Police Forces

Lord Barwell Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2011 Westminster Hall

[Jack Dromey]

That is the Home Secretary’s Pontius Pilate defence. At the worst possible time—2,500 more burglaries, 2,200 more vehicle crimes, robbery up by 25%—the Government are cutting the police, but they are then blaming the police for the cuts. The Government have put good chief constables, such as Chris Sims of the West Midlands police, an outstanding leader of his service, in an impossible situation. It is about time that the Government accepted responsibility for the consequences of their actions and did not blame our chief constables.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is right to put a human face on the decisions taken and is right to ask why. Can he tell me why the reductions cited are being made in the west midlands, whereas in my constituency the Metropolitan police force is recruiting additional officers this year?

[Jack Dromey]

Because, in how the Government have proceeded, we have seen time and again a disproportionate impact on areas of high need and high unemployment, such as Birmingham and the west midlands—not only in the police service, but in local government and the health service.

In conclusion, this Government have reversed the welcome progress of the previous 13 years. Our Government had put 17,000 more police officers and 16,000 police community support officers on the beat, leading to a 43% reduction in crime. It is little wonder that there will be thousands of police officers descending on London next week. They will be here to defend the service that they love. They are Birmingham and Britain’s best, and they deserve better than to be told, “Thanks for your loyalty; here’s your redundancy notice.”

Policing and Crime

Lord Barwell Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The hon. Lady is right. We have the best police force in the world and the best model of policing in the world. I believe that the British model of policing is one that we should welcome, support and applaud. However, if she thinks that there is time for a royal commission, she should consider why, as a member of the Labour party, she allowed it, when in government, to get the finances of this country into such a state that we need to take the action that we do. [Interruption.] It is all very well for Opposition Members to say, “Oh no, we don’t want to hear it again”, but if the hon. Lady’s party were in government today, it would be cutting £7 for every £8 we are cutting this year.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

Last Thursday, PC Nigel Albuery was stabbed on duty on the streets of Croydon. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that we have to look at the issue of police terms and conditions, but does she agree that we should consider the results of the Winsor review in the light of the dangers that police officers such as PC Albuery face day to day and the debt of gratitude we owe to them?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; we will indeed do that. I take this opportunity to commend PC Albuery, who suffered terrible injuries, as result of which he is in a serious condition. He was doing the job that he signed up to do, which is protecting the public and dealing with criminals. I pay tribute to him and to all the other officers who, day in and day out, go out to deal with instances and incidents that take place not knowing whether they will be subject to the sort of attack to which PC Albuery was subject.

Forensic Science Service

Lord Barwell Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Westminster Hall

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I recognise that point. The statistics show that income from the sector has decreased as functions have been taken in-house. A point that I would like to address later in my speech is that some functions can be taken in-house but others cannot, and we must maintain that capacity.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time in giving way. Further to the point my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) has just made, does the hon. Gentleman not agree that, although the Government have to take some action because of the FSS’s financial situation, the market that their strategy seeks to create is being diminished each year by the increasing level of police in-house provision?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

Yes. The hon. Gentleman’s point is crucial because, if the market is not rigorous and robust, there will be nothing there to fill the gap created by the absence of the FSS.

As well as being active in the immediate aftermath of a crime, the FSS also secures convictions in so-called cold cases. Over many years, it has built up archives of more than 1.5 million case files and a vast number of retained materials, including DNA, fibres and recovered debris. The application of advanced forensic techniques to archive material by FSS scientists has helped to secure convictions for more than 220 historical crimes. That work would not be possible without the archives, but we do not know what will happen to them when the FSS is closed. Other Members have made that point, and the Government dearly need to address it. In addition, we do not know what will happen to the unrivalled collection of firearms currently in the FSS’s possession.

The dissolution of the FSS will clearly require something to emerge to fill its place and continue its important work. The Government have claimed that there is no reason to think that the private sector would be unable to meet the demand for forensic services; but where, Minister—as the FSS itself might ask—is the evidence? As uncertainty continues to surround the provision of forensic science services in the UK, significant numbers of scientists are taking up jobs overseas or choosing to move on to other careers, and the coverage offered by the current private forensic science providers is broad in neither scope nor geography. I am told, for instance, that not one provider in the south of England specialises in firearms. Following the reduction in the market, questions have been asked about the financial stability of a number of accredited private providers. Can the Minister tell us what safeguards there will be to ensure that all the required forensic specialisms are available in the new marketplace?

We also need to ask what will happen in the wake of a major terrorist incident. In the immediate aftermath of the bombings and attempted bombings of 7 and 21 July, more than 100 FSS scientists were called on to analyse 4,500 items. Drawing on those experts in DNA, document examination, mobile phone analysis, toxicology, and marks and traces, it was possible to determine what had happened. Thankfully, such incidents are not commonplace, but the warning this week reminds us that we never know when the next incident might be—we know only that there is likely to be one.

The FSS is the only UK organisation with forensic experience of terrorist attacks. Without it, who would have the capability and capacity to provide the vital evidence that our judicial system requires? It is not acceptable to leave the UK unable to deal with the aftermath of a major terrorist attack, and if the Government cannot prove that their plans have the rigour to cope, they should withdraw them immediately and think again.

