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

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Blomfield]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and I will make sure to see the film.

The point was driven home by a detainee who said to us:

“The uncertainty is hard to bear. Your life is in limbo. No one tells you anything about how long you will stay or if you are going to get deported.”

Medical experts told us that that sense of being in limbo—of hopelessness and despair—leads to deteriorating mental health. One expert from the Helen Bamber Foundation told us that those who are detained for more than 30 days, which is relevant to the limit we are looking for, had significantly higher levels of mental health problems.

New clause 1 would have an impact beyond those who are detained. A team leader from the prisons inspectorate told us that the lack of time limit encourages poor caseworking in the Home Office. He said that a quarter of the cases of prolonged detention it had considered were a result of inefficient caseworking.

Prolonged detention does not happen because it is inappropriate for people to be released. Despite these places being called immigration removal centres, we have found—everybody needs to focus on this fact—that most people are released from detention for reasons other than being removed from the UK. They are released back into the community.

The system is not only bad for those who are involved, but expensive, as my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton pointed out. The recommendation in new clause 1 for a maximum time limit to be set in statute is about not simply righting the wrong of indefinite detention, but changing the culture that is endemic in the system.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I commend my hon. Friend on his speech; he is demolishing the case for indefinite detention. Does he agree that it is not just about the welfare of the individuals involved—although, clearly, the limbo they have been left in is unacceptable—but about improving the way that the Home Office works?

[Paul Blomfield]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Although that was not the reason why we conducted the inquiry, it became clear through the inquiry that there would be significant benefits in terms of the Home Office’s operation, as well as cost and compliance, which I will come to. Those benefits underlined the recommendation, which had initially been driven by common humanity and the way the system operates.

In trying to change the culture that is endemic in the system, we are trying to meet the aims of the Home Office’s own guidance, with detention used more sparingly and only as a genuine last resort. The proposed time limit is 28 days, which reflects best practice in other countries and is workable for the Home Office. Home Office guidance describes detention as being for imminent removal and defines “imminent” as four weeks—that is, 28 days. That is the recommendation of the report and the principle behind new clause 1.

Deprivation of liberty should not be a decision taken lightly or arbitrarily. Currently, decisions are taken by relatively junior Home Office officials, with no automatic judicial oversight. Without a time limit, it simply becomes too easy for people to be detained for months on end with no meaningful way of challenging continued detention.

The introduction of a time limit and the reduction in reliance on detention would be a significant change because, to detain fewer people for shorter periods, the Government would need to introduce a wider range of community-based alternatives. It was interesting to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe talk about Australia, which is often seen as a hard-line country on immigration. Some of the detention practices there are abhorrent, but there is wider use of community-based alternatives to detention than in the UK. I appreciate that the Home Office is running a pilot about that—as I said earlier, I met the right hon. Member for Meriden and the Minister, and we had a really useful discussion—and I am certainly convinced that it is putting genuine effort into developing community-based alternatives in a thoughtful way.

There is a precedent in the UK. When the coalition Government committed to reducing the number of children detained, they introduced a family returns process, which the House of Commons Library described as intended

“to encourage refused families to comply with instructions to depart from the UK at an earlier stage, such as by giving them more control over the circumstances of their departure.”

It worked; there was a dramatic fall in the number of children detained, and the Home Office’s own evaluation of the scheme found that most families complied with the process, with no increase in absconding.

In conclusion, I quote Nick Hardwick, who was Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons at the time of our inquiry. After he made an unannounced inspection of Yarl's Wood, he said that

“well-respected bodies have recently called for time limits on administrative detention…In my view, the rigorously evidenced concerns we have identified in this inspection provide strong support for these calls, and a strict time limit must now be introduced on the length of time that anyone can be administratively detained.”

In supporting new clause 1, we are not proposing to end indefinite administrative detention simply because that would be the just and humane thing to do—although, for goodness’ sake, that is a good enough reason—but because it would be less expensive, improve procedures in the Home Office and be more effective in securing compliance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I suspect that she is correct that, ultimately, we might decide this matter on the Floor of the House. It is important that we reflect carefully on the evidence and weigh our own practical and legal considerations. While I am as one with Stephen Shaw when he makes his commentary on 28 days, I have heard representations from Members in this Committee and more widely as well. We have heard reference to my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden, who has been forceful on this issue, and to the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who had me before her Committee towards the tail end of last year. We had a useful and constructive conversation around detention.

It is well documented and reported in the media how much I enjoy a Select Committee appearance—that one I actually did. I felt it was constructive, Members had given the issue significant thought, and we had a constructive conversation. I am aware of the amendment tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham that has been supported by many Members from this side of the House with much enthusiasm and determination.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The argument the Minister is using is about the length of time and the limit. Can we take it from her that she is not opposed to the principle of having a limit, even though there may be debate about its length?

[Caroline Nokes]

The debate is ongoing. Members have made some forceful arguments in favour of a limit and, in the Home Office, we have considered reflecting on those very carefully indeed.

Immigration and Social Security Coordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Seventh sitting)

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Thursday 28th February 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 5, page 4, line 21, at end insert—

“(11) The power to make regulations under subsection (1) may not be used to make regulations removing Title I, Title II or Chapter 1 of Title III of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004.”

This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from making regulations which might remove the ability of British citizens and EEA nationals to aggregate pension rights and social security benefits.

Good morning, Mr Stringer. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again.

The amendment is intended to limit the extent to which the Government can make changes to social security provision by delegated legislation after Brexit. I place on the record my thanks to the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, to British in Europe and to Justice, whose evidence I drew on heavily for this amendment.

