Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Philp Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

What plans her Department has to reform the UK’s asylum system.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)]

As the Home Secretary has already announced, we will embark next year on one of the biggest ever reforms of our asylum system. The system is in need of fundamental reform in which the principles will be firmness and fairness—fair in that we will rapidly grant claims that are meritorious, but firm in the sense that, where claims do not have merit, we will rapidly refuse them and ensure that people cannot have endlessly repeated bites of the cherry, which sadly is the case at the moment.

[Peter Gibson [V]]

We are all rightly proud of the UK’s history as a safe haven for the persecuted, but can my hon. Friend outline what steps his Department is taking to ensure that claims of asylum from unsafe countries are being prioritised over those from inherently safe countries such as France?

[Chris Philp]

My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. The United Kingdom’s resettlement scheme aims to take people directly from dangerous conflict zones, such as those around Syria, into the United Kingdom. We have run the biggest resettlement scheme of any country in Europe over the last five years. In terms of preventing claims from safe countries, he will be aware that we introduced some inadmissibility rules a few days ago, and we are working with our French colleagues to prevent these very dangerous small boat crossings from France to the UK. Thanks to that work, I am pleased to be able to report to the House that over the last three months since September, the number of small boat crossings per calm-weather day has come down by over 60%. That is testament to the great work being done by UK officers and by our colleagues in France as well.

[Chris Green]

It is immensely important that asylum seekers and refugees received the welcome and support they need when seeking sanctuary in the United Kingdom, but does my hon. Friend agree that those who are rejected should leave the country promptly?

[Chris Philp]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Where an asylum claim has been rejected, it is only right and fair that the person whose claim has been rejected should leave quickly. Sadly, that is not always the case. In fact, we are currently accommodating some thousands of failed asylum seekers at public expense, but it is right that they should leave when their asylum claim has been rejected. One of the problems is that repeated appeals and last-minute claims can go on almost without limit and we intend to legislate in the first half of next year to ensure that that breakdown in process—that breakdown in the system—no longer happens.

[Caroline Nokes [V]]

The failure to manage the backlog of asylum claims has led to the Minister planning open prison-style camps in temporary accommodation in unsuitable locations, remote from healthcare services. Can he explain to the residents of Barton Stacey how the changes laid to the immigration rules last week are going to help? Does he not run the risk of establishing a separate tier of asylum seekers who cannot have their claims processed but cannot be returned to any European Union country because no agreement exists to enable that to happen? And does that mean that they will be permanently stuck in limbo?

[Chris Philp]

The large numbers being accommodated are to some degree a consequence of covid because, as my right hon. Friend will know, we have been running significantly lower levels of move-ons for people whose asylum claims have been decided. For example, no negative cessations are happening at all at the moment, and that has led to a significant increase in the number of people being accommodated. As we move out of coronavirus next year, we hope to get those numbers rapidly back down again.

In relation to my right hon. Friend’s question about the immigration rules, they are laying the foundations for our post-transition period system. As she knows, we are currently in the Dublin system, which provides for people who have claimed asylum elsewhere to be returned to those countries, including France, Germany and Spain. It is our intention to open discussions with those countries as soon as we are able to do so, in order to bring into force similar measures after the transition period ends.

[Aaron Bell]

My hon. Friend will be aware that approximately 60,000 people are currently stuck in our asylum system. Does he agree with me and my constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme that we must get this reform through, not only to treat those people fairly but to treat the taxpayer fairly? We should not be picking up the tab for a bloated and broken system.

[Chris Philp]

My hon. Friend puts it perfectly. It is unfair on the taxpayer to have people whose claims have been rejected still subsisting in accommodation, and it is unfair on people with meritorious claims, whose claims take longer to hear because the system is not operating in the way it should. We certainly will be reforming it to address the issues he is rightly raising, and he can look forward to supporting legislation in this House in the first half of next year to do exactly that.

[Gareth Bacon]

The law on asylum is dated and complex. Loopholes have been exploited for many years and, as my hon. Friend has stated on many occasions, tougher legislation is required. Will he advise the House as to when that legislation will be presented?

[Chris Philp]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. As I said, we will be introducing legislation in the first half of next year. It will aim to be fair to people with meritorious claims, to make sure that their claims are decided quickly and they are properly looked after. For people who have no valid claim or who seek to bring repeated, vexatious claims, often at the last minute, in order to frustrate removal, we will be shutting down those avenues, which are being abused. This is to make sure the system works fairly for those who need protection, but prevents abuse.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

What steps her Department is taking to tackle county lines drugs networks.

Scheduled Mass Deportation: Jamaica

Chris Philp Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to make a statement on the scheduled mass deportation by charter plane to Jamaica.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)]

This charter flight to Jamaica is specifically to remove foreign criminals. The offences committed by the individuals on this flight include sexual assault against children, murder, rape, drug dealing and violent crime. Those are serious offences, which have a real and lasting impact on the victims and on our communities. This flight is about criminality, not nationality. Let me emphasise: it has nothing to do with the terrible wrongs faced by the Windrush generation. Despite the extensive lobbying by some, who claim that the flight is about the Windrush generation, it is not. Not a single individual on the flight is eligible for the Windrush scheme. They are all Jamaican citizens and no one on the flight was born in the United Kingdom. They are all foreign national offenders who between them have served 228 years plus a life sentence in prison.

It is a long-standing Government policy that any foreign national offender will be considered for deportation. Under the UK Borders Act 2007, which was introduced and passed by a Labour Government with the votes of a number of hon. Members who are present today, a deportation order must be made where a foreign national offender has been convicted of an offence and received a custodial sentence of 12 months or more. Under the Immigration Act 1971, FNOs who have caused serious harm or are persistent offenders are also eligible for consideration.

Let me put this flight in context. In the year ending June 2020, there were 5,208 enforced returns, of which 2,630, or over half, were to European Union countries, and only 33 out of over 5,000 were to Jamaica—less than 1%. During the pandemic, we have continued with returns and deportations on scheduled flights and on over 30 charter flights to countries including Albania, France, Germany, Ghana, Lithuania, Nigeria, Poland and Spain, none of which, I notice, provoked an urgent question. The clear majority of the charter flights this year have been to European countries.

Those being deported have ample opportunity to raise reasons why they should not be. We are, however, already seeing a number of last-minute legal claims, including, in the last few days, by a convicted murderer, who has now been removed from the flight.

This Government’s priority is keeping the people of this country safe, and we make no apology—no apology—for seeking to remove dangerous foreign criminals. Any Member of this House with the safety of their constituents at heart would do exactly the same.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

First, no one opposing this flight condones any of the crimes that these individuals have been found guilty of. It is the process of mass deportation that is fundamentally wrong, and it is notorious for bundling people out of the country without due process. Does the Minister recognise that this decision effectively amounts to double jeopardy when those involved in some lesser offences have already served their custodial sentence? Does he recognise the message that that sends about the consequences of being a white offender or a black offender, given the racial disparities in sentencing?

I hope the Minister agrees that no one is above the law, not even the Government, and that no one is beneath adequate defence and proper legal representation, not even those born in other countries. Will he therefore outline whether the deportees have been granted access to adequate legal advice and representation, and whether any have been allowed to appeal this decision, particularly given the lockdown restrictions and the likelihood that they would have no access to legal aid?

On being above the law, the Equality and Human Rights Commission recently found that the Home Office unlawfully ignored warnings that the hostile environment was discriminatory. Can the Minister explain why the Government are so comfortable continuing with a key part of the hostile environment policy when it has been so damningly called into question? Has he considered the 31 children who will be impacted by having a parent removed from this country?

The Home Office has got it wrong again and again on immigration. Will it therefore think again, halt this deportation flight and finally end the illegal hostile environment?

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Lady speaks of what she calls mass deportations. I have already pointed out that, over the last year, of the 5,800 people who have been removed, only 33 have been of Jamaican nationality.

The hon. Lady mentioned black versus white. She was insinuating in her question that there was some element of underlying racism in this, but I have pointed out already that the vast majority of people who have been removed this year have been removed to European countries. This policy applies to people from Spain, France and Italy as much as it does to people from Jamaica. There is no element of discrimination in this policy whatever, and the hon. Lady was completely wrong to insinuate that, in some way, there was.

The hon. Lady asked about double jeopardy. She said that these people have been punished by a prison sentence already, but I say this: if somebody comes to this country, commits a serious criminal offence and puts our constituents at risk, it is right that, once they have served their sentence, or a great part of it, they should be removed. It is not just me who thinks that; it is the Labour Members who voted for this law in 2007 who think that, some of whom are sitting in this Chamber today.

The hon. Lady mentioned the EHRC and the compliant environment. This case is nothing to do with the compliant environment; it is about implementing the Borders Act 2007, as we are obliged to do. In terms of due process, there are ample opportunities to complain and appeal, as many people do, and I have mentioned already the case of a murderer who was taken off the flight just a few days ago following legal appeals.

We are protecting our fellow citizens, and I suggest that the hon. Lady takes a similar approach.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]]

Will my hon. Friend make it clear that people who come to the United Kingdom to contribute to our economy and our society are most welcome, but that those who come from foreign countries and then commit the most heinous of crimes, be it murder, sexual violence, violence against children or violence against the person, can expect to experience the full force of law and then be required to leave the country at the end of their sentence? Does he agree that, far from the public disagreeing with that, they are wholly in support of it and expect the Government to take this action to keep society safe?

[Chris Philp]

My hon. Friend, as always, puts it very well. Of course, when people come to this country as immigrants and make a contribution—to academia, to the work environment, and in myriad other ways—we welcome them with open arms. Our new points-based system, which will become active in just a few days’ time, does precisely that. However, as he says, if somebody comes to this country and enjoys our hospitality, but abuses that hospitality by committing a serious criminal offence, they can, should, and will be removed in the interests of public protection.

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

I first pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) for having secured such an important and time-critical urgent question. I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) for his previous work and advocacy in this important area.

The news of this flight comes just days after the Equality and Human Rights Commission found that the Government, as we have heard, acted unlawfully in their treatment of the Windrush generation through the hostile environment. As Caroline Waters, the chair of the EHRC, said,

“The treatment of the Windrush generation as a result of hostile environment policies was a shameful stain on British history.”

There is no clear timetable for implementing the recommendations of the Wendy Williams report, and with just 12% of applicants having received a payment and at least nine people having died waiting, the Windrush compensation scheme is failing badly. In his written response to me over the weekend, the Minister said that it is wrong and offensive to conflate this returns flight with the Windrush scandal, but I am afraid that given this Government’s track record, their failings on Windrush and the delays in the compensation scheme, we simply have no faith that this Government have done their due diligence in relation to those on this scheduled flight, and we would not be doing ours if we did not ask the questions.

Of course, we recognise that those who engage in violent and criminal acts must face justice. However, we also hear that at least one person on that flight has a Windrush generation grandfather; there is another whose great-aunt was on the HMT Windrush, and another whose grandfather fought in the second world war for Britain. It is clear that we have not yet established just how far the consequences of the Windrush injustice extend. With that in mind, what assessment has been made to ensure that none of those scheduled to be on the flight are eligible under the Windrush scheme, or have been affected by the wider immigration injustices that impacted the victims of the Windrush scandal? What assurances can the Minister provide the House that the mandatory duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of the children left behind, who are innocent in this, has been considered?

It has also been reported that the Home Office has reached an agreement with the Jamaican Government that people who left Jamaica as children will no longer be repatriated. Can the Minister confirm whether this is the case, and can he also confirm what age someone would need to be to have been determined to be a child?