When there are so many unanswered questions and so many risks attached, I wonder why the Government have started down this path. I fear that they have made a mistake in reaching their decision to close the FSS, and that they will soon regret it. They have repeatedly insisted that the FSS—currently a Government-owned company—makes monthly losses of about £2 million, and I understand that they hope that a more commercial market will drive prices down and improve turnaround times. The Government’s plans, however, do not seem to add up.

In recent months, the FSS has closed down three laboratory sites and shed 750 staff as part of a drive to make itself more competitive. It is believed to be on track to make the required savings, yet the Government themselves admit that the £2 million figure they repeatedly use to justify their plans takes no account of the significant savings made by the restructuring programme.

We know that the service provided by the FSS is exceptionally good. I can say without hesitation that its work has made my city, my constituency and my community safer, and the same is true for other Members. I hope, therefore, that the Minister understands how concerned many of us are about the possibility of losing the FSS and is able to offer me some solid assurances in his response today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

The hon. Gentleman makes the valid point that competition drives prices down and makes industries more efficient. That is a universal truth. However, a competitive market exists, and the managed wind-down of the FSS will enable the individual players in that market to become more competitive and the market itself to become a more effective area of competition.

The Government want the UK’s forensic science industry to operate as a genuine market, with private sector providers competing to provide innovative services at the lowest cost. That will, inter alia, preserve police resources and maximise the positive impact that forensic sciences can have on tackling crime. A competitive market can help drive down prices and improve turnaround times, meaning that serious crimes can be cleared up more quickly and efficiently. Ultimately, I am sure that that is what we all want.

Research and development in forensic science is essential to ensure the continued availability of a high-quality, efficient forensic science capability for the criminal justice system. Historically, such research has been undertaken by a wide range of organisations, including the private sector, Government-owned laboratories and academia.

Our decision took into account the need to manage the impact on forensic science research and development in the UK. Unfortunately, the FSS’s financial position had already limited the capacity for research and development for which it had become renowned. During the managed wind-down, we are working closely with the police, the FSS, the Crown Prosecution Service and other forensic providers to consider how the industry can build on existing expertise and continue the UK’s renowned research and innovation.

[Gavin Barwell]

The Minister outlined the options that the Government considered when taking the decision. Did they consider restricting the police’s ability to provide in-house forensic services? That might have given the FSS a larger market in which to compete. As he will know if he has studied the evidence received by the Select Committee, many private sector suppliers have expressed concerns about their ability to invest in the future in a declining market if police provision continues to increase.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Barwell Excerpts

Monday 9th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Nick Herbert]

I hope the hon. Lady will be reassured by the comments of the new chief constable of Northumbria, who was previously the temporary chief constable. She said recently:

“I am determined that we will continue to reduce crime and protect police services that local communities across Northumbria want”.

She went on to say that her absolute priority was to improve front-line policing and the service delivered to communities.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

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

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

As I have previously informed the House, the first duty of Government is to protect the public. Following the death of Osama bin Laden, the overall threat level from international terrorism remains at severe and there is a continuing need for everyone to remain vigilant and to report suspicious activity to the police. Last week’s verdict from the coroner’s inquest into the London bombings on 7 July 2005 reminds us of the real and serious threat from terrorism. I have made a written ministerial statement on the verdict this morning. Across Government, we are carefully considering the current recommendations and we will respond in due course, at which time I would expect to make a further statement to the House. Nothing will ever bring back the 52 people who were murdered on that day, but I hope that the comprehensive, open and transparent inquests that have been held have brought some measure of comfort to the families and to all those affected.

[Gavin Barwell]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. May I press her a little further? One of the coroner’s key findings was about the need for better co-ordination between Transport for London and London’s emergency services. Does the Home Secretary agree that there is a real need to reassure Londoners that if a tragic incident of this sort ever happened again, there would be better co-ordination than there was on this occasion?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend has made a very important and valid point. Of course, a number of the recommendations refer to Transport for London and to emergency responders. The proposals that have come specifically from the coroner will be looked at in great detail and with great care because it is absolutely right that we ensure that the lessons that can be learned from 7 July 2005 are learned.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Barwell Excerpts

Monday 7th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) (Con)]

4. What plans she has to assist police forces to tackle antisocial behaviour.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

15. What plans she has to assist police forces to tackle antisocial behaviour.

[Lorraine Fullbrook (South Ribble) (Con)]

18. What plans she has to assist police forces to tackle antisocial behaviour.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The nature of antisocial behaviour means that the main emphasis in tackling it lies with the police, because much of this behaviour is crime, but other partners, such as community safety partnerships, play an essential role. We support that and it is recognised in the toolkit for civil orders. We have stripped away some of the bureaucracy that got in the way of getting those partners to do the job that they are needed to do.

[Gavin Barwell]

May I encourage my hon. Friend to liaise with police authorities about deploying safer neighbourhood teams on the basis of places, not artificial ward boundaries, as such an approach would allow coverage to extend into the crucial evening period, when a lot of antisocial behaviour takes place?

