TOEIC Visa Cancellations

Naz Shah Excerpts

Tuesday 4th September 2018 Westminster Hall

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) on securing this important debate. I reiterate the thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), who is not here, for all his work, and to the many others who have spoken passionately.

When I was on the Home Affairs Committee, we took evidence from many students. I was part of the evidence session when students came to give evidence about the impact this had on their lives. That impact continues. It is no laughing matter. One wonders what to do when one hears such raw evidence. We have just had the urgent question on Windrush. There appears to be a shadow hanging over the Home Office today. We have seen that for quite a while in relation to the hostile environment. At the end of my speech, I will ask some questions I hope the Minister can answer.

The hostile environment policy has extended to students. The Home Secretary has committed to move away from this shameful discrimination and has taken steps to offer remedy to the Windrush generation, which has suffered greatly. We are still waiting, however, for the Government to offer a concrete resolution to those unfairly affected by the TOEIC scandal. In many cases, the Government continue to fight judicially against individuals who have been accused. Financing such appeals brings to mind a bottomless pit, especially given what we have heard this week, which the shadow Home Secretary has responded to. Given the recent legal judgments that have lambasted the Government and ETS for failing to present any real evidence to support their actions, it is clear that many of those affected were treated unfairly, denied all natural justice and deemed guilty until proven innocent.

Some 56,000 students were accused of deception or potential deception while sitting the test—36,000 of them had action taken against them in one way or another by the Home Office, including the immediate cancellation of their visas. They were not given the evidence against them nor the chance to clear their name, and they received no help to survive legally in this country. They were simply told to go home.

To compound that appalling situation, many students were not even given the opportunity to contest the decision against them, even though they had been promised a chance to do so. The out-of-country appeal route that they were offered was effectively non-existent and it was certainly not robust enough to resolve the kinds of issues that these individuals had endured. Many of them would not have been able to access the relevant evidence against them, so they could not be involved in the hearings or give evidence themselves due to the unsatisfactory nature of the process.

In truth, it would have been better for those accused to have faced criminal charges, because at least they would have been entitled to see the evidence against them and contest it. However, the Home Office simply cancelled their visas, forcing them to leave the country or live in poverty with the accusations against them hanging over their heads, with some people wanting to hang themselves.

As the Home Office was well aware, when a visa was cancelled because of alleged fraud it was impossible for those affected to travel to any other country to study or work. In effect, the Home Office is responsible for curtailing not only people’s immediate livelihoods but the whole future for themselves and their family, not just in the country they had come from and that they had to return to with their heads hung in shame after being accused of fraud and cheating, but in any other country—they could not go to another country because they had been defamed by our country and our Government. If visas were cancelled because of alleged fraud, it was impossible for those affected to travel to other countries to study or work.

We must remind ourselves at every stage of this debate that, based on the evidence available to us, potentially thousands of people who were here perfectly legally and who had followed the Home Office’s rules will have faced untold misery. The collective punishment approach of the Government has been shown for what it is—deeply toxic, unfair and unjust. It has potentially ruined the lives of thousands of individuals who acted according to the rules. They placed their trust in a Government-approved and Government-sanctioned test, and the response of the Government has been to treat them with contempt at every step of the process.

The Home Office has clearly been too eager to accept the analysis of the Educational Testing Service. There is clear evidence of mislabelling and misattributing the voice recordings to the wrong individual or the wrong test centre. When those recordings have been disclosed to an applicant, they have invariably turned out to be wrong, but there has been no system in place to allow for the cross-checking of tests.

Experts, including those employed by the Home Office itself, have highlighted a number of ways in which students could have been deceived by the test centres themselves and proxies used without their knowledge or involvement. In any other situation, this would make those students victims and not criminals, but the Government continue to disregard both the expert advice and judicial judgments. Instead, they rely on the evidence provided by the fraudulent test centres themselves to decide on the guilt of individual students. Those test centres had a monopoly on testing, which reminds me of the Carillion fiasco—the Government often seem to be involved in such fiascos.

This is a clearly flawed process that has turned lives upside down, but still the Government persist and still they rely on unreliable evidence. Has there been any real attempt by the Home Office to understand how many people have been unfairly accused? Do we know the number of people who are involved? I would be interested to hear the Minister say how many students were able to retake their tests and how many were deported.

Although we recognise that there was fraud within the system of Home Office certified tests and testing centres, we must also acknowledge that potentially thousands of innocent applicants had their lives ruined for doing nothing more serious than unwittingly choosing the wrong test centre, and they now have no way of remedying that accident of fate. Fate led them to this country. They and their parents might have spent years and years saving up money to send them to a British institution to receive a degree from one of our universities that would qualify them to work anywhere in the world with its British “brand” of authenticity. And yet Britain failed them.

What resolution are the Government prepared to offer those students? After failures in court, will the Government continue to fight these individuals, or are they at least willing to listen and try to find a solution? Will there be a pot of compensation money for those who have been proven to have been mistreated by this Government? Will the Government finally commit to allowing these individuals the tools they need to have a fair and just chance of clearing their name, or will they continue with a decision that was politically expedient due to its “hostile character”, which victimises those who may only be guilty of being in an unfortunate circumstance?

In conclusion, I have some questions for the Minister. First, did these numbers contribute to the targets that were set by the Home Office? The targets I am referring to relate to the resignation of a previous Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd). Secondly, will the Minister now take this opportunity to apologise for Home Office mistakes? Such an apology was rightly offered to the Windrush generation and one should be offered to these students, who have been affected by the Government’s failure, the Government’s monopoly and the Government’s unfairness.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

I am moving on to some additional comments, but we have heard today repeatedly the use of the word “deportation”. Those who have followed this matter carefully will know that deportation happens only to foreign national offenders. Those who have been subject to removals have been removed from the country, not deported. There is a very clear difference between those two scenarios that the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) may not agree with, but it happens to be a fact.

The action that the Home Office took was based on information from ETS, but it is incorrect to suggest that we relied exclusively and unquestioningly on the material that it provided. Yes, a senior delegation from the Home Office visited the USA in order to obtain a thorough understanding of the process, but following that, and fully considering the seriousness of the issues for the individuals concerned, we commissioned a further independent expert report from Professor Peter French, chairman of J P French Associates, the forensic speech and acoustics laboratory, and professor of forensic speech science at the University of York, into the reliability of the evidence.

That report, unlike the report produced as part of earlier legal proceedings and quoted extensively in recent coverage of ETS issues, was produced with the benefit of additional evidence about the specific systems that it used to verify matches. With the benefit of more information, Professor French specifically concluded that findings that the previous expert made around high error rates in other models are not

“transferable to the ETS testing”

and that the number of false matches would in fact be very small. He concluded that the triple-lock approach that ETS took was much more likely to give people the benefit of the doubt than falsely flag people as having cheated. The courts, at every level up to the Court of Appeal, have consistently said that that standard of evidence is sufficient to justify making an accusation of fraud. It is then up to an individual to establish an innocent explanation for their involvement, and they can challenge the finding, where applicable, through a judicial review.

