UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Luke Pollard – 2022 Speech on the Cost of Food

    Luke Pollard – 2022 Speech on the Cost of Food

    The speech made by Luke Pollard, the Labour MP for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 14 December 2022.

    We should call this what it is. This is about hunger, poverty and desperation. It is about kids going to bed hungry, waking up and not getting enough food to be able to study at school. This is Britain, one of the richest countries on the entire planet. In this debate, there is not a single Tory MP present who does not have to be here—[Interruption.] Forgive me, there is one.

    This is a political choice we have here. It is a political choice to keep wages down. It is a political choice not to match inflation. And It is a political choice to attack the people who are ringing the alarm bells. Tomorrow we will have the first nationwide nurses’ strike. In Plymouth we are seeing nurses using food banks. We are seeing teachers using food banks. We are seeing armed forces personnel using food banks and emergency food vouchers. These are people in good jobs—jobs they have had to study and learn skills for, and jobs that should provide a decent wage so that they can put food on their table for them and their kids. Yet they cannot. This is a reboot of Dickensian Britain. It is sickening. It is utterly sickening.

    I launched a campaign with our utterly brilliant food bank in Plymouth a month ago to buy electric blankets. An electric blanket or throw costs 20p a day and people can put their families underneath them to keep them warm, rather than spend £6 a day to heat their home using central heating. We have raised £3,500 to buy electric blankets. The people coming in to collect their food parcels need food that they do not have to heat, because they cannot afford the utilities. It is sickening that this is happening in one of the richest countries.

    Brilliant charities such as Provide Devon, a relatively new charity, have seen their fresh food costs go up by a third. They have seen demand go up by a third. They have served an amazing number of people, especially children, but they are seeing their food and their monetary donations fall at the same time, because people are struggling to make ends meet.

    I think that when we look at the price of food, it is right for us to also look at the speculators and the supermarkets. I want to give a shout out to our farmers, because it is not the primary producers in this country who are profiteering from high food prices. Many of them are locked into contracts whereby they cannot get a decent price for the food that they grow. It is time that this changed.

  • John McDonnell – 2022 Speech on the Cost of Food

    John McDonnell – 2022 Speech on the Cost of Food

    The speech made by John McDonnell, the Labour MP for Hayes and Harlington, in Westminster Hall, in the House of Commons on 14 December 2022.

    It is important in these debates that we try to get to the roots of what the cause of this food crisis is. We will be told that it is largely to do with the crisis in Ukraine. I believe that it is actually to do with supermarkets profiteering and world global speculation on the food markets.

    With regards to supermarkets profiteering, as my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne) said, Tesco has doubled its profits, while those of Associated British Foods have increased by 48% and those of Lidl by 319%. Now is the time for an excess profits tax to ensure that we prevent food speculation at the national level.

    In addition, there is speculation at the global level. As I have said time and again on the Floor of the House, we saw this during the banking crash, when billions were moved from the sub-prime housing market into the food commodity market, creating a famine. As a result, we introduced regulation, MiFID II, which put position limits on how much of an individual food commodity could be held by speculators. However, the Government have now introduced the Financial Services and Markets Bill, and in Edinburgh last week the Chancellor announced further deregulation of the market system, meaning that that regulation will be lifted. Instead of regulation by Government or the Financial Conduct Authority, food commodity limits will be handed over to the traders themselves—the very people who are making profits out of this speculation.

    Let us put in context the argument that somehow Ukraine has caused this crisis. Ukraine produces 3% of the world’s wheat and 2.6% of the world’s corn—the basic food stuffs. This is about speculation and profiteering. It is not just me saying this about deregulation. The Governor of the Bank of England today stated his anxieties about the Government going too far on deregulation overall, and not learning the lessons of the banking crash. People will starve as a result of profiteering and speculation. That is why we need an excess profits tax and regulation of the food commodity market along with our partners globally.

    Finally, I know people do not want to talk about Brexit, but if we look at the London School of Economics analysis, we see that £6 billion has been put on our food bills over the last two years—that is 3% a year. We have got to sort out a new deal on Brexit.

  • Steven Bonnar – 2022 Speech on the Cost of Food

    Steven Bonnar – 2022 Speech on the Cost of Food

    The speech made by Steven Bonnar, the SNP MP for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 14 December 2022.

    It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Gray. I thank the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) for bringing forward this debate and I pay tribute to the tremendous work he has been doing to tackle hunger. Alongside fans of his beloved Liverpool, as well as Everton fans, his Right to Food campaign has helped tackle the food insecurity faced by 11 million people across the United Kingdom.

    The Scottish Government allocated almost £3 billion this financial year to help households facing the Tory-induced cost of living crisis, including £1 billion to providing services and financial support not available anywhere else in the United Kingdom. That included increasing the Scottish child payment by 150% in fewer than eight months, to £25 per child per week for those aged between 6 and 15. However, most of the key policies and fiscal levers are held here by this UK Government, given that over 85% of welfare policy is reserved. We continue to press the UK Government, who have all the levers at their disposal, to tackle this emergency on the scale required, including enabling access to borrowing, providing an uprate in benefits and offering extra support to households.

    Unlike the Tories, the Scottish Government rightly see food as a basic human right. Everyone should be able to afford the food they need to sustain a healthy life. The Tories have not only taken a wrecking ball to our economy but are decimating the chances for working people, who are often working multiple jobs, to put food on the table for themselves and their families.

    The charity Action for Children has unearthed heartbreaking stories of the current cost of living crisis, including the fact that 25% of young people are donating their own pocket money to help their parents through the festive period. Other parents are having to rely on their children’s leftovers, and many families are simply going without. How shameful is that? In my own constituency, I hear personal stories of vulnerable people not leaving their beds because of the price of energy and the current Arctic snap. A constituent contacted me yesterday in a cry for help after spending the last four days in temperatures of minus 8° without any money to heat her home or heat up the homemade soup she had received from a neighbour.

    This is a crisis—a food crisis— and one that has been exacerbated under the Tories. Food bank usage has soared over the last 12 years, and yet they turn up gleefully, scissors in hand, to cut the ribbons and open new food banks—or should I say pantries, as the Leader of the House has been referring to them lately? This is terrible stuff. The Trussell Trust revealed that 1.3 million emergency food parcels were provided to people by food banks between April and September this year, and almost half a million of those went to children. Is this truly the society we now consider acceptable?

  • Kate Osborne – 2022 Speech on the Cost of Food

    Kate Osborne – 2022 Speech on the Cost of Food

    The speech made by Kate Osborne, the Labour MP for Jarrow, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 14 December 2022.

    It is an honour to speak under your chairship, Mr Gray. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) for securing the debate.

    One in six Jarrow constituents have gone without food in recent months, and two in five have cut back on food spending. Food prices increased by 16.4% in the 12 months to October 2022, and the cost of wholesale food is having a huge impact on charities and food banks. At my surgery last week at Hebburn Helps, it reported that wholesale food prices are severely impacting its ability to help those in need. Food insecurity rates have doubled since the start of 2022, with an estimated 10 million adults and 4 million children impacted. Reductions in food quality and quantity are having serious health consequences for children, the elderly and the vulnerable.

    We are hearing reports that food prices are so high and wages so low that firefighters, nurses, teachers and many others are now reliant on food banks. Yesterday in Parliament, the National Education Union told us that support staff are using food banks set up in their schools. Teaching assistants are still trying to feed students from their own pocket, while they themselves are being forced to use food banks to put food on the table in their cold homes. One million children living in poverty do not even get a free school meal. No child should go hungry; no child should be left behind. The nationwide figure that 28% of children live in poverty is appalling. In my constituency of Jarrow, that rises to 39%. That is a horrifying statistic, but we must not forget that behind all these stats is the face of a hungry child and a family who are struggling. When we visualise an average primary school class of 36 children, we should recognise that 14 of them will be living in poverty, too hungry to concentrate at school.

