Immigration Detention: Victims of Modern Slavery

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

The Home Office is making good progress in replacing antiquated case-working systems and data platforms, much of which will be complete by March next year, but it is a complex change process and although it will provide us with modern tools to protect and utilise data effectively, it is not an instant fix and will require further investment in the coming years. The changes will also mean that we will be able to act more swiftly to update systems to provide better organisation and granularity of data once they are deployed, but it does not negate the risk that data can be easily misinterpreted and each individual’s journey through the system is different, and aggregated information does not always represent the work undertaken. None the less, we will continue to focus on individual needs.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

My constituent Joel White, from Pollokshields, emailed me 20 minutes ago to say that he is a regular visitor to Dungavel immigration removal centre. He asked me to raise the case of a man that he spoke to recently who said:

“The Home Office don’t tell me nothing—they don’t tell me what’s going on. When I sit down here, I don’t know what is going on. Time is just rolling down the road. You just lose your mind. I just need any help.”

This man has been in Dungavel for six months. He does not know whether he is being removed or whether he is likely to be released at any time. Will the Minister take on such cases and end the scandal of indefinite detention?

[Caroline Nokes]

I reiterate the point that detention can only be maintained where there is a realistic chance of removal within a reasonable timescale. The hon. Lady will have heard me comment earlier about auto-bail applications at two months. An individual in detention can apply for bail at any time. I urge her constituent to provide that advice to the individual concerned.

Points of Order

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for her courtesy in giving me notice that she intended to raise that point of order. She raises a very important and serious matter about which the House has shown its concern on at least two occasions in the past few weeks—that I can recall—in the form of an urgent question and a debate. It is a matter of significant importance. I cannot give her any further advice from the Chair today, except to say that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard what she has said and I am quite sure that the appropriate Minister will be informed of her concerns. Of course, there are various ways in which the hon. Lady can bring this matter to the Floor of the House once again. If she cares to visit the Table Office, I am sure that she will be given the appropriate advice. I look forward to hearing her raise the matter with the Minister on the Floor of the House in due course.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You may be aware that yesterday the National Records of Scotland released the drug deaths figures for Scotland, which stand at a record high of 1,187 deaths—souls lost to drug addiction—in the past year. There is nothing to this effect on the Order Paper today, but have you been given any indication whether a Home Office Minister will come to the House and make a statement on this issue? Some of the responsibility lies with the Home Office, as these matters are considered to fall under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, so it may be helpful for a Minister to enlighten the House on what their part may be in dealing with this crisis.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. The answer to the first part of her question is that, yes, I am aware of these very worrying and serious statistics, which I am sure all Members will take very seriously. On her second point, I am not aware that a Minister is at this moment planning to come to the House to make a statement. I will say to the hon. Lady what I said to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) just a moment or two ago, which is that there are various ways in which she can bring this matter to the attention of the House in a formal way, and if she cares to visit the Table Office, I am sure that she will be given advice on how to do so. I look forward to hearing her raise these matters with the appropriate Minister in due course, because I am sure that it is a matter about which the House would like to hear.

Immigration Detention: Trafficking and Modern Slavery

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2019 Westminster Hall

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) for securing this debate and speaking so passionately and well on an issue that I know is a lifelong passion of hers. I am grateful for her continued pressure on this issue. I am also grateful to Women for Refugee Women for putting together a powerful report. The Minister would do well to read it and pay close attention to what is proposed in order to resolve the situation. As the new chair of the new all-party parliamentary group on immigration detention, which was set up just recently, I care deeply that this issue is resolved and that we are not holding people in immigration detention when they should not be there at all, for any length of time.

A good many of my constituents who I see at surgeries have been through immigration detention. All of them were released to continue with their lives. They were not removed from the country. The process was not taken any further, and they should not have been there in the first place. That happens again and again. A constituent was detained. He had a pregnant wife. Through intervention, we were able to get him released. A constituent who is Romanian was detained after being lifted by the police for begging. He had serious health problems, and he was released. A constituent who had been a victim of torture in the Central African Republic was held and eventually released. A constituent who was detained at a marriage interview was subsequently released. The Home Office goes through a modern-day cat and mouse act with some of the most vulnerable in society. They are taken in and out of immigration detention again and again. They are deeply traumatised, and that is on top of the trauma they already face because of the actions of the Home Office.

My good friend Linda Fabiani recently found that these things are happening at Dungavel as well. Through a freedom of information request, she found that, between 2014 and 2018, 19 children were detained at Dungavel. Between 2016 and 2018, six pregnant women were detained at Dungavel. That is in clear contradiction of all the things that the Home Office said it would do. What is being done to deal with the issue? I appreciate that the Minister might say that some of those are age-disputed cases, but that does not excuse the fact. Even if these young people are on the margins of that, they should be treated as children, not detained and traumatised.

Even when people get through the immigration detention system and through their applications, they face further difficulties. A constituent was in Glasgow for five years before her case was decided—she now has refugee status and was supported by the Trafficking Awareness Raising Alliance in Glasgow—and the Home Office continues to refer to her on her biometric residence permit by the name and date of birth under which she was trafficked. That causes her huge trauma and stress. I can provide the Minister with the details afterwards, and I ask her to intervene in that case. It is just not right that that woman has gone through so much trauma and is still being referred to by the name under which she was trafficked. That is just not acceptable, and it needs to stop.

Finally—I appreciate that time is tight—I want to talk about the costs of the system and the costs of detaining people. There is a huge cost in human lives, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley set out, but there is also a huge cost to the Department. In 2018-19, the Home Office paid out £8.2 million for 312 cases where people had been wrongfully detained. That was up from 212 people and a cost of £5.1 million in 2017-18. That does not even include all the costs of the immigration and detention estate, or the adverse legal costs and the cost of other compensation that the Home Office has had to pay. It is hugely expensive and traumatising, and it damages lives. As the Women for Refugee Women report points out, people are being denied their rights within the system. Will the Minister intervene urgently and ensure that no more women are held under the system?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss]

The Minister is talking about numbers in the immigration removal centre estate. Will she tell me what has happened to the numbers of people held in the prison estate over that period?

