Ukraine

Ben Lake Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I thank my hon. Friend for his practical support. I would like to take him up on that offer, particularly regarding his work on the Council of Europe, which I congratulate him on as well. He speaks about the power of being united by showing what can be achieved collectively. That applies to trying to suspend Russia from Interpol systems for very good reasons. We know extensively of Russia’s history of abusing red notices. We absolutely support Ukraine in that effort—it is so important to say that. I have spoken to my counterpart in the UAE, because it has a key figure in Interpol. We are working with other key nations as well. I absolutely would like to take my hon. Friend up on his offer, because we have to keep the dialogue going in-region, so that we know about the support that is needed, hear about the situation on the ground and can act in real time.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

I hope that today’s statement will offer much needed certainty to constituents of mine who are desperately worried about the safety of their family members, but I would be grateful if the Home Secretary could clarify two particular examples that have been shared with my office. First, will adult siblings and their dependent children be able to join their UK family under the Ukrainian family scheme? Secondly, will unaccompanied grandchildren be able to do the same?

[Priti Patel]

The answer is yes, and I highlighted in my statement the family route and the family scheme. If the hon. Gentleman has any particular cases that he would like to share, I would be more than happy to take them up.

Humanist Marriages

Ben Lake Excerpts

Thursday 27th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Nia Griffith]

Indeed—again, that was very well put.

We know that in Scotland, of course, under a Labour Scottish Government legal recognition was given to humanist marriages back in 2005; in the Republic of Ireland, it was given in 2012; and in Northern Ireland, it was given in 2018. In Wales, we do not have the devolved power to legislate for humanist marriages, but the Welsh Government are very supportive of the legal recognition of humanist marriages and would very much—

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

Does the hon. Lady share my frustration that in Wales—the country of both Nye Bevan, who was a committed humanist, and of course the late First Minister of Wales, Rhodri Morgan, who I believe was among the first to be given a state humanist funeral in the Senedd—we have not seen progress sooner, especially given that, as she has just pointed out, the Welsh Government are also supportive of the change that is being sought?

[Nia Griffith]

Indeed—that was very well outlined by the hon. Member. The support is there from the Welsh Government and the humanist tradition is also there in Wales. So this change is something we would very much welcome and want to see.

Of course, people may say, “Oh well, a couple can go and have their civil marriage and then they can have the celebration of their choosing afterwards”. But I would argue that that does not really give the humanist viewpoint and ceremonies the same status as that given to the religious viewpoint and ceremonies. Indeed, the High Court has ruled that that lack of legal recognition is, in fact, discrimination.

Why should humanists have to feel that they are second-class citizens and that their celebration does not count? Why should they have to wonder, as the hon. Member for Reigate pointed out, which is the date of their wedding anniversary if the civil ceremony took place on one day and their own celebration took place on another day?

As has also been noted, the legal recognition of humanist marriages in Scotland resulted in the number of couples opting for a humanist wedding increasing to over 6,000 in 2019—more than 20% of the total—and there are now more humanist marriages than Christian marriages in Scotland. Legal recognition gives humanist weddings a status, and more people then feel confident about seeking out the humanist option for a wedding, because they believe it is real and do not feel that it is somehow not good enough, does not really count or is second-class. It has the genuine status that obviously everybody would wish their wedding and marriage to have.

Our laws in respect of religion are very outdated and do not reflect the current beliefs of the population. Here in Parliament, both with the Church of England bishops in the House of Lords and the format of Prayers in the Commons, we are made very conscious on a daily basis that we still have an established church: the Church of England. However, the British Social Attitudes Survey of 2018 shows that only 12% of the population are Anglican, with some 52% of the population describing themselves as non-religious. Of course, the Church in Wales was disestablished over 100 years ago, back in 1920.

Our legislation has a lot of catching up to do in order to reflect the society we live in. We now have a majority of the population—some 52%—who have to make do with second best for what is one of the most important moments in their lives. What happens is that many people who have no religious belief end up in religious settings because of the convenience, which should not have to be the case. It should not have to be that because they cannot get themselves halfway across North Yorkshire, they opt for something local instead, or for something that does not reflect their background and beliefs.

