcrowded temporary accommodation for long periods. In August 2021, over 20,000 Afghan citizens were evacuated by the British military. More than a year later, 12,000-plus are still housed in hotels, costing £1.5 million per day. This is both dehumanising and expensive.
So how do we respond? Part of the solution is “meanwhile housing”, the installation of demountable, sustainable, high-quality homes on meanwhile-use land. This provides better outcomes for refugees and improved use of public funds. Bristol City Council’s project, Enabling Housing Innovation for Inclusive Growth, has been pioneering in taking the solution forward. We at the newly launched Church Housing Foundation are actively working with government and others to find ways to assist the provision of meanwhile housing.
Additionally, lifting the ban on the right to work, as the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury has said, would have a transformative impact, enabling individuals to create more security for themselves by putting to use the skills that they have. Indeed, a YouGov poll earlier this year found that 81% of the public agree.
A high percentage of those who apply for asylum are granted permission to stay. If these individuals are to have a chance of settling well, they must discover a new sense of belonging. Belonging grows from a combination of receiving good and dignified welcome—for example, in how they are housed—and the opportunity to contribute from the earliest moment, chiefly through the right to work.
Finally, on a positive note, I recognise and praise the incredible work going on in local churches and communities across the country to welcome the stranger, including in the diocese in which I serve, Chelmsford. As we strive towards better refugee integration, in principle and in practice, we can also be encouraged by the many good examples already around us.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the most reverend Primate the Archbishop on introducing this debate and the powerful way he did so. It is good to hear from the Bishops’ Benches a statement of Christian principles applied to the issues of the day, rather than the normal aspects of political debate.
This issue raises very difficult dilemmas for Christians. Being a very inadequate Christian myself, I take up the challenge from the most reverend Primate the Archbishop with trepidation: to try to formulate principles for governing our policy on asylum and migration. Not having direct access to the mind of God like the most reverend Primate the Archbishop, I seek those principles in the Bible.
I recall that our Lord said that the essence of Christianity is to love God and love our neighbour as ourselves. When asked who our neighbour is, he gave the parable of the good Samaritan, when a Samaritan helps a Jew—from which I deduce that our neighbour is not just the person next door to us and not necessarily a member of our own nation; it can be anyone. The first principle I therefore deduce is that, although charity begins at home, as a lot of my constituents used to tell me, it does not necessarily end at home. I am at one with the most reverend Primate the Archbishop on that.
Secondly, the Samaritan did what he practically could. We may be called on to help anyone we practically can, but we cannot help everyone. Again, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop recognised that and it is important that we recognise that our responsibilities are finite, in this respect.
Thirdly, when the Levite and the Jewish priest reached their destination, I have no doubt that they deplored how, owing to years of austerity, there had been insufficient spending on police and the health service to prevent the problem arising in the first place or to treat the person, instead of leaving it to the passing Samaritan. Therefore, my third principle is that, to be a good Samaritan, you have to give care, help and so on at your expense. We, as politicians, may have to take decisions on behalf of others but, in doing so, we should have consideration for the impact we are having on others and not imagine we are being virtuous when we do good at their expense.
The first principle is that charity begins at home, in how we treat people who have come to settle here. When I was a child, mass immigration into this country was just beginning. The parish in which I lived asked each family to link up with a migrant family, many of whom were lonely, isolated and, at worst, facing hostility. My family was linked up to a delightful Mauritian couple, whom we would invite to supper every few weeks. We became good friends. That was done by parishes across south London. I would love to hear from Bishops who have not yet spoken about what the churches are doing today to help integrate those who are here in our society and to be the good Samaritans to our neighbours from abroad.
But charity does not end at home. I pay tribute to those tens of thousands of people who opened their homes to families fleeing the bombing in Ukraine, while their menfolk remained to fight for their country. We should not imagine we are sharing in being good Samaritans if we throw open the doors of our country to everybody because, if we do that, we are doing good at others’ expense. We are, in effect, saying that migrants, be they legal or illegal, asylum seekers or otherwise, through housing benefit and social housing, will have access to rented and social homes. We all have our own homes, so we will not be affected. Therefore, more young people will have to wait at home or live in cramp bed-sitters for longer, because of what we, as legislators, think we are doing generously, without taking the impact on others into account.
The second principle is that our neighbour can be anyone, but it cannot be everyone. Millions of people want to come here. Look at the impact of the green card system the Americans operate, when they make 30,000 visas to the US available to certain countries and say, “Anyone can apply; there is a ballot.” Some 9% of the population of Albania applied when they heard about that being offered to them, as did 11% of the Armenian and 14% of the Liberian populations. These were only the people who heard about it and responded. The potential number who would like to come to America or Europe, if we open these so-called direct routes, would be enormous. Will we say to those who apply, at an embassy or some place abroad, that they would have the same legal rights, and opportunities to appeal or for judicial review if things are turned down? If so, potentially millions of people would join the queue. It would not shorten but lengthen it, so we have to restrict and to prioritise.
I submit to noble Lords that the priority should not be the boat people. They are not coming by boat from Basra, Somalia or Eritrea; they are coming from France, Belgium and Germany. Why are they coming here rather than staying in those safe countries? They are three or four times as likely to be rejected there. France, in the last year before the pandemic, forcibly repatriated 34,000 people. I find some strange double standards being applied here. There are no criticisms of France for being much stricter than us or of us for being much laxer than them, but one or the other must be the case.
Lord Lilley (Con)
I am coming to an end. If it is morally and legally right for the French to try to prevent people leaving their shores, and for us to pay and support the French in so doing, it should be morally and legally right for us to return them. If they cannot be returned, it is reasonable to try to deter them by saying, “If you come here, you will go to Rwanda. You always have the opportunity to stay in France.” I submit that we do not always consider these opportunities.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, we have been particularly generous with the timings. I remind noble Lords that it is an advisory Back-Bench speaking time of six minutes.
Lord Sahota (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, I am pleased and honoured to make my maiden speech today, having had the honour of joining your Lordships’ House. Noble Lords from all sides of the House have given me the warmest welcome, for which I am most grateful. I thank the staff and doorkeepers of the House for helping me in and out; without them, I do not know where I would be—probably lost. I thank my two supporters, my noble friends Lord Kennedy and Lord Grocott.
I thank the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury for bringing this important debate to the House. I begin by personally thanking the most reverend Primate the Archbishop for going to Amritsar in 2019 to pay his respects to the victims of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre on its 100th anniversary. In the same year I made a documentary on the subject.
A few months after I arrived in the UK to join my father, in 1966, England won the World Cup, so I sincerely hope that my elevation has a similar effect. My family background is one of those typical Sikh families. My uncle served in the Britain Indian Army in Burma during the Second World War under the command of Lord Mountbatten. My grandfather, his brother and my maternal grandfather all served in the British Indian Army in the First World War. I sometimes wonder what they would make of the fact that their grandson is now a proud Member of your Lordships’ House.
My uncle Charan Singh was the first politician in our family and during the British Raj in India, he was a member of the movement which wanted Britain to quit India. When I told him I was going into politics, he gave me one line of advice, that of Guru Gobind Singh: never be afraid of doing the righteous thing. My father-in-law also dipped his toe in local politics in India and was locally known as Comrade Tara Singh. I would also like to thank my two cousins Dr Pritam Sahota and Faquir Sahota for their never-ending advice and encouragement.
It has been a long and arduous journey for me and my family coming to this country in 1957 to this day. This is a country of which we are immensely proud and in which we play a full part. I said “arduous journey” because in that time we had to face, like countless other economic migrant families, the slings and arrows of racial discrimination, such as substandard and overcrowded accommodation, dirty and heavy work, lack of health and safety protection at work, and once my father was thrown out of the pub for not speaking English.
To return to the substance of the debate, the present policy on asylum and refugees leaves a great deal to be desired. It is slow and cumbersome. People are left in limbo for years, deprived of their dignity and basic human rights. In preparation for this debate, last Friday I visited a refugee and migrant centre in Wolverhampton, where thousands of people come through its doors seeking all kinds of help on immigration, citizenship, resettlement, housing, health and well-being, employment, education, a passport, and so on. I am grateful to the staff there for giving me their valuable time and advice.
At this very moment, thousands of people are awaiting a decision on their asylum application. The system is clearly broken and bursting at the seams. There are many problems refugees face while waiting for their applications to be processed. They are unable to settle down and do not know when they may be uprooted. They are often taken advantage of by unscrupulous employers who pay them next to nothing, never mind the minimum wage. Private landlords often charge high premiums to rent out a room or a house. Many are forced to work in the sex industry to make ends meet. Many women face domestic violence as a result of being taken advantage of by predators. The stress of waiting for their case to be resolved takes a severe toll on their health and well-being. Their children struggle at school as they are unable to settle down. They are forced to beg and use food banks to survive. There is a cost to the police, the National Health Service, schools and the housing sector. All that I ask is that the Government invest in a proper asylum system and treat people who are fleeing tyranny and prosecution in their own country with dignity and compassion.
When the founder of the Sikh religion, Guru Nanak Dev Ji, was a young man, his father gave him some money to start a business. Instead of investing in a business, he spent the money feeding the hungry and destitute. When he was asked why he had done that, his reply was, “This was the best deal I could find on the market.” We, too, must strive to find the best deal on the market for our fellow human beings.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, what a privilege it is to follow that. The prodigious amount and breadth of work that my new noble friend has done in his community—his communities—is extraordinary. He has invested his energy in making life better for people across the spectrum, with special emphasis perhaps on the Sikh and Punjabi communities. He has written a book of poetry in Punjabi. As a lover of poetry, I wish I could read it. I shall sit with my noble friend and expect some explanations. He has spent his time cheering up so many people.
I last officiated at an event for a Shropshire lad at the funeral of the late Lord Murray of Epping Forest, and Telford, and I quoted then, as I quote now, although the energy with which that speech was made makes it clear that this is not a funeral:
“You and I must keep from shame
In London streets the Shropshire name;
On banks of Thames they must not say
Severn breeds worse men than they.”
My noble friend Lord Sahota is a force of nature and part of what I hope will be a levelling-up moment in the life of this House. I am most grateful—as indeed I am to the most reverend Primate. It is the first time in a long time that I have wanted to stand up and cheer—although that would have been against all propriety in this House—because he said so much that many of us would have wanted to say.
Perhaps I should declare is that I am a member of the delegation from the British Parliament to the Council of Europe and I sit on its migration committee. I was there two days ago in Paris considering a whole host of things related to and consequent upon the problems being faced not just in this country but across our continent and around the world. I heard from the most reverend Primate and others a question about a possible updating or modification of the 1951 convention. I was asked by the migration committee to compose a report for the 70th anniversary of the convention that was approved by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe just one year ago. I will certainly be taking back to the migration committee a proper expression of the need—it would have to be an international need—to look again at the convention to see what modifications are appropriate at present.
However, I have to say that, for the moment, the 1951 convention is embedded in our law. It is the law that we must obey. We had discussions about this in the Nationality and Borders Bill as it moved through this House, and great dismay was expressed at our apparent readiness to depart from our legal obligations. That is the most worrying thing. Noble and learned Lords expressed their views forcefully on this matter. I, in my work for the report I prepared, worked with UNHCR offices in London, Strasbourg and Geneva, and all of them have given the British Government a very clear and lucid understanding of the law that would have taken into consideration even what I have to declare to be the extraordinary views of the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, which he expressed after his time was up a moment ago.
So, it is the law. We must obey it. We can modify it. The most reverend Primate called for international consensus around this and other matters, and this is perhaps the moment for that. At the heart of the convention lie three principles: non-refoulement, non-discrimination and non-penalisation. Those are cardinal elements in the way that the convention is spelled out, and an examination of current British practice measured against those cardinal elements would—let us say—raise questions of an inordinate nature in our minds and force us to look again at our moral position against the law under which we sit in a country that prides itself on the rule of law.
Two days ago in Paris, statistics that are not the usual ones came my way from a high official of the international Red Cross who spoke to our meeting. She told us about the numbers of people who are registered missing. Only 13% of those registered missing in their attempt to find refuge somewhere are ever found and forensically identified; 87% never are. Although it is not my custom to read parts of a report, this chilling paragraph is the one with which I will conclude my remarks:
“These extremely alarming numbers are only the tip of a tragic iceberg, and many more migrants are likely to have lost their life or become untraceable. Their families and friends typically do not have any sign of life or death of their loved ones. Anonymous dead migrants are washed ashore in Europe and the southern Mediterranean Sea or are found in forests and cities or even lorries, requiring forensic analyses and the transfer of corpses or their burial.”
The figures are 14 in the English Channel and 25,271 in the Mediterranean Sea. Should we not be worried? Should this debate not apply the greatest possible pressure, as far as we are concerned, to obtain the highest possible standards?
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, what a privilege it is to have the opportunity to take part in this debate and to follow my fellow Welsh Methodist minister, the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths. We were introduced on the same day, quite a few years ago now, and I am delighted that we are both able to take part in this debate.
Are the Government satisfied with the process that asylum seekers have to go through to achieve their status? This September there were 127,000 asylum applications waiting to be dealt with, some for a considerable time. Decision-takers are doing their very best, but clearly their whole recruitment and training needs to be of a standard that inspires confidence. With 100,000 negative immigration decisions rejected and reversed in the past five years, clearly the present system does not inspire confidence—not in the staff, who see their original decisions rejected 50% of the time. There is unnecessary anxiety for so many applicants, often with very serious and sad consequences, and millions of pounds in unnecessary expense because of these reversals and appeals; when an application must be reconsidered, that counts as unnecessary expense. The unnecessary delays lead to Governments acting harshly and the UK’s reputation being smeared.
There are steps that can be taken in a thoroughgoing overhaul of the Home Office. Its immigration responsibilities are crying out for research. The organisation Humanitarians Together is preparing a humanitarian manifesto, which I hope will propose changes that can be accepted by all parties in this Parliament.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, the choice of topic by the most reverend Primate for his annual debate, Britain’s asylum and refugee policies, is a timely and necessary one. I thank him and his colleagues on the Bishops’ Benches more widely for their contributions to the national debate on these issues, and for injecting a tone of humanity and respect for Britain’s international obligations into a discussion that frequently lacks either of those qualities.
Why is it necessary to debate? Because, however discordant the views expressed on this subject—and they are—everyone seems to be in agreement on one thing: our present policies for dealing with asylum seekers and refugees are defective and not working. We really need an overall rethink of our policies, not just a desperate attempt to patch them up or to remedy one or other defect highlighted by the Daily Mail in screeching headlines. Any rethought policy needs to be consistent and coherent if we are not simply to emulate the little Dutch boy plugging holes in the dyke with his fingers.
In that category of desperate remedies, the Government’s aim of flying asylum seekers off to Rwanda or any other developing country ready to have its palm crossed with silver ranks high indeed. The legality of the policy is before the courts, so I will not comment on that aspect. It does not seem to be acting as a deterrent to asylum seekers, as its protagonists claimed it would, and the accounting officer at the Home Office cannot certify value for money—so the sooner it is dropped, the better.
In the same category comes our adamant refusal to allow asylum seekers, even those waiting for several years to have their claims dealt with, to take legal employment. Other European countries permit asylum seekers to work after six months. Why can we not do so. and thus both reduce the mental and physical stress put on the refugees and their families and save ourselves some taxpayers’ money?
So much for the negatives of our present policies. Here are some positive suggestions. First, we surely must cut the ever-lengthening delays in processing asylum claims. The Government seem to realise this, but are they taking effective action to speed up the process? Secondly, we really need to thrash out with our continental European partners, not just the French, a whole range of policies designed to put the human traffickers out of business and behind bars, where they deserve to be. That means more co-operation with Europol and Eurojust and a better, more trusting overall relationship with the EU and its member states. Just telling them to get a grip will not achieve that. Thirdly, we need to give serious consideration to opening up ways in which claims for asylum can be submitted outside our borders and then processed expeditiously. That could be one of the ways of reducing the temptation to take the perilous route by dinghy across the channel.
All those measures are fully consistent with our international obligations; some of the Government’s policies are not. Brushing off the views to that effect of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, whose job it is to oversee implementation of the refugee convention, and saying that we think otherwise is simply Alice’s Red Queen’s response of “It’s so, because I say it’s so”. It is not consistent with asserting that we are strong supporters of the rules-based international order—an assertion that Ministers stand at the Dispatch Box and repeat several times every week.