[Caroline Nokes]

I will have to get back to the hon. Lady with precise numbers on those in the prison estate. Of course, it is important to reflect that those in the prison estate will be foreign national offenders who have committed some crime, which has determined that they are worthy of a prison sentence.

Each time an individual is detained, there must be a realistic prospect of removal within a reasonable timescale. Those making detention decisions consider the likely duration of detention necessary in order to effect removal.

I turn to the Shaw reforms. The Home Secretary made clear his commitment to going further and faster with reforms to immigration detention with four main priorities: encouraging and supporting voluntary return; improving support for vulnerable detainees; greater transparency on immigration detention; and a new drive on dignity in detention. We are making real progress in delivering those commitments and have laid the groundwork for that progress to continue.

I emphasise a project that I am sure hon. Members will welcome and support: the development of a series of pilots of alternatives to detention. The first one started in December 2018 with our delivery partner Action Foundation in Newcastle. We have released more than 10 women from Yarl’s Wood immigration removal centre to be supported in the community, and further recruitment into the pilot is under way. We want to divert women at the point of detention into the pilot to fill the remaining places.

I can report progress towards the second pilot. There is interest from several credible potential delivery partners, and we expect to have our chosen delivery partner by August, enabling the second pilot to commence in the autumn. All irregular migrants will be in scope of that project. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is independently evaluating the pilot series, and findings will be fed into the overall evaluation framework that is being developed to monitor progress across all of Shaw’s recommendations so that any findings can be examined within the context of the wider changes to detention across the Home Office. The UNHCR is also creating an independent external reference group to monitor progress and share expertise and best practice.

We are in the process of implementing other changes as a result of the Shaw review. We are introducing detention engagement teams in all IRCs, who are ensuring better induction and improved links between detainees and their caseworkers. We are also piloting the two-month auto-bail referral, which builds on measures introduced in the Immigration Act 2016 to refer cases to the tribunal at the four-month period of detention, and introducing a new drive on dignity in detention to improve facilities in immigration removal centres, including piloting the use of Skype and modernising the facilities. We are bringing greater transparency to immigration detention, and publishing more data, including on deaths and escapes from detention and on pregnant women in detention.

I reassure hon. Members that the Government are committed to providing those being considered for immigration detention with the necessary levels of protection. We have particularly stringent safeguarding arrangements in respect of vulnerable people in the immigration system.

Immigration

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I could fill the rest of the debate and more with the constituency cases I have seen in the past four years. Just under a third of my casework is due to the incompetence of the Home Office.

Most recently, I raised the case of a young man, Eryaar Popalzai, who claimed asylum in 2014. He last made further submissions in 2017 and is still awaiting a decision. The Minister promised me that she would look into the case and that it would be dealt with. I received a letter this morning that said:

“I am sorry that a decision has not been made on Mr Popalzai’s further submissions. The Home Office is aware that Mr Popalzai is vulnerable and has raised safeguarding issues. The Home Office is actively working on his case. However, it is currently awaiting policy guidance on an unrelated matter prior to making a final decision on his case.”

This young man is in tears every time he comes to my surgery. What answer can I give him? Because that is no kind of answer at all. It is just, “Wait and wait and wait.” He has seen his friends move on with their lives and carry on with their education, and he is stuck. He is stuck on antidepressants and is getting counselling, but the Minister has no answer for that young man.

Many of the cases I see in my surgery are of extremely vulnerable families who are in tears. Today, one of my members of staff, Mhairi, tried to accompany one of my constituents, a woman who is heavily pregnant, and her husband to Brand Street, because her three-year-old had been called for interview. I do not know what kind of interview the Home Office expects to get from a three-year-old at Brand Street, but the family went. Their other girls were at school. They were extremely worried that they would not be able to leave Brand Street. During the course of the interview, the father had a seizure and had to be taken in an ambulance, because he was so stressed out about the interview. I still do not know how he is doing or whether he will be okay. I ask the Minister to make a decision on this family. They have daughters who fled in fear of FGM, and they do not want to take their daughters back to face FGM. She should have some heart and deal with this case as a matter of urgency, because it is no less than the family deserve.

I see many cases that look relatively simple and are similar to cases that have been resolved quickly but that, for reasons best known to itself, the Home Office has determined to be complex. As soon as the cases are determined to be complex, they disappear down a black hole somewhere and are not seen for months and years. The Minister and her Department need to look at this and ensure that such excuses are not made for cases that are not complex.

The Home Office is riddled with mistakes and errors, and I regularly see issues with incorrect names and addresses. In a recent decision letter, the Home Office mistook the difference between a closing balance and an opening balance on a bank account in refusing somebody a visitor visa. It loses passports, degree certificates and paperwork endlessly, to the detriment of my constituents.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is making some important points. I want to expand on her point about visitor visas, on which she seems to suffer the same sorts of issues as I do. A great many of my constituents are simply asking that, say, their octogenarian parents are able to visit them, but they are being denied that possibility. Even though promises and assurances have been given, they are being denied access to see their grandchildren.

[Alison Thewliss]

The hon. Gentleman is correct, and I see it regularly—week in, week out—in my surgeries.

People who have visited the UK on multiple occasions without incident and with no problems, and who are well able to afford the cost of supporting themselves when they come to visit—not that their family would not support them, anyway, because they are guests—are refused time and again. It is offensive, and people are hurt by this. They miss out on family visits and family occasions such as weddings and graduations. They miss out on so much family life that we all take for granted. If any of us wanted to go to any of their countries, we would be allowed to travel. That is the inherent racism of the Home Office and its policies.

[Imran Hussain]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful case, particularly on visitor visas and the Home Office’s poor decision making. I dealt with a case in which there was a discrepancy of one penny between the P60 and other evidence, so the application was refused and the person could not attend an important family wedding. Again, that illustrates the hostile environment created by this Government through the back door.

[Alison Thewliss]

It does, and the hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. I see this day in and day out at my surgeries.

