Backbench Business

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 20th April 2017 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans, and to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who as ever speaks incredibly knowledgeably on such topics. I welcome the debate and thank the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) for bringing it to the Chamber. The Scottish National party is fully behind the idea of a European arrest warrant and wants the UK to continue to participate in the scheme if that is at all possible. However, the hon. Gentleman has done us—all six of us—a favour by bringing the topic here for debate and highlighting important flaws in the scheme. I believe that there are key questions that the Government must address, about how they will seek to secure continuing participation in the EAW scheme or at least something similar.

The UK was of course hugely influential in shaping the EAW system. It has brought welcome benefits for law enforcement agencies and victims of crime. As the hon. Gentleman said, it does so by simplifying matters and speeding up the repatriation of suspects and criminals from other EU countries so that they can face justice. In the old days, when extradition proceeded under the 1957 European convention on extradition, it took an average of 18 months to extradite someone. Under the current system it takes 15 days in uncontested cases and 45 days if a case is contested. Today it takes three times as long to extradite from EU countries as from outside the EU. Some countries would previously have refused to extradite their nationals at all.

The hon. Gentleman is nevertheless right to remind us that, while the system often works perfectly well, it is not without flaws. There have been too many cases, some of which have been highlighted today, where the use of warrants has been frankly ridiculous. That stems from the fact that a proportionality test is not applied in some states as it is in others, such as the UK and Germany. That is behind quite a lot of the problems that the right hon. Member for Leicester East highlighted—I am talking about the imbalance between the number of requests that the UK makes and the number that it receives. The hon. Member for Monmouth highlighted differences in criminal procedures and standards across the EU. Those are also valid points.

From our point of view, the answer to the criticisms is to be part of the system but to seek reform, not to ditch it altogether and push for something else. We do not often say that any part of our criminal justice system is perfect, but of course we do not just rip it up and start again; we seek reform and improvement.

[Keith Vaz]

I am going to tease the hon. Gentleman a little. Let us say that Scotland became an independent country. Scotland would want to retain the European arrest warrant, because that is how it would be able to track criminals, but the Scottish Government and the Scottish people would want some kind of bar so that Scottish citizens would not automatically be transferred, especially if they wanted to appeal to the judicial system in Scotland. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is necessary to have some kind of bar before people are handed over?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. Yes, in an independent Scotland, we would seek participation in the European arrest warrant system. As I have acknowledged, it is not perfect, and we would push for reform, but from within the system; I will come to the issue of a bar in a moment. I cannot see how we are any more likely to be able to overcome the problems by starting again and trying to negotiate either 27 bilateral agreements or a new agreement in the way that Norway and Iceland have done. The easiest way for us to keep the benefits and bring about improvement in the system is from within, by continuing our participation.

There is evidence that continuing to participate and to push for reform and take part in dialogue can realise some progress. For example, raising concerns with Poland has brought about some change, including the introduction there of an “interests of justice” test. Before, it was almost automatic that a European arrest warrant would be sought. There is awareness and, I think, acceptance in EU institutions that more must be done to ensure proportionate use of the warrant system, although debate continues about exactly what measures are needed to make that happen. Meanwhile, changes to the Extradition Act 2003 mean that courts in the UK can apply a proportionality test and refuse to execute a warrant if the test is not passed, although I acknowledge the criticisms about whether it is appropriately robust.

As regards ensuring standards of justice, it is absolutely fair to say that more must be done to ensure that people extradited to certain EU states are treated fairly and that there are proper standards in relation to pre-trial conditions and detention. Again, however, change is possible. We have heard already that the 2003 Act does now set down a human rights bar, although I accept that there is also a debate about whether that test is robust enough.

Again, there is awareness at European level that there have to be improvements. For example, in February 2014, the European Parliament resolved to support proposals to include a ground for refusing an arrest warrant

“where there are substantial grounds to believe that the execution of the measure would be incompatible with the executing Member State’s obligation in accordance with Article 6 of the TEU”—

the treaty on European Union—“and the Charter”, which is the charter of fundamental rights of the European Union. For its part, the European Commission has said that it would prefer to adopt legislation on minimum procedural rights standards and action on implementation of the judicial co-operation instruments such as the supervision order and European investigation order. I am not saying that more cannot be done, but it is fair to recognise that the door is open to making progress and resolving some of the issues highlighted today.

In short, we should continue to want the UK to be involved in the European arrest warrant system. We should work to find solutions from within the system rather than starting again from scratch. I say that because the alternatives would be very difficult. Negotiating 27 separate bilateral agreements would be a hugely significant task and almost certainly would not bring the same benefits, while retaining many of the same problems. A separate deal with the EU as a whole is possible, but we know from the experience of Norway and Iceland, despite their both being Schengen countries, that that can also be an incredibly long process and the resulting system could involve variations from the main system that would make it weaker than what we have as a member of the system itself.

The Government have said that they, too, see the benefits of the European arrest warrant process. However, we need to hear more about how they intend to get there. After all, the current Prime Minister warned when she was Home Secretary that Brexit likely meant no EU arrest warrant participation at all. Her fixation on excluding any involvement of the European Court of Justice seems to be the biggest barrier to continued participation in the arrest warrant system. The Government must get their priorities right and not allow that fixation to scupper the bigger goal. We need to ask these questions. What precisely are the Government seeking to secure? How will they do that? And will they let go of their fixation on the European Court of Justice if that is what is necessary to secure ongoing participation in the arrest warrant scheme?

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Lady’s intervention anticipates the point that I was just about to make. In a few of her questions, including the one she has just asked, she is asking me to prejudge the negotiations, which I will not do. We will go through some complicated and, no doubt, at times difficult negotiations in the months and years ahead.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

We are not pushing for a “running commentary” on negotiations. All that we are asking for is a reassurance that if the best deal for securing safety and participation in the warrant also involves participation in or operating under the jurisdiction of the ECJ, we will not say no to such a deal purely because we are so set against being under the ECJ’s jurisdiction.

[Brandon Lewis]

I say to the hon. Gentleman that in saying I will not prejudge what the negotiations may bring, I mean that I am not going to prejudge what the negotiations may bring. My own experience of negotiations —in Government, as an MP and before that in my life—is that it is always difficult to prejudge a negotiation. That is not only because we do not want to give away to our opposite numbers in those negotiations what we are looking for, what we want to do and what our position is, but because things develop and change. We have to be able to consider what the right situation is.

What we have been very clear about—the hon. Member for West Ham touched on this, and I think that the right hon. Member for Leicester East also mentioned it—is the priority when the House returns. I would gently point out that one of the very first debates we had, some months ago—I opened it and I think the hon. Lady responded to it—was on law enforcement, linked into us leaving the European Union, and there will no doubt be more such debates. Those debates, which include today’s debate, all feed in comments and views from hon. Members and hon. Friends, which will form part of the work we are doing as we consider what is possible and what is right for our country and our European partners, as we negotiate to make sure that we keep everybody safe.

It would be wrong to prejudge where we will get to, however, for all those reasons and not least because these negotiations are yet to start and we must ensure that we get the best deal for this country without prejudging what that may be.

Schengen and EU-Turkey Co-operation on Migration

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd March 2017 General Committees

[Mr Goodwill]

I could not really comment on any future deals until the details of those deals were known. However, if a similar deal with a north African state was possible, it could prevent large numbers of people who are currently doing so from putting their lives at risk. In some cases, they are being forced at gunpoint on to vessels that are clearly not seaworthy. A similar deal throughout the Mediterranean would, I am sure, be welcomed by the international community.