I sometimes wonder whether those who champion more restrictive and inhumane policies have any understanding of our country’s record down the centuries in welcoming Huguenot refugees from France, Jewish refugees from Russia, eastern Europe and Nazi Germany, and Asian refugees from east Africa. Did we benefit from that, or were we harmed by it? The answer is evident. Just look around this Chamber, the Chamber of the other place or the Cabinet table and you will see the answer. It is surely time to apply the same values we did earlier in our history when it comes to treating today’s asylum seekers.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. I have always admired him, but I do not think I have ever agreed with everything he has said until today. I usually agree with most things he says, but today I endorse everything and thank him for his vigorous speech. It is also a great pleasure to be able to say a brief word of thanks to the two maiden speakers and to look forward to the third, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester.
It is singularly appropriate that the most reverend Primate should have chosen this subject for the debate today. We are in Advent, approaching the season of Christmas; some of our thoughts, even prompted by some of our Christmas cards, will make us think of the flight into Egypt by the most famous refugee family in history. What the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, just said about refugees coming to our country was so true. They enrich our society. I benefited from a German Jewish refugee who was a neighbour of ours when I was a schoolboy. He lectured in English literature and gave me my passionate love of Shakespeare, which I retain to this day. He was married to a Spanish refugee, who had fled Franco’s Spain.
It is only a few weeks since, in this very Chamber, my noble friend Lord Popat introduced the debate to mark the 50th anniversary of the coming of the Ugandan Asians. They too have enriched our society. Of course, if one goes further back one thinks of Canterbury, of Spitalfields, of the weavers and the Huguenots, who numbered among them the greatest silversmiths of the 18th century, such as Paul de Lamerie and Courtauld—those are names to conjure with.
We have to be very mindful of our enriched past when we look at the present. I am very proud of the way that our country has responded to the bestiality in Ukraine, and of those families who have taken in Ukrainian families. I am very proud of the fact that we are giving refuge to people from Hong Kong because of the abrogation of an international treaty by China, a treaty that it signed with us, which itself should underline the importance of our always honouring our international treaties and commitments.
I want to make one or two practical suggestions, as did the most reverend Primate. I very much agreed with what he said about the traffickers, of course; the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, echoed that a moment or two ago. They should indeed be rounded up as vigorously as we can possibly round them up. They can now be imprisoned for life, which is right and proper. We should deal with them but should also, at the noble Lord just touched on, process applications not only more quickly but outside this country.
I put to my noble friend a suggestion only a week or so ago at Question Time in this House. I asked: “Can we not get together with our friends in France?” France, despite what my noble friend Lord Lilley says, has received many refugees; the most reverend Primate gave the figures in his speech. Can we not get together with our neighbours and friends to build a really large hostel near Calais—spartan, if you like, but clean and decent—where these people can live relatively comfortable lives and have their applications processed by British officials? That would be a sensible, practical thing to do. It would help to cut down on these dreadful cross-channel journeys, in which a number of people have perished. Of course, we had the number given a little while ago of the 25,000 in the Mediterranean.
We are dealing with human beings, made in the likeness of God. These human beings have every right to expect their dignity to be respected and if they are genuine, and of course some of them are not and deserve punishment, to be given all the help that it is practical to give. I am grateful to the most reverend Primate, as I am sure we all are, for the manner in which he introduced this important debate. Let us hope that it leads to some action, if not this day, then at least tomorrow.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interests as a member of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and as a long-time supporter of the wonderful charity Refugee Tales. It is a pleasure, as always, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and to mark the end of the 90th birthday week of my noble friend Lord Dubs in this way.
My thanks, like everyone else’s, go to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury for convening this timely debate on the eve of Human Rights Day. I congratulate my noble friends—two maidens in Labour, if that is not a contradiction in terms—on their wonderful and contrasting maiden speeches. I look forward to the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, which will follow in a moment.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, I always think it is apt that Human Rights Day is so close to Christmas, for the reasons he gave: Christmas is a time when so many people all over the world celebrate the birth of a very special refugee child. However, it is worth remembering why we celebrate Human Rights Day. Noble Lords will remember that it was in October 1942 that the then Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, famously wrote to the predecessor of our present most reverend Primate in the following terms:
“The systematic cruelties to which the Jewish people—men, women, and children—have been exposed under the Nazi regime are amongst the most terrible events of history, and place an indelible stain upon all who perpetrate and instigate them. Free men and women denounce these vile crimes, and when the world struggle ends with the enthronement of human rights, racial persecution will be ended.”
He was inspirational if perhaps optimistic, as it turned out.
In remembering the failure, and there was some failure, of the Allied powers to give adequate passage and protection to those desperate to flee the Nazis—I remind noble Lords that Albert Einstein was denied asylum and had to go to the United States for it—came even after Kristallnacht in 1938 heralded a policy of systematic genocide. Refugee protection is therefore perhaps the most poignant paradigm of post-war human rights.
Given the emerging understanding of the sheer horror of the pre-war and war years, it is unsurprising that the refugee convention should have been one of the earliest priorities of the post-war international legal architecture. It brings detail and binding effect to supplement the right to asylum in Article 14 of the universal declaration, came into force in 1954 and has been amended only once. The 1967 protocol removed the original limitation of the protection to those fleeing events before 1951 in Europe, so the subsequent protection was always intended to be worldwide and permanent.
We have heard how the convention defines a refugee as someone with a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a social group or political opinion, who is therefore unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin. As we heard from my noble friend Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, it is built on three principles: non-discrimination, non-penalisation and non-return, so the protection should be applied without discrimination on the basis of race, religion or country of origin but also, as international law has developed over time, on other prohibited grounds such as sex, age, disability, sexuality, and so on.
It recognises that the most desperate genuine refugees may have no choice but to flee—as from the Nazis—via illegal means using false papers, false identities and clandestine transport across borders, in breach of ordinary immigration controls of nations. The convention prohibits penalising them, for example, for criminal offences relating to their seeking of asylum or by way of arbitrary detention. Crucially, the convention absolutely prohibits their return or expulsion to places where their lives or freedoms would be in peril.
It further provides for minimum standards for the treatment of refugees. They should have access to courts, primary education and papers including travel documents. The UN high commissioner is charged with supervising the operation of the convention, which signatory states undertake to co-operate with.
The refugee convention is a vital part of human rights machinery in providing at least a basic safety net when individual nation states, which bear the lion’s share of responsibility for guaranteeing rights and freedoms, fail in that duty. To undermine it in thought, word and deed, as so many Governments have done for so much of our still-young century, is to forget or ignore the worst atrocities of the last one.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is a privilege to make my maiden speech in this most important debate. I am grateful to my most reverend friend the Archbishop of Canterbury for putting forward this Motion. I am grateful also to noble Lords for their welcome today. I look forward to learning from, and working with, them in service of His Majesty’s Government and our great nation. As one of my relatives was the first ever manager of the English football team, I echo the noble Lord, Lord Sahota, in his hope that his and my elevation may lead to success as in 1966.
As Bishop of Leicester, I have the honour of serving a city which has been made by migration, including those seeking asylum. Among them were Asian refugees expelled from Uganda 50 years ago and Somalian refugees fleeing the civil war in the 1990s. Socially, culturally and economically, Leicester has benefited phenomenally from the talents, hard work and rich heritage of migrant communities.
I do not wish to speak of migrants, as I believe we often do, as “other”—a group distinct from ourselves—for I too am a migrant. I was born in Indonesia and spent my early years growing up there. I also benefited from several years working with my wife in Guinea in west Africa. Here in the UK, I have moved between Sheffield, Gloucester, and Leicester. Most fundamentally, I belong to a spiritual tradition which sees all those who follow Jesus as “pilgrims in this foreign land”, as the famous hymn goes. At many points in my life I have been dependent on the hospitality of others; dependent upon them seeing me as kin, as a fellow human, as a friend and not a foe; dependent also on the generosity of strangers, friends and ultimately, on the graciousness of God.
Indeed, since entering this House, I have depended on the advice, patience and thoughtfulness of my sponsors, my fellow Lords spiritual and Members of this House, the officials and staff here and my diocesan colleagues; I am very grateful to them all. Like any newcomer, I have needed shepherding into unfamiliar spaces and ways of doing things. However, I fear that as a nation we offer little of that welcome, guidance and orientation to refugees and asylum seekers—our fellow men and women who have suffered trauma, terror, abuse and hardship on their journey.
In Leicester, we have a number of hotels accommodating asylum seekers. They may have a roof over their heads, but they are not given even the most basic of means of living as human beings. They do not have the freedom to make even small decisions like what to eat, the independence that comes from having enough money to buy essentials for oneself, or the stable connections to a community which offers a sense of belonging and support. At the drop of a hat, they can find themselves relocated to another part of the UK or deported forcibly, returning to a place they were so desperate to leave.
The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, asked for examples of what the Church is doing to support such people. I want to assure him that in Leicester there are those from our churches who visit people in these hotels to provide clothing and food. In one recent event I know of, they held a cultural evening for Kurdish women with food and dancing. This was an opportunity to learn from their culture even as they learn from ours.
In denying refugees and asylum seekers their agency, dignity and their need for creativity and community, it is not only them we dehumanise, but ourselves as well. I believe that Christ showed us that true humanity is showing love over fear. When we are possessed by fear of the “other”, fear of losing control over our borders, or fear of what refugees show us of the fragility of human structures and ways of life, we are lesser versions of ourselves.
Of course, recognising our kinship with asylum seekers and refugees does not decide the political questions around immigration. Questions of integration and how to live well together must still be wrestled with, but those are questions we must grapple with regardless and we must do so with sincerity and integrity. The unrest that Leicester experienced in September this year demonstrates why we need robust strategies that support integration. On both sides of the Chamber and in both Houses we can all agree that we want a country where people of all backgrounds and beliefs can work, live and learn together, enriched by our diversity. However, we cannot be naive in assuming that strong, cohesive communities occur by default.
Integration requires efforts from all government departments, not just the Home Office. The DCMS, with its new Online Safety Bill, for example, can help to limit the sort of disinformation that fuelled the disorder in Leicester. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office can take seriously how political affairs in other countries have ripple effects here in the UK. The Department for Education can ensure that all children leave schools with a strong understanding of and respect for the various faith traditions present in the UK.
We cannot offer true refuge if we do not have a collective home to welcome people into. Through kindness, compassion and the recognition of someone’s inherent dignity and worth, we can make anywhere feel like home. It is how the UK and Leicester have come to be home to me, and how I hope this House will also come to be somewhere I am familiar with.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, in whose diocese I live and worship. He made an excellent speech. I have never heard him give a sermon; perhaps we can put that right at a later date. I agreed with quite a lot of what he said—surprisingly. I regard his predecessor, Tim Stevens, as a friend; I hope Tim Stevens regards me as a friend as well.
My view is as a still-loyal member of the Church of England. On Sunday I heard an excellent sermon from David Hebblewhite, who the right reverend Prelate might know, in Stanford-on-Avon on the origins of the Christmas stocking. How many people here know the origins of the Christmas stocking? I did not until then and I am 71. My view is that we need a spiritual and moral dimension to politics, government policy and legislation. It is a minority view, but I therefore support having an episcopal Bench in the House of Lords and having an established Church—and I will continue to do so. I welcome the right reverend Prelate. Another of his predecessors, Guy Vernon Smith, married my mother in Cosby—twice, unfortunately, because her first husband is on the war memorial. I hope to see more of him here and in Leicester.
I applaud the two serving most reverend Primates for their excellent sermons at the Platinum Jubilee service and Her Majesty’s funeral. These occasions showed the Church absolutely at its best and, frankly, rising to the occasion, so I thank them for that.
I speak as a member of the Church of England and a Christian—but not worthy to preach, I assure noble Lords, and my faith is a private matter. I will give at least one view today: a view from the pews. It is not my intention to attack either the Church or the bishops, so I shall ask questions that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury might have time to address at the end.
I agreed with a lot that the most reverend Primate said today. In April, he said:
“love your neighbour as yourself. For me, that is the standard by which we must treat those seeking asylum.”
I agree. This brings me to the question that prompted that most powerful parable of the good Samaritan. Who is thy neighbour—or, on this occasion, who is a refugee? Refugees typically return when it is safe to do so, like the Holy Family, which my noble friend Lord Cormack mentioned. I absolutely accept the direction in the lesson in Matthew, chapter 25, that we have to show compassion but there is huge pressure on our borders, services and infrastructure, caused by people who understandably want a better life. They want to come to Britain, which is a fantastic country—although, if you heard some in this Chamber, you would think it was the most awful place and you could not think why they would want to come.
I will focus particularly on small boats in the channel, which is of course very close to the most reverend Primate’s diocese of Canterbury. We have heard about smuggling by criminal gangs, and nearly half the people who have come across the channel in the last five months have come from Albania, via France. Albania is a safe country—I am not sure about France, although people go there on holiday, and I have been there and to Italy, Greece and Germany. But are people being persecuted in either Albania or France? They come here because we welcome them—we give them accommodation, benefits, et cetera. Frankly, we are extremely generous, which is why they do not want to stay in France, which is less generous.
The Albanians are instructed by their people smugglers to say that they are victims of trafficking, against the human trafficking Act. Those from the Middle East or from countries that outlaw homosexuality are to say that they are apostates or gay, so that they cannot be sent back. Anyone that can credibly do so, even if he or she is 25, says that they are children. I fear that we are being taken for fools—largely by smugglers, who know their market, if I can put it that way—just as Emad al-Swealmeen took the clergy at Liverpool Cathedral for naive fools when he said that he had converted to Christianity and was confirmed, having been supported by Asylum Link. He then took a bomb in a taxi to blow up the Remembrance Day service in Liverpool Cathedral. Please let us be sensible, not naive.
One reason that people want to come here is our history and culture, which my noble friend Lady Stowell referred to. I am very proud of the welcome that we gave to Jewish refugees from the pogroms in Poland and Russia in the late 19th century and in Germany in the 20th century, but, as a result, we are literally changing the way our country carries on and its culture, through mass migration.
There are distressingly many people who do not share our values and liberal attitudes—let us not pretend that everyone does—so let me ask some questions on, for instance, culture. I missed this, but did the Church or bishops lobby to continue having daily acts of worship in schools? Noble Lords may think that unimportant but, pace Church schools, very few state schools now have a daily Christian service and hymn. Of course, the most basic loss to culture is that people do not know those glorious hymns, and they now sing “Sweet Caroline” at matches rather than “Abide with Me”—noble Lords many not think that important, but it is a pointer. What is the Church of England planning to do to reverse the decline in Christian belief? Bishops will be irrelevant if no one believes in Christianity. The worst news this month was the fact that there has been a huge decline in those who call themselves Christian, which of course relates to education.
Does the most reverend Primate believe that the Church is institutionally racist? If it is, I do not want anything to do with it—but we hear bishops say that. Also, why was the ordinand Calvin Robinson kicked out? I do not know him, and he may be very unsuitable, but his story is coming out and it is not good.
I will give an illustration that is closer to home, though I do not wish to embarrass the right reverend Prelate whom I follow. I live in a group of 11 parishes, and we have had no resident priest for three and a half years, so I travelled over 10 miles on Sunday, burning fossil fuel. But there are two bishops in Leicester, the population of which is now apparently only 32% Christian. I note that the people whom I see in church—
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, this is perhaps a good time for me to remind noble Lords about the speaking time.
Lord Robathan (Con)
Some 100 years ago, every parish had a resident priest—and no bishops, because the diocese was founded only in 1927. I will sit down, but I have to say that, as a loyal member of the Church of England, I frankly hope that the most reverend Primate might commend the people and Governments of this country and his flock nationally and in Kent for the generosity and hospitality that we have shown over the last half-century to the over 10 million people who have settled here, every one of whom has been a stranger in this land.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I thank the most reverend Primate for initiating this debate and, above all, for the characteristically profound ethical foundation of his speech. I also commend three truly promising maiden speeches, and I look forward to hearing more from all of their Lordships.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford said, I agreed to chair an independent Commission on the Integration of Refugees—in my view, integration is a core necessity of the subject under debate. Convened and funded by the Woolf Institute, which is based in Cambridge, the commission has more than 20 commissioners from many disciplines, some of whom have real lived experience of life as a refugee. I thank the right reverend Prelate and two other noble Lords who have kindly consented to be on my commission—namely, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger. Just telling your Lordships those names confirms the promise of a thoroughly penetrating debate, as well as a chilling chairing challenge. Our purpose is to bring together different experiences and opposing views to build consensus on this sometimes-contentious political issue. Ours is neither a campaigning commission nor politically partisan; in many ways, it is simply a corollary to the most reverend Primate’s debate today.