A number of Members mentioned the case of Ahsan and out-of-country rights of appeal. That case was indeed heard at the Court of Appeal last year, but did not look at the evidence that the Home Office had relied on to establish that fraud had taken place. The narrow issue that the Court looked at in the Ahsan case was whether an out-of-country appeal would be an effective remedy to the accusation of fraud. It concluded that, in such cases where there was no mechanism for the individual to give oral evidence, that was unlikely to be the case.

Since then, the Home Office has put in place practical arrangements, including video conference links from overseas, to enable appellants to give live evidence at their appeal. Those overseas with outstanding appeals can apply to the tribunal that is hearing their appeal to indicate if they wish to give live evidence. It will then be for the tribunal to decide whether the arrangements that the Home Office can put in place are sufficient or whether it is necessary for the individual to return to the UK.

[Naz Shah]

Does the Minister know how many people have been successful in their out-of-country appeal? Have those who have been successful been offered compensation for the Home Office’s mistakes?

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Lady asks whether the Home Office has offered compensation. We have not, because what we have seen in successive High Court judgments is that our ability to rely on an accusation of fraud was appropriate. We heard a lengthy quote from a senior High Court judge, who, it is interesting to note, said in a subsequent case that new evidence that the Home Office had provided was focused and much more substantial. That same judge also found that evidence was sufficient to make our accusation of fraud.

[Caroline Nokes]

The Home Office has enabled people to take cases to judicial review. The Home Office has established that we can rely on the evidence of fraud that we very clearly have, and the links to criminal gangs. It is important that we recognise that there was significant, widespread and indeed very lucrative fraud taking place in these cases. Our enforcement investigations uncovered evidence of impersonation and of proxy test-takers. I very much regret that this has happened. Innocent applicants may well have been caught up in widespread fraud, but we also have reports from judges that there were a number of different reasons why individuals might have undertaken the deception, even if they spoke very good English.

[Naz Shah]

Will the Minister give way?

[Caroline Nokes]

I have given way plenty of times. I am very clear that we have acted proportionately, both in initial actions and in response to the Court of Appeal’s verdict. We are right to continue acting on these cases.

The Government are committed to the principle of a fair immigration system, which welcomes highly skilled migrants and genuine international students, and we have heard a number of points about the attractiveness of the UK to international students. We know that the number of overseas students applying for tier 4 visas is up and there has been an increase in the number of visas granted, including 9% more from Chinese nationals and 32% more from Indian nationals. The UK remains an attractive place for foreign students to come to. We welcome highly skilled migrants and genuine students, while guarding against attempts at abuse. We have significantly strengthened our secure English language testing regime to ensure the issue cannot be repeated in future, and have put in place additional features to make sure that we clamp down on abuse by non-genuine students.

BAME Communities: Stop and Search

Naz Shah Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the effect of police stop and search powers on BAME communities.

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. Stop-and-search is often referred to as the litmus test of police-community relations, and it is one of the first encounters that young people from ethnic minority backgrounds have with the police. Those early interactions can shape how young people view the police for the rest of their lives, especially when they, their family or their friends are searched repeatedly. Members from all parties will undoubtedly have heard accounts from their constituents of deeply negative experiences of stop-and-searches and other types of police-initiated stops, such as detentions at ports and airports under counter-terrorism legislation, and stops under road and traffic legislation.

Unfortunately, we have debated stop-and-search time and again due to the way that it has been misused since the 1960s. Recently, the Government initiated a series of reforms backed by cross-party consensus, which I will refer to. However, numerous inspections by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary—in 2013, 2015 and 2016—found that many chief officers are frustrating that process because they are

“failing to understand the impact of stop and search”

on people’s lives. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government seek to carry on reforming these powers and prevent the backsliding that we have seen in the last couple of years.

I stress that stop-and-search can be a useful tool to detect crime, but only when it is used in a very targeted way. Claims are often made about how useful stop-and-search is, but they are not backed by scientific research and, in fact, often contradict the evidence base. Stop-and-search is neither the solution to crime problems nor a substitute for intelligence from good relationships with communities. Evidence shows that stop-and-search is a blunt tool for the prevention and detection of crime, and has a profoundly negative impact on police-community relations.

Home Office research in 2000 showed that stop-and-search had only a marginal role in combating crime, because its use was not linked to patterns of crime, and that searches for drugs were fuelling unproductive searches of ethnic minorities, particularly young black men. Ten years later, the Equality and Human Rights Commission reached the same conclusion. Threatening legal action against the five forces that it felt had the worst ethnic disproportionality at the time, it managed to reduce their volume of searches and that disproportionality—importantly, without reversing the long-term fall in crime. Last year, the College of Policing published analysis on the effect of stop-and-search on various crimes. It, too, found that stop-and-search had a weak role in reducing only certain types of crime, while having no measurable impact on most others.

Those studies show just how ineffective stop-and-search is as a general tactic. Even within a similar family of forces, stop-and-search use, outcomes and ethnic disproportionality differ so drastically that, as some of the research concludes, they are determined more by the culture set by chief officers than by local crime trends.

On the ground, the ease with which police officers can use their discretionary powers, together with their widely divergent views about what constitutes reasonable suspicion, mean that stop-and-search has become the go-to power for social control, and one that is influenced by unconscious biases or outright racial prejudices. For example, “smell of cannabis” and “fits a suspect description” are routinely used to justify searching people of colour. There are, of course, other powers that do not even require reasonable suspicion. Members will not be surprised to hear that those produce even worse ethnic disproportionality.

Given the national debate about the apparent increase in knife and violent crime, what are the Government doing to resist the urge to increase stop-and-searches in the false view that that will solve the problem? When the Prime Minister was Home Secretary, she rightly called that

“a knee-jerk reaction on the back of a false link.”

In fact, the police’s own data show that most searches are for drugs, rather than knives, guns or other weapons, and that the proportion of searches for drugs is actually increasing. For most forces, that figure is consistently more than 50%, and in a number of cases it is even above 70%. Will the Minister outline what the Government are doing to ensure that stop-and-search is actually targeted at violent crime?

Ironically, that increase has occurred at a time when police forces have signed up to the Best Use of Stop and Search scheme, the main purpose of which is to increase trust and confidence in policing by addressing the disproportionate impact of stop-and-search on ethnic minorities and by giving communities a stronger role in scrutinising those powers. Although that has delivered a welcome 44% reduction in the use of stop-and-search and has improved detection rates, if we probe behind the headlines we find that little else has changed.