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Lady, the shadow Minister, asks about the Windrush scheme. As she will be aware, over 6,300 people have now been given citizenship, quite rightly, and 13,300 documents have been issued to those people who suffered terrible wrongs in the past. In terms of compensation, 226 people have now received claims totalling in excess of £2.1 million, with a great deal more to pay out. I can also confirm that all of these cases on the plane have been individually assessed, and none of them is eligible for the Windrush compensation scheme.

The hon. Lady spent a great deal of time talking about Windrush during her question, but I say again—as I said in my letter to her—that it is completely wrong to conflate the people who were the victims of terrible injustice in the Windrush cases with these cases, who are nothing to do with Windrush, have no Windrush entitlement at all, and have committed terrible criminal offences. She also asks about the age eligibility. The Government are fully committed to discharging their obligation under the 2007 Act, which is to seek to remove anyone of any age who has been sentenced to a custodial term of over 12 months. That has been, is, and will remain our policy.

I am not going to comment on the individual operational circumstances surrounding any particular flight, but we are fully committed to the 2007 Act’s provisions. In relation to children, there is a well defined test around family rights and how they interact with removal. It is possible for people to go to the courts if they want to test their family rights against the Government’s obligations to remove them. But we are clear that our priority is protecting British citizens from dangerous criminals, and that is what we are doing.

[Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con) [V]]

The overwhelming majority of Mansfield residents will feel that foreign criminals of any nationality who violate our laws and our values should be removed from this country. Will my hon. Friend assure me and my constituents that it is public safety that is at the front of his mind; will he be clear that Labour’s attempts to draw everything into an argument about race are both plainly wrong and quite brazenly an attempt to silence people it disagrees with; and will he call out those celebrities who have spent the weekend trying to use their public profiles to shame businesses into not helping to remove murderers from the UK?

[Chris Philp]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiments. This is about protecting the British public. I am aware of cases where people have been removed from the deportation or removal programme owing to various appeals and have then gone on to commit crimes against our fellow citizens. It is precisely the kind of repeat crimes that damage our fellow citizens, our constituents, that we are seeking to prevent.

In relation to the celebrities and everything they have been saying, they should pay attention to the fact that, as I said before, the majority of removals and deportations are to European countries, and any suggestion that there is a racial element to this is obviously confounded by a straightforward look at the facts. Over half of the flights are to European countries. Less than 1% of removals in the past year have been to Jamaica, and anyone who is assisting the Home Office in those flights is doing a service to the country by protecting our fellow citizens.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP) [V]]

While some deportation decisions are clear cut, many more involve careful balancing exercises weighing up a whole range of factors. The problem is that it is very difficult to trust the Home Office to make those judgment calls as week after week its policies and practices are torn to pieces in report after report. Stephen Shaw, in his Government-commissioned report, said that the deportation and removal of people brought up here from a young age was “deeply troubling” and entirely “disproportionate”. Why not act on that advice and exclude in law the deportation of those who have spent their childhood years here?

More broadly, why not commission Stephen Shaw to review the whole framework on deportation ? Until something like that happens, we simply cannot and will not have any faith in those decisions. The Minister appears to repeatedly conflate deportations and removals, so can he give us the separate figures for deportations only?

[Chris Philp]

In relation to deportations only, the 1% figure is very similar to the figure for removals more generally. In relation to the hon. Gentleman’s point about Stephen Shaw, we did not accept his recommendation about age back in 2018, and we do not accept it now. We remain fully committed to implementing the obligations imposed by the UK Borders Act 2007, as passed by the last Labour Government. In terms of due process and decision making, of course there is an extensive set of legal processes that anyone is able to avail themselves of, and they frequently do. I mentioned that just a few days ago somebody convicted of murder got themselves taken off the flight by launching just such an appeal, so there are plenty of processes—I say that advisedly—that people can avail themselves of if they disagree with any particular decision.

[Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)]

The Opposition have been very clear that they oppose the Government’s efforts to deport foreign criminals who pose a risk to the British public and the people of Stoke-on- Trent. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Conservative party is the only party committed to law and order, evidenced further by our extra funding for more police?

[Chris Philp]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He is a great champion for the people of Stoke-on-Trent and in ensuring their safety as well. It is very disappointing to hear Labour Members questioning the removal of dangerous foreign nationals, although, interestingly, they are only raising it now, when we have had more than 30 charter flights go this year. This is the first time they have thought to raise this issue. This Government will defend the public and stand up for the safety of our constituents, and that is what we will do on Wednesday.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

The Minister will understand that there is a backdrop of distrust among the communities affected by the Windrush scandal that he should be trying to address in order to build confidence in deportation decisions. Given the Home Office’s response to a previous Select Committee report on Windrush that identified 32 people who had been deported as deemed foreign national offenders but who were likely to be part of the Windrush generation and whose circumstances had never been investigated, and given that the National Audit Office and Wendy Williams have recommended that the circumstances of those cases should be investigated, will he now do so?

[Chris Philp]

Let me start by offering the Home Affairs Committee Chairman reassurance in regard to the flight this week. All the people in scope for that flight have had their cases individually checked, and none of them is in the scope of the Windrush compensation scheme. As I have said, none was born in the United Kingdom. So those checks that she rightly calls for have been diligently carried out. In relation to the 32 historical cases that she refers to, I will look into that and write to her.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I find it extraordinary that the Opposition should choose an urgent question to plead the case for serious foreign criminals rather than standing up for the victims of crime, particularly on a day when an urgent question might be more appropriate on the issue of the imminent and extraordinarily early release of a woman, Mairead Philpott, who was jailed for the killing of six of her own children. Can my hon. Friend—

[Tim Loughton]

I am not criticising you, Mr Speaker; I am just questioning priorities. Can I ask the Minister how much we are spending already on housing these foreign criminals in the UK, and how much taxpayers’ money is being wasted on chartering places on flights that are not taken, often at the last minute?

[Chris Philp]

I certainly concur that Mr Speaker is wholly infallible in all matters.

I share my hon. Friend’s surprise at this question being tabled when the Government are simply discharging not only their duty but their obligation under an Act of Parliament passed by the last Labour Government, with the votes of a number of Members who are sitting on the Opposition side of the Chamber this afternoon. We are doing the right thing by protecting our fellow citizens. Many of the people concerned were living in the community rather than being housed. Our principal objective is public safety rather than finances, but his last point about charter flights is right. We suffer astonishingly high levels of legal attrition on these flights, largely as a result of legal claims often made at the very last minute—sometimes I wonder if they are intentionally made at the last minute—and we need to tighten up our legal system. As my hon. Friend may know, the Government intend to legislate next year to do exactly that.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Even if the Home Office were halfway competent in dealing with these matters, this area would still be absolutely fraught with difficulties, as the figures given to the House by the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee indicate. It has been reported that the Government have now entered into an agreement with the Government of Jamaica regarding this flight and others. When will that agreement be published?

[Chris Philp]

We do not have any formal agreements. What we have is an ongoing dialogue about any individual flight or any individual operational circumstance, but let me make it completely clear that our commitment to discharging our duty under the 2007 Act, which is to seek to deport anyone committing an offence of over a one-year sentence, regardless of their age on arrival, remains steadfastly in place.

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

As a magistrate and on many prison visits, I have frequently encountered criminals who came to the UK from overseas and committed serious offences that caused pain, suffering and long-lasting psychological harm. Does my hon. Friend agree that the responsibility of all of us across this House is to stand up for the victims of those crimes?

[Chris Philp]

My hon. Friend, speaking as a magistrate, hits the nail exactly on the head. The principal concern of Members of Parliament should be protecting the victims of crime and protecting our constituents from the harm that might otherwise be done to them by foreign national offenders. That is precisely why it is right to remove foreign national offenders—so that they cannot commit any more offences against our constituents.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab) [V]]

Does the Minister accept that many people feel that this mass deportation is both cruel and potentially dangerous: cruel because he is separating, just weeks from Christmas, families of people who have served their sentence; and possibly dangerous because he is deporting vulnerable people—communities that we know are particularly vulnerable to coronavirus—in the middle of a pandemic?

[Chris Philp]

The right hon. Lady asks whether this is the right thing to do. The answer to that question is categorically yes—an answer that she herself gave when she voted in 2007 for the Act of Parliament under which the Government are required to carry out these deportations. The right hon. Lady voted for this measure herself. In relation to coronavirus risks, as I said already, we have been carrying out these flights throughout the entire summer and autumn period, using methods that the High Court has found to be covid-safe in immigration removal centres, such as reverse cohorting, distancing, frequent testing, temperature checks and so on and so forth. I therefore do not accept the right hon. Lady’s point. Let me say this again: the overwhelming consideration for Members of this House should be the protection of our constituents.

[Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree with me and my constituents in Dudley North that any person who comes to this country, engages in criminal activity, breaks our laws and abuses our hospitality has no place in our society, and that the Government are therefore doing the correct thing in the interests of national security by removing these people from our country?

[Chris Philp]

Yes, I agree entirely. As I have said repeatedly, we are protecting our constituents from harm. These are dangerous offenders, whose offences including murder, rape and sexual assault against children. It would be irresponsible of us to allow people such as that to remain in this country when they are not nationals of the United Kingdom.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) [V]]

Last week, the Equality and Human Rights Commission concluded that the hostile environment policies pursued by this Government broke equalities law. Specifically, the EHRC noted:

“When negative equality impacts were identified by the Home Office and stakeholders, they were repeatedly ignored, dismissed, or their severity disregarded”.

With that in mind, can the Minister say with absolute certainty that neither his Department nor any stakeholders have identified any negative equality impacts with this scheduled deportation flight? If he cannot, does he not then agree that the flight should be halted immediately?

[Chris Philp]

This flight and others like it are not part of the compliant environment to which the EHRC report referred. This is taking place as a statutory obligation under an Act of Parliament that was passed, as I have said already, by the last Labour Government. I am confident that they gave careful consideration to the equalities implications of the Act of Parliament that they passed. As I have also said, we have looked at each case individually and are confident—we know, in fact—that none of these cases are Windrush eligible. On the question of the equalities impact more widely, I have already pointed out two or three times that the majority of people subject to these charter flight deportations and removals are going to the European Union, which should tell the hon. Member a great deal.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) [V]]

Can my hon. Friend explain what level of discretion the 2007 Act gives Ministers and reassure the House that both he and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary have considered every single case on this flight and deem them to be suitable for deportation under the conditions of that Act?

[Chris Philp]

We are very mindful of the obligations placed upon the Home Office and the Government by the terms of the 2007 Act, and we seek to fully abide by its terms. As I said, everyone in the scope of the charter flight going in a few days’ time has been very carefully considered to ensure that they are fully compliant with the obligations imposed by the Act.

[Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)]

The cost of deportation—economic, ethical and, most importantly, human—cannot be justified. Can the Minister confirm that an equalities impact assessment has been completed regarding these proposed deportations, to demonstrate that due regard has been paid to equalities legislation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Lady talks about human cost. Let me tell her about the human cost caused by these criminals. What about the children who have been sexually assaulted by these criminals? What about the victims who have been murdered by these people? What about the victims of violent assault? What about the people whose lives have been ruined by drug addiction or who have been the victims of rape? What about those human tragedies? The hon. Lady and many Opposition Members appear to have nothing whatsoever to say about the human tragedy of the victims. Let us put the victims at the centre of today’s debate. They are the people we should be standing up for and speaking for. This Government will protect them. Why will she not?

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)]

Welcome to the modern Labour party—more concerned about stopping the deportation of foreign criminals than keeping our streets safe. We on the Government Benches do take that obligation and duty seriously; that is why we are taking these measures. I thank my hon. Friend for all the work that he is doing to deport these foreign serious criminals and make our country safer. Can he confirm that this Government are removing foreign criminals from the UK every week and that this flight is no different?