Integration means different things to different people—it is a two-way process for new and existing communities respectively. The nature and outcome of integration is multifaceted. British values and culture are diverse, and integration most certainly should not be confused with assimilation. It comes from a neutral position, so one can say that policies geared towards refugee integration have been seriously neglected by all Governments over the past 30 years or so.
The lens of migration management is inappropriate for asylum and leads to unnecessary polarisation and toxicity. The UK refugee and asylum system should not be lumped together with general immigration policy—the former is wholly morally grounded, while the latter is more opaque, so immigration by refugees and through asylum is founded on a wholly different set of principles. At our first hearing in Birmingham, our commission heard from refugees, local officials and voluntary organisations. All raised major concerns about the way that the UK’s current refugee and asylum system functions. The polarising media discourse in this area was particularly identified as the enemy of fairness.
Recent successful and country-specific settlement schemes should be distinguished from the main subject that I am talking about: they have come with funding and resourcing to facilitate the integration of specified groups of new arrivals, but the same cannot be said for those who apply for asylum in the UK. Poor resourcing, the unprecedented waiting times for those in the system and the ensuing trauma and uncertainty make long-term integration much more difficult for anyone who exercises their right—it is a right—according to the Geneva convention to apply for asylum in the United Kingdom. I am afraid that additional damage is caused by legislation that puts into statute a two-tiered asylum system, depending on the method of entry.
We can all understand the argument for deterrence—and I think we should send back quickly those who clearly are not genuine refugees—but the current system has the effect of punishing those who legitimately claim asylum in the UK by putting severe restrictions on access to English language training, work, which has already been mentioned, and good accommodation. The current policy does not seem to deter a single person; it is a fiction that government policy has increased deterrence.
Finally, I want to raise a point about unaccompanied asylum seeker children. I believe that they should be treated as children first and foremost. The British state has a duty of care to them. Sadly, in many circumstances, that is not provided. Unaccompanied asylum seeker children are often processed as adults on arrival at the UK border. They are sent to adult accommodation, and it is left to local authorities to try to pick up the pieces later on. Those children are usually not provided with access to the health support and, especially, the mental health support that they require. Sadly, some simply disappear into child trafficking, sex work and human slavery. There are serious issues about the age assessment of people who claim to be children and the disputes process on that matter. These must now be resolved in a way that is fast, fair and imaginative. If the system does that, it will also be accurate.
The UK must play its role in working to alleviate these defects through an improved system that respects the rights of refugees and asylum seekers, while also winning the acquiescence of the British public.
The Archbishop of York
My Lords, despite my probably sensible and timely demotion on the speakers’ list, I am nevertheless delighted to speak in this very moving debate and to thank my brother, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, for bringing it to us. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, for his kind words about our preaching earlier this year. I can assure him that on almost every other occasion when I rise to speak, although not on this occasion, it is to speak about the Christian gospel, whose values underpin everything I am about to say. I was also very moved by the noble Lord, Lord Singh, who quoted the Jewish and Christian scriptures to us. That is such a powerful sign of the generous spirit of the Sikh faith, which we can all learn so much from. I am also grateful for the three powerful maiden speeches that we have heard today.
I want to emphasise a small but significant point. Getting this right, and doing the right thing, is a blessing for everyone in our society and the best way of shifting the opinion of the public, whose anxiety about this issue is fuelled by the dysfunction of our current system. The hard truth is that our asylum system simply does not treat everyone the same. It does not give people the dignity, safety and agency that their humanity deserves. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, that everyone is our neighbour. Of course, we cannot take everybody, but that makes it even more important that we have a fair system for everyone.
Dehumanising language promotes fear. Threat of destitution is used as a deterrent. Children are treated as if they are adults. Yet in our own country, among our own people, in our churches, other faith groups and communities, some things have gone well, such as the Homes for Ukraine scheme, where many people have found a home, other family members have joined them, and people have been able to get work. This is really good.
But why has our response to people fleeing other conflicts been different? Currently, the definition of family in our asylum system would not allow someone to join their sibling even if they were the last remaining relative, and being able to work and contribute is a long way off. The tragedy of our system lies in its exceptionalism, meaning that people receive differential treatment usually because of their country of origin. That underpins the Nationality and Borders Act, and I fear that further legislative action will be the same.
But we could learn from what is happening in our communities. The noble Lord, Lord Lilley, asked us directly about integration. I do not know where to begin. In hundreds of parishes and schools, and in other faith communities up and down our country, that is what we are doing—in English language classes, in befriending and in teaching people. I would be the first to admit that there are lots of things about the Church of England that could be better, but that is something that we are doing, alongside others, and it shows the best of British.
We need a system that will simply provide safe and legal routes for everyone to have equal opportunities to apply for asylum. All I am saying is that I think that would be good for us, as well as for the people who are fleeing unimaginable conflict and evil.
Finally, when it comes to being able to work, the Church of England, alongside the Refugee Council and the Government’s own Migration Advisory Committee, is a long-standing supporter of the Lift the Ban campaign.
I say all this—like many of us, I would wish to say more, but the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury said most of it—as winter arrives, and it is cold, and a cost of living crisis will inevitably affect the British people’s capacity to be hospitable. I say simply that a functioning asylum system is not a threat to our social cohesion as some fear or predict, but a dysfunctional, unfair one is.
As every small child knows at this time of the year, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, mentioned, Mary and Joseph came looking for somewhere to stay, but there was no room at the inn. Saying no, accusing those who are being hospitable of being naive, or passing the buck are easy, but saying yes, with a fair and equal system for everyone, opens up blessings for everyone.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne (Con)
I thank the most reverend Primate for the opportunity that he has given us by challenging us to respond to the enormous problem of forced migration. I speak today about religious persecution as a driver, probably the key driver, for forced migration. We have with us today His Highness Prince Hazem of the Yazidis. All will recall that the Yazidis are perhaps the most persecuted minority of all at the moment. Of course, there are many others as well, but the Yazidis are victims of genocide, which is of course the worst crime in the UN convention assembly.
My colleagues and I have worked hard in recent years to do everything we can to support the Yazidis in their enfeebled situation in camps in northern Iraq and we have come out with one or two important conclusions which I shall put before the House and hope that we may have the opportunity to discuss, privately or in groups, at another place.
We have formed the Windsor Dialogue, under the chairmanship of Bishop Alastair Redfern and with the support of Canon Edmund Newell, Rev Dr Paul Edmondson and other members of Westminster Abbey, including the dean himself. With the Yazidi spiritual council, which is headed by the prince himself, we have tied ourselves to another oppressed and persecuted religious minority which has broken through, become immensely successfully and given us an example of what can be achieved: the Latter-day Saints—the LDS—also known as the Mormons. We have Jeffrey Holland as our co-chairman, and we work hard with Sharon Eubank and the US friends of the AMAR Foundation, which is generating energy to support dialogue.
We brought ourselves together because we learned that the excuse for the genocidal actions by ISIS against the Yazidis was that they were supposed to worship the devil. This has led us to the conclusion, looking in great detail over a number of years at the issue of refugees everywhere and forced migration, that religious persecution is a very important driver of forced migration. Without looking at the religious persecution angle, you cannot recover the lives, livelihoods and agency of those who have been beaten, oppressed and forced to become sex slaves and endure other disgusting activities that humans undertake when they lose their thread of morality.
We have worked intensively in the camps, and have been practical by building, equipping and running health centres. We have also brought in music, IT, English language and business training, and now we are starting to be able to offer jobs. We particularly focused on music because the prayers of the Yazidis are all sung, and we found that the onslaught on them was intensified by the onslaught on their own religion. That meant that those who held the music in their heads—the priests of the Yazidi spiritual council—were the ones whom ISIS was ultimately targeting. Indeed, at one point I could count only just over 10 remaining priests, meaning that the entirety of their equivalent of the Sistine Chapel, Westminster Abbey or Canterbury Cathedral was in the heads of just a very few priests, who were being targeted by their bitter enemy, the ISIS rebels. So we recorded the music with the agreement of the prince of the Yazidis, and it is stored in the Bodleian Library, so it can never be lost again. It has given us an understanding of what happens when your religion is attacked.
It seems that your religion is a key part of your identity, your personality. Of course, in Britain we like to think that religion does not count, and we simply discard the knowledge that 83% of the globe belongs to one faith or another, the principal faith being Christianity, the second being Islam, and then Hinduism and so on; and then, we have wonderful minority faiths such as the Yazidi faith. Understanding the reason for the onslaught was one of our key first efforts, and we have managed to articulate and write down what the Yazidi faith is. The prince’s predecessor, who is sadly dead, said that this was the first time ever that their faith had been properly and accurately written down, without being targeted by an onslaught claiming that it was wrong. The treatment of the Yazidis as a supposed enemy rests on this bizarre concept that they worship the devil. Of course, that is not the case at all, but it is very odd how humans refuse to dislodge an idea when it gets in their heads, and there remains an awful lot of thinking around that idea at the moment. So, first, we understood the reason for the onslaught and then we worked out how to tackle it.
Today, I am very happy to say that instead of a disaster, we now believe that we have a way out and a way forward. In that belief, which we are writing down, researching and will be presenting, we have the support of the UNHCR and the World Health Organization, and we hope very much that the formula we are developing may be of use and value elsewhere too. The Yazidis themselves are very happy to know that their suffering can help others. Much of that formula is based on music, and I am very pleased to say that we have been able to perform to King Charles and in the Bodleian Library, Westminster Abbey and St. George’s Chapel, Windsor: Exaltati, sing unto God, is basically where we are coming from. It is time to restart how we look at refugees by seeing them as a tremendously capable group of people, and to help them flourish, perform, be successful and be victims no longer.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
It is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson. We have heard three excellent maiden speeches: I thank my noble friends Lady Twycross and Lord Sahota and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester for their excellent contributions. I thank the most reverend Primate for the opportunity to debate this important question today. It is timely for many reasons: in addition to the seasonal context offered to us by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti reminded us that tomorrow is Human Rights Day.
Only two weeks ago, the Home Secretary admitted that we have “lost control” of our borders. In that loss of control, we have a gridlocked asylum system: 144,000 people are awaiting an initial decision on their asylum applications. For six months or more, 70% have been unable to work, to access key services or accommodation and, most importantly for a significant proportion of these people, to live without the fear and torment of being sent back at the risk of persecution and torture. Over a third are from five countries with grant rates of 80%, meaning they will likely have a legitimate claim to asylum.
As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, emphasised, within this appalling chaos, there are children at risk. In the year to September, of those who applied, over 14,000 were children, including 5,152 who were unaccompanied, and far too many have gone missing and disappeared, including 39 child refugees in Kent. The Home Office has a legal duty to safeguard the welfare of those children, which it is failing to do. Not only have children gone missing but there was a 212% rise in age disputes this past year. It is worth emphasising that the Home Office policy on this was revised so that those who look “significantly over 18” are treated as adults, a policy which has resulted in children as young as 14 being placed in immigration detention or alone in adult accommodation facing significant risk of harm. That is a breach of our duty of care and of the provisions of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and our own consequent legislation.
I will now ask the Minister a question that he must have anticipated. I will quote Tim Loughton’s question before the Home Affairs Select Committee on 23 November. He role-played as follows:
“I am a 16-year-old orphan from an east African country escaping a warzone and religious persecution, and I have a sibling who is legally in the United Kingdom … What is a safe and legal route for me to come to the United Kingdom?”
If he is unable to better the Home Secretary’s floundering and seeming inability to provide a coherent answer and her Permanent Secretary’s offer that they should engage with the UNHCR—while, at the same time, admitting that there are many countries in Africa and, indeed, elsewhere where it is not possible to apply for asylum via the UNHCR—should we infer that the principles informing contemporary UK asylum and refugee policy are not in compliance with the refugee convention and that that is by design?
My final point is about the Government’s now-notorious Rwanda policy: an immoral policy that shames Britain. On the release of government documents about the process by which Rwanda was selected for the offshoring of asylum seekers, we saw the degree to which the then Prime Minister and the Home Secretary overrode the concerns of senior officials, their own equality impact assessment, the UNHCR, the British high commissioner in Rwanda and the UK’s Global Ambassador for Human Rights. So we have spent £140 million, but what have we received in return? The answer is: the prospect of years of ongoing litigation, disquiet among many of our key allies and partners, the disapproval of the UNHCR and other supranational agencies, and a further erosion of our reputation for compassion and adherence to international law.
In its latest country report, the US State Department said that among the things that characterise Rwanda are arbitrary detention, ill treatment, torture in official and unofficial detention and the fact that fair trial standards are routinely flouted. Last Sunday, the US Secretary of State called President Kagame. He reported having
“discussed credible reports indicating that Rwanda continues to support the M23 rebel group and has its armed forces inside the DRC”.
In an Oral Question yesterday in your Lordships’ House, the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, twice reminded us that this egregious behaviour in sponsoring conflict in a neighbouring country undermines peace efforts and is causing insecurity and significant human suffering there, so much so that the FCDO has raised its concerns at the highest levels with Rwanda. How do our assessments of the robustness of judicial systems, the likelihood of arbitrary arrest and the propensity for agents of the state to use torture in Rwanda differ from that of the US State Department? I am interested to know whether we have a superior methodological practice that might explain this disparity in outlook.
Of course, the Government are right to emphasise the importance of breaking the grip of people smugglers, but there is no evidence at all that the Rwanda policy will accomplish that. Since it was announced, the number of arrivals has gone up, not down. Cynics may be forgiven for thinking that the Government are happy to invest money in a policy that is purely symbolic. Small boat arrivals continue at record levels, due in part, at least, to a lack of safe and legal routes for asylum. We face significant systemic challenges to our immigration and asylum systems, and it is time we confronted them constructively and not just symbolically. I welcome this debate as a step towards doing exactly that, and I commend the most reverend Primate’s proposals as a good starting point, particularly when they are read in the context of the detailed interviews with my right honourable friend Yvette Cooper.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I, too, thank the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury for introducing this important debate, and for doing so so effectively. It is essential that we discuss this issue in the way it has been framed, because the debate about asylum and refugee policy has become very toxic. We have lost sight of the principles which should guide this policy.
Challenges facing asylum and refugee policy are quite different from those facing voluntary migration policy. Of course, every country has the right to control voluntary migration and develop policies to meet its needs, but we have to remember that involuntary migration is different. Asylum seekers and refugees do not move out of choice; they are forced to flee persecution and other intolerable conditions. Unfortunately, debates about asylum and voluntary migration have been conflated—sometimes, I fear, deliberately. This has confused the issue and has led to a very negative and ill-informed public debate. Of course public opinion matters, but those in authority have the responsibility to explain. Inappropriate terminology has crept into this discourse and has influenced policy. For example, the term “illegal refugees” is used by many, even by those in authority, and as we know, under international law this is a misnomer.
The 1951 refugee convention is the cornerstone of the international refugee protection regime. We are party to this convention and we have a duty to comply with its provisions, but the UNHCR said that our current asylum and refugee policy undermines established international refugee protection law and practices. It said that arrangements that seek to transfer refugees and asylum seekers to third countries in the absence of sufficient safeguards and standards simply shift asylum responsibilities, evade international obligations and are contrary to the letter and spirit of the refugee convention. For a country that prides itself on promoting the rule of law here and abroad and that wants to influence international standards, this is a damning statement.
The Nationality and Borders Act will create differential status for asylum seekers based on their mode of travel to the UK. It will divide people into “genuine refugees” and “failed asylum seekers” through the creation of a two-tier system. Furthermore, under this Act, asylum seekers now face the threat of criminal charges and a four-year prison sentence for entering “illegally”. This policy is not only contrary to the spirit and letter of the refugee convention; it is estimated that these misguided measures will cost £2.7 billion.
In trying to justify the provisions of this Act, some have said that the 1951 convention is a Cold War relic with outdated definitions and is not suitable for the challenges we face today. In my view, the principles contained in the convention provide a humane and compassionate framework that should remain the cornerstone of our asylum policy, as was so eloquently stated earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port. It is deeply regrettable that our policy is now based on two guiding principles: deterrence and creating a hostile environment, the consequences of which have been dire. What we need is a refugee protection system that provides safe and legal routes and treats refugees with compassion and humanity. This will be a better deterrence against smugglers than costly and ineffective surveillance at sea.
