Calais Children and Immigration Act

Alan Brown Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Goodwill]

The assessment that takes place when children are processed includes a security assessment. Indeed, in terms of the children and families who we are bringing across from Syria, that is a central part of what we do to ensure that we are kept safe, while addressing the real humanitarian need in the region.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

Will the Minister re-explain the rationale about not accepting unaccompanied 16 and 17-year-olds under Dubs? Will he reassure us that that is not a reaction to his Back Benchers making outrageous demands for teeth examinations?

[Mr Goodwill]

The criteria that we use look particularly at vulnerability. In terms of sexual exploitation, that is gender-neutral. People are referred to us by the French, and their process is gender-neutral as well.

Rights of EU Nationals

Alan Brown Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Craig Williams (Cardiff North) (Con)]

It is with some sadness that I rise to contribute to the debate, because where I can I, as a fellow Celt and a Welsh MP, look to support much of what my friends the Members from Scotland do. I was a happy remainer until the referendum and my constituency, Cardiff, voted by 60% to remain, but now I am working with my constituents to remain with the best bits of the European Union. Most of them, and especially me, are convinced that we are leaving and that is that. We get on with it.

I represent the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff. Much has been said about how much the medical profession relies on people coming from all over the world, not just the European Union. I wonder whether Scottish National party Members have thought about the impression that their language and rhetoric in today’s debate are creating. I have just heard the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) use the term “thrown out”. That kind of language is not coming from those on my Benches. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) made the point that we are agreed on much of this. My right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) and the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire said that people who lived here before 23 June should have the right to stay, but that is not what the motion states. It talks about people who have “made the UK their home”. That is open to interpretation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean, a learned Member with much experience as an Immigration Minister, explained why the motion was so clumsily worded.

I am rising not to support the motion but to say that I am working to ensure that the EU nationals in my constituency, in Wales and in the United Kingdom know that they are welcome. They make a terrific contribution to our economy, our communities and our society, and we want to keep them there, but we are also rightly trying to protect the interests of British people in the EU as well. As a Welsh MP, I am protecting Welsh people across the European Union. They have settled all over the place. I hope that hon. Members from Scotland will support me in that, but I have been saddened to hear their rhetoric in this debate.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman talks about the language being used in this debate. I should like to ask him whether he was at the Tory party conference. My wife is an EU national, and she already feels as though she is a second-class citizen because she does not get a vote from the UK Government. After she had listened to the speeches at the Tory party conference, she said to me, “I am no longer welcome in the UK under this Government.” How does the hon. Gentleman answer that?

[Craig Williams]

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman was tuning into the Conservative party conference. I was indeed at the conference, with many EU nationals from my constituency and from my team in this Parliament. I have EU nationals working for and with me. This is absolute nonsense. It is scaremongering and it is terrible. The scaremongering is coming from those on the Opposition Benches and it is deplorable—

--- Later in debate ---

[Roger Mullin]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. That harks back to the opening remarks of the Immigration Minister, who is no longer in the Chamber. At one stage in his speech he was trying to provide reassurance and say there was no uncertainty, but he also said that he was not in a position to set out a definitive position. Why not? He went on to say that it was because it would not be good negotiating practice.

[Alan Brown]

My hon. Friend correctly says that EU nationals were allowed to vote in the Scottish referendum, but did not get a vote in the EU referendum. Another symbol that the UK Government are throwing down is that they are now changing legislation so that British nationals living abroad get a vote for life. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is another clear national divide?

[Roger Mullin]

I agree entirely.

I want to move on to tackle a question raised by Government Members, who asked us whether we were not also concerned about the rights of British citizens living abroad. Well, I can tell them that I am. I will tell them who first raised this concern with me: Tracy de Jongh Eglin, who lives in the Netherlands. She contacted me some months ago. What worried her was that when the UK Government were saying “This is negotiable”, they were saying that it was not just EU national citizens’ positions here that were negotiable, but British citizens’ rights abroad, too. The UK Government are the ones who have created this insecurity for EU nationals here and for British nationals overseas.

