Draft Judicial Pensions (Fee-paid Judges) (Amendment) Regulations 2021

Bambos Charalambous Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2021 General Committees

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Pritchard, to serve under your chairmanship.

This is a non-contentious statutory instrument, which Labour is happy to support. As set out by the Minister, the main purpose of the draft instrument is to amend the Judicial Pensions (Fee-Paid Judges) Regulations 2017. We welcome the addition of the new members to the scheme and the other measures proposed.

The judicial pensions regulations were enacted to remedy a defect in law identified by the European Court of Justice in the case of O’Brien v. Ministry of Justice. In that case, Mr O’Brien had been appointed as a part-time judge on the western circuit, where he sat between March 1978 and March 2005. The litigation came about after Mr O’Brien established that, as a part-time judge, he could not access the judicial pension scheme in the same way that a full-time judge could. Mr O’Brien successfully argued that that amounted to part-time judges unlawfully receiving less favourable treatment than their salaried counterparts, simply on the grounds of their working patterns.

In response to the judgment, the Government introduced the judicial pensions regulations, which in turn established the fee-paid judicial pension scheme. Under the scheme, all eligible current and former judicial office holders, regardless of whether they sat part-time or full-time, would be able to access a judicial pension scheme. Simply put, the fee-paid pension scheme placed part-time judges on an equal footing with their full-time judicial colleagues for the first time.

The draft SI seeks to amend the judicial regulations to do two things. First, it will add certain judicial offices to the list of those eligible under the fee-paid pension scheme. Secondly, it will clarify the date on which pension entitlements begin to accrue. It is somewhat regrettable that we are debating the SI today, given that it had previously been laid before Parliament on 29 November 2017, but was withdrawn due to numerous errors in drafting. None the less, it is an important SI that must be welcomed, and it is deeply unfair that any part-time judge should be told that they have no right to a pension simply because such pensions are reserved for their full-time colleagues. As the European Court of Justice made clear when it considered Mr O’Brien’s case, the work of part-time and full-time judges is identical. They carry out their functions in the same courts, in the same way and at the same time. The former practice was clearly discriminatory, and it is regrettable that the Government have chosen to put this injustice right only after losing litigation.

On the matter of costly litigation, I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm exactly how much public money has been spent on legal costs in challenging the claim made by Mr O’Brien. I would also be grateful if he confirmed how much the Ministry of Justice has paid so far to part-time judges who were wrongly denied pensions, and how much he expects to be paid in total. I appreciate that the Minister’s civil servants are not present, so I would be happy to receive a written response. None the less, as I said previously, although it is well overdue, this is an important measure that Labour will support today.

Draft Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) (Amendment) Order 2021

Bambos Charalambous Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2021 General Committees

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Nokes.

I thank the Minister for his opening remarks. Having looked through the detail of this statutory instrument, the Opposition are satisfied that the alignment that it delivers makes sense. With that in mind, however, we note that it has taken some time to make this change and it is disappointing to read that an impact assessment has not been prepared for this instrument, on the grounds that

‘There is no, or no significant, impact’.

The changes will certainly have an impact on Border Force officials, and indeed they relate to our borders, so it is regrettable that no assessment has been carried out to give us complete assurance that it will have no impact or no significant impact.

I will also take this opportunity to stress that the success of the changes will continue to rely on strong and effective relations with our international partners on international security and borders, and we will endeavour to listen to our colleagues on the Border Force frontline for their assessment of the changes as they are introduced.

Nevertheless, I have heard what the Minister has said and I will not detain the Committee any longer, as we do not wish to divide on this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bambos Charalambous Excerpts

Monday 8th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Lady raises a really important point at this very delicate time with the vaccine roll-out, and I would like to make two comments.

First, the Government are absolutely focused on zapping down the disinformation and misinformation that is circulating around the vaccine, because we cannot allow people—lives will be lost—basically to be duped into believing that this vaccine is not safe. I urge everyone—Labour councils, Conservative councils, and everyone in positions of authority—to get the message out to take the jab; it is safe, and it will protect individuals and their families.

Secondly, the hon. Lady asked about legislation and actions by the Government. A lot of work is taking place across Government, by the Home Office, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and other colleagues, around sanctions and penalties, and work has also taken place with the online harms Bill very much to target social media platforms and the way in which they operate.

Finally, it is worth concluding, as we see the vaccine roll-out taking place, that everyone should, when called, take the vaccine, and collectively—no matter what our backgrounds politically or in terms of gender or ethnicity—everyone should be out there praising the efforts on the vaccine and making sure that people take the jab.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

The spread of disinformation and anti-vaccine content on social media is presenting a real danger to the NHS in its efforts to vaccinate against covid-19, and some communities are hesitant to accept the vaccine, with people risking their own health and, in some cases, their own lives. In an agreement with the social media giants it was revealed that their only commitment was not to profit from or promote flagged anti-vax content, but there was no commitment to close down these groups, so is it not time that the Government got tougher to stop the anti-vax message getting through?

[Priti Patel]

I very much refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments that I have just made: a lot of work is taking place with social media platforms. False information, disinformation and manipulated information are intended to deceive and mislead people, and when it comes to the vaccine that is going to risk lives. The Government are very clear about that, which is why action is taking place across all Government Departments, as I have outlined.