While there are specific schemes for people from countries such as Ukraine, Hong Kong and Afghanistan, for many others no such routes exist. At present, asylum seekers must be present in the UK before applying for asylum. If no safe route is available, irregular entry is the only option, which the smugglers exploit. Unfortunately, in recent years the Government have severely reduced the number of people coming through global resettlement schemes and have relied on an inconsistent, piecemeal approach and creating a hostile environment. Instead of expanding refugee resettlement programmes and dealing with an asylum backlog that has left more than 100,000 people waiting for over six months, billions of pounds have been wasted on deterrence measures that do not work. Meanwhile, as we have heard, thousands of people are left in limbo, banned from working and living in dreadful, isolated accommodation. A more humane approach would be to open up targeted and limited legal asylum routes, along with a new humanitarian visa for asylum seekers.
The challenges of forced migration are unlikely to abate and are likely to be exacerbated by climate change. It is estimated that by 2050, 200 million people globally each year will require humanitarian assistance due to climate change. This underlines the importance of international co-operation to develop responses which are compassionate, humane and preserve human dignity. Working with the United Nations and other multilateral institutions to find ways of dealing with this should be a priority. Having left the EU, Britain is no longer a party to Dublin III. Apart from with France, to date, no equivalent arrangement has been made either bilaterally or between the EU and the UK. In 2023, the Global Refugee Forum will be held in Geneva. These are opportunities to strengthen international co-operation in order to develop viable international responses that tackle the plight of refugees and asylum seekers.
The current situation is untenable and a blot on our image as a country which has a proud history of welcoming refugees. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar. We are not often afforded the opportunity to look at asylum policy forensically and dispassionately, so I thank the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury for choosing this debate. I also congratulate those who have given their maiden speeches today, and note my registered interests as a trustee of Reset and a principal of RAMP.
I begin by laying out clear principles that come from how ancient Israel was called to treat refugees: to welcome people, to treat them with dignity as fellow humans, to provide support, and to enable self-support and integration. It is no secret that we are not doing the mechanics of “welcome” through asylum processing well. The applications backlog means we are unable to prioritise those in need or humanely return those not recognised as refugees. There were close to 140,000 unanswered applications in the system by the end of September, so men, women and children were left in limbo and unable to rebuild their lives. This is not treating people with dignity. Chronic underinvestment in both people and systems at the Home Office has caused this, but there are workable solutions, such as to recruit more caseworkers and set up a dedicated case clearance unit that effectively triages.
Currently, 35% of the backlog is applications from five countries with grant rates of over 85%, including countries with an acceptance level of 98%. Asylum law identifies safe countries, so there should be no barrier to prioritising those we know have credible asylum claims and urgently need our support. This would involve a cost, but if we were to allow asylum seekers to work after six months of waiting for a decision, enabling them to support themselves, money would be recouped by the Exchequer. And what is the real cost, especially on children, of dealing with past trauma while not knowing that their future is safe?
Current policy does not allow asylum claims outside the UK, except for Ukrainians, Afghans and people from Hong Kong. Last week, the Minister confirmed that, outside the limited schemes available, the Government do not propose to offer any more. Therefore, are we not pushing vulnerable people into perilous journeys if there is no safe way to travel? Under existing safe route schemes, there have been examples of success. The Ukraine scheme has seen us welcome very many. Will the Minister comment on suggestions that this safe route will be closed to new applicants in the near future? Equally, both ARAP and ACRS have seen significant numbers of Afghan arrivals. Will he comment on the difficulties that remain for some hiding for their safety inside Afghanistan or apparently blocked in neighbouring countries?
The Government need to commit to expanding resettlement routes, working with UNHCR and instigating humanitarian visas that people can apply for at embassies. Further, family reunion cannot continue to be neglected. Family reunion numbers have dropped by 36% from pre-pandemic levels, and 90% of those who use this route are women and children. We must seek to maintain and restore family unity wherever possible. Will the Minister affirm the Government’s commitment to family reunion as a safe route and drop the argument that this acts as a pull factor when the evidence is clear that it does not?
Some have called this week for a complete reversal in immigration policy, but I urge the Government to realign the system with the outward-facing values we hold as a nation and our rich history of giving sanctuary to those in need. Of course, we should ascertain whether individuals are in fact true refugees, but this needs to be done in accordance with international agreements and the upholding of human rights. It is simply wrong to abdicate our moral and legal responsibility to consider a person’s claim to asylum on their arrival in this country: here is where they must be dealt with.
I noted earlier that there is much to be proud of in the routes for Afghans, Ukrainians and people from Hong Kong. Through these schemes, we have established good practice. There is therefore now an opportunity to expand community sponsorship and develop a single refugee sponsorship scheme, one that is scalable, flexible and accessible to all refugees, so we do not need to reinvent it every time a new crisis arises. I encourage the Government to see this as an important element of their commitment to safe and legal routes, one which may move us towards an environment of hospitality rather than hostility. Will the Minister agree to meet me and those working to design a proposed single refugee sponsorship scheme, to explore this together?
I have two quick comments before I close. As the lead Bishop for education, I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, about worship in schools. I invite the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, to ask one of us, or others on these Benches, to show him examples of what is happening locally. We can all give him plenty of examples.
When one looks into the faces of those in need and listens to their voices, as the most reverend Primate called on us to do, we learn that what ultimately pushes someone to escape tyranny, while carrying immense grief, is hope. We need an asylum system that provides sanctuary and gives the opportunity for people to rebuild hope. Jeremiah wrote:
“I know the plans I have for you … plans to prosper you and not harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”
It is political maturity and courageous, compassionate leadership, not hostility and defensiveness in policy, that can bring people hope.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, I am always amazed by the simple fact that, when I was born 83 years ago at the beginning of the Second World War, there were 2 billion people in the world and now there are 8 billion—a fourfold increase. That is an explanation of climate change, if you need any other. If you add climate change to bad government, wars and extremism, it is scarcely surprising that forced migration is on the scale that it is and, frankly, likely to get worse.
I have a family member who works for Marie Stopes International, now known as MSI Reproductive Choices. She is working on bringing family planning help to women in developing countries, including in west Africa. I always say to her that no one in the world is giving more practical help than her.
Obviously, the UK will want to make its contribution to helping with this problem. We always help with these international problems and have an outstanding record, but we are a small and heavily populated country. Since the Blair Government opened the floodgates, net migration has been at a very high level. We have been importing a city the size of Newcastle upon Tyne pretty well every year since the beginning of the century. In the last 12 months, it was two such cities, as the net migration figure was over 500,000.
This has had massive consequences for housing and public services, particularly in the poorer parts of our country, as my noble friend Lady Stowell pointed out in a very perceptive speech, which is where immigrants mainly go. The Labour and trade union activist Paul Embery described in his book Despised the catastrophic effect on his hometown of Dagenham. There have been severe environmental consequences. The Times columnist Emma Duncan pointed this out recently in an article with the headline “green space trumps migration”. Then there is the threat to social cohesion, a product in Lancashire that I know very well. All the while, public opinion, which is strongly against mass immigration, has been ignored. If you ignore people’s views in a democracy, you eventually get a raspberry. We got that raspberry in Brexit, which was partly caused by the weaponising of immigration.
How do we square this circle? How do we make a contribution to the international problem yet cope with the serious downsides? My answer is the same as that of my noble friend Lord Lilley. Let us prioritise. I would give maximum priority to those in greatest need: the genuine asylum seekers, the real refugees, properly defined. If you give priority to genuine refugees, that means there is less room for other migrants. I am particularly appalled by the recruitment teams that leave the UK to hire doctors, nurses and care workers for the National Health Service. The countries from which we hire them need them far more than we do. I remember paying a visit as part of a parliamentary delegation to Botswana when the AIDS problem was at its height. I asked how they were dealing with putting out the necessary drugs; they said they did not have enough nurses, as they had all gone to the NHS because they got more money. That is the consequence of our immoral migration policy in that area.
I am an economist. In my view, much the same arguments apply to economic migrants. I remember a Jamaican politician saying to me, “How do you expect us to build a modern society when every year half our graduates disappear to the United States or Europe?” The CBI has said that it wants more immigrants to fill vacancies. This is ridiculous. I started out running a successful medium-sized business. Manpower planning is a major part of the job. You have to think ahead and train. The CBI and the Government should stop moaning and see this as an opportunity. I would readily reduce the number of migrants of this kind, which is far larger, as you could then have an increase in the number of asylum seekers coming to this country and widen the scope for them.
Finally, there is the question of illegal immigration across the channel. The problem here is that those who criticise it never put forward any solution. Simply saying that we should have more legal routes is not a solution because it leaves the traffickers in business, and while they are in business, people will take their chances. I listened carefully to the remarks of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham on this point, and neither of them filled in this hole in their argument, I am sorry to say. We have a new team in place—including my noble friend who sits on the Front Bench, whom I welcome to his place—and in my view its watchwords should be “compassion” and “control”; if the team keeps those two words in mind, it will not go far wrong.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, as we have heard this morning, from Ugandan Asians fleeing Idi Amin to French Huguenots fleeing persecution, Britain has a proud heritage of welcoming those in need to these shores. Tragically, refugee and asylum policy has now become one of our most divided and polarised debates. We urgently need a better and unifying story, a clear narrative about refugee and asylum policy as distinct from illegal migration, and a better and more effective national refugee strategy. I am delighted that it is the most reverend Primate who has called this debate today. It is the Judeo-Christian foundation of this nation that makes it the country that people fleeing war, intolerance and conflict want to come to, with its principles of fairness, safety and dignity.
Of course, there is no question that control and integration are also paramount. The Government have a duty to their own people, and our failure over decades to properly control our borders has fuelled the anxiety which underpins much asylum and refugee discourse. But it is not those in need who are driving this. According to the ONS, small boat crossings accounted for only 3.5% of the total immigration figures in 2022. Let me give a broader example of what is happening: 277,000 non-EU citizens arrived on long-term study visas, 151,000 people arrived for work, 89,000 Ukrainian visa scheme holders arrived, and over 100,000 BNO Hong Kongers arrived. Meanwhile, an estimated 35,000 people arrived by small boats, the majority of whom applied for asylum. If we want to reduce net-migration numbers, asylum claims are the smallest of categories.
Today’s theme is how we balance compassion with control, as my noble friend Lord Horam has just mentioned. My argument is that there will be no constructive way forward until the Government address three public priorities: the control of our borders; control of our asylum system; and controlled safe and legal routes.
I begin with the control of our borders. This matters because narratives about the Calais border are often equated with headline migration numbers and wrongly tied into refugee policy. It also matters because, by putting the numbers in context, it becomes clear that the catastrophising rhetoric about the so-called crisis is overblown. We need clarity in our language. One of the reasons why 56% of those polled say that immigration is too high is that politicians and the media relentlessly use terms such as “illegal migration” and do not distinguish between illegal migration, economic migration and those who have been trafficked or are seeking refuge or asylum. This is disingenuous. When I explain the numbers that I have just shared with the House, people are genuinely stunned and say that they had no idea that the number of people claiming asylum here was so small in comparison with those that we are actually inviting to come here.
If we want to regain control of our borders, diplomacy with our European allies should be our first port of call. I am pleased that the Prime Minister has been seeking to deepen his collaboration with his French counterpart on this matter. It is the most likely way of genuine control being restored.
Although control of our borders needs diplomacy, retaining control of our asylum system is a matter of administrative competence. If application and decision rates stay the same as the last year, by June 2024 the backlog will be over 200,000 cases. The status quo is quite simply not sustainable. We must take immediate action to clear the backlog. I was pleased to see in the Times that the Government are looking to fast-track claims from countries with a high grant rate, as well as those from safe countries where claims are very unlikely to be credible. If this policy were enacted, at a stroke a considerable amount of the burden on the taxpayer would be lifted. We must also improve the processing of cases. While Britain made only 16,400 asylum decisions in the year to September 2022, France made nearly double that number of decisions between July and September alone. We can quite obviously do better with our decision-making.
Much of this, though, will take time. But given that we are in a time of labour shortages, it is a matter of pure common sense that people who are in the backlog should be granted the right to work. In fact, I profoundly agree with the most reverend Primate that they should be not just granted the right to work but expected to work. The arguments for this are fundamentally Conservative, and I made them at some length during the passage of the Nationality and Borders Act, so I will not go into them in depth here. In short, we need their skills, and we do not need to pay for their accommodation or support their incomes—they can do this themselves. Surely this, at the very least, should be addressed.
As I come to conclude, I turn to the final area where we need to develop control in our asylum system: controlled safe and legal routes for genuine asylum seekers. It seems extraordinary that, whether you are a victim of the Yazidi genocide or of state oppression in Eritrea, there is no safe route to come here. I suggest that, if the Minister laid out controlled routes for people from Iran to Eritrea who genuinely need our support, he would find broad support in the House for getting a grip on the border and would significantly depolarise this divisive issue.
We need a British national refugee policy which is grounded in the best of British values, ranging from compassion to control. This is the only viable way forward.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, it really is a privilege and a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, with whom I agree entirely. There have been a lot of references to religion and Christianity this morning—not surprisingly, I suppose, given that the debate is in the name of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. However, I want to point out, for the avoidance of doubt, that I am not a Christian. I am an atheist, and I come to these matters from the concept that what is happening to others could so easily be happening to me—and if I would not want it to happen to me, how dare I allow it to happen to others? I commend and celebrate the work I see being done by those of all faiths and none. I also congratulate the three maiden speakers: the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester; my dear friend from the West Midlands, my noble friend Lord Sahota; and, of course, my noble friend Lady Twycross.
At times of crisis, and when countries and their systems are under increasing pressure, we have even more need to adhere to international standards and agreed human rights obligations, as my noble friends Lady Chakrabarti and Lord Griffiths of Burry Port so eloquently outlined. Indeed, in times of crisis, we need certainty, and we need to abide by principles and standards that I believe define us as a civilised nation. How we treat those most in need defines us long after our actions. Therefore, the demonisation, stereotyping, misrepresentation and defamation of asylum seekers and migrants by the media, politicians and government Ministers is deeply reprehensible, serves no one and does nothing other than fuel hatred, despair and greater isolation.
Only when we deal with the reasons why people flee their country will we ever reduce the need for refuge, and until we can achieve resolution of those issues, we must meet our international—indeed, our moral—obligations.
As we have heard, the UK asylum system is in an utter state of collapse. It is overwhelmed by backlogs which government policy has created. The impact is one of crisis: thousands of people stuck for long and indefinite periods, frequently in inadequate, unsanitary, overcrowded and even unlawful conditions, which cause disease, distress and—there is every indication to conclude—deaths. There are now significantly more people dying in the system, including babies.
The last three Home Secretaries, discounting Grant Shapps, whose term of office lasted less than a week, have made crossing the channel by small boat a focal point. During their respective terms, they have each contributed to the sense that these crossings constitute a national threat. Priti Patel significantly cranked up rhetoric and policy that is hostile to people seeking asylum. The current Home Secretary has continued this, describing people seeking asylum as invaders, and doing so barely 24 hours after a firebomb attack upon people seeking asylum detained in Dover—shameful in the extreme. The express aim of such policy is deterrence, primarily expressed as deterrence of small boat crossings, but the real policy aim is the deterrence of seeking asylum.
We witness a dangerous cocktail of deterrence and the demonisation of asylum seekers. No good has come from this policy and no good can come from it. We need safe, clear, obvious ways to seek asylum; no more confusion, ducking and diving; no more Home Secretaries using asylum seekers and desperate migrants as political capital to shore up their bid for power in the future; and no more dangerous rhetoric, aided and abetted by a right-wing printed media that fills me with shame. We urgently need the creation of real and accessible safe routes by which people—especially those with family and connections here—can seek asylum in the United Kingdom, and we need the Government to respect international human rights and asylum law in the case of every person who exercises their right to seek asylum in this country.
I quote from a briefing from the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium:
“Over recent years, we have seen the government significantly erode the rights of children seeking asylum, not just by making the asylum system less accessible and more punitive but by also excluding them from the child protection and welfare frameworks that should apply to all children in this country regardless of nationality, ethnicity or immigration status.”
If such an appalling indictment does not shame the Government and fill us all with a sense of shame, I wonder what kind of country we have become.
However, I finish on a positive note. A man who experienced the best of British decency when he arrived here under the Kindertransport, my noble friend Lord Dubs, reminded us that we must give hope.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, I am sorry to say that we have two atheists in a row—a bit like No. 73 buses. I greatly like the noble Lord, Lord Cashman—I would call him a friend—but I do not like following him in debate. The fact is that he was trained to hold an audience and I have not been.