After initially declining, disproportionality has shot to new heights in the past two years. Estimates for last year show that black people were searched at more than eight times the rate of white people, and people from mixed, Asian and other ethnic backgrounds were searched at around double the rate. Under the “suspicionless” powers in section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, black people were searched at 14 times the rate of whites, mixed people were searched at twice the rate, and people from Asian or other backgrounds were searched at a slightly higher rate than whites.

Clearly, the benefits of scaling back excess searches of people who would not otherwise have been searched have not filtered through to ethnic minority groups. As with the Government reforms following the Brixton riots in the 1980s and the Macpherson report on the mishandling of the murder of Stephen Lawrence, we are at risk of giving up too soon and allowing stop-and-search to regress to unacceptably high levels of disproportionality and grief.

In her final months as Home Secretary, the Prime Minister argued that

“there is still a long way to go.”

That is partly because numerous HMIC inspections have shown that most chief officers are failing to show leadership in addressing stop-and-search. At one point, the former Prime Minister, David Cameron, declared:

“The Conservatives have become the party of equality.”

So can the Minister explain why the current Prime Minister has allowed disproportionality to increase and reform to grind to a halt under her premiership?

Communities have been left wondering whether the Government remain committed to reform of stop-and-search, particularly because the previous Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), did not give it the attention it deserves, despite it having been so central to her predecessor’s race equality agenda. The Prime Minister has also failed to live up to her promises to introduce monitoring of traffic stops and remove individual officers’ ability to use stop-and-search where they are found to be routinely misusing it. Will the Minister affirm that the Government are still committed to those proposals and say when we are likely to see them?

The powerlessness of ethnic minority communities to scrutinise and shape police policies and practice is a crucial issue that remains unaddressed. The true test of a democracy is the way it treats its vulnerable and minority groups.

[Mr John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The hon. Lady will know that a hugely disproportionate number of black young men are victims of knife crime. Will she agree to survey victims’ families—those who are most closely affected—to see whether they agree with her? I strongly suggest that they want tougher sentences for knife crime, they want tougher sentences for the criminals who are convicted and they want more stop-and-search.

[Naz Shah]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that, and I will address some of those issues. I am not sure that conviction rates support what he suggests, but I will look into that further.

Police and crime commissioners were elected to democratise policing, but few have prioritised issues facing ethnic minorities. The best stop-and-search schemes give the public opportunities to accompany officers out on patrol, but they place most of their emphasis on scrutiny of stop-and-search records and data at police consultation groups.

The University of Warwick recently conducted the most comprehensive study of how members of the public in five police force areas try to provide input into police practice. It showed that police-public consultative groups have become the main forum through which the police make themselves accountable to the public, although those groups lack representatives from ethnic minorities and young people, who are most affected by policing. It concluded that these groups have become talking shops and are viewed as merely rubber-stamp committees by frustrated members of the community who want to make a difference. That is because there is no obligation on police officers to amend their policies or practice in the light of recommendations from the public. Even more concerningly, some senior officers responsible for organising these groups are either misleading the public about their use of stop-and-search or withholding even the most basic information, which would allow communities to hold them adequately to account. If we are serious about empowering communities, we need to ensure that members of the public can make recommendations and receive a written response from their chief officers on what those officers will do with that feedback. Will the Minister make that a statutory requirement?

The importance of getting stop-and-search right is made clear by academic literature on procedural justice, which suggests that the way people are treated by the police has an impact on their trust and confidence in the police and, by extension, on their perception of the state’s legitimacy, which determines their willingness to co-operate with the police and obey the law. It is therefore no surprise that anti-police riots have been fuelled by experiences of stop-and-search. All of that makes it even more important that we get stop-and-search right, no matter how long it takes.

One type of encounter that tends to be ignored and that is shrouded in secrecy is stops under schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000, which are the most draconian of all police stops. The schedule provides powers to detain the travelling public for up to six hours, which could mean they miss their flights, without the right to compensation. They are separated from their family and friends to be questioned, searched and potentially strip-searched. They have their biometric data taken, irrespective of the outcome of the stop, and have data from their mobile phones and laptops downloaded without their knowledge or consent. This has a deeply negative psychological impact on British Muslims and on those mistaken for Muslims, such as Sikhs and men with beards. This power does not require there to be suspicion that individuals are involved in terrorism, so British Muslims are left wondering why they have been detained, other than by virtue of their faith.

Young Muslims have had the bizarre experience of being asked if they personally know where international terrorists such as Osama bin Laden are hiding. These law-abiding citizens are made to feel humiliated, distressed and fearful, as well as alien to the country they know and love. That has created a sense that British Muslims have become the new suspect community. What will the Government do to eliminate religious and racial profiling at ports?

There is more data and research on police stops than ever before. It shows a consensus that these powers are ineffective in anything other than highly individual scenarios and that they continue to impact negatively on innocent people’s lives. Now is not the time to rest on our laurels and assume that the job is done, simply because the overall numbers are down. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what the Government are doing to empower communities to hold their police to account, to deliver on promises of reform and to tackle the false notion that knife crime is linked to stop-and-search.

I will finish on this:

“nobody wins when stop-and-search is misapplied. It is a waste of police time. It is unfair, especially to young, black men. It is bad for public confidence in the police.”—[Official Report, 30 April 2014; Vol. 579, c. 833.]

Those are the words of our current Prime Minister when she was the Home Secretary. This year marks 20 years since the Macpherson inquiry started, and last month was 25 years since the stabbing of Stephen Lawrence. The Macpherson report in 1999 noted on stop-and-search that there remained

“a clear core conclusion of racist stereotyping”.

In 2009, the Home Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, reported on progress since the Lawrence inquiry. It noted that minority ethnic people remain

“over-policed and under-protected within our criminal justice system.”

It may be easy, from a position of privilege, to view this as a fad, but for many in our black and minority ethnic communities, racial profiling and discriminatory policing are real. They are corrosive, and they are undermining trust in public institutions. If we have learned anything from the Macpherson report, it is this: institutional racism needs to be dismantled if we are to build a society based on values of procedural justice and public accountability.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I congratulate my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), on securing the debate. It may not surprise her or you to hear that I disagree with virtually everything she said. I will explain why.

This debate is about the effect of police stop-and-search on black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. I believe that the recent changes in the culture on stop-and-search are very much hurting parts of those communities, and it is not on. They are suffering not from the overuse of stop-and-search, as the hon. Lady would contend, but from the potential underuse of it.

I appreciate that some people will look just at the headline facts, take the consensus view and then want to be seen to be doing something to solve the problem they have identified. I wish, not just on this issue but on many others, that we in Parliament would look more closely at the evidence; we are not here to represent the loudest voice of the day. Apart from that being sensible in itself, if the problem identified is the wrong problem, doing something to fix it could actually be more harmful than helpful, despite people’s very best intentions.

