Domestic Violence (Police Response)

Brooks Newmark Excerpts

Thursday 10th April 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mary Macleod]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that. I completely agree. The Minister may want to respond to that. Not enough has been done in those areas, and we need more specialist training in them across the country.

Looking ahead, in June this year updated guidance will be published on investigating domestic abuse. In September, new guidance will be published from the improved study on the cost-effectiveness of intervention programmes for children experiencing domestic violence and abuse. In January next year, research will be launched for Project Mirabal at the Centre for Research into Violence and Abuse. Work has also been done on a victims law by Keir Starmer, the former Director of Public Prosecutions, and others to see whether more can be done to encourage victims to come forward. I have been impressed in the past few years by the good cross-departmental working on this and related subjects, and I ask the Minister to reassure us that that will continue. The Home Office and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will hold an event in June on ending sexual violence in conflict, and in July the Department for International Development will hold a girls’ summit on female genital mutilation and forced marriage. All those initiatives on violence against women and girls have a part to play.

Some consistent themes have emerged from recent studies, including inconsistency between forces in the way cases are handled; lack of intelligent data gathering, training, and empathy for victims; and victims’ persistent reluctance to enter the criminal justice process. I want to speak about some of the key learning points in the reviews and how those can shape our response.

Faced with the disturbing statistics, the Government have made domestic violence a priority since 2010. The Home Secretary said in the document “Call to end violence against women and girls” in 2010:

“My ambition is nothing less than ending violence against women and girls. There can be no excuse for these horrific crimes that ruin lives, destroy childhoods and damage our society.”

Some valuable steps have been taken already to deal with domestic abuse. We have extended the definition of domestic violence to include emotional abuse and controlling behaviour and to include those aged 16 to 17. That was an important step forward: it is not just about physical abuse. Abuse goes far wider than physical violence. The lead-up to that—the financial, emotional and psychological abuse—is often as difficult to take as, and longer-lasting than, some physical abuse.

We have ensured that there is long-term funding for rape crisis centres. In London, where my constituency is, the Mayor has quadrupled rape crisis provision, opening three new centres and expanding the only centre in south London. We have piloted domestic violence protection orders, to be extended throughout England and Wales from March. We have introduced Clare’s law, the domestic violence disclosure scheme to enable people to find out whether a partner has a history of abusing. We produced the targeted “This is abuse” advertising campaign for teenagers, to get across the message about what constitutes an abusive relationship. The Government have allocated nearly £40 million in funding until next year for specialist local support services and helplines, and to part-fund 87 independent sexual violence advisers.

[Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that coercive control is often a pathway to violence, and far more debilitating than anything else? Should the Government consider at least criminalising coercive control in the same way as physical abuse is now criminalised?

[Mary Macleod]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I ask the Minister to look into it, because in many cases physical violence starts with emotional and psychological abuse. The stories of many victims show a pattern of behaviour: that can be manipulative or controlling, and financial or psychological. There may be an apology: it is always about making someone feel that they are at fault.

[Mary Macleod]

My hon. Friend is right on that. It is difficult to understand what the tipping point is, but it is important to do that to find ways to save and transform lives before the point of major violence.

[Mr Newmark]

I am not sure whether my hon. Friend has addressed the fact that policing, or the legal system—perhaps the Minister can clarify this—do not make it possible to pick up a behaviour pattern. Domestic violence is brought to court on the basis of an individual case, whereas problems could be dealt with much earlier if there was a legal framework to deal with the creation of a pattern of behaviour.

[Mary Macleod]

My hon. Friend makes an important point.

The Mayor of London has developed a strategy on violence against women and girls for 2013 to 2017. The Metropolitan police have identified a senior officer to lead on domestic abuse, and established a continuous improvement initiative known as Operation Dauntless. One of the strands of the operation is targeting domestic abuse perpetrators and managing their behaviour to reduce reoffending. The top five highest-risk perpetrators in each borough will be identified, and tactical plans will be put in place.

The HMIC report on the police response focused on four key aspects of the issue, and showed that we cannot be complacent and that there is much more to do. They were whether a force is effective in identifying victims of domestic abuse—particularly repeat victims and vulnerable victims; whether the initial force response to victims is effective; whether victims of domestic abuse are made safer as a result of the police response and subsequent action; and whether the force has the appropriate systems, processes and understanding to manage domestic abuse and risk to victims in the future.

The study identified some good points. Domestic violence and abuse are a much higher priority—they are a top priority for the Metropolitan police in my constituency in the London borough of Hounslow. Another finding was that 79% of victims were happy with the initial police response. Multi-agency partnership working has become more commonplace. That is the right approach, and can include multi-agency risk assessment conferences and safeguarding hubs.