I start with this story. On my maiden visit to Albania, some 20 years ago, I was driving into Tirana from the airport when I was struck by the number of high-grade fast cars that were overtaking us all the time. There they were: Maseratis, BMWs, Mercedes, Bentleys and Porsches. I pointed them out to my driver and asked about them. He said, “Well, what are you going to notice about them? Just look at their number-plates.” All of them were still bearing the number-plates and other registration marks that they had borne on the streets of the European capital cities from which they had been stolen. Nobody had thought it necessary to change them. The criminal gangs there were so powerful and established that there was no need to hide that criminality.
The fact is that, as its ambassador told a Commons Select Committee two days ago, Albania is an obviously safe country. It is not riven by civil war. It is not suffering acutely from climate change and all the perils that go with it, such as fire, flood, drought and famine. It is just a lawless, ill-governed country. The point is that, if ever one could say that the great rush of people coming here—the young, fit Albanians coming here are economic migrants; at least they should be if we are to have any credibility at all in terms of controlling our borders—should be instantly removed, it is about them. Of course you treat them with respect and compassion and do not discriminate, but let us look at the problem realistically. Above all, the reason I tell that story is this: they are crossing the channel and putting their lives at risk because they are hoping to improve their lives; how much more can one expect—how much more likely to do so—are those who are genuinely fleeing persecution?
That brings me to the point that my noble friend Lord Carlile made. The policies that this Government adopt to deter people from crossing the channel do not work, cannot work and will not work. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury was right to say that people trafficking must be confronted on an international basis; everything possible must be done. One would have hoped for intelligence-led attacks, given the apparent ease with which boats are still sailing from France and Belgium.
In the meantime, recognising that the policies do not work is surely a compelling reason, as so many noble Lords have argued, to relax the absurd 12-month ban on employment. These people should work. There is no point in this ban; it does not deter them, which is the only reason anybody has ever suggested having it in the first place.
On the outsourcing of our responsibilities, I must say that I take a more nuanced, less censorious view than most of your Lordships—certainly the Spiritual Benches—in this House. It is a difficult point, I think. Even if the Rwandan threat to those arriving from the channel crossings does not deter them, it does not follow that we should not be making arrangements such as those proposed here. I have read—I hope and imagine that the Bishops’ Benches have done so too—the three Oxford professorial papers that have been written about all this, circularised under the aegis of Policy Exchange. It is a much more difficult problem than is said; it is tempting and easy just to stand on one’s moral high horse and say, “It’s obviously wrong: the responsibility is ours and we can’t shift it.” Assuming that the policy is legal—of course, we still await the outcome on that—it seems to me that the argument is much deeper and more difficult than has hitherto been recognised.
The other point made in those papers is that it is all very well saying, “We must have safe routes”, but we are not alone in not having safe routes. They do not have safe routes for the general run of aspiring asylum seekers or economic migrants in Canada or America—indeed, in most other countries—because they would be swamped. The most reverend Primate is plainly right that we need a new refugee convention to meet the acute problems that are, as everybody recognises, going to get ever more acute with climate change. Migration is going to be impelled. We think that we have a problem now, but you ain’t seen nothing yet.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the most reverend Primate for encouraging us to consider the question of asylum from a moral position, but I warn those who made such interesting maiden speeches—I warmly welcome them—that debates in this House are not always so erudite or ethical.
One concern when we discuss this topic is how we are regularly urged to deploy our moral sentiments in feeling compassion for refugees. Is it emotionally manipulative to suggest that policy should be decided by such one-sided emotional concerns? There are millions of people who could have their lives enhanced by living in the UK. When I watch the news and see the plight and suffering of those around the world, I am tearful and want to do something desperately, but, as the most reverend Primate admits, we cannot take all the world’s suffering as refugees here. We have to prioritise, and that does not make us immoral. I therefore feel uncomfortable when some accuse those who raise concerns about the numbers arriving in small boats of lacking a disposition of generosity or not caring. Is not that demonising and dehumanising language too?
Let us not pretend that this is an easy moral question. For all the moral righteousness expressed here, I ask what the moral difference is between a man fleeing a war-torn country, which is considered legal, and a man fleeing grinding poverty, which is not. This highlights a moral problem thrown up by the asylum system: it treats the cause of someone fleeing a country as the basis for creating deserving and undeserving migrants. It implies somehow that a refugee is a victim worthy of our generosity, unlike economic migrants.
I am not sure the fashion for emphasising that Jesus was a refugee helps, if I am honest. It feels like a bit of a cheap shot. Did not Christ allegedly die for us all? This sanctifying narrative and the present system definitely incentivise anyone arriving to follow the script and claim they are refugees, but, as explained so well by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, people arrive without papers or with letters from tyrants as evidence. There is a problem: the system is open to abuse.
If the host authorities say they will give asylum to Syrians, those from the Middle East will inevitably claim to be Syrians. If the rules say asylum will be given to under-18s, young-looking 20-somethings will understandably claim to be younger. In 2016, the Church of England clerics warned about fake conversions from Islam to Christianity. In Nick Timothy’s major report published this week, he notes that modern slavery laws are being “abused”. It is now standard advice, especially for those coming from Albania, to claim they are victims of trafficking.
Noting those truths is not about blame. I do not blame people for trying their luck—they want a better life—so there are no accusations of “scroungers” or “invaders” from me. But it is simply disingenuous to suggest that the objectivity of the law is not being strained when determining asylum status is so difficult. I am especially worried when we gaslight the British public, who feel that some are gaming the system—and they are right to think that. They also believe that, no matter how many times they vote for control of our borders, they are being ignored at the expense of asylum seekers.
When people considered the original 1951 convention on refugees, the spectre of those fleeing the Holocaust death camps informed the spirit of “never again”. Many Jewish refugees were, shamefully, turned away. British citizens understand that, and they understand those fleeing the bombs and terror of Putin’s barbaric war in Ukraine and our obligation to those escaping the Taliban in Afghanistan, and so on. They are more than welcoming, but they are also understandably upset about the 40,000 currently crossing the channel, who they know are not fleeing from the terror of the Nazis or the Taliban, but who are leaving peaceful France.
They are right as well to ask British politicians about their priorities. Did your Lordships see the film of the recent public meeting in Skegness, called by the mayor in response to the local seaside hotels? There was a lot of hostility in that meeting, but it was aimed not at refugees but at the local MP. It was frustration at a system where, without consultation, asylum seekers in their midst were being given free accommodation, utilities and three meals a day, while local people face desperate times and the brutal reality of austerity. Homelessness is on the rise in the town, and the veterans sleeping rough in Skegness also deserves our compassion; the interviews with them were heart-breaking. Of course refugees are not living in five-star hotels, and I am not suggesting that, but can we also empathise with citizens who cannot get to see a GP, get into A&E or get medical treatment for chronic pain when they are told that medical services are being made available to refugees in local hotels?
Dismissing the plight and aspirations of our own citizens, so well-articulated by the noble Baronesses, Lady Stowell and Lady Stroud, is just as divisive and mean-spirited as using the language of invasion. This issue requires that we deploy a full range of moral principles. Our duties stretch beyond compassion for migrants. If we flaunt the democratic duty to uphold the integrity of national borders and treat the social cohesion of settled communities as a distasteful, inconvenient obstacle, we indeed risk a backlash against all refugees and migration schemes, which would be terrible. In my view, we need a complete overhaul of the laws on the issue. At present, who is in control?
In his foreword to the recent pamphlet From the Channel to Rwanda: Three Essays on the Morality of Asylum, Doctor Michael Nazir-Ali, the former Bishop of Rochester, wrote:
“if people smugglers can simply nullify carefully thought-through and debated legislation and policy by landing people in small craft on the beaches in Kent, this cannot indefinitely be acceptable in a democratic and law respecting nation.”
I think Nick Timothy is right that, if human rights laws or the 1951 refugee convention prevent us democratically deciding our priorities, we must be prepared to leave both if necessary. Those who disagree, who think there should be more refugees, should argue for that democratically and push that up the next election’s list of things to be debated.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
The noble Baroness has run out of time.
Lord McInnes of Kilwinning (Con)
My Lords, I begin by declaring my interest as a member of your Lordships’ Justice and Home Affairs Committee. I thank the most reverend Primate who once again brings before us today a subject that allows us to rise above the topicality of daily politics and properly focus on and think about an important policy area.
Six years ago, I made my maiden speech in your Lordships’ House in another of the most reverend Primate’s debates, that time on British values. In his opening remarks he said:
“In short, we need a more beautiful and better common narrative that shapes and inspires us with a common purpose, a vaulting national ambition, not a sense of division and antagonism both domestically and internationally. We need a narrative that speaks to the world of bright hope and not mere optimism, let alone simple self-interest.”—[Official Report, 2/12/16; col. 418.]
In the area of migration, it seems that we have reached a place wherein lots of competing values and aspirations are clashing and failing to provide the necessary framework that can command consensus and that common purpose that the most reverend Primate so eloquently described in that debate.
Only last week we witnessed outrage in many quarters about the number of migrants who have entered the UK this year, forgetting the enormous public support there was, quite rightly, for the Afghan, Ukrainian and Hong Kong humanitarian resettlement schemes. However, with figures of net migration juxtaposed and conflated with images of small boats, it is the case that, as my noble friend Lady Stowell referred to, a poll earlier this week showed that only 9% of people think current immigration in the UK is just right.
All too often the debate seems characterised in a way that consensus and a settled position may never be reached. I have yet to meet anyone—the most reverend Primate referred to this—who does not think there should be controlled migration. Of course government policy should be considered, and will always be challenged in your Lordships’ House, but if the Government can be expected to control migration and thereafter allow more humanitarian channels, they will have to act to defeat the evil of people smuggling. I am glad to say that it is a priority of the Prime Minister.
In this regard, I tend to agree with the Policy Exchange paper, which noble Lords have referred to, on controlled immigration, published last month. We must be realistic that the extra humanitarian routes many of us want will gain popular and then political consent only when the small boats issue and evil gangs have been confronted.
Consensus on migration issues requires leadership. If there are three principal buckets of migration that the UK wishes to fulfil—humanitarian, economic and educational—each must be properly defined and promoted to the people of this country. In each of these areas, a consensus of support can be built. It has been done before. However, it will require significant improvements in the systems deployed to control immigration, as well as assurance that the UK is proactively seeking to improve its humanitarian and asylum offer. Humanitarian needs will only increase. The UNHCR has identified that 1.5 million more people will require asylum or resettlement in the coming year.
Undoubtedly, something that leads to a lack of public consensus is the very slow processing rate of asylum claims by the Home Office, which a number of noble Lords have referred to. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can reassure your Lordships that there will be the kind of human and creative investment in a Home Office system to ensure that asylum claimants are given as quick a decision as possible. The tiny numbers of asylum decisions at present cause only further distress for those escaping horrific tragedy, but mean that others see the UK as a place where a very slow process will allow leave to remain for a long period.
As well as being efficient, such a system must be humanitarian. I believe that the United Kingdom has a proud history of humanitarian action, but almost always at a point where it is just a little too late, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. We must move away from a situation where legal resettlement schemes are reliant on media reports to gain public traction, in turn to ensure political support for legal resettlement. We have one of the best diplomatic networks in the world. Surely we should have proactive resettlement plans that do not require horrific humanitarian circumstances before we allow a regular legal route to the UK.
Yes, we will disagree on the numbers, but the current schemes do not allow an organic ability to react to humanitarian crises from outside of specific countries. Can my noble friend the Minister outline what work His Majesty’s Government are doing with UNHCR to identify regular resettlement routes from areas of the world such as sub-Saharan Africa? Unless we allow such a mechanism, can we be surprised about the large numbers who end up on the north coast of Africa and then onwards to the channel?
With deep regret, I conclude that we currently do not have the clear consensus and values-based migration strategy that we would want, and which would then shape policy. This is the worst of all worlds. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can reassure us that this new Conservative Administration are determined to provide the leadership that the country needs in managing migration, while offering the humanitarian leadership that we all desire.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury on a very powerful speech. He reminded us of our duty to receive, indeed to welcome, refugees. As many noble Lords have remarked, that cannot be challenged. The challenge is to distinguish between those who are genuine refugees and those who are economic migrants, and it is not an easy thing to do. The present situation in the channel is extremely damaging, to the reputation of the Government, to the rule of law, to community relations, and perhaps even to confidence in our political system as a whole.
That said, a major incentive for these arrivals is that they are now very unlikely to be sent home. Most of those whose claims fail will join the illegal population of the UK, which runs to at least 1 million—more, even—and might well include some of their relatives. As a matter of fact, 15% of cross-channel arrivals in 2019 had already made a claim elsewhere, 70% were men aged between 18 and 39, and 98% had no passport. Why? Because they had destroyed it to make their case more difficult to decide. Of course, 100% are coming from a safe country. This really cannot be allowed to continue. We must find a way forward within the framework of ethics that the most reverend Primate mentioned.
Suggestions from the asylum lobby, if I may call it that, that we should establish safe and legal routes may be useful as soundbites but are simply unrealistic. Applications would have to be made in some third country, presumably at an application centre run by the British Government. Surely it is absolutely clear that such a facility would be immediately overwhelmed by applications. Any host Government would immediately see this and that they would be left holding the baby, responsible for the people we had rejected. They just will not go down that route and, of course, none has.
Meanwhile, our Government are in real difficulty. Nearly 60% of the public think they have lost control of our borders—there is something in that—and 84% think they are handling immigration badly. Yet much of the national conversation, including this debate, simply does not reflect the reality of public opinion on this issue. Here I commend the courageous speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, at the outset of this debate, and the later remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Horam.
The fundamental issue is that the authority of our Government is being blatantly undermined. The Government are tied up in knots by the current framework of law, so perhaps it is time that whole framework was re-examined. The 1951 refugee convention is so often referred to and widely applauded, but it is seldom realised that it applies only to events in Europe and only to those that preceded 1951. It was not until 1966 that the UN protocol widened its application to the whole world, without time limit or geographical restriction and with very little public discussion at the time. In the ensuing half-century, conditions have changed enormously throughout the world, as has the legal framework. It is now possible for cases to include the fate of women in some countries and gay people in others, persecution by factions that are not the Government and, in some circumstances, degrading treatment.
At this point it is important to note that both the refugee convention and the UN protocol provide for signatories to withdraw at 12 months’ notice. I therefore suggest that we need to give serious consideration as to whether this legal framework is still appropriate. There may be cries of horror at any such a suggestion, but we must recognise that a continuation of the present chaos will be harmful to those who need asylum. We should therefore consider establishing a mechanism, perhaps a royal commission or something of that kind, to examine all options. My noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, touched on that possibility. The overall aim would be to ensure that the system continues to be supported by the wider public and is not overwhelmed by the huge number of claims, some of which are unlikely to be successful.
To conclude, I say a word of welcome to the wide-ranging report on asylum published this week by the Centre for Policy Studies. In her foreword to that report, the Home Secretary wrote:
“The British public are fair-minded, tolerant, and generous in spirit. But we are fed up with the continued flouting of our laws and immigration rules to game our asylum system.”
Exactly so.
Lord Desai (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is genuinely a pleasure to follow the noble Lord because I have always listened to him and, while I have never agreed with him, he studies the problem thoroughly and I like that. I respect what he said and, in some cases, I want to follow him.
I am not a Christian and not only am I an atheist, it is much worse: I am an economist. The question I want to ask is: who gains from this policy that we have? We are definitely losing. There is no doubt that everybody knows that the UK, as a country, is losing its reputation and losing money, so who gains? It is the gangsters. As an economist, I ask myself: why is there clearly profit to be made from smuggling people here? Because there is a demand for coming to the UK and people are willing to pay a hefty price for what the gangsters charge. Why can we not have that money? Why do we not say this? “Okay, no problems, come to us. We may not accommodate you but we will not throw you out yet, and we will give you a temporary pass, perhaps for one or two years. Give the £2,000 you were going to spend to us, not to the gangsters.”
I say that because it is clear that the legal routes which people use for coming here are so porous that people have figured out how to game the law, so the law is clearly inadequate. We might appoint a royal commission to find out whether we can improve on that law, but the law is certainly not working. I welcome people who want to come here for genuine economic reasons; I think they are the only people who genuinely want to come here. Obviously, they may be pretending to be asylum seekers or refugees, or that they are stateless or being persecuted. The law is such that we have to have hearings to find out whether that is right. Some will obviously have lost their passports because they are not stupid; they know how to game the system.