It cannot have escaped anyone’s attention that young people are dying on our streets at a frightening rate, particularly in London. If we look beyond the statistics to the real lives being lost, they are predominantly not white. I am no fan of dividing people up by the colour of their skin—in fact, I often think that the people who see everything in terms of race are the real racists—so all such references in my speech are simply to reflect that that is the way in which the debate is framed.

Extreme violence is one of the real problems facing us, and by and large it is non-white people who are the victims in these murders. The 2016 statistics on race and the criminal justice system show that, in the three-year period from 2013 to 2016, the rate of homicide was four times higher for black victims, at 32 victims per million people, compared with white victims at eight per million and other victims at seven per million. Therefore, when it comes to the most serious offence of all—murder—it is clear that black people, and in particular black males, are far more likely to be victims. They are also more likely to be murderers.

Following a parliamentary question I asked in 2016, I was given the following information about the ethnicity of murderers. While white people made up 87% of the population, they were responsible for 67% of murders. Black people made up 3% of the population but 14.5% of murders. Asian people were 6% of the population but were responsible for 12% of murders, and mixed race people were 2% of the population but responsible for 5.5% of murders.

It is also a fact that black people are more likely to use a knife or a sharp instrument to kill. According to the 2016 statistics on race and the criminal justice system, for victims from the black ethnic group sharp instruments accounted for nearly two thirds of homicides, but they accounted for only one third of white homicides. Cressida Dick said last year that young black men and boys were statistically more likely to be the victims and perpetrators of knife crime, having made up 21 of 24 teenagers murdered at that point that year.

That is the background and those are the facts. I am not sure anybody disputes them, because they are the official facts. If no crimes were taking place, we would not need stop-and-search, but in the real world there is crime, and it is a serious problem. The use of stop-and-search is just one way to fight against crime and one tool to try to prevent it, but it is a very important tool.

[Naz Shah]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, my neighbouring MP, for his input. How does he respond to the fact that for the majority of stop-and-searches that take place, when police officers make their recordings they are made for the purposes of addressing drugs, not knife crime or violent crime, despite what he reads?

[Philip Davies]

I will come on to address those points in my remarks, but the implication of what the hon. Lady says is that drug offences are not serious offences and therefore the police should be turning a blind eye to them. That is not a premise I accept. Drugs are a blight on our society and cause misery for a lot of families, and it is absolutely right that the police try to crack down on drug offences. I do not take the view that drug offences are something that the police should not focus on.

[Philip Davies]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point; it is difficult to disaggregate drugs from some of the violence we see. The two often go hand in hand, and he puts that point particularly well.

I do not have time today to go into as much detail as I would like on this subject. I know that one of the reasons for stop-and-search relates to drugs. The 2016 statistics on race in the criminal justice system show that 34% of black offenders, and only 15% of white offenders, were convicted of drug offences, making that the largest offence group for black offenders. It seems to me perfectly obvious that black people are therefore more likely to be stopped and searched for drugs than white people, because more people are convicted of those crimes. That seems to me to be partly obvious. Drug offences were also the largest offence group for the Asian ethnic group, accounting for 28% of its offenders.

One of the other purposes of stop-and-search is to check for weapons. According to the Ministry of Justice’s figures, black suspects had the highest proportion of stop-and-searches for offensive weapons, at 20%. As far as I am concerned, it is irrelevant how many people from each background are being stopped and searched. What is relevant is how many of those who are stopped and searched are guilty of those crimes.

If those from certain communities were being stopped and searched and were consistently found to have done nothing wrong, I would be the first to say, “This is completely unacceptable.” In fact, that was one of the reasons why I started to do my own research on this subject, because I was constantly being told that people from ethnic minorities were much more likely to be stopped and searched but to have done nothing wrong, and therefore they were simply being stopped and searched because of the colour of their skin. If that were the case, it would be unacceptable, but that is absolutely not the case.

I asked a parliamentary question about this in 2016. I was told that the following were the percentages of searches that resulted in an arrest. For white people who were stopped and searched, 13% were arrested as a result. For black people it was 20%, for Asian people 14% and for mixed race people 17%. The evidence shows that the community that is much more likely to be stopped and searched and yet found to have done nothing wrong is white people. Those are the facts. They might be inconvenient facts for people who have a particular agenda, but they are nevertheless the facts.

[Naz Shah]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I struggle with it. For me, the common-sense approach to this would be to say that if the police are searching more black people, they will get higher conviction rates. If they were searching the same number of white people, would that not correlate with convictions? The truth is that from the outset, black people have been stopped and searched much more than their white counterparts, so there will be a reduction in those figures, will there not?

[Philip Davies]

It is a proportion, not a number. It is a proportion of the number of people who are stopped and searched who were found to have done something wrong and were arrested as a result. The numbers are irrelevant; I am talking about the proportion. As I say, I am not a big fan of dividing people into ethnic groups, but that is the purpose of this debate. The fact of the matter is that the ethnic group most likely to be stopped and searched and found to have done nothing wrong is white people. That is the fact.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I have just answered that question, but I will answer it again for the right hon. Lady’s benefit. The fact is that for certain categories of offence—murder, drug offences and so on—black people and people from ethnic minorities are more likely to be guilty than white people. That is a fact. I am not making a particular contention. That is the evidence. That is the rate of convictions. That is done by the courts. It might be that she has no confidence in our courts system in this country; that may be her contention. I, as it happens, do. Those are the facts.

[Naz Shah]

I am really struggling with this. What I am saying, and what I have put before the House today, is the fact of the disproportionality of young black men being stopped and searched in the first instance. Had we not had that disproportionality— if we had it equal—does he not agree that those figures would then be more fairly representative—

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Order. I will just say to the Opposition Front Bencher and the sponsor of the debate that they will get an opportunity to respond to the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah]

Thank you, Mr Owen, for again calling me to speak.

I thank all the right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed to this debate: the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies); my hon. Friends the Members for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) and for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan); our shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott); and the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day).

I will address a couple of the issues that have been raised. My neighbouring MP, the hon. Member for Shipley, talked about valuing our police. I do value the police. It is in that vein that I sit on the Home Affairs Committee and that I am part of a national roundtable led by Chief Constable Boucher, which looks at diversity on behalf of the National Police Chiefs’ Council. It is in that vein that I am committed to the police. The hon. Gentleman and I share the same chief superintendent, Scott Bisset, and I have extensive and very good relationships with my local police force. I have full confidence in Chief Superintendent Bisset’s attempts to create a diverse workforce in the police.