Eight forces were singled out for particular praise, and I am sorry that the Metropolitan police was not among those. They are Lancashire, Dorset, Durham, Warwickshire, Norfolk, Northumbria, Suffolk and Thames Valley; they were felt to be doing a reasonable job. In Hounslow the police hold a weekly one-stop shop where victims can seek advice. There are monthly multi-agency risk assessment conference meetings. Four independent domestic violence advocates are on hand, and there are action-trigger plans for repeat cases. The police have issued TecSOS phones to the most vulnerable victims, so that they can seek help at the push of a button.

Operation Dauntless contributed to the fact that more than 200 more domestic violence cases were investigated last year, so it made a difference.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who demonstrated why he was excellent as a Children and Families Minister; he brought his experience to bear in this debate. I thank in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod) for bringing this important debate to the House today. Notwithstanding the fact that the recess is almost here, it is a pity that there are not more hon. Members in the Chamber to participate, given the importance of the issue.

Two women each and every week die as a result of domestic violence. In the past year, an estimated 1.2 million women in England and Wales have experienced domestic violence. Domestic violence can be suffered by both men and women but, statistically, men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators and women are overwhelmingly the victims. This speech is dedicated to women who have suffered domestic violence, but it is especially dedicated to my constituent Christine Chambers, who was brutally murdered, with her daughter Shania, in 2012 by her ex-partner after years of physical and psychological abuse.

Much of what I have to say is reflected in an excellent report by Women’s Aid entitled “Women’s Access to Justice”, which was produced for the all-party group on domestic and sexual violence and is in addition to input that I received from Paladin, the National Stalking Advocacy Service and the Sara Charlton Charitable Foundation.

I begin by commending the Home Office for the steps that it took last year to redefine the definition of domestic violence to include coercive control. Unfortunately, coercive control often goes hand in hand with physical abuse. However, without a legal framework to support the new definition, there is a limit to the impact it can have on victims of domestic violence. In ongoing intimate relationships, the law prohibits only physical abuse, despite the change in definition.

Many victims of domestic violence say that physical violence is not the worst part. There is a gap that allows the pattern of controlling behaviour and intimidation to remain outside the reach of the law. In simple terms, the law does not conceive of victims—mostly women—as victims of ongoing abuse, but sees them rather as victims of isolated events involving physical violence. As a result, women become entrapped in abusive relationships and no one goes to prison without the physical evidence of an isolated incidence of physical violence with enough injuries.

Research by Women’s Aid shows that the majority of women in abusive relationships reported violence to the police only after it had been going on for between six months and five years. Even when women report abuse, it is treated as a single incident without taking into account a pattern of behaviour, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth. As such, it is often treated as a low-level misdemeanour, and a man who has been violent on one occasion is punished in the same way as a man who might have committed dozen assaults against his partner. That is unacceptable.

Given the lack of statutory framework, the current remedies focus on changing the victim’s behaviour rather than addressing the perpetrator. Because of the lack of freedom often experienced by victims, those remedies are limited in their effectiveness. I firmly believe that criminalising all aspects of domestic violence, including coercive control, would increase public awareness of the problem and send a strong message that controlling and psychologically abusive behaviour in a relationship is not acceptable. It would also ensure that courts could take into account a pattern of behaviour, which would allow the appropriate response.

According to studies, early intervention would reduce domestic violence by some 80%. Countries such as Spain, France, Portugal, Sweden and the US have already taken steps to enact laws with reference to intimate partner violence that offers a wider criminal definition than physical violence. The effects have been significant, and have saved lives and money. Stalking laws allow the justice system to take into account patterns of controlling behaviour after a relationship has ended, but not enough is done to prevent controlling behaviour from escalating during a relationship. We should be calling for a change in the legislative framework so that patterns of controlling behaviour and psychological intimidation are targeted far earlier, to protect victims better.

I strongly believe that domestic violence needs to be criminalised in a way that allows the controlling and psychological aspects of it to be recognised. By developing our current legal system to close the gap between the current response and the way in which we should respond to domestic violence, we will be able greatly to reduce the suffering and oppression of victims. In many cases, victims have commented that the control and psychological damage exerted on them by their partners was far more harmful than any physical abuse.

The main concern of the various women’s groups I have spoken to is that coercive, abusive and intimidating behaviour are tools used by a perpetrator to exert control. When a victim finally gathers the strength to leave, the abuser may feel as though the only way in which they can reassert control is through physical violence, and in the worst case death, as tragically happened to my constituent Christine Chambers. For that reason, we must do more to criminalise psychological abuse at an earlier stage. I would like that to be given greater recognition in the criminal justice system to stop ongoing abusive behaviour and save victims much sooner than is currently possible.

