Major Incident in Essex

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I thank my hon. Friend for her very considered remarks in the light of what has happened in her constituency today. We should reflect upon the fact that this is not the first example of such a horrific incident in her constituency. This incident was in an industrial park, but there have been equally horrific examples at the ports in her constituency.

My hon. Friend was right to reflect, as she did earlier with the Prime Minister, on the work of the emergency workers on the scene, who will have witnessed horrors that will live with them probably for the rest of their lives. We owe it to them to provide the support that they need post this event.

There is a fundamental issue here: we as a Government are naturally always committed to working with our law enforcement partners and multinational agencies to prevent all sorts of things of this nature from ever materialising and happening. We are committed to breaking up criminal gangs. We do, of course, work upstream and with our international partners. Perhaps I could highlight a few examples. Previous Governments have committed to legislation such as the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which, in fact, our previous Prime Minister very much campaigned for and secured. I have myself worked in the international sphere through my work in the Department for International Development, and DFID itself is obviously doing a great deal now when it comes to upstream work, working through the multinational agencies, the United Nations and other organisations.

There is so much more we can do internationally, because the fact of the matter is that where there is instability globally and a great deal of displacement, we see such awful events like this happening.

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

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, and I think we all share the same sense of shock and horror at this unspeakable tragedy and terrible crime. The thoughts and prayers of my party are certainly with the victims and their families. We wish Essex police and their partners every success in bringing to justice those who are culpable.

As a spokesperson for the Northern Ireland Freight Transport Association has pointed out, the route that this vehicle took in this case appears “unorthodox”, and he raised the prospect that it had been designed to avoid increased security at Dover and Calais. As she ponders a response to this horrific event, will the Home Secretary accept the general point that focusing security and checks on one route is not going to work if security and checks elsewhere are weaker? Most importantly of all, does she accept that a sole focus—an obsession almost—on border securitisation will never stop desperate people using desperate means and routes to try to get here? In fact, such a focus simply means desperate people taking even more desperate and dangerous routes.

Finally, does the Home Secretary accept that it is crucial that we are also generous in responding to this tragedy in the way that we provide safe legal routes for those with strong connections and ties to the UK—the very people who are most likely to risk their lives? Does she accept that there is much more this country can do to provide such safe legal routes through schemes such as Dublin, family reunion, relocation and resettlement?

[Priti Patel]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks and for the questions he has posed. I am sure he will recognise, as will the whole House, that the United Kingdom is very proud of its record when it comes to a lot of the work on national resettlement schemes. He has alluded to principles such as Dublin, under which we do support resettlement. Those are absolutely the right principles that we as a nation stand by, and nobody would doubt or question that at all.

On the potential route that the lorry took and the hon. Gentleman’s specific remarks, it is important to reflect on the fact that across all avenues and all entries—through our ports, and our airports in fact—the UK operates intelligence-led controls, and we obviously have Border Force doing checks at every single level. However, the fundamental principle we cannot ignore is that the fact of the matter is that we are dealing with those who are using people for the most appalling purposes. What we have seen and are witnessing today is one of the most horrendous crimes against humanity and crimes against individuals. That is why, because we do not know the full facts or have the full details behind what is going on, we must give the police and other agencies the space to investigate what has happened, and then we can obviously look at what more we can do to prevent instances such as this from happening again.

Public Services

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2019 Commons Chamber

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

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs May]

I said that I was going to make some progress, and I will, because I want to raise a final point.

In the police protections Bill, there will be a measure to protect and give support to police drivers who are involved in chasing criminals, which has been an issue—there have been challenges when accidents have happened or people have been hurt. That is absolutely right, but it was always intended to be part of a wider Bill that would introduce reforms to sentencing for dangerous driving, which is an issue that the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) and other hon. Members on both sides of the House have taken up. I am disappointed that those reforms are not in the Queen’s Speech.

I am particularly concerned because of the case of my constituent Bryony Hollands, who was 19 when she was struck by a car in Nottingham in August 2015 and died. The individual responsible, Thomas Burney, was thought to have taken cocaine and was three times over the drink-driving limit. He pleaded guilty to causing death by dangerous driving and to causing injuries by dangerous driving. He was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. He was released in August, halfway through his sentence. Her parents, among other parents who have found themselves in such tragic circumstances, have long campaigned for those reforms to sentencing.

In October 2017, we published the outcome of the dangerous driving consultation, and it was always the intention to introduce a Bill that included those reforms, the protections for police drivers and some other measures in relation to cycling. Although it is right to have the protections for police drivers, I am sorry that the other elements have not been included. I think it is probably the Ministry of Justice that is the prime Department here, and I urge it to look at ensuring that those reforms can be introduced to give some comfort to those parents, and others, who have sadly seen young lives taken away too early by dangerous driving, and who feel that justice has not properly been served.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) and to take part in this debate. It gives me the opportunity to pay tribute to public sector workers for all they do in keeping us safe, nursing us, educating us, caring for us, keeping the streets clean, running Government Departments and everything else in between.

Since we had the Home Secretary at the Dispatch Box—I think for the first time—I want to focus on one particular group of workers: the migrants in the public sector workforce who serve us day in and day out, and in particular the EU nationals who currently live with the uncertainty of Brexit hanging over them. The immigration Bill that was mentioned in the Queen’s Speech but largely ignored by the Home Secretary today will have a profound impact on them, as well as on the future workforce of our public services.

During the referendum the Home Secretary, along with the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, made an unconditional promise to EU nationals who were already here: that if Brexit happened, their rights would continue automatically, so there would be no need for any application—in other words, a declaratory system. The question is why the Home Secretary seems set to renege on that promise, when failure to keep that promise inevitably means that, even with the Home Office pulling out all the stops, tens of thousands, or probably hundreds of thousands, of EU nationals will miss the cut-off date for settled status applications, and will end up in this country without any legal status at all and liable to removal, as the Minister for Security confirmed last week.

No application process of this type ever gets close to 100%. Getting even to 90% would be an achievement, but that would still leave hundreds of thousands of people in an even worse situation than that of the victims of the Windrush scandal—not just without proof of their status, but without any status at all. When that disaster unfolds, the Government cannot say that they have not been warned. It would be much better if they listened to the calls of the3million and the unanimous view of the Home Affairs Committee now, rather than trying to clean up the mess after the event.

The arguments put forward by the Home Office about why it does not want to go down that road simply do not add up. There would still be every incentive for citizens to apply for proof of their status, given that they would face the hostile environment if they did not obtain the necessary documentation. On the question of documentation, I urge the Government to think again, to ditch the “digital only” nonsense pursued by the Home Secretary’s predecessor and to allow EU citizens applying to the scheme to have a physical document to prove their right to remain in this country.

On Monday, the Prime Minister said that EU rights would be somehow confirmed in the new immigration Bill, but it was not absolutely clear to me what he meant by that. Insofar as he plans to put the rights that EU nationals of settled or pre-settled status will have into primary legislation instead of the easily amended immigration rules, that is a small step in the right direction and something that we sought to do through the previous immigration legislation. However, assuming that people still need to apply, it does not amount to the automatic extension of rights that the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister promised in the referendum. Indeed, if they are planning to cement in the Bill the cut-off date for applications, they are making matters infinitely worse, reducing any flexibility to extend the deadline when we inevitably realise that hundreds of thousands have not applied and are not going to apply in time.

Let me also raise concerns about the number of EU citizens who are being awarded pre-settled status rather than settled status. There are strong reasons to believe that many thousands are being awarded the more precarious and limited rights of pre-settled status when in fact they should be receiving settled status and permanent residence. That has consequences not only in terms of their having to make yet another application to protect their position but by limiting the rights and entitlements that they have in the meantime. A simple but powerful good-will step would be to scrap pre-settled status altogether and allow all EU citizens who have been living here to have permanent residence from day one. That is what the Scottish Government have suggested to the UK Government, and I hope that the Home Secretary will listen to that.

Turning to the future system, is it not symptomatic of the chaos that is Brexit that we are here, more than three years after the EU referendum, without any real clue as to what more the Government intend for our future immigration system than the supposedly magical promise of an Australian points-based system? As the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) pointed out, we had a points-based system introduced by the previous Labour Government, but it was slowly whittled away by the Conservatives. So I call on the Government, even today, just to give us a broad outline of what exactly they intend to put in place. Can the Government at least confirm that they are finally ditching the requirement for a £30,000 salary before anyone can come to work here? Such a threshold would be a disaster for many of the jobs in our public services. It should not be tweaked; it should be abandoned altogether.

As the right hon. Lady also said, a newspaper report at the weekend suggested that a new system could be used, as it is in Australia, to encourage migrant workers to go where they are most needed. That happens not just in Australia but in countries such as Switzerland, New Zealand, and, probably most famously, Canada. Can we please put Scotland at the front of that queue, because, as I hope the Government appreciate, all of Scotland’s projected future population growth comes from net migration? Our economy and public services need it, especially if free movement is to come to an end. Contrary to the slightly fantastical claims made by the hon. Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair), at the end of the day, ending free movement, regardless of what is put in its place, is going to reduce access to the labour market for employers in Scotland rather than increase it.

If there is no deal, will the Home Secretary listen to the calls made by universities and by my hon. Friends today and accept that the proposed system of temporary relief for three years is an absurdity for students who are coming to study for four years—the vast majority of undergraduates in Scotland as well as those on a number of courses throughout the UK?

Our migrant workers make an immense contribution to public services in this country. Sadly, I fear that the immigration policies of this Government will continue to do them, and those services, a massive disservice in return.