More recently, a case has been highlighted in the press—it very much seems that the press is the way to go for those with a complaint about the Home Office, and if I were to do that the pages of all the Scottish newspapers would be full of my constituents—of a group of blind musicians who came over from Chennai as part of a British Council, Creative Scotland and Scottish Government-funded project. They were asked to come over from India as part of that project, and two of the musicians were refused entry. These two blind musicians were told that they did not have sufficient reason to go back to India after the trip. Their carers were allowed in, but these people with disabilities were not. Because their case was highlighted in the press, the decision magically and mysteriously changed, but it was too late because the event had passed.

The group are now £4,000 out of pocket for flights that had to be cancelled. Will the Minister compensate this group of musicians from Chennai who were not able to travel to take part in a British Government project? That is no less than they deserve. She has wasted taxpayers’ money, and she has wasted these young people’s opportunity by refusing them entry and then cynically changing the decision when the case appeared in the press.

I have good grounds to believe that the Government pay attention to the cases that appear in the press and change their decisions. The UK Government deemed a number of people in the highly skilled migrants group, because they needed small and legitimate changes to their tax returns, to be in some way of bad character and a threat to national security under paragraph 322(5) of the Home Office rules.

The cases that I have highlighted in the press, and the cases of constituents who were on “Channel 4 News” and in the newspapers, were decided a full six months quicker than those of constituents whose cases I could not put into the press due to sensitivity. I would like an explanation from the Minister of why very similar cases, with very similar circumstances, were differently decided because two of them were in the media and two of them were not. The UK Government’s decision-making process on this is deeply disturbing.

The same goes for many other cases I have highlighted in the Scottish press. I have a lot of reason to be thankful to people in the Scottish media, at The National and at other publications in Scotland, because they have repeatedly highlighted the terrible decisions made by the Home Office.

I chair the new all-party parliamentary group on immigration detention, and trauma has been caused to my constituents by persistent and arbitrary detention. There seems to be a modern-day cat and mouse act, with people being arrested under immigration detention and then let go. The impact on those individuals is traumatic and appalling, and these are people who have been through a huge amount of trauma already. They have been tortured and trafficked. They have seen things that none of us would ever want to see, and they are being locked up with no time limit.

People can accept being in prison if they have done something wrong, and they know when their sentence will end, but people in this country, quite uniquely, are held in immigration detention with no end in sight. I ask the Minister to consider why she thinks that is fair. I pay tribute to the strength and dignity of those with experience of immigration detention who came to last night’s launch of the all-party group to tell their stories. People in arbitrary detention do not know for how long they will be locked up, even though they have done nothing wrong. That is a stain on this Government and previous Governments who endorsed places like Dungavel.

We need to do so much more to highlight the plight of people held in immigration detention. We must make sure that we do all we can for people who come to this country fleeing persecution and FGM and looking for a place of sanctuary. We must not, by this Government’s actions, cause them further trauma and further pain. Instead, we must protect them and welcome them with open arms.

We are celebrating a refugee festival in Scotland this week. We are celebrating all the things that refugees and asylum seekers bring to this country, and the Government would do well to attend more such events to celebrate people, rather than locking them up, detaining them and causing them pain.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

My constituent, Eryaar Popalzai, came to the UK from Afghanistan at the age of 14 some five years ago, as an unaccompanied minor asylum seeker. Since his further submissions in 2017, he has yet to hear anything from the Home Office. He is an incredibly vulnerable young man and has been getting therapy from Freedom from Torture for three years. What do I tell him when he comes to my surgery this Friday?

[Caroline Nokes]

I am happy to take up this specific case with the hon. Lady after questions, if she would like. One of the changes that the Home Office has made over the course of the past few weeks is to ensure that we are prioritising older cases and cases of more vulnerable asylum seekers, so that we can get through the backlog of cases and ensure that people such as her constituent get a response.

Serious Violence

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Newlands]

She is not here, but as the SNP spokesperson in this debate, I am not here to answer for the Labour Front Bench, to be perfectly honest. I shall move on from the issue of where Ministers and shadow Ministers are.

As I said, the public health model requires multi-sectoral co-operation. Violence is a complex issue that comes in many forms and encompasses, but is not limited to, verbal, physical, sexual and emotional abuse. Only by tackling the causes of violence, not just the symptoms, can we break the cycle of violence and reduce the impact that it has on individuals, their families, and all our communities.

The Scottish crime and justice survey shows, as of 26 March, a 46% fall between 2008-09 and 2017-18 in violent incidents experienced by adults in Scotland. Violent crime is rare, with just 2.3% of adults experiencing it in the latest year—down from 4.1% in 2008-09. Police-recorded non-sexual violent crime remains at one of its lowest levels since 1974. Emergency admissions to hospital due to assault have more than halved since 2006-07—down by 55%. Emergency admissions due to assault with a sharp object have also fallen substantially in that period, and the number of homicides has more than halved.

Those stats clearly highlight some fantastic progress on this hugely important issue, but it is not enough. Too many people, particularly young people, are still being admitted to hospital and still dying. We must do more; we cannot simply rest on our laurels.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend has made excellent points about the statistics on hospital admissions and hospital visits. Does he agree that the Navigator part of the violence reduction unit’s programme, whereby interventions are made in hospitals and people are given the option to get out of a life of violence, has contributed to the reductions he mentions?

[Gavin Newlands]

Absolutely—I could not agree more. That speaks to the multi-sectoral approach that I indicated. Although police numbers and so on are important, it is not just about police—it is also about how we tackle this in our schools and our hospitals.

We know that crime is experienced disproportionately across the population, with the poorest and most disadvantaged being far more likely to be on the receiving end. The Scottish violence reduction unit is working with partners to develop innovative approaches to improving outcomes for individuals, families and communities. In the past decade, the Scottish Government have invested over £17 million in violence reduction programmes, including over £3.8 million in the “No Knives Better Lives” campaign. We have invested £12 million since 2008 in the violence reduction unit itself, which includes funding to deliver the mentors in violence prevention programme, which encourages young people not to stand by and allow violence to happen to them and those they know.