We are being gamed by people who are perfectly capable of paying money to the crooks to come here, while we ourselves are losing money because we have to spend a lot of it accommodating these people. In some cases, as others have said, it takes months and years. As the right reverend Prelate also said, we do not allow them to work—and we should. Why are we losing money each week by our inefficiency in not being able to solve this problem?
The solution is very simple. They are going to stay here anyway, illegally, so why do we not allow them to stay legally and get the money ourselves? I have always wondered, I am sorry to say, whether there is a kind of perverse reputation to be made in politics. I hope I am wrong about there being a political career to be made by being hostile—by saying, “Oh, these immigrants are illegal and dirty”, and so on. But they are just people who have figured out that staying in the UK is a better bet than staying anywhere else. We should be flattered. We should tell them, “Okay, come here if you want to, but pay a price for that because you’re going to benefit from it and that will cost us something”.
In a sense, as many people have said, we need to rethink the whole question of immigration. First, we ought to clear up our statistics because, while everybody talks about there being so many crossings and so on, the bulk of the people who come here do so legally. They come regularly and there is no problem.
The headlines are about these boat people. We ought to seriously compete with the gangsters and offer a facility. We may set up an office in Calais, Tirana or wherever, and say to people, “There’s no problem, just come”. We will run the boats ourselves and nationalise the gangsters’ business. We should stop being absurd about this; we need some clarity. Without worrying about our reputation with the right-wing press, or whatever it is, we should say, “Who gains from what we do?” We are not controlling our borders; we are just losing money and our reputation. We are being made to look like fools. Stop being foolish; stop losing money; stop losing our reputation. Play the game better than they can.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, the quality and quantity of contributions to this debate show how grateful the House is to the most reverend Primate for choosing this subject and introducing it so inspiringly. I thank him.
I think it was in Sebastian Haffner’s wonderful memoir Defying Hitler that I read the story of the south London Germans—mainly Jewish—who were rounded up in 1939 and taken to the Crystal Palace football ground en route to internment on the Isle of Man. Haffner, being a German, was used to German efficiency. He was surprised when the transport failed to turn up and even more surprised when the speaker politely invited all those sitting on the pitch to go home and come back tomorrow, please. It is a nice story, with the incompetence taking the edge off the cruelty. Alas, it does not seem to work that way now. The incompetence of our asylum system compounds its cruelty.
Just as the 1939 round up of those who particularly wanted to resist Hitler was a bit perverse, so in today’s economic circumstances it is very perverse to spend £1.5 million per day not allowing able-bodied asylum seekers to take a job. The Isle of Man was no Rwanda and the fear of invasion then was well founded, whereas rhetoric about “invasion” now is totally unjustified. We get eight asylum applications per year for every 100,000 of us. The French get more than twice as many and the Germans three times as many—a point rightly made by the most reverend Primate.
The effects of Home Office practice are a stain on our society but, giving the benefit of the doubt, I do not believe that is deliberate. I think it is the unintended consequence of inefficiency. Consider the facts: in the year to September there were 86,000 new applications for asylum, including 5,000 from unaccompanied children. Only 16,000 of those were decided, so the queue of those waiting for an initial decision grew to 143,000. In the year to October, over 3,000 children were housed in unsuitable hotel accommodation. Currently, over 200 of those placed in hotels are known to have gone missing. That is shocking; it shames us.
It gets worse. The Refugee Council, where I used to be a trustee, tells us that of the 140,000 now waiting for their cases to be considered, 98,000 have waited for over six months, 41,000 for between one and three years and an astonishing 10,000—including over 150 children—have been waiting for over five years. That is longer than internment on the Isle of Man. It is shocking and it shames us. Remember, we are not talking about appealing an initial decision. These numbers are just those waiting and hoping that one day the Government will get around to looking at their claim. Remember, too, that 77% of claims are found valid and accepted, as are over 50% of those that go to appeal, so in the main we are not talking about fraudsters and chancers.
More than nine out of 10 of those in the queue will in the end be found to have a valid case, and a genuine and well-founded fear of persecution, having fled oppression, violence, war or famine. I have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, that the reason why they have come here is because they speak our language; they have family here, or they have heard—alas, it seems that it is not always the case—that we are still a friendly and hospitable people. Actually, I believe that we are, but we have been let down by a system that is not deliberately callous. The Home Office knows that the delays have no deterrent effect. The system is callous in effect because of inefficiency. That means that the problem is fixable—and, indeed, it is relatively easy to see what we need to do.
I have two questions for the Minister. First, when will the Government implement the recommendations on asylum casework made over a year ago by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration? Why not streamline the system? Secondly, is not it time to set up a dedicated task force to clear the backlog, prioritising the most vulnerable and those who have waited longest? It really is not rocket science. Given clear ministerial instruction, the admirable Permanent Secretary at the Home Office could reallocate the resources tomorrow. Yes, we should also shut down the scandal of small boat channel crossings, but that is also soluble. People would not risk their lives if they had the option of a safe, official route. At present, unless you are from Ukraine, Afghanistan or a UNHCR camp in Syria, there is no safe route, as the most reverend Primate pointed out.
You can ask for asylum only when you get here, and we will not give you a visa to come here if it is asylum you seek—Catch 22. Why not have a humanitarian visa? Why not process applications in France, as the French keep suggesting? Getting back to our values means tackling the backlog. I repeat that I believe that it springs from inertia and not malign intent, but sins of omission are sometimes the worst. These problems are all soluble, so let us solve them and, as so many in this debate have said, while people wait in the queue, let us allow them to work. It would be good for them, for the Exchequer, for the economy and for our consciences.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the most reverend Primate for this debate, which follows neatly from last year’s debate, which was on freedom of speech. We had a terrible period in the last decade of repression of free speech on this issue. You could not talk about immigration or asylum, as it was synonymous with being racist. For the overwhelming majority, of course, it was not—it was more to do with pressure on school places, GP appointments pre pandemic, housing and depressed wages affecting ordinary working folk at that time, who are and were then affected much more so by these issues than the middle classes. I wholeheartedly welcome the recognition of this by the most reverend Primate, which is a change of position in the leadership of the Church of England. Sadly, in the run-up to the 2016 referendum, it did not champion those communities, barring of course some comments from the Bishop of Burnley.
I count myself in the only-blessed-by-migration category. I glanced at my Christmas gift spreadsheet, which includes British Nigerians, British Trinidadians, British Singapore Chinese and Hong Kong Chinese, British Eritreans and Syrians. The latter two families have educated me on the issues of asylum, and I am very grateful—but I hope briefly just to make some ordinary people points. It is unclear to the ordinary person, why thousands of Albanians are claiming asylum in the UK. Despite the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, what are they fleeing? It may just be a communication issue, but it needs addressing, as do the fears that the landmark modern slavery legislation is being misused.
As His Majesty’s loyal Opposition have, as of yesterday, joined His Majesty’s Government in saying that we should fast-track claims where a claim is manifestly unfounded, could my noble friend the Minister please confirm that the only matter therefore left in dispute is whether you can designate a whole country for such consideration and still comply with the 1951 convention? I hope that the most reverend Primate is right that we can introduce something akin to striking out a claim, as happens in the civil courts when there is no reasonable prospect of a claim, but I would be interested to know whether the most reverend Primate and my noble friend have any view on what appeal rights would or would not be appropriate. Laudable aims could be strangled by necessary judicial procedures.
As a lawyer, I enjoyed reading the UNHCR document Legal considerations regarding claims for international protection made in the context of the adverse effects of climate change and disasters. It is hard to understand why, if your territory disappears—literally as could happen to the Maldives or the Pacific island states—you are not automatically a refugee. Then there are convoluted arguments like this one: you are a victim of a flood caused by climate change, but you are also part of a religious group that was not given aid by your Government, so you had to flee your borders and you needed refuge. Arguments such as this will take up valuable time and money when these kinds of claims reach our tribunals. Is it not time for a separate convention, in addition to the refugee convention, on the issue of refugees due to climate change, rather than straining the interpretation of the 1951 treaty? I am interested in my noble friend the Minister’s view on this, but I also caution the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, and the most reverend Primate on reopening the treaty itself, unless there is a guarantee of the same post-Second World War consensus on this, which I very much doubt.
To turn to Ukraine, we are rightly proud of our response to this crisis. I think there are over 125,000 people here, but they are not refugees—it is that fudged legal distinction again, as with Hong Kong migration. Under the Ukraine family scheme there was a very broad definition of family members who could join you if you were already in the UK: a niece, nephew, cousin, mother-in-law, father-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, and even a grandparent-in-law.
On this issue, I would like my noble friend’s assurance that the Home Office is proactive and meets with the FCDO about areas of geographical instability. I think I am correct in saying that, mercifully, there have been only sporadic conflicts in nations where British citizens have heritage, such as the recent conflict in Ethiopia and Eritrea. But that might change in February of next year. We all hope and pray—I am sure the most reverend Primate is praying—for successful Nigerian elections and that the nation holds together, but there are serious concerns. The Yoruba tribe in the west has already petitioned the United Nations to supervise a referendum to split, and it is said that the Igbo of the 1960s Biafran separatist war look to do the same. Rarely are such matters settled peacefully. This is a nation of—in conservative estimates—250 million people, many with family in the UK. Those British citizens with Nigerian heritage might rightly expect the same generous definition of family ties under the Ukrainian scheme to apply to Nigeria. Can my noble friend assure me that the Home Office is considering policy for this kind of eventuality, and is thinking through all the eventualities to ensure that our policy—should the worst happen—is racially just?
Finally, on reading many reports for this debate, I am concerned that we are repeating the mistakes of the past—I note the comments made by my noble friend Lady Stowell. While residents in the UK, especially ordinary working people, are not fleeing for their lives, they are deeply affected by these issues—more than most of us here in your Lordships’ House. If we forget ordinary working folk again, I fear that we will not build a home together, as the late Lord Sacks so wisely advised us to do, and we may not have a referendum on the issue as a necessary release valve.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, the end is nigh—not for all refugees, but possibly for lunch. I start with the unfortunate remarks of the senior lady-in-waiting last week. She asked a visitor, “Who are you and where are you from?” Perhaps the questions were not entirely innocent. We all have a tendency to inquire about other people as a sort of defence against the unknown, but the other person may read the defence as a form of attack or even racism. It is not racism, it is ignorance and fear. It can happen to any of us, we just have to try hard to get to know each other; our upbringing and training surely demand it.
The Church, as the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, said, refers to this as: “Who is my neighbour?” It is a perennial question. The answer, of course, is everyone, including those tens of millions of migrants and asylum seekers who at times seem to be coming towards us. We have a reputation for welcoming refugees, as we have seen, and recently we have gratefully received compliments from refugees about this country. There are many reasons why people want to come. Albanians seem to be the most self-assured—even though they might not have those smart number plates any more—but they have no real reason to leave Albania except that they can earn so much more in the UK. Can we blame them? This is why I am very tempted by the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Desai.
The numbers have recently felt overwhelming; we must accept that. We need to congratulate the Government on some of the resettlement schemes, which have at least secured more orderly arrivals. The UNHCR’s Syria scheme has had some success, if only after much pressing from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and others in the House. The Ukrainian scheme is not really equivalent, but it has undoubtedly worked well until now. However, the scale of the Afghan exodus last year took everyone—and certainly the Government—by surprise. No one could say that was a satisfactory operation, but there were some remarkable rescue stories, including the evacuation of women judges by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. Today, there are many women in hiding from the Taliban who would or should qualify for resettlement. May I ask the Minister what is happening to these resettlement schemes? Why are they falling short?
At the other end of the scale, there are the many asylum seekers outside these schemes, especially those living on charity or detained indefinitely, awaiting removal. In many cases, these are people from war-torn countries such as Sudan and Somalia which are on the margin of the convention, fleeing drought and poverty as well as persecution. They struggle to claim asylum, having few documents—not always for the reasons just given—and little evidence of their past life and treatment.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, described the amazing work of the charities which toil to make people’s lives more tolerable. Church members, lawyers, experts in torture, NGOs and campaigners of every kind condemn the treatment meted out to these refugees. The waiting lists for the courts are lengthening just as they are in hospitals.
Almost one-fifth of those claiming asylum are children under 18, including many who are wrongly treated as adults. The noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and others mentioned this. The Helen Bamber Foundation, a very respected body, is concerned that too many young children are kept for long periods in hotels without proper care.
Every Peer has admitted that the Home Office sometimes appears to be seizing up, unable to cope with the numbers and lacking the necessary skills. Under successive Governments, it has been called a shambles. This is a national crisis; is it not time for more co-operation between the political parties? I am also concerned that funding is being diverted from the aid programme, but that is another subject.
I hope the Minister will respond to the practical suggestions that the UNHCR put forward last February to improve registration and screening and avoid where possible the unpleasant side of forced removal and inadequate protection. Why are the Government not making more use of schemes which are still behind pre-pandemic levels?
Is the answer to deter or restrict refugees? Possibly, but that has not worked either. We have talked about
“real and accessible safe routes”,
but I do not think even Amnesty is right about that. What are the alternatives? Can the Minister present some? There are some utterly wicked traffickers, as we have heard.
Returning to the Church, I sincerely thank the most reverend Primate for inviting us to hear his very cogent pre-Christmas reflections. We have also heard three splendid maiden speeches and the personal experiences of some Peers. I especially commend, in her absence, the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, who talked very movingly about the Yazidis.
The most reverend Primate may think, as I do, that Anglicans could further improve our rather dismal attitude to strangers. “Diversity” is now the cover word, but I will not go into all that. The Church could do more to include other religions in Prayers, for example. We need to do more work on our church services. Some of us are still singing old lines such as
“Lands of the East, arise,
he is your brightest morn”,
or, worse than that,
“O’er heathen lands afar
thick darkness broodeth yet”—
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
Could the noble Earl bring his comments to a close? He has exceeded the speaking time.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Whips of both parties for allowing me to speak in the gap. I thank the most reverend Primate for opening this debate and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, and the noble Lord, Lord Sahota, on their maiden speeches. I must apologise to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester for missing his maiden speech. The irony, which I am sure is not lost on him, was that I popped out because it was time to pray. I also thank my noble friend Lady Berridge for mentioning the Bishop of Burnley. He and I were best friends at school; when we were in detention 40-odd years ago, little did we think that one of us would end up a bishop in the Church of England and the other a Member of the House of Lords—not a great incentive for schoolchildren to behave well.
As an academic and a former head of research at a think tank, how would I write about this issue? There are lots of challenges. As the son of an immigrant who came on two big boats—one from Guyana to Trinidad and one from Trinidad to the UK—in the early 1950s, my heart says that we should let everyone in and open up to the whole world. However, my head says that we cannot. The difficulty is, where do we draw the line? This has troubled me for some time. We all draw that line very differently, and it has been a struggle to try to decide where we should draw it.
We have to look at two issues: those seeking asylum and those seeking to immigrate here. On asylum, of course we have to open our hearts to people suffering terribly in the rest of the world, but we also have to ask questions. How do we differentiate the genuine asylum seekers and process them as quickly as possible to get them into British society to contribute in a positive way? How do we make sure that we have tough love for those who fail and send them away in the most humanitarian and appropriate way possible, despite people perhaps campaigning for them to stay? We also have to think about the causes of people wanting to come to this country. We have to ask whether we have a moral responsibility to bear from some of our foreign adventures that have led to refugees from some of these countries, even if we cannot let them all in. How do we speed up processing—I thank my noble friend the Minister for answering my Written Questions on the Government’s plans for this; I hope he will share some of those thoughts—and make sure that we return people as quickly as possible?
On the other part of immigration—those who want to come and make a better life in this country, as my parents did—I am pleased that we now seem to have a fairer system after leaving the EU. We no longer give priority to mostly white Europeans over mostly non-white non-Europeans, and we treat everyone equally. But can we have a dynamic points system whereby we identify skills gaps in this country, are clear and transparent with people about the skills we are looking for, and encourage them to come? Could we use technology, for example AI, to scan vacancy boards and give those vacancies higher points so that people can come here?
I also agree that we should look at legal routes of migration outside this country, but what are the unintended consequences of that? Can we change our language so that we are welcoming and understand why people come, and not treat everyone as invaders? Can we work internationally, find those clear rules and have a dynamic points system? Can we have a system of compassion and be clear that we will welcome those who want to come and work here, where we have those gaps, and help those who are genuinely fleeing as much as we can, in conjunction with international partners and organisations and civil society? Let us hope that this and future Governments can come up with a more compassionate policy that most of us can share in.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, this has been an excellent, very important and timely debate on the eve of Human Rights Day, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, pointed out. These Benches very much welcome this vital opportunity to reflect upon the impact of government asylum policy. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury is to be greatly congratulated on instigating the debate, and the number of speakers shows the volume of interest in this topic and is a tribute to him.