[Chris Philp]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is this Conservative Government who are prioritising the victims and public safety. He is also right to say that the deportation of foreign national offenders, as we are required to do by law, happens as a matter of routine, week in, week out.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]]

Happy St Andrew’s day, Mr Speaker. This is not just about whether people are themselves connected to the Windrush generation. Deporting those who have been in the UK since childhood shows that the lessons of Windrush have not been learned. The Minister keeps referring to murderers and rapists, yet deportation applies to those with sentences as short as 12 months. Is it not time to provide legislative certainty and protection for those who come to the UK as children? Can the Minister say how many were originally included in this flight?

[Chris Philp]

I would like to reciprocate by wishing the hon. Lady a happy St Andrew’s day as well; I am sure the whole House will join me in that.

When it comes to removing people who are not British citizens—who are citizens of another country—but who put our constituents at risk, it is right that we move to deport as we currently do. The debate about whether some age threshold is appropriate is one that this House had in 2007, when the House rightly decided that anyone who is convicted of an offence and sentenced to more than a year is in scope. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) says something from a sedentary position. He himself voted for that Act, so he expressed his opinion on this matter in the Division Lobby back in 2007.

[Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)]

I fully support what my hon. Friend is doing to deport these dangerous criminals and to keep people in this country safe. Is he as concerned as I am by reports that activist lawyers are trying to thwart the Government’s legal efforts to deport these criminals and keep the British people safe?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

My hon. Friend is right to raise concerns about abuse of legal process. We find, not just in this context but across the entire immigration system, that last-minute claims are made—often immediately before removal or deportation, often 24 hours in advance—even though there has been plenty of opportunity to make such a claim previously, apparently with the express intention of frustrating the process. There is also an opportunity for people to raise repeated claims in sequence and sometimes over a period of many years in a manner that would appear to me to be potentially vexatious. That is something that the Government need to act on to sort out—my hon. Friend is right—and we do intend to legislate next year to close precisely the problematic areas to which he rightly refers.

[Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

My constituent on this flight came to the UK in 1997 aged 26. He married a British citizen in 2004 and has two children aged 21 and 18. He was in prison for two years, and had he not been he would have been able to complete the process of indefinite leave to remain. His life was under threat when he was in Jamaica. It will be under threat if he is returned there. He is on suicide watch at the moment and has an active asylum claim. He was picked up last week and due to be deported this week. Will the Minister at least agree that this is not a proportionate reaction and that this flight should be delayed at least to give the opportunity for proper legal advice to be taken?

[Chris Philp]

I have the particulars of the case in front of me. He was sentenced to four years and served two. The offences were very serious indeed. No, we certainly will not be stopping the flight, but I do know that the hon. Gentleman has written to me about this particular case and I will, of course, respond to his letter.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

Will the Minister commit to review any law that prevents the deportation of these people, because no law should stop us removing foreign nationals who have committed very serious criminal offences, thereby undermining the very kindness and the hospitality that we have shown them and abusing the process in doing so?

[Chris Philp]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and I can give him that assurance. He puts it very well. We have extended a welcome and hospitality to people who come to this country, and rightly so. We have a long and proud history of welcoming people who make a contribution to our society, and this Government are the first to recognise the enormous contribution that people who have come to this country as immigrants have made, and the points-based system embraces that very principle. Where people abuse our hospitality by committing serious criminal offences, it is right that we remove them.

[Dawn Butler (Brent Central) (Lab) [V]]

The Minister does not seem to understand the sensitivities around the Windrush scandal, but nobody is arguing about deporting very serious violent criminals. Can the Minister say with certainty that nobody on this flight has been committed of just driving offences or has been groomed as a child?

[Chris Philp]

As the hon. Lady will know, only people who have been sentenced to a custodial sentence of a year or more are eligible, so, clearly, minor driving offences are outside the scope of that. It applies only to people who have been sentenced to a year or more in prison. She knows that very well because she voted for the Act of Parliament in 2007 that instituted these measures.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

The fact that it is in any way controversial to deport foreign nationals who commit serious offences and are persistent offenders shows just what a farce the Labour party has become in recent years—Lord knows what the public must think of this exchange. May I say to the Minister that the overwhelming majority of my constituents will absolutely support what he is doing? Actually, they would want him to ignore the siren voices from the party opposite, and make it easier to deport foreign nationals who commit offences—perhaps to take in those who commit any offence at all, not just those who have to serve more than a year in prison.

[Chris Philp]

I am very grateful for the support emanating from the people of Shipley. I think the public will be astonished to see Labour MPs standing up on the side of dangerous criminals instead of on the side of victims and, even more importantly, people who might be victims in the future. On improving the legal system so that we can more readily deport people who are dangerous—dangerous criminals and others—we do, as I say, want to legislate to improve the system. It does not really work at the moment as it should, and my hon. Friend will have plenty of opportunities to support legislation with that purpose in mind next year.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)]

Government plans to push ahead with the mass deportation of 50 people to Jamaica this week are both obscene and irresponsible, and they fly in the face of the damning Equality and Human Rights Commission report released only last week, which declared the hostile environment policies illegal. We talk about victims, but what about the Windrush generation victims who are still fighting for compensation and justice? Will the Minister outline whether the EHRC’s findings have been taken into account during this process?

[Chris Philp]

I have already pointed out that these flights are nothing to do with the compliant environment; none of these individuals is in the scope of the Windrush compensation scheme. I must say that the hon. Lady is going a great disservice to those genuine victims of the Windrush tragedy—the Windrush scandal—by conflating them with dangerous offenders who are not British citizens and who are eligible for deportation under an Act that the Labour Government passed in 2007. She should reserve her indignation for those victims who have been affected by these terrible, terrible crimes.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

The British people will expect foreign national offenders who have violated our laws and our values to be removed from our country. Does my hon. Friend agree that this charter flight shows that we are acting in the interests of the British people and that we have their overwhelming support in taking this action?

[Chris Philp]

Yes, I strongly agree. The public watching this afternoon’s debate will be astonished to see some Opposition Members apparently not willing to stand up for our fellow citizens who have been victims of these terrible offences.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) [V]]

I have been contacted by many of my constituents in Vauxhall who are concerned about these deportations. Given the Government’s track record on Windrush and the delay in implementing the lessons from the Wendy Williams review, it is understandable that hon. Members in this House seek assurances and more detailed information from the Minister in regard to this deportation. The Home Secretary has rightly committed to implement all of the 30 recommendations in that review. Will the Minister confirm how many recommendations have been implemented? Will he today give a clear timetable for when each of the 30 recommendations will be implemented?

[Chris Philp]

I have already given the House a clear assurance that all these cases have been individually looked at and, as I have said several times already, that none is eligible for the Windrush compensation scheme. It is wrong, and indeed almost offensive, to conflate, in any way, these people who have committed terrible criminal offences with those victims of the Windrush scandal; they are completely different things and it is completely wrong to conflate them. As the hon. Lady says, the Home Secretary is fully committed to implementing each and every one of Wendy Williams’ recommendations; she published a response to the Williams review back in September and I know that she will be keeping the House regularly updated about the timing of the implementation of each and every one of those 30 recommendations.

[Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)]

Nearly 12 months ago, in constituencies such as Workington, this people’s Government were elected on a promise to make Britain safer and more secure. Does my hon. Friend agree that by continuing to remove these dangerous criminals from this country we are delivering on that commitment we made to the British people?

[Chris Philp]

Yes I do agree, of course. My hon. Friend puts the point very well. One of the most fundamental duties of any Government is to protect their citizens, and ensuring that foreign nationals convicted of serious offences are removed from the country is one very important way in which the Government can protect our fellow citizens. As I have said, I am aware of cases where people were eligible for removal or deportation but for some legal challenge reason this was not done and they then went on to commit some serious offences.

[Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) [V]]

I have a constituent on the flight who came to the UK aged 11. He has no friends or family in Jamaica, but he does have three children who do not know that he is likely to be deported. Although he is desperate to see them one last time, he does not want them to worry. Have the Government carried out any assessment of the impact this will have on his children, who are likely to never see their father again?

[Chris Philp]

The balance between family rights and the obligation on the Government to remove dangerous offenders is laid out in statute. If a challenge is brought, it is up to the courts to determine in each individual case how that balance is struck. I would say—I have the case details in front of me, but I do not want to recite them to the House, for reasons of confidentiality—that the hon. Lady’s constituent is an extremely persistent and prolific offender, and that includes some quite dangerous offences. As I say, the balance between family rights and public safety is set out in statute and is struck by the courts, but I make no apology for putting public safety first.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]]

There is great support in Amber Valley for the deportation of serious foreign national offenders but also great concern at how long the process takes. Does the Minister have any plans to revert to the position in the Immigration Act 2014, where some—[Inaudible.]

[Chris Philp]

I am afraid that the roll-out of rural broadband to my hon. Friend’s house clearly has a bit of a way to go, because he broke up a little. I think he was asking about finding ways to expedite the proceedings, and we are looking at ways we can do that, including by making sure that provisions in previous Acts of Parliament, which he may have been asking about, can be properly implemented. That is very high on the Government’s agenda.

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)]

Dangerous foreign criminals, including murderers, rapists and drug dealers, have no right whatever to remain in this country. The people of Blackpool South expect the Government to be resolute in standing up to those activist, left-wing lawyers who, in this instance, are working against the clear national interest. Will my hon. Friend confirm that he will never compromise the security and safety of my constituents by letting such dangerous offenders remain in the UK?

[Chris Philp]

As always, my hon. Friend speaks very well for his constituents. It is absolutely our intention to make sure that, where there are dangerous people in the United Kingdom, we will tirelessly seek to remove them. That is our duty as a Government, and we will work tirelessly, as I know he will, to discharge that duty.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

What worries me about the case of my constituent, who is due to be deported, is that I cannot even name him today, because there are genuine and credible grounds for him to believe that his life is under threat. That is surely a reason to pause and rethink whether he should be deported.

[Chris Philp]

There are obviously legal channels through which individuals can raise concerns of the type of the hon. Gentleman just referred to. As I say, many people do precisely that. Just a few days ago, a convicted murderer was removed from the flight for similar reasons. However, let me make it clear that it is our priority to protect British citizens, and that should be the hon. Gentleman’s priority, too.

[Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)]

It is disappointing that Opposition Members have been less than supportive of the Government’s efforts to deport dangerous foreign criminals who pose a serious threat to this country’s national security and to the safety of the British people. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Conservative party is the only party committed to standing up for the victims, to having a firm hand on law and order and to making sure that this country remains safe and secure?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It has been conspicuous this afternoon that it has been Government Members who have stood up to speak out for victims and for the safety of their constituents; we have heard almost nothing of that from Opposition Members. The British public will have heard that, and they will draw their own conclusions.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

If the Minister listens carefully, he will hear that I am also speaking about victims and rehabilitation. The recommendations made by the Windrush lessons learned review have still not been implemented in full, and we still do not know why people are illegally deported. It is this that has caused distrust in the Government. Many of these predominantly black people set for deportation have already served their sentence. Many committed these offences when they were young, as they were victims of drugs operations known as county lines or have been criminalised in association. I put it to the Government that many of these people have grown up in this country since childhood, and it is our country’s moral responsibility to rehabilitate them.

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Lady said a few moments ago that the people subject to deportation proceedings are mainly black. That is not true because, as I said earlier very clearly, the majority of people removed and deported are removed and deported to European Union countries, and in the last year well under 1% of people subject to these proceedings have come from Jamaica. In relation to age, the test, as we have discussed already, is set out in statute—in the UK Borders Act 2007. It is an Act passed by the last Labour Government with the votes of a number of her colleagues who are sitting on the Opposition Benches right now.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)]

Unlike Opposition Members, the people of Ashfield are absolutely delighted that murderers, rapists and other dangerous criminals are being flown out of the UK and deported to their country of origin. This will keep our streets safer and send out a clear message to anyone who does not share the values of our great country. Can my hon. Friend please reassure me and the people of Ashfield that this Government will continue to send vile criminals back to where they come from as they have no place in our society, and can he also thank Opposition Members for supporting this Act when it was passed in 2007?