Talking about a diverse workforce, what my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton said today was really important. We do not have a diverse workforce, despite the figures that the hon. Member for Shipley quoted earlier. The truth remains that we are far from having a reflective workforce. A reflective workforce would benefit the police.

This debate was never about telling the police how to do their job; it is about supporting the police. True leadership consists of two things—challenging and supporting. If we are to are to be real critical friends to the police, we must both challenge and support them in delivering the objective of keeping our communities safe. This debate is about making our communities safer.

Every study that has piloted unconscious bias training has shown a direct correlation between a change of attitude, a change in crime and a change in the nature of how we police, so that it is better for our communities. That is what this debate is about; it was never about hammering the police and having a pop at them. Unfortunately, it has gone that way, which disheartens me.

I thank the Minister for agreeing that policing is about intelligence and relationships. We build relationships with communities not just by attending the funerals but by attending the weddings, too. It is about building relationships between the police and their communities, and that is not done by creating an experience for a child, which will sit in their mind, of being searched just because they happen to be black or just because their pigment colour is a few shades darker than that of other people, which shows them that they do not belong, they do not matter and they are not protected. That is what this very important debate today has been about, and I thank you, Mr Owen, for your chairmanship and all the Members who have contributed to it.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the effect of police stop and search powers on BAME communities.

Windrush Children (Immigration Status)

Naz Shah Excerpts

Monday 16th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

The dedicated team that I am setting up will work with individuals from the hon. Lady’s community to ensure that we look for the information and that they engage with us in that. We cannot look in isolation, if people do not engage with us and do not give us the information that we need. We are going to work across Government to ensure that we try to get information such as national insurance numbers or schools. Will the hon. Lady please tell her community that the Home Office is here to help it?

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

Will the Home Secretary tell me whether there was previously an exemption for leave to remain for Commonwealth citizens who arrived in the UK before 1973? Will she also confirm if and when this was removed from the legislation and, if so, when that was debated by Parliament?

[Amber Rudd]

I think that what the hon. Lady’s constituents really want to know is whether they have a legal right to be here. The purpose of my standing here today is to confirm to them and to all Members here that they do have the legal right. We want them to take it up, if that is what they want. My unit in the Home Office will be leaning in to ensure that we make the process as simple and effective as possible.

Police Funding

Naz Shah Excerpts

Wednesday 28th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Louise Haigh]

Absolutely. It is a trick of the Government to blame PCCs for cuts made to policing in their communities; PCCs can only play the hand they have been dealt by Westminster. The choices of the Mayor of London, who receives 70% of his budget from central Government, are few and far between.

As I said, neighbourhood policing is the absolute bedrock of the model of policing in this country. It is almost wholly responsible for building and maintaining relationships with communities and it is the eyes and ears of our counter-terror police. We need sustained and large-scale recruitment of police officers across the country. In the past year, the task has become even more urgent as the proportion of officers assigned to local policing has fallen by a further 10%. Little wonder, then, that crime is soaring: by 14% in the past year alone. Although we accept that police recording has improved, nothing can detract from the horrendous rises in knife and gun crime, at 21% and 20% respectively. People know that the challenges facing the police are many and multifaceted, but they also know that there are simply too few officers to meet too high a demand, and that means that community safety is put at risk.

The year just past has also seen a concerted and sustained increase in Islamist and far-right terrorism.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

I put on the record my thanks to Assistant Chief Constable Russ Foster who led some of the work dealing with the “punish a Muslim day” letter at the north-east counter-terrorism unit. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the face of policing is changing. Given the rise of the far right and increased referrals to Prevent, we should be putting more funding into the police force.

[Louise Haigh]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The increased pressure from far right and Islamist terrorism on the police is crippling our local forces. Although the Government have put some money into counter-terrorism, the demand that that then puts on local forces has simply not been covered by the Government’s police settlement. Mark Rowley, the outgoing head of counter-terrorism operations, told the Home Affairs Committee that his organisation has been dealing with a 30% uptick in operations. He warned:

“we have a bigger proportion of our investigations that are at the bottom of the pile and getting little or no work at the moment.”

The report by David Anderson QC on the four fatal attacks of last year drew the same conclusions. Those people know that counter-terrorism policing is under such strain that investigations into individuals of serious concern are being put on hold.

What was the Government’s response? They chose to underfund counter-terror policing to the tune of £54 million. With a terror threat now described by experts as “stratospheric”, it is unconscionable to leave such a black hole in our counter-terror budget.

The Minister has said time and again that he will ensure that the police have the resources they need to do their job. There will not be a chief constable in this country who can tell him they have the resources they need to fully protect the public and provide a professional service in the current climate.

The Government have failed in the most fundamental duty of any Government: to keep their citizens safe and free from harm. Their ideological cuts have left the public exposed to rising crime and a rising terrorism threat and they are letting down millions of victims as crimes go uninvestigated and unsolved. Today, MPs have the chance to put this right—to put community safety and security before ideology. I commend this motion to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hurd]

I have confirmed that. I acknowledged explicitly, on the record, that that is the one area in which there is clearly a genuine increase. Because the consequences are devastating and it is massively unsettling for people, it is absolutely a top priority for the Home Office and the Government to get on top of it. The action we are taking is in the serious violence strategy which, as I have said, is imminent.

The point I am trying to make is that the Government recognise that there has been a shift in the pattern of demand on the police. We have listened to concerns and responded accordingly, because this is not new. The Prime Minister, who was the previous Home Secretary, recognised that when from 2015, despite the public finances still being in a difficult situation, she led the decision to protect overall police budgets in real terms.

[Naz Shah]

This year marks the 25th anniversary of the death of Stephen Lawrence and 20 years since the launch of the Macpherson inquiry. When she was Home Secretary, the Prime Minister committed to there being a much more diverse workforce. The truth is that the Minister can pick and choose from the numbers that represent how crime is recorded, but he cannot pick and choose the numbers on the diversity of our police forces. What is he going to do to support the Jon Boutchers of this world who are leading on this agenda?

[Mr Hurd]

I could not agree more with the hon. Lady about the importance of that agenda. We police by consent, on the basis of trust. That gets harder if the police are seen to be less and less representative of the communities that they serve. It is a long-standing challenge and I completely agree on that. In fairness to the police, the numbers are the best they have been for a very long time, although they are nowhere near where they need to be, not least in terms of leadership role models. It is an issue not just of retention but of how officers are retained and managed through the system. Where the police are taking positive action—I have sat with the Greater Manchester police sergeant who has led the work—they have really moved the needle. If people apply themselves to this issue, what can be done is really impressive, and it is really not rocket science. I have sat next to the Home Secretary at a roundtable on exactly this subject, and our message to police chiefs is that we need to see much more action. The Greater Manchester chief is bringing a plan to the chiefs on exactly that, to find a gear change on the need to improve the diversity of our police force. It is hugely important to us and, assuming the plan is sensible, we will get right behind it. I thank the hon. Lady for raising that important point.