    Poverty is clearly a political choice—one that this Government keep on making. This Government should be ashamed that poverty pay and the cost of living crisis have led to millions living in in-work poverty. Throughout the pandemic, supermarket profits soared and they continue to do so. Tesco’s pre-tax profits jumped from £1.1 billion to £2.2 billion in the 12 months to 26 February this year, and the company recently announced a 20% increase in its interim dividend to its shareholders. There are increases in company profits and shareholder pay, yet people are being asked to pay more. We need an urgent change of direction in this country. We need a right to food. In the sixth richest country in the world, it is not too much to ask that our kids do not go hungry.

  • Ian Byrne – 2022 Speech on the Cost of Food

    Ian Byrne – 2022 Speech on the Cost of Food

    The speech made by Ian Byrne, the Labour MP for Liverpool West Derby, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 14 December 2022.

    I beg to move,

    That this House has considered the cost of food.

    It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Gray. I would like to start this debate on the cost of food by speaking about the situation today in my constituency of Liverpool, West Derby. Food prices have increased by 16.4% in the year to October, and one in three people in my great city are in food poverty. One in six constituents in West Derby are missing meals or going without food, and two in three are cutting back on hot water, heating or electricity. The situation is getting worse by the hour.

    I am here today to deliver a message to the Minister, the Government and this House: the rising cost of food, coupled with falling wages and a completely inadequate system of welfare support, is a catastrophe for my constituents and my community, and its long-term effects will be catastrophic for generations to come in Liverpool, West Derby.

    Like many Members present, I have been contacted by constituents who have never been so scared about their future and their situation. We have workers in almost every industry taking strike action as a last resort, because work does not pay and does not meet rising costs, such as those for food. In West Derby, there are nurses, educators, firefighters, postal workers, rail staff and civil servants using food banks. What have we become?

    This is one of the gravest and most frightening crises seen in our lifetimes, and my constituents tell me they feel abandoned and ignored by the Government, whose job it is to protect them—a Government who commissioned the national food strategy and ignored it when it reported back. For all the report’s shortcomings, its author, Henry Dimbleby, attempted to answer some of the failings in Government policy and proposed changes that would have immediately lifted many people out of food poverty if they had been implemented.

    Food insecurity levels have doubled since the start of 2022, affecting an estimated 10 million adults and 4 million children in September alone. If the Government cannot ensure that everyone has enough to eat and cannot guarantee their right to food, they are a Government who are fundamentally broken. The 16.4% rise in the price of food in the past year is the highest since 1977, and we have seen the sharpest fall in wages since that year. These catastrophic statistics have a devastating impact on our communities, which I am sure we will all speak about today.

    Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)

    I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. A recent survey by the trade association for school caterers found that food ingredient prices for schools have gone up by 20% in just two months. Schools are having to subsidise free school meals from their own budgets or to charge struggling families more, for those who are entitled to free school meals. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should not only extend free school meals to every child on universal credit, but fund schools properly to provide free school meals?

    Ian Byrne

    The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. I would go further and call for universal free school meals for every child, but I will speak about that later.

    Calorie for calorie, healthier foods are now nearly three times more expensive than less healthy foods. Terrifyingly, the cost of baby formula has soared over the last year, with the cheapest brands increasing by 22%. We have seen pictures of baby milk locked away and put on the highest shelves in supermarkets—images that surely epitomise this entirely broken system.

    Inflation hits the poorest hardest. The poorest fifth of the population would need to spend 43% of their disposable income on food to afford the Government’s recommended healthy diet in “The Eatwell Guide”. How is that achievable with so many pressures and so little income?

    Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)

    The hon. Gentleman is making a number of excellent points. Tomorrow, Good Food Scotland will open the Linthouse Larder. Does he agree that what we want to hear from the Government is how they are going to assist organisations that provide affordable food at affordable prices for so many of his constituents and my constituents, so that they can survive from week to week?

    Ian Byrne

    The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, and I fully agree with everything he said.

    I want to highlight the appalling impact that the cost of food is having on children in particular. Professor Ian Sinha, a paediatrician at the fantastic Alder Hey Children’s Hospital in my constituency, told me:

    “We see the almost Dickensian effects of poor nutrition in children in Liverpool and other working class cities. We see rickets, poor growth, and deficiencies in minerals and vitamins that reflect that their nutrition revolves around getting enough calories to survive…not around developing optimal health…We have seen malnutritioned children so anaemic as a result of poor nutrition, and so acutely sick, that we thought they had leukaemia. We see children sharing food portions, in schools and in houses, and so no wonder they are falling asleep and struggling to concentrate in class. Paediatrics is about ensuring children live their best life—as per the UN Convention on the rights of the child—and their lack of food is shackling them and their opportunities.”

    Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)

    I congratulate my hon. Friend on the outstanding work he is doing on the Right to Food campaign. Does he agree that the Welsh Government are leading the way on food, particularly for children? We have already introduced free school meals in primary schools, and hopefully that will be extended to secondary schools at some point, despite the fact that Wales does not get a fair, needs-based funding formula. Wales really does care and is compassionate about the needs of people and future generations. Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK Government need to take the lead from Wales?

    Ian Byrne

    I fully agree, and I commend Mark Drakeford and the Government in Wales for absolutely leading the way on this issue and showing that a different way is possible.

    Professor Sinha goes on to say:

    “When I tell families in my asthma clinic that nutrition is crucial, they tell me that by the time they can get to the foodbank any fresh fruit and vegetables have gone. When we explain the importance of how food is prepared, they tell us that the only mechanism of heating food is a kettle. They are limited to ultra-processed, calorie dense foods that are cheap and easy to store. When we see analyses such as those in the British Medical Journal last month, showing associations between ultra-processed food and the risk of death, we know that the children coming to our clinics are often on this path, but they can’t afford to get out of it.”

    It is a disgrace that my constituents face this appalling and grave situation, and yet at the same time we read reports that global food companies have paid out £15 billion in profits to their shareholders. Supermarkets are not doing too badly either: they have also paid out vast dividends during covid and the cost of living crisis.

    At a recent Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee session, we heard evidence from the United Nations special rapporteur on the right to food, who told us:

    “Corporations have a significant amount of power in markets and there is not much being done to hold corporations accountable. Food prices are at the mercy of speculation…Governments have tools in place to stabilise prices.”

    At the same time, research from the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers’ Union highlighted that the workers who produce the food and enable those profits are some of the hardest hit by the rising cost of food.

    Hunger and out-of-control food inflation are not inevitable. They are a political choice made by this Government and compounded by cutting away vital protections from rising fuel costs, dismantling the social safety net, cutting universal credit, imposing benefit sanctions, eroding workers’ rights and presiding over a decade of austerity that has cut to the bone our vital services, which are needed now more than ever. The time for sticking plasters to address the rising cost of food—such as the reliance on thousands of food bank and food pantry volunteers and donors—is over. We need systemic change so that all our people have the opportunity of health, happiness and dignity.

    That is why we need to legislate for the right to food. We need enforceable food rights to ensure that the Government of the day are accountable for addressing the cost of food and making sure nobody goes hungry, and that they are prevented from making decisions that lead to people being unable to afford to put a meal on the table. A right to food should be not a safety net but a rope ladder, with ever-higher standards of provision.