The Scottish Government’s implementation, with cross-party support in the Scottish Parliament, of an ambitious twin-track approach of pioneering violence prevention programmes, coupled with enhanced penalties and tough enforcement, has helped to deliver huge falls in violent crime over the last decade. Penalties for possession of a knife are higher in Scotland than in England and Wales, with a five-year maximum term, versus four years in England and Wales. The average length of custodial sentences for knife possession has increased by 85% since 2007-08, with the average sentence now being 421 days, up from 228 days in 2007-08.

As I said, a large part of our success in Scotland has been down to the violence reduction unit, which aims to deliver that reduction by working with partner agencies. Its motto, “Violence is preventable, not inevitable”, is simple but thus far has proved accurate. Influenced by the World Health Organisation’s 2002 report on violence and health, the VRU became the only police force in the world to adopt a public health approach to preventing violence. That includes prevention activity such as education and early intervention, coupled with appropriate law enforcement as necessary. In treating violence as essentially a disease, the VRU sought to diagnose the problem, analyse the causes, examine what works and for whom and develop specific and bespoke solutions that, once evaluated, could be scaled up to help others. That approach has undoubtedly helped and been admired elsewhere.

Overseas Students: English Language Tests

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Tuesday 30th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

It is important to note that there have been a number of legal cases where students have challenged the decision through judicial review and subsequent immigration appeals. Some of those cases have been upheld by the courts, but not in all instances was that because those people were not thought to have cheated in the test; it was actually because they had been in the UK for such a long time that they had an established article 8 human rights claim to be here, and the Home Office is taking a pragmatic approach to those cases. However, I am very conscious that we have legislation that requires there to be no in-country right of appeal under the student route, and these people were here under the student route. It is right that we wait for the NAO findings, that we reflect on those and that we find a way forward.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

One of my constituents, who had been in the UK since 2005, was detained in Dungavel for 10 days because the Home Office claimed she had overstayed and had used deception in her TOEIC test. Neither of those things was true. The first tier tribunal found in her favour; the Home Office appealed, and the appeal was thrown out. It appealed to the upper tier tribunal, but the appeal was then withdrawn. My constituent has been fighting the Home Office for five years. Will the Minister apologise to her and let her and her three-year-old daughter get on with their lives?

[Caroline Nokes]

Unfortunately, the hon. Lady has not provided any information, and I cannot comment on an individual case on the Floor of the House, but if she cares to write to me about the case, I will look at it.

Retail Crime

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Thursday 11th April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I cannot say that my constituency is as large as that of the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones), but it is small and perfectly formed, and very beautiful too. I am delighted to speak in this important debate. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson) for securing it.

There are a great many shops in my constituency of Glasgow Central. It has the city centre, the major shopping streets and many large retailers of different kinds. We also have malls such as the Buchanan Galleries, which is celebrating its 20th anniversary, the St Enoch Centre, Princes Square and the Argyll Arcade. They can all be subject to retail crime in different ways. The Argyll Arcade had an armed robbery in 2014 because it contains many jewellers, and high-value goods are sold there.

Large retailers can put in place different things to cope with that. They can have CCTV and perhaps absorb some of the cost, but, as hon. Members have said, their shop workers put themselves at risk every day when they go in, because they do not know what kinds of things might happen in the store. In small businesses there is particular vulnerability, with people engaged in lone working. There are many small businesses across my constituency—retail shops that often have only one member of staff there all the time. There needs to be greater protection for them, because some of those shops cannot afford CCTV or anything like that. If things are stolen from them they have to absorb the cost. A few stolen items could be a whole day’s takings. It is quite worrying for small businesses to face that kind of thing. They are particularly vulnerable.

I have a wee bit of experience in retail. I worked for Next for five years in the Buchanan Galleries and in Aberdeen and Hamilton. During that time we employees were always told not to put ourselves at risk. If someone came in to steal something we should let them go. The shop and the police would deal with it: “Don’t put yourself at risk.” However, it is difficult, seeing something like that happening, not to try to stop someone or intervene. The thieves we saw coming into the shop could be quite gallus. In the Buchanan Galleries at the start of a shift the managers were meeting, discussing what was happening in the store, and when they turned around someone had walked in, and walked off with a whole rail of expensive dresses. It was around Christmas, so Members will understand the type of expensive dresses the shop would be trying to sell. Someone had come in and taken them, right next to a bunch of managers standing having a meeting, and walked off into the shopping centre and out into the street. There is nothing that people determined to do such acts will hold back from. They are absolutely gallus and brazen, and will do that time and again.

People would often steal from shops such as Next to try to return the things later and get the money back. They would be stolen not just for people to use or sell on; people would perpetrate a fraud against the store by trying to take the items back and get cash for them. Members of staff behind the till had to be aware of that, when someone was trying to return something, and challenge them. Refusing to take a return is another occasion when shop owners can be at risk; customers can kick off when there is a challenge.

The right hon. Member for Delyn mentioned drugs and alcohol as drivers for some of the type of crime in question. In Aberdeen someone would come in, on occasion, clearly under the influence of something, and try to steal children’s clothes by shoving them into their pockets and down their trousers. Staff would then put themselves at risk if they tried to intervene in some way and get that person, under the influence of alcohol or drugs, out of the store—so that is another risk.

The figures from Police Scotland seem to show that shoplifting has increased. They are up 10% from April 2017 to March 2018. That is more than 2,700 more incidents. Police Scotland find that poverty is definitely something of a driver. The increase was not in thefts of dresses or watches or things of that kind; it is people stealing food, to get by, because they cannot cope. Items such as infant formula can now be out of many families’ reach, because they are so expensive, and people resort to desperate measures as a result of austerity and poverty. The Government should bear that in mind when they look to tackle retail crime. Some of those crimes are very much crimes of desperation.

I want to touch on the evidence of the impact on workers. The survey on under-age sales conducted in 2016-17 found that there is a disproportionate effect on some workers: 56% of Asian or Asian British workers in the UK have reported abuse at least once a month, compared with 31% of white workers; 30% of Asian or British Asian workers in the UK reported being subject to racial abuse; and 10% reported being physically attacked at least once a month, as a result of challenging customers for ID. I agree with hon. Members who have said that challenging people for ID is a driver in many instances. That needs to be taken into account. I support all moves to improve the charges and convictions for that, because there needs to be a deterrent.