I have attended humanist funerals that were planned by families and that respected the fact that the deceased did not have a belief in the afterlife. Those are recognised as legitimate funerals. I have attended humanist civic ceremonies for incoming mayors or chairs of local councils. Those are recognised as appropriate ceremonies and, again, reflect the beliefs of the people taking part. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) has described the preparation that can be made for a humanist wedding, the thought that goes into it, and the beliefs that the people have—all those make it a very special moment. To deny people the idea that it is the genuine ceremony, the genuine act and the marriage itself, is an insult to the work and preparation and the feelings that they have.

Let us get on with it now and have legal recognition for humanist marriages. We recognise that we are in a particularly difficult situation at the moment, post covid, with so many having had to put off the opportunity to have weddings—sometimes once, twice or even three times. As has been mentioned already, having celebrants who are able to deliver a legal marriage would mean less pressure on registrars, and it would help to clear the backlog. On that note, I say once again to the Minister that this matter is something that could be resolved very quickly and easily and be well supported by Members across the House.

Adult Dependent Relative Visas

Ben Lake Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered adult dependent relative visas.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell. I want to talk about an important topic that deserves more attention than it has had, and I want to urge the Minister to change the current hostile environment policy on adult dependent relative visas, which is undermining the national health service. The immigration system should treat overseas nationals working in the UK and their families abroad more fairly than it does at the moment. I want to focus particularly on the impact on people working in the NHS.

Nine years ago, in 2012, the Government changed the immigration rules to establish their hostile environment policy. Under one of the changes, elderly parents or grandparents of British citizens are permitted to join them in the UK only if they can demonstrate that they require a level of long-term personal care that their home country cannot provide. Before 2012, a dependent relative needed to show only that they were living alone

“in the most exceptional compassionate circumstances”.

Now, the rules state that doctors are prohibited from bringing their elderly relatives to the UK from overseas unless they meet a very strict set of conditions. The problematic rules are set out in paragraphs E-ECDR.2.4 and 2.5, and I will read them. Paragraph E-ECDR.2.4 states:

“The applicant or, if the applicant and their partner are the sponsor’s parents or grandparents, the applicant’s partner, must as a result of age, illness or disability require long-term personal care to perform everyday tasks.”

Paragraph E-ECDR.2.5 states:

“The applicant or, if the applicant and their partner are the sponsor’s parents or grandparents, the applicant’s partner, must be unable, even with the practical and financial help of the sponsor, to obtain the required level of care in the country where they are living, because (a) it is not available and there is no person in that country who can reasonably provide it; or (b) it is not affordable.”

In practice, those conditions are extremely hard to meet. Home Office data shows that in the four years from 2017 to 2020 inclusive, 908 visa applications were made under the adult dependant rule. Only 35 were approved at the first attempt. Over 96% of them were refused. Some were subsequently granted after the difficulty and expense of an appeal. In 2017, I understand the Home Office did not issue a single adult dependent relative visa. Before the rule changes, thousands were approved.

What is the justification for the change? Ministers have argued that the rules are to stop adult dependent relatives from entering the UK and burdening taxpayers. Other ways to avoid any burden on the NHS and local authorities do not appear to have been considered. The existing immigration health surcharge could be incorporated into adult dependent relative applications—Canada, Australia and New Zealand have that sort of model in their schemes for elderly migration—or applicants could be required to have private medical insurance. Instead, we have made it virtually impossible for elderly relatives to come.

Over the past two years, we have all been reminded just how important the national health service is. I know I speak for all of us when I say how grateful we are for the extraordinary efforts of doctors, nurses and other NHS staff to protect and care for all of us throughout the pandemic. They should be rewarded for their hard work and dedication. Instead, many are being punished with these hostile immigration policies.

One doctor, a British national based in Birmingham, told me about the impact on him. He came from India to train as a GP in 2004. The UK is now his home. He studied here, he is working here, he is bringing up his children here. Sadly, he lost his father to covid in India earlier this year. Now, his 70-year-old mother wants to join her son and his family in the UK, but she is not allowed to do so, because of these rules. He tells me that

“no matter how much I earn and pay in taxes, my inability to look after my mother makes me feel incomplete and unfulfilled.”

He also feels his children are being denied a proper relationship with their grandmother. He says that

“my children should not be penalised for a decision I took 17 years back to move to the UK.”

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising such an important issue. His account from the doctor echoes that of a constituent of mine, a British national of Indian birth. She faces the same very difficult personal dilemma of having to consider, on the one hand, her patients and her service to the local NHS and, on the other hand, her parents in India. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that when we discuss this difficult issue, we should bear in mind not only the potential impact on the NHS, but also the tragic personal stories and the trauma that it inflicts?