EU Settlement Scheme: Looked-after Children and Care Leavers

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2019 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I pay tribute to the hon. Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) and for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) for pursuing this issue and securing this debate via the Backbench Business Committee. I also pay tribute to all hon. Members who have contributed today; a tremendous range of expertise has been on show. I was slightly surprised that no hon. Member wanted to pay tribute to, and thank, our munificent Prime Minister for giving us humble MPs the opportunity to actually debate a Brexit issue today, because apparently that is something we cannot take for granted anymore. Perhaps we can address that issue later today in the main Chamber.

[Luke Graham]

Would the hon. Gentleman confirm the number of hours that were given to the Scottish Parliament to discuss emergency legislation that was rushed through in Holyrood?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I have to say that I do not know the answer to that question. I am sure that it was perfectly adequate. [Interruption.]

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. It is probably good that you do not know the answer, because it would be totally out of order.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Thank you very much for coming to my assistance, Mr Bone.

I join hon. Members in welcoming the Minister to her place, but I do have to start with a slightly cheeky question: is she actually the immigration Minister? This settlement scheme is being rolled out and huge reform of the immigration system is ahead, but we spent the summer not knowing who was actually responsible for immigration matters and where I should send my angry letters—or, indeed, my very constructive and helpful letters. If she is the immigration Minister, she can look forward to lots of correspondence in the weeks ahead.

Turning to the issue at hand, other hon. Members have eloquently and persuasively set out the significant challenges that looked-after children and care leavers will face in accessing either the immigration status that is in their best interest, or the citizenship status that they are entitled to and will be in their best interest. I have also heard concerns about the under-representation of children among those who have already applied for settled status.

On the settled status scheme, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak said, even though the Home Office is pulling out all the stops—I appreciate it is putting a lot of work and resource into it—hundreds of thousands of EU citizens or their family members will almost certainly not apply for or achieve settled status, or even pre-settled status, by the deadline. As we have heard, for some, that will be due to a lack of awareness or to legal complexities that mean that they do not understand that they need to apply; for others, there will be barriers in relation to the evidence that needs to be sent in.

Looked-after children, care leavers and other vulnerable persons will be over-represented in those groups and the consequences for them of failing to apply in time will be dire, as they will be for everyone affected. Overnight, they will be deemed to be in the country illegally and the full weight of the hostile environment will kick in: university, education, some healthcare, bank accounts, driving licences, employment and social security will all be put out of reach.

What can we do to stop that? From my party’s point of view, the solution is to keep the free movement of people by abandoning Brexit altogether or by securing a deal that includes retaining all the advantages of free movement. It would be brave and surprising if the new Minister were to announce that she accepted that proposition, so if that is not possible, the Prime Minister should do what he, the new Home Secretary and the new Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster promised during the referendum campaign, which is to enshrine the rights of EU citizens in law.

In a declaratory system, EU nationals would not be required to apply to retain their right to live here, but would be granted that right in an Act of Parliament. They would have to apply to the settled status scheme simply for a document to prove their position in future. Professor Stijn Smismans and the3million have worked extensively on proposals about how to do that; the Home Office should engage with them.

It is not a perfect solution because, of course, after the deadline, hundreds of thousands of people would still not have applied for the necessary evidence of their settled or pre-settled status. However, the simple truth is that they would have the right to be here, and would therefore still be able to provide proof of that right and to secure the necessary documents or other means of proof as soon as it became apparent to them that they were required to do that.

The Home Office’s refusal to listen or understand that simple fact is infuriating. It has made various nonsensical arguments about a declaratory system being responsible for the Windrush fiasco, but that is not what a single inquiry into that horrible episode has determined —it is simply not true. Under a declaratory system, those who missed the deadline would have a chance to rectify their position. Under the Home Office system as established, hundreds of thousands of people—thousands of whom might be looked-after children, care leavers and other vulnerable citizens—will be left here without legal status, which would be an absolute disaster. I call for a declaratory system for everyone, but if that is not possible, I absolutely join other hon. Members in calling for a declaratory system for looked-after children and care leavers. I hope that the Home Office will think about changing paths now.

In the meantime, has the Minister or the Department made any attempt to estimate how many people they expect not to apply before the deadline? Will she make it clear today what will happen to those who miss the deadline, including looked-after children and care leavers? How will they be treated? There has been an incredible lack of clarity on that. If the Home Office will not change tack, MPs should be allowed to debate and vote on the issue. We debated it during the passage of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill. What has happened to that Bill and what will happen to it now?

Regardless of whether the Home Office chooses to change its fundamental approach, or, more likely, is forced to by legislation, or whether it presses ahead with its current model, hon. Members have raised other issues to address and actions to pursue. The Home Office must ensure that there is sufficient funding for awareness-raising programmes, with a particular focus on making sure that local authorities have a clear understanding of what is required of them in relation to looked-after children and care leavers, and the resources to ensure that those groups can obtain all the advice and support they need.

As has been said, the position of many of those youngsters is incredibly complicated. For a child, choosing the right application to make or whether to make an application at all, or knowing whether they might have a right to citizenship, is hugely complicated but has profound implications. We cannot expect social workers to do all that. All those young people must have access to specialist legal advice and support, which should be funded by the Home Office.

The duty of local authorities must be to do everything possible to secure that expert advice, not to provide makeshift alternative advice that they are not qualified to deliver. As other hon. Members have said, that duty must extend to all looked-after children and care leavers, not just those for whom the local authorities have parental responsibility.

I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) about legal aid. The announcement in July 2018 that legal aid for separated children with immigration issues would be reintroduced, including for children who need advice and support to secure EU settled status or understand their right to British citizenship, is yet to be implemented. It is essential that we know what will happen to that proposed change, given that Parliament may not be sitting for much longer. More broadly, immigration and citizenship should be brought within the scope of legal aid, as they are in Scotland.

The distinct issue of citizenship is relevant to many care leavers and looked-after children, because a significant number of them will be entitled to register as British citizens. The key barriers are, again, a lack of awareness and the extortionate cost of vindicating those rights via the registration process, as other hon. Members have said. I repeat, therefore, that we need measures to ensure access to legal advice and to address the outrageous fees being charged by the Home Office. The new Chancellor, when he was Home Secretary, acknowledged that the £1,000 fee was a huge sum of money to charge children; I would say it is disgraceful, particularly when we are talking about looked-after children and care leavers.

At the end of the day, those kids are every bit as entitled to citizenship as anybody in this Chamber and they should not be prevented from obtaining it by extraordinary fees. I urge the Minister not to do what other Immigration Ministers have done, which is to conflate the issue with migration fees or the adult naturalisation processes—they are completely different. We are talking about a group of children for whom Parliament expressly protected the right of citizenship when it ended the general provision of citizenship by birth in 1981. If Home Office officials demanded £1,000 from every mother leaving the maternity ward to secure their kid’s citizenship, there would rightly be outrage, but to charge those kids for theirs is as morally reprehensible. In the case of looked-after children and care leavers, at least, the Home Office must see how outrageous its position has been up to this point and act accordingly.

In conclusion, I congratulate the hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham and for Birmingham, Selly Oak on securing the debate. I support them in what they are trying to achieve and will happily work with them to attempt to persuade the Home Office to listen.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Kennedy)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) for securing this extremely important debate on the EU settlement scheme and looked-after children and care leavers. The co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group are great champions for children and it is right to discuss this issue today.

The EU settlement scheme is designed to deliver on the Government’s aim that EU citizens can obtain their status quickly and easily. The principle behind it is the presumption of granting status. The Prime Minister has made it clear that EU citizens living in this country will have the absolute certainty of the right to live and remain in this country. Ensuring that those who are most vulnerable, such as looked-after children, are supported to obtain status has always been and continues to be a core element in the delivery of the scheme, and I want to assure all Members who have spoken today, including those who have left their places, that that is a cross-departmental priority for the Government.

My Department has engaged widely, including with the Department for Education, the Local Government Association—my predecessor spoke at its conference, addressing this point—and the Association of Directors of Children’s Services, as well as their equivalents in the devolved Administrations and in Northern Ireland, to understand and address the needs of looked-after children and care leavers and to ensure that they are supported. Guidance has been issued regarding the role and responsibilities of local authorities for making or supporting applications for looked-after children.

The scheme was first rolled out in the spring of this year. One million people have been granted status already—that is the figure from August. If we are in a deal situation, the scheme will be open until the middle of 2021. In a no-deal situation, people will have until 31 December next year to apply.

Members have rightly raised a lot of points about the scheme in general and about the specific cohort of children. I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak—he has great experience both from his work in this place and from before that—on the different strata of children that we are discussing.

The system has been designed to make sure that a successor of mine who stands here in 40 years’ time will not be dealing with a system where people do not have their status. That is why we have registration—so that EU citizens, particularly children and vulnerable people who have built their lives in this country—

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Will the Minister give way?

[Seema Kennedy]

Can I just finish this point? Then I will give way, to either an angry or a helpful comment.

The registration scheme exists so that citizens, particularly children and vulnerable people who have built their lives in this country, do not have difficulty evidencing their rights to live and work here. That speaks to a point made by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green).

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The Minister speaks of her successor in a few years’ time being able to say that everyone has status, but only a declaratory system will do that. If we do not have a declaratory system, it is inevitable that tens of thousands—almost certainly hundreds of thousands—of EU citizens, including vulnerable people, will not have status. Does the Minister accept that? Does the Home Office have an estimate of how many people it expects not to go through the process in time?

[Seema Kennedy]

I profoundly disagree with that point. The registration scheme ensures that those EU citizens who are here will have settled status. If not, there will be differences, because people will not necessarily be able to prove whether they were here at that point.