    I propose the following as an extremely modest and deliverable beginning. There should be a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure the food security of our nations, which should be taken into account when setting competition, planning, transport, local government and all other policies. We should be eradicating food deserts, not enabling them. Ministers should be under a duty when setting the minimum wage and any relevant social security benefits, including pensions, to state how much of the prescribed sum has been calculated for food, because right now it is nowhere near enough.

    Finally, we must legislate for universal free school meals—a nutritious free school breakfast and lunch for every child in state education. We heard powerful evidence at the EFRA Committee recently about the benefits that that would bring for children’s learning, happiness and health and about how that investment would allow our children to enjoy futures that are far brighter than what they are looking forward to now. Crucially, from the Government’s perspective, it would pay for itself in the long run. The benefits far outweigh the costs.

    I urge the Minister to come forward with action now and not to repeat the indifference they have shown when I have raised this issue repeatedly in the House. Constituents are starving, and we need political leadership that guarantees and realises everyone’s right to healthy food. If reliance on charity alone was a sufficient guarantee for basic human needs in the UK, previous generations would not have legislated for universal state schooling or a national health service. This horrific situation demonstrates that we need the same vision and ambition when it comes to food security—and it cannot wait a moment longer.

  • Robert Jenrick – 2022 Speech on Visa Processing Times

    Robert Jenrick – 2022 Speech on Visa Processing Times

    The speech made by Robert Jenrick, the Minister for Immigration, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 14 December 2022.

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for securing the debate and to hon. Members from across the House who have joined us, no doubt sharing the hon. Lady’s concerns.

    My door is always open for individual cases. If the hon. Lady would like to give me the details of the cases she raised after the debate, I would be happy to look into them, but she is right that it should not take a request to a Minister to get the good service that the Home Office and our agencies should be delivering routinely. The concerns that she has raised are important to me and to the team behind the visas and immigration service.

    In my short time in the Home Office, I have been impressed by the good work that the team has done in recent months to turn around some of the delays that we have experienced in recent years. The hon. Lady very fairly mentioned that two huge events have affected the performance of UKVI. First, the pandemic affected productivity in all areas of the public sector and the private sector. It has taken us time, as it has other developed countries, to regain the level of customer service that we would like to offer. In most areas, the UK is actually in a better position than our direct competitors around the world, but of course we aspire to be in that position—or, indeed, to go further.

    The second factor is Vladimir Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. My predecessors made the right decision to transfer a great deal of the workers in the Home Office and UKVI to work on the Homes for Ukraine scheme so that we could get those visas issued as expeditiously as possible, but that did come at a cost to some of our other visa customer standards. It is now our hope that we can quickly recover that lost ground and bring each of the visa categories into line with the service standard as quickly as possible. The good news is that in most cases that has now happened. In the small number of cases in which it is not happening, it will happen very soon. I have been meeting regularly with Marc Owen, who leads the service, and have been impressed by the work that he has done to turn it around in recent months.

    I will go through a couple of the principal areas that have been raised, just to give some comfort that we are very alive to these issues. Despite the need to take resource off the emergency situation in Ukraine and restore the service that the rest of the visas and immigration service needs to deliver, it remains important that we process applications under the Homes for Ukraine scheme quickly. If the hon. Member for North East Fife gives me details of the cases she mentioned, I will happily take them forwards, but we are generally processing applications in a matter of days. If some are taking longer, that is clearly concerning; it may be that there is something specific about those cases, but I will happily look into them.

    Before my arrival in the Department, an entirely reasonable decision was taken to make work and study our national priority. We need to get the economy going again after the pandemic, and we needed to get students who had left because of covid back into the country, in order for universities to get going again. Resources were put in place to ensure that those visas were decided quickly. The number of cases was very high, as can be seen from the net migration statistics, which were published recently. The number of foreign students who have entered the UK in the past 12 months has been exceptionally high, and more than 590,000 study visas had been processed by the end of September 2022.

    I am interested in the hon. Lady’s example from St Andrews University. The national statistics show that we are meeting the study route customer service standard. The 15-day service is being met. In fact, it is averaging 11 days for a standard study visa. For leave to remain—the more complex and longer-term settlement cases—we have an eight-week standard, and that is at six weeks currently. In general terms, therefore, we are meeting the standard, but that is not to diminish the cases that she raised, which again I will happily take up.

    Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)

    I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on securing the debate. I have had a case in my constituency of a sixth-form student who was already studying at a sixth-form college, but who ran foul of the visa rules and had difficulty re-entering to continue their course. It is not necessarily about the easy cases here; it is about how we deal with what was called the long tail of casework. Some cases are still taking several months to clear up, which is interfering with student studies and sometimes with the supply of staff. I wonder what the Minister might be able to do to address that issue.

    Robert Jenrick

    I will happily look into that. As I say, the overall standard is being met and indeed exceeded—that was not always the case, but it is where we are now—but my hon. Friend is probably right that there is a longer tail of complex cases, which clearly take longer. It is important that the Department looks after those individuals to the same standard.

    Wendy Chamberlain

    I thank the Minister for giving way—he is being generous with his time. There is absolutely no doubt that the student situation has improved massively, and my casework team would acknowledge that, but the issue is the work visas of people coming for research or employment with the university. It will degrade the university’s reputation if people coming to deliver courses to students cannot get here.

    Robert Jenrick

    Without repeating myself, I am happy to look into those cases. There is a conflict here between the standard practice and the cases the hon. Lady is raising. Again, that is not to diminish what she is saying, because there are without doubt cases where we are not performing as we would wish.

    It is fair to say that the overall picture for work visas is mixed. For non-sponsored work visas, we are falling below the standard that we aspire to, which is 15 days; we are averaging 36 days, according to the latest statistics that I have seen. For the sponsored routes, which have been given priority by the Department for understandable reasons—this is where an employer is actively seeking for a person to come to the UK as swiftly as possible—the opposite is true. Our 15-day target is being exceeded; we are processing those claims in eight days on average. However, we would like to bring all those categories into line with our service standards as quickly as possible.

    For visitors to the UK, we are also now in a much better position that we were recently, which helps with the return of international tourism to the UK. Generally, we are now at or exceeding the customer service standard that we aspire to, which is between 14 and 21 days to turn around an application.

    The area where I think there is still room for improvement is family visas, which a number of hon. Members raised today. For the settlement visas, we are about in the position that we would like to be in, which is that we are turning cases around in 93 days. That is still a long time in the real world for someone who wants to get a loved one into the country for important reasons, so I appreciate that, although we might be achieving our customer service target, it is probably not the target that we as a country aspire to. We would like to improve on that.

    Wendy Chamberlain

    Will the Minister give way?

    Robert Jenrick

    I will, but let me just finish the point. For spouses and partners looking for either leave to remain or indefinite leave to remain, the overall picture is much better. For leave to remain, we have a target of eight weeks. We are currently processing claims in three weeks. For indefinite leave to remain, we have a much longer target, of 26 weeks, but we are processing those claims within 10 weeks. Overall, the team has done a good job of turning around those times, but I appreciate that the hon. Member for North East Fife has some examples that tell a different story. Perhaps in the time remaining she would like to intervene one last time.

    Wendy Chamberlain

    I appreciate the Minister giving way for a final time. It is interesting that he admits that family visas are where the poorest performance is. That goes back to the very first point I made at the start of the debate: the Home Office does not have a target time for those visas. It is very good that the Minister is giving us data that shows that some tracking is happening, but perhaps if he agreed to set a target the performance would improve.

