Tag: Stephen Kinnock

  • Stephen Kinnock – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Stephen Kinnock – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Kinnock on 2016-01-05.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what risk assessment has been made of the proposed centre for destitute asylum seekers in Goytre.

    James Brokenshire

    The premises in Goytre is one of a number of sites throughout the UK that the Home Office, along with its providers, has initially identified as potentially suitable for providing temporary reception facilities for asylum seekers. Initial assessments undertaken by the provider suggest that Goytre could meet the appropriate requirements laid out in Schedule 2 of the COMPASS contract. If the provider elects to progress this option, further appropriate assessments will be completed prior to any commercial agreements and utilisation of the site.

  • Stephen Kinnock – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Stephen Kinnock – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Kinnock on 2016-06-07.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will introduce measures to prevent companies based in tax havens from purchasing assets during privatisations.

    Mr David Gauke

    The Government seeks to ensure value for money for the taxpayer in conducting asset sales. This includes running sales on a competitive basis that are open to a wide range of potential buyers. The Government has no plans to change the existing arrangements governing participation in the sale of government assets.

  • Stephen Kinnock – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Stephen Kinnock – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Kinnock on 2016-01-13.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, if he will commission an inquiry into contaminated blood in England and Wales.

    Jane Ellison

    Given the thoroughness of Lord Penrose’s report, published in March 2015 and the fact that the report sets the events in Scotland in the wider UK context at that time, our view remains that there is no need for a further public inquiry in England. The report, together with over 5,000 documents from the period 1970-85 that have already been published by the Government, provides a comprehensive picture of events and decisions made. Another Inquiry would not be in the best interests of sufferers and their families as it would be costly and further delay action to address their concerns and significantly delay plans to reform existing payment support schemes.

    On 21 January 2016, the Government published a consultation seeking views on proposed reforms to the schemes supporting those infected with, or affected by, HIV and/or hepatitis C through NHS-supplied blood products. I would encourage all those with an interest to respond.

  • Stephen Kinnock – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Stephen Kinnock – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Kinnock on 2016-06-15.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, whether any Government official or Minister discussed with the Crown Estate its decision not to report the incident of 13 March 2016 at Windsor Great Park involving Prince Andrew to the police.

    John Penrose

    There have been no discussions by Ministers or Government officials with the Crown Estate regarding its decision on this matter.

  • Stephen Kinnock – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    Stephen Kinnock – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Department of Health

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Kinnock on 2016-01-13.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to the Answer of 17 December 2015 to Question 19788, in how many cases liability has been established for people infected by contaminated blood.

    Jane Ellison

    In 2001 the National Blood Authority was liable for the infection of 117 patients with hepatitis C between March 1988 and September 1991 by whole blood transfusion. The litigation was brought under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. The litigants were awarded quantum based damages.

  • Stephen Kinnock – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    Stephen Kinnock – 2016 Parliamentary Question to the Cabinet Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stephen Kinnock on 2016-06-15.

    To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, whether his Department has discussed with the devolved administrations inserting the new anti-lobbying clause into their government grants.

    Matthew Hancock

    Officials in the Cabinet Office Grants Efficiency Programme team held preliminary discussions with the devolved administrations as part of the implementation of the grants clause. However, as announced on 27 April, the implementation of the clause has been paused pending a review of the representations made and we will take a decision on the form of the clause following this review. Revised guidance will be published in due course.

  • Stephen Kinnock – 2022 Speech on Asylum Seeker Employment and the Cost of Living

    Stephen Kinnock – 2022 Speech on Asylum Seeker Employment and the Cost of Living

    The speech made by Stephen Kinnock, the Labour MP for Aberavon, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 14 December 2022.

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Davies. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) for calling this important debate, and I commend him for his brave, powerful and honest speech. I thank all hon. Members who have made such excellent contributions —in particular my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), who always speaks with such passion and commitment on these matters.

    I echo the comments about the terrible incident in the channel today. It is just appalling to think of those poor people suffering. It shows that the issues that we are discussing today are matters of life and death in the most literal sense.

    The debate about whether asylum seekers should have the right to work has come to the fore largely because of slow asylum claim processing by this Government. After 12 years, a series of Conservative Home Secretaries have openly admitted that their asylum system is “broken”—and they should know, because they broke it. The backlog of asylum seekers awaiting decisions stands at 143,000. An enormous 97,700 of those have been waiting more than six months. The root cause is that the Government have failed to process asylum claims with anything like the efficiency required. In 2012, Home Office decision makers were making an average of 14 asylum decisions a month; now, they are making just five.