When negotiations are entered into, uncertainty is automatically created. It cannot be otherwise, because negotiations involve the trading of positions. I have a question and I hope that the Minister will be able to answer it in his reply: what is it that he is willing to trade away in these negotiations? He must have something tradable in mind; otherwise, there would be no negotiations. Negotiations do not have to be “symmetrical” where the citizenship status here has to be negotiated with respect to people in a similar position elsewhere. It is possible to have asymmetrical negotiations, which would mean trying to secure the rights of British citizens by utilising economic levers, for example, so there is absolutely no moral justification and no negotiating justification for the uncertainty that this Government have created both for EU nationals and for British citizens overseas.

Calais Jungle

Alan Brown Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

My hon. Friend brings disappointing news on that front. My experience of working with my French opposite number and his officials is that they are just as committed as we are to assisting in this matter. Their intention and aim is to dismantle the camp in the most humanitarian way possible. Clearly, it will be a challenge for them to do so, which is why we are offering financial and security support to ensure that it is done as effectively and as gently as possible.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

I am a little concerned, because during this question and answer session there have been mixed messages. We heard initially that no stone would be left unturned in the process, but then there was hiding behind public disclosure restrictions, an unwillingness to commit to numbers and talk about waiting for the Government’s friends. The stark reality is that 80 unaccompanied children have been brought to the UK to date, and we are talking about nearly 400 being still in that camp, with a week to go to demolition. The Government must commit to numbers, confirm that they have the capability to bring in, in a short time, five times the number already brought in, and prove that they are working to identify those people and speak to their relatives in the UK.

[Amber Rudd]

I can only reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are doing that. We are working with the French. We are trying to identify the children who have a legal right to be here because of their family here. There is no lack of enthusiasm on our part to try to do that. There is no attempt to “hide behind” anything, as the hon. Gentleman put it. We are committed to doing what is in the best interests of the children with all speed and haste. We must be aware that there are people who wish those children evil, and we need to make sure that we protect them from the people who want to traffic them.

EU Nationals: UK Residence

Alan Brown Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I respond to issues relating to migration and our immigration system, so it is entirely appropriate for me to respond to this urgent question. I note and appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point about uncertainty for European citizens in the UK, as well as for British citizens overseas. That is why I have been clear that there are no immediate changes. I have sought to give that assurance, and it is unfortunate that many contributions have sought to stoke up some of those uncertainties, when the Government have been providing clarity and assurance on the process that will need to take place to give the sort of comfort that the hon. Gentleman seeks.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) has a brass neck for bringing this urgent question to the House, and the Minister has a brass neck for saying that EU citizens will not be used as bargaining chips, because that is exactly what he is doing. His boss, the Home Secretary, has a brass neck for making comments and then not coming to the House. I have continually heard the phrase “strong government”, so will the Minister find the strength to find his boss, do the right thing and make a decision for EU citizens?

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point in his own way, and I will make mine in my own way. We recognise and respect the contribution that EU citizens make in the UK, and equally we must ensure that the rights of British citizens overseas are protected. We will take that combined approach to get the best possible outcome for both.

Brain Family: Deportation

Alan Brown Excerpts

Thursday 26th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

Again, I remind the hon. Lady of when the decision was announced to close the post-study work route—in March 2011—and of when the family arrived. They obviously have had many years to know what the situation is. I obviously wish them success, and I will continue to reflect on representations.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

Is it not the case that the head-shaking from those on the Government Front Bench and the fact that two of the people who were sitting there have not been able to stay for a full half-hour demonstrate the Government’s attitude? On immigration policy for the UK as a whole, is it not time to revise the £35,000 threshold? Clearly, there are wage differences regionally, so that threshold needs to be reviewed.

[James Brokenshire]

No. Again, that rule has been clearly set to show progression and, therefore, benefit to the UK economy, whether in Scotland or elsewhere. Obviously, we have provided certain exemptions in relation to certain sectors. However, I think that that rule benefits the UK.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alan Brown Excerpts

Monday 11th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

We have had discussions with the Department for Education and the Local Government Association about the voluntary dispersal arrangements we want to see, underpinned by the Immigration Bill currently in the other place. We are continuing the dialogue on precisely how elements of that are implemented and on how we can learn from the expertise of authorities that have had greater involvement in these matters.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

24. During the recess, Scottish National party MPs visited the Calais and Dunkirk refugee camps and witnessed unaccompanied children being forced to share bed space with unrelated adults. That is clearly a troubling and serious matter. Does the Minister think the Government are doing enough to support those children? Surely it is time to step up to the plate and do more.