Focusing specifically on the cohort under discussion, hon. Members have quite rightly referred to the fact that many of those children do not have the same documentation as most of us in this Chamber, because of the life situations they have experienced. We share those concerns. They might have no identity document, as they might have had complex or chaotic lives.

It is absolutely right that local authorities and health and social care trusts in Northern Ireland should obtain the necessary identity documents for a child in care to ensure that they have uninterrupted access to services, but the Home Office guidance on this scheme makes it clear that applicants can apply without an identity document, as they might be unable to provide one because of family circumstances. As far as I am aware, local authorities vouching for the fact can be adequate documentation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I thank the Minister for giving way again—she is being very generous with her time. Charities are telling us that they do not have the resources to do all the work that is required. Has she put in a request to the new Chancellor for additional funding, so that we can leave absolutely no stone unturned in ensuring that we help each and every vulnerable person in this country who needs to apply?

[Seema Kennedy]

The scheme is not designed to require a lawyer or legal advice, so it is simple to use. I recognise that there might be complications in some of the cases involving vulnerable and non-EEA dependents. However, the fact that more than one third of the eligible people have already signed up in six months is a testament to its design as a simple system.

TOEIC: Overseas Students

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions, but I point out to him that, far from this being a shameful scandal, what is shameful is that this was cheating on an industrial scale. The latest National Audit Office report confirmed that abuse of the system was widespread, and the 2012 NAO report indicated that “abuse was rife”. Of course, the Home Office also not only sought compensation from ETS, but received it. It is therefore absolutely imperative that we emphasise that this was criminal activity and that people have been imprisoned. As I said earlier, 14 more individuals are facing court action as a result.

The hon. Gentleman will be well aware of the responses that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary recently gave to the Home Affairs Select Committee, and I want to emphasise his precise words. He spoke of

“a very small number, judging by the cases that have gone through the courts or come to the Home Office since 2014. Nevertheless, even if it is one individual who has been wronged, it is our duty to make sure that we are doing more to help.”

It is our duty, and that is absolutely what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary intends to do.

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

Yet again, I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) and his colleagues on the all-party group for their tireless work on the behalf of probably thousands of innocent people whose lives and aspirations have been ruined by this fiasco. The Minister is absolutely right that shameful cheating was going on but, as the National Audit Office said, the Home Office should have been just as robust about protecting the innocent as it was in pursuing the fraudsters.

It was positive on Monday that the Home Secretary talked about creating a new opportunity for those who have been wronged to have their cases reconsidered, so it is slightly alarming that the Government seem to have moved away from that approach in the past couple of days. He was wrong to talk on Monday as though the burden of proof should still be on those facing allegations of cheating, who should be presumed innocent until proven otherwise. Thanks to the work of the all-party parliamentary group, we know that assertions of cheating by ETS cannot be relied upon on their own in deciding whether someone is guilty, and the courts have frequently rejected the evidence of ETS, just as they have sometimes upheld it.

I was going to ask when the new mechanism will be up and running, but when will we at least have clarity about whether we are getting such a mechanism? If we are to have a new mechanism, will the Minister undertake that individuals will be presumed innocent unless there is significant evidence beyond a simple and unreliable assertion of cheating by ETS? Finally, to restore credibility and trust in the whole process, will the Minister consider giving responsibility for making decisions on such cases to an independent decision maker—people with the required technical and legal expertise—totally outside the orbit of the Home Office and the ETS?

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. I remind him that in 2014, before his time in this House, it was Parliament that insisted that the Home Office took urgent action to address what had been revealed as widespread cheating. It is important to find a mechanism that provides redress for those who may have been wrongly caught up in this. However, the independent expert, Professor French, indicated when he studied the matter that the likelihood of a false match from the voice checks was likely to be less than 1%.

The hon. Gentleman referred to some of the subsequent court cases, and evidence of an article 8 claim of a right to respect for family or private life led the courts to take a balanced decision in many cases that it was right that individuals should be allowed to stay, and that is absolutely what we are saying in the review of the guidance. We want to ensure that the Home Office, which I absolutely believe is the appropriate place for these decisions to be made, is making sensible decisions that properly balance any belief that deception was practiced against the wider circumstances. Where the circumstances are particularly compelling, perhaps when children are involved, it is important that we look to see what more the Home Office can do to help people put their claims forward.

Nationality

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2019 Commons Chamber

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

First, I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to the Minister and colleagues for my late arrival in the Chamber. I have learnt a lesson on not overestimating how long previous debates will take. My apologies to everybody.

The order is not controversial. I am grateful to the Joint Committee on Human Rights for all its work on the draft order proposed today. It recommended that the order be passed, and I fully agree. It seeks to put right discriminations that still exist in nationality law and that is something we all support. I will make a couple of brief points on that. The Joint Committee report, in chapter 4, points out that as it stands the order will not fix the apparent discriminations highlighted in the Committee’s first report, and leaves the Home Office open to potential legal challenge. Specifically, it raises that issue in relation to children who were discriminated against solely because their parents were not married and adults who were discriminated against when they were children. The Home Office will have to look at that again.

The Committee flagged up, in chapter 6 of the report, that the very same discriminations are still being faced by British overseas territories citizens. If they face the same discriminations, why are they not being provided with the same remedies? It is time for the Home Office to look at that issue again, too.

The Joint Committee also raised two more general points. First, there is a serious question about whether it is even remotely appropriate to ever apply good character tests in many of these situations at all, especially in relation to children. Personally, I find the whole notion of testing good character in children troubling and pretty awful. Attempting to wash our hands of “problem kids” via nationality law is disturbing. It seems to me that the Home Office has lost its grasp of, and become confused by, the different types of nationality applications. I think few Members would argue that having such a test apply in naturalisation applications, for example, is perfectly reasonable. Nobody would quibble with that, but since changes were introduced in 2006 and 2009 successive Governments have presided over the application of a good character test way beyond its appropriate use. In particular, it has even been applied to kids over 10 who otherwise have an entitlement to British citizenship.

Finally, I agree wholeheartedly with what the shadow Minister said about fees. In 1981, when there was a radical reform of British nationality law, this place was extremely protective of the rights of kids who, although not born here, had an entitlement to become British citizens afterwards. They have been denied that entitlement because of exorbitant fees for applications. We need radical reform on that by the Home Office.

[Caroline Nokes]

I am grateful for the considered debate today and the interest that Opposition Members have shown in this remedial order.

As I said earlier, the scope of the remedial order is to make changes to nationality legislation and it is therefore narrow. It is limited to addressing the specific incompatibilities that have been identified by the courts. The Government will monitor any remaining potentially unlawful discriminatory aspects of nationality legislation, a point picked up on by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan), and will consult as appropriate if it becomes apparent that further changes are necessary.

The Government are committed to ensuring that those individuals affected by the order do not face further discrimination. In its first report on the remedial order, the Joint Committee on Human Rights recommended that those who had citizenship applications previously refused, because of the discriminatory provisions in the British Nationality Act 1981, which this order seeks to remedy, should not have to pay the application fee for a repeat application. I am pleased to say that I have written to the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), the Chair of the Committee, confirming that I plan to amend the fees regulation at the next opportunity to waive the application fee for this particular cohort.

Turning to the points raised by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), he commented on children having to meet the good character test. This is a requirement for British citizenship as set out in the 1981 Act. It applies to those seeking to register as British who are aged 10 years and over at the time of application. That is because 10 is the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales. Children as young as 10 can and do commit very serious acts of criminality, sad though that is and undoubtedly tragic for their victims. It cannot be right that such offences are disregarded when assessing a child’s suitability for citizenship.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I do not agree with the Minister on that point of principle, but even putting that to one side 50% of kids over 10 who are denied citizenship on those grounds have had that done on the basis of nothing more than a police caution, as I understand it. Surely it cannot be right to deny someone the right to citizenship on such a flimsy basis.

[Caroline Nokes]

I was just moving on to that particular point. The Government do not believe that the good character requirement for children is at odds with it the statutory obligation in section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, but I want to make it very clear that having a criminal conviction does not necessarily mean an application for citizenship is automatically refused, particularly in the case of minor offences attracting an out-of-court disposal, for example, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, a youth caution. Each case is considered on its individual merits and guidance for caseworkers makes it clear where discretion can be exercised.

On British overseas territories, we are very proud of our heritage in Britain and this pride extends to many people around the world who identify as British. The JCHR expressed concerns that the discriminatory provisions that this remedial order seeks to remedy will still apply to British overseas territories citizens. Regrettably, this is true. When changes to nationality legislation were made, they were introduced at a very late stage in the parliamentary process and there was no time to consult fully with the territories about introducing similar provisions for British overseas territories citizens’ status. It would not have been right to introduce legislation that would affect the territories, and potentially the status of those living there, without consultation. We recognise the difficulties that the British Nationality Act still presents for some British overseas territories citizens, who may wish to pass on their citizenship to their children and are considering how best to address those concerns, taking into account the opportunities for doing so. I commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Immigration Detention: Victims of Modern Slavery

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

Individuals in immigration detention are entitled to a free legal advice surgery of 30 minutes within the first 24 hours of their detention and to have as many of those surgeries thereafter. As part of the Shaw re-review of last year, we piloted automatic bail referrals after two months instead of four months, as previously.

I must correct my right hon. Friend: it is not lawful to detain individuals indefinitely. They may be detained only when there are realistic grounds for removal within a reasonable timescale.