I was talking about the decision of the current Prime Minister to protect police budgets in real terms from 2015. It means that, in 2017-18, we are spending £12.6 billion of public money on our police system compared with £11.9 billion in 2016—an increase of £700 million. As this shift in demand continues, we have recognised the need to go further. Having done our own demand review—a process in which I spoke to, or visited, every police force in England and Wales—we brought to this House what we believe to be a comprehensive funding settlement for 2018-19 and, for the first time, set a direction of travel for 2019-20. In the debate on the settlement back in December, I made it very clear that the settlement, as always, is a combined contribution from the central taxpayer and the local tax payer. I also made it clear that final numbers depended on how police and crime commissioners responded to their new flexibility in relation to precept.

Following the statistical release from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government this morning, I can now confirm what the funding settlement will deliver in 2018-19, and this is based on now hard information on what PCCs will do. I can confirm that we will see an increase of £282 million in council tax precept funding for police forces next year, and a £460 million increase in total funding. We will publish further information on these revised figures shortly.

I hope that the whole House will welcome confirmation of the increase in funding on the assumptions that we made when the settlement went through Parliament—opposed by Labour. All forces will see their direct resource funding protected in real terms in 2018-19, including council tax precept—opposed by Labour. The proportion of forces’ direct resource funding—grant plus money raised through the precept—will increase slightly in 2018-19, compared with 2017-18. It will increase from 30% to 32%.

I hope that the House will welcome the plans put forward by most PCCs to use the additional precept income to protect or improve frontline policing. For example, we have heard about Essex and about Sussex, but in Kent, the PCC, Matt Scott, has empowered the chief constable to recruit around 200 new officers—the largest recruitment drive in the force for several years. In Nottinghamshire, the PCC aims to increase police officer numbers from 1,840 to around 2,000 over the next two years. In Avon and Somerset, the PCC will recruit 300 new police officers and strengthen neighbourhood policing.

Looking ahead to 2019-20, I indicated our willingness to allow PCCs to increase the precept by a similar amount, subject to progress on some efficiency and productivity milestones that we are agreeing with the police and the PCCs. Let me be clear about the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), because we never hear anything about productivity or efficiency from Labour—[Interruption.] No, we do not. We do not ever hear anything. After all these years of belt tightening and austerity, it is still agreed with the police chiefs that there is still at least an additional £100 million a year of inefficiencies on the table which could be saved through more intelligent procurement. After all this time, there are still those savings on the table, and we will continue to pursue them.

The motion mentions concerns about counter-terrorism funding, and we take those very seriously. The Minister for Security and Economic Crime will directly address them in his wind-up, but we are well aware that the threat that we face from terrorism is becoming more complex and more hidden. Funding for counter-terrorism policing has grown steadily since 2010, and the 2015 spending review and strategic defence and security review protected funding for CT policing until 2020-21.

This year, we have provided £28 million of new money to CT policing, going to forces across the country to meet costs relating to those attacks. Separately, we have also provided £9.8 million in special grant funding to cover the cost of the police response to the Manchester arena attack, and a further £7.6 million in special grant funding to London.

I can also confirm—I hope that the House will welcome it—that we have agreed £1.6 million in special grant funding for Wiltshire police this financial year, and further funding as its investigation continues. It is, of course, critical that we ensure that counter-terrorism policing has the resources needed to deal with the threat that we face. That is why, in 2018-19, the counter-terrorism policing budget will go up by 7%, increasing by £50 million of entirely new money to at least £757 million.

Online Hate Speech

Naz Shah Excerpts

Thursday 30th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Those organisations in no way represent the views of the British people, as we all know. There is always more work to do, and, as he says, the presence of even nine supporters is unwelcome. As has been pointed out several times in the House today, the real danger is increasingly the encouragement of extremist activity online. That is where we are focusing much of our effort, to ensure that it is not allowed to continue.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

In her previous role as Home Secretary, the Prime Minister banned from entering this country individuals who had promoted organisations peddling the hate-filled ideology of fascism. This morning, David Duke, former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, applauded Donald Trump. The New York Times notes:

“No modern American president has promoted inflammatory content of this sort from an extremist organization.”

Not only has the commander-in-tweet done this, but he has defended it, publicly chastising the British Prime Minister for her comments. Putting aside the question of a state visit, should he even be allowed to enter our country? Unprecedented actions require unprecedented responses.

[Amber Rudd]

I point out to the hon. Lady that the Prime Minister has robustly replied to the President and made her views absolutely clear. On the hon. Lady’s other proposal, we do not routinely comment on individual exclusion cases.

Health, Social Care and Security

Naz Shah Excerpts

Wednesday 28th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

I thank the people of Bradford West for re-electing me and putting their faith in me by sending me back to the House. I want to echo the words of many of my colleagues over the last two weeks and pay tribute to all the victims affected by the horrible acts of violence we have seen. I also pay tribute to our emergency service personnel and the tremendous job they do for us on a daily basis.

In the Queen’s Speech last week we got the first glimpse of the Government’s proposal to have a commission on counter-extremism. Although we will all be interested to see the make-up of the commission and more about the proposal, I cannot help but feel that it may be a way for the Government to devolve responsibility for some of the more difficult decisions that need to be made and more difficult questions that need to be answered.

As we move further into the space of what the Government term “non-violent extremism”, I urge that any proposal ensures that the 15 points raised by David Anderson QC in his 2015 annual report are fully considered. They form a very sound basis on which to assess the reasonableness of such a move. Given that the Government are still falling short of finding a full and encompassing legal definition of extremism or hate speech, the further attachment of counter-terrorism policy to safeguarding, community cohesion, integration and thought is an area in which we should tread extremely carefully, with extreme sensitivity and great oversight.

As the Joint Committee on Human Rights said in the previous Parliament, we should legislate only where there is absolute need or a clear gap. However, I have concerns, as do many others, that we are still failing to learn the lessons of our current programmes. Community cohesion cannot be forced from the top down; we need to empower communities to find their own solutions, and Prevent has become toxic. We must protect against the alienation of those who should be most prominent in tackling extreme views. The issue is not just about engaging, but listening to and hearing their concerns: we need to treat them as motivated by our shared goal of a safer, more secure nation.

Here in the UK, Muslim communities have suffered a number of terror attacks and hate crimes: from the brutal murder of Mohammed Saleem and Mohsin Ahmed to the terror attack in Finsbury Park, and from petrol bombs thrown at many mosques to the verbal and physical assaults of Muslims—Muslim women in particular. Let us not pretend that Muslim communities do not share the same goals. Let us work together, incorporating the concerns of all, to build a stronger strategy to keep ourselves safe and secure. The Government still resist a new full and independent review into the successes and failures of the Prevent programme. I call on them to change that position.