[James Brokenshire]

We are working closely with the French Government. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Refugees said in answer to a previous question, we have had a secondee working in the Ministry of the Interior in France to speed up the process in relation to children identified as having links to family here in the UK. Equally, the French Government are putting greater support in through a charity to raise awareness and identify children better to give them the help they require.

Preventing Violence Against Women: Role of Men

Alan Brown Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2016 Westminster Hall

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I am trying not to be a paranoid politician, but the previous Chair left just as I was about to speak.

I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on granting this debate. All the Members who have contributed have made really powerful speeches. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah). Her life experiences and the comments made in earlier speeches tell us everything that we need to know about today’s debate. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) for his commitment to the white ribbon campaign.

One of my senior caseworkers used to work for Women’s Aid and I pay tribute to its work and that of similar organisations. We cannot forget that some situations are so grave that support workers actually put themselves at risk in their quest to help others, which is a forgotten consequence of violence against women. My final tribute is to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) who has worked in this field and continues to campaign on the subject and for women’s rights in general. She made another strong speech today, but her contribution on the impact of housing benefit was really powerful and the lack of response from the Minister that day was shameful. I hope that we can get that addressed today.

Everyone here abhors domestic violence, no matter who the perpetrator or victim, but I must admit that I sometimes wonder in these days of heightened equality whether we should differentiate between genders in domestic abuse. The blunt facts speak for themselves: 80% of domestic violence perpetrators in Scotland are male. Clearly, therefore, for a significant reduction in this abhorrent crime, or to break what can be a vicious circle of repeat behaviour with different partners or perpetrators’ children becoming future offenders, we need to tackle men’s attitudes and behaviours.

In fairness, society has come on leaps and bounds since the time of such oft-used phrases as “a woman’s place is in the home” or “a woman’s place is in the kitchen”, which perpetuated women’s status as second-class citizens, fuelling bad behaviour in the demands of men. Equally, although we have not completely eradicated such views, we have to remember that it is not even 100 years since women were first deemed worthy of a vote. Without doubt, we have come a long way.

We politicians have a real job to do on women’s place in society, in particular in international relations. One of our big middle east allies, Saudi Arabia, has a poor attitude towards women’s rights—women are not even allowed to drive. I have mentioned that before, in a human rights debate in the main Chamber, but we have to keep the issue to the forefront, because too many people have blind spots when dealing with Saudi Arabia.

In the UK, to change attitudes and prevent violence against women in a domestic situation and men’s role in that, education is clearly the most important tool. With education, we need to remember that most men have grown up to see hitting a woman as disrespectful or even unmanly—in Scotland it is often said, “You never hit a woman”—but we know that it happens. So there is a bit more to education—it is about getting people to understand how they change their moral compass and justify things. Vigilante mobs can justify their violent actions, but cannot see the irony in them doing violence.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Alan Brown]

I was talking about men and changing their attitudes. That is why campaigns such as the white ribbon one are so vital—it is about making men see what domestic abuse is, as well as what the figures for it are. In that, I commend previous adverts from the Scottish Government that highlight how domestic abuse can be not only about violence but about controlling behaviour. Phrases such as “You’re not going out dressed like that”, or suggesting not meeting so-and-so or not going to a certain place, are controlling behaviour, which is a form of abuse that erodes self-esteem and can even lead in the end to domestic violence. As men, we need to recognise such behaviours and speak out against them.

To give an example of controlling behaviour, one of my constituents ended her marriage early due to domestic abuse but, some years later, she still has not managed to get a divorce settlement, because her ex-partner is deliberately dragging matters out, preventing her from truly moving on. He is now seeking an unrealistic settlement with regards to her property, towards which he has not paid one penny. We need a better support system in terms of the law and to assist women to move on. I realise that that is an “after the event” scenario, but it would help victims, confirm that they are the injured party and, importantly, put down a marker about unacceptable behaviour.

In terms of general court support, I pay tribute to the Scottish Government, who have allocated nearly £2.5 million to increase court capacity, reduce delays and expand access to legal advice as well as £1.85 million to Rape Crisis Scotland. We have heard that the Scottish Government are committed to rolling out the disclosure scheme known as Clare’s law. The need for that law underlines what we as men have to do to bring about social, cultural and attitude change in the coming years.