By virtue of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, EU regulations relating to social security co-ordination —the so-called co-ordination regulations—will be converted into domestic law on exit day. The co-ordination regulations provide a reciprocal framework to protect the social security rights of people moving between European economic area states.

The co-ordination regulations do not create a single, harmonised system of social security benefits, nor do they guarantee a general right to such benefits. Instead, they ensure that individuals who move to another EEA state are covered by the social security legislation of only one country at a time and are therefore liable to make contributions only in one country; that a person will have the same rights and obligations of the member state in which they are covered, under the equality principle in social security co-ordination; that periods of insurance, employment or residence in other member states can be taken into account when determining a person’s eligibility for benefits, under the concept of aggregation; and that a person can receive benefits to which they are entitled from one member state even if they are resident in another. Those features are important for labour mobility and as a simple matter of equity, because people who have worked and contributed have a reasonable expectation of entitlement to the social security benefits that they have paid in for. I am concerned that clause 5 could be used to undermine those legitimate expectations.

The co-ordination regulations cover only social security benefits that provide cover against certain categories of social risk, such as sickness, maternity, paternity, unemployment and old age. Some non-contributory benefits fall within the regulations, but cannot be exported. Benefits that are categorised as social and medical assistance are not covered at all; my understanding is that they include universal credit, even though universal credit contains some contributory elements, so I ask the Minister in passing whether he might like to use clause 5 to address that apparent injustice.

The co-ordination regulations also confer on those who have a European health insurance card a right to access medically necessary state-provided healthcare during a temporary stay in any other EEA state. The home member state is normally required to reimburse the host country for the cost of the treatment. Will the Minister place on the record the Government’s intentions in relation to the European health insurance card, both in the event of no deal and in the post-transition period if a Brexit deal is negotiated?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

The issue of European health insurance is one that many people have raised concerns about. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be good to hear something very definitive from the Minister today to put those concerns about uncertainty at rest?

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

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Thursday 28th February 2019 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 36—Legal Aid—

“(1) The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 is amended in accordance with subsection 2.

(2) In Schedule 1, paragraph 30, after sub-paragraph (d), insert—

‘(e) The Immigration and Social Security (EU Withdrawal) Act 2019.’”

This new clause would allow individuals to seek legal aid in order to obtain advice on right to enter and remain under this Act.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I rise to speak to amendment 21 and to support new clause 36—after a brief difference of opinion this morning, it is nice to be back on the same side as the SNP.

Rights mean very little without the means to enforce them. The amendment would put in place a provision regarding legal aid, without which we say the repeal of the retained EU law relating to free movement should not happen. In other words, clause 1 would come into force only in the circumstances set out in the amendment.

Let me say briefly about the EU settlement scheme that the provision of a right to appeal and the legal aid necessary to enforce it would remove any uncertainty about whether there was scrutiny of those decisions. The complexity of the scheme means that errors may well be made, and a right of appeal is the optimum way to secure legal entitlements.

Returning specifically to the amendment, cuts to legal aid are a huge issue for enforcement, but they are also a potential problem with respect to the lawyer who eventually has a case. That is not to suggest that junior lawyers and fee earners in some lower categories do not do an excellent job. They do, but it obviously cannot be fair for a more junior lawyer, or a lawyer without the requisite expertise, to end up taking a case simply on the basis of the money available, without regard to the necessary experience and expertise.

Cost is a huge problem. The withdrawal of legal aid means that, to get before a tribunal with a robust bundle of evidence that gives them some chance of being granted an appeal, people often have to find thousands of pounds—£1,000, £2,000 or perhaps even £3,000. That is the cost simply for getting a bundle of evidence together to go before a tribunal, before even considering whether there is a remote chance of success. All too often, people just cannot afford that.

The amendment, which relates to new clause 36, specifically seeks the provision of legal aid to assist European economic area and Swiss nationals with immigration matters. The context for the amendment is the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which, on the commencement of its civil legal aid provisions on 1 April 2013, largely removed non-asylum immigration advice and representation from the scope of legal aid in England and Wales. Clearly, the ending of rights by clause 1 and schedule 1 will significantly extend the impact of the legal aid cuts made by the 2012 Act by fully subjecting EEA and Swiss nationals and their family members to the immigration system and requiring them to have leave to enter or remain in the UK.

Complexity is not the only reason why the general removal of legal aid for immigration advice and representation is of profound concern. I am grateful to Amnesty International for its thorough briefing, which sets out its concerns. The reality is that substantial evidential hurdles exist for anyone who is seeking to establish rights to private and family life in the UK and measures for the best interests of children. Even if someone who is representing themselves—a litigant in person—understands relevant legal requirements and procedures, they will still have to assess, collect and present the evidence that is required to demonstrate that the rules and other requirements are met. The issue is not only that it is a daunting task and prohibitively expensive, but that the tribunal system is simply not set up to help someone in that situation. Worse still, it is a false economy, because there is no doubt whatever that the provision of a lawyer who is expert in the field will speed up the proceedings, as opposed to the proceedings being slowed down because a number of people have to represent themselves before the tribunal.

The Government have said that they wish to avoid another Windrush scandal. In that case, they would do well to accept this amendment. I should just draw attention to the fact that I was a practising barrister before I entered Parliament and I remain a non-practising barrister. For completeness, I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in that regard. I urge the Minister to accept the amendment.