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

Immigration detention is a hellish thing to inflict on anybody; that is especially true of victims of modern slavery and trafficking. Will the Government accept that the supposed safeguards, particularly the gatekeeping process, are just not working? Signs of trafficking and enslavement are not being picked up, as those 507 cases show. Even when they are, immigration enforcement factors are given greater priority.

What will be done to improve the malfunctioning gatekeeping process and when will an overhaul of the rule 35 process be completed? More fundamentally, for as long as we continue to detain people indefinitely in these awful institutions, should not decisions on whether to detain any individual and on who should be released be made entirely independently of the Home Office? At the very least, we need much stronger and faster independent judicial oversight.

[Caroline Nokes]

The Government are committed to ensuring that the rule 35 process operates effectively. In March this year, we launched our targeted consultation on the overhaul of the detention centre rules within which the operation of rule 35 is a key element; of course it is closely linked into the operation of the “adults at risk” policy. We continue to keep the detention gatekeeper function under close review, but I certainly think that it has shown an improvement on the situation before its introduction.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Monday 15th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

As my right hon. Friend knows, asylum seekers can work in jobs on the shortage occupation list if their claim has been outstanding for 12 months. I know that she will agree that we need to distinguish between those with the need for protection and those who are here only to work. She is right to raise the issue, and it is time for reform. The work in the Home Office is ongoing, and we hope to bring something to the House as soon as possible.

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

T5. A blanket three-year temporary leave to remain visa after a no-deal Brexit will not cut it, especially for students wanting to study courses that last longer than that. When will that be fixed so students have certainty that they can complete their courses?

[The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question on an issue that has been raised several times in the House. The Home Office is working hard to make sure that we have a solution so that not just students at Scottish universities but those in English universities who might be studying a longer course such as medicine, veterinary science or architecture are not disadvantaged. We are determined to find a solution that works for all students.

Immigration Detention: Trafficking and Modern Slavery

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2019 Westminster Hall

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

It is good to see you in the Chair, Sir Gary. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) on securing the debate and on a characteristically powerful and comprehensive introduction to the subject.

I pay tribute to all hon. Members who have contributed to today’s debate. They have pointed out how well timed it is, given that two new, excellent reports have been published in recent days, one by Women for Refugee Women and one by After Exploitation. I pay tribute to groups that continue to campaign for the rights of those who have been detained. As the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) said, this issue should be on the front page, but it is not. Immigration detention centres are often far out of sight and mind, and those groups do sterling work in keeping these issues on the political agenda.

As we have heard, we have had a large number of reports and expert inquiries into detention, including Stephen Shaw’s review and the reports by the Home Affairs Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights. There will be another report that touches on this subject in the not too distant future. Last week, the Home Affairs Committee continued to hear evidence on modern slavery, with some pretty damning evidence from three witnesses about the significant numbers of modern slavery and trafficking survivors being detained. A lot of excellent submissions have been made to the Committee.

All those submissions and reports highlight the same thing: the frustrating, systemic public policy failure that the hon. Member for Gedling referred to, which sees so many victims of slavery and trafficking detained. At the outset, it is important to put on the record that we remember the harm that is done by immigration detention. As Stephen Shaw explained in his first report,

“detention in and of itself undermines welfare and contributes to vulnerability”.

It is a hellish thing to inflict on anybody, especially victims of crime, and some cases were highlighted vividly and horrifyingly by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) and the hon. Members for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) and for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney).

On the broader question of immigration detention, as I repeat every time we debate this subject, my party and I believe that the widespread routine detention of many thousands of people for an indeterminate period in what are effectively private prisons, simply at the discretion of immigration officers, is nothing short of a scandal. It has been fairly described as a stain on our democracy and an affront to the rule of law. The current system detains too many people. It detains people who should never have been detained, and it detains people for too long and without a defined time limit. The safeguards are utterly inadequate. The system is costly and inefficient, and does not even achieve what it is supposed to, with many people being simply released back into the community again.

I recognise that there has been some progress in cutting the size of the immigration detention estate, but there is a long way to go, and we need to go much further and much faster. In terms of the detention of vulnerable victims, including trafficking and slavery survivors, some of the evidence suggests that we have gone backwards in the last few years. In short, the systems and policies are not working as they should. The adults at risk policy, in particular, is not preventing many vulnerable victims of trafficking and slavery from ending up in detention.

Signs of trafficking or slavery are being missed at various stages. Even when such signs are picked up, they are either ignored, as we have heard, not acted on, or given less weight than factors relating to immigration control. We need urgent reform to stop that happening. Importantly, as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central alluded to, we need to think about changing who makes key decisions and who has oversight of them. A host of changes could and should be made to help to eliminate the detention of vulnerable people. Our policy goal must be a bar on the detention of trafficking and modern slavery victims.

As a small starting point, we need to see significant improvements in awareness and understanding of the issue among those who are most likely to encounter victims in the first place. That includes police, most obviously, and staff in the Department for Work and Pensions or elsewhere. Treating victims as criminals or as illegal immigrants, rather than recognising them as victims, is a disastrous start to the process. If we can improve the response at that stage, problems further down the line could clearly be avoided.

We also need to look again at the precise processes that are supposed to stop detention after those first encounters occur. Gatekeeping is quite simply not working. Desk-based reviews of selective information will never achieve the sensitive and informed assessment that needs to be made. The Home Office should not be balancing vulnerability against immigration control requirements. If an individual is suspected of being a victim, detention should not happen at all.

Turning to the issue I referred to of who is making decisions, the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) mentioned the conflicting policy goals that the Home Office, as a Department, is wrestling with. A whole host of organisations have commented on that. Quite simply, looking after the interests of trafficking victims on the one hand, and relentlessly pursuing immigration enforcement on the other, are irreconcilable. To the greatest extent possible, we need to look at how decision making in trafficking cases can be removed from the Home Office altogether. For example, decisions about referral through the national referral mechanism for those in detention, or those being considered for detention, should be made by independent first responders or another independent body altogether.

Finally, I turn to the issue of oversight. As we know, a series of cross-party amendments have been tabled to the Immigration Bill that would introduce the time limit on detention I think everyone present seeks and that would strengthen judicial oversight. I very much hope that that becomes a reality. Given the experiences highlighted in the new Women for Refugee Women report, the report is accurately titled “From one hell to another”. We cannot have it on our conscience that, every year, we inflict that journey on hundreds—possibly even thousands—of people. I hope the Minister will listen to all the constructive suggestions that have been made, and the powerful arguments that have been made for reform, so that we stop inflicting that journey on so many victims of modern slavery and trafficking.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

It is difficult for me to comment on the application to individuals, but I will certainly come back to the hon. Gentleman with a fuller response to that point.

Several comments were made about the reform of the national referral mechanism and the importance of ensuring that the NRM gets victims of modern slavery the support they need. We have made significant progress in delivering that complex reform programme, including the launch of the single competent authority, which is an expert caseworking unit responsible for all NRM decisions, regardless of an individual’s nationality or immigration status. That unit has replaced the competent authorities previously located in UK Visas and Immigration, Immigration Enforcement and the National Crime Agency. To improve the decision-making process, we have set up an independent, multi-agency assurance panel of experts to review all negative conclusive grounds decisions, adding significantly to the scrutiny such cases receive.

The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) mentioned the detention of children. I wish to reassure her that the UK ended the routine detention of children in immigration removal centres in 2010 and then enshrined that in primary legislation in the Immigration Act 2014. There remain limited circumstances in which children may be detained, but that is usually in a family unit immediately prior to removal. That requires ministerial authority should a family be detained for more than 72 hours, and there is a maximum of one week. I reassure her that this year—in 2019—no children have been detained at Dungavel immigration removal centre. There was one age dispute case, but the individual was found to be an adult.

The hon. Member for Edmonton mentioned women in immigration detention, and we heard from several Members about Yarl’s Wood. On 6 June this year, the independent monitoring board published its Yarl’s Wood annual report for 2018. The IMB made positive comments about the continuing efforts at the centre to retain and recruit female staff and to improve healthcare provision. We have considered all the recommendations in the report and an action plan has been drawn up in response to concerns raised. We take our responsibilities towards detainees’ health and welfare very seriously. The provision of 24-hour, seven-day-a-week healthcare in all immigration removal centres, including Yarl’s Wood, ensures that individuals have ready access to medical professionals and levels of primary care in line with individuals in the community.

The hon. Lady also raised the specific issue of victims of trafficking from Nigeria. Last summer, or perhaps last autumn, I travelled to Nigeria and listened to harrowing accounts of people who had been trafficked. I also heard about some of the measures that the Nigerian Government were taking to address what is a very serious problem in that country. I am very conscious that there are significant numbers of Nigerians among victims of human trafficking found in detention in Libya or attempting to cross the Mediterranean. A disproportionate number of Nigerian victims of international trafficking come from Edo state in the south-west, where long-standing trafficking networks operate.

Modern slavery programming in Nigeria is a cross-Government effort, with each Department—the Home Office, the Department for International Development and the National Crime Agency—working co-operatively and focusing on areas of comparative advantage. The Home Office’s own modern slavery fund programme provides support and reintegration assistance to victims of trafficking and supports the judiciary to process trafficking. In addition, DFID funding has been directed to the International Organisation for Migration to rehabilitate victims returned from Libyan detention camps. That is a separate cohort of victims from those supported by Home Office funding. There is a real need for us to continue to work with DFID to help develop livelihood options for communities at risk of trafficking in Edo state and to help local government and civil society respond to trafficking there.