We must get to the heart of gender equality and engage in and support equality issues. Women being seen and treated as equals might not eliminate violence, but it will go a long way to changing the behaviour of many men. We also need to stand against people who use the derogative term, “That’s just the PC brigade” when we speak out. Those who use and hide behind such phrases are demonstrating that they have the wrong views and attitudes in the first place.

We must also speak out when misogyny occurs on social media. I welcome the general abhorrence of the Return of Kings event and I must put it on record that for Roosh V to advocate that rape should not be defined as such when a female willingly enters a property beggars belief. We cannot allow the spreading of such views, which tie in with some men seeing women purely as objects, which we must resist at all costs.

We also need to ensure that women do not feel that they have caused themselves to be victims. Over the years we have heard horror stories of court rulings in which judges have ruled that the way women dressed or the fact that they had had too much alcohol were mitigating factors. We need to fight those attitudes at all costs and, frankly, those judges need to be flushed out of the legal system.

As politicians, we must support initiatives such as the Scottish Government’s desire for gender-balanced boardrooms, recognise Scotland’s gender-balanced Government and understand why we have women-only shortlists in politics. We need a proper, equal society.

On governance, we need to understand wider policies and strategies and how they are interlinked, such as the Scottish Government’s proposals for minimum unit pricing for alcohol. We know that alcohol cannot be used as an excuse for violence, but no doubt it is a contributing factor. In Scotland, we have too big a dependence on alcohol—I feel a slight hypocrite as I was at the bar last night—so we should commend the Scottish Government for trying to tackle the subject head-on. The UK Government should think about that, because that is another subject on which the Conservatives have done a U-turn in the past.

Another unintended consequence from policy is the state pension equalisation fiasco, which in some cases has caused women to be more dependent on their partners as they struggle financially. That is clearly unhealthy, creates tensions and limits the choices women can make in controlling their destinies. I have touched on the housing benefit limit and the cuts imposed by the Government. The effect that that policy may have on women’s refuges means that it needs to be rethought or, as a minimum, that some form of exemption needs to be made. We cannot possibly tackle the scourge of domestic violence if the safe havens are at risk of closure. That is wrong from both a moral and a long-term financial perspective—the proposals do not make sense.

To return to Scottish statistics, there was a 2.5% increase in reported crimes in 2014-15 compared with the previous year. Increases are often attributed to the fact that victims are more likely to come forward, so I hope that that is the main reason for the increase, but we need to be careful not to use that as a comfort blanket. We need to understand trends fully and ensure that we keep on top of them if we are to make true inroads into ending violence against women. I am confident that continuing education, the calling out of misogyny in social media, listening to women and encouraging them to speak up, and having better joined-up Government policy will help us get there and eradicate violence against women.

--- Later in debate ---

[Karen Bradley]

My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole is a teacher with great experience of such things.

We do need there to be education. The Government have made it clear in the introduction to the framework for the national curriculum that all schools should teach PSHE, and we are committed to working with schools and other experts to ensure that young people receive age-appropriate information that allows them to make informed choices and stay safe, but the point is that it must be good-quality PSHE across the board and not, as my hon. Friend said, the add-on that no teacher wants to do.

It is probably worth mentioning the tools that we have introduced for prevention and protection, which, as I have said, apply to all relationships—LGBT, men to women and women to men. Domestic violence protection orders and the domestic violence disclosure scheme were rolled out across England and Wales from March 2014, and those tools put the responsibility for violence and abuse squarely with the perpetrator.

DVPOs can prevent the perpetrator from returning to a residence and from having contact with the victim for up to 28 days. Latest figures show that magistrates have granted more than 2,500 DVPOs. The domestic violence disclosure scheme, also known as Clare’s law, which a number of hon. Members have referred to, enables the police to disclose to the public information about previous violent offending by a new or existing partner where that may help to protect them from further violent offending. The latest figures show that more than 1,300 disclosures have been made. The Government will build on those achievements by evaluating Clare’s law and DVPOs to identify how we can strengthen those important tools.