Workers who are not confident in challenging people for ID can end up in trouble themselves, because if they sell to under-age people they can be disciplined or face criminal charges. Workers are personally liable if they sell to a young person, facing a fine of up to £5,000 and/or imprisonment for up to three months. If workers are not confident in challenging for ID, there is a further impact on them as well. It may be that workers choose to leave the retail sector altogether if they regularly come under such pressure.

Lastly, an emerging issue is automation. We have all seen the new automated tills in many supermarkets. They are coming up everywhere, which is a risk to workers’ jobs; there may be fewer workers in stores if there are more automated tills. Research shows that people who would not normally steal from shops are much more tempted to do so if they use a self-service checkout. People have been seen passing off more expensive things as carrots or onions to cheat the device—something is being weighed, although it is clearly not the item being sold—and figures showed that more carrots had been sold than had ever been stocked because of people doing that.

Again, that is putting temptation in the hands of people who may be quite desperate and who may want to cheat the system because they cannot afford things. If that temptation is not checked on, people can be away and out the store before anybody realises that something has happened. There needs to be more examination of how automated tills drive retail crime and the results of that.

I will finish on the point that others finished on. Shop workers need to feel safe, as though they are not under pressure and that they are looked after. That goes from workers in the very largest supermarkets to sole workers. All of them deserve protection and our thanks for their work. We need to do a lot more to make sure that they feel safe and looked after, and if the law needs to change to do so, I would fully support that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have given specific money to deal with the increase in pensions. I think he would agree that it is important to make sure that our police officers have their pension rights adhered to and honoured.

Furthermore, in the west midlands, we recently had a meeting with the police and crime commissioner and the chief constable to talk about measures to tackle serious violence, which is a particular problem. I was therefore delighted when the Chancellor granted an extra £100 million to deal specifically with serious violence. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman’s area will benefit from some of that.

I am delighted that the new hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) joined us. I was most interested to hear her intervention. I hope she will urge her police and crime commissioner to spend some of his reserves, which stood at £56 million as of March last year, because that or just a bit of it could go some distance. I am sure she will do that as a good new Member of the House of Commons.

The national business crime centre is a significant step in tackling business crime more generally. We recognise the importance of ensuring a co-ordinated response to crimes against businesses. That is why we have supported the national business crime centre, which launched in October 2017 with the support of Home Office funding through the police transformation fund. The centre provides information for police forces and businesses, offers a targeted alert service to support businesses nationally and facilitates national consistency in the management of business crime. It has proved to be a valuable resource for all businesses, not just retailers, and continues to provide essential guidance and support nationally. The resources include advice, examples of things that retailers can do to prevent crimes and training for staff to defuse potentially violent situations to help protect businesses, staff and customers alike. I urge Members to see whether the centre can be of assistance to shops and businesses in their local areas. In addition, the Home Office runs its commercial victimisation survey, which is an important measure of business crime as well.

One of the six points that the right hon. Member for Delyn made was about gathering good practice. There is a great deal of good practice already in the system. For example, many business crime reduction partnerships operate across England and Wales and bring significant benefit to their members, the wider community and the police. We have heard about other schemes, such as Pubwatch and Shopwatch, which the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) mentioned. There is also BusinessWatch and Radio Link, which I saw for myself in the constituency of Erewash. I liken such schemes to a form of vaccination. If every shop in the local area participates, the whole community is strengthened and empowered through the scheme’s operation, but if one or two businesses do not sign up, it weakens the overall strength of the community response to these crimes. We are keen to encourage such schemes. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak challenged police and crime commissioners to make retail crime a priority. I agree with him; the point of police and crime commissioners is to set local policing priorities. I encourage Members to raise the issue with their PCCs.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) highlighted the importance of the response of local businesses. Indeed, there is lots of good practice from individual businesses that shows a very positive impact, such as the use of CCTV, which he rightly mentioned. It is much cheaper than it used to be. One plea to everyone who uses CCTV is to maintain it and replace the tapes. I know that seems a small, practical point, but regrettably investigations sometimes show that the CCTV evidence is not there because the machines have not been kept up to date. As long as businesses are able to do that, it is of real benefit. Some stores have invested in body-worn cameras to help to reduce levels of violence and abuse towards staff.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central made a point about the future high streets fund, which is £675 million to support local areas in England to invest in town centre infrastructure and to support redevelopment. He made an interesting point about whether the fund could be used to help with security, and I am happy to look into that for him.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan) is sitting behind me. She takes a keen interest in these issues, but because of her commitments cannot contribute verbally to the debate. She has reminded me that we have business improvement districts, which are business-led partnerships created through a ballot process to deliver additional services to local business. Improvements may include extra safety and security. In Chichester, all retail and other businesses contribute a 1% levy, and some of that money is used to fund walkie-talkies to act as a security system for support for workers. There are many examples out there of interesting schemes. They may differ in their applicability to different areas, but there are schemes out there that may help, if Members are interested.

The right hon. Member for Delyn rightly raised the issue of drugs and alcohol, as did other Members. We know that drugs can devastate lives, ruin families and damage communities. Our approach to drugs remains clear: we must prevent drug misuse in our communities and support people through treatment and recovery. Although drug misuse is at similar levels to a decade ago, we are absolutely committed to reducing it and the harm it causes. We have done that through, for example, the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016. Since it came into force, more than 300 retailers across the UK have either closed down or are no longer selling psychoactive substances. That has helped to remove the presence of such substances from our high streets. Of course, there is more to do. Our drugs strategy sets out our approach, bringing together the police, the health community and global partners to tackle the illicit drugs trade, protect the most vulnerable and help those with a drug dependency to recover and turn their lives around.