The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton raised some issues with rule 35 of the detention centre rules. We are committed to ensuring that the rule 35 process operates effectively as a reporting system for removal centre doctors’ concerns about the welfare of detainees. In March this year, we launched our targeted consultation on the overhaul of the detention centre rules. The operation of rule 35 is a key element of that and is closely linked to the operation of the adults at risk policy. Input from non-governmental organisations, the independent detention oversight bodies and medical experts will ensure that the replacement for rule 35 better supports the identification, reporting and caseworker consideration of people with vulnerabilities. In the year 1 April 2018 to 31 March this year, 2,146 individuals were the subject of a rule 35 report made by a medical practitioner.

Various hon. Members mentioned the adults at risk policy. In September 2016, we implemented the adults at risk in immigration detention policy, a key part of our response to Stephen Shaw’s original review of the welfare of vulnerable people in immigration detention. The policy does not, as some have interpreted it as doing, mean an automatic exemption from immigration detention for any particular group of people. Under the policy, vulnerable people are detained, or their detention continued, only when the immigration considerations in their particular case outweigh evidence of vulnerability. Cases are reviewed regularly and also when new evidence comes to light.

I appreciate that there has been criticism of the adults at risk policy. However, as Mr Shaw said in his follow-up review last year,

“it would be folly to give up on the Adults at Risk policy. It is best thought of as an exercise in cultural change, and like all such programmes it will take time to reach full fruition. The focus on vulnerability that”

the policy

“has engendered is a genuine one”.

I believe that the policy will prove its full worth as it develops further and once it and the systems around it are in full alignment. Stephen Shaw made a number of recommendations for improvements in these areas and we are working hard, in conjunction with experts and in discussion with external organisations, to make the system as effective, protective and workable as possible.

It is worth remembering that the adults at risk policy replaced a policy that determined whether vulnerable people should be detained by reference to the concept of “very exceptional circumstances”. The difficulty with that approach was that nobody—caseworkers, legal representatives or detainees themselves—could interpret that in a consistent way. The adults at risk policy represents a much more coherent way of assessing the appropriateness of detention of vulnerable people and is a rational and proportionate approach.

Several hon. Members challenged me with the question, “What has changed?” That is a really important part of the comments I want to make and something I really wish to emphasise. We are committed to reducing the number of people in detention, to improving the welfare of those who are detained and to providing appropriate support to the most vulnerable in detention. Detention is used sparingly for securing the removal of individuals who do not have leave to remain in the UK, and people are detained for as short a time as possible.

We are detaining fewer people. At the end of December 2018, there were 30% fewer individuals in detention than a year earlier, and it is likely that that figure will be lower still this year. Over time, changes in legislation, policy and operational procedures will reduce the number of those detained and the duration of detention before removal, in turn improving the welfare of those detained.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The Minister referred to work done in response to Stephen Shaw’s follow-up review. Will she confirm whether the Home Office is looking again at the gatekeeper process? Those 400 individuals who had referrals made after they were put into detention will all have been through that process, yet they did so without anyone picking up signs that they were a victim of slavery or trafficking.

[Caroline Nokes]

The gatekeeper function remains under close scrutiny. I and the many individual monitors who look at our detention system have scrutinised and continue to scrutinise the process of detention gatekeeping. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that if people have been through the detention gatekeeper function and still vulnerabilities have not been picked up, it is right that we continue to reinforce those processes.

When it comes to numbers, before 2015 there were about 4,200 detention beds in the estate. Since then, we have rationalised and modernised the estate. We have closed Campsfield immigration removal centre and reduced occupancy levels in the other IRCs, in turn improving staff-to-detainee ratios. There are almost 40% fewer beds—about 2,600 fewer—than there were four years ago, and they are of significantly higher quality.

Tier 5 Religious Worker Visas

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 4th July 2019 Westminster Hall

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

It is good to see you in the chair, Mr Gapes. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) and the hon. Members for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton), and for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Ged Killen) for securing the debate—it is truly a cross-party campaign as well as an interfaith campaign. I pay tribute to all hon. Members who have taken part today. The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) made a particularly brave speech, but I say gently to him that I think he slightly missed the point. His argument was that the changes that the Government have introduced have not been too bad. The whole point, that all hon. Members have focused on, is that there has been absolutely nothing at all to justify the changes being made in the first place.

As hon. Members across the House have already explained, the tier 5 religious visas were operating perfectly smoothly for the many churches and religious organisations that relied upon them, until these unexpected changes were made in December last year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East said, what we are talking about is churches bringing in overseas ministers and priests a couple of times a year—perhaps in the summer, or at Easter or Christmas—to allow local religious leaders to take congregations on a trip, to go on retreat, to recover from ill health or even just to have a holiday.

We are talking about not only Christian churches, but other religions too. I have heard directly about a Buddhist temple and a Sikh gurdwara that have been negatively impacted. The hon. Members for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) made important interventions about how important these routes are for gurdwaras in their constituencies.

In my constituency, parishioners from St Lucy’s in Cumbernauld were among the first to contact me about the issue. Father Campbell wrote to me at the end of April, saying that the changes

“will have a vast impact on me and our parishioners here, as we rely on Father Alex Mpaggi coming to allow me a holiday in July and to accompany 50 parishioners to Lourdes in France, also in July.”

Those are the nuts and bolts of what these changes have almost destroyed.

This is about the support that visiting priests and celebrants can provide. It is important to say, as hon. Members have done today, that visiting clergy in themselves enrich the life of the churches that they work at with their new ideas and approaches, and by sharing knowledge of different cultures. That point was made by the Rt Rev. Susan Brown from the Church of Scotland, as quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East in his speech.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) said, over the course of time close relationships are built up between parishes and priests. For example, Father Mpaggi has been coming to St. Lucy’s in Cumbernauld since 2013. When he comes he leads worship, carries out the celebrations of holy mass, including marriage, and conducts funerals and supports the bereaved. All of that is now put in jeopardy.

As other Members have explained, churches and other places of worship are not only about worship, although that is obviously their central function; they also form important parts of their communities, and indeed are communities in themselves. It is about the youth clubs, the coffee mornings, the pensioner clubs, the mother and toddler groups, the food banks and the soup kitchens. The same visiting clergy also help to carry out those important functions.

These arrangements were working well, but now they are not, because the changes that the Immigration Minister introduced are already having a negative impact. The Home Office has more than doubled the cost to parishes. As Father Campbell has told me, that means “making supply-cover effectively unaffordable”. He expressed concern about the impact that the changes will have on the health of local priests if they cannot afford to bring in the support that they need and have relied on in recent years. Those costs arise not only from the visa fees, but from unnecessary English tests. As Father Campbell points out:

“Even priests who have undertaken seminary formation in English may be required to sit an English language test before coming on supply-placements. This will have both practical and financial implications”.

My first big question for the Minister is: why? Where is the evidence, as the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Ged Killen) put it? Why did the rules have to change? What is the justification? Is the problem so significant that it merits creating all these other problems for our churches?

The Immigration Minister’s written statement, letters and answers firstly point to some sort of problem with ministers of religion coming over and taking on roles such as preaching and leading congregations while not being able to speak a good standard of English. Her various responses have also referred to the need for integration. So far, I find those explanations flimsy and utterly unconvincing.

As one of the 100 or so constituents who contacted me said:

“I have attended services in Synagogue where the language used was Hebrew and in other faiths where the language used was Hindi, Guajarati or whatever. That may not suit the British Government but it is a reality”.

In short, is it really any business of the Government if religious celebrants spend short periods here and preach in different languages? The shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Walsall South, made that point very strongly, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West.

Similarly, integration of the religious workers, which the Immigration Minister referred to in her various letters, is not really relevant here. As the shadow Leader of the House also pointed out, nobody is proposing that these people will live here permanently or become settled here. In fact, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West powerfully pointed out, the integration argument is completely the other way round, because community integration and social solidarity are undermined if these religious workers can no longer come to do all the work they have previously.

As a spokesperson for the Bishop’s Conference of Scotland said today:

“Catholic parishes, without the support of visiting priests, would be unable to provide the level of service to the local community that it does at present, such as Masses, weddings, funerals, comforting the bereaved, tending to the sick and needy, and many other works of charity including food banks and soup kitchens.”.

I have seen no good reason for these changes, and certainly none that justifies creating all these other consequences.

Now, let us be incredibly kind and imagine for a minute that the Minister manages to explain today why exactly these changes have been made in this particular way. That is being very optimistic, but in any event it would still not be an end to the matter. Even if, having listened to the Minister, we took the view that reform was necessary, surely there must be another way to accommodate the needs of all the churches we have heard from without undermining whatever strange purpose the Home Office is pursuing? Surely it cannot be beyond the wit of the Home Office to come up with something that is a better fit, and a more reasonably priced fit, for those ministers and priests who come just for very short stays to support the work of our churches from time to time?

Tier 2 is not designed with these scenarios in mind, and neither is the new tier 5. Nor, I believe, is the business visitor route, which is not even something that the Home Office has until this point prayed in aid. Why not offer a low-cost two or three-year visa, for example, which does not have the same stringent requirements regarding English qualifications, which allows applicants to work as ministers or to lead worship, but which sets a maximum stay of a certain number of weeks or months in any calendar year to prevent any circumvention of the tier 2 requirements? Surely the Government could work up something along those lines?

As the shadow Leader of the House said, it is important that that is done as a matter of urgency, even on an interim basis, because this is harming parishes and other religious organisations right now, this very summer. I join the calls on the Home Office to engage in discussion about how the impact of these changes can be reversed, or at the very least ameliorated. I also join the calls for Ministers to meet representatives of churches, including churches in Scotland, to discuss the impact that these rules are having.