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

I will speak to new clause 36, but I also fully support everything that the hon. Member for Torfaen has said about amendment 21. I can be very brief, given what he has said. As was revealed earlier, I used to practise as an immigration lawyer; this was a decade ago. Back then, the immigration rules were horrendously complex, but since then there have been hundreds of changes to the immigration rules and they have multiplied in size. I cannot remember what the figure is, but the appendices have just about every letter of the alphabet in their title. The system is ludicrously complex. The issue is not just that the rules are complicated; as we have heard, the evidential requirements are also incredibly complicated.

It is easy enough to say that we hope the settled status scheme is not too complicated, but that is not an end to the matter. It will be complicated for many people to access. People also have to make decisions and understand whether they actually need to apply, and that could be hugely complicated for some people. Some people will not be sure whether they have British nationality. Some people will not understand whether their right to permanent residence under existing EU law means that they do or do not need to apply. There is the situation of Irish citizens, for example, in Northern Ireland. All sorts of people are already asking questions about how this system applies to them. It is not a straightforward matter.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

It is fair to say that MPs can provide some basic help, but they are not immigration lawyers. All hon. Members have to be cautious to ensure that they do not hand out legal advice. A Member might be approached, for example, by someone who is entitled to British citizenship or to register as a British citizen. To set them off down the route of applying for settled status would be to do them a disservice. We have to be very careful. Although the settled status scheme in itself might appear to be reasonably straightforward, that is not the end of the matter.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I would make two points in response to the suggestion that has been made. First, no one should be giving uninsured legal opinions—obviously, that is what a lawyer would have—and, secondly, we are surely not saying that as a consequence of all the legal aid cuts that have been made, Members of Parliament should be picking up the slack when they are not trained to do so.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Absolutely. Another thing that I will say to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan is that, thankfully, one benefit of devolution—all those who were opposing devolution earlier should take note—is that people can choose a different path, and in Scotland we have not implemented LASPO. I think that LASPO is one of the most outrageous Acts of Parliament to have gone through this place. Thankfully, in Scotland, people will still be able to obtain immigration advice through legal aid. I strongly urge the hon. Gentleman to use that, rather than potentially getting himself into trouble if he makes mistakes with his immigration advice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

I emphasise the points that I made following the publication of the net migration statistic. A significant proportion of the increase that we have seen is made up of students coming from outside the EU, including significant increases in the numbers of Indian and Chinese students coming to our world-class universities. The hon. Gentleman will know that there is no limit to the number of tier 4 visas that we are happy to issue to genuine students and, in the case of universities, there has been a 10% increase in the past year. That puts the figure in the region of 26% higher than in 2010-11.

In addition—this is very topical in the context of this amendment, since we are discussing health; I am sure this gets me back in order, Sir David—the hon. Gentleman will remember that in July of last year, we lifted the cap on doctors and nurses being able to come in under the tier 2 regulations. There has been a significant increase in the number of doctors and nurses—those working in the health sector—making applications under that system. While I acknowledge the importance of working hard to make sure that we have adequate numbers of UK-trained doctors and nurses, that was a very popular move. It was impressed on us, not only by many political parties but by those in the professions, that it was important that we lift the cap on tier 2 visas for those who work in the NHS.

EEA and Swiss nationals and their family members who are, or become, ordinarily resident in the UK are currently fully entitled to free NHS care, in the same way as a British citizen who is ordinarily resident. That position will not change, regardless of whether the UK leaves the EU with or without a deal. The Government are also currently working to reach agreement at EU level, or through agreements with relevant member states, to continue the reciprocal healthcare arrangements that are already in place and are so beneficial to UK and EU nationals alike while we negotiate our future relationship. We are making progress: we have already agreed reciprocal arrangements with Switzerland, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway. Those arrangements safeguard healthcare for the hundreds of thousands of UK nationals who live and work in EU countries, or who require emergency medical treatment each year while on holiday in Europe. They also ensure that EU citizens who are not ordinarily resident in the UK—primarily those on holiday—can receive reciprocal healthcare here.

It is also worth reflecting on the fact that both health and charging for health services are devolved matters. With the exception of new clause 42, these amendments seek to amend devolved health policy. However, the health Ministries in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and the Department of Health and Social Care in England are responsible for setting their own charging policy and making their own regulations.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am glad that the Minister has come to the topic of devolution of the health service in Wales. It was, of course, somebody Welsh who founded the national health service—Aneurin Bevan—and on the subject of health tourism, which has been raised by the hon. Member for Lewes, Aneurin Bevan said:

“One of the consequences of the universality of the British Health Service is the free treatment of foreign visitors. This has given rise to a great deal of criticism, most of it ill-informed and some of it deliberately mischievous…The fact is, of course, that visitors to Britain subscribe to the national revenues as soon as they start consuming”.

This was, he said, an area in which

“generosity and convenience march together.”

Is that not true?

[Caroline Nokes]

I am not going to criticise the founder of the national health service, who made a huge contribution to our national life in so doing, but it is important to reflect on the fact that in successive general elections people have supported the principle that those who are here on temporary visas should contribute. As I was saying, the devolved authorities do of course have the ability to set their own charging policies and make their own regulations.

Draft Law Enforcement and Security (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2019 General Committees

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I want to make it clear that the Opposition do not oppose these regulations or the aim of having a functioning statute book without prejudicing the outcome of the negotiations. I will, however, make a number of observations on the regulations and on the wider security position with regard to our exit from the European Union. I hope that the Minister will be able to comment on them.