    Robert Jenrick

    We do have targets for those claims. I have been happy to read some of the targets today. For each visa category, we set our own internal customer service target, and as Ministers we push the team to deliver on it. Those targets can progressively be improved, now that we are out of the long shadow of covid and are able to move some of the resource that was on the Homes for Ukraine scheme back on to business-as-usual processes. I hope that, in the early months of next year, each visa cohort will be brought to, or will exceed, our customer service standard. Then I, as the responsible Minister, will be able to work with the team to set better targets that provide an even better quality of service to the hon. Lady and all our constituents across the country.

    Munira Wilson

    On the length of time the Minister cited for spousal visas, in our experience 26 weeks is much closer to the reality on the ground. Will he clarify for our constituents and caseworkers what the criteria for getting a case expedited are? The example I gave was not considered worth expediting.

    Robert Jenrick

    I do not have the exact criteria with me. I am happy to have a conversation with the hon. Lady to give her some further guidance, but it is fair to say that some of the cases that we receive cannot be expedited, even though they relate to what many of us would regard as important life events, such as an individual’s decision to get married. It is the Home Office’s advice that someone should get their visa before setting the date for their wedding. The issues that we take most seriously are obviously those of life and death, where individuals need to come into the country for a funeral or to see a relative or loved one just before they pass away. A high standard has to be applied, because we receive thousands of requests for expedited cases that relate to important life events and heartfelt issues. We have to set a high standard to ensure that we can truly prioritise important events.

    I am grateful to the hon. Member for North East Fife for raising this matter. As I said, I will be more than happy to look into the specific cases that she, or indeed other Members, raised.

  • Wendy Chamberlain – 2022 Speech on Visa Processing Times

    Wendy Chamberlain – 2022 Speech on Visa Processing Times

    The speech made by Wendy Chamberlain, the Liberal Democrat MP for North East Fife, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 14 December 2022.

    I beg to move,

    That this House has considered visa processing times.

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. This is a short debate on an important but, I believe, ignored issue. Routine processing times do not excite the public or, arguably, cause a ruckus in the media, but MPs and our caseworkers see day in, day out the stress and misery that they cause.

    The Government like to talk about “illegal” and “legal” migration. The Minister will appreciate that that is not a division that I generally support, but for the purposes of today I want to talk about what his Department deems to be legal migration: the families and workers who want to live in this country but have been left in legal limbo because of the Home Office.

    I have spoken to my colleagues, some of whom are here today, and I can tell the Minister that this is not a one-off issue that constituents of North East Fife just happen to experience; the problems I will outline are systemic ones faced by people across the entire UK. If he speaks to his own staff, he might find that they have similar experiences.

    Let me start with the most obvious issue: the pure length of time it takes for visas to be processed. The most egregiously delayed case currently in my case load will have been waiting for an outcome for an entire year this coming Sunday—not a birthday that those involved want to recognise. I will not use their names, as the applicant is a minor, but a teenage girl, the stepdaughter of one of my constituents, is currently living in a state of limbo, with her previous visa expired and without an outcome on her family visa. Let me make this clear: it was the Home Office that advised that she should apply for a family visa in November 2021—and she did so in December last year, well in advance of her student visa running out—but now, a year later, the Home Office is unable to tell her whether she is going to get her visa.

    I ask the Minister to imagine for a minute that he is a teenager—I do not know whether his teens were longer ago than mine—settling into a new country and a new school, and making new friends, with a half-sibling who has an automatic right to be in the UK, only to be left not knowing whether he will be told that he has to leave. That has the potential to be incredibly damaging to both the young person and their family. We are always told that the Home Office has to carry out checks—rightly so—but what on earth could a teenager have on their record that means their mother can get a visa but theirs gets held up for this long? It certainly does not make sense to me. Let me make it clear that this is not their fault; it is the Home Office’s fault.

    The Home Office’s standard response is that their resources have been incredibly strained since the Homes for Ukraine scheme opened earlier this year. I do not think anybody will dispute the hard work done by the Home Office and UK Visas and Immigration staff in processing those applications. Our staff worked with them day in, day out for months, and we saw at first hand the efforts that were made. But here is the key thing: delays with standard visa processing predate the invasion of Ukraine. I supported a constituent in 2021 who, after having lived here legally for five years, wanted to apply for indefinite leave to remain, and it took her almost a year to get a response.

    Both the cases I have mentioned have been classified by the Home Office as private life applications, although that has been disputed by my constituents. That means that the Home Office can hide behind the fact that it has not set itself a processing time goal. Other visas have expected processing times; private life visas, where someone applies for the right to live here to be with their immediate nuclear family, just like the Minister and I do, can exist in the system endlessly. The previous Immigration Minister, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), intervened in a serious case that I raised in early 2021. I was grateful for his intervention, but we MPs should not have to intervene at that level to make things happen.

    There are three points that I hope the Minister will respond to. The first concerns how the Home Office designates a case as a private life case. The experiences of my constituents suggest that decisions are often made to designate applications as private life applications, whereas the applicants believe they should be processed under other routes. Often no information is given as to why that is the case. The system is opaque and, as a result, the Home Office can effectively designate cases as low priority, which I can only presume helps it to meet targets it might otherwise miss.

    Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)

    A constituent recently contacted me to ask for assistance with his family’s visas. He had recently received indefinite leave to remain, having arrived from Iran. His wife and two young children were still in Iran. Sadly, his wife passed away, leaving his two very young children alone in Iran without a guardian. It took three months to get them visas so that they could join their father in the UK. In that case, the visas were granted under “urgent and compassionate” dispensation, but even then it took three months. Does my hon. Friend agree that three months falls far outside what should be considered an urgent timeframe?

    Wendy Chamberlain

    I absolutely agree. Clearly, there were specific circumstances in that case. I am looking for a response from the Minister about the more standard cases, but that case highlights how much of an issue we have in this area, and I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    Will the hon. Lady give way?

    Wendy Chamberlain

    Happily—I am delighted to see the hon. Member here.

    Jim Shannon

    I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this matter forward. I spoke to her in the Chamber before, knowing that the debate was coming. Working visas take over eight weeks to extend, so many workers who are asked to stay on and extend their contracts, perhaps for another three months, are unable to do so because of the waiting time. Should the Government not aim for a shorter process to allow those working and paying tax here to continue to do so while that is mutually beneficial for everyone?

    Wendy Chamberlain

    I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. We know how tight the labour market is, and we know there is a need for a degree of immigration to help with some of the labour shortages we see. Later in my speech, I will talk about some particular issues that the University of St Andrews faces.

    On my point about the Home Office designating cases as low priority, perhaps I am being sceptical, and perhaps there are perfectly good reasons for cases to be designated as private life visa applications, but it would be highly beneficial if the Minister could set those reasons out. That would help us to give proper feedback to our constituents. It would also be helpful if the Home Office set out the reasons clearly to applicants when their cases are being processed.

    Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)

    On the point about transparency of criteria, my constituent, Catherine, who is a British citizen, applied for a spousal visa for her husband to come over. She applied back in July, when she was five months pregnant, because she wanted her husband, Donald, to be with her for the birth of their first child. In November, just days before the baby was due, the Home Office said that his case did not meet the criteria for expedition, because it was not “compelling compassionate” or a health circumstance. He missed the birth of his first child and was not there to support his wife, and he has missed the first four precious weeks of his baby’s life. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Home Office needs to review its service level agreement times, and review and be much more transparent about its criteria for what it considers worthy of expediting?