Finally, I turn to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), powerfully flagging up the poor consultation and policy-making process. That takes me back to one of my hobby-horses, which is how we go about making immigration policy. Is this not the perfect example of why leaving it to the Home Office does not work? I dare say officials believed that they had thought through all the implications, but they had not. Meanwhile, MPs were barely aware that changes had been made, and if they were aware, they were, as my hon. Friend pointed out, completely unable to decipher what they meant or what the implications would be.

That is why, when the Immigration Bill was in Committee, I proposed an exciting, shiny immigration equivalent of the Social Security Advisory Committee, so that experts could scrutinise Home Office proposals, flag up concerns, allow others to give input and give MPs advice on what needed further scrutiny. I was sad that my proposals did not have the Committee as excited as I was. Seriously, though, we do need to think how we go about consulting and scrutinising immigration rule changes.

In conclusion, I again commend hon. Friends and colleagues for bringing this debate on an important issue. I hope that the Home Office will listen and provide a better route for visiting priests and ministers to keep coming and carrying out the vital temporary work that they do. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North said, if we had a better system of scrutiny, we could hopefully avoid these mess-ups happening in the first place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hurd]

I am not sure how fair that is, because I do not know the background to those conversations. However, I know the Immigration Minister well. She is the listening type, and I think she is entirely sincere in saying that she recognises the sensitivities that have emerged from this policy change.

Before I go into why there were changes, it is always helpful to assert the common ground. Many Members—the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) was particularly powerful on this—spoke about the importance and the value of faith communities in all our constituencies. I think she spoke for many of us in expressing the importance of those communities, not least in giving many people a sense of strength and purpose. I absolutely recognise that from my constituency and the extraordinary work of churches such as Emmanuel Church in Northwood, the Northwood and Pinner Liberal Synagogue and St Martin’s Church in Ruislip, to mention three.

We all know the fundamental truth of that, and I think we all agree with the point about the added value of contributions made by members of religious institutions from overseas, which is at the heart of the debate. That is why the immigration system maintains dedicated arrangements for religious workers, with two dedicated visa categories providing for those seeking to come to the UK to fill long-term vacancies and shorter-term postings. As hon. Members know, the requirements necessarily differ between the two, to ensure that the system is used in an appropriate manner.

The adjective “generous” is not often attached to the Home Office, but we think that this is a generous offer. However, it must be balanced against ensuring that those wishing to lead congregations, regularly performing the primary rites and rituals of their faith, are subject to stronger requirements than those coming to the UK to fill supporting roles for shorter periods. We believe that those tasked with leading roles within our churches, synagogues, mosques and temples must be able to demonstrate a strong command of the English language, which is fundamental to the change to tier 2. The changes that the Government have introduced ensure that all those seeking to undertake such important roles can explain their teachings in English to all in the community, not just to their congregation.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

This is fundamental: are churches, mosques and synagogues not better placed to assess the level of English required for priests and other religious leaders to lead worship in their communities, and whether applicants coming in under tier 5 have the skill required?

[Mr Hurd]

I completely understand that point, which was raised earlier. The Government’s position is that it is important that the same rules apply to all, in the interests of fairness, hence the test centre requirements. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that exemptions exist where applicants have been awarded a recognised degree.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the root of the changes introduced in January 2019 was the June 2018 Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government consultation on the integrated communities strategy. The Green Paper set out the Government’s intention to strengthen English language skills by supporting UK residents and strengthening requirements for those who wish to come here. The rationale behind that approach is that ministers of religion play a visible role in our religious institutions and must therefore be able to integrate with the wider communities in which they live and serve, rather than only being able to speak to their congregations.

[Mr Hurd]

I absolutely understand that point. On the hon. Lady’s direct question on the specific problem of her constituent, while I obviously do not know the individual case, one of the three visa entry routes may well be relevant for the role that she described, not least the visitor visa route. With respect, she should engage on that directly with officials, which I can help to facilitate.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The Minister is indeed doing a sterling job in difficult circumstances. On integration, the other fundamental point that the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), made earlier was that nobody is saying that these people want to come and live here, so integration is not really relevant. They have a job to do over a very short period and then they head back to their home countries. Integration really is not at the heart of this issue, or should not be.

[Mr Hurd]

My understanding of the situation is that, in large part because the Government recognise the importance and value of the contributions to our religious institutions made by people from overseas, we have three separate visa routes in to try to facilitate that process. The changes made in January 2019 require individuals seeking to enter the UK as a minister of religion to use tier 2, demonstrating their command of the English language. To be clear, tier 2 is for religious leaders such as priests, imams, rabbis, missionaries and members of religious orders taking employment or a role within a faith-based community. Those applicants can come for up to three years, with an option to extend for up to six years, and possible indefinite leave to remain after five years’ continuous—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hurd]

Some may want to. That is why we have the different tiers of visas for people in different circumstances. I completely understand that the heart of the concern, particularly among Scottish Members of Parliament, is not about individuals who want to stay here longer, but about people coming in to fill gaps over the summer. I completely accept that point. I am just trying to set out, because I was asked to, what the policy background is and trying to answer the fundamental question posed: why have the Government made the changes?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The Minister is being very generous with his time. I think that we have just come to the nub of the issue. He is describing different visas, but I think what we have discovered in the course of this debate is that none of them fits the circumstances of what we have been describing this afternoon—people who come temporarily but nevertheless want to carry out the roles of leaders of congregations and ministers of religion. Short-term visas do not allow people to lead a congregation, but the longer-term visas are completely inappropriate, because people are coming only for short-term visits, so we need to invent a new visa. I think that is the ultimate point.

[Mr Hurd]

I am not sure that the Government agree with that position, but it is clearly one held by the hon. Gentleman and other Members of Parliament, so it is clearly something that needs to be discussed and tabled at the roundtable next week with the Minister for Immigration and in subsequent follow-up. That is the nature of this place: we change rules; we make laws. We do that, believe it or not, with good intentions, although conspiracy theories have been articulated this afternoon. We do impact assessments. Then—as in this case—after a few months, issues begin to arise and concerns need to be dealt with. In the democracy that we live in, it is incumbent on the Government and the Minister at the time to listen very carefully, engage with those who have a problem and, in a democratic process, work through that. And I am absolutely sure that the Minister for Immigration will do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hurd]

I am grateful for the empathy shown by the hon. Gentleman in saying that I am up against it. He should come to more police debates.

The changes that seem to be causing the most difficulty for hon. Members are the changes to the visa arrangement from tier 5 to tier 2. I have tried to explain that these changes are rooted in the strategy incubated in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which focuses on the importance of reinforcing the need for English language skills and is rooted in a policy directed at greater social cohesion. In relation to the cooling-off period for tier 5, I think I was clear that that was driven by evidence of a small but growing misuse of that system, with people effectively here on a permanent basis. [Interruption.] I have been asked a straight question, and that is a straight answer.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

If these visa changes were introduced on the back of a consultation from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, which is a devolved issue, then that consultation would have nothing to do with Scotland at all. That may be one reason why the particular circumstances that we have been speaking about have not made their way into the Home Office’s thinking about these visas. That might be something the Home Office wants to reflect on for the future.

[Mr Hurd]

I am sure that the Immigration Minister, who will read the record of this debate closely, will want to reflect on that.

Serco and Asylum Seeker Lock-change Evictions

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 27th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker. I rise to discuss the very important and serious matter of Serco and its announcement to press ahead with asylum seeker lock-change evictions. In giving a bit of background, I will be mentioning a number of organisations that have expressed their concerns, both publicly and to me. They include: the Scottish Refugee Council, Positive Action in Housing, the Govan Law Centre, the Govan Community Project, Glasgow City Council and the Scottish Government and, of course, the Tenants Union’s Living Rent campaign, whose badge I proudly wear today.

Earlier this month, Serco announced that it was going to restart its inhumane lock-changing programme, which could leave hundreds of asylum seekers homeless and destitute in the city of Glasgow. I and my colleagues in the Scottish National party want to prevent these evictions and future evictions from taking place. Serco currently has a contract with the Home Office for the provision of asylum accommodation in Scotland. The recent threat to evict 300 asylum seekers on to the streets of Glasgow without any consultation only strengthens the arguments that a public sector bid for those contracts would have been the best way forward.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) who serves on the Home Affairs Committee knows, in January 2017 the Committee published a highly critical asylum accommodation report. It made system-wide recommendations; uncovered unacceptable housing standards and insufficient recognition of needs, such as mental health, torture, sexual violence and trafficking; and raised serious questions about the rigour, consistency and lack of public transparency in the Home Office’s performance management regime of its three housing contractors across the United Kingdom.

I do not want to discuss the merits of live legal proceedings in this place—indeed that would not be right—but it is a concern that I have a constituent who is subject to live legal proceedings in Scotland’s supreme appellate court, the Inner House of the Court of Session, and I am surprised that both the Home Office and Serco have decided to press ahead with these lock-change evictions while the matter is still to be settled in the courts. Labelling asylum seekers as “failed” is not the sort of language that we should be using when discussing some of the most vulnerable in our society. The asylum system and process can be very lengthy and very complicated, and using labels such as “failed” is entirely unhelpful.

The Scottish Refugee Council has also expressed its concerns on the matter. Serco’s announcement on 12 June was made to Glasgow City Council and the Scottish Government, but not to Members of Parliament from Glasgow. We did not get that until we saw the press release. The public statement caused great concern. Of course, we were written to by the Immigration Minister on 17 June regarding the announcement and the lock-change eviction plan. It is clear that this is a co-ordinated action between the Home Office and Serco. Like the Scottish Refugee Council, I oppose these actions, and I want to focus on some of what Serco is up to.