The UK participates in about 40 European Union measures that are meant to enhance security, law enforcement and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. They are very important tools, as is our participation in security-related EU regulatory systems. As the Minister has set out, the regulations essentially do three things. First, they seek to revoke or amend retained EU law that is directly applicable to our current domestic legislation. Secondly, they try to deal with a situation in which we would have a live case that has not been completed at the point of exit. That is a particular concern with regard to data: what would be the status of data that we held without a legal means to continue to hold it?

Thirdly, there is the issue of extradition. The Minister has referred to the 1957 Council of Europe convention on extradition, which, according to the explanatory memorandum accompanying the regulations, would be used

“in lieu of the European Arrest Warrant”,

but this is undoubtedly a far more limited measure than the European arrest warrant. It is clear from part 14 of the instrument that the UK and the EU would allow EU extradition requests from other member states in lieu of the European arrest warrant.

Paragraph 3 of article 2 of the convention itself states:

“Any Contracting Party whose law does not allow extradition for certain of the offences referred to in paragraph 1 of this article may, in so far as it is concerned, exclude such offences from the application of this Convention.”

In other words, an EU member state is required to surrender a wanted individual only if there is dual criminality across the two jurisdictions. That would be an important restriction on the regulations, and I would like confirmation that the Home Office is seized of it and an explanation of what it would do to plug that gap.

The Government’s own advice, as set out in the explanatory memorandum, states:

“In 2017/18, the UK arrested over 1,400 individuals on the basis of European Arrest Warrants…issued by the other 27 EU Member States. In the same period, EU Member States arrested 183 individuals on the basis of EAWs issued by the UK.”

It is a very important tool, and there will be practical consequences if the necessary measures are not in place.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

We will not vote against these regulations, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that they do not replace the fundamentally important European arrest warrant? The warrant has assisted constituents of mine, including the family of Lisa Brown in the Vale of Leven. Her mother was buried only last week, and Lisa is missing and presumed to have been murdered by a UK national. We used a European arrest warrant to get him from Denmark to Spain.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, who is absolutely right. Although the Opposition do not oppose the narrowness of the regulations, there is a whole host of wider issues relating to security capacity. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the importance of the European arrest warrant mechanism, which has clearly been very important in the situation to which he referred. There is real concern about the potential state of uncertainty, and we need clarity about the impact of different outcomes on our security.

On “The Andrew Marr Show” on 3 February, the Home Secretary refused to dispute claims made by Sir John Sawers, the former head of MI6, that

“the harder the Brexit, the greater the damage,”

and by Neil Basu, the head of counter-terrorism policing at the Metropolitan police, that a no-deal Brexit would be

“a very serious flaw in our security arrangements.”

When pressed, the Home Secretary conceded only that there would be “a change in capability” and that

“most of these capabilities were only relevant for us from 2015 onwards.”

Yet it is clear, even from these regulations, that there is a loss of access to databases. I will come back to that issue.

There is lack of clarity in both the regulations and the explanatory memorandum, which states:

“The practical impact of a ‘no-deal’ exit on security, law enforcement and criminal justice cooperation with EU Member States is outside the scope of the provisions found in this instrument.”

That may be technically correct, but the Government need to set out what they plan to do to at least maintain our security capacity through co-operation with the EU27, and how they propose to build on it. I have read the Government’s assessment of the security partnership. It is a list of ambitions, but there is very little in the way of practical proposals to achieve them.

Quick access to information and co-ordinated work across borders is vital to our security, and there is a Europe-wide interest in working together to keep all our peoples safe. In their negotiations thus far, the Government have failed to get the Schengen information system—SIS II—and the European criminal record information system included in the political declaration. As I have indicated, this instrument would actually revoke access to databases such as Prüm and SIS II.

Similarly, the Government’s current promise to

“establish effective arrangements based on streamlined procedures and time limits”

is insufficient for the UK to maintain the benefits of the European arrest warrant. As I have said, reliance on the 1957 Council of Europe convention on extradition will not have the same effect, because it does not have the same capacity as the European arrest warrant.

Similarly, the Government have not identified exactly what our crucial relationship with Europol and Eurojust will be. To say that they are still working on the terms of co-operation is not good enough—it is nearly three years since the 2016 referendum.

Although the Opposition do not oppose the narrow measures in these regulations to have a functioning statute book on exit day, the Government have to focus on the vital issue of security co-operation and come up with workable solutions to maintain that level of co-operation, rather than allow that capability to be diminished.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hurd]

I thank both main Opposition spokesmen for their constructive and thoughtful approach to the regulations. They understand them for what they are, which is narrow in scope and design in order to ensure that we have a fully functioning, effective and relevant statute book in a scenario in which we do not expect or want to be.

The main thrust of the argument from the hon. Member for Torfaen takes me away from the narrow scope of the regulations, but I am happy to follow him because the context of this Committee is one of debate and discussion about the way through on Brexit. On no deal, I have been clear to the Select Committee on Home Affairs and others, as has the Home Secretary, that in a no-deal scenario, which we want to avoid, we will fall back on contingency arrangements. They are relatively low-risk, in that they exist and have been tested, but they are not as good as what we have at the moment. That is just fact.

On the European arrest warrant in particular, we will be forced to fall back on slower and clunkier processes, which are therefore sub-optimal. There is no sugar coating that, which is why we want to avoid that scenario. For context, the point that the Home Secretary made—I have said the same myself—is that although we may lose some capability on day one, we can rebuild that over time through bilateral relationships. On day one, however, there is no doubt at all that we will lose some capability.

