Refugees from Ukraine

Richard Graham Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock]

That is a matter for Border Force. They would take the action that they take with any individual who enters this country and does not pass the security checks. It would be exactly the same as any other person who fails security checks; it is very simple and not rocket science.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

rose—

[Stephen Kinnock]

Traumatised people, whose lives have been turned upside down, are being pushed from pillar to post and having the door to our country slammed in their faces by this Home Secretary. This is a profoundly unserious Government who are led by profoundly unserious people; what a contrast with the bravery of the Ukrainians and the warmth and generosity of the British people. The British people have stepped up and now it is time for the Government to catch up.

The Minister, hon. Members and right hon. Members from across this House are today calling on the Government to put people before paperwork. The British people are urging the Government to get a grip so that we can once again be confident in our proud record as a nation of sanctuary.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

It is traditional to thank the previous speaker for their remarks, but regrettably I can find little on which I agree with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), and I fear his tone was wrong.

[Richard Graham]

The point I wanted to make to the shadow Minister is that the reason the Government Benches are not as highly populated as many people, including in the media, might expect for a debate on refugees from Ukraine is that over 150 colleagues are currently in Committee Room 14 listening to and engaging with four female MPs from Ukraine. I have to say that all four of them have paid considerable tribute to the enormous support that this country and our Government have given their country, which is wonderful to hear, and I sometimes wonder whether we are living in a slightly different parallel world down here compared with up there.

HMICFRS Recommendations

Richard Graham Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Maclean]

I want to be clear that we completely support the need for specialist RASSO training in all police forces. We are working with our partners in policing through the National Policing Board, through all the work taking place in the rape review and through the additional funding resource that we have put into the police to enable them to train officers to investigate and tackle these crimes. Labour is right to say that this is a specialist area; we need to get it right, so we agree that forces need that specialism.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I agree with many things that the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), said, especially her comment that we cannot just leave it up to women and girls to resolve the violence against them, but it was rather ironic that she made that comment to a Chamber in which there were about 15 male Conservative MPs and not a single male Labour MP behind her, which was disappointing.

I congratulate the Minister on accepting all the recommendations in the report, which builds on the good work already done on FGM and particularly on spiking; last night’s announcement was very important to me and to many in this House. At last night’s event, Deputy Chief Constable Blyth and others, including Nick Gazzard of the Hollie Gazzard Trust in Gloucester, brought together people who really care about the issue. Does the Minister agree that we must keep it high up the agenda?

Foreign Interference: Intelligence and Security

Richard Graham Excerpts

Monday 17th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

The right hon. Gentleman referred first to the prevalence of the activity that we are seeing. Yes, there is more activity, for a number of reasons. Technology changes, these threats evolve and develop with time, and tradecraft adapts and evolves as well. That brings me to his second point, which was about our academic institutions. This is the subject of an ongoing discussion. I have been in many committees where it has been raised, including the ISC, and it is being discussed across Government. He asks whether the Department for Education is doing enough. We have spent a great deal of time working with the Department.

Let me say something about the legislation that we want to introduce. We are learning from other countries, such as Australia—indeed, I had a bilateral meeting just last week. This is also part of the work of Five Eyes. A lot of work is being done to look at the institutional impacts of hostile state activity, alongside issues such as foreign agent registration. We want to get this right through future legislation, and that is what we are working on.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