    Tory Ministers try to blame covid, but the truth is that this is a mess of their own making. They chose to downgrade asylum decision makers from higher executive officer grade to lower executive officer grade, leading to a less experienced workforce on lower wages and with lower morale, lower retention rates and a collapsing process. The inevitable consequences were slower decisions, more decisions overturned at appeal, an increasing backlog, and ballooning costs for the taxpayer.

    As a result, the British taxpayer is now forking out almost £7 million every single day on emergency accommodation in hotels—with private contractors, by the way, making a killing. It is worth noting that the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 has made the whole situation worse by adding an extra layer of bureaucracy through its so-called inadmissibility provisions. Make no mistake: the system is a shambles.

    That is the backdrop against which we discuss the right of asylum seekers to work while they await an asylum decision. Currently, asylum seekers who have been waiting more than a year are able to work in shortage occupations. The Labour party is clear that that period should be reduced to six months. It would not be appropriate for people to work straightaway on arrival, as those with clearly unfounded claims or who have come from safe countries should be swiftly returned. The asylum system is for those fleeing persecution and conflict; it is not an alternative to the normal immigration rules for those who are not. However, where people are in limbo for more than six months simply because of Home Office incompetence, there are real problems with expecting the British taxpayer to pay them about £40 in weekly earnings. That money and more could be being paid by employers, especially at a time of high job vacancy rates in Britain.

    The current state of affairs is damaging to the taxpayer, damaging to the Exchequer, and damaging to the wellbeing of asylum seekers. The Government’s own Migration Advisory Committee said that restrictions were pushing asylum seekers

    “into exploitative situations by preventing them from obtaining safe and legal sources of income.”

    The Lift the Ban coalition, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South, estimates that reform of the policy could save the UK economy more than £333 million a year. Moreover, research by the OECD found that being refused permission to work leads some asylum seekers to work unlawfully, which exposes them to exploitative working practices because of the absence of health and safety and other regulatory employment protections. That, of course, tends to lead to undercutting and a race to the bottom right across the labour market, so absolutely nobody benefits from the mess in which we currently find ourselves. Does the Minister recognise the absurdity of the situation?

    Currently, the Government allow asylum seekers to work in jobs on the shortage occupation list if they have been waiting more than 12 months for their claim to be heard. As I mentioned, we support the view that asylum seekers should be able to work after six months, on the basis that the Government should not be taking longer than that to process a claim, except in the most exceptional circumstances. There is strong support for that view across the House, including from a number of Conservative Members.

    In case the Minister has forgotten, may I remind her that the long-standing target of processing 98% of straightforward asylum claims within six months was scrapped by this Government more than four years ago, with no indication of when or whether it would be reinstated? Perhaps the Minister could enlighten us about whether that service standard will ever be reinstated. It is a shocking sign of Conservative Government failure that almost 100,000 asylum seekers have now been waiting more than six months.

    It appears obvious that the right to work should exist alongside a functioning system. That is why our entire focus, when we are in government, will be on clearing the backlog and getting back to the six-month service standard. In other words, the debate about the right of asylum seekers to work is a symptom of the fact that the Government are not clearing the backlog or stopping the boats.

    On the issue of small boats, we on the Labour Benches are clear that the dangerous channel crossings are a real problem and that preventing them is a priority for our party. In 2019, the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), said that she would stop the small boat crossings in months. Three years later, the numbers have rocketed to around 45,000. Meanwhile, we recently had the chaos of 4,100 people living in Manston—more than double the legal limit—with the local Conservative MP blaming the Home Secretary for failing to provide the appropriate accommodation. Last month, another Conservative MP called on the Minister for Immigration to consider his position over the procurement of hotels around the country. We know that 222 vulnerable children have gone missing from asylum accommodation, and there have been other deeply disturbing safeguarding issues.

    The public can see that the asylum system is neither firm nor fair, neither compassionate nor competent, and neither safe nor secure. The system needs fixing, but unfortunately the Conservatives are more concerned about chasing headlines than doing the nitty-gritty of good government. They put tough talk above hard graft. The country can see that government by gimmick is not working. An obvious example of that is the failing Rwanda offloading plan: with a mere threat of deportation, we are supposed to prevent crossings, but crossings have increased dramatically since that announcement.