I want to make a number of recommendations to the Minister on behalf of the groups that I met. First, there should be better data collection. Many advocacy groups have said that the Government are failing to collect vital statistics relating to domestic violence. They have suggested that the Government should review data collection procedures as a first step to building a greater understanding of domestic violence. Secondly, we must improve training and awareness. All front-line police officers and justice officials should receive domestic violence awareness training to bring about a change of culture in the way in which victims, particularly women, are treated. Thirdly, legislative loopholes must be closed. The Government should review the current legislation on domestic violence to close legislative loopholes by, for example, giving consideration to criminalising coercive control and patterns of abusive behaviour.

Fourthly, we need more effective prosecutions. Law enforcement agencies should move away from evidence that is based solely on victim testimony. The police should begin to build a case against a perpetrator the moment they walk through the door, through better evidence gathering. Finally, we must develop a more victim-centred approach. Governments should work to break down barriers to justice, increase information and communication with survivors about their cases and invest in better court facilities and technology. If the Government implemented those changes, I believe that they would take the steps required better to protect victims of domestic violence.

Too many women have suffered already, and we must take steps to ensure that no more women have to suffer at the hands of a partner or ex-partner. I would like to end by thanking Polly Neate and Clare Laxton of Women’s Aid, Laura Richards, the founder of Paladin, and Antonia Packard and Rhea Gargour of the Sara Charlton Foundation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

It is a question of both, because if people are not taking domestic abuse seriously, they are not interested in tracking repeat matters, which was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark).

[Mr Newmark]

I do not mean to undermine the Minister, but training is about more than simply an attitude; one has to invest, which means some real money, perhaps a reallocation of resources. He is absolutely right, there has been a fall in crime and I have seen that locally in Braintree, but as we are saving money, I would like to see some reinvestment made to address specific recommendations, such as those which I made in my speech, which include better technology and better training, so that we get a change not only of mindset, but in the education of the police as to what domestic abuse is really about.

[Norman Baker]

I want to pick up on that point and approach it logically. Body-worn cameras, for example, have been an investment, but they are not being used as they ought to be, so there is also a matter about how the police deal with the technology that they are given. In addition, I confirm that the College of Policing—a good innovation introduced by the Government—will deliver better training in such matters within their resources. It is prioritising what it wants to do on domestic abuse, which is something that we are dealing with on a number of fronts, as I will explain.

Responding to domestic abuse is and must be seen as a core part of the police’s job. I want the priority to be in practice, not only on paper. HMIC has found that the coalition Government’s introduction of directly elected police and crime commissioners and the establishment of the College of Policing, which I have just mentioned, are two significant changes that will make a difference in supporting forces and in holding them to account. Change, however, must be driven by police at all levels. The report is an opportunity to make a real and lasting difference. Chief constables need to take personal oversight to ensure that things happen. We need leaders to recognise and reward officers who are working hard to improve the reality for victims of domestic abuse.

The Opposition spokesperson suggested—she said “gently”—that the Home Secretary should have made a statement as soon as the HMIC report came out. I want to put it on the record, however, perhaps as a Liberal Democrat rather than anything else, that the Home Secretary has been absolutely rigorous and determined to make progress on domestic violence since 2010—the whole House recognises that—and even more so subsequent to the report. On day one of the report’s publication she produced a written ministerial statement, she wrote to all colleagues in the House of Commons and she wrote to all chief constables and police force leads, making it clear that her expectation, in line with HMIC’s recommendations, was that each force will have a plan in place by September to improve its response to domestic violence and abuse.

The Home Secretary has committed to chairing a national oversight group to lead immediate improvement. She has not delegated that to me or to officials; she will lead it herself, and I will serve on that group with her. The group has a clear and specific mandate to monitor delivery against each of HMIC’s recommendations, so people’s feet are being held to the fire. The group will bring together the organisations that must make change with experts on domestic abuse, and it will sit for the first time shortly. The Home Secretary will issue quarterly reports on progress. The coalition Government will ensure that those important recommendations do not become yesterday’s news. They are live issues to be continually monitored, and progress must be pursued.

My officials are already working on delivering the actions for the Home Office that were identified by HMIC. The Home Secretary has advised chief constables that she will mandate the collection of performance statistics on domestic abuse by the police, which several colleagues mentioned, and work to build victim satisfaction into the picture so that we can meaningfully monitor progress to deliver improvements. We will also review the domestic homicide review process—a point that was also raised—to ensure that it provides the best possible opportunity for local areas to learn from individual tragedies.

Police action to address HMIC’s findings will build on work already being carried out by the coalition Government. We have introduced Clare’s law, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth mentioned, and we have introduced domestic violence protection orders to give the police a broader range of tools to break the cycle of abuse. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Dame Angela Watkinson) referred to that issue in her speech, which was rather moving, when she said that a victim would sometimes be forced out of her house. It is precisely because of that problem that we have introduced domestic violence protection orders, which allow the victim to stay put and require the perpetrator to leave the premises. That puts the victim centre stage, rather than making them something of an add-on, as they have been in the past.