This is a really important issue, and one that has lessons for all parliamentarians and all political parties. It seems to me that the crucial issue, as the Home Secretary has highlighted, is the whole business of foreign donations and cash being used for inducements. That is the main reason why, during the 10 years in which I have chaired the all-party parliamentary China group, all our sponsors have been British organisations. Does she agree, first, that we need to get a grip of the whole issue of foreign donations, wherever they come from, because third-party countries can be used as well? Secondly, does she agree that the Committee on Standards needs to look more closely at whether any individual parliamentarian needs to be investigated? Thirdly, does she agree that while of course we must rise to the systematic challenge of China that was raised in the integrated review, we do not wish to avoid any engagement with a nation that is a fellow permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and with which we have much important business to do?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend makes a number of points. In relation to the House, standards and transparency, there are already measures in place, as we know, and greater work will take place, as I have said. Obviously we will support all aspects of Parliament to ensure that when more work can be undertaken on transparency, it will indeed be undertaken. When it comes to China’s role in the world, in multilateral institutions and organisations, and our own values versus the type of values that the Chinese Government are proposing around the world, I think it is fair to say that there are many difficult issues. The House recognises that, as do I as Home Secretary and the entire Government. I have already alluded to issues such as human rights abuses, whether they involve the Uyghurs or even BNOs, whom I have helped assiduously. I have set up a bespoke scheme to ensure that they are safe, despite the measures that the Chinese Government are putting in place. We as a Government will always stand up for what is right in the world. That means international law and the rules-based system, and it means calling out those who have behaved in an appalling and inappropriate way in respect of some of the issues that I have touched on.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Richard Graham Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 7th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Bambos Charalambous]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. This measure will clearly affect people who have other citizenships available to them, because it is unlawful to deprive someone of citizenship and leave them stateless. Clause 9 is about people’s citizenship, identity and, ultimately, rights; without citizenship, people do not have rights, and that leaves them without an identity or a sense of belonging.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Bambos Charalambous]

I will give way one last time, but I need to make progress; otherwise, there will be very little time for anyone else to speak.

[Richard Graham]

I am grateful to the hon. Member. He is a reasonable man, so I am sure that he will agree that when it comes to sensitive issues, such as the very small number of people whose nationality may be revoked by the Home Secretary, as has been possible for the past 100 years, it is incredibly important that they are not the subject of rather embarrassing scaremongering, such as that being done by the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain). Will the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) confirm at the Dispatch Box his clear understanding that when someone has a single nationality, they cannot have their nationality revoked and be sent abroad, as the hon. Member for Bradford East has implied?

[Bambos Charalambous]

Many people have dual nationality in the UK, and those are the people who are in fear of the measure being introduced. I will now make progress.

The clause not only represents a total disregard for justice and the rule of law, but also says to certain British citizens that despite their being born and raised in the UK, their rights will always be precarious and subject to change, because, in the words of the Home Office,

“British citizenship is a privilege, not a right.”

The consequences of that are drastic. It is a threat to all, but particularly to those from ethnic minority backgrounds. According to analysis by the New Statesman, nearly 6 million people in England and Wales could be affected, and under this proposal, two in five people from an ethnic minority background are eligible to be deprived of their citizenship without being told.

Have the Government learned nothing from the Windrush scandal? They are repeating the same mistakes time and again. How can we trust the Government and the Home Office? How can we trust them with the measures proposed in clause 9? Simply put, we cannot, and I therefore commend the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) on bringing forward amendment 12, which would remove clause 9 from the Bill. We support that amendment in the name of fairness and in order to uphold the rule of law.

Another aspect of part 1 that we are concerned about is statelessness and, in particular, clause 10, which is intended to disentitle stateless children in the UK from their statutory right to British citizenship. I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) for tabling amendment 111, which would give effect to the recommendations made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which published an excellent report on the Bill earlier this month. I wish to put on record my thanks, and I am sure the whole House’s thanks, for the enormous contribution she has made as a parliamentarian to preserving rights and demanding equality. She will be sorely missed when she steps down at the next election.

Clause 10 proposes amending and restricting a vital safeguard in British nationality law that prevents and reduces childhood statelessness. Under our international obligations, we have safeguards that mean that a child who was born in the UK and has always been stateless can acquire British citizenship after five years of residing here. The Government’s proposals to restrict and amend that obligation are an affront to children. They will impose the most profound of exclusions on children: the denial of any citizenship, and particularly citizenship of the place where they were born and live—the only place they know. This exclusion and alienation, when inflicted on a child in their formative years, will be highly damaging to their personal development and their feelings of security and belonging. The Government consistently failed, on Second Reading and in Committee, to explain what assessment has been made of the impact of this proposal on statelessness. That is unacceptable.

We Opposition Members therefore welcome amendment 111, and support its intention of ensuring that the Government act in compliance with article 1 of the 1961 UN statelessness convention. It would amend clause 10 so that British citizenship was withheld from a stateless child born in the UK only when a parent’s nationality was available to the child immediately, without any legal or administrative hurdles. This is a necessary amendment, as the Government have failed to protect the existing safeguards, which are in line with international law, in this Bill; on the contrary, they have introduced cruel and unworkable proposals that will only exacerbate the challenges for children and young people in the UK.