[Stephen Timms]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We are putting these dedicated public servants in an impossible position. I received an email yesterday referring to

“yet another consultant who has left the NHS (to live in Oman so that his mother could be with the family again).”

Six thousand doctors left the NHS to go overseas in the five years from 2015 to 2020. We do not know the reasons why they all went, but a significant number went for this reason.

The Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt)—a former Secretary of State, of course—pointed out to the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions today that

“there are now severe shortages in nearly every specialty.”

The policy we are debating this afternoon is part of the problem. We should be bending over backwards to keep doctors here. Instead, we are forcing them to leave the country. Many doctors feel very strongly, as the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) has just reminded the House, that they are being denied a family life. The emotional toll increases the risk of burnout.

In August this year, the British Association of Physicians of Indian Origin and the Association of Pakistani Physicians of Northern Europe carried out a survey of nearly 1,000 doctors in the UK, and 90% reported feelings of anxiety, stress and helplessness because of this issue. Is that really how the UK should treat doctors who have risked their lives to care for us throughout the pandemic?

The rules also have a severe impact on children in the families affected, not least through making it very difficult for them to have a relationship with grandparents. Equally, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants sampled a group of professionals in the UK. Of the 121 children affected, 20% came from families living in lower-income households, more likely single-earner households. It points out that having a grandparent who can help with childcare will enable parents to work in cases where childcare costs would rule that out.

The Government have said that the rules on adult dependent relatives are in place to protect the NHS. They are actually undermining it. Medical professionals have busy, stressful lives, even more so in the pandemic. Those with vulnerable relatives abroad often have to take leave, sometimes extended leave, and travel overseas often to arrange care for their elderly parents, at a time when the NHS needs them here, and we need them here more than ever. Some doctors have been forced to leave the UK altogether. In the survey I referenced a moment ago, eight in 10 respondents were looking at leaving due to these rules.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Maclean]

Yes, I fully understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but the Government’s duty is to formulate rules that are fair to the British taxpayer and the NHS, and that ensure a fair system. I will come on to the specific issues about the health service to which the right hon. Member for East Ham alluded, but it is vital that our immigration policies do not place an unfair burden on the taxpayer.

We want to ensure that people here legally are welcomed and celebrated—which we do in this country—as part of a fair and sustainable immigration system. All family migration to the UK, including that of adult dependent relatives, must be on a properly sustainable basis that is fair to both migrants and the wider community.

Our position on adult dependent relatives remains that we have rules in place to support those who are most in need, but we are clear that the rules cannot provide a route for every parent to join their adult child in the UK and to settle here. It is simply not sustainable for the economy or the health service for there to be a routine expectation of settlement in the UK for parents and grandparents aged 65 or over. Therefore, only those who require long-term care that cannot be delivered in the country in which they live should be eligible to settle here.

We fully understand that such cases provoke strong feelings, as Members have articulated, and they can result in difficult choices for individuals, but it is essential that the rules are fair and balanced for the taxpayer, given the significant NHS and social care cost that can arise when those adult dependent relatives settle in the UK. Failure to maintain that balance puts the legitimacy of the entire system at risk.

I now turn to the issue of the NHS. Of course, we are hugely grateful for the vital contributions of all NHS staff, in particular during the pandemic. The Government have no intention whatever of punishing that group. By contrast, we have introduced a range of unprecedented measures to ensure that the health and care sector is supported fully. However, it is only fair that I address the points that have been made.

The impact of medical professionals potentially leaving the NHS was an issue that was raised five years ago and considered as part of the Home Office review of the adult dependent relative rules published in December 2016. That report considered the number of NHS staff who support adult dependent relatives overseas. It is likely to be a small proportion of the total population of professionally qualified clinical staff.

Furthermore, there is no evidence to show that significant numbers of medical professionals have left or been deterred from applying to work in the UK since the revised rules were implemented. It was concluded that, while some who might sponsor someone to come to the UK might choose to leave as a result of the revised rules, including some in skilled employment, the impact remains proportionate to the policy aim.