No one should be rendered street homeless, and certainly never, ever without the protection of court due process. There is a wider strategic importance in Glasgow continuing to resist and overcome the clear housing and due process gaps in the current asylum system that will have relevance to other parts of the UK, especially other asylum dispersal areas such as the north of England, the midlands, south Wales and Belfast. We are clear that what is happening in Glasgow—with multinationals such as Serco intending to evict vulnerable people and render them immediately street homeless through callous, traumatising and possibly still unlawful lock changes—is an extreme symptom of a failed and broken Home Office approach to its responsibilities under the refugee convention and EU asylum legal instruments to prevent the destitution of those seeking refugee protection.

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his powerful speech and for bringing this debate to the House. He has mentioned some of the local authorities that have stepped up to the plate to take the dispersal of asylum seekers in local authority areas. Does he agree that other local authorities that might have been interested in becoming dispersal authorities and stepping up to that plate will be completely put off doing so by the horrendous process they have witnessed in Glasgow?

[Chris Stephens]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. I will express later in my speech the real views of local government, but he is correct that there are local authorities that were considering becoming part of the asylum dispersal process that are now minded not to do so as a result of what they are seeing in Glasgow, with Serco’s announcement of lock-change evictions.

There should never be anything inevitable about destitution, from any system of support—be that social housing, social security or asylum accommodation. The decade-long devaluation, underfunding and outsourcing of public service delivery of housing to women, men and children seeking refugee protection has been part of the wider austerity project that has penetrated deepest in communities of entrenched multiple deprivation across the United Kingdom, including Glasgow. We should always remember that it is these areas, however, that have consistently welcomed people seeking asylum through the Home Office’s asylum dispersal programme.

As a consequence, those communities, council areas and third sector services have been stepping up to help, as we have seen in Glasgow. That is despite their unfairly having the responsibilities and costs of helping people shunted on to them by two of the most powerful institutions in the UK—namely, the Home Office and multinational companies such as Serco, which enjoys profits of £30 million, which basically exist only to win public service contracts, especially from UK Government Departments in immigration and asylum, defence, transport and other spheres.

The Scottish Refugee Council has had to increase its destitution service provision and influencing and advocacy activities, and accelerate its work with key partners such as Positive Action in Housing, Shelter Scotland and JustRight Scotland, co-ordinating the charity and legal sector collaboration against these proposed evictions. It has met regularly since August 2018 to share information and take actions via litigation, legal policy and campaigning. Other members include the Legal Services Agency, Latta Law, Govan Law Centre, the British Red Cross, the Asylum Seeker Housing Project, the Refugee Survival Trust and, of course, the great Govan Community Project.

The Scottish Refugee Council considered the Immigration Minister’s descriptions of the situation in the 17 June letter that was issued to Members of Parliament for Glasgow constituencies, and it is the council’s strong view that there were inaccuracies in that letter, which I come to now. The Scottish Refugee Council recognised that the Home Office, through its advice contractor Migrant Help, has made efforts by letter and telephone to contact those at greater risk of evictions by lock-change notice since November 2018. However, these efforts stemmed largely from advocacy by Glasgow City Council and the Scottish Refugee Council to the Home Office, in the Glasgow asylum taskforce. Furthermore, the Scottish Refugee Council and other members of the taskforce persuaded the Home Office to initiate a support referral process. This was a pilot that comprised Migrant Help in Glasgow offering each individual at risk of eviction a one-and-a-half-hour appointment. The pilot had two phases: first, from November 2018 to January 2019, involving Migrant Help only; and secondly, from February 2019 to April 2019, after Migrant Help sought assistance from the Scottish Refugee Council.

The Scottish Refugee Council received 61 referrals from Migrant Help in the second phase of that process. That compares with 419 individuals assisted by Scottish Refugee Council destitution advisers from April 2018 to March 2019, 263 of whom were in Serco asylum accommodation. Through sustained funding from a charitable organisation and short-term resources from the Scottish Government, the Scottish Refugee Council has managed to stretch limited funds to prepare and lodge 120 applications for section 4 support, with 59% of those being successful—thereby lifting 72 individuals out of destitution or preventing them from falling into it. That has been achieved outside any Home Office support. I think that we would all want to continue to urge the Home Office, as the state party to the refugee convention and EU asylum legal instruments, urgently to provide resources that are genuinely commensurate with need, including the funding of independent advocacy support to help individuals in grave need.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Towards the end of last year, the Home Affairs Committee recommended direct funding to organisations and city councils in dispersal areas because of the undoubted cost implications for participating dispersal authorities. Does my hon. Friend share my frustration that the work that the Home Office undertook to carry out with local authorities to calculate the funds that would be needed seems to have been put on the back burner and kicked into the long grass, despite it being necessary as a matter of urgency?

[Chris Stephens]

I agree that it is urgent, as my hon. Friend suggests. I am sure that the Minister will address that, because there is a very real concern about it, not just from independent advocacy groups such as the Scottish Refugee Council but from local government and the Scottish Government. I will come to that later.

The priority remains to help all those facing asylum destitution, especially those due to receive the 14-day notice-to-quit letter followed by the seven-day lock- change notice. Destitution advisers provide a holistic assessment of need and ongoing support and co-ordination, including for individuals under threat of eviction through lock changes by Serco. All these individuals are known to the Home Office. The process of submitting new evidence for a refused asylum claim is lengthy and complicated for most, and they might not have an option to return because of fear of persecution. To simply say that they “refuse” to leave is not accurate. We must emphasise that the actions of Serco are, in this sphere, functions of a public nature and therefore come under the scope of the Human Rights Act 1998. This legal status was confirmed in a Court of Session decision.

It is important that we highlight just some of the individuals who are under threat of eviction by Serco and the Home Office. We have been advised by the Home Office, and by the Minister at a meeting I had with her earlier this week, that those with vulnerabilities will not receive such letters, but that does not seem to be the case. I am going to mention a number of cases that have been presented to me by asylum charities. Everyone here knows the safety and belonging that a home brings, but today in Glasgow we are on the brink of a humanitarian crisis of hundreds of women and men who sought sanctuary in the UK. The Conservative Government have none the less retained their basic inhumanity in the asylum process. Since last week, they have been ruthlessly rolling out their privatised hostile environment in Scotland’s largest city.

Courageous women like Mariam, who has fled abuse in Eritrea but been refused refugee protection by the asylum system, should never have received a notice to quit. Why? Because Mariam has depression, is receiving medication and is being helped by a community psychiatric nurse. Serco has ordered her to get out of her house through a lock-change letter, which means no protection against street homelessness, with no rule of law or court oversight, callously causing trauma and tearing her away with immediate effect from her only source of shelter. Do we leave people like Mariam on the streets, with their mental health going through the floor, to be a sitting target for traffickers or exploiters, when the outgoing Prime Minister said that tackling trafficking was a top priority? Does the Minister realise that those sorts of decisions feed exploitation and are a boon to organised crime, while destroying lives? Surely the decent thing is to ensure that Mariam’s lock change is cancelled.

Another concern that has been brought to my attention is that letters are being delivered by two men in uniform, sometimes to women who live on their own. I have a real concern about that, and I find it completely and utterly unacceptable. For a woman who has fled her country to seek shelter and asylum in the UK, two men in uniform visiting the house with letters will mean something completely different from what it would perhaps mean to us. It is unacceptable, and I hope the Minister will have something to say about that.

I have a number of other cases to mention. A 34-year-old woman from Eritrea was issued with an eviction letter dated 12 June 2019—not 20 June, as MPs have been advised—telling her to leave her accommodation by 25 June. The letter wrongly stated that she had received a positive decision. It also incorrectly advised her that she must leave and that she would have to apply to Glasgow City Council for rehousing. Her hopes were raised that she had got refugee status. A week later, she received another letter dated 19 June, again telling her to leave by 25 June. This time, the letter wrongly stated that her asylum claim was refused and that she must leave her accommodation. In fact, she has an ongoing asylum claim and is due to attend a further submissions appointment in Liverpool on 4 October 2019. This woman’s claim for asylum is based on her nationality and the fact that, as a Pentecostal Christian, she would be at risk of persecution should she return.

Another case presented to me is a 72-year-old gentleman who is an Iraqi national but has lived most of his life in Syria. He left Syria when the war started. He has lost contact with his wife and children in Europe and is in Glasgow alone. He speaks Arabic. Serco sent him a lock-change eviction letter dated 19 June, telling him to leave by 2 July 2019. He has a serious heart condition, for which he has had a heart operation. He also has a problem with his spine and breathing problems, which leaves him bedridden most of each day. He is particularly vulnerable due to his age, his ill health and English not being his first language, and he is traumatised by his experiences. It is a real concern that he will be unable to safeguard his own wellbeing and is at risk of neglect. Positive Action in Housing has asked Glasgow City Council’s social work department to carry out a community care assessment and is seeking legal support.

Another case is that of a 58-year-old woman who received a letter from Serco dated 21 June telling her that her entitlement to support ends on 23 June—less than two days’ notice. If she leaves her accommodation, she will be destitute. Her section 4 application is under way, and her legal case is ongoing. This woman left Gambia to ensure that her daughters cannot be subject to female genital mutilation practices.

Another case I have is that of a constituent who received a letter on 12 June, and who visited this Parliament as part of a delegation from the British Red Cross. She is an African lady, who identifies herself as a member of the LGBT community, and she feels she cannot go back to her country. She was issued with a letter on 12 June, not 20 June.