New clause 8, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), is on an issue that follows on from that of child statelessness. We support that new clause, which concerns the fee—£1,012 for a child—that people must pay to exercise their right to be registered as a British citizen. Like hon. and right hon. Members across this House, I have raised many cases on behalf of constituents navigating this inefficient, ineffective and expensive system. The fees imposed by the Home Office deny people their rights. Application fees are one barrier, and Home Office delays and inefficiencies are another. If we look at the figures, we see that the unfairness is extremely stark—even to the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), who rightly described the registration fees for children as

“a huge amount of money to ask children to pay”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I want first to acknowledge my support for new clause 8, which my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) tabled, and to congratulate her on a very powerful speech on ending the shame of profiteering from child citizenship fees. I also support the arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous).

I will make my short contribution mainly about amendment 12, which is in the name of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and to which I have added my name. It seeks the removal of clause 9—tabled by the Home Secretary—which would deprive UK nationals of citizenship without notice. That is an extraordinary proposal, which has caused shockwaves across communities. In particular, in Feltham and Heston, it has really affected the south Asian community. I am grateful to all who have written in to me and signed the petition, which has almost 150,000 signatures. I also thank the immigration solicitor, Mr Harjap Bhangal, for his work and awareness raising of this issue.

I was born in Britain in Hammersmith in west London, and I grew up in Hounslow. It appears that, under the law, as drafted, I could theoretically be deprived of my citizenship with no notice, and potentially without appeal, because my parents were born in another country, even though they became British nationals and served their community with distinction. Perhaps the Minister will be able to say in his closing remarks whether that could ever happen to anyone. It appears that this proposal is the thin end of an appalling wedge. Members of my extended family were also among those who were expelled from Uganda in mass expulsions of the Indian community. I am sure that the Minister will understand why this has caused such concern.

The Home Secretary’s clause would amend the British Nationality Act 1981, which requires the Secretary of State to give a person written notice of their deprivation order, the reasons for the order and their right of appeal. In clause 9(2), proposed new section 40(5A) of that Act specifies circumstances in which the Secretary of State would be able to deprive a person of their citizenship without notice. That includes when

“the Secretary of State does not have the information needed to…give notice”

or

“it would…not be reasonably practicable to give notice”

for any other reason, or if giving notice would not be

“in the interests of national security”,

in the interests of relations with another country or “otherwise in the public interest”.

Perhaps someone can tell me what “relations with another country” means. If, in theory, a foreign Government with whom the Government are negotiating a trade deal say that they want British citizenship revoked from a group of people they would like to see returned back to their country of origin as a condition, possibly for political reasons, in theory, the Home Secretary could do so without saying why. This is a matter not of what this is likely to be about, but of what becomes possible. There is no practical reason for this change. The present rules governing notice allow for citizenship deprivation letters to be delivered to the individual’s last known address.

I cannot support the Home Secretary’s clause, which has breathed huge distrust and insecurity into the lives of millions of peaceful, law-abiding people. Having this power, without needing to give explanation, could affect not just those people but their children and grandchildren. I urge all hon. Members to support amendment 12 today.

[Richard Graham]

Today’s debate covers many different aspects. I certainly hope that the Government will consider new clause 4 carefully, but I want to focus on new clause 9 and the impact that the change in notification of revocation of nationality has had.

I say straightaway to the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), who is not in her place at the moment, that when she describes the Bill as “hostile” and “horrible”, she should consider very carefully, as we all should, the impact on the lives of so many people of those who are killed by terrorists. Whether they are in Manchester, in London Bridge or anywhere else, the important thing about those ghastly incidents is that they affect those from every background, of every faith, of every race and of every colour. Clause 9 is not—

[Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)]

I am not sure whether I heard the hon. Member properly. We are talking today about people dying because of this Government’s policies—because they are so desperate that they are fleeing war-torn countries—and he wants us to think about terrorists. I think that that is quite appalling. I would really like him to withdraw that comment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham]

With the greatest respect, what I am talking about is a specific aspect of the revocation of nationality for appalling behaviour against the interests of the country to which we all belong and of which we are all nationals—a very specific point—so I will not follow the hon. Member into that debate, I am afraid.

[Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)]

To clarify, in reference to the very eloquent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) drew an association between terrorism and the fees for children seeking to get nationality here. That is what has just happened. I think he should revoke those comments.