It is worth nothing that Ofcom’s latest research shows that the NHS remains the most trusted source of information on covid-19, and therefore it is right that we continue absolutely to put pressure on social media platforms when disinformation materialises, but also make sure that we maximise the right kind of information going out about the vaccine through respected channels of communication.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bambos Charalambous Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

I join the hon. Gentleman in being appalled at the level of abuse and, indeed, violence that shopworkers often face. We are doing a huge amount to try to deal with it. Along with the retail crime steering group, we are working closely with police forces to press down on this particular issue. I have written to all chief constables in recent months outlining the need to ensure that every crime that takes place in a shop is investigated as much as it possibly can be. Interestingly, just last week, I met the head of security at the Co-op to talk about the work that it is doing with a company called Facewatch, which is using facial recognition technology to alert staff to repeat offenders who are entering the store, allowing them to intervene before the interaction is likely to become violent and abusive.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

In a recent survey of its members, the shopworkers’ trade union USDAW found that 85% had been verbally abused, 57% had been threatened and 9% had been assaulted this year. Given those shocking statistics and noting the unsung role that these retail staff have played in ensuring that shops remain open during the pandemic, does the Minister agree that they need greater protection, and does he support the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), which seeks to create new offences for assaults on retail workers?

[Kit Malthouse]

I do agree with the hon. Gentleman that shopworkers deserve all the protection that we can afford to them in the conduct of their duty, which has never been more crucial than during the recent pandemic and the lockdown where we saw the critical part that they play in making sure that the nation is fed. Having said that, we do not yet see the case for a specific offence of assault on a shopworker, notwithstanding the fact that conviction for an assault on those performing a public service—a category that such workers would fall into—is already an aggravating factor in sentencing. The Sentencing Council is, I gather, shortly to begin its work in reviewing the sentencing of assault. I urge the hon. Gentleman, with whom I have discussed these matters many times, to put his evidence into that consultation, as will the Government, to ensure that those who assault people working in a retail environment receive a commensurately serious offence such that others will be deterred from doing the same.

Forensic Science Regulator and Biometrics Strategy Bill

Bambos Charalambous Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: House of Commons
Wednesday 11th November 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Eagle, and to be back debating this Bill just six weeks on from its Second Reading. Although it has felt like a pretty long month and a half—especially for those of us who have spent far too much time watching the CNN app—this is legislation a decade in the asking, so six weeks is dizzying progress. It is therefore hugely welcome that we are here, and there are a number of people whom I should thank before making substantive remarks.

First of all, I am hugely grateful to the outgoing Forensic Science Regulator, Dr Gillian Tully, who was rightly recognised with a CBE in the Queen’s Birthday Honours last month in appreciation of her work since being appointed in 2014, and over three decades in the Forensic Science Service before that. Dr Tully has been a constant advocate for the changes given force in this Bill, with her annual reports laying out in unanswerable detail the case for a regulator with the statutory powers to do its job. In her report, Dr Tully not only gives her views as the regulator, but brings to life the stories of many in the criminal justice system who have suffered wrongly from poor standards in forensic science in the past.

Although Dr Tully’s tenure will conclude before the office is able to wield those powers, it is in no small part testimony to her doggedness in making the argument that it will at least have statutory powers. Dr Tully has been enormously generous with her time as we have drafted this Bill, and previously during our inquiry on the Science and Technology Committee, and we are indebted to her. Two successive configurations of Science and Technology Committee, both in this House and in the other place, who have built an invaluable case for statutory powers for the regulator over many years.

More immediately, I would like to reiterate my thanks to the Government, in particular the Minister for Crime and Policing, for their support and willingness for this Bill to proceed, and for offering the amendments that we are debating today to fine-tune the Bill so that it is ready to become legislation. I thank also my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield Southgate and the Labour Front-Bench team for their continued support from the very beginning.

Last but by no means least, I thank all colleagues on the Committee today, and certainly those who helped to corral other colleagues to be here, for which I am very grateful. I am sure hon. Members will be agreeable to this being a short sitting, but I thank them for making the effort to be here.

The broad approval reflected across the debate today highlights the common-sense wisdom of the provisions being put forward. The Forensic Science Regulator has done indispensable work since its creation in 2008, but the market for forensic services in Britain is not working as it should, with shortfalls in capacity, skills and funding, a lack of real competition and an inconsistency in the application of required standards.

Victims of crime, as well as those accused of crimes, must be able to rely on a criminal justice system that can call on high-quality forensic science provided by experts able to demonstrate their competence, with agreed standards across providers. This perhaps small and technical change will make a real difference to people’s lives and their experience of the criminal justice system.

One amendment would change the title of the Bill to remove the suggestion of a biometrics strategy. That has of course been agreed with the Minister and the Government. It highlights the complex nature of biometrics regulation and indeed the scope that one can pursue in a private Member’s Bill. I understand that, as the Minister has suggested, there will be primary legislation on this subject before the House in due course.