The latest figures show a 19% increase in skilled worker visas in the year ending June 2021, and that the majority of that increase was due to the new health and care worker visa, which saw 45,722 grants, accounting for 44% of the total skilled worker visas granted. In fact, such was the demand of overseas doctors and nurses wanting to work in the UK, in 2018 the Government lifted the cap on doctors and nurses. The Health Secretary at the time said:

“Overseas staff have been a vital part of our NHS since its creation 70 years ago. Today’s news sends a clear message to nurses and doctors from around the world that the NHS welcomes and values their skills and dedication.”

As I said, there is no evidence that significant numbers of professionals have been deterred from applying to work in the UK since the new adult dependent relative rules were implemented, and nor is there evidence to show that professionals have left the UK.

The NHS has made significant savings since the rules were introduced. The 2016 report notes that once assumptions were taken into account, the figures suggested potential NHS savings of around £249 million over 10 years. This policy will be kept under review. We are of course sympathetic about the impacts on individuals and families, but the policy must apply fairly across our society. It would not be right to provide a more generous approach for healthcare professionals than for other groups.

[Ben Lake]

Just to elaborate and perhaps add to the considerations, there is of course an impact on the family, but there is also an impact on the community. In many rural areas, such as mine, if we lose a solitary GP, who has to go back, we will not have a GP practice for a very large area, so there is that wider impact too. We should bear in mind that even though it may be an individual example, it has quite a widespread impact.

[Rachel Maclean]

Of course, I recognise the impacts of the issues highlighted by the hon. Gentleman. On the point made by the right hon. Member for East Ham, that we have not considered other ways to avoid the burden on the NHS and local authorities, making comparisons with other countries and their systems, I advise him that we did consider other ways. The Home Office published a review of the adult dependent relatives rules in December 2016. As I said, we continue to keep that under review. The report is published on gov.uk, so I encourage him to look at that.

As part of the review, specific considerations were given to alternative methods of achieving the main aim, which is reducing the burden on the taxpayer and NHS costs. Those alternatives were mandatory medical and care insurance, amendments to the immigration health surcharge and a bond scheme, requiring up-front payment, which would be offset against the cost of any later NHS care. Particular consideration was given to how far each of those would achieve the policy intention, be feasible to administer, and continue to allow an adult dependent relative, with significant long-term personal care needs that could not be met in their home country, to join their relative.

Those options were considered to place a potentially unreasonable administrative burden on the NHS, while also raising significant concerns over affordability and discrimination. For example, mandatory private healthcare insurance was considered likely to be prohibitively expensive, especially if it was to cover NHS emergency treatment and/or social care and residential care. It would also benefit only those applicants whose sponsor had substantial means. Those without a close relative with such means would be excluded from the UK, even if they required long-term personal care that could only be provided by their relative here. There is also no guarantee that insurance taken at the date of application would not be later cancelled or not renewed, including in circumstances outside that person’s control, such as a significant deterioration in their health or a change in the financial circumstances of their sponsor making the insurance unavailable or the premiums unaffordable.

Any alternative scheme requiring an up-front payment of many thousands of pounds would, by definition, exclude those cases unable to pay it, regardless of the level of their personal care needs. Similarly, in the light of the estimates I mentioned earlier—that a person aged 65 to 74 costs the NHS £2,287 per year—such a scheme for adult dependents would likely need to be set at significantly more than its current level. That is why it was concluded that the revised rules were set at the right level to provide immediate settled status in the UK and free access to the NHS to those relatives whose care needs could not be met in their home country, while protecting the NHS and the tax burden.

Refugee Family Reunion

Ben Lake Excerpts

Thursday 20th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

I agree with the hon. Lady on what she said. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the current situation has been exacerbated by the UK’s decision to opt out of applying article 10 of the EU directive on family reunion, which would have allowed unaccompanied children to act as sponsors for their family members?

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am glad I have taken both interventions together, because they overlap neatly. This perhaps dovetails into something else, which is that the UK opted out of some EU directives; if only Scotland could opt out of some UK directives. We will park that one there, but it does show that the idea of Brexit—[Interruption.] We had better park that one as well. The hon. Lady and hon. Gentleman got it right, as did the British Red Cross policy briefing for this debate.

The Red Cross recommendations are:

“Give adult refugees the right to sponsor their parents, siblings and children up to the age of 25 to join them in the UK under family reunification rules.”