[Richard Graham]

I am grateful for the hon. Member’s comments. I specifically quoted two words that the hon. Member for Streatham used in relation to the clause—she spoke about this “horrible” Bill and this “hostile” Bill. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) will recognise that the clause has been used by Opposition Members, notably the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), to stir up concerns—which, bluntly speaking, I regard as scaremongering—among members of different ethnic communities in our country. To my way of thinking, that is deeply inappropriate.

What we are talking about is the notification of revocation of British nationality to a tiny, tiny number of people who have chosen to behave in a way that is totally against the interests of our country and who have allied themselves with the enemies of this country. All the clause will do is allow for the absence of physical notification where those individuals are either unreachable or in a war zone. So far, so good.

[Stephen Timms]

I am listening carefully to the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but will he take it from me that the alarm about the clause is not because of any stirring from the Opposition, but because of the reality of its content and the Government’s track record?

[Richard Graham]

Over the past 10 or 11 years, I have agreed with the right hon. Gentleman many times on many issues, particularly work and pensions. On this particular point, I am sorry, but I think he is being a little disingenuous about how some of his colleagues are using it to stir up concerns when actually we need to be together as a nation. Where I agree with him is that there is real work for the Government to do—as the Minister knows, because he kindly gave me time on the point yesterday—to communicate much more effectively with Britons across this country about the facts of the legislation, which draw on a right that has been there for the Government for 100 years, since the first world war. Most people—most of our constituents—have no idea about that.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Richard Graham]

I have given way quite a lot. Can I make some progress? I am just conscious that a lot of people want to speak. If the hon. Lady will forgive me, let me make some progress and let us see where we are.

The really important points are as follows. How many people have actually had their UK nationality revoked in such a context? On which crimes does the 100-year clause have an impact? Is there a right of appeal to a legal tribunal? There is. Will anyone have their single nationality revoked, completely obliviously to where their parents or grandparents might have come from originally? The answer to that, to my strong understanding, is almost certainly no in 99.999% of cases.

In the remaining time, may I press my hon. Friend the Minister for clarification, not just for Members but for those in the nation at large, to reassure them about the nature of the atrocities that need to be committed for this clause to be applied, and the fact that it absolutely does not target anyone of any origin whatsoever? Indeed, if it did, my wife, who was Kenyan when I married her, would certainly be affected. There are millions of people who potentially might be affected, and that is why reassurance is required to make clear that this is purely about a very simple business of notification when a person is unreachable or in a war zone.

On that note, I will give way to the hon. Member for Streatham.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

I am very glad that the hon. Member has given way. I was not present when he referred to my speech, but I want to ask him if he really understands what the issues are. The Government, as he rightly said, already have the ability to reduce people’s citizenship, so why do they want to make it even easier, and why do they want to remove all checks and balances? This is where the concern arises. After what has happened to the Windrush generation, and after what has happened to the young people who—

--- Later in debate ---

In 2016, in the most awful moment of my career, my friend Jo Cox was murdered by a far right extremist and terrorist. He was tried in this country and locked up in this country. If his skin colour were any different, he should not be sent to another country. The following year, in 2017, Darren Osborne drove a van into a group of Muslim worshippers in Finsbury Park. Rightly, he was tried and given a sentence in this country. It was not proposed that those convicted terrorists or criminals should have their citizenship revoked. Why is that? Is it because of the colour of their skin? I say this because I genuinely feel—

[Richard Graham]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Tulip Siddiq]

Yes, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who made a wonderful speech.

[Richard Graham]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady. She is making some interesting points, but it is really important for us all to understand that this is not some sort of act of racism. Anna Chapman was a Russian spy with dual nationality and she had her nationality revoked. So I urge the hon. Lady to do the right thing by her old friend Jo Cox and to do the things that bring us together. This is about the good of the nation. It has nothing to do with colour or race.

[Tulip Siddiq]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. What I would say to everyone is that I am not trying here to flame tensions or to play politics. I am genuinely saying that ethnic minorities in this country are in fear of this clause. It has created widespread fear in communities. If we start treating non-white criminals and terrorists as though they are the responsibility of another country and not our responsibility, we will send a signal to law-abiding non-white British citizens that they are somehow less British in this country. I genuinely ask the Government to consider this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I thank the Minister for that—it is a bit of a breakthrough. It is important that the Home Office remembers that people will lose records. When they are travelling, they will be in places where there is no wi-fi through which they can access information. A time-limited document that they at least have the option to have on paper would be a very welcome move.