In Britain and around the world, Governments need to do much more to regulate the ways in which biometric data is collected, stored and used. The technologies that enable these processes are evolving much more quickly than the oversight that is necessary to hold them accountable. Plugging that gap is crucial to serving the public and the national interest. In that context, although I am happy for the amendment to be made, I hope it does not come at the cost of too long a delay in legislation coming before the House.

In the round, the provisions build on broad, expert consensus, with cross-party support in Committees in this place and the other place, on giving the regulator statutory powers to compel compliance and enforce the outcomes of its investigations. It is a necessary first step in bringing about a better functioning market and raising standards for the long haul. It is a service not just to the criminal justice system, but to the victims of crime. I am sure of consensus across the House in bringing the measures forward, and I look forward to getting the Bill through Committee today and to its final stages.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure for me as well to serve under your chairship, Ms Eagle. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West on having progressed the Bill to Committee stage. I thank the Minister for his letter to me yesterday expressing the Government’s commitment to the Bill, taking the time to clarify their position on the issues raised on Second Reading, and explaining the amendments tabled by the Government.

The Opposition broadly support and welcome the Government amendments, which seek to strengthen the Bill by tackling the issue of the appeals process in clause 8, which goes hand in hand with the new regulatory powers granted to the regulator. We also support the tidying-up amendments to ensure that the clauses do not overlap with other measures that also clarify the scope of the new powers.

The Bill is long overdue. I am sure that all Members will agree that there is a need to put the regulator on a statutory footing to be able to ensure that the standards set by the regulator are met. If enforcement action were not available to the regulator, the standards could not be properly implemented, so we need provision for the regulator to enforce the standards. Forensic science has advanced so much in the last 40 years that it must surely be self-evident that where someone’s liberty is at stake and where the criminal standard is proved beyond reasonable doubt, we should expect high standards from those carrying out forensic science work, and those standards must be capable of being enforced. Voluntary compliance with standards will simply not do.

When we think about Rachel Nickell and Stephen Lawrence, for instance, and how we brought their cases to justice, and how the Birmingham Six were successful in their appeal following new forensic evidence, it is clear why what the Bill sets out to achieve is so important. The integrity of our criminal justice system is at stake; we must not get this wrong. Select Committees in the Commons and the other place have highlighted the pressing need to put the regulator on a statutory footing, and the Government have repeatedly said that they will do so, so I am pleased that they are finally taking steps to make sure that that happens.

In my experience of speaking to forensic scientists in the lead-up to this debate, it is clear that for many of them it is a vocation. In the traditional areas of forensic science there is wide compliance with standards, but that is not the case in other areas such as the newly emerging field of digital forensics, where the level of compliance with ISO standards is less than 30%. Because there is more reliance on digital evidence in criminal justice now, the level of non-compliance to a voluntary standard in that field is very worrying indeed. That is why the measures in the Bill are so important. The outgoing Forensic Science Regulator, Dr Gillian Tully, stated that she can get average compliance across all forensics up to 75% under the current system, but that the final 25% can be achieved only with enforcement powers. That is what the Bill sets out to achieve.

Clauses 2 to 4 establish the code of practice and set out a statutory footing for forensic science standards to be followed. Clauses 5 to 7 give the regulator enforcement powers to ensure that the code is complied with. The powers of investigation include the power to require production of documents and the provision of other information, with the sanction of legal measures in the High Court as an ultimate last resort for failure to comply. The Bill is exactly in line with the Government’s own forensic science strategy of 2016, which recommended giving the regulator statutory powers to identify and sanction forensic service providers who failed to maintain standards. It is long overdue. While I wish it was going further, I accept that the Bill is a welcome starting point.

I want to put on the record my thanks to Dr Gillian Tully for her years of service in the post, her dedication and commitment and the respect which she has commanded, and for leaving the post of regulator in good shape. I thank the Minister for indicating support from the Government and I look forward to the Bill passing on to its next stage-.

[The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)]

It is a pleasure to be here, Ms Eagle. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol North West on getting the Bill to this stage and on his constructive attitude throughout our discussions and discussions with officials about the amendments. I thank other hon. Members for attending today, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West, who previously made a brave attempt at a similar measure, which was sadly foiled by the parliamentary timetable. Nevertheless, here he is to join in the triumph of the hon. Member for Bristol North West.

I do not intend to rehearse the extensive arguments that were made on Second Reading on the Floor of the House. It was a very long debate with a surprising level of interest from Members across the House on a Friday; it was nevertheless helpful and included many tributes to Dr Tully, which I associate myself with again this morning. She has done a great job and her influence here in the Bill is strong. We wish her well for the future.

The Bill is a key part of our plan to ensure that police, prosecution and defence in criminal proceedings are adequately, sustainably and proportionately served by high-quality scientific analysis of the relevant evidence. The Bill will provide the Forensic Science Regulator with statutory powers, which will enable it to issue compliance notices against forensic providers who are failing to meet the required quality standards, and will protect the criminal justice system. Scientifically robust evidence is one of policing’s most important tools for investigating crime. These powers, to be used as a last resort, are necessary and will support the effective delivery of justice and help restore confidence in the criminal justice system.

By your leave, Ms Eagle, I will take the Committee through our amendments, not least because I am conscious we have an audience at home to whom we have a duty to outline what we are doing as we change the law of the land. I do not propose to go through the various clauses, which have been outlined. It is a relatively simple Bill, establishing a relatively simple principle, but there are some amendments to fine-tune the legislation.