[James Brokenshire]

There are certainly operational issues associated with the tasking of safer neighbourhood teams. I know from my hon. Friend’s constituency the importance and emphasis that the Mayor of London places on those teams. I am sure that he will have heard clearly the message that my hon. Friend has sent about the importance of discretion at the operational level.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Lord Barwell Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those remarks. It is good to have cross-party support on such issues as this one, which affects many MPs whose constituents have suffered from cowboy clampers. By criminalising clamping and towing without lawful authority, the Government are committing rogue clampers to history and putting an end to intimidation and excessive charges once and for all.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

Further to my right hon. Friend’s answer to the hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker), will she confirm that local authorities will continue to have the power to clamp on the public highway? Will residents in private developments be able to contract with their local authority to clamp on private developments? I have been contacted by a large number of people in my constituency who have tried ticketing and barriers but found that they do not work close to the town centre and public transport hubs. Could local authorities continue to clamp on private land?

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. Local authorities already have the ability to take a controlling interest and to run parking on private land, subject to the agreement and request of the landowner, although that facility has not been much used.

To ensure continued access to key buildings, existing powers for the police to remove vehicles that are illegally, dangerously or obstructively parked on roads will be extended to other land. The registered keeper of a vehicle will also be made liable, in certain circumstances, for charges incurred as a result of parking on private land.

Let me address the counter-terrorism measures in the Bill, starting with pre-charge detention. Both coalition parties and many Opposition Members are clear that in the area of counter-terrorism legislation the previous Government went too far. I have already announced to the House the outcome of our review of counter-terrorism and security powers, and the Bill puts many of those changes into practice. I announced that we would not renew current legislation on the 28-day pre-charge detention period, which means that the sunset clause inserted by the previous Government has now brought the maximum period of pre-charge detention down to 14 days. The Bill will finally repeal the power to increase the maximum period of pre-charge detention to 28 days by means of secondary legislation. As I said to the House in January, police, prosecutors and the Government are clear that the normal maximum period of pre-charge detention should be 14 days, but we recognise that in exceptional circumstances that might need to be temporarily increased to 28 days. I have therefore published draft legislation that could be introduced to Parliament only in such circumstances. The draft Detention of Terrorist Suspects (Temporary Extension) Bills will be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, the arrangements for which will be discussed through the usual channels.

Controlling Migration

Lord Barwell Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

A number of hon. Members from all parts of the House with English language schools in their constituencies have raised the question of such schools. We take the issue very seriously, and one aspect of the student visas consultation will be aimed specifically at such schools and how we can introduce to the system some changes that will benefit them.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement, which will be welcomed in my constituency by people of all backgrounds and political persuasions. In particular, I welcome the exemption for wealth creators and the re-focusing of tier 1 on eminent scientists. Will she tell the House a little more about how the 1,000 limit will work?

[Mrs May]

We are finalising the details of exactly how the 1,000 limit will work. We are also considering a role for bodies, such as research councils, in confirming those people who would be of benefit. We want to include not just those who are at a point in their career when they are known to be great scientists, artists and so forth, but also exceptionally talented people who are at the beginning of their careers.

Immigration

Lord Barwell Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gerry Sutcliffe (Bradford South) (Lab)]

I welcome this debate. As right hon. and hon. Members have said, this is the first time in this House that we have had the opportunity to look in detail at many of the questions that our constituents have put to us. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) and his co-chair of the all-party group on balanced migration, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames), on securing this debate through the Backbench Business Committee process. It gives Members the opportunity to examine these issues in a less partisan way. When I made the point about the amnesty to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), I was not trying to hoodwink him or catch him out; I had a genuine interest in many of the issues that we will have to face and address if we are serious about ensuring that immigration is addressed properly.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead said that he was accused of being a racist when he first raised this issue, and the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) said something similar. Clearly they are not, and we should be able to discuss many of the issues maturely. We have to do so in a way that gets to the truth of the issues. This debate has given us that opportunity and perhaps we can do so in a non-partisan way.

I agreed with most of the comments that most of the contributors have made in raising issues of concern. As an MP representing the city of Bradford, I am aware of immigration issues because our city was built on immigration. Its history is that of a wool town that became a city that has been based on immigration throughout its existence.

Some hon. Members have rightly said that if we do not discuss this issue in a proper way, parties of the right and the extreme left will do that. In Bradford, we have had the experience of right-wing parties choosing not to see immigration as the benefit that most of us, with some notable exceptions, have seen it as. Instead, those parties have raised immigration alongside race issues and turned the debate into one that none of us believes is right. People come to this country to do positive things; there is an economic and employment benefit. As the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden implied, however marginal the effect might be, the positive impact is there.

I welcome the all-party group and its distinguished supporters, whom my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead talked about. Clearly it is right that we take a dispassionate view to make sure we get to the issues that really affect our constituents.

My right hon. Friend raised a number of interesting issues and he acknowledged that progress has been made. I know that it is the fashion for coalition Ministers— although I hope not this Minister, with whom I and my right hon. Friend’s have worked on previous occasions—to rubbish everything that the previous Government did, but I hope that he will accept that our Government did positive things. I accept that there are some political differences about the rate and the speed at which some things happen, but there has been progress over the past few years.

I was slightly startled by the intervention from the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who talked about extra points going to the people who might want to go to Scotland. I do not want to get involved in that question, but the lack of population growth in Scotland is an issue.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead and the all-party group have raised a number of issues, particularly that of student numbers and their effect. I certainly agree about bogus courses. The starting point for all of us is managed migration and we all oppose, and want to eradicate and deal with, illegal immigration. We want to ensure that the people who come to this country are entitled to be here. The use of bogus courses as a means to come here needs to be looked into, and the previous Government did that. We need to go further on some issues, and I am sure that the Minister will want to tell us what his Government are doing about bogus courses.