    The Labour party wants to stop refugees crossing the English channel and to crack down on the smuggling gangs that exploit refugees for profit, but the Rwanda plan is unworkable, unaffordable and unethical. Labour has shown leadership by setting out a five-point plan to deal with the mess. It is a serious approach based on sensible policy solutions; it is not based on what would best achieve a right-wing tabloid front page headline. First, we would crack down on the criminal gangs by repurposing the wasted Rwanda money for an elite unit in the National Crime Agency that would partner with France, Belgium and Europol to crack down on people smugglers.

    Secondly, we would speed up asylum decisions by restoring order and smart management to the Home Office and by returning to 2016 levels of asylum processing. As part of our plan, we would fast-track applications of asylum seekers from safe countries in order to ensure swift returns. The previous Labour Government used the safe countries list to fast-track returns, but when this Conservative Government lost control of the asylum system as a whole, the fast-tracking process fell off the cliff with it.

    Recently, the Labour party has been pushing for that system to return in the context of the number of Albanian channel crossers rising to 12,000. The Government have announced their intentions, but the detail is still unclear. It feels like more rhetoric, but we hope we are proven wrong on that. Labour’s common-sense fast-track system, combined with the much-needed injection of energy and competence that we would bring to government, means that we would deal with the issue in our first 100 days.

    Thirdly, we would reform resettlement schemes better to target those most at risk of exploitation by trafficking and smuggler gangs, and liaise closely with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to get the Afghanistan scheme working properly. Fourthly, we would replace the Dublin agreement on returns. Fifthly, we would work internationally to address crises that lead people to flee their homes.

    Claudia Webbe

    Does the hon. Member not agree that the immigration system is based on the hostile environment and that we are going to have difficulties unless we do something about that? The Immigration Acts of 2014 and 2016 effectively introduced internal borders. That means that every aspect of someone’s life, including going to a bank and accessing any type of service, is being policed by immigration control internally, as opposed to at the border. That is the problem of the hostile environment, and it would be much easier simply to allow asylum seekers to work.

    Stephen Kinnock

    I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She is absolutely right that the hostile environment is profoundly counterproductive. Much of the thinking around the asylum system is based on a hostile environment for assessing applications, which has led to the system becoming completely blocked, and that has become a magnet in itself. The backlog is a magnet for many people, who pay people smugglers knowing that when they arrive in the UK it will take up to 450 days for their claim to be processed, so it is counterproductive in terms of the efficiency of the system. Of course, the hostile environment to which she refers is also the root cause of the appalling Windrush scandal, which has had such a damaging impact on communities across our country.

    Having set out our approach to the right to work and how Labour will deliver on that in government, I look forward to the Minister’s response to these vital questions. We need to get away from empty rhetoric and towards something that resembles the efficiency, speed, compassion and control that we need, so that we can have an asylum system that works for our country, we can start to get control of our borders again, and we can ensure that people who come here fleeing war and persecution are able to make a valued contribution to our society and, indeed, our economy.

  • Stephen Kinnock – 2022 Speech on Local Authority Consultation on Hotel Asylum Accommodation

    Stephen Kinnock – 2022 Speech on Local Authority Consultation on Hotel Asylum Accommodation

    The speech made by Stephen Kinnock, the Shadow Immigration Minister, in the House of Commons on 23 November 2022.

    It seems that we come to the Chamber at least once a week to hear about the mess that the Home Secretary is making of an asylum system that her Government have broken. The root cause of today’s urgent question is the failure of the Government to process asylum claims with anything like the efficiency required. In 2012, the Home Office was making 14 asylum decisions a month; it is now making just five.

    Tory Ministers like to blame covid, but the truth is that this is a mess of their own making. They chose to downgrade asylum decision makers from higher executive officer grade to lower executive officer grade, leading to a less experienced workforce on lower wages with lower retention rates and collapsing morale. The inevitable consequences were slower decisions, more decisions overturned at appeal, an increasing backlog and ballooning taxpayer costs.

    With the average time to process an asylum claim standing at 449 days, the people smugglers see the backlog as a marketing opportunity—an open invite from this Conservative Government to those who want to melt away into the underground economy. All this catastrophic incompetence has led to the Minister scrambling around to find contingency hotel accommodation, resulting in what the Home Secretary described this morning as “poor communication” between central and local government.