We have also strengthened significantly the law on female genital mutilation, including through FGM protection orders, and last year we introduced two new measures—the sexual harm prevention order and the sexual risk order—to make it easier for the police and courts further to restrict and monitor the activities of individuals who pose a risk, including when they have not been convicted of a previous offence.

I want to touch on the issue of stalking. Being stalked by a stranger can have terrifying consequences, so we are consulting on the introduction of a stalking protection order. That will explore whether positive requirements can be placed on perpetrators at an early stage, to help to stop their behaviour. By that we mean a perpetrator being forced, for example, to attend mental health sessions so that we can try to stop the behaviour before it becomes criminal. We are ensuring that new measures include a focus on the perpetrator—disrupting their activity, removing them from the home where necessary and ensuring that they engage with appropriate interventions to help to stop their offending before it escalates.

Hon. Members have made a number of points about the right approach to take. The question is, what is justice for a victim of domestic abuse? What will help that person to get control of their own life, and what is the right outcome for that individual? There are many different ways to tackle the problem, and it is clear that one size does not fit all.

Refuge provision has been discussed at length. The Government are committed to refuge provision. We have announced £40 million between 2016 and 2020 for domestic abuse services including refuges, and a £2 million grant to Women’s Aid and SafeLives to support early intervention, but refuge is not the answer for every victim. The hon. Member for Bradford West (Naz Shah) talked about victims being turned away from refuges. I have spent time with refuge providers, who have told me that often a victim has such complex needs and so many difficulties that the refuge they go to is not the right place for them, and they may need different provisions and support.

I am committed to ensuring that refuges provide the appropriate safety net for people. However, for some families a better outcome might be achieved if a woman can stay in her home with her family, and if the perpetrator is removed from that home and is not just allowed to move in with the next partner to start the cycle of abuse all over again. I do not pretend that that will always be possible, but it is a better outcome for some victims. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley knows better than anybody that there are many different needs, and I have enjoyed our conversations on the matter. We need to think about how we can tackle the problem and break the cycle, and that means dealing with perpetrators.

[Alan Brown]

The Minister is saying that refuges are not the only answer, but they are important and required just now. Given that the local housing allowance cap is a threat to refuges, does she support protecting them from it?

[Karen Bradley]

As I said, the Government have committed £40 million to provisions, including refuges. I want to ensure that refuges are available to victims for whom they are the right answer. Organisations have told me that victims sometimes do not feel that they can come forward because they do not think the services are there. We want victims to have the confidence to come forward, and we need to tell them that they will be supported and looked after so they can get the support they need and we can break the cycle.

Preventing abuse depends on changing the attitudes and behaviours of perpetrators. Addressing the root causes of violent offending forms an integral part of our refreshed strategy. There is evidence that experiencing adversity, including violence and abuse, can have serious consequences. We need only consider that 41% of the prison population have witnessed or experienced domestic abuse to understand the wider social harms such crimes cause. We are working with agencies and in local areas to ensure the availability of appropriate perpetrator programmes, prison and probation rehabilitation approaches and, where needed, mental health interventions that may lead to a reduction in offending and sustainable behaviour change.

National organisations SafeLives and Respect have formed a partnership to create a new type of intervention for perpetrators of domestic abuse. The model, referred to as the Drive project, will involve working with perpetrators of domestic abuse on a one-to-one basis to reduce their offending, using support and disruption where appropriate, and ensuring that victim and family safety is embedded within the response.

The troubled families programme that we ran in the previous Parliament worked with 120,000 families. We found that a high proportion of families in the programme had experienced domestic abuse, even though that was not a reason for families enter the programme. Domestic violence is therefore now a specific criterion for identifying families for support in the next stage of the programme. For families who suffer domestic violence, it is seldom the only problem affecting them. The “Understanding Troubled Families” report showed that 39% of families who experienced domestic violence included a young offender, 37% had drug or alcohol dependencies, 62% had a truanting child, and 60% included an adult with a mental health problem, compared with 40% in families where there was no domestic violence.