Amendment 1 provides that any person who is required to provide information to the Forensic Science Regulator as part of the regulator’s investigations does not breach any obligation of confidence or any other restriction on the disclosure of data, howsoever imposed. Any person who is required to provide information to the regulator may not be required to disclose information in breach of data protection legislation or the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.

Amendment 2 removes the express power for the first tier tribunal to award costs on an appeal against a refusal to issue a completion certificate, as the tribunal’s power to do so is governed by existing legislation.

Amendment 3 enables the recipients of a compliance notice served by the Forensic Science Regulator to bring an appeal to the first tier tribunal against the decision of the regulator. The amendment also sets out the grounds under which a person may bring such an appeal and the remedies that the first tier tribunal may grant. Grounds for an appeal of a compliance notice are that the decision was based on error of fact, the decision was wrong in law, the decision was unreasonable or that any step or prohibition specified in the notice is unreasonable.

Amendments 4 and 5 remove the express power for the first tier tribunal to award costs on an appeal against the refusal to issue a completion certificate, as the tribunal’s power to do so is already governed by existing legislation. It also makes an amendment consequential to amendment 3. Amendment 6 enables the upper tribunal to suspend a compliance notice pending the conclusion of an appeal for the first tier tribunal to the upper tribunal. Amendment 7 enables the regulator to provide assistance relating to forensic science activities carried on in England and Wales to any person, and not just advice, as currently worded. We hope that amendment will remove ambiguity.

Amendment 8 removes the ability of the forensic science regulator to disclose information to another public authority merely because it is relevant to the other authority’s functions. That means that the regulator is empowered to disclose information only where doing so is necessary to enable or assist the other public authority to carry out its functions. This amendment ensures consistency with data protection legislation.

Amendment 9 amends clause 1 so that the Bill does not affect the exercise by any persons other than the regulator of functions in relation to the regulation of forensic science activities. This is to ensure that the duties and powers of other bodies or regulators who oversee scientific activities, such as in the area of forensic pathology, are not affected by any of the provisions of the Bill.

Amendments 10 and 11 modify the short title and long title of the Bill. to reflect the fact that there are no clauses related to biometrics or a biometric strategy within. This is because the Government could not support the biometrics elements that were initially proposed.

The hon. Member for Bristol North West made a good point about the future of police technology. As I think I outlined on Second Reading, the Government have a manifesto commitment to create a framework within which law enforcement can operate as it adopts new and evolving technology in this area, particularly in relation to technologies that could be deemed to be biometrics, data or forensics, for which we have a variety of regulatory regimes at the moment, and about which we need clarity.

In particular, technology that could be deemed by the public to be intrusive needs to have democratic consent. One of the issues that is raised, for example in clause 3, is that the code of practice that the Forensic Science Regulator will put in place has to come to the House and be laid before the House to get expressed consent by affirmative action, and indeed must be approved by the Secretary of State. We are very keen that people know that, where such technologies are used and are developing fast, we as democratically elected politicians have a say and have influence on an ongoing basis. Some of the legislation is about allowing forensics to have the agility to adopt new technology, but I hope and believe that we will be able to bring those measures forward, certainly before the next election, because it is in our manifesto. I hope that we can do so as soon as possible, because technology is racing away from us.

Scientifically robust evidence is one of policing’s most important tools in investigating crime. These powers to be used as a last resort are necessary, and they will support the effective delivery of justice and help to restore confidence in the criminal justice system.

On that note, I urge the Committee to accept amendments 1 to 11 and to agree that clauses 1 to 13 stand part of the Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bambos Charalambous Excerpts

Monday 9th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

I welcome any call from Labour Members with regard to working together to tackle these dreadful, dreadful crimes, but I again draw the hon. Lady back to the fact that the reports that people make to the crime survey show that there is not the same increase that we are seeing in police recorded crime. The importance of police recorded crime is that it suggests very strongly, first, that the public are recognising when they are victims of the crime, but also that the police are recording it better. That must be key to us tackling this terrible crime. If we measure it properly, then we can make sure that our methods to address it are doing exactly that and stopping this terrible crime.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

Tell MAMA is running its “No2H8” campaign this month, and the Home Office has acknowledged in its own stats that this year’s rise in hate crimes is partly driven by far-right groups targeting Black Lives Matter campaigners. Will the Minister tell me what the Government are doing to support groups that they have been recognised as victims of an increase in hate crime?