--- Later in debate ---

[Norman Baker]

I will write to my hon. Friend on that specific point. However, the protection order is an alternative that is immediate—it immediately protects the victim. I will write to hon. Members here about the nature of the non-molestation order so that the information is more widely available.

When introducing the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth asked for an assurance that the work that is under way will focus on effective outcomes and not simply on the production of endless statistics and reports. I am happy to give her that assurance. We need culture change and that is certainly central to the work that the Home Secretary and I are taking forward. We are not simply interested in statistics; we want to see real change on the ground to benefit the people who are adversely affected by this terrible crime.

My hon. Friend asked what could be done to encourage greater reporting of domestic violence incidents. I am happy to tell her that domestic violence reporting is on the rise and although the figures from the crime survey for England and Wales suggest that the level of domestic abuse and violence is roughly flat, the number of incidents reported to the police has risen, which suggests that more people are confident about reporting such incidents to the police. More of the incidents that are occurring are being formally reported. That is good, and shows that sometimes when crime is officially rising, it may be because more people are coming forward to report crimes that hitherto were hidden. That must be helpful.

My hon. Friend asked whether the Home Office would review the priorities set by police and crime commissioners to check whether domestic abuse is included. The Home Secretary has already taken these matters up with each PCC, and I think PCCs throughout the country now understand not only that this is an important issue for the Government, which it certainly is, but that their own populations are drawing it to their attention rather more. I am confident that more and more attention will be given, in a more structured way, to taking that issue forward in local police plans. The challenge, as I have mentioned, is not simply getting PCCs to include it in their plans; it is to make sure that police follow it through in a way that is effective to protect victims of domestic violence. As a general point, the national oversight group, which the Home Secretary has set up and will chair, and which I sit on, will make sure that domestic abuse is a priority for all areas. If there are any areas where it is not taken seriously, that will change, because we intend to make sure of that.

As to how we would ensure that guidance from the College of Policing will be fully integrated in day-to-day policing operations, the Home Secretary and I expect that all chief constables will have plans in place by September, as I have mentioned, to drive a culture change in front-line policing and, again, a national oversight group will bring together the College of Policing and police leadership to ensure that training is effective and that it is rolled out across the UK.

The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who is not in his place, and one or two other hon. Members referred to domestic violence affecting men. Figures were quoted to suggest that a large number of men are affected. I have asked for that to be dug into more, because I want to make sure that we compare like with like. I suspect that female victims of domestic violence are, overwhelmingly, those in a relationship with a man who commits domestic violence or abuse against them. I want to make sure that male victims represent the same thing. The figures may include male-on-male cases such as fathers and sons, or brothers. I want to make sure that the figures do not misrepresent the situation. Vera Baird, the PCC for the north-east—I cannot remember what the area is called—mentioned that to me. There is, of course, some domestic violence against men, and that needs to be factored in. I was asked whether there are refuges for men, and I am aware of at least one, which opened in Berkshire in 2012, which accommodates males, including those with children, who have had to flee domestic abuse. There may be others that I am not aware of.

The hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) asked what we were doing to deal with religious groups that ostracise victims. That is of course a difficult matter to deal with, but the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), and I have met religious leaders to talk about female genital mutilation in particular, and to try to engage their help in tackling that version of domestic violence—or violence against women, anyway. I am keen to go further with that, so I shall be looking to make more progress with religious leaders in that regard. I think that the hon. Gentleman also asked whether there was any guidance for police on same-sex couples when there is violence. The current police guidance on investigating domestic abuse, which was issued in 2008, covers same-sex relationships. The intention is that it will be updated to build into it the findings from the HMIC report.

The hon. Member for Braintree raised the issue of coercive behaviour and asked whether a pattern of such behaviour can constitute domestic abuse. The answer is yes. He also asked whether there are problems in proving that, and the answer is yes. We believe, and the HMIC report suggests, that police forces do not keep good data on repeat victims, which makes it hard to prove a pattern. It is not, however, impossible. The situation must change, and that will be a focus of the national oversight group, which, as I mentioned, the Home Secretary chairs. I do not think that it is a question of the law, because domestic abuse is a crime, and coercive behaviour is part of the definition, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth, when she referred to the change that we made. Indeed, the hon. Member for Warrington North also mentioned the change in the definition of domestic abuse. The issue is ensuring that the evidence is collected in order to enable a successful prosecution to be carried through, rather than necessarily finding a new law. The law to deal with coercive behaviour and repeat patterns is already there. However, it is of course an important matter and I fully accept that it is easier to deal with isolated incidents than ongoing, what might be called low-level, domestic abuse. I am sure that that will also be covered by the work of the national oversight group.