The deal is saving lives and ensuring that people are being cared for. Let us not forget that those who can afford to pay the people smugglers are by definition not the most vulnerable; they have that resource. Our schemes, particularly the Syrian vulnerable person resettlement programme, delivers for those whom the UNHCR selects as being the most vulnerable, rather than those who can afford to pay the people smugglers.

The EU-Turkey deal continues to represent a critical opportunity to manage migratory flows effectively, to tackle people smugglers and to prevent people from making perilous crossings. The deal has, along with other measures, resulted in a substantial reduction in the number of migrants arriving in Greece since it was agreed. Flows across the Aegean during the last four months of 2016 were only 2% of what they were during the same period the year before. That is a testament to the effect of the joint working under way.

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

I have three short questions for the Minister—

[The Chair]

Take them one at a time.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Sure. First, to go back to what the hon. Member for South Thanet said, this is perhaps the second time that I have been to a European Committee in which we have been talking about fundamental issues and documents that are a year out of date. Is there an explanation for why that has happened? May we have an assurance for the future that when such documents are published, we will be able to debate them quickly, preferably on the Floor of the House?

[Mr Goodwill]

I did make a solemn undertaking, when called before the European Scrutiny Committee to account for myself, that we would work off the backlog, and we have made considerable progress in doing that. I have to say, however, that this is a very good point in time at which to review the operation of the Turkey deal and what is happening in the Schengen area. In the coming months, a number of critical decisions will need to be made by the European Union, not least because this is a two-way deal. There were suggestions that visa restrictions could be eased for Turks wishing to come to the European Union, and there is the issue of more progress on Turkey’s wishes to become a member. It is therefore a good time to have the debate and to review the measures, albeit that we are not a member of the Schengen area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald]

May I press the Minister, secondly, on the lawfulness of the EU-Turkey agreement? We need to be clear what we are talking about, which is the European Union saying, “We are not going to consider the substantive claim for asylum that you have made. We are going to say that it is inadmissible and return you to a country that does not fully implement the Geneva convention, on the basis that you have travelled from there.” Peter Sutherland, the UN Secretary-General’s special representative for international migration, suggested that the deal was illegal. Did the Government seek legal advice? How have they come to the conclusion that it is lawful to say, “You can have your asylum claim processed in Turkey”?

[Mr Goodwill]

I repeat the point that the “first safe country” principle is well accepted and has been for many years. Turkey, as a safe country, is one in which people may claim asylum. It offers sufficient protection in law and in practice to returnees. We are confident that all returns will take place in full accordance with EU and international law. Every quarter, the European Commission carries out a review that considers human rights. There have been five to date, the most recent one published in early March.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I thank the Minister for that answer. I will return to that issue in a moment, but finally, may I press him on what he said about using the deal as a model for other deals, perhaps with north African countries? I cannot for a minute think that he is suggesting that he would implement a similar deal with Libya, under which people claiming asylum in Europe would be told that we would not consider their claim, but it would instead be considered and processed in Libya, which clearly has no implementation of the Geneva refugee convention.

[Mr Goodwill]

The point I was making was that no deal is on the table, but certainly Libya can never be considered a country to which it is safe to return people. In any case, there are serious problems with organised criminals and people traffickers operating in Libya. The lack of rule of law in Libya is also of great concern to the international community. As I said, no deal is on the table, and no model can be delivered, but overall, the Turkey deal has saved lives and resulted in people smugglers’ business being curtailed. We can certainly learn lessons from it, if we look at similar types of deal in future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald]

May I say, first, that I have always supported much of what the Government have done in their support for refugees in the region and their resettlement programme? However, I have always had considerable disagreement with the Government’s approach to how we treat those who have arrived in Europe. Having said that, I accept that there are significant parts of the EU-Turkey deal that are good, for example the co-operation to tackle people smuggling, which the Minister has spoken about, which has undoubtedly reduced the number of deaths of people trying to cross the sea.

Secondly, we have particular concerns about the removal of people who have claimed asylum in EU countries. They have been told not that we have considered their asylum claim and found it unsuccessful in law, but simply that we have decided it is inadmissible, and that they should go to Turkey and have their claim considered there. From our point of view, that was putting the cart before the horse because, at the time the EU agreement was reached, there was not even in place any protection for non-Syrians, as I will allude to in a minute. There was a temporary procedure in place for Syrians. We think the deal was premature.

I will speak briefly about two of the documents that highlight that the EU itself was very much aware of the controversy around this deal. First, document no. 7183/16: “Next operational steps in EU-turkey co-operation in the field of migration”, was a pivotal change in the EU approach, having previously adopted an approach of processing asylum applicants on the merits of the claim and then relocating them around Europe. That was abandoned and instead here we have the new “temporary and extraordinary measures” as the documents describe them, whereby all claims are to be rejected on grounds of inadmissibility on the basis that they would be adequately considered in Turkey.

The aims of the scheme are laudable but the means are wrong. This was a premature and possibly illegal approach. Even the documents themselves accept that it was a controversial approach. The documents set out that there would have to be changes to Turkish legislation. That included renewing temporary protection status for Syrians and putting in place what is referred to as protection equivalent to the Geneva convention for non-Syrians.

In short, the EU recognised that people’s claims under the refugee convention were going to be declared inadmissible and that a person would have to go and pursue their asylum claim in a country that did not even fully implement that convention. Meanwhile, Greek hotspots were no longer to be designed for quick reception and processing of claims. Instead they were to become, in essence, large detention facilities before people were returned.

The documents also rightly accepted that new routes to Europe might develop, and indeed many expert groups have since confirmed that once one dangerous route has been cut off, others have simply opened up. Our view is that the best answer would be for the EU to continue with its original approach but with a much more comprehensive offer of safe and legal routes.

The first report on progress is document no. 8175/16 and Addendum: “First Report on the progress made in the implementation of the EU-Turkey Statement”. I note that we now have a fourth report on progress and implementation. Even the first report confirmed some of the concerns that I have just set out. We learn that Turkey signed a letter assuring that returned Syrians would be granted temporary protection. That is not refugee status. With regard to non-Syrians, it simply said that discussions are ongoing.

The Minister has assured us today, and I welcome the fact, that subsequently the Turkish Government did implement a scheme for non-Syrian asylum seekers being returned. Surely that should have been a precondition of any agreement. The horse had bolted by the time that assurance was given.

We also learn in that document just how badly placed Turkey was to process all those claims. It notes that it still needs to reduce a backlog of 140,000 pending asylum applications, while ensuring that decisions on new asylum requests are registered within a reasonable time and taken within the deadlines prescribed by law. It says Turkey still has to take

“necessary steps to grant all refugees legal access to the labour market”.

At that time only Syrians were allowed to do that. It also urges that remaining benchmarks in relation to the protection of fundamental rights should be fulfilled. Even very basic fundamentals were not in place at the time of the agreement. Hence, the report had to urge for the protection of vulnerable groups, such as child protection, women’s health and education and emergencies. There was still a need to establish a transfer system to cover basic needs of the most vulnerable refugees to cover food and shelter, which is described as “an emergency social safety net”.

Thirdly, even protection of incoming services such as delivery of non-food items and immediate support such as tents and mattresses still had to be put into place. The report concluded:

“Further efforts are required by Turkey to make sure that those who need international protection receive the support they require.”