[Victoria Atkins]

The hon. Gentleman will know that we published the hate crime action plan in 2016 and refreshed it in 2018, and we have seen significant improvements, as I have said, which goes back to the point about police recorded crime as well. We are also investing. Through schemes such as the places of worship scheme, we can have a real impact on the local communities most affected by hate crime. In terms of the Black Lives Matter far-right counter-protest, there was a rise in racially or religiously aggravated and non-aggravated public order offences in June and July this year, as compared with the previous year. To push back a little on what the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) said earlier, we must all fight back against extremist politics, whether it is the far right, as the hon. Gentleman has just talked about, or indeed the far left, because there is an awful lot of hatred coming from that direction at the moment. I welcome the calls—I am taking them to be universal—to lower the temperature, to be responsible with our use of language and to ensure that we have the sorts of discourse in politics that I am sure we all wish for.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Bambos Charalambous Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Monday 19th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his constructive intervention. Yes, certainly; I am more than happy to engage with him about how we can look at this process. He will realise that it is not just in this area where there has traditionally been a difference, because EEA nationals have freedom of movement rights, so it would be odd to grant them status under immigration rules, but I am certainly happy to have that conversation. I also reassure Members that we would consider someone’s being held as a modern slave as reasonable grounds for a late application to the EU settlement scheme. I say gently that it would be unhelpful to have two very similar sets of criteria, one under the immigration rules and one under policy, so we do not accept Lords amendment 9.

Having been through the more contentious areas, I hope that Members support Lords amendment 11, which was introduced in reaction to feedback in the other place. I hope that Members accept the reasons I have outlined why the Government cannot accept the Lords amendments that we ask the House to disagree with, but I hope that they have a sense of the Government’s commitment to the issues raised.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be at the Dispatch Box for the return of this incredibly important piece of legislation. I thank peers in the other place for their detailed work on the Bill. We welcome the amendments that have been secured, most of them with significant majorities; several of the improvements before us today demonstrate cross-party support.

Lords amendment 1 would require the Secretary of State to commission and publish an independent assessment of the impact of ending free movement on the social care sector. The Government’s intransigence on this matter has been beyond disappointing. This Bill has been an affront to those migrant workers working on the frontline in social care. To have clapped them on a Thursday night and then told them that they are unskilled and therefore not welcome on a Monday is both disrespectful and shameful.

Members on both sides of the House have witnessed the vulnerabilities across our health and social care sector, which, despite the best efforts of its dedicated workforce, has been pushed to the limits over the course of the pandemic. Unison, the UK’s largest trade union, represents our dedicated public sector workers, including social care workers, across the UK. We have worked closely with Unison, which has supported and represented workers throughout the pandemic. With its in-depth knowledge of the sector and foresight, it has articulated its vision of social care in its “care after covid” campaign to address the fault lines that were so exposed throughout the last six months. To propose a Bill that will make radical changes to the recruitment of social care workers without considering the impact is simply negligent and careless governance.

The Minister referred to the Migration Advisory Committee; in its recent report, commissioned at the request of the Home Secretary, it expressed concerns about the social care sector and argued that if necessary funding and pay increases do not materialise urgently, it would expect the end of freedom of movement to increase the pressure on the social care sector. That would be particularly difficult to understand at a time when so many care occupations are central to the covid-19 pandemic frontline response.

These remarks should unsettle the Government and spur them into action, and I fully expect that if the Government do not listen, on the day that the new points-based immigration system is implemented we will still be deeply entrenched in the battle against coronavirus. If we do not do our due diligence by adopting this amendment, the Bill is set to undermine social care recklessly at a time when we can least afford it, so we urge the Government to reconsider their position, commission the impact assessment and understand the impact of the Bill on the social care workforce, on visas and on the consequences for recruitment, training and staff terms and conditions.

Amendment 4 would ensure there are safe refugee family reunion routes after Dublin III ceases to be available in the UK following the end of the UK-EU transition period. I want to place on record my thanks to the brilliant and inspirational Lord Dubs for his tireless work and leadership on this amendment in the other place.

A great deal has been said about immigration over the summer and we on the Labour Benches want in the strongest possible terms to distance ourselves from the Home Secretary’s dangerous rhetoric and to thank those lawyers who play such an important role in ensuring that the UK is upholding its international and legal obligations. The amendment demonstrates the future for one of the safe and legal routes we have all advocated for over the summer.

The Dublin III regulation is for family reunion and represents legal routes to safety from Europe for children seeking to come to the UK. Family reunion under Dublin III is currently the only legal pathway to reach the UK from the EU for the purposes of claiming asylum. It will no longer apply after the transition period. If we do not seek to address this issue, I fear that we will see more images of people making precarious and life-threatening journeys on dinghies across the channel.

The Government will say that they have a draft proposal for family reunion; however, it is apparent that their proposal is woefully inadequate. The proposals remove all mandatory requirements to activate family reunions. They remove the child’s right to appeal against refusal, and some children would not be covered by the narrower definition of family which Parliament passed in a 2017 Act.

Other safeguards have been removed, too, such as deadlines. According to one non-governmental organisation, 95% of people helped by NGOs to obtain a right of passage would fail the test proposed by the Government. Existing immigration rules also fail to cover this specific area, and therefore this amendment gives Parliament a chance to enshrine in law the basic principle of family reunion.

This issue is incredibly salient and our thoughts are still fixed on the suffering and horrors caused by the fire at the Moria refugee camp in Lesbos. The scale of that tragedy could have been minimised.

We all heard the pleas before the incident to the Greek Government for help with numbers at the camp, yet the calls were ignored by the people in power.