On the basis of what the Minister has said—I will watch him like a hawk on this—I will not press my new clause to a vote, but the hon. Members who signed it have a very strong interest in this. We are talking about EU citizens who have made their life in this country, and we need to give them the comfort that they deserve, so that they can go about their ordinary lives easily and effectively.

[Richard Graham]

I rise to comment on new clause 52. This is important, because in April 2019, I wrote a letter with the former Member for Bridgend, Madeleine Moon, to the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), and then to his successor a few months afterwards. In that letter, we called for a waiver of fees for Commonwealth servicemen and women. The new clause rightly amends that to all non-UK citizens in the new clause, which is effectively the core of what the new clause of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) calls for. It is good to see him in his place this evening and back in the House. I welcome that.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Richard Graham Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 26th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak so early in this debate. It seems to me that what has changed since only a few days ago is that the Government have clearly been in listening and amending mode. In the previous debate, I raised the concerns of two constituents: first, Bishop Rachel, who was concerned about the treatment of those who have suffered domestic abuse who are immigrants; and, secondly, Nick Gazzard, who was concerned about databases and risk registers in the context of the terrible murder of his daughter Hollie Gazzard. I asked questions at that time that have largely been answered today, so I wish to focus on two themes.

The first theme seems to me to be a question of trust. The Government have made various commitments in relation to the Lords amendments on child contact centres, Lords amendment 40B on data firewalls and Lords amendment 40C on data processing for immigration purposes. I believe that the time has come for this House to accept in good faith the Government’s commitments to the Home Office review on data sharing and on the code of practice, which uses the word “may” rather than “must”, but we have a clear statement of intention from the Minister that these things will happen.

The second theme is more complicated: the use of data and systems. In relation to the concern of Nick Gazzard, it seems to me that the main issue the Minister has addressed this evening is not so much the system and the risk register but how it is used and, in a sense, the reverse of the earlier issue in respect of data processing for immigration purposes, which is how to have effective data sharing so that things known by GPs and domestic abuse charities can be accessed by people who really want to access them. That seems to me to be crucial in the inclusion of category 1 and 2 and some category 3 domestic abuse offenders in the new MAPPS process.

I strongly believe that what has been said today about looking at firm guidance by the summer recess on a strategy for perpetrators, with action taken by the National Probation Service when there are “indicators of escalating” concern, will make a difference. On that issue, the time has come for the Opposition to recognise the incredible value of the Bill as a whole. As the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), said, there is much to support and much to be grateful for. Amendments have continually been made to take on board a whole series valuable points made by experts in the sector and, indeed, individuals from their own personal experience.

The one other thing I would like to contribute, if I may very briefly, is the use of Clare’s law and the domestic violence disclosure scheme, which I do not think has been raised recently in debate. It is interesting to note that the figures for 2020, compared with the year ending 2019, have actually seen double the number of right to ask applications, and the number of applications that resulted in disclosure has gone up by 50% from roughly 2,500 to 4,200. We probably need to make more of that in communicating to the wider public. I think it would be reassuring for people to know that Clare’s law is in practice, being used, and increasingly being accepted and the information provided.

With all those things to bear in mind, and being conscious of your strictures on the time, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I encourage everybody in this Chamber, from whatever party, to put aside differences and to come together in accepting this Bill as it now is?

Domestic Abuse Bill

Richard Graham Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 15th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab) [V]]

I speak in support of the amendments passed by the Lords that seek to protect those suffering from all forms of domestic abuse, regardless of factors such as their age and immigration status. The no-recourse-to-public-funds condition means that migrant victims face an increased risk of abuse, with limited support services to which to turn. That is why I support the Lords amendments that would ensure that support is provided to people regardless of their immigration status.

Today, the Minister announced £1.5 million of funds for an immediate-support programme targeted at migrant women. She mentioned data collection for the programme in order to potentially inform a more sustainable future programme. Many migrant victims will be asking whether they should come forward to receive help from this Government-funded programme; what kind of data on the support they receive will be collected; and whether the risk of immigration enforcement and deportation is the same, if not higher.