The most reverend Primate said, among many other things, that a compassionate asylum system
“does not mean open borders, but a disposition of generosity and a readiness to welcome those whose need is genuine and where we are able to meet that need”,
and that it
“has confidence to reject the shrill narratives that all who come to us for help should be treated as liars, scroungers or less than fully human.”
I agree very strongly with those words—and indeed his whole speech—and with his view and that of the Bishops collectively that the Government’s policy of shipping asylum seekers to Rwanda is “an immoral policy” that “shames Britain”.
The only thing I am not persuaded about, rather like the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, is the wisdom of opening up the refugee convention for amendment. Even if I accept the point about new causes such as climate change, I fear that revising the convention could be a Pandora’s box and invite backsliding; the words of the noble Lord, Lord Green, put me on notice about that. I would also comment that trafficking is already an international crime under EU law, but the UK Government refused to take part in that directive—though, confusingly, I noticed that they revoked it recently anyway.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, the noble Lord, Lord Sahota, and the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, have all made important and valuable maiden speeches. The noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, rightly praised the community response to Afghan refugees, as well as recalling her own family’s diverse origins. I can relate to her fate of being too opinionated for the Civil Service—I lasted only 15 months, for the same reason. The noble Lord, Lord Sahota, recalled the impressive history of his family in both India and the UK, and
“the slings and arrows of racial discrimination”.
He deplored the limbo and exploitation into which asylum seekers sink, and the cost of this to society and the public purse as well as to individuals. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester recalled how Leicester has thrived as a city of migration, as well as speaking of his own history. We are all, he says, pilgrims in a foreign land. My own mother was born in Dublin, which makes me a dual national, so I have a tinge of that.
The contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, on refugee issues is second to none. I congratulate him on his 90th birthday. He looks embarrassed at that, but he is a splendid colleague on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, though we are both about to be chucked off—by rotation only, I should add. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, talked of the terrible plight of the Yazidis. Going back to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, he said that our asylum policy tested who we are as a country, which I so agree with, and he recalled, of course, the Kindertransport. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, spoke of the Huguenots.
However, government policy and the language around it seems to junk this heritage, displaying a growing politicisation playing to populist nationalism, a shirking of our share of global responsibility, and an utter failure to uphold international human rights and refugee law and set an example of international leadership and partnership, including through co-operation with our European neighbours. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, spoke on those themes. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee noted, I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, and others have conflated economic migration—which the Government have full control over but have allowed to increase—and flows of refugees.
The Government’s policy is one not of shelter but of deterrence, which the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 has entrenched in several ways that violate international human rights and asylum law. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, the incompetence compounds the cruelty. These measures punish and penalise people for seeking asylum by the only means that is available to them: usually a dangerous journey controlled by dangerous organised criminals. The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, told us that only 13% of asylum seekers who go missing are ever found.
But all of this has not prevented the escalation in the rhetoric of the Home Secretary and her Immigration Minister, Robert Jenrick, who throw around terms like “threat”, “invasion” and “illegal” about largely vulnerable and frightened people seeking asylum. As others have said, the Home Secretary called them “invaders” barely 24 hours after a firebomb attack upon people seeking asylum detained at the Western Jet Foil site in Dover. I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, on the need to change the language used around this issue.
This debate takes place days after the Home Secretary welcomed and apparently endorsed as “vital and necessary” a collection of proposals, including pulling out of the European Convention on Human Rights and the refugee convention and proposing indefinite detention for arrivals, put forward in a report for the Centre for Policy Studies by Nick Timothy, a former adviser to Theresa May. These reckless proposals elicited a public denunciation from UNHCR, saying that they were based on
“critical factual and legal errors”.
UNCHR pointed out, again, that
“there is no such thing as an ‘illegal asylum-seeker’.”
The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, also made this point.
A far better report than Nick Timothy’s came in October from the Oxford Refugee Studies Centre, the Refugee Council, the NGO Unbound and the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, of the Legatum Institute, whose excellent speech I was delighted to listen to today. Of course, she did so much in the debates on the Nationality and Borders Bill to advocate for the right of asylum seekers to work, which is a win-win policy on every level, including self-respect, self-support and fairness to taxpayers. I think this is the answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, who talked about people complaining about generosity to asylum seekers—they are not allowed to support themselves and give back. Such a policy would also help to address our acute shortage of labour, as well as providing one of the keys to successful integration—but the Government stubbornly refuse it and no doubt will again today. I very much look forward to the report of the commission chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, on integration.
The contrast between the two reports I have mentioned could not be greater: one is rooted in fear and dislike, the other on hope and opportunity. The second report, in which the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, played a role, says:
“Refugee policy should be a strategic priority for the United Kingdom … it can and should be a source of national unity as it has in the past for Conservative and Labour-led governments”.
I am pleased to see that the Bill of Rights Bill—also known as the rights removal Bill—which seeks to destroy the Human Rights Act, has been “deprioritised” by the Prime Minister. But my pleasure is tempered by the fact that the apparent reason is to make more space for a Bill to overhaul the “broken” asylum system and combat the so-called channel boats crisis.
But the asylum system, which my noble friend Lady Hamwee called “exclusionary and unworkable”, is only broken because successive Conservative Home Secretaries have failed to get to grips with what ought to be a manageable administrative task of establishing, through a fair and efficient determination of claims, whether people are refugees, and sending back those who are not. We received 70,000 asylum applications in the year to September 2022—that is a fair number, but it is far fewer than France or Germany, and it should not overwhelm the Home Office.
Other noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Roberts and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, cited the backlog figures, so I do not need to repeat this sorry tale—but I note the dire effect that this has on physical and mental health. As the most reverend Primate said,
“Control has become cruelty. Staggering inefficiencies by successive Governments trap people in limbo … at incredible expense … in the system for years, unable to build a life or to contribute to our society.”
This is the worst of all possible worlds and such a waste.
However, rather than prioritising the clearing of that backlog, the complications, differential treatment and inadmissibility rules in the Nationality and Borders Act are likely to add further delays. What assessment has the Home Office made of the impact of the inadmissibility rules, which provide a new sort of red tape, on the prospect of reducing the backlog? As the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York said, we have a dysfunctional asylum system that threatens our social cohesion.
I have a particular interest in family reunion because I steered the latest version of that Private Member’s Bill through the House recently, taking up the baton from my noble friend Lady Hamwee. The rules are far too restrictive; for instance, they do not allow even unmarried daughters who are 19 or in their early 20s from somewhere like Afghanistan to join their parents, siblings to be reunited or, in particular, children to sponsor family members, so those children have to remain alone, lonely and vulnerable. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham referred to this.
Child refugees are getting a raw deal all round, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, described. The Home Office placed nearly 3,300 children in hotels in the year to October 2022, with no lawful basis and outside the child welfare and protection systems of local authorities, meaning that opportunities to protect children from trafficking have been missed. Will the Minister set out the department’s plan to end the use of hotels, particularly for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children? As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford highlighted, housing is an important feature of integration. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, noted the scandal of money being diverted from the aid budget to the Home Office.
The results of the Government’s failed deterrence policy have been disastrous for all parties except organised criminals, as the noble Lord, Lord Desai, pointed out. Smugglers, traffickers and other abusers are thriving because Governments, including, sadly, our present one, refuse or fail to take up their responsibilities to provide fair and efficient asylum systems. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that an efficient system would, inter alia, identify and remove those who did not qualify. Expanding safe, regular and accessible pathways for refugees to travel to the UK—including through expanded family reunion and humanitarian visas, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, stressed; processing on French soil, probably, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said; and greater resettlement, as the noble Lord, Lord McInnes, spoke of—would offer real alternatives to dangerous, irregular journeys.
The debate today has provided numerous ideas for the Government to improve our asylum system, instead of it being stuck in the disastrous state in which it currently resides.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. I thank the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury for initiating what has been a remarkable and memorable debate. For his information, I tell him that I emailed his speech to my wife, who is currently on a train to Scotland. She has just read it and she thought it was a magnificent speech.
I also congratulate my noble friends Lady Twycross and Lord Sahota. I wrote down that my noble friend Lady Twycross said she had six former bosses in this House. I also note that because of her role in the GLA, where she is really used to being in the eye of the storm, she seems exceptionally well qualified to be a Member of this House. I also wrote down a comment from my noble friend Lord Sahota, who said that he wants the best deal in the market for our fellow human beings. I thought that was the theme for his whole speech, and I welcome him to our House. Of course I also welcome the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, who gave a moving speech about the situation in Leicester and how Leicester has benefited from migrating communities.
It is common to hear, and we have heard it in today’s debate, the proud history of our country in welcoming those in need of safety. We have seen in recent years the generosity of the British people in response to the invasion of Ukraine.
We must always be aware of what we are talking about when we are talking about asylum: we are talking about people fleeing horrors and situations we cannot imagine and making decisions we hope never to have to make for our own families. We in the Opposition need to be careful in our rhetoric and need the Government to be honest and careful in their language too. We must not conflate the economic migration of those travelling without a well-founded fear of persecution with those who are travelling to the UK to flee torture, war and persecution. These people are asking the UK to provide a place of safety. That was the central point of the intervention of the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar. We need responsible and consistent policy-making.
The principles of the UNHCR were referred to a number of times in the debate. They are: strengthening and expediting the decision-making process; ensuring that those without well-founded claims are returned to their own countries; stepping up co-operation with European neighbours; and expanding safe, regular pathways for refugees to travel to the UK that offer real alternatives to dangerous and irregular journeys. The most reverend Primate added to this by introducing a form of triaging system to try to expedite that process. Unfortunately, that is not what we have seen from recent Home Secretaries of the party opposite.
I turn briefly to the issues we have seen under this Government. They have spent £140 million on Rwanda. As my noble friend Lord Browne said, this is just a symbolically tough policy; it has been completely ineffective. We have also not seen a commitment from Ministers on who will not be considered for a flight to Rwanda. We have repeatedly asked whether they will commit not to send people from Ukraine to Rwanda. There is no commitment that, for example, girls and women who have fled here from Iran will not be sent to Rwanda either.
We have a backlog. A number of noble Lords referred to the figures; in November 2022, about 150,000 people were still waiting for an initial decision, with nearly 100,000 waiting over six months. The Refugee Council offered a stark comparison to 10 years ago, when only about 13,000 people were waiting. It must be recognised that the backlog has increased more dramatically than the number of claims and, as mentioned by the most reverend Primate, in some cases by 305% over the last five years. These figures are from the Institute for Government. This is an operational failure at the root of many of the problems that the system faces today.
Of those who travelled by small boat in 2021, only 4% of claims had been processed as of November. The Nationality and Borders Act, far from addressing these problems, baked them in with: first, an inadmissibility clause, which added six months’ delay to cases, but did not deliver safe-return agreements with our closest neighbours; secondly, differentiation policies, which will require some asylum seekers to have their claims repeatedly reassessed, even when they been found to have a well-founded reason to seek asylum; and, thirdly, restrictions on access to family reunion routes, which will push more people into taking extremely dangerous journeys to try to reach their loved ones.
We have seen the scale of safeguarding problems in Manston. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and others about children who have gone missing under the care of the Government and of various local authorities. Can the Minister say something about what action is being taken to try to increase safeguarding for children in this extremely difficult situation?
What will actually make a difference? First, we must speed up asylum decisions so that people are not left in limbo, and so we do not have the spiralling costs of hotels and overcrowding in our reception systems. Secondly, there must be safe routes, including access to family reunion. I have been following what the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady Hamwee, have done on that matter. Thirdly, international co-operation is the heart of any solution to the problem. Finally, we must tackle criminal gangs, whose members are the ones acting illegally by taking advantage of people in desperate situations and making profits from misery. However, I did not agree with the solution to that problem which my former noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Desai, proposed.
It needs to be said that the Labour Party would set up a new dedicated cell in the National Crime Agency to work cross-border to crack down on the criminal gangs, and would seek new arrangements with France, Belgium and other European countries on returns and family reunion. The Labour Party would also fast-track returns to designated safe countries, such as Albania, as other noble Lords have noted. We believe that safe routes are a genuinely powerful alternative to stop people being pushed into the hands of people smugglers, and we think that the Government should look at that route and open their minds to that possibility of reducing the current state of the crisis.
I acknowledge that this is a complex, emotive and fast-changing issue. The Government need to build on the history of receiving people in very difficult circumstances; we have heard many emotive and powerful examples of that over the years. In conclusion, I say to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury that I live in Wandsworth, in south-west London, where we also welcomed many Huguenots. In fact, the coat of arms of Wandsworth Borough Council features the tears of the Huguenots who came to our borough; they are recognised in many parts of the borough, so that is a source of pride for my part of London.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)
I thank the most reverend Primate for leading the debate and initiating a constructive dialogue on the important topic. I also thank noble Lords from all sides of the House for their insightful contributions.
I especially welcome our three new Members and thank them for their opening contributions. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester is currently spearheading the Shaped By God Together process within the Leicester diocese, helping each parish to live out better their everyday faith in their communities. The noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, has been a notable force for change in the health sector, through her work with Diabetes UK and Action Against Food Poverty, including calling for London to become a zero-hunger city. I also agree with her point on the great work of the London Fire Brigade and refer her to the debate we had yesterday concerning the culture of the fire service, to which many noble Lords who have spoken today contributed. Over the past two decades, the noble Lord, Lord Sahota, has been tireless in serving the Telford community, while also finding time to run a business with his family. He is the only Sikh on the Benches in this House. I know that our debates here will be richer with the noble Lord, Lord Sahota, the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
My apologies; he is the only Sikh on the Labour Benches.
I also share the sentiment of both the noble Lord, Lord Sahota, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester in hoping that their elevation will be an omen for the success of the English football team on Saturday.
I will make one further point, as a fairly recent entrant to the House myself. The three new Members will have noticed that there is a tendency in the House for noble Lords to make speeches in Question Time when they should be asking questions, and for them to ask questions in debates when they should be making speeches. So I ask for the House’s indulgence, as I will not be able to answer all the questions that noble Lords have asked me today, but I will endeavour to answer as many as possible. I am sure that those I do not answer will be converted into Written Questions in due course.
I also thank my noble friend Lady Nicholson for her heart-rending history of the Yazidi position, and welcome her special guest to the House today.
It is no secret that the UK’s asylum system has, of late, come under severe strain. This year, we have seen around 40,000 people arriving by small boats. Around 100,500 individuals are currently on asylum support. The cost of accommodating asylum seekers in hotels has reached more than £5 million a day. Clearly, something has got to change.
The Government have been clear on their priorities; namely, first, tackling small boat irregular arrivals by encouraging claims to be made in the first safe country and deterring unnecessary, dangerous journeys to the UK; secondly, alleviating pressures on accommodation, including by tackling lengthy stays in processing centres, while of course taking the safety and welfare of those in our care extremely seriously; thirdly, delivering our migration and economic development partnership with Rwanda; and, finally, providing safe and legal routes for people in need of protection and combating the asylum application backlogs. In doing that, we will seek to streamline the asylum decision-making process.
On safe and legal routes, while we are clearly grappling with significant challenges, the UK has maintained our long and proud record of welcoming refugees and people in need of protection through various resettlement schemes. Under the 1951 convention, people should claim asylum in the first safe country which they reach—that is the fastest route to safety. While we know that many people are in difficult situations around the world, the UK cannot possibly accommodate everyone who might wish to come here, as the most reverend Primate identified.
We have adopted a proactive stance in responding to world events. In the wake of Russia’s appalling aggression, we introduced the Ukraine Family Scheme and the Homes for Ukraine scheme. Since January 2022, those schemes have received a total of 220,225 applications, of which 85.8%—that is, 189,131—were granted. I thank the noble Earl for commending the efforts of the department in relation to those schemes.
We continue to welcome people through the existing global UK resettlement scheme, community sponsorship, mandate resettlement scheme and the Afghan resettlement schemes. The Government’s refugee resettlement schemes are focused on those with the greatest need as determined by the UN Refugee Agency. The UNHCR has well-established procedures and submission categories for identifying and resettling the most vulnerable refugees. The UK’s refugee resettlement schemes aim to do exactly what my noble friend Lord Horam has pointed out: to bring those to the UK who are considered refugees as per the UNHCR’s criteria.