It is important to note, however, that some of the most significant capabilities have come on-stream relatively quickly. SIS II went live in 2015 and the passenger name record directive went live in 2016, and I do not remember Ministers of previous Governments claiming that the country was unsafe before they came into force. They are good instruments; they work and are embedded into our systems, and with our European partners we have spent years developing such platforms and tools together. We do not want to fall back on the contingency arrangements, but we have to plan for a no-deal scenario.

On the ongoing security partnership, my reading of the political declaration is that nothing is taken off the table. I understand and believe strongly that for any Government the security of the public is the No. 1 priority. The underlying data of all those instruments—the European arrest warrant, Europol, SIS II—shows that the UK’s contribution to their success is fundamental. We are the second biggest contributor of data to Europe. When the Home Secretary and I meet Interior Ministers and counterparts in Europe, as we have done regularly over the past few months, I am very clear and they are extremely clear about the mutual interest in not losing the exchange of data.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I have met Rob Wainwright, who was the director of Europol, and heard about its excellent work. I do not think there is any doubt about the UK’s contribution to that agency and other areas. The issues regarding Europol, however, relate to third-country status and the level of access and quick access. There should be a focus on finding a practical solution to prevent our capability from being diminished.

[Mr Hurd]

I could not agree more. That is not nailed down; it is still open to negotiation. The point I am labouring is that when seeking a deal, one looks for the levels of mutual interest in securing that deal. Security co-operation is arguably the area where the mutual interest is clearest, because we have constructed those tools and platforms and they work in large part because of the UK contribution.

I am as clear as I can be that our European partners, at the Interior Minister level at least, are very keen to maintain the status quo as far as possible. The related political reality is that our status will change once we leave the European Union, but I am clear that as far as possible, the intention, both from our end of the pipe and that of our colleagues in Interior Ministries across Europe, is to end up in a place where we have very similar capabilities to those we have at the moment. That is the underlying objective for the security partnership.

Question put and agreed to.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Home Secretary for his remarks, and I thank him for the letter he sent to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), the shadow Home Secretary, setting out his decision. I welcome his remarks about the banning of aliases in addition to principal names.

I make it clear from the outset that the Opposition will not be opposing the motion before the House tonight but, as I am sure the Home Secretary would appreciate and fully expect, I will be scrutinising his decisions. Section 3(5) of the Terrorism Act 2000 sets out the parameters of what is deemed to be an organisation concerned in terrorism, which are that it

“commits or participates in acts of terrorism, prepares for terrorism, promotes or encourages terrorism, or is otherwise concerned in terrorism.”

I will touch briefly on each of the organisations mentioned by the Home Secretary.

First, from the information provided by the Home Secretary, Jamaat Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin—otherwise referred to as JNIM—was established in March 2017 as a federation of al-Qaeda-aligned groups and has operations in northern and central Mali, northern Burkina Faso and western Niger. It has claimed responsibility, as he set out, for a number of atrocities from 18 June 2017 to 29 June 2018.

Secondly, Ansaroul Islam announced its existence in December 2016, and its overarching aim is to establish dominance in northern Burkina Faso and central Mali. It has claimed responsibility for an appalling attack on an army outpost in Burkina Faso that killed at least 12 soldiers. The Home Secretary was clear in his letter that Ansaroul Islam seeks to eradicate the Burkinabe state presence from Burkina Faso’s northern regions.

Thirdly, the Home Secretary has indicated that Hezbollah will now be proscribed in its entirety. Indeed, he gave a brief history. The then Labour Government proscribed its external security organisation in 2001, and its military apparatus was proscribed in 2008.

The Home Secretary rightly said that these orders have never been opposed by any Opposition, and the order will not be opposed tonight. I told the House last year:

“The Opposition absolutely condemn the violence, and we continue to support the proscription of the military wing of Hezbollah, which has been the Government’s position.”—[Official Report, 25 January 2018; Vol. 635, c. 506.]

I was clear in that condemnation then, and I am again now.

[Theresa Villiers]

Does the Labour Front Bench support the proscription of Hezbollah in its entirety?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I have just set out the position: we are not opposing the motion. What I am seeking to do is to scrutinise the Government’s position, which is perfectly reasonable.

[Anna Soubry (Broxtowe) (Ind)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will make some progress, but I will come back to the right hon. Lady.

The Home Secretary stated in his letter to the shadow Home Secretary:

“Hizballah, as a political entity in Lebanon has won votes in legitimate elections and forms part of the Lebanese Government. It has the largest non-state military force in the country.”

In last January’s debate, the Security Minister said:

“We believe that the best way to weaken Hezbollah in the region and further afield is to have a strong state of Lebanon. The stronger the state of Lebanon, which represents multi-faith groups, has a democracy and Speakers of Parliament and recognises the individual religious minorities in the country, the weaker Hezbollah will be. It is not in our interests to have a weak, fractured Lebanon.” —[Official Report, 25 January 2018; Vol. 635, c. 512.]

He is of course correct about that.

I totally appreciate the strong views on this matter, and it has previously been the view of the Foreign Office for many years that the proscription of the political wing, which is part of the elected Lebanese Government, would make it difficult to maintain normal diplomatic relations with Lebanon or to work with the Government there on humanitarian issues, including those facing Syrian refugees in part of the country controlled by Hezbollah. The Home Secretary said in his remarks about ongoing diplomatic engagement with the Government of Lebanon that he would be looking at whether it is compliant with the order. I would appreciate him setting out in more detail how that engagement is to continue.