Furthermore, questions remain as to what assurances there will be that the pilot will believe migrant women’s experiences of abuse and that they will not be seen through a lens of suspicion. Many are perceived as exaggerating their experiences of abuse and even accused of lying to be granted indefinite leave to remain. All this is against the backdrop of an increasingly inaccessible and restrictive immigration system.

If we can recognise that abusers threaten to inform authorities and exploit fears of deportation, why cannot we recognise the fear that victims have in coming forward to seek help? Perpetrators use such systems to perpetuate their control. The HMICFRS, the College of Policing and the Independent Office for Police Conduct said only last year that police forces should restrict the sharing of information about vulnerable victims of crime, such as in cases of domestic abuse, with immigration enforcement, because the current system has been causing significant harm to the public. The Government need to address that now, because addressing this means recognising migrant victims for the victims that they are where they are.

It is positive that there is now a recognition that the harm caused by domestic abuse is far-reaching and that, in order for us to fight it, there must be a co-ordinated response across a variety of Government Departments. I do welcome the Government accepting amendments on areas such as the prohibition of charging for GP letters, but these concessions must be seen in the context of the Government continuing to strip away provision after provision, benefit after benefit, community space after community space, so support for those in need continues to weaken.

As chair of the all-party group on domestic violence and abuse, I pay tribute to the tireless work of those who have gone before me, my predecessor in the chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), and the many campaigners who have fought with such bravery and determination to stand up against domestic abuse and injustice, empowering people who, for too long, have had no voice, with support and rights—people like myself. As a survivor of domestic abuse, I cannot over-emphasise how, quite literally, life changing and life saving this support and solidarity can be. That is why it has truly been a privilege to be able to stand in this House and participate in the process of making the protections in this groundbreaking piece of legislation a reality. We can never stop our work in this area until no one has to go through what I have and what so many of us continue to be subjected to. This is why the amendments passed by this House, and by the House of Lords in particular, are so vital. Accordingly, I really urge the House to do the right thing today.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

It is a great honour to speak in this debate and to follow two moving and passionate speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe) and the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum). But can I first pay tribute to three former colleagues who have so recently died? Earlier this week we paid our tributes to His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh, but, today, I want to pay tribute to Dame Cheryl Gillan, the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, and the former hon. Members for East Surrey, Peter Ainsworth, and for West Gloucestershire, Paul Marland. All three were, in their own ways, colleagues of the greatest fun and compassion in doing serious work.

Dame Cheryl in particular I want to thank for the advice she gave me when I joined our party board. Peter Ainsworth, who I have known since university, was a man of wide talents who played an important role after leaving this place in the Big Lottery and the Churches Conservation Trust. He was the only member of the shadow Cabinet to vote against the Iraq war. Paul Marland, who was the first Conservative MP for West Gloucestershire and represented that constituency, which neighbours my constituency of Gloucester, for 18 years should give everybody who aspires to be in politics the belief that, if you can keep trying, you will succeed, for he succeeded at the fourth attempt.

Turning now to this incredibly important Bill, the Domestic Abuse Bill, I cannot help but note today the number of speakers who have recognised, first, the importance of the Bill and, secondly, that the Bill has got better, as the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) spelled out clearly. It is worth recognising how long work on this Bill has gone on for. My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) briefly suggested that the work first started two generations ago, rather than two general elections ago, which is what she meant. It probably feels like that for the Ministers and those on the Bill Committee who have been involved. It has been a huge amount of work.

Public Services

Richard Graham Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[John Redwood]

I agree with my hon. Friend, who has lots of expertise from his distinguished military career. There is a lot of talent in the armed forces. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) said that such measures were taken to try to get personnel into teaching from that important resource, and we could spread that more widely.

I look forward to progress in particular with the county lines issue, with illegal settlements and with casual violence on the streets, which even comes sometimes to my constituency and is not welcome. More and better-resourced policing would be extremely good.