There is a point about student numbers and we have to be careful. We have heard from universities and further education colleges about the impact that the cap will have on student numbers and the possibility that it will have a damaging effect on the funding of our universities and colleges. We must consider that.

Tier 1 and the points-based system have also been mentioned and there are concerns. I was at Business, Innovation and Skills questions this morning when the question of the transfer of labour between companies was raised. The Business Secretary gave a commitment, and I ask the Minister to reinforce that commitment so that there is no confusion. As has been said, chambers of commerce, the CBI and a number of other important bodies to do with our economy are concerned about the position of tier 1 people and what the cap might or might not do.

It is important that we continue the debate. Clearly, today is the first opportunity that we have had to raise the issue in such a way and we can now take things forward. I was interested to hear the speech made by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier), who acknowledged the contribution that migrant workers make to our economy, employment, culture and way of life. He also talked about green issues. I know that he was not trying to stop people flying to see their family members, but he made an important point. Housing, health, education and the environment are all issues that we will have to consider in our new circumstances. The hon. Gentleman also referred to Mr Spence, and I thought at one point that the hon. Gentleman was about to make the case for identity cards, but clearly he was not.

My hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) talked about the problems with engineering and cited a couple of constituency cases. They highlighted the confusion and perhaps the Minister will want to say more about that. We have the temporary cap in place, but clearly we expect the Government to make an announcement on the cap shortly and I hope that the Minister can give us more information. My hon. Friend attacked the Government for trying to grab headlines and although I would not accuse them of that in this instance, we need assurances that we will get detailed answers to some of the concerns shared by a range of people in business and education.

The hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) spoke about intolerance and the fact that we are not intolerant in this country. We are all proud of our ability to ensure that we have a system in place that protects genuine asylum seekers and that is quick, fair and meets people’s requirements. The previous Government sped up the process. We will all have had constituency cases in which asylum seekers were kept waiting for a long time for decisions, which caused problems for them and their families. The previous Government took steps to improve the situation.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that although the previous Government took those steps, we are not in anything like a perfect position at the moment? A number of my constituents are still waiting for decisions that predate 2007-08. I entirely acknowledge that some steps were taken but will he acknowledge that the problem has not yet been solved?

[Mr Sutcliffe]

I will, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging that there has been progress even though there is some way to go.

That brings me to the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) made about the sensitive nature of these matters and how we should deal with people. The Government have come forward with cuts in the spending review of 20% for the Home Office, and the UK Border Agency also faces cuts of 20%. How does the Minister feel about those cuts when it comes to dealing with existing asylum and other legacy cases in the Home Office? What does he think will happen as a result of the 20% reduction? Will it help with enforcement and the ability to deal with illegal immigration?

My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East talked about immigration advisers and the problems that some of her constituents have faced. A number of hon. Members agree that there are problems with the accreditation and registration of advisers. Some people are being exploited way beyond their means and we have to put that right.

I take the point made by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) about the coalition agreement, but there are many outstanding issues that the Government have to face. If we are to have a fair immigration policy to which our constituents will respond, we need to discuss all the issues. Of course, the press will publicise the immigration cap, but other issues need to be addressed, and if we do not get them right and have a positive discussion, all the good that comes from this debate will be lost because people will lose confidence in what we are trying to achieve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

I, too, congratulate the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field), my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) and the Backbench Business Committee on securing the debate. Many of my constituents, including many in black and minority ethnic communities, are highly concerned about current immigration levels. It is essential that their concerns are addressed on the Floor of the House and by the mainstream political parties, because if they are not extremists will exploit the issue.

There have been a number of high-quality speeches today. I hope that my hon. Friends sitting around me will forgive my singling out the speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) and the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), who is not in her place but who had the courage to approach the issue from a different perspective.

I start by talking about my home town. It is predicted that at the time of the next census, 42% of Croydon’s population will be from black and minority ethnic communities. Within that figure, there will be significant black Caribbean, black African, Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi and other communities, and it will be the 11th-highest among local authorities in the country. My constituency is fairly representative of the borough as a whole, which is predicted to have a BME population of just over 40% at that time. I suspect that that figure will be the highest among Government Members.

It is important to note that people generally get on very well in my area. The recent Place survey showed that 77% think that people in Croydon from different backgrounds get on well together. That figure is higher than the London average and the national average and it has improved on the figure from two years ago, which is in sharp contrast with the situation in many other parts of the country.

There is a significant UK Border Agency presence in my constituency. The previous Government decided that anyone who wants to claim asylum has to do so in person in my constituency—the Minister will not be surprised to hear that I shall return to that point later—and as a result, immigration and asylum issues dominate my casework. There are three groups of people who contact me. First, there are those who are concerned about the pace of change in Croydon. Secondly, there are the thousands of people going through the immigration and asylum system who are concerned about their future prospects. Thirdly, several thousand of my constituents work for the UKBA and are both frustrated by the rules and processes that they have to go through and, given the Government’s decisions on public expenditure, concerned about their future job prospects. Although those three groups of people appear to approach the issues from different perspectives, they share a lot more common ground than they suppose. Before I explain that, however, I shall describe my own perspective.