Our view quite simply is that all of that should have been done before this agreement was signed and people who had claimed asylum would have been returned to that country.

I have already alluded to the comments by Peter Sutherland about the questionable legality of this process. The hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton also alluded to reports by Amnesty International and Doctors Without Borders who have commented on the devastating human consequences of this strategy on the lives and health of thousands of refugees, asylum seekers and migrants trapped on the Greek islands and in the Balkans.

Just last week, The Telegraph reminded us about the effect on those who are stranded in Europe, reporting that a year after the controversial deal between the EU and Turkey blocked the flow of asylum seekers in Europe, tens of thousands are stuck in camps, suffering from rising levels of trauma and depression.

In summary, there are huge question marks about the legality of the EU-Turkey deal, particularly given that it was signed before all these huge issues were addressed, and we have not heard enough about what will happen to people who are trapped in Europe because of the closure of these routes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Monday 6th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Goodwill]

We seek to minimise the time for which people are kept in detention, and that is done for the purposes of removal. We have, of course, introduced a new adults at risk policy, which seeks to minimise the use of detention for those considered vulnerable.

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

16. What steps she is taking to support refugees in the UK and other European countries.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

18. What steps she is taking to support refugees in the UK and other European countries.

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

The UK provides protection for refugees here, in accordance with our international obligations. The Government have established a £10 million refugee children fund for Europe, provided significant assistance via the European Asylum Support Office, and allocated up to £39 million to the humanitarian response in Greece.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Why is it that only a solitary Home Office official in each of Greece and Italy is working on the Dubs and Dublin schemes? According to non-governmental organisations on the ground, the result is that the schemes are barely functioning there at all.

[Mr Goodwill]

We work very closely with our colleagues in France, Greece and Italy. We committed 115 staff into Greece, 75 of whom are already there, including one embedded member of the Home Office staff who is helping with Dublin applications in Athens. Of course, we also have our Border Force commitment in the Mediterranean, which ensures that we save people’s lives should they make that perilous journey across the Mediterranean.

Unaccompanied Children (Greece and Italy)

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

rose—

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

rose—

[Mr Goodwill]

I should like to make a bit of progress on section 67, which has been raised in the debate.

I am pleased to update the House today by announcing that the Home Secretary will be writing to her counterparts in France, Greece and Italy to ask for referrals of eligible children to the specified number of 350. The basis on which these transfers will be made will be published in due course. The Government have always been clear that we do not want to incentivise perilous journeys to Europe, particularly by the most vulnerable children. It is not and has never been the case, as has been suggested, that the Government would accept 3,000 children from Europe under section 67 of the Immigration Act 2016—

--- Later in debate ---

[Nicky Morgan]

My hon. Friend is right that the money follows the child, as I understand it. There is money there. As Members of Parliament, we know that local authorities are under financial pressure, but a significant amount of money follows each child, so local authorities should have the resources.

It would be helpful if the Government published the number of children that each local authority has already agreed to accept so that Members of Parliament, local communities, non-governmental organisations and charities can work with those authorities to welcome the children and ascertain whether the number of places can be increased.

I urge the Minister to use Members of Parliament who have an interest in this issue. From my time in government I know that officials are sometimes reluctant to involve constituency MPs, but we are able to ask questions of local councillors and local authorities. The Minister is not listening at the moment—perhaps he will read the transcript instead—but I urge him to use Members of Parliament to interrogate their local authorities on what capacity they have offered, whether they can offer more and what more we can do to get messages back to the Home Office if there are queries, questions and a reluctance on the part of local authorities to get involved in schemes.

I pay tribute to the charity Baca in my constituency, which has long worked with unaccompanied child asylum seekers and refugees. I hope its expertise—I am sure there are many other charities like it across the country—is being used, but I fear that that is not the case. Again, it is up to Ministers to challenge the Department to use their expertise and let them respond to this crisis and need.

Other hon. Members have mentioned that there are individuals in their constituencies who have wanted to step forward to help. What is being done to make use of their desire to help?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I want to again raise the issue of money following the placement. The evidence in the briefing from the Local Government Association suggests that the amount of money that follows a child is actually about 50%, so it is not true to say that councils are fully reimbursed for the investment they make.

[Nicky Morgan]

I do not think I said that councils are fully reimbursed, but money does follow the child. I have had some pretty strenuous arguments with local authorities, both as a local MP and as a Minister, and sometimes the interpretation of whether there is sufficient money can be at variance. But let us have that debate. Let us work out what the numbers should be. Let us not just accept it when local authorities say they do not have the capacity, ability or money to deal with the situation.

In the time available I want to move on to what we can do to help Greece and Italy deal with the issue of unaccompanied children who are on their shores. There is more that we can do, or the Government can do, to fulfil the spirit and letter of the Dubs amendment. We need to work with the authorities in Greece and Italy to set out clearly the Dubs scheme, the criteria and the numbers that need to be clarified, so that the authorities in those countries know exactly what the UK is able to offer, and the expertise and the people we have on the ground.

There is a danger in this debate—I think the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) talked about this—of talking about numbers rather than people. We are talking about young people who have their futures ahead of them. Another hon. Member talked about this being a smaller world, which we know is a challenge for many of our constituents. But people and stories are at the heart of this debate.

I want to make two more points. First, UNICEF contacted me today to give the example of Aamir, a 16-year-old Afghan child with a degenerative bone condition, who could be eligible for the Dubs scheme. Doctors in Greece advise that he needs urgent surgery. However, the necessary treatment cannot be given in Greece until he has finished growing. He needs specialist treatment with a paediatric doctor here in the UK. This highlights the spirit of the Dubs amendment: helping extremely vulnerable unaccompanied children who are forced to live alone in camps and in terrible conditions as they have been forced from their home. Aamir is now living in a UNICEF-supported shelter in Athens, and UNICEF is working with him on his application. He was forced to flee his home in Afghanistan when his parents, members of the Hazara ethnic group, were killed by the Taliban. He fled with his grandmother, who passed away on the journey.

Secondly, I am going to disagree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon just on this point: I think there is scope in this debate to think about our moral obligations and our compassion. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire said she hoped that the situation these children are fleeing from never arises here. Of course we hope that, but it could. As a parent, I know that if my son needed refuge I would want to know that the world was offering him safety. That is what this debate is about.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, I shall keep my speech to only an hour—no, I appreciate the guidance, and I appreciate you not imposing a time limit.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) on securing this important debate and the tone in which she moved it. I also congratulate the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah), on talking in particular about trafficking, which is the area I probably have the most expertise in and would like to touch on, perhaps at a different angle.

There was some comment earlier about not enough money being given to councils for unaccompanied children. I think the figures for this year are that £41,610 is given from central Government to local government for an unaccompanied child, which is an increase of 20% or 30% in the past year, so I do not think it is fair to say that the problem—if there is a problem—relates to money.

May I say at the outset that I do not in any way suggest that anybody who does not agree with my views does not care for the children? I have, however, been looking at the problem of vulnerable children who have been trafficked since 2005, and when we had Anthony Steen in this House, he used to talk endlessly about human trafficking when nobody would even accept that it existed. I had the great honour to follow him as chairman of the all-party group on human trafficking and modern slavery in 2005.

We lagged behind in dealing with human trafficking until the coalition Government came to power, and I give great credit to the previous Prime Minister in this regard. One of his greatest legacies was what he did on human trafficking. He set up the Modern Slavery Act 2015, and we now have an independent commissioner to challenge what the Government do in this area. I have to say that the then Home Secretary used to annoy me enormously because she would not get on and do what we wanted, but in fact she checked it all out. She worked it all out and then she did it to the letter. Now, as Prime Minister, she seems to be doing that in another field in which I would like her to press on.