[Joan Ryan (Enfield North) (Ind)]

I just wanted to say to Opposition Front Benchers that British officials can still meet their Lebanese counterparts. As the Home Secretary will perhaps confirm a little later, the explanatory notes to the Terrorism Act 2000 clarify that the arrangement of “genuinely benign meetings” with proscribed groups is permitted. Such meetings are interpreted as those at which the terrorist activities of the group are not promoted or encouraged, for example, a meeting designed to encourage a designated group to engage in a peace process. I think that covers the point that the hon. Gentleman has just made.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am very grateful for the intervention and I am sure the Home Secretary will come back to that in due course. The reason I raised the issue of proscription—

[Robert Halfon]

rose—

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I will finish the point and then come back to the right hon. Gentleman.

We have to make decisions based on clear evidence. I raise that because of course it is for the Home Secretary, on this as with any other proscription decisions of any Government, to demonstrate that their objective, impartial decision is driven by new and clear evidence. I am sure he will be keen to set out that evidence to the House. May I just return to the point made by the by the right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan)? The Security Minister was very clear when we debated this 13 months ago that his concern was that full proscription could lead to a weak and fractured Lebanon. Clearly that cannot be the assessment of the Home Secretary now and it would be useful for the whole House if he were to set out why he thinks that judgment of the Security Minister has changed from last year.

[Robert Halfon]

rose—

[Dr Offord]

rose—

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I promised the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) that I would give way to him.

[Robert Halfon]

Let me just quote what the “Labour spokesman” said, according to today’s newspapers:

“Ministers have not yet provided any clear evidence to suggest”

that there should be a change to proscribing Hezbollah. They then go on to say:

“Decisions on the proscription of organisations as terror groups are supposed to be made on the advice of civil servants based on clear evidence that those organisations fall foul…The Home Secretary must therefore now demonstrate that this decision was taken in an objective and impartial way, and driven by clear and new evidence, not by his leadership ambitions.”

Is that not the wrong way to treat something as serious as this, by turning it into something about party politics? Given that the hon. Gentleman has heard the evidence in the opening speech by my right hon .Friend the Home Secretary, surely he should get up at the Dispatch Box to say that we are right to ban this terrorist organisation from our country.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I just say to the right hon. Gentleman that I am simply asking what has changed, which is not an unreasonable question. Much of the evidence that has been put forward today we heard 13 months ago, and very concerning it is too. However, I am just asking the direct question: what has changed? I do not see it as unreasonable to provide scrutiny of the decision being taken. I will be clear to the Home Secretary—

[Dr Offord]

rose—

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am going to complete this. Throughout my time in this role, I have worked with the Government. I worked with them on the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019, and I think that our working together has enhanced the security of our citizens. What I am doing here at the Dispatch Box today is to scrutinise this decision carefully and hold the Home Secretary to account, which I believe is the role of a responsible Opposition. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Oh, I beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon. My goodness, I thought he was giving way but I am very pleased that he has concluded. There will be a limit on Back-Bench speeches of three minutes.

Immigration and Social Security Coordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 26th February 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Alison McGovern]

I join colleagues in thanking the Clerks and the team for the work they have done. I will make a few remarks, particularly about the economic arguments sometimes made for clause 1. I have no doubt that we will spend much time debating some of these points, but let us start as we mean to go on.

On the timing of the Bill, I profoundly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston. It seems bizarre that anyone would think it acceptable to remove, with one clause of this Bill, an entire set of rights that all citizens in this country enjoy by reciprocity with the European Union, and that European Union citizens enjoy in this country, and to replace them with nothing but the promise of a White Paper. There is no set timescale for the introduction of any new immigration system, so we are saying to people, “All your current rights will be removed and will be replaced at some point in the future. We don’t know when, and we don’t know what the new rights will be, but bear with us while we sort it out.”

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

Can my hon. Friend think of any realistic argument why, given that the Government say they want to guarantee the rights of EU nationals, they would not simply do so now, in clause 1?

[Alison McGovern]

I can think of a reason: because they want to take decisions on these rights based on negotiating interests and the potential gain they might get for their agenda. It seems clear that that has always been the manner in which the rights of EU nationals would be treated. I am afraid warm words are not enough. It is perfectly reasonable—and something I would expect every member of the Committee to be able to do—to say that we personally feel no animus towards EU nationals and that people are welcome in this country. However, it is one thing to say those words and another to do what is necessary to guarantee that they are true. I can think of no reason why the Government would not do as my hon. Friend has suggested.

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

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Alison McGovern]

I join colleagues in thanking the Clerks and the team for the work they have done. I will make a few remarks, particularly about the economic arguments sometimes made for clause 1. I have no doubt that we will spend much time debating some of these points, but let us start as we mean to go on.

On the timing of the Bill, I profoundly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston. It seems bizarre that anyone would think it acceptable to remove, with one clause of this Bill, an entire set of rights that all citizens in this country enjoy by reciprocity with the European Union, and that European Union citizens enjoy in this country, and to replace them with nothing but the promise of a White Paper. There is no set timescale for the introduction of any new immigration system, so we are saying to people, “All your current rights will be removed and will be replaced at some point in the future. We don’t know when, and we don’t know what the new rights will be, but bear with us while we sort it out.”

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

Can my hon. Friend think of any realistic argument why, given that the Government say they want to guarantee the rights of EU nationals, they would not simply do so now, in clause 1?

[Alison McGovern]

I can think of a reason: because they want to take decisions on these rights based on negotiating interests and the potential gain they might get for their agenda. It seems clear that that has always been the manner in which the rights of EU nationals would be treated. I am afraid warm words are not enough. It is perfectly reasonable—and something I would expect every member of the Committee to be able to do—to say that we personally feel no animus towards EU nationals and that people are welcome in this country. However, it is one thing to say those words and another to do what is necessary to guarantee that they are true. I can think of no reason why the Government would not do as my hon. Friend has suggested.