I also want to see progress in the health service. I am pleased that substantial sums of money have been allocated, under both the immediately retiring Government and the new Government. That is doubly welcome. I urge Ministers to do serious work with organisations such as those in my area on what the priorities for that money should be, because it is important that these large sums are spent intelligently. The priorities for patients are clear: we need more GPs, to provide better coverage of services; and we need better access to GP services, with better systems, so that people can make timely appointments, and enough GPs to offer advice and consultations. We certainly need more money for the large hospital in Reading, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead and I share with the Reading MPs, where various works need to be done, and recruitment is needed where there are shortages of trained staff.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend was saying earlier how important the additional resources going into education funding are. Does he agree that one of this Government’s great achievements is the fair funding settlement, which provides for counties to be properly funded?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

Good, well-funded public services are the lifeblood of a decent society. They are absolutely vital in allowing people and communities to develop their potential. At the beginning of today’s debate, we heard the Home Secretary talk about the importance of good local services to prevent vulnerable young people from becoming engaged in crime, yet this Queen’s Speech does not contain any firm commitment to reversing the savage cuts to local services that have been perpetuated on local councils since 2010.

Liverpool City Council has lost 63% of its Government funding for local services. This is particularly traumatic in a poor place such as Liverpool, where a 1% increase in council tax will raise only £1.75 million; in leafy Surrey, a 1% increase in council tax will raise £7.28 million. The more that the Government reduce this commitment to poorer areas, the greater the problem of poverty will be.

Mayor Joe Anderson, together with Liverpool City Council, has performed miracles, both in protecting the people of Liverpool from the most savage consequences of the cuts and in regenerating the city of Liverpool. It is through that regeneration that we have seen jobs and businesses prosper, and the Government have cut back on local services. This year, the city council and the people of Liverpool are facing a major crisis. There are more cuts staring them in the face and nothing in the Queen’s Speech or in the recent financial statement for next year that gives any confidence whatsoever that there will be any reduction in those cuts or their consequences for the people of Liverpool. I call on the Government to engage with Liverpool City Council and the people of Liverpool to find a way to deal with this very critical situation.

[Richard Graham]

As a former civil servant from a family of teachers, I strongly agree with the hon. Lady about the vital importance of really good public services and the funding for them. Does she agree that the extra funding for the police, education and the NHS is really important, and that, despite cuts in local government funding, places such as Gloucester City Council have achieved extraordinary things by doubling the number of play areas over the past decade?

[Dame Louise Ellman]

I agree that the hon. Member makes important points, but Merseyside police force has lost 1,100 officers since 2010 and the Government’s proposals are to replace only 70 of them. That is hardly addressing the problem.

I now want to turn to the scandal of the unfinished new Royal Liverpool hospital, which was due to open its doors in March 2017. Now, two and a half years later, the hospital has not been finished and there is no date for it to open its doors. First, there was the collapse of the PFI as Carillion went under. Following that, there was the new scandal of the major demolition of key parts of the new building that was put up by Carillion, which is, of course, now defunct. Major parts of the new building, including beams, had to be demolished because they were unsafe. All of the cladding on the new hospital needed to be replaced, because it too was deemed unsafe.

This deplorable situation demands an inquiry into how that took place. Even more than that, it is absolutely essential that funds are made available quickly to complete the building of the hospital, and that the funds are not taken from other health budgets that are equally important to the people of Liverpool. The people of Liverpool need their hospital. Vital health services are required. Although the current staff at the Royal Liverpool hospital are excellent and work extremely hard, they are battling against a failing building. The new hospital should be taking its place on the campus, together with the new Clatterbridge cancer centre, to bring top class cancer treatment to the people of Liverpool. The new hospital is also part of Liverpool’s regeneration and a part of its thriving health and biomedical centre. The hospital, its medical services and its research must work with the groundbreaking international work already done by the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine and the Institute of Infection and Global Health, parts of Liverpool University, which are renowned for combating tuberculosis and other diseases—and, indeed, combating poverty—throughout the world. The hospital is therefore absolutely essential to provide top class services to the people of Liverpool and essential to the city’s regeneration.

It is absolutely deplorable that we are in this situation. Two and a half years after the new hospital was promised, no end is in sight. I have asked Ministers repeatedly—three new Ministers in the past few months—for an answer about what is happening and for a meeting to discuss the situation. I have not been offered a meeting and I have not been given a proper answer to these key questions. I have been told that a business case is being prepared and that much is being discussed. I would like to make it very clear today that that is simply not good enough. The hospital has to be completed. The funds have to be made available. They must not be taken from any other source, which would create more problems for other parts of the health sector and for the people of Liverpool and elsewhere. It is the Government’s responsibility to finish the hospital, and finish it soon. I will persist in asking these questions and I will not be going away, at least until the new hospital is operating.