    Wendy Chamberlain

    I entirely agree. If that does not qualify as compassionate grounds to expedite a visa, I do not know what does. That brings to mind my urgent question in the last Session about visa processing times in relation to Ukraine. It seems that people are treated as clients or customers, and sometimes we forget that there are families and real people behind these cases.

    The second point on which I would like a response from the Minister is whether any visa processes should take place without a target processing time. That gives the Home Office nothing to aim for, it gives us no way of holding the Home Office to account, and it gives applicants absolutely no certainty whatsoever. We know and understand that some cases will be complicated and might take longer than a standard processing time, but surely the Home Office should justify that, rather than leaving all applicants in a form of legal limbo.

    My third point is about communication. I appreciate that providing updates takes up time and resource, but that has to be balanced against the immense stresses that people live under while they wait for months on end with no news. As human beings, we need to feel that we are grounded in our homes and communities—that is fundamental to feeling safe. Leaving people for months without any news as to whether they can stay in their community destroys that. MPs know from the constituents who contact us that people are often under so much stress that it is making them physically ill. When a rare letter does arrive, usually after the intervention of an MP—I am always of the view that so much of our casework is the result of processes not working properly in the first instance—the words we usually get are, “It is under consideration but we can provide no timeframe in which you can expect a response.” That is hardly a comfort.

    The Homes for Ukraine drop-in centre in Portcullis House earlier this year provided a different form of interaction with the Home Office for our staff; we could be told, “Okay, I can see that the application was last worked on so many days ago.” Obviously, it is not practical to set up a drop-in centre like that in the long run. No one wants to see those queues across Portcullis House or the hours wasted in them—my caseworker would come in an hour early to sit in the queue, waiting for the centre to open—but those snippets of information gave people comfort and meant they did not feel so lost in the system. Especially as the Home Office moves further and further towards a digital system, surely there must be some way of replicating that and letting people have some insight into what is happening to their applications. In the meantime, I urge the Minister to look at what can be done to improve communication with applicants as they sit through these horrendous waiting times.

    So far I have focused on delays with visas with no target processing times, but there are also significant delays with visas with target times; often, the delays go far past those targets. North East Fife is home to the University of St Andrews, which is The Guardian’s top-rated university in the UK. It is a hub of research and teaching and it attracts some of the brightest minds from around the world. The projects they work on are wide-ranging, but encompass medical research and energy. If we have learned anything from the last three years, it is that we need solutions in those areas and that we want to be at the cutting edge of progress. There is absolutely no doubt that there are increased challenges and barriers to ensuring that progress following our departure from the EU, so it is immensely disappointing to find that, when the Home Office sets itself an eight-week target for skilled workers’ visas, it ends up missing it by 10 weeks.

    I am sure the Minister knows how employment contracts work and about the need to book airline tickets, find accommodation and so on. All those things need some element of certainty. If the delays continue, I worry that top academics will simply stop wanting to come here. We will fall behind and we will lose research funding and contracts. I am sure that is not a legacy the Minister wants to be involved with, so will he explain why these routine delays are happening? Is it that there are problems with the system that mean that eight weeks just is not possible—a degree of honesty would be fantastic—or is it that the system is just under-resourced, with bones cut so bare of fat by this Government that they are barely creaking on?

    While I think about the University of St Andrews, I have a side point that I would like to get the Minister’s views on. This is not the responsibility of the Home Office, but it is definitely something that it has an interest in: the academic technology approval scheme. Where researchers have contracts to come to work at St Andrews in sensitive fields, such as energy, they are required to go through additional Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office checks. Visas are applied for at the same time and, if the ATAS certificate is delayed—as they generally are, to be quite honest—there is a risk that the visa approval has to be voided and the process must be started all over again.

    Given that the rest of this debate is focused on delays and under-resourcing in UKVI, that seems a huge waste of time and resources. I am told by the university that delays are pretty much universal, but it gave me some typical examples: instead of the mooted processing time of 20 days, we are looking at 65 days, 75 days, and 102 days and counting. Is the Minister having conversations with his colleagues in the FCDO about this? Is there anything that can be done to streamline the process, or at least to better align the visa and ATAS processes to avoid reapplications? That would be incredibly helpful for universities across the UK, not just my own in St Andrews.

    Finally, let me turn to turn to some Homes for Ukraine visa cases that my office still has open. Earlier, I praised the hard work of the UKVI staff in dealing with the influx of applications, and I fully stand by that, but my office currently has 11 unresolved cases of people left in a warzone because of delays at our end. The first 10 of those visas were applied for by one sponsor in June; the processing time now stands at 25 weeks. We have tried to escalate the cases, but we keep being told that they are under consideration.

    The 11th case is a separate application. The complication comes because the applicant initially applied to come to Scotland under its super-sponsor scheme. Unfortunately, she was told in September that, due to operational difficulties in the scheme, her application was on hold. She then applied again through the UK-wide route to stay with a family. It has now been almost 14 weeks since she sent in that application. Our office has been given conflicting information about the application. At one point, we were told that it was deferred, but with no explanation. That is incredibly worrying for someone who has been waiting six months to reach safety.

    As I said earlier, this should not take a Minister’s intervention, but I have a list of cases; if the Minister is willing to look at those that I have raised today so that we can at least find out what the delays are, I will be incredibly grateful. I have raised a few specific cases, but it is clear from my experience and the experiences of my colleagues that these are systemic issues. I would be hugely grateful if the Minister would look at the specific cases that we have raised today, but more than that, I hope that he can give me some reassurance that the Government are addressing the broader issues that I have raised, and that he will go back to the Home Office and effect some change.

  • Lee Rowley – 2022 Speech on the Integrity of the Voting Process

    Lee Rowley – 2022 Speech on the Integrity of the Voting Process

    The speech made by Lee Rowley, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 14 December 2022.

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) for instigating the debate, and for the strong argument that he has made for change in this area, particularly given the enduring concerns expressed by Democracy Volunteers and others over a long period throughout the country. He is absolutely right that the key principle for the Government in their approach to elections is to ensure the integrity of the ballot box and the system, and to ensure that it works for everyone. We are committed to doing that in any way we can. He highlighted a number of broader points, which I will come on to.

    Before I speak about the Ballot Secrecy Bill, which is before the House of Commons at the moment, I too pay tribute to Lord Hayward for all his work in the other place in recent months. Good debates were had there—I read them in Hansard—and they demonstrate the acceptance across all political parties of the challenge, and a willingness to find solutions to the issues that have been highlighted. I therefore welcome the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Government today.

    As I say, the Government believe that the integrity of our electoral system is fundamental to the health and strength of our democracy. The 2019 Conservative manifesto affirmed a commitment to protecting our electoral system, so that it continues to command the trust of voters and the public.

    I will quickly and directly answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough rightly asked. He expressed concerns about family voting, which that Bill seeks to tackle. He has highlighted some examples of where there are problems, or perceived problems, around English as a second language, and where people are inherently vulnerable. He made a powerful point about those scenarios and others in which the problem may apply. The Government accept those concerns, and believe that it is of fundamental importance that people can vote in secrecy and without the threat of interference from others. We are committed to working with my hon. Friend and hon. Members on all sides of the House to safeguard democracy against those who would do it harm.

    As my hon. Friend knows, the Government supported the Ballot Secrecy Bill when it was in the other place, and I can absolutely confirm that we will continue to do so now that he has taken it up in this House. It is pleasing to note that the Bill is making progress. I put on record my thanks to Democracy Volunteers, whose work my hon. Friend outlined. It did a significant amount of work in the recent elections, and highlighted concerns that gave rise to the legislation and the proposals before us.