[Mr Newmark]

From speaking to women’s groups, my impression is that the problem is that there is no legislative framework. Simply saying that it will be taken into account does not deal with the substantive issue. The Minister said that it is low-level, but coercive abuse can sometimes be far more pernicious because of the psychological damage that it does. One should not say that physical violence is somehow that much worse than coercive behaviour. The Government should at least be looking at trying to find some form of legislative framework to encompass coercive behaviour.

[Norman Baker]

When I said low-level, I was referring to perhaps each individual instance, but I very much accept that the accumulation of such instances may, of course, have a result that is worse than an instance of violence. I am sorry for giving the wrong impression.

As I said, we think that the behaviour we are discussing is already covered by the law; the issue is that the data are not being collected and the evidence accumulated in a way that leads to successful prosecutions in many cases. Nevertheless, we do believe that it is possible to deal with such behaviour under existing laws. I am reluctant to move towards having narrowly defined, specific laws, because the thrust of the Government’s intention has been to move away from that. Narrowly defined law can lead to people finding loopholes, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Warrington North. An example of our intention is that we have amended the antisocial behaviour legislation to make general offences easier to deal with, because exemptions have been found that made prosecutions unsuccessful. I believe that a general definition that can include coercive behaviour will be a more successful way forward, provided that the police are collecting the evidence and a system is in place to enable that to be successfully followed through to a prosecution.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham mentioned the provisions of the Children Act 1989. He made an important point and, as he said, it has not been given sufficient attention in the past. I will undertake to see what we might do to tie the Department for Education rather more into these matters—he will be aware of my wish to do so—and to ensure that legislation that is specifically children-orientated is given proper attention. He is right to say that children are not necessarily attacked physically, but can suffer significantly, as he very eloquently outlined, as a result of being in a place where domestic violence occurs, particularly when it occurs over a long time. That will be very damaging to children.

The hon. Member for Warrington North was right to refer to the work on gangs, because the work by the Deputy Children’s Commissioner in the harrowing report on gangs demonstrated how teenage girls in particular are often subject to appalling violence. That is one reason why we have been running the “This is Abuse” campaign, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth referred. That is also why it is targeted particularly at boys, why the message is very clear that no means no, and why we are trying to educate young boys in particular about what consent is. Clearly, there is an issue about people understanding consent, and that needs to be rectified.

We are also using role models who will be effective in getting these messages across, so that it is not Ministers or police officers who are communicating the messages to young boys; it is, for example, pop stars. We have used the band The Wanted, Jason Derulo and people like that, and we have also used outlets such as MTV. We have tried to use the outlets and the people who will be effective in getting the messages across, and I think that we have been quite successful in doing that.

The HMIC report states that an

“HMIC inspection on child protection is currently underway. It will review how effective the police are at keeping children safe.”

The Department for Education believes that it is important that police advise children’s social care when children are in an abusive environment. In the most severe cases, children at immediate risk should be immediately protected by being removed if necessary. If there is further work to do to link up the police and children’s services, I hope that will be considered by the oversight group as well.

Immigration Bill

Brooks Newmark Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The House may be surprised to know that I am in almost complete agreement with the hon. Gentleman, which is rare—I think unique. One should always be suspicious of the arbitrary power of the state. As we saw with today’s proceedings about whether there would even be a vote on new clause 15, the arbitrary power of the state can sometimes be misused. The Executive sometimes have to come under pressure before they give way and allow the proper proceedings to take place. I much prefer a legal process, and I do not want to make the statement that people who have got their citizenship more recently than I did are in any sense lesser citizens. I fundamentally do not believe that. Anybody who is fortunate enough to be a subject of Her Majesty is an equal subject of Her Majesty with all others.

[Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. It has just come to my notice that my name is on the list of those supporting the new clause and amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab). I would like to make it clear that I have not spoken to my hon. Friend, nor given him my written consent to be named on his amendments. Can you advise me, Madam Deputy Speaker, on how I can get my name excised from the record, and will you look into tightening up the rules, such as by requiring a Member’s written consent before names are added to amendments in future?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, which he made with his usual eloquence. It is now on the record that his name should not have been on the amendment paper today as a supporter of that new clause and amendment. I should tell him that it is quite normal for the Table Office to accept a list of names as supporters of an amendment, but it would appear that a mistake was made in this case. I will ensure that the House authorities take all steps that they can to amend the record, so that his name does not appear as a supporter of the new clause and amendment. He has been most effective in making his point of order in front of the whole House so that it is obvious that he is not a supporter of them.

UN Syrian Refugees Programme

Brooks Newmark Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

There are 2.4 million refugees in neighbouring countries, and about 6.5 million displaced people in Syria. Arguing about helping a few hundred people misses the point. [Interruption.] We have put £600 million into the region—the hon. Gentleman is right: this is the biggest humanitarian crisis, which is why our response is the biggest humanitarian response that this country has ever mounted—in order to help hundreds of thousands of people there. That is the right thing to do, and we are helping an enormously larger number of people than any of our European partners.

[Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)]

I congratulate the Government on all that they have done for refugees outside the country. I recently visited the Nizip refugee camp, which is on the Syrian border in Turkey. The Turks do a tremendous job in delivering support, and it is far more cost-effective for the Government to provide for those refugees—particularly the most vulnerable—in situ, in a refugee camp or nearby. Does my hon. Friend not agree, however, that it is the tragedy within Syria that is greatest, and would he support an initiative at Geneva II to ensure that there are safe corridors inside the country so that we can maximise the safety of the majority of Syrians?

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s question, and the fact that it is informed by his recent visit to the region where he was able to see practically what our colleagues in Turkey—one of the neighbouring countries—are doing to help on the ground. In answer to his specific question, he is right: we have been pushing for better access within Syria and we need to continue to do so, so that we and the aid agencies can get access to the 6.5 million internally displaced people and provide the help they need, as well as providing help to those in the neighbouring countries.

Immigration (Bulgaria and Romania)

Brooks Newmark Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2013 Westminster Hall

[Nigel Mills]

Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. It can be no surprise that the public have great concern about what might happen when new nations have unfettered access to free movement, given that our experience with other eastern European nations gaining such freedom is that so many of their nationals chose to come to this country. I accept that most of them chose to come here to work, but that leaves us with the fundamental question of how to deal with that when unemployment in this country is still far higher than we would like.

[Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)]

I realise that my hon. Friend is trying to make progress, but he makes an important point about the contradiction between people coming from Europe, eastern Europe in particular, because they believe jobs are here, and the perception of people locally that they are taking jobs. The reality is that many local people simply will not take those jobs; that is why they are being filled by eastern Europeans. That is the skills gap at the low end. It is not that there are no jobs; many people locally will simply not take the jobs, because they do not want to work for such pay or in those particular roles. That is the issue.

[Nigel Mills]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. One of the drivers of the Government’s welfare reforms is to encourage people to take work if they are offered it; if they choose not to take work that is available, they do not get the benefits that they would presumably like to keep. For the welfare reforms to work, however, we need jobs to be available, so that people can be gently encouraged to take them, even if they are perhaps not their first choice. If the jobs that exist are taken by those who have just arrived in this country, those necessary and important welfare reforms become much harder to achieve. We must remember that a first job can be the start of the career ladder; it is not necessarily the end of it. Encouraging people to take jobs even if they do not think that they are suited to them, or if the jobs are not quite what they are after, is perfectly appropriate policy.

I shall try to get back to the thread of my argument. Let me set out why I tabled an amendment in Committee to keep in place transitional restrictions—and I am grateful that 73 other MPs have chosen to sign that amendment for Report. Looking at the criteria in the accession treaties that allowed us and other western European nations to keep restrictions until the last possible minute, we were allowed the restrictions, and chose to keep them, because there was still serious disruption in our employment market.

Two years ago, the Government commissioned an independent assessment from the Migration Advisory Committee of whether the test was still being met. The main criteria looked at were levels of employment and unemployment, the claimant count, and vacancies, both in 2011 and pre-recession. The pre-recession level of employment was 72.7%; two years ago, that was down at 70.6%. Unemployment before the recession was 5.1%; two years ago, it was 7.8%. The claimant count was 3% pre-recession and 4.6% two years ago; vacancies had been 621,000, but were down to 469,000. Those figures were the justification for saying, “We need to keep these restrictions for another two years. Our labour market can’t cope with the potential disruption of a large number of people arriving.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time today, Ms Dorries. I welcome the measured way in which the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) put his case. I congratulate him and the hon. Members for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley) and for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) on applying to the Backbench Business Committee for this debate. It is good to see so many people here in Westminster Hall on the day that the House rises, but what a pity it is that the debate is not being held in the Chamber itself, where we could have had an even longer and more detailed debate.

[Mr Newmark]

I respect the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is here, but I find it strange that an enormous amount of Conservative Members are here to discuss this important issue. I cannot believe that the issue is of concern only to those Members of Parliament who happen to be Conservatives or to their constituents. Surely there are Labour MPs with the same concerns, so why have they not joined him here today?

[Keith Vaz]

The remit of the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee does not extend to controlling the diaries of members of the parliamentary Labour party, but it is their loss: I think it is important that we should be here participating in this debate.

We should start by acknowledging the strong and important relations that we have with Bulgaria and Romania. I visited both countries while I was Minister for Europe, when we started the enlargement process. The ambassadors representing the two countries here are excellent, as are our ambassadors in Sofia and Bucharest; in particular, I want to acknowledge the way in which Martin Harris, our ambassador in Bucharest, is ensuring that good relations between our two countries are fostered even at this challenging time.