[Chris Philp]

I am sure the Opposition Members who voted for the 2007 Act are extremely grateful for my hon. Friend’s reminder and thanks, but the thrust of his point I completely agree with. It is right that where someone endangers our fellow citizens, we act to deport them, because if we do not do that, we are exposing our constituents to ongoing risk. That is completely unacceptable, and this Government will take action.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

The Minister is making it clear that he and his Department find it irksome having to comply with the current requirements of the law. Thank goodness they do, because the law is there to protect everyone, and I get the impression that a number of Government Members do not approve of that. What access have those who were due to be on this flight had to legal advice prior to the flight’s departure?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

I would not say the Government find it irksome to offer people due legal process; of course we do not, because we respect those legal processes. However, we do find it deeply frustrating and, frankly, at times inappropriate when the legal system and the legal process are used in an abusive or vexatious way, as they apparently sometimes are. That is something we intend to come back to in legislation next year. In relation to access to justice, there are very ample opportunities provided for consultation with lawyers by all kinds of means. I would say that in my observation of people subject to Home Office proceedings, one thing they are not short of is legal advice—very often legally aided. The access to justice point that the right hon. Member makes is certainly amply catered for in a whole range of different ways.

[Mr Speaker]

In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House.

Asylum Seekers and Permission to Work

Chris Philp Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)]

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) on securing the debate and getting through his speech in record time—he cantered through it and got a great deal of content into a relatively short time.

I will start by addressing some of the points made by hon. Members. A lot of emphasis was placed on the contribution that migrants can make to our economy, but of course, we have a legal route for those who are able to make an economic contribution to get into the United Kingdom. We have a new points-based system coming into force in just a few weeks, and anyone from anywhere in the world is able to apply under that scheme. If they meet the criteria, which are quite generously drawn, they can get a work permit and come here to work and make the contribution to which hon. Members have referred. That route exists and will be in full operation very shortly.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) said that if there were safe and legal routes, people would not have to come and claim asylum in this way. There already are a number of safe and legal routes. I have already mentioned the work visa route, but for people who want to reunify with their family, we have family reunion rules, under which 7,500 people came into the United Kingdom in the year up to March.

We also have a refugee resettlement scheme, which is, I suspect, the scheme used by the six or seven gentlemen mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), whereby we go directly to countries of danger, particularly Syria but to others as well, and bring the most vulnerable people directly into the United Kingdom. Under those rules, we choose who deserves to come in, rather than people entering illegally. In the last five years, up to March 2020, 25,000 people—half of whom were children—have come into the UK under that resettlement route, which is the largest of any European country. Those safe and legal routes most certainly do exist.

[Mr Goodwill]

I can confirm that I have been to the refugee camps in Jordan and seen how those most in need are selected. Indeed, we delegate that job to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, so it is not us choosing them but a well-respected international body choosing those who can come and who do not need to resort to paying the people smugglers—that is, if they have the money to pay them. Those most in need do not have the money to pay the people smugglers.

[Chris Philp]

My right hon. Friend, who of course has considerable expertise in this area, is absolutely right. The UNHCR, over the last five years, has chosen the people who are most in need, whereas those who come here, for example, in small boats across the English channel are not necessarily those most in need; they are those who can afford to pay people smugglers, or those who are fit and strong enough to force their way across the English channel. They are not those most in need; they are effectively pushing their way to the front of a queue and potentially displacing people whose need is greater—those people who have come over, for example, on the family resettlement route.

That brings me to the point about the current policy, introduced, as we have been reminded, by the last Labour Government. Many of the reasons that the last Labour Government chose or had regard to in introducing this policy do, I think, apply today. The first point is that we have legal routes—very clear legal routes—for coming to this country to work and make a contribution. If somebody can enter the country clandestinely, for example on a small boat, which is dangerous and unnecessary—it is unnecessary because they could quite easily claim asylum in France, a safe country—and immediately start working or start working after a very short time, that undermines the points-based system and the legal route that we have created. What is the point of having a legal route if it can be immediately circumvented in the way that I have described?

[Christine Jardine]

Does the Minister accept that, in the current circumstances, if someone is in this country legally, has come through the safe routes and followed all the procedures, they are not allowed to work, yet they could be making a contribution to society? Will the Government not take that into account?

[Chris Philp]

Well, of course, people who come in through the family reunion route can work straightaway; people who come in under the resettlement programme—those 25,000 people, including the constituents of the hon. Member for Strangford—can work straight away. We need to speed up our asylum decision making; some fair points were made there. Clearly, the pandemic has made that considerably more difficult, but we need to work to speed up those decisions, which is in everybody’s interest. It is in the interest, clearly, of the person seeking asylum, so that they know where they stand; that is only fair. If they do get a positive decision, it means they can start working; that is only fair to the taxpayer as well.

[David Simmonds]

Will my hon. Friend the Minister give way?

[Chris Philp]

I have to just finish, because there is very little time remaining. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for concluding.

I also am concerned about the possibility of creating some measure of pull factor, because if people know that they are able to come here on, for example, a small boat or the back of a lorry, or on an aeroplane, without proper documentation and immediately, or very nearly immediately, start working, that will act as a further encouragement to come to the UK and add to the 35,000 asylum claims that we have already. Particularly in the case of people who are in safe countries such as France—pretty much all the small boat arrivals come from France—they are in a safe country where they could, if they wished, claim asylum.

I will just say that the shortage occupation list is rather wider than was represented. It does include nurses and medical practitioners. I commend that scheme to people with those skills who want to work.

[Neil Coyle]

Will the Minister look at those who have health and social care backgrounds and fast-track them on the SOL, so that they can work sooner and while our services so desperately need them?

[Chris Philp]

We conducted a review of that back at the beginning of the pandemic, and the numbers that I was given were very, very small, but I will say that the professions that are on the shortage occupation list and can be applied for include medical practitioners, psychologists, nurses, speech and language therapists, occupational therapists—and even actuaries and architects. Paramedics are on there as well. There are quite a lot of medical professions on the shortage occupation list already. A review is ongoing. It will report as soon as we are able to complete it, and I will of course report back to the House when that happens, but in the meantime I completely take the point about speeding up and making sure that we make these decisions quickly, for all the reasons that we have discussed this afternoon.

Question put and agreed to.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

If Members can exit, I will suspend the sitting for two minutes. Have a good evening.

Probate Registry Service

Chris Philp Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2020 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)]

It is, as always, a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (John Stevenson) for securing this debate on a topic that is extremely important for all the reasons that he has eloquently laid out. When families suffer bereavement, they expect the state to support them and act quickly as a matter of compassion. It is also a matter of practicality: as my hon. Friend said, there are often property matters that need to be dealt with quickly, and delays with probate make them more difficult.

I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend because, as he says, he has three decades’ experience of working in this area. Parliament is at its best when Members who have relevant direct experience—particularly current experience, as in his case—bring it to the House for the benefit of other Members and the whole country. I am grateful to him for bringing his experience to the House.

It is fair to say, as my hon. Friend laid out, that over the past two years there has been a significant change in the probate service, and there have been significant challenges and problems. This goes back to 2019, when two things happened that somewhat upset the probate applecart. The first was the very substantial fee increase, which was proposed and subsequently withdrawn. It caused a very substantial increase in the number of probate applications—I think they went up by 50%—as people tried to get them in quickly ahead of what they feared would be a very large fee increase. A year ago, the Government made it clear that that very large increase was not going to happen. None the less, it had a destabilising effect on the system when it was initially announced. Secondly, a new computer system was introduced a year and a half ago, and as is often the case, there were teething problems with it that led, particularly in 2019, to some very significant delays, which my hon. Friend referred to.

By the beginning of 2020, before the onset of the coronavirus, we had begun to recover and were offering better service. For example, in January and February this year, 44,113 grants were made, which was back to the 2018 level, before the various problems that I just described. Come January and February this year, we had got the probate system back to where it was before. Clearly, the coronavirus pandemic then struck and that disrupted operations, particularly in March, April and May. By July and August, we had got the output of the probate service back up—for example, in July, the average number of grants made each week, which is the key number we look at, was 5,400, which was around 9% above the five-year average. In August, we got it up to 5,700 a week, so we had gone up a little again to about 16% above the long-term five-year average. By the summer, therefore, the number of probate grants being issued had gone back up above the long-term average, which is an important milestone to reach. Consequently, waiting times have been getting better—not as good as my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle or I would like, but they have got better.

For digital cases, the average waiting time was generally between two and five weeks and for paper applications it was between five and seven weeks. Paper applications take longer because they are harder to handle with social distancing. Solicitors must now make applications online, but I strongly urge individuals making their own probate applications to use the online service because it is much faster—a two-to-five-week turnaround time—and it is less error-prone, both by the user and by the probate service on handling the application, because everybody is using a common format and typing in material directly to the system. I strongly urge people to use the online system.

I have heard some examples of much longer waiting times than two to five weeks for digital or five to seven weeks for paper, and I am happy to look into the specifics of those cases if the hon. Member would like me to. I get a number of probate delay cases coming up in correspondence from constituency MPs. In more than half of the cases, where there are long lead times of 10 or 12 weeks, often there has been a mistake in making the application in the first place, or there is an outstanding tax matter from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs or something like that. Using the digital system reduces those errors, so I repeat my previous plea to use that where possible.

In the last year or two, the system has been in transition to the new computer system and the new service centres that are supposed to provide a centre of excellence where things can be processed more quickly and efficiently. We are midway through that transition. Those have been established, but there is still some activity going on in the local registries, and the process of completing the transition has been effectively paused due to the pandemic. My hon. Friend asked about resources and observed that the number of people employed in the probate service has gone up from 156 at the end of 2018 to 215 in March this year, and the amount of money being spent has gone up from £5.7 million to £7.5 million. He asked, quite reasonably, why there are issues if extra money is being spent. The answer is that it is still a service in transition. My objective is to get through that transition as quickly as possible, first, to realise the savings that were originally promised but have not yet been realised because the transition has not been completed, and secondly, to deliver the faster and better service that was promised at the outset. I think we can all agree with those aims.

My hon. Friend asked for a commitment from me to work tirelessly to make the necessary improvements, and I am happy to give that categorical commitment this morning. I am grateful to him for not pressing me to make the Rory Stewart kamikaze pledge, but I do commit to doing everything possible to make the improvements. In that spirit, I was going to suggest, before my hon. Friend called the debate, that we meet officials to go through some of the points that he has raised and the work currently going on in the service. My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Craig Mackinlay) has a similar professional interest in this area, as an accountant, so I suggest that he join us to go through the issues in a little more detail. I would like to hear from Members with particular professional expertise, to make sure that I as the Minister, and the Ministry of Justice more generally, learn from the observations and experience of Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

One concern that has been raised with me relates to Welsh language wills. Will the Minister assure me that the new provision will be able to deal appropriately, according to the Welsh Language Act 1993, with people’s right to present wills in the medium of Welsh, and that that will be dealt with effectively?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

I believe that that is the case, but in the interest of absolute clarity it would be safest if I were to write to the right hon. Lady confirming it. I believe it is, but I will double check and write to her formally giving her the confirmation that she has quite reasonably requested.