I am very lucky to be a Member of Parliament who represents his home town. I have lived there all my life and believe very passionately that Croydon’s diversity is one of its greatest strengths. It makes the area a vibrant and cosmopolitan place to live, and in today’s globalised world the fact that many Croydonians have connections with other countries is a huge asset to the town. Immigration has brought entrepreneurs who have set up new businesses and created new jobs and people who work in our public services, and it has also enriched our culture. My close friends, neighbours, former council colleagues and almost every voluntary group with which I interact as an MP include people from black and minority ethnic communities.

A number of Members referred to the British sense of fair play and to this country’s tolerance, and, although I know their good intentions in making that point, I always think that “tolerance” is not the right word to describe the situation. I do not tolerate the fact that people from all over the world have made their homes in Croydon, I celebrate it. I am proud of the fact that they have chosen to make my home town their home.

It is possible to have “too much of a good thing”, however, and I was interested to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden refer to a pamphlet that he published with that very title. I have not read it, but I certainly will now. My constituents undoubtedly think that we have had too much of a good thing in recent years, and I shall run through their concerns.

Most people are concerned not about race or skin colour, but about population growth, jobs and the pressure on local public services. Many of those issues have been addressed today so I shall keep my comments brief. On population growth, the latest projections from 2008, which are based on the assumption of net migration to this country of 180,000 people a year, predict that the population will increase to 71.6 million by 2033, an increase of 10.2 million people. Of those 10.2 million people, about 7 million will be accounted for by net migration.

My right hon. Friend referred to housing projections in Hertfordshire, and I am sure that every Member can tell a similar story. My local authority is a growth area under the London plan, but the plans for significant housing growth cause real concern. Bizarrely, very few people live in our town centre, so there is an opportunity to build significantly more housing there, but large parts of my constituency have suffered in recent years from overdevelopment, which has changed the character of residential areas. There has been lot of backbone development, with detached or semi-detached houses replaced by blocks of flats, and that has caused real concerns for constituents. Indeed, the pattern of net migration has driven much of that change.

On jobs, the figures from the Office for National Statistics’ labour force survey show that between April to June 1997 and April to June 2010, the employment of people who were born in the United Kingdom rose from 24.5 million to 25.1 million, while the employment of people born outside the UK rose from 2 million to 3.8 million. We should not be so simplistic as to say that, if there had been no net migration, exactly the same number of jobs would have been created, because the situation is much more complicated; but, during the previous Labour Government, a period of relatively sustained economic growth, about three quarters to four fifths of the jobs created definitely went to people who were not born in the UK. An opportunity was missed to get a large number of people in this country who had been off work for a considerable period back into work. As I said, we should not be simplistic about those figures or take them at face value, because the picture is more complicated than that, but it is undeniable that during the last economic boom we missed the opportunity to get long-term unemployed people back into the labour market.

On public services, I sat briefly in the Chamber yesterday for the Opposition day debate on education, when the shadow Secretary of State referred to our debate about the need for capital investment in our schools, and to the requirement for a needs-based investment policy. I was rather staggered to hear him say that what he meant by “needs-based” was that funding should go en bloc to local authorities in areas where there was low education attainment. When I think of “needs-based” in relation to investment in education capital, I think about the state of individual school buildings and about the parts of the country that are experiencing significant population growth among young people and have a need for additional school places.

I do not want to open up the issue of the Building Schools for the Future programme in this debate, but one of my real concerns was that whereas other authorities received huge sums—I am sure that they put them to good use—my authority got not a penny, despite the fact that there has been a large expansion in the number of primary school children and there is an urgent need to provide new primary school places. When I talk to my residents, I learn that one of their concerns is the lack of investment in areas experiencing the effects of net migration to provide increased capacity in public services.

The hon. Member for Lewisham East referred to social housing allocation policy—an issue that comes up time and again. There is a widespread belief in my constituency that the system is biased in favour of people who have just come into the country. That belief is wrong: each year, the council does an assessment to demonstrate that it is allocating its housing on a proportionate basis. However, it is very important to explain why the belief is wrong, because people’s perception is perfectly reasonable from their point of view.

At the moment in my borough, just under 40% of the population are from the BME communities. As we still exist in a society where people from those communities are disproportionately likely to be stuck in poverty, a higher proportion of that community—about 60%—is on the housing waiting list in Croydon. If the council was allocating its housing fairly, we would expect about 60% of the allocations each year to go to those communities. However, the pattern of settlement in Croydon is very mixed, and a large proportion of our social housing stock is in a town called New Addington, where the prevalence of the BME communities is much lower. So a New Addington resident on the social housing waiting list with children will see 60% of the properties coming up there going to people from a BME background and they will think that their children are being discriminated against. We need to do a much better job of explaining to people how the system works and, perhaps, looking at the detail of housing allocation policy to counter some of those concerns.

The issue of numbers, highlighted by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead at the start, is very important and the Government are right to consider that and all the different channels—not just economic migration from outside the EU, but students and family channels, to which other Members have referred. However, it follows from the points that I have made, and from people’s concerns about access to public services, council housing and jobs, that the issue is not just about how many, but who.

I have heard the Minister for Immigration say that Home Office research demonstrates that one third of those who came into the country on tier 1 visas are not working in highly skilled jobs at the moment. We need to make sure that the tiers are applied properly. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden said, we also need to look at some particular small-scale exemptions in certain areas of the economy, where there is a case for bringing people in.