The Home Affairs Committee has been looking at the issue of the transitional restrictions for a number of years and has made a number of recommendations. Earlier this year, with the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), who is currently sitting on my right, and the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison), I went to Bucharest to meet members of the Romanian Government and to talk with members of the Romanian community. If there are regrets—I have a few regrets in my speech—my primary regret is that the Immigration Minister and the Home Secretary have not taken the opportunity over the past year to go to Romania and Bulgaria and engage with those Governments. We talk about push and pull factors—why it is people decide to travel all the way from Bucharest or Sofia to live in Leicester, London or Manchester—and we should have worked with other Governments to find out the problems and look at the issues.

For example, in response to the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen), the hon. Member for Amber Valley referred to the number of talented people leaving Romania and Bulgaria. When we were in Bucharest, we spoke with the president of the Romanian equivalent of the British Medical Association. He lamented the fact that so many talented young Romanian doctors had decided to leave Romania to work in the United Kingdom and in other countries—on average they trebled or even quadrupled their salaries when they came to our countries—which was having a detrimental effect on Romania and Bulgaria. That is why I wish that the Home Secretary and the Immigration Minister had visited, because they would have been able to establish a dialogue and try to see what we could have done to help those countries.

One way in which we could have helped was in respect of the huge amount of money that was allocated to Romania when it joined the European Union. It may surprise Members to note that 87% of the £20 billion that was given to Romania in pre-accession funds have still not been accessed, because sufficient assistance is not being given to the Romanian Government to ensure that they get the funds. If those funds were accessed, the jobs that people seek to find here might have been made available in those countries. Across the House, we all support the enlargement of the European Union; I cannot remember an occasion in the past 26 years when any party has voted against enlargement. We allow countries to join the European Union, but then we leave them on their own. Our Ministers should have engaged more—under the previous Government and under this Government—to ensure that there was proper access to those funds.

The big question that remains unanswered is why we still do not have estimates of how many people will come here next year. On 21 October 2008, the then shadow Immigration Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), said that one of the greatest failures of the last Government was the failure to predict the consequences of enlargement in 2004. Given that, research should have been conducted so that we would be aware—at least have estimates—of the numbers that would be coming into this country. For the reasons outlined by the hon. Member for Amber Valley—the pressure on housing, on schools and on the health service—if we had even estimates it would be helpful. When we went to Bucharest, we came across a university that had conducted research and had produced estimates. It is very remiss of this Government not to have done the same.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keith Vaz]

The only thing that I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that he should come and join us. If he thinks for one moment that the media will turn up at 7.40 am after the biggest party of the year—31 December —he will be very surprised. I do not expect that any of them will be there, but the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood and I, who are not big partygoers and who both abstain from the usual parties on new year’s eve, will be there.

However, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) makes a more valid point, in that people are already here. Of course they are, and therefore, if they are already here, we should also be considering what is happening to those people. At the end of the day, 1 January is the critical time. That is when the restrictions are to be removed.

[Mr Newmark]

I have been listening carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, and I am still not sure of his direction of travel, if I may say that. I am not sure whether he is saying that Romanians and Bulgarians will suddenly buy tickets to get on a plane to come here and live off our exceedingly generous benefits system, and if so, we have heard what the Government are doing, which is to put far greater restrictions on the ability of those to come here, before they can claim benefits or even housing or anything like that—the Government are trying to deal with that issue; the longest period of time that somebody can claim will be six months, and they have to wait three months—or is he saying that they are coming here because there are lots of jobs?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bone]

I am grateful for that intervention. The simple answer is no. I think that we need to control our own borders. I do not think that we should be tinkering with the mechanisms; we should have complete control of what we do, as I think the right hon. Gentleman said in his concluding remarks.

A recent report on the economic effects of immigration found that those on the lowest wages feel the biggest impact of immigration, as immigration holds back the wages of the least well paid. We should be supporting those hard-working people, not eroding their wages by allowing uncontrolled immigration from countries with such vast economic differences. Moreover, although unemployment is down, youth unemployment is proving stubbornly high. With nearly 1 million under-25s still unemployed, the focus should be on helping them into jobs, not allowing into the job market an inpouring of immigrants who are looking for work.

[Mr Newmark]

Will my hon. Friend at least acknowledge that the Government’s policy, in the autumn statement, of abolishing the jobs tax for under-21s will encourage many small businesses, especially retailers, to hire young people? I go back to the question that I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills): there is a skills gap at the lower end, so who will fill that skills gap if we do not have people coming in from eastern Europe to plug that hole?