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

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2019 Public Bill Committees

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

The personal assistants employed by disabled people help with tasks such as travel, writing and communications, in addition to providing personal care. They come with a variety of skills, which are very much dependent on the unique needs of the disabled person. They are a growing workforce within the wider social care workforce, particularly as more disabled people live independently and are in need of personalised support to enable them to learn, work and live their own lives.

Personal assistants are partially or wholly funded by the state, either from personal social care budgets or from personal health budgets. Direct payments—personal social care budgets—were first introduced for adults in 1997 by the Community Care (Direct Payments) Act 1996, and for older people in 2000. The Care Act 2014 made it mandatory for local authorities to provide direct payments to individuals who needed and were eligible to receive them.

In 2015, the Department of Health defined a direct payment as follows:

“A payment of money from the local authority to either the person needing care and support, or to someone else acting on their behalf, to pay for the cost of arranging all or part of their own support. This ensures the adult can take full control over their own care.”

That gives considerable discretion to the person in receipt of the budget as to how they deploy it, but many people use it, in whole or in part, to employ a personal assistant to enable them to live an independent life.

After a fairly slow start, the number of people receiving direct payments increased rapidly, from 65,000 in 2008 to 235,000 in 2014. Many of those adults chose directly to employ their own staff rather than use traditional adult social care services. Skills for Care estimates that, by 2016, around 70,000 of the 235,000 adults and older people receiving a direct payment employed their own staff directly, creating around 145,000 personal assistant jobs between them. Until that point, however, relatively little was known about the make-up of that part of the adult social care sector workforce.

Skills for Care has conducted new research into this subject, and we now know that there are approximately 200,000 personal assistants working in the UK. That figure is based on information from the national minimum dataset collected by Skills for Care and on the number of people in England using personal health budgets to employ personal assistants. We also know that, in 2018, 8% of the total social care workforce were non-UK nationals. The exact figures for personal assistants are not known, but it is fair to assume that a similar percentage applies.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I commend my hon. Friend on the speech she is making. Does she agree that, although the issue of personal assistants is important, there is the wider issue of the impact on the care sector as a whole of a minimum threshold of £30,000 per annum?

[Kate Green]

Indeed I do. Research by Global Future, for example, points starkly to the gap in the social care workforce today, the growth of that gap as a consequence of demographic change, and the potential implications of the proposals in the Government’s White Paper. I will say a little more about that in a moment, and colleagues may wish to expand on it, too.

In respect of personal assistants, if we assume that the percentage of that workforce mirrors that of the social care workforce as a whole, we could assume that perhaps 7,000 to 10,000 are non-UK nationals, including European economic area nationals. That covers only personal assistants employed to provide social care; I have no information on the breakdown by nationality of personal assistants employed by holders of personal health budgets. However, there are a total of 42,000 personal assistants employed by holders of personal health budgets, which might suggest, if the proportion of non-UK nationals is similar to that in social care, a further 3,000 to 4,000 people.

My amendment seeks to address the concern about the ongoing ability of disabled people to recruit this important workforce after Brexit if the proposals in the Minister’s White Paper, particularly those relating to the salary threshold, came into effect. Wherever personal assistants are employed, they are a vital resource for disabled people, whose lives would be very difficult without them—especially, for example, those who live in isolated rural communities where it is difficult to get end-to-end social care.

Many—perhaps the vast majority or even all—of these personal assistants earn way less than £30,000 per year. Typically, many will earn only half that. As I have said, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen pointed out, the sector as a whole already faces severe pressure. Skills for Care says there are approximately 110,000 unfilled vacancies in the sector at any one time. Global Future’s research points to growing pressures as a result of a changing demographic, which, combined with the provisions of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, this Bill and the proposals in the White Paper, could lead to a shortfall in the workforce of perhaps 400,000 by 2026, including a shortfall in the number of personal assistants. At the present rate of recruitment it would take us 20 years to make up that gap.

This workforce was considered in detail by the Migration Advisory Committee in the report it published last year. While acknowledging the shortfall, the MAC suggested that it could be made up in a number of different ways were access not available to EEA nationals to fill vacancies in the labour force—for example, by persuading former care workers to come back into the sector or by improving retention rates.

However, MAC also says that if the fundamental problem of recruitment and retention in the sector relates to pay and conditions, the only way we can use alternatives to recruiting non-UK nationals—indeed, even if we are recruiting EEA nationals—lies in improving pay and conditions across the sector, which will require substantial funding from the Government. In any event, it would take an heroic effort by the Government and the sector to fill that workforce gap without access to EEA nationals, not least as this demographic time bomb is ticking right here, right now.

For disabled people who employ personal assistants, this could be disastrous. They need committed, skilled carers. They need continuity of care; they cannot afford to have people coming in and out of the workforce. They need certainty and reliability. Therefore, there are real concerns that, if a skills threshold were imposed or, most importantly for this amendment, if a salary threshold of £30,000 applied, they might be forced to look to fill vacancies using people on short-term work visas who would not have the skills or be able to provide the continuity of care.