We must recognise the need to protect police budgets. Further cuts are simply not sustainable. My region has lost nearly 20% of its police officers and, although the force may be recruiting now, it is still far short of where it once was. Crime is changing, but community policing is essential. It is how we build trust in police forces. Local knowledge is paramount to rooting out extremism. With this must come a renewed commitment to having representative police forces. With the police service only being 5.5% black and minority ethnic, it is still in no way reflective of the communities it serves, and that presents barriers to local engagement.

As the Government propose to introduce a digital charter, I encourage them to revisit the report by the Select Committee on Home Affairs at the end of the last Parliament. During those sessions, it became evident that the large social media companies had failed to tackle the issue of hate and extremist content on their platforms. The charter may be a welcome tool, but we must recognise that regulating online space will present exceptional challenges. The Government should tread extremely carefully, and with extreme sensitivity and great oversight.

Unaccompanied Children (Greece and Italy)

Naz Shah Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) and others on securing this very timely debate.

I speak today not only from a position of experience, having fostered a young Afghan refugee and provided lodgings for a number of refugees who presented without parents, but as an Opposition Member and as a member of the Home Affairs Committee, which only yesterday took evidence from NGOs and senior leaders working in this area. That evidence was very shocking, but the words of the leader of Hammersmith and Fulham Council, Councillor Stephen Cowan, stuck with me. He described to us his understanding of refugee camps in Europe: he described them as

“the closest thing to hell for a child”.

My foster son, Ikram, and other young men have told me many stories to try to make me understand the desperation that they experienced. I do not believe that we can all comprehend what that desperation must feel like. For me, the way to try to understand it was to imagine what it must be like to be in “the closest thing to hell”. What must it be like to be alone, away from everything you have ever known, to wonder whether your family are still alive, to wonder about the things that you have left behind, and still to be so unsure whether there is a light at the end of the tunnel? How must those children feel, to flee one hell for another, to experience hunger, cold, insecurity and potential rape, abuse and exploitation—all against the backdrop of a journey on which many have lost their lives in front of them? This is the reality: this is about people. I stand here today as an extremely blessed individual, knowing that my children are safe—safe from bombs, safe from being shot at, safe from being raped, safe from being exploited and trafficked—but, sadly, that is not the reality for all.

What has been the response of our country, Great Britain, to this crisis? Our Government rightly passed the Dubs amendment, which, unlike other routes, was based not on legality or obligation, but on morality. It was about helping some of the most at-risk and vulnerable children to find safety and security because that was the right thing to do. However, the numbers speak for themselves: just eight children have been transferred from Greece and Italy in the past year, none of them through the Dubs programme. While we all welcome the Government’s other commitments, especially to Syrian aid and the Syrian relocation programme, the Dubs amendment was about much more than that. It was about identifying and supporting the most vulnerable children with no legal route, and transferring them to a place of safety. That the Government should set a timeline now because they say we do not have spaces available is an absolute disgrace.

As we heard yesterday, there is no way we have exhausted our commitment to those immensely vulnerable children who arrived in Europe before 20 March 2016. Councils are coming forward and saying that they still have spaces. By closing that route, we will push the most vulnerable, who have no safe route, back into the hands of those who will exploit and abuse them. That we should simply turn our backs on the Dubs programme now, when we have not transferred even a 10th of the number that was suggested, is beyond belief. If the Government think that the programme provides an incentive for lone children to come to Europe, they clearly have no grasp of the situation that is driving children to make this perilous journey in the first place.

Let me share with the House some of the evidence that was given to us in the Home Affairs Committee. George Gabriel, who established Safe Passage 18 months ago, said:

“From our perspective, particularly in Greece, the case for continued and rolling provision around the Dubs amendment is especially compelling. There are 2,300 unaccompanied minors in Greece. Of those 2,300, only 1,256 have spaces in any Government shelter, so just over 1,000 are street homeless. We estimate that about 48% of those 2,300 have no family link anywhere else in Europe, and so in the broadest brush strokes might be eligible for transfer under the provisions of the Dubs amendment.

We took a sample of 128 of those children in Athens over the past couple of weeks. Of 128, 64 were identified as at risk of sexual abuse, 8% had themselves been trafficked and 19% had post-traumatic stress disorder, so we are extremely concerned about the situation of those children. Clearly, there is a greater need than is to be met through the remaining places offered by the Government. We think that the idea that Sir Nicholas Winton managed to transfer 669 children essentially on his own, and that he topped the efforts of our entire country, is shameful and a mistaken choice.”

We also heard:

“The French agencies we work with report that about 7,900 people were transferred from Calais to reception centres all across France. The total figure for children at that point of demolition was about 2,200.”

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech. Does she agree that the attitude and language of many in the Government— although not all Conservatives, as we have heard some good speeches from the Conservative Benches—is completely wrong? My right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond), who is not in his place, made the point at the beginning of the refugee crisis that this is an opportunity to take child refugees and develop them for the rest of the world.

[Naz Shah]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I absolutely agree.

Lily Caprani, deputy executive director of UNICEF, had this to say on the business model of trafficking:

“There is one way to destroy the business model and that is to provide safe and legal routes to children. They turn to people traffickers when they have no other option. For obvious reasons there are many ways to prevent children being vulnerable to an interest in paying smugglers or in trafficking—which is often what happens after smuggling becomes unaffordable from countries of origin—which is to do with investing our development assistance money, which we do very well in this country, to prevent children being in that position in the first place. Once children have arrived in Europe, we know, they will only turn to traffickers when there is no system working for them and when they have lost faith and hope, have been let down, do not feel able to trust the advice they are getting or do not have any advice whatever. George made a very strong point earlier on. The cancellation of the Dubs scheme is a good win for the people traffickers—there is money to be made, because children will try to get to their families or to places of safety one way or another.”

To me, what this comes down to is the fact that we have a choice between doing something and doing nothing. We will never grasp or comprehend the lack of choices that these children have. I say this to the Government: “Commit. Commit to what we actually pass in this House. Don’t just pay it lip service. Don’t just change direction and say, ‘This programme will continue as it is,’ because turning our back on the 90% of children that we committed to help is beyond a disgrace.” What we have done was not enough then, and it is not enough now, and we must do more.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Prevent Strategy

Naz Shah Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I congratulate the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) on securing the debate. It is interesting to follow two colleagues from the Home Affairs Committee; we took a lot of evidence on the subject last year and produced a report. I am sure my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) will also give his version of events.