I have heard it rumoured that the Government are considering an exemption for footballers. Personally, I would place a higher priority on highly skilled research scientists and people of that kind. I support what the Government are doing and I think that the cap is right, but we need to look at the detail to make sure that there is flexibility for particular areas of the economy, where it is in our national interest to bring in people with the highest level of skills, or entrepreneurs with a proven record who are going to create jobs and boost economic growth. All Members will have been lobbied by organisations such as the British Medical Association, the Campaign for Science and Engineering and Cancer Research UK on those points.

As I said, for the vast majority of my constituents who are concerned about immigration, the issue is not skin colour or race but jobs, housing and access to public services. However, we should recognise that race is an issue for some people. This is a sensitive subject, but if we are going to have this debate in the House, we need to address it. A small number of people are motivated by hate. Four years ago in my constituency, we came very close to a BNP councillor being elected. Over the past four years, the Labour and Conservative parties have together worked very hard on that, and we saw significant progress at the council elections that were held on the same day as the general election.

There is a wider group of people who do not necessarily have friends, colleagues or neighbours from the BME community with whom they socialise. When I knock on their doors, they say to me that they go to Croydon town centre, for example, and feel that it is not their town any more—that it has changed. This view is, of course, nonsense. Many black and minority ethnic people in Croydon were born there and have lived there all their lives—they are as British as I am. Those who were not born there have uprooted their families, travelled halfway across the world, and chosen to be British. One of the most moving things that I did as a parliamentary candidate, before I had the privilege of entering this House, was to attend a citizenship ceremony and see the pride of new immigrants in attaining British citizenship.

I used to be a councillor before I came to this House, and my responsibility in the immediate period before that related to public safety and the rather nebulous concept that is referred to in local government as community cohesion. One of the things that my council did was to organise events to celebrate the major religious festivals to promote an interfaith dialogue. Perhaps the only thing I did that surpassed attending the citizenship ceremony was to go to an event to mark the festival of Eid, where two young Muslim women, Ruhina Cockar and Joanne Kheder, one dressed in western clothing and one wearing the hijab, spoke about what it meant to them to be British Muslims. I passionately wish that every single resident of Croydon had been there to listen to what they had to say about their gratitude for the opportunity that British citizenship has given them and their determination to repay that debt to society. A single quote does not do justice to their words, but here is a short extract from Ruhina’s speech:

“I’m a Croydon girl through and through. I was born in Mayday hospital…My beliefs are entirely compatible with being British…I have thrived in British society…and I am proud to call myself a British citizen”.

There is currently a bit of a backlash against multiculturalism; some Members have referred to that. To the extent that multiculturalism meant focusing on what divides us rather than what unites us, that backlash is a good thing. However, at the risk of stating the obvious, Britishness—a collective identity for the English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish—is by definition multicultural, in the literal sense of the word. That is a good thing. We should not force people to choose between being British and having pride in their roots and their origins.

I should like to end by touching on a parochial issue that affects my constituents in Croydon. I mentioned the widespread concern regarding the previous Government’s decision that all in-country asylum applications should be made in Croydon. That concern has two roots. First, there is a financial impact on the council. The council receives funding from the Home Office to pay for the costs that it has to meet in relation to these issues, but that funding does not adequately compensate council tax payers. It does not cover any of the legal costs, and significant numbers of applicants appeal if they are denied leave to remain. While they are appealing, the council has an ongoing obligation to them, and those costs, and the council’s legal costs, are not covered.

Secondly, the funding does not cover costs in relation to certain people who have no access to public funds but to whom the council has an ongoing duty in relation to providing destitution support, nor does it cover many of the indirect costs. The council is supporting significant numbers of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who do not have English as a second language and require additional support in schools.

[Mr Sutcliffe]

indicated assent.

[Gavin Barwell]

The shadow Minister nods, but under his Government, and under this Government, we have not yet made the case to the Home Office that Croydon council tax payers should not be asked to shoulder the cost of a national obligation.

The Minister will no doubt respond that because of the work he is doing, which I entirely applaud, the numbers of such people have been reducing. However, this involves a twofold issue of principle. First, the next time there is a major conflict abroad, those numbers will undoubtedly increase again, and we will be back where we were a year or two ago. Secondly, there is a more important point of principle, which is that our obligation to provide sanctuary for those who are fleeing persecution is a very important national obligation, and we should not be trying to drive down the numbers of people seeking asylum by making it as difficult as possible for them to do so.

[Mr Sutcliffe]

indicated assent.

[Gavin Barwell]

The shadow Minister nods again, but we were not able to convince the previous Government of that case. I believe that the reason the Home Office took the decision to close the office in Liverpool was to make it difficult for people to claim. I am all in favour of making the process quicker and certainly in favour of making it much more accurate, so that we do not have such a large number of successful appeals, but we should not make it difficult for people who have fled from persecution to this country to claim asylum.

I very much welcome the fact that we are having this debate. If we can reduce the overall number of people seeking to come into the country; if we can focus on two groups of people—those who will contribute to our economic future and those who are entitled to claim sanctuary; if we can have quick and accurate decisions; and if we can have an efficient and properly resourced UK Border Agency, I am confident that we can make progress.