[Alison Thewliss]

I am glad the Minister has moved on to the impact of drugs. Many retailers in Glasgow tell me that they have people coming in to inject in their toilets or at the back of their shops, which puts retail staff at risk. People do that because they do not have anywhere else to go. Will the Minister look again at the proposals from Glasgow for a supervised drug consumption room, which would take away that risk for retail workers?

[Victoria Atkins]

A delegation from the Scottish Parliament—from Glasgow, specifically—came to see me about that and described the problems. It seems that there is more scope for precision policing in the local area. Policing in Scotland is now devolved, and where there are alleyways with drug paraphernalia, as the delegation described, I think there is a role for precision policing.

The hon. Lady will know that there is work ongoing with the local authorities to look at other ways of treating drug addiction, including more targeted heroin-assisted treatment. I am sure that, like me, she is pleased that more adults are leaving treatment successfully compared with 2009-10. The average waiting time in England and Wales to access treatment is now two days. On 2 October, we announced a major independent review of drugs as part of a package of measures to tackle serious violence. The review will look at a wide range of issues, including the system of support and enforcement around drug misuse, to inform our thinking about what more can be done to tackle drug harms.

Hon. Members raised the issue of alcohol dependency. The two phases of the local alcohol action areas programme, which works with a total of 52 areas across England and Wales, suggest that theft to support alcohol dependency is not as prevalent as one would imagine. Although many LAA areas have had problems with street drinking, none felt the need to take action to prevent alcohol-related thefts, interestingly. The reasons for that may be manifold, but I wanted to introduce that into the debate to ensure that hon. Members are satisfied that we have looked into it and will continue to do so.

Many hon. Members spoke about shoplifting of items with a value of less than £200. I will take a moment to clarify the law on that, because there appears to have been a misunderstanding. I am delighted that this debate gives us the opportunity to clarify the law. In 2014, we changed the law to enable cases of theft from a shop of goods of a value of £200 or less to be dealt with as swiftly and efficiently as possible. The changes enable certain cases to be dealt with as summary-only offences, so they can be prosecuted. The simple offence of theft is triable either way—in other words, in the magistrates court or the Crown court. We have said that shoplifting offences of values of less than £200 can be tried only in the magistrates court in order to speed up the process, in terms of defendants choosing trial by jury.

That procedural change was designed to improve proportionality and lay the groundwork for the police to prosecute uncontested cases in the future, much as they do with some driving offences. The change has had no bearing on the ability of the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute a person for theft from a shop, or on the courts’ powers to punish offenders. An offender convicted of theft in a magistrates court can still face a penalty of up to six months’ imprisonment for a single offence. I am happy to discuss that further after the debate in order to clarify people’s understanding. The value of shoplifting in irrelevant, because it can still be prosecuted even if it is under £200.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak raised the issue of banning orders. We introduced a range of powers through the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014; these can be used by local agencies to redress antisocial behaviour that relates to retail crime, and can impose a range of conditions, such as banning an individual from entering a particular premises or area. Many of the powers are not limited to the police; some can also be enforced by local authorities. Again, if colleagues would like more information on how those powers can be used, I am very happy to share details after the debate. The more we can help our partners across local government and elsewhere to use those powers, the better I suspect it will be for our local communities.

I absolutely understand why the right hon. Member for Delyn and many others have asked the Government to consider introducing a new offence of attacks on shop staff. As he is aware from our previous discussions, powers are already available to the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to deal with this type of offending and provide protection to retail staff. There are a number of criminal offences available to cover a wide variety of unacceptable behaviour, ranging from abusive and threatening language to offences against the person. In addition, the independent Sentencing Council is planning to consult on a revised guideline for assaults during the summer. The call for evidence presents us with another opportunity to understand how the current legislation is being applied. I am very keen to look at the efficacy of community schemes, which were mentioned by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central and others. At the end of the call for evidence, I am very happy to see what it suggests.

I am very grateful to hon. Members for what has been an interesting and important debate on retail crime. As well as hearing concerns, we have heard about the positive work that is going on in response to retail crime. Although much more can be done to reduce such crime, there is much that we can take heart from in the efforts of a range of communities, organisations and partners to respond to this problem. I know that we all share a common aim to create safer communities for the public we serve, and that, once again, we all thank our local shops and convenience stores, which are open at all sorts of hours of the day and night in order to provide us with a pint of milk, our dinner after a late day at work or a bit of chocolate when we need cheering up. All shops play an incredibly important role in our local communities, and I join hon. Members in thanking them all.

Windrush Compensation Scheme

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I would be happy to take a look.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Will the Home Secretary extend the compensation scheme to highly skilled migrants wronged by the Home Office? Can he explain why the cases I have raised in the press have been resolved and those I have not raised in the press have not been resolved?

[Sajid Javid]

The eligibility for the scheme is very wide. I set it out earlier in my statement, and it will almost certainly include many highly skilled migrants.

Draft Immigration (European Economic Area Nationals) (EU Exit) Order 2019

Alison Thewliss Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2019 General Committees

[Dr Whitford]

I declare an interest: my husband is German and has been a GP in the NHS for over 33 years. Like other EU nationals, he will have to apply to stay with his family and in his home. The Minister talks about how the Government have always made it clear that EU citizens are welcome. If they were welcomed and valued, they would not have been described as playing cards and bargaining chips in the early phases of the negotiation.

As the Minister mentioned, this order is not the means that protects the rights of EEA citizens; it is largely about changing the function of the border. In a no-deal situation, the rights of EU and EEA citizens will be protected by clause 4 of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill, but some EU citizens are already losing out. Among my colleagues, we have 11 cases of people who have been refused universal credit because they do not have a method of proving that they have the right to remain, even though the UK is still inside the EU. They seem to be predominantly women who might not have their name on a gas or electricity bill and who do not have an unbroken HMRC record because they are carers. That is accentuated among women who have left abusive relationships and therefore cannot return to ask for papers that go back five years. We are still in the EU, and this will clearly be an issue for the very same women under settled status.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Some of my constituents have been affected by this. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a pernicious policy? People who do not know their rights are losing out and are not well placed to challenge the decision.