Paris Terrorist Attacks

Alan Brown Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend that I discuss these matters with the Chancellor, and I am very clear about the important role that policing plays in the life of our nation, and not just in relation to these sorts of matters. I indicated earlier that counter-terrorism and policing grants had been protected. Also, Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has pointed out that police forces can make changes that would enable them to make savings without affecting their ability to respond to matters such as these.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

The tragic events of the weekend illustrate yet again that we live in changing times in terms of threats to national security. To that end, I welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement of additional security officers and aviation measures. However, given the concerns being expressed by Members, including those on her own Benches, does she agree that a greater investment in policing, security and prevention measures would be far more productive than wasting £167 billion on Trident? That would also give future Governments greater flexibility to react to events.

[Mrs May]

The hon. Gentleman cannot stand up and say that we need to look after the security of this country and then say that we should be scrapping Trident.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alan Brown Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

I commend the work of Merseyside police, and police across the country. Hate crime has been coming down, and there has been increased reporting of it, which means that more victims are prepared to come forward. That is due to the excellent work of the police and the criminal justice system, and we should all congratulate them on that.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

Building on earlier comments, and noting that prevention is better than cure, may I ask the Government what extra measures they are taking to prevent hate crime, rather than tackle it once it has occurred? Also, I offer a reminder: Ministers should always be temperate in their language.

Immigration Bill

Alan Brown Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate and to speak against what, in my book, is one of the more heinous Bills introduced by this Tory Government, or for that matter by any other Government.

I am proud to make the case for immigration and to remind our international community that they are valued and that we appreciate their contribution to our communities. I know that Conservative Members like to consider issues purely on economic terms, and I could talk at length about the positive economic impact that immigration has on the UK economy. However, the biggest impact that our international community has on the UK cannot be measured purely in terms of economic growth or statistics; the most important impact made by our foreign-born friends can be witnessed in our communities each and every day.

During my research into the impact of the Bill, I met members of the Renfrewshire Effort to Empower Minorities, or REEM. It is a fantastic example of a group of people who are rooted in our community, who serve their members by helping to provide advice and training, and who organise a number of events throughout the year to help to integrate their members with the local population. Such groups internationalise our towns and cities. They help to achieve social cohesion, and they diversify our villages, towns and cities. That is why it depresses me to hear so many Tory MPs lining up to spout rhetoric about the allegedly devastating impact that immigration has on our country.

The problem for the UK Government is that, instead of developing evidence-based policy, they are attempting to create policy that panders to UKIP sympathisers in their own party. The Bill sends a message that the UK finds it an inconvenience that anyone would want to come and work here, and that the British Government want to drive a wedge between Britain and the rest of the world. Those are not my words but those of one of my constituents who is fed up with the deeply damaging and divisive Tory rhetoric, and who has decided to move away from the UK as he knows when he is not wanted.

Let me briefly touch on a number of aspects of the Bill and explain how they will have a significant impact on foreign residents, regardless of whether they are living here illegally or not. The Immigration Minister states that illegal immigration denies work to UK citizens, but one consequence of this Bill—it may be an unintended consequence—is that it will become harder for all foreign-born residents to get a job.

The Bill is targeting small businesses by shamefully using racial profiling and focusing on takeaways and off-licences. Employers will now face criminal prosecution and a five-year prison sentence if they are found to be employing someone whose right to remain has expired. Trying to ascertain someone’s immigration status can be a confusing process, and many small businesses do not have the administrative budgets to be confident enough to check the status of their foreign-born employees. It is not difficult to see that many small business owners will not risk employing someone who is foreign. That is bad for business as they will lose out on recruiting a skilled worker, and it will also be a significant barrier for foreign-born workers who will find it more difficult to get a job.

Not only will members of our international community find it difficult to get a job, but the Bill will also make it harder for them to have a roof over their head. The right to rent provision will encourage discrimination, promote the worst possible practice in housing management and make it harder for members of our international community to find a home.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is right to say that the Bill could cause discrimination. We have already heard that landlords will be less likely to rent houses to citizens without a British passport. Does he agree that that will cause further pressure on the housing sector? Combine that with the right to buy and the force to sell legislation, and the Government’s rush to legislate in a scattergun approach will cause further problems for housing, as well as immigration.

[Gavin Newlands]

I wholeheartedly agree. The Bill will create a situation whereby landlords will have to be 100% sure that no illegal migrants are living in their property. Failure to abide by this could result in the landlord facing a fine of £3,000 and a jail sentence of five years. The vast majority of our landlords will not be qualified, or have the time, to distinguish between a legal and an illegal migrant.