I end by asking the Minister about UKBA. I know that he has already spoken, so perhaps he can reply to me separately. I have a number of constituents who work at UKBA, and they have real concerns about the Government’s public spending decisions. I understand why they are having to make those decisions, but a particular point has been made to me about a consultation that has just happened on the units in UKBA facing redundancy. The Chancellor was very clear in both the Budget and the comprehensive spending review that the Government wished to minimise the number of compulsory redundancies, and I am sure that Members of all parties would agree with that aim. However, the lobbying that I have received suggests that the way in which UKBA is interpreting the units for redundancy is making it much more likely that there will be a significant number of compulsory redundancies. Perhaps the Minister can get back to me on that point. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this debate.

Limits on Non-EU Economic Migration

Lord Barwell Excerpts

Monday 28th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, which sounds like an early submission in the consultation process. He might like to put that forward in more detail.

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement, which is an important first step in implementing the coalition’s proposals to get our immigration system under control. She talked about restoring public confidence in our immigration system. Does she agree that, in addition to the measures that she listed in her statement, doing a better job of removing those people who do not have a right to be in this country is a key element in that regard?

[Mrs May]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and that is something on which we will also focus. The general public are right to expect that if someone is here without the right to be here, the Government take steps to ensure that they are removed.

Alternatives to Child Detention

Lord Barwell Excerpts

Thursday 17th June 2010 Westminster Hall

[Gavin Barwell (Croydon Central) (Con)]

Like the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his appointment. I have known him for some time and, given the values that I know he has, I think that he will balance the need to reform our asylum system, to ensure that people who do not have a right to be in the country return home, with compassion for those who come here seeking sanctuary. It is a great privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester East. He referred to his work in the previous Parliament as Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs and its report on the issue before us today.

Immigration and asylum, which are too often conjoined, are important in my constituency. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the UK Border Agency in Croydon Central; its significant presence has a number of effects on my constituency. First, a large number of people are going through either the immigration or the asylum process, which has been the dominant issue in my casework in the four or five weeks I have been an MP. Secondly, as the right hon. Gentleman implied, a significant number of UKBA employees are my constituents, so there are some interesting letters from people about their experience of working in the system and how it might be improved. On another occasion, I might share some of those views with my hon. Friend the Minister.

Thirdly, there is a significant impact on our local authority, and the right hon. Gentleman talked about the issues. The London borough of Croydon, as a social services authority, has responsibility for more than 700 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. That compares with about 300 children from Croydon, so its social services role is very different from that of many other local authorities. Finally, immigration and asylum is a big issue with residents. Croydon has seen significant demographic change over the past 10 or 20 years. I am pleased to say that in most parts of my constituency, and most parts of the town, relations between different communities are good. However, in a few areas there has been significant activity from the British National party. I am pleased that it did not make the predicted breakthrough at the recent local elections.

Immigration and asylum was also a significant issue in the general election campaign. I suspect that other right hon. and hon. Members here today were contacted by Citizens for Sanctuary during the general election and asked to sign the sanctuary pledge. It gave me far and away my most uncomfortable moment during the campaign because I strongly feel that it is inappropriate to detain children, but, given that the party manifesto did not contain a specific commitment to end the practice, I felt that it was inappropriate for me to make a pledge without confidence that it could be delivered. The issue is important to me personally and to my constituency. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has visited Yarl’s Wood on several occasions and has spoken publicly about how distressing he found seeing children who are effectively behind bars.

The evidence in favour of changing the approach of the previous Government has been mounting for some time. The first UK study of its kind on the subject was published on 15 October last year in “Child Abuse & Neglect: the International Journal”. A team of doctors examined 24 children detained at Yarl’s Wood immigration removal centre. They found that the majority were experiencing mental and physical health difficulties related to being in detention. The Royal Colleges of Paediatrics and Child Health, of General Practitioners and of Psychiatrists, and the UK Faculty of Public Health produced a long and detailed report. Dr Philip Collins, a forensic adolescent psychiatrist representing the Royal College of Psychiatrists, said:

“The harsh reality about this country’s immigration policy is that we are significantly damaging the mental health of many of the children and young people who end up—through no fault of their own—being detained in a prison-like environment by the UK Border Agency. The evidence is clear: this policy directly harms the mental health of children and young people. That is why the Royal College of Psychiatrists calls on the UK Government to end this practice without delay.”

On 17 February this year, we had the report of Sir Al Aynsley-Green, the former Children’s Commissioner for England:

“Children continue to report that they find the process of arrest and transportation distressing. Increasingly, children are separated from parents when transported to the centre. Most are not told what will happen to their belongings and pets left behind and many have difficulty contacting friends.”

While acknowledging that health care standards improved, the report states that significant areas require attention, saying that

“a mother informed the nurse at 11.20 pm that her five year old child had fallen earlier in the playground. The child could not lift her arm and was not seen by the GP until 2.05pm the next day and went to A&E at 7.02 pm,”

the next evening, and was found to have a fracture.

There is also the report of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons, which, to be fair to the previous Government, noted that conditions, services and support for children, including a new school and better health care, have improved:

“However, given that the fact of detention adversely affected children’s welfare, inspectors were concerned that their detention did not appear to be exceptional or necessary, given that half the families detained were later released under temporary admission.”