It is worth noting that the number of people who have come in under Dublin III has historically been very small. Up to 2014, there were 10 or 11 a year, and since 2016, a little over 500 have come in under it. We hear about the Government’s proposed fairer borders Bill on asylum, but those children cannot wait. We are asking the House to use its power to give transformative opportunities to innocent children who, through no fault of their own, have found themselves fleeing persecution and destitution.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Rodda]

Does my hon. Friend agree that having physical proof is deeply reassuring to many older people in particular, some of whom might not be familiar with IT and might feel that an IT-based system alone does not give them the security they so want?

[Bambos Charalambous]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. Many people have been confused about what status they have because of the emails they have received.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

I warmly endorse the last intervention the hon. Gentleman took. Governments of all stripes surely have enough experience of digital disasters to know that people need to have something tangible on which they can rely if they request it and if they feel insufficiently confident that a digital system guarantees that they can prove their status.

[Bambos Charalambous]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. We need to ensure that there is documentation, because we have seen the failings of other IT systems in the past and cannot allow that to happen again, especially on an issue as important as people’s rights.

Although we are open to the Government’s aspiration to move towards a digitally-focused system for all UK immigration, we are also aware of the internal failings that prevail within the Home Office. With that in mind, we urge the Government to think again about adopting Lords amendment 5.

Lords amendment 9 would give EEA and Swiss nationals who are victims of trafficking at least 12 months’ leave to remain and access to benefits during their period of recovery after being confirmed as victims of modern slavery. I thank Lord McColl for all his work on this issue and congratulate him on garnering considerable cross-party support. There is an unfortunate absence of domestic statutory provision in England and Wales for confirmed victims of human trafficking on their rights to support and assistance. Over the years, that deficiency has been filled by EU law.

As things stand, following the end of the UK-EU transition period on 31 December, human trafficking victims will be left in an undefined legal vacuum. Following the end of the EU settlement scheme, victims of human trafficking who are EEA or Swiss nationals will be able to apply only for discretionary leave to remain. The criteria for that are very narrow and it is unclear whether the same treatment as that for non-EEA nationals will apply.

Lords amendment 9 would provide much needed refuge and support to people who have suffered unimaginable uncertainty and abuse. We hope that the Government will support it. We must tackle the systemic factors that lead to modern slavery, provide support to those who are affected, and encourage more people to come forward to end the perpetual cycle of abuse and crime. I heard what the Minister said, and we wait with interest to see what the Government will come up with, particularly in respect of support for victims of modern day slavery.

To conclude, this is a bad Bill: it is reckless and ignores the evidence. The Lords amendments, many of which have cross-party support, are a genuine attempt to address those failings. If passed unamended, the Bill will lead to staff shortages in our care system at a time when it is perilously close to collapse; encourage dangerous crossings, as it fails to address safe family reunion routes after Dublin III; and lead to a lack of safeguarding and support for victims of modern day slavery. The amendments have been well debated both here and in the other place, and I urge the Minister to accept them.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

We now have a time limit of six minutes.

Draft Citizens' Rights (Restrictions of Rights of Entry and Residence) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 Draft Citizens' Rights (Application Deadline and Temporary Protection) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 Draft Citizens' Rights (Frontier Workers) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Bambos Charalambous Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2020 General Committees

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue, and to see you in the Chair for the first time. Each of these statutory instruments is a little legislative beast in itself. I will begin with the draft Citizens’ Rights (Frontier Workers) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.

We welcome the Government’s commitment to fulfilling the UK’s obligations under the withdrawal agreement, the EEA EFTA separation agreement and the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement, to allow those who are employed or self-employed in the UK but living elsewhere to continue to do so as long as they remain a frontier worker.

Under part 3 of this statutory instrument, this group will be required to obtain a permit to evidence their right to enter the UK after 1 July 2020. I ask the Minister to confirm that it will be a physical document, because regulation 8(5) is somewhat ambiguous, suggesting that the permit

“may be in electronic form”,

but it is not definitive on this point. If so, as the explanatory memorandum suggests, why is there a requirement for this cohort of people to have physical proof, yet the request for physical proof for pre-settled and settled status was rejected? The Minister knows that that issue will return to the Chamber when we debate the Lords’ amendments to the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill on Monday.

I now turn to the Citizens’ Rights (Restrictions of Rights of Entry and Residence) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. Again, we will return in more detail to the issue of immigration detention on Monday, when the Bill returns from the Lords. These changes honour our obligations under article 20 of the withdrawal agreement to consider the conduct of a person committed before the end of the transition period, when relating to deportation decisions, in line with public policy, public security or public health. We welcome the fact that these decisions will continue to be appealable and do not plan to oppose this legislative change.

The more substantial of these three instruments is the Citizens’ Rights (Application Deadline and Temporary Protection) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, or, as the Minister termed it, the grace period SI. This SI is slightly complicated. I know it was a source of much discussion in the Lords on Report of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill.

As the Minister knows, we have been approached by the3million, which represents EU nationals in the UK, and the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, both of which have made direct representations on this matter to the Home Office. They are concerned that the way in which this instrument is drafted could technically mean that a large number of people would have a question mark over their rights during the grace period while their application under the settlement scheme was pending.