That is normal in other places in Europe—places that have not opted out. It is the norm. The second recommendation is:

“Give child refugees the right to sponsor their parents as well as any siblings up to the age of 25 to join them in the UK under family reunification rules.”

The third recommendation is:

“Reintroduce legal aid for family reunion applications.”

Members will not be surprised to learn that those recommendations mirror closely, if not precisely, what my Bill set out to do. I refer to the Bill that has been choked by the Government in this House of Commons, despite the fact that it has had laudable and welcome support from Members from Labour, the Liberal Democrats, Change UK, Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party, and from luminaries among the Conservative Back Benchers. All those voices from across the political spectrum were supporting the Bill.

I just want to say one thing to the Government and to colleagues across this House, as I know you want me to speak for only 12 to 15 minutes, Madam Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] I should have mentioned that the Democratic Unionist party is supporting my Bill. Indeed, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is here, so thank goodness I remembered before I was reminded; otherwise, we might have had an Adjournment debate on the issue. The Bill has been supported across the House, and the plea I make to colleagues is that if the Government do not move on this now—there will be reshuffles, so there will be different personnel at the Home Office and things might move on a bit better—whoever else comes out at the beginning of the ballot in the next Parliament should be willing and open to move forward on this Bill, because it is shameful that the Government have not moved with this. Time in politics is short and time in government is even shorter, and things could have been done that have not happened. The Government could have looked back proudly had they reacted and done this, but I hope, and warn them, that this will not be the only time; I expect this to come forward again.

Retail Crime

Ben Lake Excerpts

Thursday 11th April 2019 Westminster Hall

[David Hanson]

Indeed. Again, shop staff are part of the community. The town I live in is 12,000-strong. The people who work in small shops there live in the town. They put a uniform on for 20 hours a week in some cases. In some cases, low-paid staff are putting a uniform on and enforcing the law of the land. We have to give them support. As well as the legislation, we also need to look at prosecution and the response from the police. That is important.

Following on from bringing together the numbers and examining legislation, the third of my six points is about engaging with police and crime commissioners to make shop crime a priority. The ACS has a pledge, which basically says that police and crime commissioners should pledge to be

“confronting reoffending, particularly prolific reoffenders with drug dependencies”

and

“working to standards on what a ‘good response’ to shop theft looks like”,

which is the very point that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham West and Royton made. Another pledge is to be

“always responding promptly to shop theft where violence is involved or where a suspect is detained”.

Often it is a shop staff member detaining someone who is drunk or out of their head on drugs in the shop.

Fifteen of the 40 police and crime commissioners have signed up to that pledge, which means that 25 have not. It is important that the Home Office grabs hold of the issue, co-ordinates a response, gives a level of guidance and priority and indicates that this is an important issue. We can argue about police numbers—we have done and will continue to do so—but this is an important issue. This crime causes trauma and difficulties and the Government should examine it, so I urge them please to engage with police and crime commissioners.

The fourth of my six points is, going back to what I said earlier, about community-based penalties. My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) has indicated one mechanism. Drug and alcohol orders are another. There may be other things that can be done, including with approaches to CCTV. There could be guidance on other issues where we can give support and help. A lot of employers, such as the Co-op, are investing a lot of money in headsets, CCTV and a whole range of wireless operation things, but not every store can do that, particularly individual stores, where it is an extra burden of cost. Support for some of the community penalties will take pressure off them.

My fifth and almost final ask is for the Government, five years on, to review the £200 limit to see whether it is working, whether it has made a difference and where we are with that.

My sixth ask for the Minister is simply this: the Home Office, with the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Government, could explore the whole range of good practice that can be undertaken and push it out. I welcome the ongoing discussions with the organisations, but that can be done on a regular basis. I know there is a business group. What have the outcomes of it been in the nine years it has been established? What positive outcomes from it have moved things on?

Going back to my time in the Home Office, we had funds available that key organisations could bid for to help reduce crime. CCTV camera schemes could be discussed and improved. There might be all sorts of radio wireless schemes. There might be a whole range of things that the Home Office could do. It could have a fund for organisations to bid against for support to ensure we make a difference.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

On the particular issue of CCTV, the right hon. Gentleman is correct to raise the prospect of the Home Office considering whether CCTV infrastructure across the UK can be improved, particularly in our towns and cities. Not only would that help the detection and prosecution of certain instances of retail shop crime, but it would act as a deterrent. I am glad to say that in my part of Wales, Dyfed-Powys police and the commissioner, Dafydd Llywelyn, have recently reinvested a lot in CCTV infrastructure. Shopkeepers in Aberystwyth and Cardigan are keen to see that return.