This is an exceptionally complicated issue. Human traffickers are the most evil people in the world. They do not care for one minute about vulnerable children. They do not care about human life. They are quite happy to cut the finger off a child whose relative—the older child or the mother—is in this country being trafficked. They have no hesitation in executing victims in front of others, to terrify them. They are gun runners and drug peddlers, but they have worked out that they can earn far more from human trafficking.

I have always taken the view that the best way to deal with this is to stop the trafficking, rather than by looking after the victims afterwards, and we have worked across Europe to do that. I have travelled throughout Europe and to other parts of the world to discover the best ways to deal with the problem. One of the countries that led on tackling human trafficking before we did was Italy. We have to ask ourselves how we can stop the traffickers. They operate only because there is a demand.

The previous Prime Minister was absolutely right to say that we should look after vulnerable people close to the region they come from. I think that, for every 3,000 unaccompanied children we look after here, we could look after 800,000 in the region for the same cost. We have to worry about the numbers; that is incredible. If we look after them in the region, there is no need for them to be trafficked. There is an argument about whether there is a safe route. Yes, there is. We are taking 20,000 or more from the region, and that is the way to do it.

I can understand people’s feelings about unaccompanied children in Europe, but they are in safe countries. Greece, Italy and France are completely safe—

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Bone]

I am sorry, but Mr Speaker has asked us to be brief. This is an issue that we should be able to debate all day. I was making the point that that is where the help should be. We are putting money in, and other European countries should be doing the same. We should have first-class facilities in Italy and Greece. They know how to do this in Italy, because they have done it already.

I could go on, but I shall conclude by saying that there is one area that worries me enormously. The Minister mentioned it in his opening remarks. We bring certain children over here, thinking that they have a relative here. The children go to those people but they are not relatives; they are part of the trafficking gangs. The children then go into prostitution or servitude. We have to deal with that. I ask the Minister to go away and find out how many of the children we have admitted are still safe. Let us find out that figure before we bang on about bringing more children in.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Like other hon. Members, I genuinely welcome, yet again, all the good work that the Government have done, and continue to do, on resettlement and aid. However, the winding down of the Dubs scheme is a deeply misguided decision. It flies so far in the face of the evidence we have heard that it is a scandalous decision. I therefore warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) on securing this timely debate and giving us this opportunity to hold the Government to account. We have heard many fine speeches today.

If anyone wants to understand why this is such a deeply misguided and scandalous decision, I urge them to read the transcript of the utterly compelling evidence that the Home Affairs Committee heard yesterday from UNICEF, Safe Passage, Save the Children, the International Rescue Committee, the Children’s Society, representatives of local government, and Scotland’s Children’s Commissioner. In the words of Tam Baillie, the last of those witnesses, the limit placed on the number of Dubs transfers is

“a shameful step back from an already weak UK response to the plight of migrant children stranded in Europe.”

I distinguish the situation as regards Europe from the help that the Government have provided in the region. SNP Members agree with the Children’s Commissioner. We need not only Dubs reinstated and expanded, but far stronger and faster procedures for Dublin transfers, and better and more generous family reunion and processes. One person in each of Greece and Italy transferring seven or eight people each year is not remotely in the ballpark of what this Parliament expected. All that is reflected in this motion, which we therefore wholeheartedly support. In short, the evidence of the witnesses we heard yesterday was that the Dubs scheme is a modest scheme. It is modest, but it is a very significant and, indeed, unique contribution to dealing with the migration crisis facing Europe, and completely and absolutely the right thing to do.

It is worth reiterating why this is such a precious prize. As we have heard, conditions for too many of the more than 90,000—probably over 100,000—unaccompanied child refugees in Europe are appalling. Of those in Greece—2,300 or so—more than half are living in tents with no heating, exposed to freezing conditions, lack of hot water, inadequate medical care, violence and mistreatment. Dubs, alongside other schemes, can help to stop that happening, ensuring that we are making our fair contribution towards this effort. That is the prize we are pushing for. If we are not going to do this, how can we say that any other country should step up to the plate and take its share of responsibility?

Most impressively, the witnesses yesterday utterly dismantled the two very tenuous reasons given by the Government for phasing this scheme out. First, as the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) said, it is wrong of the Home Secretary to argue that the pull factor caused by the Dubs scheme plays into the hands of people traffickers. In fact, the opposite is the case—ending Dubs would be an absolute boon for people traffickers. That was the expert opinion of UNICEF, Safe Passage, Save the Children and the International Rescue Committee. As we heard earlier, the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner has published a report on similar lines. That prompts the question of whether the Government took advice from their own independent expert before reaching this decision, because based on what we understand he has put out this afternoon and the letter referred to by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), he would give the Government absolutely contrary advice to what they have decided to do.

The second argument made by the Government for closing the Dubs scheme is about local government capacity. The witnesses yesterday were absolutely clear that it is not fair for the Immigration Minister to argue that local authorities have the capacity for 400 and that is the end of the story. On the contrary, there can be significantly more capacity. We were reminded that even if we just looked at the Government’s own 0.07% target for the national transfer scheme, that would leave capacity for 4,000 under Dubs. In a sense, however, talking about existing capacity misses the point, because as Tam Baillie, the Children’s Commissioner, pointed out, the question we should be asking is what additional capacity we can create. What investment and time are needed in order to ensure that we are in a position to take our fair share? The right question is not, “How much can we comfortably handle just now?”, but “How much do we need to do—how much do we need to invest—if we are to do our fair share?”

The 3,000 in the original Dubs amendment was not a number plucked out of thin air; it was a careful calculation by Save the Children, using the EU relocation formula, to decide what our fair share of the estimated number of children in Europe at that time would be. Of course, the number of children in Europe is now roughly three times that, so even if we stuck to the original 3,000 it is still a very modest contribution that probably underestimates the number of children we would rightly be expected to take. Instead of dodging our responsibilities, we need more than ever to live up to them.

As we heard earlier, the First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, has said that Scotland is ready to play its part, and next week she will host another roundtable on how to respond to the situation for unaccompanied children. As we heard yesterday, local government across England and Wales is absolutely prepared to get involved.

Based on yesterday’s Home Affairs Committee sitting and on briefings from other respected organisations, such as Amnesty International and the Red Cross, there is an abundance of expertise, ideas and detailed proposals not only about how we could continue Dubs alongside Dublin, but how we could expand it and make it work better and faster in France, Italy and Greece, Bulgaria and even the Balkans, where such schemes are desperately needed. The Government should be working with non-governmental organisations, local government and other public bodies that are prepared to make that happen.

The Government, as reflected in the motion, have a strong track record on international aid to the countries around Syria. I have always praised that when debating these issues, but it is not some sort of down payment that allows us to wash our hands of responsibility for hosting a share of the refugees. All the work undertaken by the Department for International Development risks being gravely overshadowed in the years ahead by the intransigence of the Home Office.

Hypothetically speaking, if 100,000 children arrived in the United Kingdom and travelled down the Thames, I think the Home Office would take a very different approach. It would not say, “Yes, we will deal with the 100,000 and take some aid from Europe.” It would expect other European countries to step up to the plate. We should take the same approach.