I know that the Minister has had discussions with my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) and others on this issue, as we have tried to resolve and improve the wording. It is with regret that we have not been able ahead of today’s debates to change the text of this SI to remove any ambiguity about those rights. The Immigration Law Practitioners Association has suggested that changing the text from “lawfully resident” to “resident or present” would align much closer to the spirit of the EU settlement scheme and our obligations under the withdrawal agreement.

There is, therefore, currently no provision in relation to the resident’s status during the grace period for EEA and Swiss citizens or their family members who are not granted leave under the scheme by the implementation period completion date, which is 11 pm on 31 December 2020, and are not lawfully resident as defined by the SI. Such persons could, therefore, face difficulty in accessing services such as healthcare or employment during the grace period, or during the time that an in-time application is decided or an appeal is pending. Were no further provision made for these people, it would seem to diminish the meaning of the grace period and contradict the mechanisms made in other related regulations, which do provide for protection for persons who are eligible under the EU settlement scheme but not lawfully resident under the EEA regulations.

As we understand it, the protected cohort outlined in section 7 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 should include all those who are eligible for status via the settlement scheme, not just those exercising their rights within the EEA regulations. The ongoing fear of a hostile environment makes nervousness persist when people do not have absolute clarity.

During the passage of the immigration Bill, Labour sought assurances from the Government that they would protect the rights of all people eligible to get status to remain legally in the UK via the settlement scheme during the grace period, and that those who had settlement scheme applications with the Home Office would benefit from the rights under the withdrawal agreement until a decision was made. The Government gave an unequivocal reassurance on this matter in Committee, when the Minister said during the sixth sitting that

“section 7 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act provides powers to make regulations to provide temporary protection for this cohort during the grace period. That means that if someone has not applied under the EU settlement scheme by the end of the transition period, they will be able to continue to work and live their lives in the UK as they do now, provided that they apply by 30 June 2021 and are then granted status.”–– [Official Report, Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2020; c. 195.]

We want to believe the Minister when he makes that commitment, but I am afraid that without these small changes to the drafting of this instrument, which would ensure it delivered exactly that, we cannot lend our support to it. I acknowledge the Minister’s letter, which we received just before the Committee began, but unfortunately it does not go far enough. We need that commitment in black and white, because this could be subject to legal challenge.

The implications of the Government’s actions are potentially severe for individuals who do not have a legal basis to live in the UK, but are eligible for status via the EU settlement scheme, and who will be left in a legal limbo entirely of the Government’s own making if this is not resolved. As well as that, anyone who has submitted an application to the EU settlement scheme before the end of the transition period and is pending a decision after the transition period ends will have to demonstrate that they fall within the scope of the draft regulations to have the benefit of their protection. Again, in the letter, the Minister says that some of these protections will be subject to the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill receiving Royal Assent, but we want that clarity now, because we are making this secondary legislation now.

I need not remind Members that just over a month ago the Public Accounts Committee released a damning report on the operational running of the Home Office, stating that it

“relies upon a disturbingly weak evidence base to assess the impact of its immigration enforcement activity”

and that it

“relies upon the judgements of senior staff rather than direct evidence”.

The Home Office itself has acknowledged how close it came to being declared institutionally racist in the Windrush lessons learned report, yet during a time of immense uncertainty and upheaval, these draft regulations seek to exacerbate the weaknesses of the Home Office and threaten the wellbeing and dignity of EEA and Swiss citizens who have chosen to live and work in the UK.

To reiterate, Labour cannot support this statutory instrument as drafted—the grace period SI, as we have called it—as it undermines and contradicts the promises made by the Government in the immigration Bill, as well as in paragraph 1 (b) and (c) of article 18 of the UK-EU withdrawal agreement. Accordingly, we intend to divide the Committee on this SI.

Gang-associated Girls

Bambos Charalambous Excerpts

Tuesday 6th October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi) on securing this important debate. She made many profound points and was right to highlight the imbalanced focus on the harms experienced by boys in gangs, versus those experienced by gang-associated girls. That has led to disproportionate funding of support for girls to deal with that trauma.

The National Crime Agency believes that girls are under-represented in its data both as offenders and as victims of exploitation. A clear picture is not available, as there are intelligence gaps, but it is well known by the police and service providers that girls are used for county lines operations as they are less likely to get caught. That issue was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson) in describing her experience of what is happening in Liverpool. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall referred to the example of young women being coerced into dressing as emergency workers to escape detection when carrying drugs through the national lockdown earlier this year. That shows the seriousness of the situation.

The NCA gives details of sexual violence being used to control those who are exploited, and of children and females being offered between county lines offenders for sexual activity. The UN Secretary-General António Guterres said:

“Sexual violence against women and girls is rooted in centuries of male domination. Let us not forget that the gender inequalities that fuel rape culture are essentially a question of power imbalances.”

It is important that we focus on that because, as other Members have said today, the exploitation of women and girls is greatly under-represented, as it is not easily identified. The imbalance is clear in gang culture. As we have learned from speeches today, young and vulnerable girls are routinely targeted for grooming and exploitation by gangs, and girls are often lost in the narrative around child criminal exploitation. That is another point eloquently highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside.

That violence and exploitation is a devastating human rights violation and it is largely under-reported because there is impunity, and because of the silence, stigma and shame surrounding it. We must redress that imbalance by raising awareness of the issue so that girls are no longer ignored, as the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) pointed out in her eloquent and passionate speech. The psychological, sexual and reproductive health consequences that the girls in question will experience at different stages of their lives must be prevented through early interventions.