Police: Financial Sustainability

Ben Lake Excerpts

Wednesday 12th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

My hon. Friend has been assiduous in registering his concerns to the House and the Government about the effect of Spice, which I have seen for myself. We have had exchanges on that point, and those concerns are shared by many colleagues. I also thank him for making the point about police powers. For reasons that we all understand, conversations about the police tend to focus on resources and money, but in terms of what the Government can do to support the police, it is not just about money. It is also about new powers such as those in the Offensive Weapons Bill that is going through the House. We are constantly reviewing how we can support the police with the powers they need to counter the changing demands on the system, and how we can work with them to anticipate demand. The one thing we do know about the policing environment at the moment is that it is one of constant change, and we need to work closely with the police to ensure that they are fit for purpose in terms of managing existing demand and getting on top of future demand.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

Further to the answer that the Minister gave to the hon. Member for Wells (James Heappey), and acknowledging the need for the funding formula to appreciate the specific needs that rurality creates for forces such as Dyfed-Powys, will the Minister also consider in any forthcoming review the fact that the population in many rural areas increases significantly during the summer months and as such places additional pressures on the local force?

[Mr Hurd]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. It is a prime responsibility of the Government to look at how these limited, stretched public resources, which come from the taxpayer, are raised and spent, and it is obviously one of our responsibilities to ensure that decisions are taken that fully reflect and understand the shifts and changes in society and in how this country works. That is our responsibility, and it is a serious bit of work, which is why I think that it is best done in the context of the CSR.

Offensive Weapons Bill

Ben Lake Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons
Wednesday 27th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

I begin by thanking the Minister for crime, safeguarding and vulnerability for taking time out of a very busy diary to meet me recently to discuss the Bill in greater detail. The opportunity to raise some matters of specific concern to my constituents was much appreciated.

I, along with Plaid Cymru, welcome the Bill and support the Government’s desire to control the purchase and possession of offensive weapons by those who, frankly, have no legitimate reason to have them. The Minister will be aware, however, of some of my concerns, particularly about the unintended consequences this legislation might have for legitimate uses of some knives and firearms by responsible citizens, and I shall focus my remarks on those points.

Like the Minister, I represent a rural constituency in which many small businesses and tradesmen use knives to carry out their professions. Some of them have contacted me recently to express their concerns about the impact that these new restrictions, particularly on the online sale of some knives, might have on them.

In a rural constituency such as Ceredigion, it is often not practical, and certainly not always easy, for people to travel to a designated location to verify their identity, as opposed to receiving a delivery of tools at a home address, for example. This would pose specific difficulties for some smaller businesses as well.

It is important that, in combating knife crime, legislation targets specific blades and offenders, and that its impact on responsible users is mitigated as much as possible, be they woodsmen and farmers, Scout group leaders and outdoor educators, chefs or even those participating in historical re-enactments, all of whom have contacted me to express concerns. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister elaborated on how the Bill will mitigate the impact of these changes on responsible users, to provide reassurance that it will target the unjustifiable use of offensive blades, but still allow others to be used responsibly for justifiable work or leisure-related purposes.

I also want to echo some of the arguments made about the need to take a proportionate approach to changes to firearms regulations. It is appropriate that those who hold firearms certificates are rigorously assessed by the police and subjected to medical assessments, background checks and continuous monitoring. Firearms of any calibre and description are dangerous if they fall into the wrong hands. Concerns have already been expressed—I will not go into them again in too much detail—that some of the proposed changes, including those to muzzle velocity regulations, will unfairly impact legitimate law-abiding firearms holders such as target shooters without achieving greater public safety or reducing gun crime. Will the Minister reconsider those concerns in Committee and provide greater detail on the justification for those changes?

[Alex Chalk]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has, like me, received representations from legitimate sportspeople saying that they would be open to considering further proposals such as additional storage security measures to allay any lingering concerns that may remain.

[Ben Lake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I have indeed received many representations from responsible sportsmen, and from target shooters in particular, who are very open to looking again at the conditions connected to the licensing arrangements, particularly with regard to the storage of firearms. It would be both proportionate and reasonable to pursue the matter further in Committee.