The Home Secretary and the Immigration Minister rightly received credit for their action in respect of Calais —action that their predecessors had dodged for too long, which meant that ultimately the process was unnecessarily messy. That action showed that, with investment, co-operation and political will, significant progress can be achieved and lives can be changed. They should stick to those instincts, revisit the consultation with local authorities, abandon the myths and make policy based on evidence. They should reinstate and expand the Dubs scheme, take out the restrictive nationality and age criteria from the guidance, and improve the Dublin and family reunion processes. Doing so would show respect for this Parliament, command respect from the public, show solidarity with our European neighbours and, most importantly, save children from exploitation and abuse.

Unaccompanied Child Refugees

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is not the same. Perhaps the one comparison one might make is the condition, sometimes, of the camps out in the region, some of which are in a terrible situation. We should put all our effort there to make sure that we take the children that we can from that most vulnerable area.

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

Tens of thousands of refugees stranded in Greece, including hundreds of unaccompanied children, are living in appalling conditions and face immense and avoidable suffering. Yet last year the Government took only five Dublin children from the area and none under Dubs. What will the Home Secretary do proactively to seek out those who could benefit from Dublin transfers?

[Amber Rudd]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we have staff in the region who are looking to see which children might qualify under the Dubs amendment and which children might qualify under the Dublin regulations. We are actively looking to make sure that we do assist the children in Greece and Italy that we can.

Prevent Strategy

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 1st February 2017 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I congratulate the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) on securing the debate. She made a thoughtful speech that I agreed with and supported for the most part.

I do not think anybody here doubts that the Government should have a plan and should act to prevent citizens and residents from falling into terrorism. The Government’s good intentions are not in doubt, and I would go as far as to say that some good initiatives are carried out under the Prevent strategy. However, as the hon. Lady said in opening the debate, we must get this right, and we must get the overall strategy right. The way the Government have gone about the strategy’s implementation seems to have caused confusion and alienation, and risks being significantly counter-productive. I agree that there should be a review, including of the statutory duty, and I say that based on the evidence that the Home Affairs Committee received. Other colleagues present today will also talk about that inquiry. From what we heard, there is little doubt that trust in Prevent is at rock bottom in some of our communities. As part of our inquiry, in Bradford we met around 70 young people aged between 16 and 25 representing Muslim communities in Bradford, Leeds and Dewsbury. It was a fantastic initiative from the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), brilliantly organised by the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah).

The message from the young people was pretty clear and damning. They felt picked upon and stigmatised. Many had felt restricted in what they could say and do for fear of attracting attention. They certainly did not feel engaged with or involved positively in Prevent; it was quite the opposite.

[Richard Arkless (Dumfries and Galloway) (SNP)]

Out of interest, can my hon. Friend confirm whether the Committee took evidence from any Scottish-based stakeholders or kids in Scotland that had been subject to the Prevent duty?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

My hon. Friend has stolen the thunder from the end of my speech: I will come on to that shortly.

Going back to the young people in Bradford, as far as I could glean, their almost unanimous view was that Prevent was irretrievable. Their views were pretty consistent with a lot of what we heard in oral evidence at formal hearings and in the written submissions that we received as well. With that evidence as a background, even on its own terms the Government’s Prevent strategy seems to be falling short. When we look at the 2011 strategy, what was apparently intended sometimes seems to bear little resemblance to what has happened in practice. The strategy pointed out that:

“Prevent depends on a successful integration strategy...the Government will not securitise its integration strategy. This has been a mistake in the past.”

In the eyes of so many of our witnesses, securitisation is exactly what has happened at the expense of broader integration.

The strategy also stated:

“The Government’s commitment to localism will support the Prevent strategy. Communities and local authorities have a key part in this strategy. But as a national security issue, Prevent needs to be developed in very close conjunction with central Departments.”

Again, for many of those giving evidence to the Committee, the emphasis had been much more on central departmental control than it was on empowering communities. That is why our Committee concluded:

“Rather than being seen as the community-led approach Prevent was supposed to be, it is perceived to be a top-down ‘Big Brother’ security operation.”

So there is a need, as the Committee concluded, to build

“a real partnership between community groups and the state.”

Before I finish I want to touch briefly on the position in Scotland. National security and

“special powers for dealing with terrorism”

are reserved under the Scotland Act 1998—but not “extremism”. Many of the key agencies for countering extremism such as education, police, communities and so on are devolved. From that we have a rather different set of guidance documents issued under the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 on a joint Scottish and UK Government basis. It is worth comparing those documents—how they work and what works best—because there are always things to learn from each jurisdiction. It will not surprise hon. Members that I am going to stick up for the Scottish version. It is interesting how most of the five or so chapters are the same. However, chapter C in the version for Scotland is entitled “A collaborative approach to the Prevent duty”, whereas the guidance for England and Wales has a chapter entitled, “A risk-based approach to the Prevent duty”. Although good chunks of that chapter overlap, that difference in emphasis is important: collaboration instead of securitisation.

Furthermore, when we look at the 2011 UK-wide Prevent strategy, that document notes:

“The approach to Prevent in Scotland has always made a distinction between preventing terrorism and community cohesion and integration. In Scotland, Prevent has been more closely aligned to those areas of policy that promote community safety, tackle crime and reduce violence...These first principles of Prevent have influenced delivery in Scotland and this has necessarily involved a different style and emphasis.”

Although not scientific—to answer my hon. Friend’s question—those differences in emphasis and implementation were reflected in another visit undertaken as part of the Home Affairs inquiry when the right hon. Member for Leicester East and I visited Shawlands Academy in Glasgow. It is fair to say that that is the most ethnically and religiously diverse school in Scotland. We discussed with senior pupils and staff issues relating to extremism and terrorism. The pupils were all aware of Prevent, but it did not inhibit their discussions or generally have a negative impact on their lives. The teachers did not feel under pressure or that their relationships with pupils had been undermined. Overall, it seemed Prevent was less in your face for those young people than it had been for the young people in Bradford.

It is essential that we look more closely at those features and see what lessons can be learnt. For that, as Sir David Anderson and the hon. Member for Telford have said, we need a review.

Immigration Rules: Spouses and Partners

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2017 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered immigration rules for spouses and partners.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Ryan, as we debate what I believe is a vital issue to revisit and reconsider. It affects the family lives of many thousands of our constituents in a most intrusive way, and it calls on us to consider where our priorities really lie: in pursuing utterly misguided targets at all costs, or in protecting people’s human rights and the best interests of children? I understand that this is the first time Parliament has considered the matter since a few months after the draconian new rules were introduced in July 2012, so the debate is overdue.

I want to thank those colleagues who helped me secure the debate, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan), who accompanied me to the Backbench Business Committee. I also thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), the hon. Members for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), for Bradford West (Naz Shah), for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), for South Down (Ms Ritchie) and for Bedford (Richard Fuller), and my hon. Friends the Members for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless), for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) and for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) for their support. That is MPs from six different parties and representing everywhere from Shetland to Brighton and from Bedford to South Down, and it is great to see other MPs here today. This issue affects and concerns all corners of the UK and those from all walks of life. Few MPs will not have had at least one tragic constituency case; most will have had several.

Right now, the judges of the Supreme Court are busy again deciding whether the rules are in fact illegal and in breach of human rights. They might force the Government to think again. Regardless of what they do, Parliament should be making the Government think again and rewriting the rules. Many different aspects of the rules deserve criticism and require reform, from costs and complexity to ridiculously restrictive evidential requirements.