    Under the Ballot Secrecy Bill, a person will commit an offence if they accompany a voter into a polling booth, or are near the polling booth when the voter is in it, with the specific intention of influencing that person to vote in a particular way, or to refrain from voting. The Bill is intended to strengthen the existing law on the secrecy of voting. Importantly, as my hon. Friend highlights, the measures are intended to give greater clarity on the law as it stands, and to ensure that presiding officers in polling stations have the confidence to challenge inappropriate behaviour wherever it occurs. That was also mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore).

    My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough is right that this is about proportionality and ensuring that we do not preclude people from going into the polling station where it is reasonable for them to do so. It is also about making sure that those in charge of the station have a very clear understanding of when things are reasonable and when they are not, and are able to take action when unreasonable things occur. There should be clear penalties in the law when that is judged to have been the case. All told, when this Bill’s passage is concluded, should it be the will of the House, voters should enter a polling station alone in almost all circumstances when casting their vote, and should not be accompanied by another person unless they are appointed companions or children under the supervision of the voter. We look forward to continuing to support the Bill as it progresses.

    In the few minutes I have left, I want to talk about why we think voter integrity and ensuring the security of the ballot box is so important. As my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough has outlined, we have brought forward a number of measures on the subject, particularly through the Elections Act 2022. This is my second debate this week in which I have responded for the Government on elections. The first one was slightly better attended, but that did not have anything to do with the subject under discussion. It was somewhat more histrionic. That was on Monday night, when we talked about voter ID. I much prefer these kinds of discussions, where Members have the opportunity to explain the issue, and then we talk about them in a temperate, calm and careful manner, with the gravity that the issue deserves, and without the histrionics demonstrated on Monday night.

    It is vital that we get policy in this area right. If we do not, people will be prevented from taking part in an activity that is fundamental to the premise of a civilised society: choosing who rules them and who makes the laws on their behalf, and kicking people out of power if they are not making laws in the way that they would prefer.

    We have to be cognisant as a country of the fact that our systems may not be perfect, and that fraud goes on. We have to look at opportunities to reduce that fraud over time. That is one reason why, in local elections from May next year, and then in subsequent elections, we are making it a requirement for people to show photographic identification to vote. That is a controversial issue in some parts of this place, but when I speak to my constituents they tell me that it is a logical and reasonable thing to do. We have to show identification to pick up a package, buy alcohol or access certain parts of the high street and licenced premises, so it seems entirely reasonable and proportionate that photographic ID is needed for the very grave, important and serious act of determining who makes laws, who is the next Government and who is in charge of the country.

    Secondly, we have brought forward changes to absentee voting and postal voting, including through a number of provisions to make postal and proxy voting more secure, and to determine any person or any group who might seek to undermine the integrity of the electoral system. As an example, the Elections Act 2022 addresses the harvesting of postal votes by introducing a ban on political campaigners handling postal voting documents that have been issued by somebody else. The Act includes a provision that means that nobody will have a permanent postal vote, and a person’s entitlement to vote by post is reviewed at least once every three years.

    There has also been more general strengthening of protections for voters. The Elections Act has updated the offence of undue influence to ensure that all electors and proxies can cast their vote free from intimidation, harm, and deception. That has made sure that the offence remains fit for purpose, given the technological changes in the last 20 years or so. It does that by providing broader legal protections for voters from different types of intimidatory behaviour, as well as through clearer legal drafting, which assists authorities when they are enforcing those protections. That should help the police to deal with intimidatory behaviour anywhere, including the behaviour in or around polling stations that my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley highlighted.

    In the short time that I have left, I thank again my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough for both securing this debate, and for being willing to support and ensure the progress of the Bill. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his question on Northern Ireland, and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley for his contribution, and for highlighting his support for the Bill. It is an important part of continuing to ensure the strength, health and integrity of our democracy. We are grateful to the Members of the other place who instigated it. We look forward to continuing to support it in the coming months.

  • Paul Bristow – 2022 Speech on the Integrity of the Voting Process

    Paul Bristow – 2022 Speech on the Integrity of the Voting Process

    The speech made by Paul Bristow, the Conservative MP for Peterborough, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 14 December 2022.

    I beg to move,

    That this House has considered the integrity of the voting process.

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I start by paying tribute to Lord Hayward, who has introduced the Ballot Secrecy Bill in the other place. It is a crucial piece of legislation, and my remarks will focus on the contents of the Bill and the intent behind it.

    Few things are more important than exercising our democratic right by voting. The integrity of our elections can sometimes be threatened. Two main problems have been identified in the UK: voter fraud and forced family voting. There is an attempt to tackle voting fraud through the introduction of voter ID. That is controversial; some will think that it is the right thing to do, while others will not. Personally, I think it is absolutely right to put protections in place to tackle any type of voter fraud at polling stations.

    The Ballot Secrecy Bill seeks to tackle the issue of family voting, which is when two or more people attempt to vote together in a polling booth, affecting, directing or overseeing the votes of another person in an attempt to influence their decision. The term “family voting” sounds like a friendly thing; it sounds uncontroversial, but that is not the case at all. Quite often, family voting involves malign influence or an attempt to influence someone who perhaps does not have English as a first language or who is inherently vulnerable. That cannot be right; it fundamentally goes against everything we believe in about the secrecy of the ballot.

    Families often fight. To give the example of my own wife and me, I would not say we fought significantly, but we certainly had a few cross discussions about whether Britain should leave the European Union. I was very much of the opinion that Britain should leave; she took the alternative view—at least I am led to believe that she cast a vote for the alternative view. I am also led to believe that she now supports how I vote—certainly, she supports her local Member of Parliament when there is an election. But that is entirely up to her to determine; it is certainly not for me to do so.

    Politics is sometimes a controversial thing, and families will fight and argue when it comes to the right way forward. That is their right. It is absolutely wrong for another person at or near a polling booth to attempt to influence someone voting. That is absolutely the wrong thing to do. The police need more powers to deal with that and tackle the issue of family voting. The chance of imprisonment or a fine will deter perpetrators from doing that. That is what the Bill is all about.

    It is not just me talking about family voting. There are organisations that talk about it. Notably, the United Nations development programme describes family voting as

    “the situation in which the heads of family (often extended family and often male heads of family) influence other family members in how they cast a vote… Family voting can be a serious violation, especially when it is malicious, i.e., when it is carried out with the intent of influencing or removing the freedom of choice of a voter. In these cases, family voting violates the central principle of voter secrecy.”

    It goes on to say:

    “Family voting often stops women from casting a vote of their own choice. In many situations, while the woman physically casts her own vote, she is under a strong cultural expectation to obey her husband or father and vote for the candidate or party that she has been instructed to vote for. The influence may extend to accompanying the female family members to the voting centre in order to oversee the casting of the vote”.

    That cannot happen in the United Kingdom in 2022, but it obviously is happening and I will go on to set out evidence that suggests that.

    The Bill is intended to ensure that police, electoral staff and others have powers to address this issue. It is vital that voters can cast their vote in secret. Once at the polling station, nobody should be able to influence who a voter votes for or whether they vote at all, and nobody should know how a voter has cast their vote.

    This is not a party political matter. As I understand it, the Ballot Secrecy Bill was supported by all parties represented in the House of Lords, and support was not divided according to political party. A new clause was tabled by Baroness Scott of Bybrook to cover behaviour intended to influence a vote either in or near a polling booth, which was supported by parties of all colours in the other place.