[John Stevenson]

I am grateful for the Minister’s comments about consulting other MPs and what he is trying to achieve for the probate registry. I just want to make a couple of points. First, I think people are quite happy to pay the probate registry fee if they get a good service. I and many other people thought the increase proposed in the past was like an increase in taxation, but if there were an increase in the fee so that effectively the service could just wash its face, I do not think anybody would have an issue with that—certainly professionals would not. The other thing I would say to the Minister is please listen to other bodies such as STEP. It suggested that there should have been a delay in the compulsory digitalisation and it proved correct on that score. I think sometimes that Governments should listen in a positive way to what is suggested to them.

[Chris Philp]

My hon. Friend is right on the question of the fee. The very large fee increase contemplated a year or two ago went far beyond cost recovery. The current fees, I believe, cover approximately two thirds, or perhaps three quarters—probably more like two thirds —of the cost of running the service. I am grateful for his observation that practitioners, the public and parliamentarians would consider modest fee increases that cover the cost of the service, but no more, to be justifiable.

As for the digital service, after my hon. Friend made the point about the problems yesterday, I checked with the Department about whether there was a general digital service outage, and I was told that there was not, so I would like to hear a bit more—perhaps when we meet—about the digital issue that his firm experienced yesterday, so that we can get to the bottom of exactly what happened there. However, the reason we have made digital applications compulsory is that they are faster—two to five weeks—which benefits the user. Also, the evidence we have gathered indicates that they are far less prone to error, both by the applicant, whether that is an individual, a solicitor’s firm or an accountant, and by the probate service itself. Those are considerable benefits that flow from the use of the digital service, but if there are teething problems or if my hon. Friend’s firm has experienced issues, I would definitely like to investigate the precise nature of those.

I hope that this morning I have acknowledged the problems that have certainly existed in the past. There have been considerable improvements over the course of this year, but there is more work to do to realise both the savings that were promised by the centralisation process and the service improvements that were promised. I will make achieving that a priority, but in doing so I will work with Members with expertise such as my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle, to make sure that we deliver on the promise, and deliver to constituents and their families, at a time of bereavement, the service that they are entitled to expect.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Chris Philp Excerpts

Monday 9th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Craig Tracey (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

What steps her Department is taking to stop migrants crossing the English Channel illegally.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)]

These small boat crossings are dangerous, as the tragic fatalities last month showed. They are illegally facilitated by reckless criminals, and they are totally unnecessary because France is a safe country with a well-functioning asylum system, where people can seek protection if they need it. We are determined to completely stop these crossings. We are working with the French authorities to prevent embarkations. We are considering action we might take at sea, and we are taking robust law enforcement action, leading so far this year to nearly 100 arrests. Just last week, two people were convicted and sentenced for facilitating these illegal crossings.

[Michael Fabricant [V]]

My hon. Friend actually answered the question I was going to ask, so I am going to ask him something else instead. We have all been shocked by the number of deaths in the channel, but why does he think people want to leave France?

[Chris Philp]

I must try to be diplomatic in the way I answer that question. There are a variety of motives, which probably include things such as language. The simple truth is that if people are seeking protection, France has a fully functioning asylum system. It is a safe and civilised country, and there is no reason to attempt and no excuse for attempting this crossing. That is why anyone in need of protection should avail themselves of it by claiming asylum in France and not attempting this dangerous crossing.

[Damian Collins]

As the Minister knows, this problem has been getting worse throughout the year. We are seeing tragic loss of life and concern for communities on the channel coast because of this problem, which is profiting people-trafficking gangs. What progress is being made, either in preventing more crossings from leaving France in the first place or in stopping boats at sea and returning them to the French coast? If the migrants can see that they cannot get into the country in this way, fewer of them will try.

[Chris Philp]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that this trade is facilitated by dangerous and ruthless criminals. On activity with the French, we are working with them to prevent embarkations and we are funding gendarmes who patrol the beaches. In fact, the French authorities have successfully stopped nearly 5,000 crossings this year so far. We are in the process of actively investigating action at sea because, as my hon. Friend says, if it is obvious that nobody can make it across, they will stop attempting such dangerous crossings in the first place.

We are also working to return under the Dublin regulations people who do get across—in fact, this week there are three flights, some of which will contain cross-channel migrants being returned under the Dublin regulations. By a combination of law enforcement on French beaches, potential action at sea and returns, we can remove the reason for even trying such crossings in the first place.

[Craig Tracey]

Does the Minister agree that the best way to clamp down on these illegal crossings is to prevent the small boats carrying the illegal immigrants from ever leaving European shores in the first place? Will he confirm to the House what steps he is taking with his French counterparts to ensure that they are stepping up their actions in that respect?

[Chris Philp]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we need to do more with our French colleagues to prevent the embarkations. As I say, we are now funding additional gendarmes to prevent embarkations from the beaches, and we are supporting the French to provide proper, safe accommodation for migrants who would otherwise be living in the various camps. We are also investigating action at sea. My hon. Friend is quite right that if we can render these crossings essentially impossible, nobody will attempt them in the first place. Not only is that the right thing to do from a health and safety point of view, but it is the right thing to do to undermine and prevent the ruthless criminal gangs who are behind these crossings.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) [V]]

May I start by extending my sympathies to the relatives and friends of all who have died attempting these crossings?

As a matter of international law, entering a state to seek asylum without a visa is not illegal—I am happy to share with the Minister the advice from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees on the matter—but the crossings are certainly most irregular and very unsafe. Rather than fanning the flames of people’s desperation for political reasons, would it not be better for the Minister to focus on creating safe legal routes for asylum seekers? While he is attending to that, will he encourage the Home Secretary to stop her anti-lawyer rhetoric and acknowledge that there is a responsibility on politicians and other public figures to avoid saying anything that could make tensions worse or put people’s lives at risk?

[Chris Philp]

Article 31 of the refugee convention, to which I think the hon. and learned Lady was referring, makes it clear that the prohibition on criminalisation of entry applies only to people who are directly—I use the word “directly”—entering a state from somewhere that is unsafe. I respectfully point out that France is not unsafe; France is a safe country.

On the hon. and learned Lady’s question about safe and legal routes, there are a large number of such routes and around about half the people who come here to claim asylum already do so via legal routes. In addition to that, for the past five years we have been running the resettlement programme, taking people directly from conflict zones—for example, Syria—and bringing them to the United Kingdom. Over that five-year period some 25,000 people, half of whom are children, have come via the resettlement route. The resettlement route—a safe and legal route of the kind for which the hon. and learned Lady calls—is the largest resettlement programme of any European country. We have a proud record of supporting people in genuine need and we will continue to do so.

On the hon. and learned Lady’s last question, I of course completely support the Home Secretary and we will continue to fight vexatious, last-minute legal claims when it is appropriate to do so.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

What recent assessment she has made of the effectiveness of police community support officers.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)]

The United Kingdom tabled a full draft agreement to the European Commission back in May, which included provisions for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children family reunion. That has sadly so far not been agreed, but the negotiations are still ongoing, and I ask the hon. Lady and others to put pressure on the European Commission to constructively respond to the draft text we tabled. When it comes to the United Kingdom’s record on looking after UASCs, we currently look after more UASCs than any other European country.

[Ruth Jones]

I understand that on 9 August this year, the Home Secretary announced that she had appointed a clandestine channel threat commander. Can the Minister confirm precisely what powers the commander has and why the elements of the role could not be addressed by Border Force?

[Chris Philp]

Given that the problems posed by cross-channel small boat crossings, as we discussed earlier, are unique, serious, dangerous—as we have tragically seen—and facilitated by ruthless criminals, the Home Secretary and I felt it was important to have a dedicated person with proper experience. He is a former Royal Marine and can work on completely stopping these crossings. That is the safe thing to do, the humanitarian thing to do, and the right thing to do legally.

[Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)]

What steps her Department is taking to increase the number of police officers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I wonder whether the Home Secretary or one of her Ministers would be prepared to engage with some of the asylum support groups that I met recently in Glasgow to hear at first hand how they feel that the ASPEN—asylum support enablement—card system is financially and digitally excluding them during the covid virus pandemic and making them feel that the hostile environment has not gone away.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)]

I have been speaking very regularly to people working with asylum seekers in Glasgow. Just last week, I spoke to Aileen Campbell, the Communities Secretary, and I have spoken—I think twice now—in recent weeks to the leader of Glasgow City Council. We are doing a great deal of work with those providing services to asylum seekers in Glasgow. We have managed to reduce the number of people accommodated in hotels from over 400 to about 200. It is regrettable that Glasgow City Council still has 600 people in hotel accommodation.

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

I am eternally grateful to you for calling me, Mr Speaker. On 1 October, the shadow Health Minister and I wrote to our counterparts in Government asking why it was taking months to process the one-year visa extensions promised to healthcare workers, leaving them without their biometric residence permits, which is exposing this country’s heroes to the hostile environment. We have not had a response to that letter, so I will ask again: now that we are in a second national lockdown, why was the visa extension scheme closed at the start of October and why are the permits taking so long to process, only compounding the pressures on healthcare professionals rather than alleviating them?

Draft Taking Account of Convictions (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2020

Chris Philp Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2020 General Committees

[The Chair]

I remind hon. Members about social distancing. The seats to be taken are marked. Hansard colleagues will be grateful if Members send any speaking notes to [e-mail].

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Philp)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Taking Account of Convictions (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2020.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Robertson.

I will be extremely brief. This is a straightforward draft statutory instrument, which will implement into UK law a provision that we agreed to in the withdrawal agreement a year or so ago. Simply, it makes a transitional provision, so that when we leave the transition period at the end of December, the current regime for taking account of previous convictions in relation to convictions that happened in European Union member states will continue to apply where criminal proceedings begin before the end of the transition period but conclude after it ends. It is as simple as that.

Any criminal proceedings beginning once we are through the transition period will be under the new regime. As I said, this simple transitional measure implements into UK law an undertaking we made in the withdrawal agreement.. I commend the draft instrument to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

I do not propose to detain the Committee a great deal longer. On a time limit, I do not believe that there is one for the provision that we are discussing. On the performance of the courts system in general, I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that before the pandemic the number of outstanding Crown court cases was in fact lower than it was in 2010.

Question put and agreed to.

Immigration

Chris Philp Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2020 Westminster Hall

[Chris Stephens]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his second speech. I must say to him—I will be quick, for time purposes—that there is a great Ahmadi community in Glasgow, of which we are very proud. All I can say to him, based on my experience of dealing with asylum claims, is that asylum claim abuses are few and far between compared with those seeking genuine asylum.

Touching on the hon. Gentleman’s point, I would want asylum seekers to be given, after a certain point, the right to work so that they are embedded in the community. That must be looked at. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) has a private Member’s Bill on that matter, and there must be serious discussion about allowing asylum seekers the right to work.

I am proud to have an office manager who is a refugee, who had family members murdered by Saddam Hussein’s regime. When she came to this country, her father was working. Far from the rhetoric that we heard about the Labour party being left wing, it was the Labour party that took my office manager’s father’s national insurance from him. The then Labour Government changed the law to stop asylum seekers having the right to work. I hope the hon. Member for Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan) will seriously consider that in his Bill and consider that asylum seekers, after a certain period, should have the right to work so that they can make the contribution that he wants them to make.

As a party, we believe that the Home Office’s response to the recent channel crossings displays a complete disregard for human suffering that is both shocking and shameful. Responding to the crossings in a dystopian, quasi-militaristic way, with surveillance technology, appointing a clandestine channel threat commander and positing the idea of bringing in the Royal Navy—later condemned by the UN Refugee Agency and the International Organisation for Migration—only reinforces the headlines that liken that failure of leadership to an invasion.

Contrary to the Department’s remarks, the reality is far from being the crisis the newspapers suggest it is. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ representative in the UK said recently:

“The UK is far from the epicentre of the real challenge.”

Asylum claims in the UK—as I have said, and I will say it again—have fallen in 2020, as confirmed by Abi Tierney, the director general of UK Visas and Immigration, to the Select Committee on Home Affairs in September.