[Chris Davies]

rose—

[Ben Lake]

I give way to my hon. Friend and neighbour.

[Chris Davies]

I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for giving way. As well as being neighbours, we also share a police force. Does he agree that if the extra restrictions were put in, our police force, and indeed all the police forces around the country, would easily manage to ensure that they were enforced?

[Ben Lake]

I concur wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. I am aware that Dyfed-Powys police already enforce the licensing arrangements thoroughly. It would be a reasonable and logical step to add some additional requirements with regard to the security of storage, and I am sure that the police will be fully able to ensure that the law is complied with. It is incumbent on us to ensure that any changes to the regulations are effective in reducing gun crime while not punishing responsible firearms certificate holders unnecessarily. The aim must be to enhance public safety by reducing gun crime, so it is important that any assessments suggesting that such changes will realise that aim should be published in full detail for scrutiny.

I would like to conclude by referring to the horrific incidents we have seen all too often in recent years that have made the corrosive substances aspect of the Bill so vital. The rise in the number of instances in which acids or corrosive products have been weaponised is frankly frightening. The availability of those products has made them a weapon of choice for those of wicked intent, with devastating consequences. It saddens me that, in the 21st century, we find ourselves having to discuss ways to prevent such acts of barbarity and of stopping individuals using otherwise legitimate products to inflict devastating harm on others, but we are where we are. It is entirely appropriate—and indeed, incumbent on the Government—to legislate to try to prevent such hideous crimes from taking place.

I have asked for assurances from the Government on the proportionality of the proposed measures on knives and firearms, but let me be clear that I welcome their efforts to control the number of knives, firearms and corrosive substances on our streets. There is absolutely no reason for an individual to have a zombie knife, a flick-knife or a knuckleduster, or for them to carry acid on our streets. Those items have no purpose other than to inflict as much damage as possible, and I therefore welcome the Bill’s move to tighten the law in relation to their possession.

More must be done to tackle the root causes of such crimes, with greater support being given to those who feel the need to carry a weapon in the first place, and to tackle the decline in police numbers. Those matters are perhaps beyond the scope of the Bill, but we as legislators have a duty to consider them, and I hope that the Government give the House that opportunity in the near future.

Police Funding

Ben Lake Excerpts

Wednesday 28th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Drew Hendry]

The hon. Gentleman tries bravely but daftly to contradict the experiences of the Scottish people. I have just given the statistics from the survey conducted, which showed that people felt safer than ever before in Scotland. That is a fairly desperate attempt.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Many of my constituents feel that rural police forces have added challenges, as the population is spread across a large area. Does he agree that in reviewing the central grant and how it is allocated, the Government should strengthen the criteria used to determine the specific needs of rural areas?

[Drew Hendry]

That is an excellent suggestion for the communities the hon. Gentleman represents.

As I have said, it is because of the value of local policing that the public continue to have confidence in our police forces in Scotland. However, sustaining healthy police numbers is not an end goal in itself, as we want more police on the beat to create safer communities. It is no coincidence that, as has been mentioned, recorded crime in Scotland has fallen by about 40% in the past decade. It is important to stress that that is down to the hard work of police officers across Scotland in doing their job. Although I am not for one minute saying that everything is perfect in Scotland, the UK Government could follow in the footsteps of the Scottish Government and work with our police forces, instead of against them.

Police Grant Report

Ben Lake Excerpts

Wednesday 7th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. The debate has already touched on several very wide-ranging challenges that our police forces must face, but I will confine my remarks to three main issues. First, I wish to speak about how the settlement does little to address the struggles faced by the already underfunded and stretched police forces in Wales. I will then briefly reiterate the case for devolving policing to the Welsh Parliament in Cardiff. Finally, I want to raise an issue of which the Minister is, I hope, already aware: the complications that the apprenticeship levy is causing for Welsh police forces.

Members of the Government seem to have a problem with figures, whether that is £350 million for the NHS or £440 million extra for our police forces. Neither figure quite adds up, as the irrepressible North Wales police and crime commissioner, Arfon Jones, has made quite clear. This has already been discussed this afternoon, but it is worth reiterating that around £270 million of the £450 million supposed increase is accounted for by the Government allowing forces to levy higher precepts on council tax payers. The remaining £180 million is accounted for by the Home Office increasing central allocations. For North Wales police, the settlement means a real-terms cut of about £2 million. The police now face hard decisions on whether to implement further—and perhaps dangerous—budget reductions, or to increase the council tax precept, which hits constituents who are already feeling the pressure on their finances.