I want to focus on two of the rules that work together in an extraordinarily unfair, and I would say inhumane, manner. The first is the financial threshold, which is among the most draconian and restrictive in the world, whether measured in relative or absolute terms. The second is the rule excluding evidence about other forms of income, such as third-party support from family or friends or—even more ludicrously—the potential earnings of the non-EU spouse or partner. That gets to the crux of the matter. Those rules are cruelly and unnecessarily restrictive and draconian, and the consequences for families have been utterly brutal.

The rules mean that we no longer have a fairly light-touch financial maintenance test broadly equating to income support levels of £5,500. Non-EU applicants wishing to join their spouse or partner here are now required to show that their UK-settled sponsor earns at least £18,600, and thousands of pounds extra if there is a child or children involved.

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Ind)]

The threshold is utterly unfair, particularly in places such as Rochdale where wages are much lower than in other parts of the United Kingdom, and London in particular.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I will come to the disproportionate impact of the threshold in just a moment.

When those two rules are combined, astonishingly almost half the UK population would be excluded from ever being able to sponsor the person they love to come and join them, if that person happened to be from outside the EU. As the hon. Gentleman just said, there are disproportionate impacts on some segments of the population, for fairly obvious reasons related to average incomes, so even higher proportions of young people, women and some ethnic minorities, and essentially all those who live outside London and the south-east, are affected.

Tens of thousands of adults have been forced by the Government to choose between the country that is their home and that they love and the people who they want to share their home with and who they love even more. That is a horrible and cruel choice. What is the Government’s justification for that? The official Government position is that it serves to protect the public purse and encourage integration. The first of those is of dubious accuracy and questionable relevance. The second I fail completely to understand at all, so I will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say if he wants to maintain that argument. I simply note that it was comprehensively rebutted in a report for the Children’s Commissioner that I will consider shortly.

On the public purse issue, the Government claimed that the requirement would save £660 million over 10 years —it would be good to know if they are doing up-to-date research on that—but Middlesex University has persuasively argued that the coalition Government, who introduced the rules, did not take into account the loss of the wider economic benefits of migrant partners’ economic activity. In fact, its model suggested a cost to the taxpayer over that period of £850 million.

Needless to say, the Government did not accept that analysis and pressed ahead, fixing a threshold at the level that the Migration Advisory Committee said would be the annual gross pay required for a couple at which they would not receive income-related benefits, assuming weekly rent of £100. I am not criticising the MAC, which functions like a finely tuned, high-spec computer performing some amazing analysis. However, as with such a computer, the principle of “garbage in, garbage out” applies: if a half-baked question is asked, a half-baked answer is given.

As the MAC pointed out, its deliberations were based purely on economic considerations and did not take into account wider legal, social or moral issues related to family migration. That was absolutely correct. Of course, in implementing its recommendation, the Government did not think to factor in that even if £18,600 was the right threshold, both halves of the marriage or partnership should be allowed to contribute to meeting it, not just the UK sponsor. A talented non-EU national could have a job offer—they might even have worked in the UK in the past under a different visa—yet they cannot join their spouse or partner here if their UK spouse or partner is, agonisingly, just a few hundred pounds short of the income threshold. That makes absolutely no sense.

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I, too, pay tribute to the MAC for its work. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the MAC recommended a range between £18,600 and £25,700 and that, given that range, the Government chose the lowest figure they could?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

It is true the Government chose the lesser of two evils, but I go back to the point I made before: it all depended on the question that the Government asked of MAC, which dictated the answer that came back. They could have looked at a million different alternatives. For example, in some litigation before the courts, reference has been made to the minimum wage, which is considerably less than £18,600. In my view, there was nothing wrong with the threshold previously in place, which was broadly £5,500—a rate that equated to income support at that time. There is even a case for removing the financial threshold altogether. So, yes, the Government chose the lesser of two evils, but that was from the question they asked in the first place.

The all-party parliamentary group on migration rightly pointed out that there will be many cases where the separation of parents leads to increased reliance on social security benefits. All of that is largely hypothetical anyway, since as we all know the non-EU spouse is prohibited from accessing social security benefits in any event for five years.

Ultimately, we should not engage in a balance-sheet debate that excludes from consideration family life and the best interests of children. We are talking about people—husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, sons and daughters—whose lives are being absolutely ruined. I have no doubt that colleagues will raise many constituency cases today, and each of them is absolutely deserving of our attention.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to look at issues such as caring responsibilities? A number of constituents have come to my surgeries whose spouse would be able to care for and look after them, but they have been prevented from getting into the country, which has had a hugely detrimental impact on the constituents’ physical and mental health.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I agree, and that is a perfect illustration of what the all-party parliamentary group was saying about how the rules can lead to an increased reliance on social security benefits. It also puts a big question mark over any Government argument that the rules somehow benefit integration. They certainly do not benefit the integration into society of the UK sponsor left here picking up the pieces.

All of that suffering is well documented in various reports and pieces of research, and I thank everyone who has been involved in documenting the effects of this mean-spirited and cruel Government policy. Utterly compelling is the report prepared in September 2015 for the Children’s Commissioner for England about the effect on at least 15,000 children—by now the figure is probably pushing on 20,000—living in “Skype families” across the UK. It detailed how the Government’s policy was causing those children separation anxiety, increased levels of anger and disobedience, greater levels of aggression, signs of depression, disrupted sleep, eating problems, social isolation and withdrawal, and feelings of guilt. Ultimately, what matters is that those children are being kept apart from one parent by the Government’s nasty immigration policies. In short, the Children’s Commissioner was clear that the Government’s legal obligations to children are not properly recognised in the rules and that too many decisions completely fail to take into account the best interests principle.

Last week, Phoebe Griffith of the Institute for Public Policy Research told members of the Home Affairs Committee that the net migration target had

“created a whole set of quite perverse incentives”.

She used policies on international students as an example, but I think that an even clearer example is the drastic changes to the immigration rules for non-EU spouses and partners that were introduced in July 2012. The real reason for the rules is the Prime Minister’s near-pathological obsession with her bogus net migration target, and it seems that it does not matter to her who is hurt as a result. Too many UK citizens with non-EU spouses and UK children with non-EU parents know that better than any of us. How many more families do the Government want to plunge into the nightmare in pursuit of the target? Will they apply the same rules to EU spouses after Brexit, for example?

For the reasons I have explained, and many more that I am sure hon. Members will touch on, the Government should go back to the drawing board and put families and children first.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

People have to get an English qualification at level A1 in their country before they come here. I represented Yorkshire in the European Parliament, and having represented many of the communities there, I know the disadvantage that many children face when they start school—perhaps second or third-generation English-born children—if they do not speak English as their first language. Having that ability in English is absolutely vital not only for the integration of spouses, but for enabling children to progress in life. That is why we set these levels and why, from 1 May 2017, we are introducing a new English language requirement for partners applying for further leave after two and a half years in the UK on a five-year route to settlement. That will require them to progress to A2 level from the A1 level required on entry.

Thirdly, the rules seek to prevent burdens on the taxpayer. That is achieved through the minimum income threshold of £18,600 a year to be met by those wishing to sponsor a partner to come or remain here, with higher thresholds for also sponsoring dependent, non-EEA national children. It is right that those wishing to establish their family life here must be able to stand on their own feet financially. That is the basis for sustainable family immigration and for good integration outcomes.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The Minister argues that migrants coming here should stand on their own two feet, so why will he not take into account their potential earnings when they go out of their way to show that that is exactly what they intend to do?