The response to the petition describes channel crossings as “unacceptable behaviour”. The Department seems unable to understand—or perhaps fails to mention—that it has already closed and is closing more safe legal routes for refugees to reach the United Kingdom. That is leaving extremely vulnerable individuals who are often fleeing unimaginable conditions, as the hon. Member for Strangford rightly pointed out, with little choice but to place their fate in the hands of criminal gangs. Furthermore, a report last year by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, of which the Home Secretary was a member at the time, said:

“In the absence of robust and accessible legal routes for seeking asylum in the UK, those with a claim are left with little choice but to make dangerous journeys by land and sea.”

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)]

In France.

[Chris Stephens]

I assume the Minister is seeking to make an intervention, because there was a lot of noise there as I was making those remarks. I am happy to give way to him.

[Chris Philp]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He said that migrants are compelled to cross the English channel to claim asylum. I respectfully point out that they are in France, typically northern France. France is a civilised and safe country with a well-functioning asylum system, and should anyone in northern France feel they need to claim asylum, they are perfectly able to do so there. They do not need to make one of those dangerous crossings.

[Chris Stephens]

That may very well be the Minister’s view. He will have an opportunity to say that, and I will perhaps make an intervention—[Interruption.] The Minister is harrumphing from a sedentary position. I am concerned for his welfare. He seems rather excitable, Sir David. Perhaps you can pass him a note and have a word just to calm him down. Thank you, Sir David.

The staggering leaked UK Government documents only prove that the Tory hostile environment towards immigration and immigrants is still alive and kicking. In response to the petition, the Home Office said:

“The UK has long been a sanctuary for those in need of international protection”.

Leaked documents provided evidence that the Home Office was considering wave machines to deter boats, nets to clog boats’ propellers and the transportation of asylum seekers more than 4,000 miles away to Ascension Island for processing. Those are preposterous suggestions and show how far the Government will go to drive home and engender the Brexit ideology that has already poisoned some of the political discourse in this country.

The Refugees Council policy manager, Judith Dennis, said that the UK must treat refugees and asylum seekers with dignity. Instead, those ridiculous proposals set an unsettling precedent, firing the starting gun of a race to the bottom in terms of treating refugees and asylum seekers with any humanity and compassion.

I believe that the asylum system must be fair and compassionate, but it must also be professional. I hope the Minister answers the question for which I have been trying to seek debates—unfortunately, I seem to be missing out on the ballots for either Westminster Hall or an Adjournment debate—about why a private company has been called in to process asylum claim interviews in the last couple of weeks. In secret, with no statement, either written or verbal, provided to hon. Members, a private company has been called in by the Home Office to carry out asylum claim interviews.

Is it Serco? It would not surprise us, let us be honest, if it was Serco, a company that has certainly been mentioned as carrying out these asylum claim interviews. What training and expertise does it have to carry them out? It really is, I suggest, quite ludicrous that a private company, be it Serco or any other, is being asked to carry out a quasi-legal process, which asylum claim interviews should be, under the aegis of a pilot programme. I hope the Minister will address the concerns that I and many Members of the House have on that issue.

I am conscious of time, and I want to allow the two other Front Benchers to speak. We keep being told that the asylum system is broken, yet the Government have had 10 years—over a decade. Does that mean that they have broken the system, and what are they going to do to fix it? I respectfully disagree with those who have signed the petition, and with all due respect to the hon. and right hon. Members who have spoken, I disagree with most of their remarks as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)]

It is a great pleasure to serve, once again, under your chairmanship, Sir David, which is, as the shadow Minister said, always infallible. I thank the shadow Minister for his balanced remarks in summing up. It is fair to say no one would ever accuse him of being a Trotskyite, sadly something that one cannot say about every Member of his parliamentary party.

I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) on securing the debate and presenting it on behalf of more than 100,000 petitioners, a majority of whom, we discovered, come from Redcar and Cleveland. My hon. Friend laid out a compelling, passionate and well-articulated description of why illegal immigration is a huge problem for our country. It undermines the rule of law, it undermines legal and safe routes, and it renders purposeless the routes that we, as a Parliament, have developed to decide who comes into the country and who does not. All those are undermined.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan) powerfully and passionately pointed out that immigration can be an enormous force for good, when done within the rule of law. His own family story, which he set out, is a moving and powerful illustration of the enormous contribution that legal migration can make to our society, strengthening and contributing to it, as his father and his whole family have done. Our country is better, stronger and richer, in every sense, for the contribution made by my hon. Friend’s family and millions like them, who have made their home here legally.

Illegal migration undermines all of that. It undermines public confidence in the system, it puts immigration in a negative rather than positive light, and it makes it much harder to allow legal immigration if the whole system is undermined. In all honesty, we must admit that the small-boats crisis that has unfolded this summer is a sad and appalling example of illegal immigration undermining confidence in our system. The Government find it completely unacceptable and we are determined to stop it. We make no apology at all for saying that.

Illegal immigration is unacceptable for three reasons: it is dangerous, illegal and unnecessary. That it is dangerous is powerfully demonstrated by the tragic death earlier today, or yesterday, of a man believed to be aged between 20 and 40, and the sad death a few weeks ago of a Sudanese gentlemen aged 26. Those sad deaths in the channel demonstrate how dangerous the crossings are. We have a moral and a compassionate duty to prevent those crossings.

Secondly, these crossings are illegal. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) suggested the contrary, but let me say clearly that it is illegal to enter the country without leave under section 24(1)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971. The hon. Gentleman referred to provisions in article 31 of the refugee convention that say an entry to a country for the purposes of claiming asylum should not be a criminalised if someone has come “directly” from a dangerous territory. I submit that France is not a dangerous territory, and therefore the prohibition in article 31 of the refugee convention 1951, renewed by the 1967 protocol, does not apply. France is not dangerous and these crossings are categorically illegal.

They are not only dangerous and illegal, but unnecessary. Anyone wishing to claim asylum, or genuinely wishing to seek protection, can do so in one of the safe countries previously passed through. Clearly, there is France—everybody who crosses on a small boat has been in France—and typically people will have travelled through other countries, often including Germany, Italy, Spain and others. There will have been ample opportunities to claim asylum and protection previously. There may be reasons why people might prefer to claim asylum in the United Kingdom, such as the language, but those are not reasons of protection. Those are choices rather than a necessity. We should be clear: these journeys are not necessary for the purpose of securing protection.

I will come to the compassionate and safe routes in a moment. Before I do, let me briefly talk about some of the things that we are doing to prevent these dangerous, illegal and unnecessary crossings. We are working with our colleagues in France on developing ever-increasing tactics to try to prevent the crossings. The French have been deploying larger numbers of gendarmes, police aux frontiers, brigades mobiles de recherche and others in northern France, and that is yielding fruit. This weekend, large numbers of interceptions have been made to prevent embarkations. On Saturday, just two days ago, the French police intercepted 220 people who were attempting a crossing. Yesterday, on Sunday, the French authorities intercepted 211 people. Only 62 got across, so the French successfully intercepted about 70% to 80% of the people who attempted a crossing. I pay tribute to them for the law enforcement work that they have been doing.

We have appointed a clandestine channel threat commander to co-ordinate United Kingdom activities—Dan O’Mahoney, a former Royal Marine, entered his post in August—and we are doing huge amounts of law enforcement work. We have so far this year made 89 arrests of people who committed offences in that regard, and we have disrupted 24 organised immigration crime groups that have been facilitating cross-channel traffic. A huge amount of work has been going on, and let me say that we intend to intensify and increase that activity. We intend to legislate next year to tighten up our system, but the legislation will have two elements to it. It will be firm, because it will take tough action against illegal immigration, but it will also be fair, in the sense that it will provide safe legal routes for genuine refugees.

Let me say a few words about the work that the United Kingdom has done so far on those safe legal routes. Since 2015, we have run a resettlement programme whereby we have taken people from conflict areas—for example, around Syria—and brought them directly to the United Kingdom. Rather than seeing people come from France, Italy or Greece, which are safe European countries—that is what the Dubs amendment did, by the way—we have gone directly to conflict zones, where people are in genuine danger, and brought them here. In that five-year period, 25,000 people have been brought directly to the United Kingdom. Over the five years, our resettlement programme is larger than any other European country’s resettlement programme.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised some points about that. I must say that I agree with him, in the sense that the resettlement programme focused, as Members will understand, largely on people of Syrian nationality. It did not reflect the pre-conflict population of Syria, because Christians were severely underrepresented. The hon. Member for Strangford and I led a debate back in July 2019 on the persecution that Christians suffer around the world. Indeed, Christians are the most persecuted group of any, globally, and I would like to see our future resettlement activity better reflect the persecution that Christians suffer around the world.

We offer many other legal and safe routes. We offer family reunion routes, which I think the hon. Member for Glasgow South West referred to. Even as we most likely leave the Dublin regulations in two and half months, the United Kingdom’s immigration rules provide for the family reunion of children joining their parents and, where compassionate and compelling circumstances exist and where the child’s best interest is served, reunion with aunts, uncles, grandparents and siblings. That safe and legal family reunion route does exist, can be used and is used.

Last year, we received roughly 3,700 applications from unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in this country. We are currently looking after more than 5,000 UASCs. Both those numbers are higher than the equivalent figures for any other European country, including Greece. People talk about the Dubs amendment and bringing UASCs from Italy to the UK, but we already look after more UASCs than either Italy or Greece does. We do it very well—we look after them extremely well.

The shadow Minister mentioned overseas aid. We have not abolished overseas aid; we have merged it with the Foreign Office so that better co-ordination is possible. Since he mentions overseas aid, it is worth putting on record that we are the only G8 country to meet 0.7% of gross national income as spending on overseas aid. That amounted last year to some £14 billion. Not only do we have the top direct resettlement numbers of any European country and not only do we welcome more unaccompanied asylum-seeking children than any other European country; we are also the only European country to meet that 0.7% of GNI target. So anyone who suggests that the United Kingdom is not a generous and welcoming country is clearly not apprised of those facts.

However, with the compassion and fairness for which this country is famous, and which it will continue to demonstrate, comes an obligation to be firm on illegal immigration, for the reasons that my hon. Friends the Members for Ipswich, for Wakefield, for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher) and for Redcar (Jacob Young) outlined so persuasively. I am afraid there is a lot more work to do, because our system is in many respects broken. It is possible for people who should not be in this country, including dangerous foreign national offenders, to submit very late claims that are essentially vexatious, with the purpose of preventing their removal. I have become painfully aware in my six months, so far, as one of the two Immigration Ministers, of a number of cases in which very dangerous foreign national offenders have repeatedly—five, six or seven times—over a number of years, at the last minute before the moment of removal or deportation, lodged claims that are subsequently found by the court to be wholly without merit. None the less they succeeded in frustrating the removal. We need to legislate to prevent that kind of abuse, because it brings our system into disrepute.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich mentioned a recent flight that was due to return to Spain, as required by the Dublin regulation—the European Union’s own regulation—people who had tried to claim asylum here having claimed asylum there previously, when a slew of last-minute legal claims, many of which subsequently proved to be without merit, caused the flight to be cancelled. Such abuse of the legal process—and I will be direct; it is, frankly, abuse—is not something that the Government are prepared to countenance any more. Therefore we shall legislate next year to fix that problem and other problems.

[Chris Stephens]

I want to take the Minister back to the subject of foreign nationals—particularly the criminal aspect of the matter. He makes a fair point, but does he agree that it is not the fault of so-called do-gooders and lawyers? Does he agree that the Government need to roll back on the rhetoric that we have heard from them against lawyers who represent asylum seekers?