    The secrecy of the ballot is, and must remain, a priority for presiding officers. It is their responsibility to maintain order at polling stations and to make sure everyone has the right to vote freely and without intimidation. I pay tribute to all those who work in that capacity, including presiding officers and all those who monitor elections, not just in Peterborough but across the country. They are professionals and often have to do their jobs in difficult circumstances.

    Peterborough has had challenges with electoral malpractice in the past. A great deal of effort has been invested by Peterborough City Council and those responsible to clear those issues up. My experience in Peterborough, when we talk to people about family voting and the idea of casting votes in secrecy, shows that there is a grey area in the law. Activists do not know what they should be encouraging or what the law looks like, and nor do the police—who sometimes seem reluctant, or do not know how, to react to allegations of electoral malpractice—presiding officers, polling agents and other staff. This is a grey area, and perhaps the lack of clarity on what power the police have is one reason why family voting is so widespread. Hopefully, the Bill will address that.

    We need to empower presiding officers to deal with suspected offences, and we need to involve the police where necessary. We need a system where voters are accompanied only by appointed companions, acting in accordance with rule 39 of the parliamentary election rules and the equivalent rules for other elections, or by children under the supervision of the voter, and not by someone who may intend to influence the voter’s voting intention or infringe their right to vote in secret.

    There are times when it is right for a voter to be accompanied by another person. For example, people would not be punished if they were in a polling booth to assist a grandparent, but only if they intend to influence a voter. There must be an intent to influence someone, eliminating the potential for prosecuting the intended victim. In certain circumstances—for example, when a voter is disabled or unable to read—an eligible companion or the presiding officer can assist them. That will give reassurance that such assistance is still possible where necessary. The Bill and my comments here today do not seek to stop such a practice. The Bill also means that children can still attend a polling station with their parents, and it does not prevent people from coming into a polling station if they have a young child with them.

    Where is the evidence to suggest that such practices are a problem in the United Kingdom in 2022? I would like to draw attention to a report by the Democracy Volunteers, a non-governmental organisation that specialises in electoral reform, on the May 2022 elections, which outlines just how widespread family voting is. Some of the report’s findings were concerning, especially the claim that staff in polling stations were reluctant to intervene when they saw family voting. This is not a criticism of polling station staff, as this is a grey area, as I pointed out, but that is exactly why legislation is needed: to make sure there is clarity, and that everybody understands their responsibilities.

    In the report, 1,723 polling stations were observed across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The observations lasted between 30 and 60 minutes. At 25% of those polling stations, family voting was witnessed. It is important to note that I am not talking about 25% of all ballots in those polling stations, but in 25% of the polling stations at least one example of family voting was witnessed by those observers. The problem is not exclusive to any one area, and affects all parts of the United Kingdom, as can be seen when we break the figures down further; it was observed in 21% of polling stations in England, 42% in Northern Ireland, 19% in Scotland and 34% in Wales.

    Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)

    Perhaps I could offer an explanation for the figure for Northern Ireland, which is double that for England. We have two systems of voting in Northern Ireland. For Westminster elections, it is a straight x vote—a voter nominates one person. For the council elections and Northern Ireland Assembly elections, the voting system is proportional representation. A voter marks the candidates 1,2,3,4,5, up to 9, or whatever it might be. That is confusing for many people. I understand from the spoilt votes that are cast in my constituency and others that there is some confusion among people; they mix up the two systems. There is also perhaps the pressure that they feel to get in, and as a result of the queue of people after them and so on. I think that is in part an explanation of why the Northern Ireland figure is so high.

    Paul Bristow

    Absolutely; the hon. Member makes a very powerful point. The argument he makes is for simpler voting systems. Often, PR systems, which we see in other parts of the United Kingdom, are complicated, not straightforward. There is not a binary choice in who to vote for. That might in some way explain the higher figure in Northern Ireland.

    The report also states, worryingly, that in more than 70% of the cases of family voting that were observed, the voters were women. Those figures are astounding and shocking. On equality grounds alone, we need to stamp this practice out. Women and polling station staff are being intimidated. It is an ugly practice, and we have to get a grip on it in the United Kingdom in 2022.

    Democracy Volunteers also reported on the 2022 English mayoral elections, where family voting was witnessed in Croydon, at 35% of 63 ballot boxes; Hackney, at 26% of 50 ballot boxes; Lewisham, at 35% of 57 ballot boxes; Newham, at 36% of 50 ballot boxes; South Yorkshire, at 13% of 24 ballot boxes; Tower Hamlets, at 32% of 96 ballot boxes; and Watford, at 14% of 42 ballot boxes. This is a serious problem, and widespread activities of this nature across different parts of London, England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland prove that.

    I draw attention to the report by Democracy Volunteers on the 2019 parliamentary by-election in my constituency, Peterborough, in which I came a majestic third. The report states:

    “Family voting was not simply localised to a couple of polling stations, it was identified across the constituency and ‘family voting’ should be challenged in whatever circumstances it occurs. Our observer team saw ‘family voting’ in 48% of the polling stations attended”.

    That means that at almost half of all polling stations in Peterborough, family voting occurred in that 2019 by-election. That is appalling. The behaviour of those people, who clearly have no respect for the secrecy of the ballot, is wholly inappropriate, and is becoming a rising threat to British democracy.

    Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)

    My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, which I back wholeheartedly. In Keighley, voters are going to the ballot box intimidated, and encounter threatening behaviour on their way into the polling station. Complaints have been made to polling staff and the police. As for where the balance of power lies, the issue of whether people are empowered to take action is a grey area, as he outlined. Although he is clearly referring to families, does he agree that the issue extends to intimidating behaviour among friends and in wider community networks? We have to get on top of that, and I support him wholeheartedly.

    Paul Bristow

    My hon. Friend makes a characteristically powerful point. He has been a champion in this area; he, like me, campaigns for the integrity of elections and ballots. I completely agree that the intimidation of individuals, whether by someone in the family or in the wider community, while they are making a private judgment about who they feel will best represent them needs to stop. He has my full support on any measures—perhaps we can introduce them together—to strengthen the law in this area.

    We need to create a level playing field. The Government have committed to that already through the Elections Act 2022, which I strongly applaud. Voter identification will prevent voter fraud and tackle intimidation, while increasing transparency and preventing interference in our elections. I completely and utterly support that. The Bill tabled by the noble Lord Hayward would continue that work. I hope that the Minister recognises the importance of that work, and of what I have said today. We have a responsibility to uphold our values and traditions. Secret voting was introduced by the Ballot Act 1872, and the fact that it is still a problem in 2022 is wholly wrong; 150 years later, that is unacceptable. I hope we will do something about it soon.

  • Sarah Dines – 2022 Speech on Asylum Seeker Employment and the Cost of Living

    Sarah Dines – 2022 Speech on Asylum Seeker Employment and the Cost of Living

    The speech made by Sarah Dines, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 14 December 2022.

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. Before I move on to substantive matters, I want to say that we are all now aware of possibly tragic news—certainly a major incident—in the channel. The authorities have been responding to the incident and full details will be forthcoming in due course. I understand that the Home Secretary is coming to the House to make a statement, so we will have more information then. It is of course a tragic situation that is evidence of what is happening in relation to the present system, which is why the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister are very keen to resolve the issues that we have in relation to asylum applications and economic migrants.

    I thank the hon. Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) for securing this debate and all who have contributed today; there have been heartfelt contributions. The UK has a proud history of welcoming and supporting those in need of our protection. We take our responsibilities very seriously and are committed to ensuring that we act in accordance with our international obligations.