[Dr Whitford]

I absolutely agree. The issue of discrimination was mentioned by the Labour spokesperson. I am someone who has worked on the frontline in the NHS. How are doctors or nurses expected to know whether someone is required to pay or register in order to be treated? Are we meant to go on colour, accent or foreign-sounding names? That is really pernicious from the point of view of breaking down the doctor-patient relationship. We already have patients who are not going to the doctor because they are afraid of NHS England reporting data to the Home Office, which can result only in missing conditions that should be treated. If they are infectious conditions, it increases the risk to others.

I am also aware of cases in which some EU countries—particularly Belgium—do not pay disability pensions or state retirement pensions outside the EU. I am aware of two cases of people in Scotland forced to consider leaving now, because they are afraid that they will have no income whatever beyond 29 March. What discussions are the UK Government having on, and what consideration have they given to, the rules of other countries, to ensure that people who have worked and lived here and contributed to the UK are not suddenly left destitute or having to leave their homes?

Obviously, in a deal situation, people will be expected to navigate appendix EU of the immigration rules, which is an enormous document, to apply for settled status. However, I welcome the fact that settled status will be provided to EU citizens whether there is a deal or no deal. The test version for applying has been open since 21 January, but it will be fully operational only on 30 March. People have tried to interact with it but do not have the right phone or materials, or have to pay and reclaim, so most people will actually wait until afterwards, meaning that more than 3 million people will have to be registered in just over a year and a half. Will the Minister reassure us as to how she thinks the Home Office will cope with the sheer scale of that challenge?

Another issue raised by EU citizens with me is the small print at the bottom of the settlement scheme, which says that somebody going forward with it has to agree to their data being shared with public or private bodies in the UK or overseas. Will the Minister clarify who the Government will share that data with—it might be shorter to clarify who they will not share it with—and what protections there will be? That does not sound like it meets general data protection regulation rules, with people expected to sign up to a blanket sharing of their data.

The draft instrument obviously changes the function at the border, with people able to come here as visitors for only three months. They will not be able to come and spend as long here as they like. That is particularly relevant where people have settled here but still have family in Europe. Family members may tend to come for longer seasons, such as over the summer, to visit children or even to help people manage in the school holidays. This is still a loss from where we are now.

The Minister says that the longer leave to remain of three years will allow people to work or study. Scottish university courses are honours courses and last for four years, so it is clear that there has been absolutely no consideration of visas that allow people to stay long enough to study an honours degree at a Scottish university. That will inhibit our universities, limiting the number of people coming to them.

Like the Labour spokesperson, I of course welcome the fact that the period of absence has been extended; the original proposal of two years would have been laughable. Anyone going from the UK to study in Europe would have lost their right to remain. Having spent almost two years in the middle east as a volunteer, I know that many people who spend a lot of time overseas for perfectly good reasons, whether in industry or voluntarily, would then lose their home and their base here in the UK.

I also welcome that the draft instrument removes the immigration charge. The health immigration charge currently hits a lot of non-EU nationals who actually work for the NHS, which is absolutely ridiculous. It should be removed across the board. It says that people can apply from overseas and may have to provide fingerprints, as well as photographs. Again, I am sure that people would like to know how safe their biometric data will be.

The draft explanatory memorandum talks about the common travel area and how there will not be routine immigration checks, although it does say that those moving within the common travel area would benefit from leave by order. That implies that European citizens who live in Ireland may indeed find themselves suddenly challenged if they travel to the UK. The Secretary of State has the right to give or refuse entry on the grounds that a person’s exclusion could be conducive to the public good. That sounds like a vague phrase, so I would be grateful if the Minister gave us a definition of what that could be and what the safeguards are that it will not simply be used randomly, particularly given the Windrush scandal and that the number of removals of citizenship has gone up in five or six years from 50 to more than 100 last year.

People want to know what the goalposts are and to have some stability. If people are actually going to live somewhere, they need to know that they are secure. It is said that people who are given leave under article 3 of the order may be examined by an immigration officer to see whether there are grounds for cancelling that leave. It does not list any of those grounds—so again, there is insecurity.

At the end of the explanatory memorandum, it says that the Secretary of State did not organise any consultation because he could not think of anyone to consult. I find that rather surprising, because the order has a significant impact on many people. There was also no impact assessment, as the order is not expected to have an impact on business. Well, there are more than businesses in the UK, and more than businesses should have been looked at. Even if we just focus on businesses, however, I would have thought that there will be a significant impact from the fact that they will have to apply to bring people in when they move staff across supply chains.

The explanatory memorandum repeatedly says that people will be able to continue their lives “broadly as now”—but no, they will not. I mentioned the women who are being refused universal credit even now, which, obviously, is likely to get worse when we leave. It is not described as a registration, but an application, which implies that people may fail. Although Ministers have stood at the Dispatch Box and said that no one has been refused, significant numbers of people have actually been refused. They may have succeeded on their second attempt, but they were turned down on their first attempt. The order also limits the ability to bring family members in after the transition period, if there is a deal, or after we leave the EU, if there is no deal. To say that it is not changing how European citizens live here is, frankly, not paying attention.

It is tragic that we are losing freedom of movement, which is one of the biggest benefits that we have had from Europe. Everyone from Germany east knows the value of freedom of movement. For them, it is a “heart and soul” measure, because they were trapped behind an iron curtain and a Berlin wall for so many years. The fact that the Government do not understand what freedom of movement means in a country such as Germany, or in eastern Europe, is exactly why they have not even been talking the same language. For me, the order is not something to celebrate, because that was one of the greatest benefits.

Scotland is one third of the UK. We know that we need more people, and we would welcome them. We find it a major issue that the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill is determined to shut down immigration to tens of thousands and to set limits that will cause huge problems for our public sector, our businesses and our economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss]

It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Mr Austin, after a brief interlude.

I first want to pick up on what my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire said. It is absolutely without any basis or substance that anyone could make any accusations of racism about anything she said in her speech. That is simply not the case.