[Mr Goodwill]

That point was raised in the debate, including by the hon. Gentleman’s Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin). Employment income from the migrant partner will not count towards a minimum income threshold. We will not take into account the previous, current or prospective earnings, or any job offer of the migrant partner, when they apply for entry clearance to come to the UK. Employment overseas is no guarantee of finding work in the UK. Partners coming to the UK with an appropriate job offer can apply under tier 2 of the points-based system. Those using the family route to come to the UK must be capable of being independently supported by their sponsor or by their joint savings or non-employment income. When a migrant partner is in the UK with permission to work, we will take their earnings from employment here into account.

As I was saying about the rules relating to the £18,600 threshold, it is right that those wishing to establish their life here can stand on their own feet financially. The previous requirement for “adequate” maintenance meant that any sponsor earning, after tax and housing costs had been deducted, more than the equivalent of income support for a couple—around £5,700 a year—was deemed to have sufficient funds to sponsor a partner. That was not an adequate basis for sustainable family integration and provided little assurance that couples could support themselves over the long term. That is why the minimum income threshold for sponsoring family migrants was introduced as part of the reforms of the family immigration rules implemented in July 2012.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. They have made some incredibly powerful and heartfelt contributions on a whole range of troubling issues, including the ridiculous income threshold, the crazy evidential requirements that too many applicants have to meet, the cost of applications and the processes involved—we could even throw in the ridiculous appeal times that too many people face. There is also a chicken and egg situation with visit visas: people are refused a spouse visa because they are a few hundred pounds short of the financial threshold, and when they apply instead for a visit a month later, they are denied it because the Home Office does not think that they will leave again. It really is a horrible situation, and too many people are left in it.

The Minister is a very engaging chap; he is always open to meetings, and I absolutely respect him for that. He inherited these rules—that is his unfortunate position—and he has done his best to defend them, but the Government’s arguments are indefensible. Once again, they are operating at the extreme—other Governments are not doing this. What is more, the Government are completely out of tune with public opinion on the issue. If you went out into the street right now, Ms Ryan, you would struggle to find anyone who thought that an £18,600 threshold was a reasonable way to calculate who should be allowed to come and join their family here. Most people would find it totally outrageous that somebody’s job offer or potential earnings could not be taken into account towards the target.

These rules are, essentially, the Prime Minister’s; she introduced them and she made these migrants subject to the net migration target. What does it say about the Government that they have an official target that encourages the Home Office to pursue and implement policies that reduce the number of husbands, wives, children and parents able to come into this country? That is little short of appalling and shocking. I hope that the Minister or the Home Secretary will take away the powerful critique made by hon. Members today and will tell the Prime Minister that it is time to stop hurting families and children.

Like other hon. Members here today, I think that the rules need to be fundamentally rewritten. I will make one final ask of the Minister: will he think again about the refusal to take applicants’ prospective earnings into account? A commitment was made in Parliament, not by the Minister’s immediate predecessor but by the incumbent before that, to look at that again. It is the most ridiculous of all the rules, and I hope that it, at least, can be looked at anew.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered immigration rules for spouses and partners.

Draft Immigration (Health Charge) (Amendment) Order 2017

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2017 General Committees

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

I, too, can be brief. Scottish National party Members continue to have considerable concerns about the health surcharge established by the coalition Government and, in particular, its effect on NHS workers, students, academics, family members and others who seek to come to the UK. We also object to the fact that health policy has essentially been made by the Minister for Immigration, when it should be a matter for the Scottish Government. We voted against the loss of the exemption for those coming from New Zealand and Australia, and we are disappointed to note that the Scottish Government had not even been consulted on that statutory instrument. At least this amendment order will make explicit an exemption for victims of modern slavery; that is indeed very welcome.

Leaving the EU: Security, Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2017 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), even if I do not always agree with everything he has to say. I should also like to extend my best wishes to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) as he starts a new chapter in his career. I am pleased to take part in this important debate, in which there is an unusually wide degree of consensus, although not unanimity.

Participation in EU schemes brings value, and the Government should be doing all they can to keep the UK as closely involved in them as possible. If Brexit is to happen, we on these Benches believe that it is utterly essential that we do everything open to us in the negotiations to preserve our involvement to the maximum degree achievable. However, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) said, success in that ambition cannot be taken for granted. As the Minister said, it is in the interests of the other EU member states that the UK is involved, and it is undoubtedly true that the UK contribution to these institutions is significant and very much valued. Indeed, it is no doubt a matter of huge regret that a member state that has been hugely influential in shaping initiatives such as the European arrest warrant, Europol, passenger names records and so on has now put its ongoing participation in these schemes at risk. However, nobody should be complacent in thinking that securing meaningful ongoing participation will be straightforward, because all the evidence shows that there are significant political and legal hurdles to overcome. That point was well made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), in her opening speech.

Justice and home affairs are areas of shared competence, so agreements on participation may well need approval from the EU institutions and individual member states. In some of those states, that could involve parliamentary ratification or even a referendum. All of that will be made more complex still if the Government are going to set out clear red lines that could make those hurdles even more difficult to overcome. That includes the Prime Minister’s obsession with escaping any aspect of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. The right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) was right to make that point at the start of the debate.

Let me turn to a couple of the schemes and institutions in which it is vital we seek to preserve a role for the UK. The introduction of the European arrest warrant has resulted in a step change in how quickly suspects and criminals can be repatriated to face justice. Other Members have already made this point, and I will not repeat all the benefits of the system that have already been highlighted. Last May, the then Home Secretary told the Home Affairs Committee that if we were not in the European Union, we would almost certainly not have access to the European arrest warrant. On the basis of evidence submitted to the Committee so far, that seems almost certain to be correct. This would create one of the biggest headaches for the Government. The then Home Secretary also noted the length of time it had taken for Norway and Iceland to negotiate access to something not even as comprehensive as the European arrest warrant system. Sixteen years on from the start of negotiations, an agreement is not yet in force. She also noted that such deals often contain massive loopholes that the European arrest warrant does not. For example, some states will simply not extradite their own nationals, and will insist on any trial taking place in their own courts.

Do the Government accept that it will not be possible to negotiate a single deal for one procedure with the European Union as a whole, or are they going to make an attempt to do so? Or are they resigned to negotiating 27 different agreements, as Lord Carlile, the former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has suggested will be required? In the likely event that work on either of those options cannot be completed within two years, will the Government be seeking a transitional arrangement? Otherwise, as the Chair of the Justice Committee suggested, we will revert to the 1957 Council of Europe Convention on Extradition. In those days, it took an average of 18 months to extradite someone; now, under the European arrest warrant, it takes 15 days in uncontested cases or 45 days if contested. Police officers everywhere will be interested to know what planning will be done so that law enforcement agencies can cope with a more expensive and complicated procedure.

The Home Affairs Committee visited Europol last year—we have already heard about some of the other benefits of that institution—and all its members were impressed by the work that has been done under the leadership of Rob Wainwright. On that visit, as the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry) highlighted, we noted the presence of US liaison officers. Indeed, 14 third countries have negotiated operational partnerships with Europol. Although some such arrangement could probably be agreed within two years, that status is just not as good as what the UK currently enjoys as a full member. Before the referendum, Mr Wainwright warned that the UK would become

“a second-tier member of our club”

if it left the EU and that, like Iceland and Norway, it would be denied direct access to Europol data and, of course, would not have direct influence on the overall direction of the agency, which has proved so beneficial in recent years. Those are not trivial matters and could mean that a request for information on missing or wanted persons takes days rather than hours, which could be crucial for those involved. That is why the NCA’s David Armond has called on the Government to seek something more than the operational partnership enjoyed by other states.