    Let me touch first on the eloquent points made by the hon. Member for Bury South. I am looking forward to even more eloquent apologies; there were a lot of policy issues on which he was flagrant and boisterous—I think that is the way of describing it—in the Chamber when he sat on the Conservative Benches, and there need to be various apologies to his constituents. It was interesting to read about his speech in The Guardian at 9.17 am, before he had been able to make his apologies, but I am grateful for his explanations today.

    I turn to the cost of living. There has been a series of economic shocks. Cost of living issues, which people have raised today, are very much in the mind of the Government. The pandemic has contributed to them, and Russia’s unacceptable invasion of Ukraine has led to global pressures on the rising cost of living. The Government understand that people are worried about the cost of living challenges ahead. That is why decisive action has been taken to support households across the UK. We continue to keep the situation under review and will focus support on the most vulnerable while ensuring that we act in a fiscally responsible way.

    We are of course alive to the potential impact of rises in costs in the asylum system. It is important to remember that a full package of support is in place for asylum seekers while their claims are assessed. The Government have a legal obligation to provide support to those asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute, through accommodation and allowances to meet their essential living costs. The pressures exerted on the asylum accommodation system in recent weeks and months have been well documented. Nevertheless, despite those acute challenges, we have managed to continue to provide support where needed.

    The level of allowance is reviewed annually to ensure that the amount provided meets the essential needs of asylum seekers. As of the end of September 2022, 100,547 individuals were in receipt of support—46% more than at the end of September 2021. Of those, 95% were in receipt of support in the form of accommodation and subsistence. The remaining 5% were in receipt of subsistence only. Since 6 September, over 100 new hotels, providing over 9,000 additional bed spaces, have been brought into use, and we continue to add to the pipeline of available accommodation.

    It is no secret that the UK’s asylum system has come under severe strain. One of the main factors has been the extraordinary and unacceptable number of people crossing the channel with, as we have seen again today, possibly tragic consequences. As I said, around 100,500 individuals are currently on asylum support. That is an unprecedented figure. The cost of accommodating asylum seekers in hotels is more than £5.6 million a day. All of that underlines why change is so badly needed. Getting a grip of the situation has been a priority for the Home Office.

    It might be helpful if I set out some of the key rationale informing our asylum seeker right-to-work policy, which has been mentioned. It is important to distinguish between those who need protection and those seeking to come here to work, who can apply for a work visa under the immigration rules. As the hon. Member for Bury South is aware, our current policy allows asylum seekers to work in the UK if their claim has been outstanding for 12 months through no fault of their own. Those permitted to work are, as we know, restricted to jobs on the shortage occupation list, which is focused for a good reason. It is based on expert advice from the independent Migration Advisory Committee.

    As part of reforms to our economic migration routes, we have set up cutting-edge skilled labour migration routes. To protect those routes and enforce our approach, we operate the compliant environment, which among other things serves to deter people who might otherwise undercut the rules from working illegally. Our asylum seeker right-to-work policy does not operate in isolation; it is a constituent part of a wider whole. We must ensure that it supports our objectives elsewhere in the immigration system and does not undercut it. That is why the policy is designed as it is. It is primarily intended to protect the resident labour market by prioritising access to employment for British citizens and others lawfully resident in the UK.

    Rachael Maskell

    The Minister is reeling off the Government’s current policy, which clearly is failing catastrophically, and then highlighting shortages in the labour market. We know that there is so much need in the labour market because of the lack of supply of skills, so will she admit that what she is reading out is simply failing? It is time that the Government got a grip of this and had a real reform of their policy, to enable asylum seekers to work.

    Miss Dines

    It is certainly not phoney, but it is time that the Government got a grip. We cannot go back to the situation alluded to by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), when the Home Affairs Committee reported—I think in 2011— that over half a million legacy cases had been left by the Labour Government. We certainly should not get anywhere near that, so the Government are indeed getting a grip.

    Stephen Kinnock

    Will the Minister give way?

    Miss Dines

    If it is a point of clarification, I will gladly take it.

    Stephen Kinnock

    When Labour left Government in 2010, 6,000 asylum cases had been outstanding for more than six months. It is really important to correct the record on that.

    Miss Dines

    I was referring to the findings of the Home Affairs Committee, which heard the evidence at the time. However, I will make some progress.

    Relaxing our policy could enable people to access the very same jobs for which we, with very good reason, require a visa application process. That would make a mockery of the whole system and would simply not be right. I should be clear that, where reasons for coming to the UK include family or economic considerations, applications should be made via the relevant route, not by undercutting the system, which is simply not fair to everybody else. Either the new points-based immigration system or our various family reunion routes should be used. We must guard against creating an environment that encourages individuals to come to the UK to claim asylum inappropriately in order to circumvent economic controls. Equally, the Government have a firm position that individuals should claim asylum in the first safe place they come to.

    Tim Farron rose—

    Claudia Webbe rose—

    Miss Dines

    Let me finish this point. I remember the hon. Member for Bury South talking about the shopping trolley. He explained that economic migrants were using their shopping trolley to go through various safe countries. We must remember, as the tragedy today shows us, that France, for example, is a safe country.

    Tim Farron

    The Minister is talking about people coming through the established routes, but there are hardly any. Unless someone is from Ukraine, or among the tiny number of people from Syria or the tinier number of people from Afghanistan, there is no way of getting to this country safely without doing what the Government now decide is—but what, under international law, most definitely is not—illegal. What will the Minister do to establish safe routes from the region? What about working in north Africa, or indeed with our partners elsewhere in Europe, so that we do not have tragedies such as the one that we learned of today?

    Miss Dines

    To answer that point, there are many safe routes—countries where, internationally, there are agreements for taking various people—to come to this country to claim sanctuary. I am proud of the Government’s history of welcoming and supporting those in need. We need to focus protection on those who need it most, not on illegal migrants.

    Carol Monaghan

    Will the Minister give way?

    Miss Dines

    I must make a bit of progress to allow for closing comments.

    We cannot readily dismiss the risk that removing restrictions would actually increase asylum intake, reducing our capacity to take decisions and support refugees. Let me take this opportunity to make it clear that I acknowledge the hon. Members’ concerns. In particular, I am aware of the debate about the best way to look at the right to work.

    The comments made by the Opposition spokesperson about productivity were on point. The Prime Minister has committed to triple the productivity of case workers to abolish the backlog of asylum decisions by the end of next year. The Government are committed to ensuring that asylum claims are considered without unnecessary delay, to ensure that individuals who need protection are granted asylum as soon as possible. We are pursuing a programme of transformation and business improvement initiatives that will speed up the decision-making process.

    I will briefly mention one or two comments made by hon. Members in interventions. The mental health of people is extremely important to the Government; indeed, as the Minister for Safeguarding I find that some important and cogent arguments have been made. There is, of course, voluntary work. It is important that people get out of the unfortunate situations they are living in and that they live, breathe fresh air and do voluntary work. They do not necessarily have to be paid financially. We must protect the integrity of the whole system.

    On the points about Manston, as of yesterday, there were five people staying there. The figures are not quite the same as those given by the Opposition spokesperson.

    Many points were made about the Lift the Ban campaign. The Government’s view is that, as with its early reports, its most recent report was unduly and overly optimistic about the amount that might be saved by changes in the system. When cases such as the seven-year-old case mentioned by the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) are raised, it is important to recognise that they are likely to have an extremely complicated legal history. After 12 months, people can work, so there is no reason not to be working for seven years and blaming the system for that.

    I will conclude to give the hon. Member for Bury South a few moments to sum up, if he pleases. I am sorry that it is only a minute.