    Will the Minister therefore confirm whether he really feels that his undertaking to give local authorities as little as 24 hours’ notice is reasonable? Did he recently pull out of two meetings with council leaders at short notice? What mechanisms is he using to monitor the performance of contractors and subcontractors? I have heard from councils where the public health team was not informed about serious health issues, including pregnancies, so does he accept that he is failing to give local authorities key health-related information? What progress is he making on tackling the crisis of unaccompanied children being placed in hotels— 222 have already gone missing—and will he apologise to the couples who have had to cancel their wedding receptions in hotels at extremely short notice as a result of this Government’s chronic mismanagement?

  • Stephen Kinnock – 2022 Parliamentary Question on the Asylum Application Backlog

    Stephen Kinnock – 2022 Parliamentary Question on the Asylum Application Backlog

    The parliamentary question asked by Stephen Kinnock, the Labour MP for Aberavon, in the House of Commons on 14 November 2022.

    Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)

    The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 establishes a new category of asylum seekers that the Government claim are not permitted to claim asylum in Britain and should therefore be removed, but because the Government have failed to secure a returns agreement with France, and because their Rwanda policy is completely unworkable, 16,000 people in this category have been stuck in limbo waiting an additional six months for a decision, at huge cost to the British taxpayer. Of those 16,000 waiting in limbo, only 21 have been returned since the Act came into force. Do Ministers therefore accept that their own legislation is adding further delays, cost, chaos and confusion to an already broken system while doing next and nothing to remove failed asylum seekers who have no right to be here?

    Suella Braverman

    I find it staggering that Labour Members seem to love complaining about the system but when we introduced laws to fix it, what did they do? They opposed them every step of the way. We wanted to make it easier to deport foreign national offenders; Labour voted against it. We wanted to fix our asylum system; Labour voted against it. We secured a ground-breaking agreement with Rwanda; Labour would scrap it. Labour Members are very good at complaining, but they have absolutely no solution at all.

  • Stephen Kinnock – 2022 Speech on Asylum Seekers Accommodation and Safeguarding

    Stephen Kinnock – 2022 Speech on Asylum Seekers Accommodation and Safeguarding

    The speech made by Stephen Kinnock, the Shadow Immigration Minister, in the House of Commons on 7 November 2022.

    I welcome the Minister to his place. The Home Secretary has stated that after 12 years of Conservative government the asylum system is “broken”. We agree, and it is the Conservative party that has broken it. The Government are processing just half the number of asylum claims that they were processing in 2015, and as a result the British taxpayer is footing a £7 million hotel bill every single day. Their failure to replace the Dublin agreement on returning failed asylum seekers, their failure to crack down on the criminal gangs, and their failure to get agreement with France have also increased the backlog.

    This catalogue of chaos has led to the overcrowding in Manston, for which the right hon. Member for North Thanet (Sir Roger Gale) has directly blamed the Home Secretary. The previous Home Secretary revealed today that on 20 October he received legal advice that Manston was

    “being used, or in danger of being used, as a detention centre”,

    and he took emergency measures to work within the law. However, the current Home Secretary met officials on 19 October, just before she was forced to resign for breaching the ministerial code. Can the Minister please confirm that the Home Secretary refused to take those same emergency measures, and can he explain why she ignored the advice that she was repeatedly given over a period of several weeks?

    The Home Secretary told the House just a week ago that she did not ignore legal advice. Can the Minister tell the House now whether he believes that statement to be correct? The key question on Manston is whether legal advice was followed or not. Given the Minister’s unlawful approval of a Tory donor’s housing project in his previous brief, is he really best placed to make that judgment?

    We know that 222 children have gone missing from asylum accommodation. What are the Government doing to find those missing children, to prevent more children from going missing, and to meet their legal obligations to vulnerable children?

    Robert Jenrick 

    For a few moments I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to approach this in an intelligent and constructive manner, but sadly that was the triumph of optimism over experience. In fact, the Labour party is trying to politicise this, and we can of course say the same. The Labour party has no plan to tackle illegal immigration. It does not want to tackle illegal immigration. The Labour party left a system in ruins in 2010, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) would attest, as he had to help to pick up the pieces. We believe in a system of secure borders and a fair and robust asylum system in which all members of the public can have confidence.

    The hon. Gentleman asked about the Home Secretary’s conduct. Let me tell him that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has consistently approved hotel accommodation. More than 30 hotels have been brought on line in the time for which my right hon. and learned Friend has been in office, which has ensured that thousands of asylum seekers have been able to move on from the Manston site and into better and more sustainable accommodation. And look at her record over the course of the last week! The population at Manston has fallen from 4,000 to 1,600 in a matter of seven days. That is a very considerable achievement on the part of the Home Secretary and her officials in the Home Office, and I am proud of it.