There could be problems with our relationship with Europol, in particular the all-important access to data, if the Government move away from EU data protection standards, as other hon. Members have mentioned. We have heard that the ECJ has struck down the EU-US safe harbour agreement on similar grounds. Under the new Europol directive, we will also need to seek approval from the European Parliament, which has refused to back an EU-US terrorist financing tracking programme for similar reasons. While it is good that the Minister said that the Government are not settling for an operational partnership and are looking for some form of bespoke agreement, we need more detail about exactly what is envisaged. Will the Government ensure that data protection standards here do not jeopardise our relationship with Europol? What if that involves some influence from the ECJ?

While the UK enjoys only partial access to the Schengen information system, the evidence to the Select Committee so far has been that it has been a game changer for police. It facilitates real-time information sharing and alerts, and the police national computer is linked into the system. Access for non-EU and non-Schengen countries is limited, with countries such as Australia having to ask an institution such as Europol to search on its behalf. Norway and Iceland have agreements to access the database, but they are required to make payments without any say on policy development and, significantly, they must implement ECJ decisions or face losing access. The SNP would have no hesitation in saying that such commitments are absolutely worth it if we can secure similar access, but do the Government believe the same? Does the Prime Minister’s obsession with the ECJ take precedence?

Similar issues arise with Prüm, to which Schengen membership, financial contributions and ECJ jurisdiction have secured Iceland and Norway access. According to David Armond, the Interpol agreement that we would have to fall back on if and when we were excluded from Prüm would be time-consuming, bureaucratic and far less effective. Similar problems also arise with ECRIS, the European police college, the European Union Agency for Network and Information Security, Eurojust, and the passenger name record, and the Government’s efforts at securing access and membership must be scrutinised. I welcome the Minister’s commitment to work with devolved criminal justice organisations and Governments. Although justice is devolved, the devolved Governments will sadly not be directly at the table when the negotiations happen.

In conclusion, if anything illustrates the idea that the European Union can be about empowering states, rather than ceding state powers, it is surely the field of policing and security. If we fight serious and organised crime and terrorism on our own, we are not so much taking back control for the police and other services involved in that fight as risking tying one arm behind our back. We all benefit and are more powerful by co-operating and sharing sovereignty at that level. It is essential that the Government prioritise security, not obsessions about the ECJ or EU data protection rules, and I hope they will assure us today all that their priorities are in that order.

Asylum Seekers: Right to Work

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2017 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) on bringing this important debate to the Chamber and on her fantastic speech, and I thank you, Mr Bailey, my hon. Friend and the Minister for allowing me to make a short speech. I was keen to take up the opportunity, because the matter is important to the Scottish National party. We have campaigned for change for a long time, and that is why we divided the House on the issue during the ping-pong stage of the Immigration Act 2016.

The Government’s position is to deny asylum seekers the right to work. The idea that after one year, an asylum seeker can apply for a shortage occupation job is just a small footnote, for a series of reasons, including the one pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens). It would be interesting if the Government would tell us how many asylum seekers have enjoyed that right. I understand that they have previously failed to answer written questions on that point.

Sadly, and typically for UK Government policy on asylum and migration issues in general, the position has little to do with principle and nothing to do with evidence, but everything to do with political posturing. Excluding people from the right to work is a lose-lose situation. It is bad for the individual, for the family, for the UK citizens who could benefit from the people in question using their skills, for community cohesion, as the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) pointed out, and for the public purse, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central pointed out.

We are warned by the Government of the danger of creating a pull factor, but are we really to believe that people will decide to up sticks and come to the UK on the off-chance of claiming asylum, becoming one of the minority of people who must wait longer than six months—outside the Government target—and then having the possibility of working? If so, where is the evidence for that? There is no evidence for it. Also, why do those asylum seekers not go to other European countries where there is such a right to work, and a more generous one? Yet again, we are the EU outlier. The whole proposition is nonsense, and I think that the Government know that.

Another argument that the Government sometimes use is that there would be a danger of asylum seekers deliberately frustrating the process, so that their claims would take longer than six months. However, that argument does not stack up. The Government have the power to refuse asylum claims on the basis of non-compliance. The argument does not make any sense.

We are dealing with human beings who have asked for international protection. That is an important right, whatever the outcome of the claim. Whether or not the claims are found to be sound in law, the applicants deserve dignity and fair treatment, so we ask the Government to think again.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sarah Newton)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) for raising such an important issue, and I commend her passionate speech. She is clearly pursuing the issue in the House with great vigour and determination. I also thank the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) for his speech. I am sure to have said the name of his constituency wrongly, so I apologise. I noted also the remarks of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk). It is disappointing that the shadow Minister did not bother to come to the debate. I see that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that that is a sad reflection.

It is right to say that, as a general rule, we do not believe it is appropriate to allow asylum seekers to work in the UK. However, we will grant an asylum seeker permission to work in one of the jobs on the shortage occupation list if their claim has not been decided after 12 months, through no fault of their own. We believe that that is fair and reasonable; it protects the resident labour market and ensures that access to jobs is prioritised for British citizens and those with leave to remain, including refugees.

The immigration rules for non-EEA nationals wishing to work in the UK are designed to meet our needs for skilled labour and to benefit our economy. That approach would be undermined if non-EEA nationals could bypass the rules by lodging unfounded asylum claims. It is an unfortunate reality that some individuals make such claims in an attempt to stay in the UK. It is reasonable to assume that some do that because of the benefits—real or perceived—that they think they will gain.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Will the Minister give way?

[Sarah Newton]

I will not; I have been generous in allowing the hon. Gentleman to make his speech. So that I have the opportunity to answer the serious points that have been raised, I will need to make my whole speech. If he feels that I do not address his concerns, I ask him to write to me.

Allowing asylum seekers earlier access to work risks undermining our asylum system by encouraging unfounded claims from those seeking employment opportunities for which they would not otherwise be eligible. We also must not create further incentives for asylum seekers to risk their lives attempting to travel here illegally. We instead want to encourage genuine refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach.

I know there are those who say, as has been said today, that there is little evidence of a pull factor. I do not agree. We have seen the effect that policies in Europe have had in driving migrant behaviour. In 2015, following a shift in policy, Germany saw its asylum intake increase by 155%. More than 20% of those claims were from countries in the Balkans, which, mercifully and thankfully, have not seen conflict for more than 20 years.

There has been much debate, as has been referred to, about past delays in decision making by the Home Office, but that has been brought under control. In most cases, asylum seekers receive a decision within six months. While they are awaiting that decision, asylum seekers, who would otherwise be destitute, are entitled to free, furnished accommodation that is safe and of a good standard. In preparation for the debate, I met a Home Office official who personally inspects that accommodation in the constituency of the hon. Member for Glasgow Central and was assured of its quality and safety.

A cash allowance is given to asylum seekers to cover essential living needs. It is worth noting that in October, the High Court agreed that the methodology used by the Home Office for assessing the adequacy of payment rates is rational and lawful. The judgment also rightly rejected the argument that the rate should be the same or similar to that paid to benefit recipients by the Department for Work and Pensions. I do not accept that we are in some way treating people in an appalling or degrading way by providing that accommodation.