Windrush Compensation Scheme

Richard Graham Excerpts

Tuesday 9th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the hon. and learned Lady for her questions. She commented on the long wait for the scheme. She will of course recognise that not only did we appoint Martin Forde as an independent adviser to the scheme, but he came to the Home Office to ask for additional time, so that the consultation period could be open for longer. More than 1,400 responses were received to the consultation, and it was absolutely right to give adequate time for the responses to be considered carefully and thoroughly.

The hon. and learned Lady will be aware that the scheme includes both a tariff category and actuals. It is important to reflect that, where actuals have been accrued, the Home Office seeks to reimburse people through those fees. However, we recognise that it may be hard for people to provide evidence of actuals, which is why it was so necessary to put a tariff scheme in place as well, so that people would not be dependent simply on being able to provide the evidence.

The hon. and learned Lady made a wider point about the complexity of the Home Office’s immigration scheme. She will no doubt welcome the consultation on that being carried out by the Law Commission. If she has not already done so, I hope that she responds to that consultation before it closes, which I believe to be imminent.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Out of darkness can come light, and I therefore welcome today’s announcement, which builds on the earlier announcement and progresses the whole issue of compensation for those badly affected in the Windrush immigration scandal. In the Immigration Minister’s report, I particularly welcome paragraph 4.18, which clearly lays out compensation for employment, and 4.20, which does the same for benefits. I have one constituent—possibly two, but one definitely—who will deserve compensation in both those categories. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister confirm news about the telephone hotline and tell us how our constituents may access help with application forms, which can be a challenge, for the older generation especially?

[Caroline Nokes]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that claim forms can sometimes be difficult and onerous, for the elderly in particular. We deliberately designed the form after speaking to members of the Windrush generation, so that the language used was as simple and straightforward as possible. In addition, we made provision with Citizens Advice, so that it can assist people with their claims. Individuals from my hon. Friend’s constituency of Gloucester need only make contact with the helpline—I understand that the average wait time for an answer last week was just 18 seconds. His constituents should make contact with the helpline and they might then be referred to Citizens Advice, which will be able to provide assistance with making a claim.

International Women’s Day

Richard Graham Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of order. I suggest that that is the sort of thing best kept quiet, really.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Because there was so little time at the end of the previous debate, the Minister did not have a chance to pay tribute to the work done by the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, which is funded by the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development. It hosted the great conference for women here in November, it recently hosted another fabulous conference on political leadership for women in Malaysia, and it will continue to do that work.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has ingeniously made a point about the previous debate as opposed to the debate I am anxious that we now get on to, because time is still short.

Knife Crime

Richard Graham Excerpts

Monday 4th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I mentioned earlier that the issue of serious violence and what more can be done to tackle it was discussed in Cabinet this year, so very recently. The Prime Minister herself is making sure that all Government Departments are playing their role and is very supportive of the measures that have been set out, and also the measures I am taking to make sure that we are listening to the chief officers, police and crime commissioners and others to see what more can be done.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Just over five years ago, Hollie Gazzard was murdered in the hairdressing salon where she worked in Gloucester city centre. In an extraordinary act of courage and determination, her family created the Hollie Gazzard Trust, which worked with the police, the Gloucestershire constabulary, to learn lessons from their handling of the incident and then to fund and deliver an education programme to schools, to advise young people on the early warning signs of abusive relationships. So positive things can be and have been done at a local level to share best practice.

I am particularly interested in what my right hon. Friend had to say about Dame Carol Black’s forthcoming report, because it seems to me that, in Gloucester, as elsewhere in the country, there is this huge link between drugs and drug dealing and serious knife crime that leads to deaths. The more we can learn about what best practice is in the handling of such incidents, the better we can try to tackle it in our own constituencies.

[Sajid Javid]

I am pleased that my hon. Friend mentioned the work of the Hollie Gazzard Trust and reminded us of how, through that tragedy, the family and friends came together to try to turn it into something that could help others. Indeed, I think the victims Minister met Mr Gazzard as well.

My hon. Friend asked me about the work that is being done to look into the drugs markets and drugs misuse. That is vital work because one thing that is clear is that sadly the changes in drugs markets seem to be driving much of this violence. If we can understand those changes better, we can come up with even more policy responses.