Since its expansion in September 2015, a total of 20,103 people have been resettled in the UK through the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme, or VPRS, across more than 300 local authorities. Alongside the VPRS, we ran the gateway protection programme, which has resettled more than 9,939 people. The VPRS closed in February 2021 and is succeeded by the global United Kingdom resettlement scheme, which has since its creation settled some 1,882 people. We have also resettled more than 800 through the community sponsorship scheme since it began in 2016.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked what the actual number of Afghans assisted is. The Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, or ACRS, was formally opened in January of this year, with pathways 2 and 3 launched in June. This will provide support for up to 20,000 people affected by events in Afghanistan. This is in addition to those coming under the Afghanistan relocation and assistance package. Operation Pitting was the largest UK military evacuation since the Second World War and saw around 15,000 individuals evacuated to the UK, some of whom were the first to be settled under the ACRS.
In the year following the evacuation, around 6,000 people had arrived in the UK via neighbouring countries under a combination of ARAP and the ACRS pathway 1. The number of vulnerable and at-risk individuals granted leave under pathway 1 now stands at over 6,300. Therefore, to say we have not welcomed anyone through the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme and the Afghan relocation and assistance policy is simply not true.
In addition to these routes, the Government provide a safe and legal route to bring families together through their family reunion policy. This allows a partner or spouse and dependent children to join their refugee family members in the UK if they formed part of the family unit before the sponsor fled their country.
On asylum decision-making, which has been a topic of many speeches in your Lordships’ House, we agree with the point that many have made today that it is unacceptable that there are so many outstanding claims awaiting a decision. The asylum system has been under mounting pressure for several years. Increased and sustained intake and a growing number of people awaiting a decision have led to significant delays in concluding asylum claims. Current efforts are focused on deciding older claims, high-harm cases, and cases with extreme vulnerability such as mental health, child cases, new claims and those in receipt of support since the Nationality and Borders Act came into force on 28 June of this year.
I thank my noble friend Lord Horam for his insightful comments about the impact of excessive immigration on communities. Prioritisation is the answer. We cannot favour those who can afford to pay the people smugglers over other asylum seekers. I also thank the most reverend Primate for his suggestion of triaging asylum claims and removing those who are not going to be granted asylum immediately in order to speed up decision-making, an idea also canvassed by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew. In practice, however, while we endeavour to remove individuals as quickly as possible, delays to removal occur due to legal barriers such as fresh claims, further representations, modern slavery claims and judicial reviews, all of which must be considered before removal.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
Before the Minister leaves consideration of how to improve the working of the system, can he tell us what has happened to the recommendations from the reviewer in the independent review of 13 months ago?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Those considerations are being studied in the department and will feed into future policy on this issue.
Where an individual’s claim is unsuccessful, they would need to be removed to their country of citizenship or another destination where they would be accepted.
It was apparent that there was a tension between the suggestion of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York and the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury on whether we should extend our Ukrainian policies to all nationalities. As the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury rightly noted, it is of course not immoral to have a limit or restrictions on immigration. While we sympathise with the many individuals who are in difficult situations around the world, the United Kingdom simply cannot help everyone who may like to come to this country.
We have introduced the asylum transformation programme, which aims to bring the system back into balance and to modernise it. It focuses on increasing productivity by streamlining, simplifying and digitising processes to speed up asylum decision-making and increase efficiency and output. Since the programme was established in the summer of 2021, a number of positive steps have been taken. More decision-makers have been recruited, alongside steps to keep experienced staff in post.
We have also tested a range of initiatives aimed at reducing the time it takes to interview and decide asylum claims. Changes in recent trials have doubled the number of decisions made per week; we are looking to roll these initiatives out nationwide as a result. This is undoubtedly a significant task, but I assure the House that efforts to address the backlog and alleviate the current pressures will continue in earnest. I hope this assures my noble friend Lord McInnes that the changes we are making will fix the issues with the asylum decision-making process.
Many of those arriving in the UK claim to be children and do not have clear evidence, such as a passport, to back this up. Decision-making is very challenging, and the current process is very subjective and can be disputed in long and expensive legal proceedings. The United Kingdom typically receives more than 3,000 asylum claims from alleged unaccompanied asylum-seeking children per year. Many of those arriving in the UK who claim to be children do not have evidence. Between 2016 and September 2022 there were 7,357 asylum cases in which age was disputed. In the subsequent resolution, some half—3,696 individuals—were in fact found to be adults. If there is doubt whether a claimant is an adult or a child, they are referred to a local authority social services department for a careful, case law-compliant age assessment. They will be treated as a child until a decision on their age is made. I do not need to remind noble Lords that one of the consequences of an adult being treated as a child is that this has the potential to expose those in local authority care to risk.
Beyond our domestic reforms, we are working closely with our international partners to deter small boat arrivals and put an end to the practices of people smuggling and clandestine travel into the United Kingdom. I entirely agree with the comments from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, who pointed out the nonsensical position that Albanians can prioritise themselves by crossing the channel in a small boat and, on that basis, effectively jump the queue. It is incumbent on us to prevent that sort of self-selection and queue jumping. The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and others overlook the basic fact that not all those who claim to be refugees are actually refugees. It is not immoral to point this out. As my noble friend Lord Robathan stated, we must be sensible and not naive about this.
While legal challenges are ongoing, we remain committed to delivering the migration and economic development partnership between the United Kingdom and Rwanda to address the shared international challenge of illegal migration and break the business model of the people-smuggling gangs. This policy does not subcontract or outsource our responsibilities to Rwanda. Instead, the United Kingdom and Rwanda working together will help make the immigration system fairer and ensure that people are safe to enjoy the new opportunities to develop. It is by reforming the asylum system and taking bold international action to address the global migration crisis that we can keep providing protection for those who need it through safe and legal routes.
I would like to respond to the assertions of the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, on our assessment that found Rwanda to be
“a fundamentally safe and secure country with a track record of supporting asylum seekers.”—[Official Report, 14/6/22; col. 1518.]
This is set out in the relevant country policy and information notes available on GOV.UK. These assessments are kept under review and updated periodically to reflect any significant new issues or evidence. We regularly monitor and review the situation in Rwanda and are working closely with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.
Last month the United Kingdom and France signed a new agreement further to bolster our combined efforts to prevent dangerous channel crossings, including through strengthened operational co-operation and investment in cutting-edge surveillance technology. The UK remains committed to addressing illegal migration with France via our enduring relationship. We continue to engage with our French friends at all levels, political and operational, supporting the meeting of our shared strategic aims with the provision of technology and sharing of intelligence. France and other EU countries are safe countries and, like the UK, have asylum systems that provide protection to those who need it.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I apologise for interrupting the Minister, but I did not do so earlier. He talks about safe countries, and earlier he said there is an obligation to claim asylum in the first safe country, but he will of course be aware that the UNHCR said that it is absolutely not the law. Indeed, if it were, the refugee convention would never have been signed because countries that neighbour conflict areas, which already take the bulk of refugees, would never have signed it.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I hear what the noble Baroness says. I commend to her the excellent Policy Exchange paper From the Channel to Rwanda: Three Essays on the Morality of Asylum. On page 14 of that excellent paper, Professor Finnis reminds us that
“the Rwanda scheme does not sub-contract anything. The UK as a founding party to the Refugee Convention, did not undertake to receive or process or admit refugees. Its contractual undertaking and obligation is (a) to give certain rights and privileges to those refugees whom it has chosen to admit and given leave to stay, and (b) not to deport anyone to an unsafe country.”
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
The difficulty with that argument is that the refugee convention imposes on us the duty to hear the claim. If we deport someone to Rwanda on the basis that even if their claim were justified, that will not be established and they will not be allowed to return. They will be investigated in Rwanda to see whether they may have asylum in Rwanda, but they will be unable to pursue their claim to asylum in this country. That is clearly contrary to the refugee convention.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Hesitate as I do to disagree with the noble Lord, that matter is currently before the High Court, and the Government’s position is clearly at odds with his assessment.
I crave the indulgence of the House to carry on for a few more moments, if I may.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I would be terribly sorry if my noble friend Lord Cormack were to miss his train.
I turn to the questions in relation to climate change. We will not remove anyone to any other country where they would face persecution or serious harm as a result of their country ceasing to exist, as was premised in one noble Lord’s speech.
It is always right in this context to remember that, as pointed out by my noble friend Lord Lilley, arrivals by small boats put significant pressure on local authorities. The Home Office acknowledges the strain that dispersing asylum seekers is putting on many authorities, and it is for this reason that it is working collaboratively with local authorities and commercial partners to agree regional and national plans on implementation for full asylum dispersal. This process will enable us to continue to meet our obligations to accommodate destitute asylum seekers while not overcrowding local areas.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
Forgive me, I am afraid I really must make progress. I am sorry to decline the noble Lord’s intervention.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I fear we really must make progress at this stage. We still have to hear from the most reverend Primate Archbishop of Canterbury.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am afraid that time does not permit me to address all the issues raised by noble Lords. However, I fully understand that this is and will remain an emotive issue for many. Although our compassion may be limitless, our capacity, resources and infrastructure to help people are finite.
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I am afraid not.
This country has shown time and again—from those who arrived on the Kindertransport, which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, raised, and the Ugandan Asians expelled by Idi Amin, to those fleeing the present dreadful conflict in Ukraine—that when people are suffering and they need sanctuary, we step up. We extend the hand of friendship and provide a welcome born of our natural compassion. As the Government have demonstrated, we are committed to maintaining that long and proud tradition through safe and legal routes, and we will continue to do what is right and help those who are in most need.
As my noble friend Lord Cormack referenced in this debate, I completely agree that refugees enrich both our history and our present. At the same time, the public expect us to control migration, uphold our immigration laws and discourage those who would risk their lives by making unsafe and unnecessary journeys to the UK across the channel. As I hope I have made clear today, the Government approach these responsibilities with the greatest seriousness, and that will continue to be the case.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
Before the Minister sits down, will he undertake to write to the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate in order to answer the questions that he has been unable to answer because of the length of time he had available?
Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)
I invite noble Lords to ask Written Questions in relation to those points instead.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, I am a former Leader of the House. I have never, ever heard such a reply from a Minister. If a Minister is unable to respond verbally, he or she must reply in writing.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, keeping to my sense of compassion, I shall have compassion on the train of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and do my very best to be as brief as possible. I will write where I do not answer questions——but probably not until after Christmas. I have higher claims.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
Not a lot.
First, I thank noble Lords for their extraordinary contributions. I cannot refer to all of them because so many of them were so excellent. This has been a remarkable debate; I am very grateful. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sahota, the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester. They all contributed remarkably from their experience and have demonstrated the reasons why they are in this House. I thank them.
Secondly, I am not going to mention 90th birthdays—oh, I just have. I was not going to mention birthdays, which come round increasingly frequently, but I must say that I sat in awe listening to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I am sure that that is true for the entire House. His moral authority vastly exceeds that of anyone else here, going right back to the Kindertransport. It has been a privilege for me—and, I am sure, for everyone else here—to engage with him on this subject.
As the Minister rightly said, this is a very emotive and difficult subject. I am just going to throw out a few headlines. I had this issue in an earlier draft but I, or one of my advisers, took it out; I am now going to annoy them by putting it back in. I just wonder, in view of the level of difficulty of this subject and its immense importance—numerous noble Lords have emphasised this very strongly—whether it would not make more sense to have a separate department for immigration. It could focus on this issue rather than having it fall within the complexities of the Home Office, which, as we know, is one of the most difficult offices to lead.
That leads me to say that, in listening to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Murray, I felt a great deal of sympathy. It is a new and complex system that is being looked at. It is under serious strain, as he said. However, I say to him that affirmation is not evidence. He made a number of affirmations about what would be done, what has been done and what is being done but, certainly, other noble Lords tried hard to go for evidence. In letters that are written, it is important that we look at that.
I sympathise with his legal difficulties. Anyone in the Church of England would sympathise with people’s legal difficulties. I have just had a clergy discipline measure against me dismissed, thankfully. It was for not recognising a particular claimant who said that he was the living incarnation of the Lord God—I had ignored him more than 1,000 times and therefore should be dismissed from my post. In a totally strait-laced judgment after some months, the relevant judge dismissed the claim. Regarding his comment about the most reverend Primates the Archbishop of York and the Archbishop of Canterbury disagreeing with each other, there is nothing new about that. It is different from the iron discipline of the Conservative Cabinet, but we suffer what we must—the poor most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, in particular.
I am very nervous about venturing into economics but, with the noble Lords, Lord Horam and Lord Desai, I will dance into the minefield. My days in the oil industry were a long time ago. Maybe economics have changed since then, but it was said that the lowest-cost producer would always survive—there is such a thing as a law of supply and demand. If we have safe and legal routes, we automatically become the lowest-cost producer. That by itself will completely undermine the business model of the people smugglers. I throw that out as probably a wrong answer, but I do my best.
The Minister did not answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, about the assessment by the Foreign Office and others of what is going on in Rwanda. He said other things about Rwanda, but did not answer that question. It would be useful if he could write with an answer to the very clear question on why the Government’s assessment is so different from that of their professional Foreign Office advisers. We need some answers on that.
I agree with noble Lords who made a very strong and clear argument that we need to talk about asylum as distinct from migration. They are very different things. Asylum happens because of what happens elsewhere; migration happens because of what we choose to happen—around students, for instance, since most places do not confuse the two in quite the same way. Whether we allow or even encourage—even possibly compel—people in appropriate positions to take employment while they are waiting for claims is a question that, again, I do not think was answered. It was put forward by a large number of noble Lords and is extremely important.
I agree very much with the noble Baronesses, Lady Berridge and Lady Ludford, that I was wrong to suggest that we need to replace the 1951 refugee convention. We need a new convention and to keep the 1951 refugee convention. The point on that is very powerful. It was an error on my part.
I return, if I may, to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lilley. I sort of use my hotline to God, as he referred to it, but I regret to say that I appear to have been disconnected for not having paid the bill. All that I got when I pressed button 3 was a long recorded message, so I went back to the Bible. It may seem unusual but in fact, during my first speech and that of the other Members of this Bench, we all quoted only the Bible and no other form of hotline. So, who is my neighbour? We can answer the question by saying “Everyone is my neighbour, but it is not a logical consequence that everyone must come here”. The logical consequence is that we need to do all that we can to ensure that those who are suffering find their suffering reduced. That may well not include bringing them to a different country from the one in which they grew up.
My long experience of over 20 years in conflict zones, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, is that almost no one wants to be a refugee. They want to stay at home and build their country, as we do. They love the United Kingdom but not all of them want to stay here. We can see that when, thanks to the good work of the Home Office last summer, we had almost 700 Anglican Communion bishops from 162 countries coming here, with much help, and not one of them overstayed. Many of them live in war zones; most of them are never paid but live off the money they get from tilling some ground, while working under enormous personal risk, in intense poverty and much danger.
“Who is my neighbour?” is dealt with not only by asylum but by stabilisation—it is a great pity that the Government have almost abolished the stabilisation unit in the FCDO—by development, and by creating hope locally by addressing the kind of awful and heart-breaking situation spoken of by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson. That is what stops people coming.
The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, mentioned the upcoming Nigerian election. I am not going to develop that theme but I entirely agree with her and have spoken recently to the Foreign Office about it.
I will answer the particular questions of the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, by letter if I may, because they are not all directly connected with this service—sorry, this place; I do have a lot of carol services. To pick up the question asked by him and, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Lilley—it may not have been him—about what we are doing to increase attendance at churches, we are working extremely hard. Yesterday evening, we had more than 100 people in my chapel to hear the good news of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I am very glad that there are atheists here in such profusion because it gives them a chance to hear that, and they might just be converted. You never know, but I do not think so—I am looking at the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. We will see in our post-retirement existence whether we exist or not.
Finally, in my last minute I will talk about the Policy Exchange. The Policy Exchange document is interesting and is certainly worth reading; I commend it to the House. I do not agree with it any more than I agreed with an earlier Policy Exchange document which suggested that the best way to deal with levelling up in the north—particularly the city of Liverpool, where I was living at the time—was to move the entire population of Liverpool to Cambridge. That was in 2008. That was not very popular in Liverpool; I did not consult those in Cambridge. Policy Exchange has a valuable function in provoking ideas, but not always quite as a valuable a function in solving problems.
Once again, I thank noble Lords across the whole House for a remarkable debate and a huge number of wise ideas, which I will be going through; we will no doubt consider them at great length within the Church. With that, I wish noble Lords a good weekend and thank them very much.