[Chris Philp]

Lawyers are clearly entitled—indeed, obliged—to represent their clients to the best of their ability, but there have been examples, including what was reported by The Times last week, of immigration lawyers encouraging their clients to make vexatious claims. In the example reported by The Times last week the Solicitors Regulation Authority quite properly took disciplinary action against those solicitors. We sometimes hear lawyers talking about pursuing politics through the courts, and that is not helpful.

Of course I accept that barristers, solicitors and other representatives are obliged and entitled to represent their clients to the best of their ability within the law, but last-minute meritless claims that are designed to frustrate the process do not help the system at all, and we need to put things on a better legislative footing to prevent the legal abuse that there has been. However, I of course do not dispute, as I have said, the right of lawyers to represent their clients to the best of their ability. Indeed, they are obliged to do so.

I do not wish to detain Members longer, given that the main event is happening on the Floor of the House as we speak. Let me reiterate that the Government are determined to protect our borders, determined to end these dangerous, illegal and unnecessary crossings, and determined to end illegal immigration, but at the same time we are determined to ensure that we are fair and compassionate, and that those who genuinely need our protection around the world receive it.

No Recourse to Public Funds

Chris Philp Excerpts

Thursday 8th October 2020 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. I only narrowly avoided serving under the chairmanship of Ms Nokes, one of my predecessors in this role, as several Members have mentioned this afternoon.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) and, of course, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) on securing this afternoon’s important debate. Everybody who has spoken has contributed with great sincerity and passion, and I have been listening carefully to everything Members have said. Where I have, occasionally, been on the phone, I have been texting officials asking various questions in follow up on points that have been raised.

I will start by laying out some of the historical context to the “no recourse to public funds” policy. It has existed since the Immigration Act 1971, and the principle that underpins it is that it would not be reasonable for people who have arrived here very recently or on a temporary basis to be able to access the full range of benefits available to somebody who is settled here or a citizen. If we look at the categories of people to whom the NRPF condition applies, it is people such as visitors, those who are here on a holiday visa, students, people who come here to study, and workers who are here for a short time or, in some cases, a longer time. There would be an inherent unfairness if, having literally just arrived, people were able to fully access public funds.

[Siobhain McDonagh]

Can the Minister add to his list women whose children are born and brought up here and are UK citizens, and are going nowhere?

[Chris Philp]

I was going to come to that point. It is a very reasonable question to raise. Let me just finish my point, and I will come on to address the point that the hon. Lady has raised, entirely understandably and rightly.

It is worth mentioning that, of course, refugees are not subject to the NRPF condition. A couple of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), talked about the time it takes to make decisions. I am not sure if he was referring to asylum decisions or another kind of decision, but I make it clear that anyone claiming asylum or anyone granted asylum is not subject to the NRPF condition, and neither are people who are granted indefinite leave to remain.

[Steve McCabe]

I was talking about unresolved cases. I thought I was actually quite specific in saying it was people who did not have indefinite leave to remain. If the Minister did not hear that, I hope that has made it clearer for him.

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Gentleman has made it very clear. I am grateful for that clarification. As he has just alluded to, people who have indefinite leave to remain—people who are here permanently—do not have the NRPF condition applied to them. The path to getting to ILR can take five years for many people, if they are on a relevant qualifying route. Even if they are not on a relevant qualifying route, 10 years’ continuous residency gets people ILR. The majority get it after five years.

That brings us to the question that the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) raised. I was going to address that point later, but since she raised it in an intervention, I shall turn to it now. It is the question of families. Almost every case raised this afternoon has involved children. No one can listen to stories involving children experiencing hardship without feeling extremely moved, but of course the NRPF condition, as many Members have mentioned, can be lifted where the parent is on a family route. Where there are children who are British citizens, that will typically be the case—it certainly should be the case. The hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) gave an example where an application was made to have the condition lifted and the application was granted. In cases where there are British citizen children whose parents have the NRPF condition, people can apply and do apply to have that li-fted.

[Barry Gardiner]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Philp]

Let me finish the point and I will give way in a moment. The success rate for those applications is very high. The most recent figures, which I think the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) has seen, show a success rate of 89% for those applications. That has increased in the last year. It was 79% and it is now 89%, and the time taken to make those decisions on average is 30 days—not quite five weeks, but 30 days.

The hon. Member for Brent North said, “Well, these are often quite pressing circumstances. What can be done to make that decision, which is successful in 89% of cases, faster?”. That is an entirely reasonable question. One of the actions I will take away from this afternoon’s session is to probe a little further on the question of speed. Someone mentioned 48 hours. Clearly, we have to make sure that people qualify for the condition to be lifted, and I would suspect 48 hours would not afford time to do that, but I will certainly see if anything can be done to expedite it, for the reasons the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

On the topic of children, the shadow Minister talked about free school meals, and I entirely sympathise with her point. I know that the Department for Education is conducting a review into the interaction of NRPF and free school meals. I hope it will report back on the result of that review as quickly as possible, because I understand entirely the hon. Lady’s point.

I am conscious of time, so perhaps I ought to say a quick word about data. I should congratulate the right hon. Member for East Ham on his terrier-like tenacity on the question of data. In relation to the total number of people who are subject to the NRPF condition, we do not hold that data, as has been explained previously. There are a couple of issues. First, in relation to visa applications made out of country, the data is not recorded.

Secondly, there is obviously a continual coming and going of people—it includes people who are here on holiday visas and so on, who come and go the whole time. Some come and go via the common travel area, or via Ireland, so we do not have an exit check. That number is a moving feast. It includes people who come here on holiday for two weeks and then go. The right hon. Gentleman said that in relation to people who had made an in-country visa application, he had received a reply saying that that data was collected and held, but he had not received any further information.

[Stephen Timms]

The letter from the Home Office chief statistician dated 3 July, which is on the UK Statistics Authority website, states:

“Home Office administrative data only captures information on whether visas are subject to NRPF conditions for in-country extensions.”

I have asked how many there are, but received no answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

I was about to come to that point. I heard the right hon. Gentleman make that point in his speech. He had seen evidence saying that the data was held, but it had not been provided. That is another action for me to take away from this afternoon’s proceedings. I will go and ask that question about the data relating to in-country visa applications. According to the letter that he referred to, the data is held, so I will endeavour to ferret it out. It might sit in the portfolio of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), but I will certainly make inquiries in that part of the Home Office. If I am able to ferret out the information, I will certainly get back to the right hon. Gentleman. I will take that away as an action from this afternoon as well.

Finally, quite a few comments were made about coronavirus and our response to it. Clearly, everybody has access to the health service for coronavirus-related treatment. The shadow Minister asked whether the NRPF cohort are eligible for the payment if they have to self-isolate. I believe it is £500?

[Holly Lynch]

Yes.

[Chris Philp]

I do not know the answer to that question, but I will go away and find out because it is a very reasonable question to ask. More generally, people who are subject to NRPF are eligible for things such as the coronavirus job retention scheme, the self-employed income support scheme, and the support given to people on zero-hours contracts, based on their previous income. Those funds are not classed as public funds. Those are available to everybody, including the cohort mentioned today.

Local authority funding has been referred to a great deal. It has been denigrated as “cost shunting” and as being a small amount, but it is £4.3 billion, which, even by the standards of public spending, is a pretty significant amount of money. It covers more than just NRPF cases—I understand that—but it is none the less a very large amount of money, much of which has found its way to supporting NRPF cases. A case mentioned by one Opposition Member ended up being helped in that way. We can debate whether it is cost shunting or whether that is the best way of administering it, but local authorities often have the best knowledge about how to help people in their local areas. We might debate the nature of that safety net, but what cannot be gainsaid is that that safety net—that £4.3 billion to local authorities—does exist. It is there and it does help people. For those with children, which applies in all of the cases we have heard about this afternoon, there is a route to lifting—

[Barry Gardiner]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Philp]

I must finish to allow time for the right hon. Member for East Ham to wind up.

There is a clear route to having the conditions lifted for people with children, quite rightly. It can be done without a lawyer. Somebody suggested earlier that a lawyer is needed, but that is not the case. Somebody said people need to produce hundreds of pages of evidence, but they do not. They simply need to provide basic evidence of the risk of destitution, and I believe the service is now available online as well.

I hope I have explained the principles of NRPF, but also the safety nets and exceptions that have been set up. There are at least three points that I will take away from this afternoon’s proceedings, and I will get back to the three Members concerned. I hope that I have provided an adequate response to this afternoon’s queries.

Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (Code of Practice) Order 2020

Chris Philp Excerpts

Thursday 8th October 2020 General Committees

[The Chair]

Before I call the Minister to move the motion, I remind Members about social distancing. Spaces available to Members are clearly marked. Hansard colleagues will be grateful if you send any speaking notes to [e-mail].

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Philp)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (Code of Practice) Order 2020.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, I think, Ms Rees. I am sure it is the first of many such occasions.

The purpose of the order is to bring into force a revised code of practice under the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. The revised code replaces the current one, which was introduced in 2015.

Material that is obtained in the course of a criminal investigation may include material that tends to undermine the prosecution case or, indeed, to support the case for the accused. Disclosing such material to the defence is crucial to ensuring a fair trial and to avoiding miscarriages of justice. Unfortunately, disclosure does not always take place promptly and can result in trials collapsing. That happened in several high-profile cases in 2017, shaking the public’s confidence in the administration of justice. Had information been disclosed sooner, those trials would never have proceeded in the first place.

A review of the efficiency and effectiveness of disclosure had already been announced by the then Attorney General; its findings were published in November 2018. The review highlighted substantial concerns about the culture around disclosure, the engagement between relevant parties, and technology. It made a series of practical recommendations, many of which aligned with the inquiry of the Select Committee on Justice that reported in July 2018. All indicated a need for a shift in culture.

Giving effect to the recommendations involved revising both the code of practice and the Attorney General’s disclosure guidelines, which have also been updated. The code sets out the manner in which police officers are to record, retain and reveal to the prosecutor material obtained in a criminal investigation. The Attorney General’s guidelines are a more detailed document aimed at prosecutors, investigators and defence practitioners, and are designed to embed nationally consistent best practice. The ethos of the guidelines is, in essence, to say that the disclosure process should be ongoing, involve a thinking approach and be treated as integral to the investigation, rather than simply as an add-on.

To help the new approach, we are putting in place the revised code of practice. I thank those people across the criminal justice system who assisted in the process, in particular the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. They have been working closely with Government officials and others to ensure that the code of practice is fit for purpose.

One of the most significant changes for those on the operational frontline is the introduction of a rebuttable presumption that certain key bits of evidence will be disclosed unless there is an extremely good reason not to. Articles 5.4 and 6.6 of the code lay out what those pieces of significant evidence are likely to be. The change is not intended to encourage automatic disclosure, but it will require investigators to retain the information and to disclose it to the defence as a matter of routine.

The most important changes to the code of practice are associated with that recommendation, although the opportunity has also been taken to make other amendments designed to improve clarity. The streamlined disclosure certificate, which forms an annex to the existing code of practice, has been omitted from the new code. The successor form is being revised under the Criminal Procedure Rule Committee, and the Lord Chief Justice will be invited to authorise its issue shortly.

In accordance with the process set out in the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, the revised code of practice was published in draft for consultation in February of this year, together with the revised Attorney General guidelines. The deadline for responses was extended by three months to take covid into account. We then published the revised code in, I think, early September.

This order will bring the revised code of practice into force on 31 December this year or, in case both the necessary affirmative resolutions are not forthcoming by then, the day after the second resolution is passed. The reason for the relatively long delay before commencement is that some police forces requested a bit more time to ensure that their systems were ready to cope with the changes.

I hope that I have provided a concise summary of the order, and I commend it to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Would the Minister like to respond in any way?