One reason why there is such under-representation of the issue in relation to girls and young women is that the damage is often hidden and psychological, whereas boys and young men present to hospitals with serious injuries, thus alerting various authorities. The Public Health England report, “The mental health needs of gang-affiliated young people” states:

“Girls involved with gangs can be particularly vulnerable to mental health problems resulting from sexual and intimate partner violence”.

The report also says:

“Trauma-based mental health services may be particularly important for female gang members, along with gender-sensitive responses that acknowledge the importance of positive relationships and improved self-esteem as an exit from crime and violence.”

Again, that point was made in all the speeches we have heard so far. It is something that we need to focus on.

More action needs to be taken by the Government to support services that can help girls get out of gangs through CAMHS and Public Health England, and by investing in local government. People in positions of power must understand the problem and work tirelessly to address it. Although we must ensure that gang-associated girls are given the support they need to recognise unhealthy and abusive relationships so that they can get away from exploitation and get the right care in order to recover, we must also empower such girls. Girls should not feel that they are at fault for not recognising abuse, or that it is their sole responsibility to prevent such crimes. They must know that it is always the perpetrator’s responsibility and that the abuse is not inevitable. Again, that is a point that has been made in the debate: girls and all young people involved in county lines and gang violence are victims. That is something that needs to be at the heart of any solution.

A number of organisations are doing exceptional work in these areas. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall has already mentioned Redthread and St Giles Trust, but I also want to highlight the work of two organisations from the north-east that are funded by Northumbria Police and Crime Commissioner Kim McGuinness’s budget. One is called SCARPA. Through its work with vulnerable children, it has identified and worked with more than 30 girls who are at risk of harm and exploitation due to their association with gang members. Another organisation, Edge North East, mentors girls and young women involved in gangs. Young women have reported being victims of physical and sexual violence and being forced to do drug runs, to carry and store weapons, and to drive vehicles for drug deals. They have even allowed their bank accounts to be used to stash money.

Although I appreciate the complex nature of gangs and the many life experiences and events that can lead individuals down the wrong path, the best way that society and Government can support girls at risk of such crimes is to prevent crime and remove the threat. It is the responsibility of society to teach young boys and men that we have zero tolerance of abuse and exploitation of any kind, and that abuse and exploitation of gang-associated girls will no longer be ignored or hidden away.

I firmly believe that prevention is better than cure, but I note with concern that in a February 2019 report titled “Keeping kids safe: Improving safeguarding responses to gang violence and criminal exploitation”, Anne Longfield, the Children’s Commissioner, said:

“Tackling gang exploitation needs a paradigm change in thinking, which stops treating these children as criminals responsible for their own situation and instead sets out to protect them.”

New local safeguarding arrangements with a focus on contextualising safeguarding have the potential to make that happen, yet there are few signs that any adequate plans are in place.

Public services have been slashed in recent years, and we urgently need reinvestment in order to protect young people from the risk of gang violence and exploitation. Again, I heard what the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster said about her experience when she was a councillor in Westminster, and about the joined-up services and setting up the gangs unit. That is something I would like to see mirrored in all our boroughs. Services should be improved and made secure.

We need to mention that until we catch people higher up the food chain—those who keep their hands clean while reaping the profits of drug dealing carried out by the unfortunate foot soldiers on the frontline, or on the county line—we will allow the constant repetition of the cycle of exploitation and abuse. That is an issue we seriously must address.

I want to ask the Minister four questions. Will she commit to raising greater awareness of the hidden experiences of gang-associated girls among the public servants who encounter them as well as the general public? Will she press for greater public sector funding for support for youth services, mental health services and early intervention work, including areas of healthy relationships and family support? Will she ensure that there is a targeted approach to deal with gang violence and exploitation against girls? Lastly, will she confirm that there is a robust strategy in place to go after the middlemen and those higher up, who are directly responsible for drug dealing, gang exploitation and violence but who act with impunity?

Any Government’s first responsibility is to keep their citizens safe. The fact that girls in this country are not safe in their own communities means that the Government have much more work to do to fulfil their first duty. I know the Minister will take this issue very seriously.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bambos Charalambous Excerpts

Monday 28th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I highlight to the hon. Lady the work that is being led by the DCMS, with which we are working on the cross-Whitehall counter-disinformation unit, which has been stood up during this time of acute disinformation to challenge some of the conspiracy theories and false information. I assure her that there is extensive work across government to analyse and then work with the companies to take false or misleading information down. Clearly, it is an ongoing challenge, but we are determined to take firm action where false narratives are being perpetrated.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

The scale and accessibility of hateful extremist content online is deeply worrying and causing serious damage to society, and it needs to be identified speedily and dealt with. Last week, in her evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, the commissioner for countering extremism called for a more rigorous classification system for assessing hateful extremist material in the online harms Bill to get to grips with the vast spread of extremism online. Does the Minister support this call, and does he agree with the commission’s report last year that the Government’s counter-extremism strategy, drawn up in 2015, is insufficient, too broad and out of date?