Headlines about Prevent have included “Prevent will have a chilling effect on open debate, free speech and political dissent”; “Oxford University vice-chancellor says Prevent strategy ‘wrong-headed’”; “Instead of fighting terror, Prevent is creating a climate of fear”; and “Human rights group condemns Prevent anti-radicalisation strategy”. It is not a matter of one newspaper article getting things wrong. They are not reports from the Daily Mail, otherwise known as the “Daily Fail”, about radicalisation and the Prevent strategy going wrong. They are reports derived from academics. People have written to the Home Secretary or the Government expressing concern about how the strategy is implemented.

Some 60% of my constituents are of black and minority ethnic heritage, and the majority are Muslims, but we have not got things as wrong in Bradford West as they are nationally. We have a better middle ground, and some really good conversations are happening. However, the overall consensus among Muslim communities nationally is that Prevent stigmatises them. I accept the view of the hon. Member for Gower (Byron Davies) that it is successful, but only in part. I accept that there are instances in which Prevent has prevented radicalisation. For every article against it, there is always one for it. However, it must be acknowledged that its implementation has created a “them and us” situation between the Government and the Muslim community. That is a fact. I can give a list as long as my arm of incidents in which people say they have been stigmatised.

Research evidence shows that Prevent has had a particularly acute effect on children. An average of one child under 10 is referred every day. I accept that the referrals are voluntary, but as for four-year olds being involved, I am the mother of a five-year-old, and when he has a tantrum or a paddy it is very extreme, but that does not mean he is on the slippery slope to extremism. Children are children. Yes, we have different ways of running our households, but religious conservatism does not result in extremism. We need to make that point, and it must be acknowledged in the House.

Although I am a critic of the implementation of Prevent, it is clear to me that we need a prevention strategy. When the Home Secretary appeared before the Home Affairs Committee on the previous occasion—not yesterday—she said that we needed to talk Prevent up. Unfortunately I cannot commit to talking it up when it fails to acknowledge the “them and us” that its implementation has created between the Muslim community and the Government. The architect of Prevent, Sir David Omand, observed that the “key issue” was whether most people in the community accepted Prevent “as protective of their rights”. He said:

“If the community sees it as a problem, then you have a problem.”

The Muslim community sees Prevent as a problem.

No one, including the Muslim community, is saying we do not need a Prevent strategy. We absolutely do; we must provide safeguards. I do not know what my now nearly teenage daughter will be doing in her bedroom; the way people are radicalised in the majority of cases is online. However, we need to educate people, including parents, and put safeguarding measures in place.

More than 80% of Channel referrals end in no further action. What does that say about them? The majority of the children referred happen to be Muslim. I met a young boy from Luton who was campaigning on issues to do with Palestine and Gaza. He was referred to Channel just because he was passionate about those issues. We have damped down debate in universities and colleges, where people dare not use the word “terrorism”. A GP I know said in the roundtable referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), “When my child comes home, every day he sees terrorism on the TV”—whether it is the Paris attack, Tunisia or anywhere else in the world, such as Quebec recently. She said, “I dare not have the conversation with him in case he goes back and discusses it in school. If someone does not know how to respond to my child, he might be on the next referral to Channel.” Those are real concerns; they are not made up. I accept that there are organisations that would have issues no matter what the strategy was replaced by, but the young people of Bradford gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee and said there is a “them and us” situation, and we must respond to that.

I ask the Minister whether the Government will publish their internal review of the Contest counter-terrorism strategy. Will they accept the advice in the independent review of terrorism legislation by David Anderson, QC, and establish an independent inquiry into the operation and effectiveness of the Prevent strategy? By the Government’s own figures 80% of referrals to the Channel programme between 2007 and 2014 were set aside. Will they publish comprehensive data disaggregated by age, gender, location, ethnicity, type of referring authority and type of extremism of the people who have been referred to the Prevent programme, and the outcomes? Without such transparency the Muslim community will rightly continue to view Prevent through a lens of suspicion.

Oral Answers to Questions

Naz Shah Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Security (Mr Ben Wallace)]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that counter-terrorism is always ongoing. In 2015, under the strategic defence and security review we committed to updating the CONTEST review, the strategy to deal with counter-terrorism both here and abroad, and I can inform my hon. Friend that that update will be published soon. In addition, the Government have committed to increasing by 30% in real terms funding to counter-terrorism in the lifetime of this Parliament.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

T9. In 2016 Bradford university, which is in my constituency, was listed by The Times among the top 200 most international universities, but has seen its international student numbers fall by nearly 45% since 2010. As my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Christina Rees) has outlined, the benefit that international students bring to cities such as Bradford cannot be overstated. What will the Minister do to reverse this trend and ensure that one of our greatest assets can continue to attract students?

[Amber Rudd]

I share the hon. Lady’s view about the importance of overseas students, particularly perhaps at the University of Bradford. Some universities have seen an increase, some have seen a decrease; we have seen more students coming over from China, fewer from India. This is the market on the move, and I urge the hon. Lady perhaps to work with her university and to come back to us with any suggestions she might have to try to improve the outcome for it.

Immigration Bill

Naz Shah Excerpts

Monday 25th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Two minutes each would be better.

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

This evening, we have had lots of passionate speeches about children from Members on both sides of the House. I will speak about my experience as a former foster carer, and somebody who has provided supported lodgings to minors who have presented themselves unaccompanied. Ikram was 15 when we fostered him in my home and my children were very young, and Hazrat was one of the boys we also looked after.

Hazrat told me in his own words how, when they were trying to get on to the back of a lorry, there was only one space for the two boys who needed it and one killed the other for that space. He witnessed that barbaric act, and he told me about it in person. It will haunt me for the rest of my life. It will haunt me when I look at my children; my daughter was young and I only had two children at the time.

Given the stories that these boys sat down and told us, I cannot begin to imagine the mental health trauma that they went through. Yet these boys wanted to work, to get an education and to leave that behind, so desperate were they to leave the horrors that they experienced while getting to this country for sanctuary. These children did not want to come to this country for our jobs, our benefits or anything else. These children’s mothers told them, “You have a better chance of making it past the traffickers and past the exploitation. You have a better chance of making it outside here, so go, my son, go.” Those were the words their mothers spoke to these young people.

I am proud to come from Bradford West. Bradford is a city of sanctuary, in which 169 organisations have signed up to support refugees and asylum seekers. When the Minister visited, we had a conversation about Bradford being seen as a trailblazer for integrated health and social care, education and so on. Bradford could lead the way, and we would support other areas. The hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst) said that Kent does not get such help, but we would help: Bradford will help.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) said, this amounts to five children per constituency. Is that really an ask? Is a debate about five children per constituency really one we should have to have today? Can Great Britain really not extend such support, as one of the greatest nations on earth? It is a shame if we do not sign up for and accept the Dubs amendment. I will do so, and I would welcome Conservative Members joining us in the Lobby tonight.

[Mr Speaker]

There are two minutes to go.