The police and crime commissioner for Dyfed-Powys police, Dafydd Llywelyn, has done an excellent job of retaining the number of police officers in his force in recent years, despite budgetary pressures and the growing demands that the police now face. We have already heard a lot about the new and changing challenges that our police forces must address, and he has employed an innovative approach in an attempt to cater for those new challenges. He has invested in such things as body cameras and better mobile technology, and established one of the best cyber-crime teams in the United Kingdom. However, I am told that keeping his budget in the black and maintaining the number of officers on the beat is becoming an impossible task.

The settlement subtly shifts the burden of funding from central Government to the local taxpayer, forcing PCCs to make an unenviable choice of cutting police numbers and putting their constituents at risk, or increasing council tax in already hard-pressed communities. It is patently clear that this is not a sustainable or fair settlement.

Of course, the police forces of Wales have been underfunded for years. There are now 750 fewer police officers in Wales than there were in 2010, which represents a drop of about 10% since the Conservatives took office. I would be hard pressed to find residents or communities across Wales, particularly in rural Wales, who have not witnessed the closure of either a local police station or the station desk. Central Wales, and particularly my area of Ceredigion, suffers the unique challenges of rural policing.

Responsibility for our policing policy is still retained here in Westminster, hundreds of miles away from the police forces that are carrying out their duties. Unlike in Scotland or Northern Ireland, our underpowered Welsh Parliament does not even have a semblance of the control required to deliver the policing that our communities need. It is not just those powers that would be boosted by the devolution of policing. Figures provided by Welsh police forces indicate that if policing was devolved and funded on a population basis, as is the case for other services, police forces in Wales would be better off to the tune of around £25 million a year.

The failure to comprehend the current devolution settlement is exemplified by my final point. My hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) has exposed a potentially devastating funding dispute that is born of confusion surrounding Welsh devolution and the apprenticeship levy. The apprenticeship levy, which Welsh police forces are of course subject to, is one of the main sources of funding to train the next generation of police officers, but despite having to pay millions into the levy, Welsh police forces are yet to receive a penny from it. This is down to a dispute between the Welsh and UK Governments. The Government at this end of the M4 claim that as training is devolved, the Welsh Government are responsible for the funding of training and apprenticeships. The Welsh Government, on the other hand, claim that the funding of officers’ training and apprenticeships is a matter for Westminster because policing is a reserved matter.

As I have noted, Welsh police forces are already under significant financial pressure. Whether this impasse is a product of incompetence or error, or a consequence of some political gamesmanship, it will mean fewer police officers on Welsh streets. We desperately need to overcome this impasse, so I would be most grateful if the Minister would update the House on the matter, particularly regarding what progress has been made to overcome this problem.

PCCs of all political colours have expressed their dismay with the police grant. Westminster’s apathy for Wales has never been more evident than when it comes to our police forces. My final request is that the Minister again considers the case for devolving policing to the Welsh Parliament and giving Wales the power to address its own policing needs. With our Welsh Parliament powerless to change things and central funding falling short of a level that could reasonably be considered fair, Welsh police forces face a difficult future indeed.

Online Hate Speech

Ben Lake Excerpts

Thursday 30th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I think that is slightly beyond my capacity today. My hon. Friend is right in so far as I think that many of us could benefit from a little more considered thought and pauseful contemplation before we press reply to Twitter attacks.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

It is important that the messages of hate spread by the President of the United States are condemned as the vile acts that they truly are. I speak on behalf of my party when I urge the Government to rescind their offer of a state visit to a President who has used his global platform to propagate intolerance. May I ask the Home Secretary to elaborate further on the pressure that will be exerted on social media platforms, such as Twitter, to prevent such untrue and poisonous content from permeating our society?

[Amber Rudd]

I repeat that the invitation to the President for a visit has been extended and accepted. We must remember that the United States has such an important relationship with this country in keeping us safe, and I urge all hon. Members to keep in mind the importance of that relationship before rushing to make such changes. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has heard from me this morning how seriously we take the need to make sure that all illegal content, including extreme content, is taken down from Twitter and other online platforms; and the importance of the platforms taking a more active role in ensuring that such material does not stay up.