[Chris Philp]

No, that was a very thoughtful speech.

Question put and agreed to.

Prisoners (Disclosure of Information About Victims) Bill

Chris Philp Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 6th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Philp)]

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

This Bill—Helen’s law, as we have come to know it—amends the release provisions that apply to offenders who do not disclose information relating to cases of murder, manslaughter, or taking or making indecent images of children. As Members are aware, it places existing Parole Board guidance on a statutory footing to ensure that parole board members must consider, when making release assessments, any non-disclosure of information relating to a victim’s remains if they were murdered, or the identity of the victims of child sexual abuse.

I once again pay tribute to the tremendous work done by the hon. Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) in campaigning for this Bill. He was inspired by his constituent Marie McCourt, whose daughter, Helen, was tragically murdered. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), many of whose constituents were abused by Vanessa George. Without their tireless work, this Bill would not be progressing through Parliament. I extend to them, once again, my congratulations and thanks.

The Government agree entirely with the spirit and intent behind Baroness Kennedy’s amendment but have some issues with its practicality. Essentially, what it seeks to achieve is already achieved by other means. The first part of Baroness Kennedy’s amendment requires the Parole Board to take responsibility for contacting the victim, but there is of course already a victim contact service as part of the National Probation Service, which has responsibility for precisely that. We think it would create duplication and possibly confusion if two different bodies had the same responsibility for contacting victims.

Their lordships expressed some concern about the effectiveness of the current operation of the victim contact service. In particular, their amendment calls for communications with victims and their families to be done on an opt-out basis so that the family gets contacted automatically, and the contact desists only if the family or victim says, “No, we don’t want to hear anything further.” A pilot of doing exactly that has been running across many parts of the country, although—in response to an inquiry from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport—not currently in Devon and Cornwall.

I am pleased to tell the House that, subsequent to the House of Lords’ consideration of this matter, a decision has been taken to roll out that programme nationally as part of the new victims code, which we expect will come into operation in early 2021. We intend to lay before Parliament a negative statutory instrument before long to give effect to that. That is precisely what the other place called for in its amendment. Subsequent to their lordships’ debate, it has been decided to progress and do that, so that part of the amendment is being done already. Their lordships might take some credit for prompting us, but it was something that we had been trialling previously, and we intended to do that. I hope that assurance that it will be done gives Members on both sides of the House a great deal of reassurance, happiness and contentment.

[Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

My hon. Friend will know that when the Justice Committee looked at these issues after a great deal of publicity and some court cases, our inquiry shared many of the concerns of the other House about the effectiveness of the victim contact scheme. Can he assure us that appropriate organisational changes, and additional resources where necessary, have been put in to ensure that the scheme can discharge these important duties adequately?

[Chris Philp]

I thank the Chairman of the Justice Committee for the work that he and his Committee have done in this area, which has been very thorough and useful. I think we do accept the point that he has made, as have the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport and others, that the victim contact scheme can be improved.

I have had discussions with the Minister of State, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), who has responsibility for prisons and probation. She has asked me to pass on to the House her undertaking to meet and speak to the Victims’ Commissioner about improving the victim contact scheme. We will also be happy, either in the same meeting or a separate one, to Labour Front Benchers, including the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) and, if he wishes, the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), as well as the hon. Members for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport and for St Helens North and their constituents if they wish to join the meeting, to discuss any concerns they may have and any ideas they may have for further improvements to the victim contact scheme. I am happy to put that commitment by the Minister of State on the record this afternoon.

This Bill has progressed thus far with cross-party support. It has been worked on very constructively by those on the Government Front Bench and the Opposition Front Bench, as well as by those on the Back Benches. Indeed, it would not have got here without their work, as I said earlier. I hope we can continue in that spirit of cross-party unity on this topic.

Given that the victim contact scheme exists already and the opt-out changes will be made shortly, and given our commitment to work with the Victims’ Commissioner and others to further improve the victim contact scheme, I hope the House will join me in respectfully rebuffing—perhaps that is the word, or perhaps gently pushing back—the amendments that their lordships have sent in our direction.

[Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)]

May I start by thanking the Minister for his comments and the tone in which he has conducted this debate? It is much appreciated by those of us on the Opposition Benches, I can assure him.

I start by paying tribute to the tireless campaigning of victims’ families, and in particular the campaigning of Marie McCourt and the families of those abused by Vanessa George. They have begged successive Governments to time the release of serious offenders in a way that is more responsive to victim circumstance. Supported by my hon. Friends the Members for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) and for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), they have changed the law for the better.

Observers of this House from the outside may think it is quite normal for people to bring forward legislation from the Back Benches and get it all the way through both Houses, but it is very unusual. In fact, I think I am right in saying that both the Minister and I have attempted in the past to introduce legislation from the Back Benches. In his case, it was to tackle industrial relations in utility companies and in mine it was to extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, and both of us met with undignified failure. They have succeeded where we unfortunately failed.

Those families will make a significant difference to the lives of victims’ families for generations to come. They did so knowing that it would not materially impact their own situation. They did it to save others from the torment they have endured, and we are grateful to them.

As the House is aware, the first part of the Bill implements Helen’s law. Motivated by the case of Ian Simms, it forces the Parole Board to consider the non-disclosure of key information during the release decisions of people convicted of murder or manslaughter. The unwillingness of murderers to disclose such details is a source of merciless and unrelenting anguish. That is equally true of the young victims of Vanessa George, who was convicted of sexual assault and making and distributing indecent photographs of children. She was released from prison last year, despite never naming the children she abused. The second part of the Bill guarantees the same protections for victims in such cases.

It is unforgivable that our system has not better reflected the needs of those bereaved by such horrific crimes over previous decades. For far too long, victims and their families have been treated as an afterthought in the criminal justice system. They were described as such by the victims’ commissioner for London, Claire Waxman, in a recent interview. The Bill delivers two new key statutory rights to victims and their families. I hope the Government will continue with this direction of travel apace, because, despite repeated pledges, they have still failed to bring forward the long-promised victims law, which would offer a comprehensive set of rights and protections to the victims who so desperately need them. Such a law is desperately needed now more than ever, given the increasing rate of offences for which no one is ever brought to justice because of the victim and witnesses dropping out due to various different issues. We have pledges aplenty from the Government; we need more action.

There is far more left to do to address the systemic challenges facing victims in the criminal justice system. We on the Opposition Benches will continue to press the Government on this issue and work constructively with them when the opportunity arises, as we have done today. We will campaign unfailingly until comprehensive rights are guaranteed by law for those victims who need them the most. This Bill marks one very positive step forward, and the Opposition proudly support it on its convoluted pathway from the Back Benches to the Front Bench and through both Houses of Parliament. We now look forward to the difference it will make for victims and their families.

Lords amendment 1 was proposed in the other place by Baroness Kennedy of Cradley and seeks to address the asymmetry in offender and victim rights, wherein offenders receive regular communication from the authorities—a luxury that most victims will only ever dream of. This cannot continue, and Baroness Kennedy’s amendment represents an effort to tackle the injustice. However, we are happy to have agreed with the Minister, over the course of recent weeks, commitments regarding the future of the victim contact scheme. As a result, we will not seek to divide the House on the amendment.

I want to thank the Minister and put on the record the open-spirited way in which he has engaged with me and Members from all parties as we have approached today’s debate. First, we accept his argument that the creation of a victim database would replicate the work of the victim contact scheme. Victim liaison officers perform a vital role in keeping victims and their families up to date on the release process. That extends to those affected by the shocking crimes under discussion in respect of the Bill. There is scope to improve the scheme further, and the Government have pledged to review it as part of a broader reform of probation. It is vital that the tragic cases to which the Bill applies are given substantial consideration in any such review.

Secondly, we welcome the Government’s intention to introduce an opt-out system as part of the victim contact scheme. That will help to ensure that families of victims are empowered throughout the criminal justice process, extending support to more of those in need while protecting the right to withdraw from the contact process should that be desired.

Finally, we welcome the commitment to involving the Victims’ Commissioner in any review of the victim contact scheme. In her letter dated 7 August, the commissioner laid out her thoughts on how to make the scheme more responsive to victims’ needs, including by changing it from a transactional service into a package of end-to-end support and considering the benefits of co-location with victims’ services. The Government must work closely with the commissioner to consider the viability of her proposed changes.

I thank the Minister for inviting us on the Opposition Benches to contribute to any future review; it is generous of him and welcomed by us. We look forward to working with him on this issue and finding solutions to the challenges of how we ensure that families can easily update contact details over time. It is important that our political system, and those who work within it, come together when broad agreement can be found. Not only is this how politics can better reflect most people’s experiences in their daily lives, but it is a way that we in this House can demonstrate our respect for the suffering of victims and their families by coming together and putting their needs ahead of any others.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

I shall keep my remarks very short, but I want to say a few things in the cross-party spirit of the Bill. My remarks became even shorter after the Minister contacted me this morning and explained exactly the concessions that the Government are making. I am very grateful for that. I also pay tribute to the campaigners and Members of this House who have ensured that this important change in the law will hopefully come into force very soon, making life a lot better and more bearable for victims’ families, who have gone through traumatic experiences already.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill, which will hopefully bring much needed justice for the families of victims. I sincerely hope that this legislation will mean that far fewer families find themselves in the awful position of not knowing what has happened after a loved one becomes a victim of a heinous crime.

The most important issue, which is at the core of the Bill, is improving communication, disclosure and open decision making. The parole function needs to make sure that the views of victims’ families are an essential part of that function. As we just heard, there are too many examples of a victim’s family finding out the result of a parole hearing only through media reports or online. I do not doubt that everyone in the House wants to ensure that our justice system does better to support victims. Parole Board cases are of great significance to victims’ families. They must have the right to know what is happening and to have their say—a meaningful say.

The issue we are debating, which arises from the Lords amendment—much of that has already been discussed—is effective communication with victims’ families. That is currently done through the probation service. The Lords amendment would require the Parole Board to provide the essential and meaningful communication with victims’ families. I understand that the Government are offering not to amend this essential part of the Bill, but to improve the probation service to a point where justice is done for the families of victims.

The Government do, however, agree with part of the Lords amendment and have already been running a pilot for opt-out systems so that families can have regular updates, and they intend to lay a statutory instrument under the negative resolution procedure at the beginning of the new year, in line with the new victims code. All that is very welcome. We have also heard that the Government are committing to more contact between the Prisons Minister and the Victims’ Commissioner. Again, that is very welcome.

The proof of those concessions, however, will be in their effectiveness, and we will need to see how effective the system is once it is up and running. My main request is for a proper review of whether the new arrangements have the required outcome of giving the families of victims of terrible crimes the justice that they deserve, and minimising the trauma that families go through.

[Chris Philp]

With the leave of the House, let me say a word or two in conclusion. I once again thank the hon. Members for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) and for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) for their campaigning on this topic, and I thank the Opposition Front Bench and the Liberal Democrat Front Bench for the constructive cross-party spirit in which they have approached it.

This is an example of Parliament working at its best on an issue of profound importance to victims whose lives have been destroyed by either murderers or child abusers who seek to further torment their victims, even after the offence and their trial and conviction, by intentionally and maliciously withholding information about the whereabouts of the body or the identities of the children who have been abused. It is wicked and unacceptable, and this House, in passing this legislation, sends a clear message to those people that their behaviour is abhorrent and unacceptable, and we stand united against it.

Lords amendment 1 disagreed to.

Ordered, That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment 1;

That Chris Philp, Tom Pursglove, Neil O’Brien, Julie Marson, Bambos Charalambous and Peter Kyle be members of the Committee;

That Chris Philp be the Chair of the Committee;

That three be the quorum of the Committee.

That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Rebecca Harris.)

Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.