As I say, the evidence that the policy the previous Government pursued was wrong has been mounting for some time. It must surely be possible to balance the need to remove those with no right to be in this country with the need to protect the welfare of children. I was glad to see in the coalition agreement a commitment to end the detention of children, which takes on the Home Affairs Committee’s recommendations and, arguably, goes a little further. My hon. Friend the Minister has announced that the review is under way. I hope that the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) will confirm that the official Opposition will reconsider their approach.

I have a few questions for my hon. Friend before I close. The right hon. Member for Leicester East touched on the first: how long will the review take? I understand that while it is being carried out, some detention will continue but a time scale would be helpful. In his opening remarks, my hon. Friend ran through the options that will be considered as part of the review; one was potentially separating families so some family members could remain in their home. I was pleased to hear that he recognised that that would be contentious. If we move from detaining children to breaking up families, it could be a case of out of the frying pan, into the fire. Will the Minister tell us more about the pilot scheme looking at possibilities away from detention that UKBA has been running in Glasgow? The initial results showed that there had been some success, with people voluntarily choosing to return to their country of origin.

Will my hon. Friend tell us a little about the case management approach that a number of other countries have adopted in recent years to end the practice of detention? He talked a little about that in his opening remarks, but I understand that the policy that has been pursued in Sweden, for example, has reached the point where more than three quarters of families now voluntarily agree to return to their place of origin.

In conclusion, I thank you, Mr Weir, for the opportunity to speak in the debate. I was extremely gratified to see that the commitment to act on this issue was in the coalition agreement. I am also gratified to see that the Minister has already acted to set up a review, and I look forward to hearing how he intends to take it forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Green]

I agree with that point and will seek to take the friendly advice that the hon. Lady offers across the Chamber in that regard.

[Gavin Barwell]

Does the Minister agree that one of the other reasons for delay and one that causes great frustration to UKBA staff is the difficulty of returning people to certain countries? Will he work with colleagues at the Foreign Office to see whether we can secure improved arrangements in that regard?

[Damian Green]

Absolutely so. The whole Government are working very hard to ensure that those who have no right to remain here are returned to their countries of origin. My hon. Friend, who has huge expertise already in this matter, representing Croydon Central, will have noticed that when the Government and the UK Border Agency have some successes in that regard, it is not universally popular. We are being criticised this week for resuming returns to Iraq, but that has to be part of the process; otherwise, the process will silt up.

Let me make some progress, as I am conscious of the time and there are many questions to answer. A point made by various hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) and the right hon. Member for Leicester East, was about resources. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware of the state of the public finances left by the Government he supported for 13 years. As a result, there will be difficulties. All I can sensibly say is that the management of resources is as important as the quantum of resources. That is one of the things that the new Government are most eager to get to grips with as fast as possible, and we shall be doing so as part of the general spending review.

Various hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch, asked about the Glasgow pilot. She will know that it encourages refused asylum seeker families to return voluntarily by providing intensive support, which is focused on helping families to confront issues that delay a return and building up skills to prepare for a voluntary return. Thirty-two families have been referred to the Glasgow pilot; 11 have been accommodated there. I am afraid that nothing has changed in that regard since the hon. Lady left office. No families have elected to return voluntarily to their home countries, and enforced departure has taken place of three families who were initially accepted into the project. However, she and I need not despair at this point, because one of the things that I learned when I was in Glasgow earlier this week was that the fact of that project has spread awareness of assisted voluntary return much more widely among the various communities—she will be aware that there are large numbers of such families there—which in itself has led to a significant surge in applications for voluntary return. The availability of that process and the information on it is quite heartening in terms of the wider review that I am conducting. The more aware we can make families of the existence of voluntary return, the more they seem to be interested in it. It is a difficult set of options before the Government, but that is one of the heartening points that should be made.

I will attempt to answer all the questions the hon. Lady asked. On Dungavel, in the one or two cases that occur now, the families are moved to Yarl’s Wood, so that is the only place where they are being held. The problem is lessening slightly as I progress through this speech. I have now learned that only three children are in detention at the moment at Yarl’s Wood. She asked, as others did, about local authorities. Clearly, the local authorities with the most expertise, whether we are talking about Croydon, Kent or Hillingdon—the ones that people would expect to be involved—will play a significant role in the review, but I take her point that other local authorities will need to be informed.

The hon. Lady asked about community organisations. One reason for trying to get out as much as possible is to engage not only the national end of the various organisations that are most concerned with either the welfare of children or, specifically, families in the position that we are discussing, but the organisations on the ground around the country, so that they can contribute their considerable expertise to the review.

On assisted voluntary return, the hon. Lady makes the point that we are living in a time of spending stringency. All I can sensibly say at this point is that, as she knows, in the long run nothing is as expensive as detention. Building and maintaining detention centres is more expensive than providing people with packages to return voluntarily, so if all goes well, the net effect on the public purse will also be beneficial.

The hon. Lady asked about the legal advice that I am receiving. All I can say gently is that I do not remember her ever sharing the legal advice that she received from Home Office lawyers when she was standing at the Dispatch Box. That was a very good habit of hers, which I intend to take up.

I am grateful to all hon. Members who contributed to the debate. It has been extremely constructive. This is not necessarily an easy problem to solve, but we all agree that it must be solved. We cannot go on with the system that we had in the past. The final big question was when we shall finish the review. The report will be on my desk in the early weeks of July, and I shall proceed with all possible speed after that to come to a full conclusion.

Question put and agreed to.