It appears that Serco is treating individuals with complex cases as one mass of people, and this is likely to lead to unjust decisions and vulnerable people with a genuine reason to be here being ejected from their accommodation. As a landlord, Serco is ill-equipped to pass judgment on someone’s asylum status. Walking unannounced into someone’s accommodation and rummaging through their private belongings does not make that person an immigration officer. The people Serco is attempting to evict are not subject to deportation orders. The Home Office support has stopped for now, but that does not mean that their cases—to put it in inverted commas—“failed”. They can still engage with the legal process and apply for support to be reinstated. Appeals and judicial reviews do happen and are often successful.

I want to come on to the local government view. I have a letter, which I will place in the Library, from Susan Aitken, the leader of Glasgow City Council, and a note of the meeting of local authorities passing on their concerns about asylum accommodation contracts and processes. There are pressures in different areas, including the north-east, Yorkshire and the Humber, and Glasgow, as incoming contractors face the need to procure a large number of properties in a very short period of time. It is my concern that Serco is advertising the fact that the reason why it needs to remove asylum seekers from their accommodation is so that it can hand back the keys to the original landlords, which does not seem to me to be an acceptable reason.

There is very real concern from local government that the transition deadline will not be met in some areas and that contingency accommodation may have to be used. The distribution of asylum seekers across the country is very uneven, with some areas of high concentration, including Glasgow. Local authority leaders from other parts of the UK agree that we need to progress the funding issues, as local government is left to pick up the tab for the decisions made by both Serco and the Home Office. In their view, the Home Office is failing to address issues for which it has responsibility and seems unable to provide up-to-date data on the number and locations of asylum seekers. When data is produced, it is often incomplete and contradicts information available from other sources.

In the view of local authorities, nothing is being done by the Home Office to convince other local authorities in the UK to participate in the dispersal programme. However, as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, the fact that asylum seeker lock-change evictions are going ahead has resulted in some local authorities suggesting that they would not want to participate in that sort of process. Local authorities participating in the dispersal programme are still waiting for the Home Office response to their request for funding, and they see no evidence that that has been taken to Her Majesty’s Treasury.

I think it would be fair to say that we have a number of questions about what is going on in relation both to the contracts, and to this inhumane move to subject asylum seekers to lock-change evictions and make them homeless. However, before I ask those questions, I have to say that I am very concerned at the behaviour of Serco. I want to reiterate again that two men should not approach women living on their own or with children, going in with threatening letters and handing them over in that way. That is something I want to hear the Minister condemn, and I want that practice put a stop to.

Can the Minister answer the following questions? I have a number of questions for her. Does she intend to come to Glasgow to witness a lock-change eviction? When is she next coming to Glasgow to discuss the asylum accommodation contract with asylum charities and the council? Does she realise what it would mean for someone to come home and find that their locks have been changed? May we have a guarantee that no one in Glasgow who has vulnerabilities as defined by the Home Office safeguarding policy has or will receive 14 days’ notice to quit, or a seven-day lock-change notice?

Will the Minister publish the Home Office safeguarding policy? To my mind, the four cases that I presented involve people who would qualify as having a vulnerability under that policy. Will the Minister say more about what the Home Office defines as the over-staying group? Does it have a list of those in that group? Will she confirm whether refused case management and immigration enforcement teams are planning to start working through the over-staying list? Are they planning to detain people at their reporting events in Glasgow? Can she assure me that that will not happen, and that it has never been discussed since the first announcement about Serco evictions in July 2018? Can the Minister provide an assurance that no one in the over-staying group will be visited by immigration enforcement in their asylum accommodation, purely because they are classed as an over-stayer?

As a result of what has been put forward, the Home Office is required to make a decision. You will have heard the rumours, Mr Deputy Speaker, as I have, about the shredding machines in Departments being in overdrive and working overtime, prior to the new Prime Minister and new regime.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate and providing me with the opportunity to clarify the current position in Glasgow regarding those who are no longer eligible for asylum support or accommodation.

The United Kingdom has a proud history of providing an asylum system that protects and respects the fundamental rights of those individuals who seek refuge from persecution. The Government are committed to working closely with communities and stakeholders to ensure that destitute asylum seekers are provided with safe, secure and suitable accommodation, and that they are treated with dignity while their asylum claim is considered. However, it is important to recognise that the majority of the affected cohort in Glasgow do not have status in the UK. They have sought asylum. Their claim has not been substantiated. They have exhausted the appeals process and they now need to take steps to return to their country of origin.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Even if some of these individuals have not qualified and have not met the technical definition of what a refugee is, that does not mean they are not vulnerable people, it does not mean they do not have significant needs and it does not mean they should not be treated with dignity. Why do we have a cliff-edge process that means that, if an asylum claim is refused, no alternatives are looked at and there are no ways to try to work with that person to ensure they are looked after properly?

[Caroline Nokes]

At no point have I said that these people are not vulnerable. I have tried to set out that they have had an asylum claim that has not been found to be valid and that they have been through the appeals process. If the hon. Gentleman will give me some time, I will move on to discuss the various means of support that are available, particularly to those we heard about earlier: those who are vulnerable, those who have medical conditions and those who have children.

The system that operates in Glasgow is the same system that operates across the United Kingdom and has been operated by successive Governments since the introduction of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Asylum seekers and their dependants who would otherwise be destitute are provided with accommodation and a weekly cash allowance by the Home Office while their asylum claim and any subsequent appeals are considered. This form of support is usually known as section 95 support. If an asylum seeker is granted refugee status, they are free to take employment and become eligible to apply for mainstream benefits in the same way as British citizens and other permanent residents.

If their asylum claim is refused but they have children at the time their appeal rights are exhausted, they remain on section 95 support until their youngest child reaches 18 years of age or they leave UK. Those without children who exhaust the appeals process lose access to section 95 support, but a very similar form of support, known as section 4 support, is provided so long as they take reasonable steps to leave the UK, or, importantly, show that there is a legal or practical obstacle that prevents their departure. Examples of such an obstacle include: those who are too sick to travel, those who need time to obtain a necessary travel document, and those who have made fresh submissions against the refusal of their asylum claim that have not been resolved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

As I was saying, a small number of people have been granted refugee status, but it is absolutely right that they then move on from accommodation that is designated for destitute asylum seekers, so that the next cohort of asylum seekers can move into that accommodation, and those refugees—who have the right to stay, live and work in this country—move into accommodation that is appropriate for their needs and is not designated part of this asylum support accommodation, which is specifically designed for a cohort of people who are still in the claims process.

As the hon. Gentleman will know, I have also written to all Glasgow MPs with a direct line of contact to Home Office teams, who can work on a case-by-case basis should they have any questions or concerns. All applicants involved have been notified that they can contact their MP for advice and that their MPs have a direct line to the Home Office.

Some concern has been raised about the legal position in relation to issuing lock-change notices, which I would like to clarify. In July 2018, Serco commenced a process of reclaiming properties from those whose asylum applications had been decided and were no longer entitled to support. This was after a similar process had been successfully rolled out in the north-west of England.

The process of issuing a lock-change notice, if an individual refused to leave a property at the end of their entitlement, was paused pending a legal challenge in the Scottish courts. That pause did not affect people’s eligibility to receive asylum support, so those who became appeal rights exhausted or were granted leave to remain continued to receive the normal letter asking them to leave their accommodation. However, in that period, Serco did not follow this up by proceeding with lock changes if the individuals declined to leave.

In April this year, Lord Tyre dismissed two cases brought against Serco and the Home Office contesting this course of action. An appeal has been lodged and is currently sisted. As the cases were dismissed, Serco is now moving to resolve the circumstances of those staying in Serco properties. It is right that it does so.

Finally, I want to clarify the operational process, which I also set out in my recent letter to Glasgow MPs and MSPs.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The Minister says that it is right for Serco to act in that way given Lord Tyre’s judgment, but surely it would be right for Serco to wait for the outcome of the further appeal. Will she also address the issue of funding for local authorities, with the Home Office having undertaken to work with local authorities to assess the impact of dispersal on their resources? Why has that work been kicked into the long grass?

[Caroline Nokes]

The legal action that was started last year and the judgement concluded in April this year did not provide a barrier to Serco continuing with this activity. It chose to pause it. The further appeal does not provide a barrier and the judgment was very clear. It is right that Serco should seek to make sure that accommodation designated for asylum seekers is available to those who fall into that category.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

I set out very clearly earlier—I cannot find the place in my notes right now—that Serco continued with the process because actually there was a cohort that came to everyone’s attention in the summer of last year, but between then and now there have been additional asylum seekers in Serco accommodation who have submitted new claims that have been found not to be substantiated. The process is not set in aspic; it continues the whole time. Different individuals will have come in and new claims will have been made by that cohort. The hon. Gentleman refers to other individuals who received notices to quit, but it is important to reflect that that might have been because their claims were found to be warranted and they were given refugee status and so needed to move into mainstream accommodation. There will also be those whose asylum claim was found not to be substantiated and were not in need of protection.

It remains the position that all of the cohort can apply for section 4 support at any time, and if they do, the process will be suspended until the application is considered and any appeal against its refusal is decided.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Will the Minister give way?

[Caroline Nokes]

I think that Mr Deputy Speaker is concerned that we are about to use more time than I am permitted.

I am proud of the contribution that our country makes to providing accommodation and support to those seeking asylum. However, when the courts have decided that an asylum claim is not well founded, it is important that the support is available only if the individuals take reasonable steps to leave the UK, or if there is an obstacle to their departure. I am of course always willing to consider practical ideas about how we can further encourage those whose asylum claim has been refused to accept the offer of support on these terms.

Question put and agreed to.