Governments of all colours have long supported the concept of personal budgets as a facilitative means to support independent living for disabled people. It would be a crying shame if the ambitions that the Government set out in their White Paper and the provisions of this Bill worked against that aim. I hope the Minister will, in the course of our debate, be able to offer some words of reassurance to personal assistants and, most importantly, to the disabled people who employ them.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Monday 25th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. He will know that this House recently passed the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill and made it into an Act that gives the Government some new powers on fighting terrorism. He has also raised the issue of further potential powers, including in relation to treason. I am taking these issues very seriously. We are looking at this, and I would be happy to meet him and discuss this further.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I worked with the Security Minister on what is now the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 to update our laws to deal with those who access online extremist content, but platform providers have to take responsibility too. The Home Secretary says he is concerned about it, indicates he has spoken to the tech giants about it and has promised a White Paper, but what excuse does he have for not acting now?

[Sajid Javid]

The Government are acting now. For example, last year I made two visits to meet the online giants in the United States. One of those was for the Global Internet Forum to Counter Terrorism, which the UK Government sponsor, as the hon. Gentleman will know. It is an industry body, but it works both with the large platforms and with the small platforms. We are working with it to see what more can be done to use technology, especially with auto-detection. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support—he did support the measures in the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill, and I thank him and his colleagues for that—and I look forward to working with him even more closely.

UK Nationals returning from Syria

Nick Thomas-Symonds Excerpts

Monday 18th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the important questions that he has just put to me. He asked me about the case of Shamima Begum, and I hope he will understand that I am not at liberty to discuss the case of any particular individual. As I have just said, however, we have all seen and heard the remarks that she made in the media, and we can all draw our own conclusions.

My hon. Friend went on to ask me a number of related and important questions. He said that in some cases we can remove British citizenship. That is what I have referred to as deprivation. As I have said, the Government have done so on more than 100 occasions. If someone who has more than one nationality—British nationality plus another, or perhaps more than one other—is deemed a threat, and I consider this to be conducive to the public good, we can deprive that individual of their British nationality, and thereby prevent their return to the United Kingdom.

My hon. Friend mentioned some numbers. From the best numbers we have available, we estimate that, in recent years, 900 people who have been deemed of national security concern in some way or another went to Syria or Iraq to join terrorist organisations. Of those, we estimate that 20% have been killed in the battlefield, and around 40% have returned, leaving about 40% still somewhere in the region.

My hon. Friend asked about those who have returned in recent years. In all those cases, we would seek to make sure, first, that that individual is questioned, investigated and, where there is enough evidence, prosecuted. We would seek to manage that return, so even if they are a British citizen, we can issue temporary exclusion orders. That will remove their passport and require them to travel on a specifically issued designated travel document into a specific port of entry. At that point of entry, they are monitored by police and face a number of other restrictions. If appropriate, we can also use TPIMs to place further restrictions on them while we may or may not be waiting for prosecution. Of course, we will also work with authorities, particularly if young children are involved, to make sure they get the mental health, psychiatric and other types of help that may be necessary.

Finally, my hon. Friend rightly mentioned communities and making sure that, whatever we do, we work towards building more cohesive communities and winning the understanding of all communities, and that is something we always try to do.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

May I begin by joining the Home Secretary in his tribute to the late Paul Flynn? Paul was the first person to show me around the House of Commons, and he was an inspiration to me and many others in terms of entering politics. My thoughts today are with his wife, Sam, and all his family and friends.

The public have a right to protection from anyone thought to pose a threat to this country, and paramount for any Government is the security of their citizens. Will the Secretary of State confirm, first, that UK citizens are entitled to return to this country under international law, but that they should be held to account on their return for their actions?

Under international law, as the Home Secretary said, the Government cannot make people stateless, but they can sensibly take a number of practical steps to safeguard people in line with our respect for the rule of law. The designated areas offence introduced by the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act has received Royal Assent in recent days. The Opposition worked with the Government on developing that mechanism, which provides the legal framework to deal with the issue of returning so-called foreign fighters. However, the Government now need to designate areas to ensure that those returning face justice and due process. Is the Home Secretary considering designating parts of Syria in line with that legislation?

Recently, attention has focused on those who have travelled to Syria to join the so-called caliphate. Given that people may start to return to the UK and will face legal proceedings, I will not comment further on individual cases. However, will the Home Secretary confirm that anyone returning to this country as a UK citizen should expect to face justice for their actions, in a legal process in which our police, our prosecutors and our courts will take into account the individual circumstances of each case?

[Sajid Javid]

I welcome the questions from the hon. Gentleman. First, he asked whether UK citizens are entitled to return. So long as they are still UK citizens, they will have a right to return, but even in that case it is possible to place certain restrictions on them. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, I mentioned temporary exclusion orders, which I have used on a number of occasions to put in place a number of restrictions by removing the passport but issuing different types of travel documents that control entry.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act and the measures in it to combat terrorism—especially the designated areas offence. I welcome the support of the whole House for the Act and particularly for that offence. He asked whether we are looking at designated areas, and of course we are. In anticipation of the Bill becoming an Act, we had already commenced some work on that. It would not be appropriate at this point for me to say which areas we looked at specifically—for an area to be designated, it has to come before the House and it has to be the will of the House to designate that area, and I do not want to prejudge that—but it is worth pointing out that it will not be retrospective, and the House should keep that in mind.

The hon. Gentleman talked of “if and when” people start to return. As I said a few moments ago, over the last few years several people have returned, and in all such cases I can assure him that we always seek first to try to control entry and question the individual. We investigate the individual, working with the police and the security services, and where appropriate we prosecute. That has always been the case and that will not change.

If we deem someone to be a serious threat to this country and it is in the public interest to prevent them from re-entering the UK and we can do so by legal means by depriving them of citizenship, or preventing entry in the case of a non-British national, we would always look to do that.