[Mr Bone]

I am grateful for that intervention. No one in this Chamber is prouder than me of what this Government are doing to lower unemployment, and of the great efforts that the Prime Minister is making, but my hon. Friend is completely wrong on the second bit of the argument. We should not be paying jobseeker’s allowance to people who have the opportunity to work, but do not want to work. That is how those jobs will be filled—not by bringing people in from central Europe. Gosh, I got quite cross about that.

Immigration

Brooks Newmark Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)]

I am delighted to be here on what I believe is the first occasion I have spoken on immigration. We do not have an immigration problem in Braintree, which is very much a British, white, working-class area, as are many in Essex. However, the fear of immigration seems to grab people’s attention. My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) hit the nail on the head in his many reasons why. I congratulate him on an excellent speech.

Immigration is a highly emotive subject, but we must not forget that we are a nation of immigrants. Since Roman times we have had wave after wave of immigrants: from Angles, Jutes and Norsemen in the dark ages to Normans, Jews and Huguenots in the middle ages, to Italians and Irishmen in the 1800s, to West Indians, Ugandan Asians—

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Newmark]

No.

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

Thank you.

[Mr Newmark]

—to Indians and Pakistanis in the 1900s, to north Africans and others in the past decade. Indeed, the star of the London Olympics was Mo Farah, a Somali immigrant.

This House has many sons and daughters of immigrants, including the hon. Members for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) and for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz); my hon. Friends the Members for Windsor (Adam Afriyie), for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) and for Witham (Priti Patel); and Mr Speaker himself. We must not forget my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal), who now holds the seat of the late, great Enoch Powell.

Immigrants come here because they want to contribute to our society. They tend to fill a skills gap rather than simply replacing British workers. The City, the arts and sports are full of immigrants who contribute to our society, as is education and the health service. Our national dish today is as much curry as roast beef and Yorkshire pudding or fish and chips. So what went wrong?

Unfortunately, at some stage during the previous Government’s tenure, we lost control of our borders. That resulted in the largest migration in our history and the system broke. There was huge pressure on housing, health care and even education. Something had to be done, and the present Government have grasped the nettle and cut immigration by one third. The Prime Minister announced recently that EU migrants will have to wait before claiming benefits and there will be tests for those who want to do so. Newly arrived jobseekers will not be able to claim housing benefit without a minimum period of residency.

We are tightening up on immigration not because we are little Britain, but because, in the words of the Minister:

“Hard-working people expect and deserve an immigration system that is fair to British citizens and legitimate migrants and tough on those who abuse the system and flout the law…We will continue to welcome the brightest and best migrants who…contribute to our economy and society and play by the rules.”

I say, “Hear, hear” to that.

I am an immigrant. I moved here with my family when I was nine years old. I have always contributed more to society than I have taken. I have built up a successful business, paid my taxes, raised my family and now have the privilege of representing my country and my community in Parliament. The vast majority of individuals who come to the United Kingdom do so, like me, because they want a better life for themselves and their families. They want to make a contribution to society. Let us therefore continue to welcome those who wish to contribute to our society, but let us also toughen up on those who seek only to take advantage of our generous benefits system without giving anything back. This Government are seeking to get the balance right, and I welcome their initiatives on immigration.

[Mr George Howarth (in the Chair)]

Order. Two more Members want to take part in the debate, and I intend to call the Front Benchers at 10.30. Members can do the maths so that there is time for both to speak—[Interruption.] The Front Benchers have indicated that they would be willing to take a little less time, so if the two remaining speakers exercise a little restraint, there should be time for everyone to speak.

Parliamentary Representation

Brooks Newmark Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution—it is always nice to have one’s views confirmed in so eloquent a way.

Where are we now? Some 16% of Conservative MPs are women. Only 12% of Liberal Democrat MPs are women, but it is nice to hear that the Deputy Prime Minister has that in his sights. The figure for the Labour party is 32%, which brings us to an average of 22%. I believe that the figures for the parties masks a very significant success for the Conservative party in introducing more women. It was suggested earlier that the Conservative party effectively had all-male shortlists before, and those of us who have followed party selections and elections to Parliament for some time were slightly surprised at the 2001 general election when only one of the 26 new Conservative Members elected was a woman. However, from that very low base the party has made a tremendous change, and I think that the evidence for that change is the fact that we could achieve it by persuasion, nudge and training.

Between 2005 and 2010, we had a clear strategy to deal with the issue. We had an organisation called women2win—

[The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury (Mr Brooks Newmark)]

Hear, hear!

[Amber Rudd]

It was ably supported by my hon. Friend—who is here and a man; it is always nice to have a man stand up in support of more women in Parliament—by Baroness Jenkin and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who is of course the Home Secretary. That organisation did an enormous amount in mentoring and training and, if I may say so, in persuading the Conservative party to improve the training of those who make the selection, because they also need to understand that there are different types of MP.