I argue very strongly that immigration is a good thing. It has been a good thing for Scotland and for the rest of the UK, and it has been a good thing for Glasgow. One of my members of staff said to me earlier that if it were not for immigration in Scotland it would just be mince and tatties all the time. We have the world to thank for coming to Glasgow and giving us the benefits of their cuisines and cultures, and all they have brought to our wonderful city through immigration.

Immigration is undeniably a good thing, but services in some parts of the UK have ended up not keeping pace with it. Austerity has caused more problems in more communities across these islands than immigration ever has. The services that ought to have supported people to integrate and become part of their communities are no longer there. The irony is that a lot of the services that people depend on, wherever they come from in the world, depend on people who have chosen this country as a home propping them up, as the husband of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire does, and as she did as a surgeon. Many of our people, wherever they live across the UK, depend on those who have done us the great honour of choosing to come to this country, to work, live, love and make their lives here. We owe them a great deal of thanks for that.

[Dr Whitford]

I will not go back into the discussion prompted by the hon. Member for Lichfield, but we have a 90% drop in European nurses coming here, and NHS England has 41,000 nursing vacancies. Does that not exemplify the contribution that people have made to this country, and the danger of turning that off? People are simply put off; they do not feel welcome.

[Alison Thewliss]

My hon. Friend is correct. It is already the case that people who apply to the Home Office to work here are having their lives ruined by the process. I have constituents who worked in care services who are no longer able to work. They would love to be working in the care home that they were working in before, but the Home Office says no. I have a gentleman who is a surgeon, who is not being allowed to work due to delays in the Home Office. He has been told that he just has to wait during the process, but his job will have gone by the time it concludes. It is absolutely unacceptable, and the Home Office needs to look at its processes.

It is my contention that the Home Office will not be able to cope with processing an extra 3 million EU nationals. It certainly will not be able to do anything with this absolute shambles of a statutory instrument. People are being allowed three months’ leave to enter. That is fine. As the hon. Member for Gedling said, we do not know what will happen once they get here—whether they will be processed in a particular way—because no system under which they will be processed is set out in the legislation.

There is no reason why somebody could not come in for three months, leave for a day or an afternoon, and come back in again for another three months. That is perfectly allowable under the system. I do not think that that is what the Minister intends, but that will be the result. I am perfectly happy with people coming in and out; that is no problem for me. Freedom of movement, as I said, is a great thing. However, I am pretty sure that that is certainly not the Minister’s intention with the legislation.

There is no indication whether there will be any restriction on the three months. Under visitor visas, people who are non-EU citizens get six months, and there is then a bit of a restriction regarding when they can come back in, so they are not encouraged to get continual visitor visas. Again, I have constituents in this situation who have had to apply for exemptions on compassionate grounds in order to get back in because relatives have been dying. Nothing within the system in the order says that somebody will have any kind of restriction after the three months. The order is very vague on that.

The order is also vague on specified circumstances. People should be allowed to come in and work and study—that is a good thing—but, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton asked, how will that be checked? Will it be subject to the immigration checking service, and on what basis? How will employers have confidence in the system? At the moment, the employers I speak to have no confidence in the system, due to many errors and issues. How will the employers’ checking service interface with the people who are coming in for three months or so?

Will those people be able to have bank accounts? I have sat on statutory instrument Committees in this House in which we restricted the ability for people to have bank accounts in this country. Will they be subject to the ongoing mess that is the Government’s right to rent policy? Will they be able to go and rent somewhere while they are here, and on what basis?

Why is it that, if somebody is applying for a more permanent status, they will be subject to the £30,000 threshold, which will affect many of my constituents who do not earn anything like that, but who still carry out hugely important and vital roles within my constituency and across Scotland? The people who are coming in for three months will presumably not be subject to the £30,000 threshold, so the system is an absolute mess.

As my hon. Friend mentioned, there is the issue of universities and colleges, of which I have many in my constituency. I have the University of Strathclyde, Glasgow Caledonian University, the Glasgow School of Art, the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland and the City of Glasgow College, all of which are significant educational institutions. Will people be allowed to take up courses on the basis of being able to be here for three months, and then leave for a day and come back? People are making plans, and they need to know what they are able to do.

If people are able to work, are they able to come and give lectures at those universities? Will they be able to come and hold events and seminars? Will they be able to come and contribute to the great cultural activities within the city of Glasgow? It is not clear within the order, because there appears to be nothing underpinning the three-month promise.

How has the information been communicated to people? There has been a series of events across the UK with the Home Office and the Department for Exiting the European Union talking to people about their rights once the UK leaves the EU. A member of my staff attended one of the meetings and the Home Office talked about the withdrawal agreement and what the rights would be. DExEU gave no-deal information. Has that been part of the briefings and have people going to the meetings been able to get that information as well?

Finally, what happens if somebody stays over the three-month period because of some issue? For example, if somebody gets knocked down and has to stay in hospital for a couple of extra days, or cares for someone who is ill, or simply forgets the date that they came, because people sometimes forget things like that, will they be termed as an overstayer? Will they be subject to immigration removal and dawn raids? Will any error or overstaying for whatever reason be counted against them should they wish to make a permanent application in future? If there is very little paperwork to say when they came, when they left and what they did when they were here, I do not see how something like that could be counted against them. Again, that might not be the Minister’s intention—I have different views on that—but it is incredibly unclear as to what will actually happen to people caught up in the system, who cannot see for themselves what the rules will be, how they will be applied and what the future will look like.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Lady is right to pick up that point. Temporary leave to remain is a mechanism that we intend to use in a no-deal situation, not in a deal situation. In a deal situation, people will have exactly the same rights as they have now to come, apply for the settled status scheme and stay for the duration of their studies. She is right to highlight the issue of those who may be here for longer; these are matters on which we are in intense discussion, both with our EU counterparts and with the Department for Education.

Several hon. Members asked about right to work and right to rent checks. In our December White Paper, the Government made it clear that there will be no changes to the system of right to work or rent checks until the future border and immigration system is introduced at the start of 2021. In the meantime, European economic area nationals will continue to be able to demonstrate a right to work or rent by using a national passport or ID card. Alternatively, they may use the online checking service if they have been granted status under the EU settlement scheme. Non-EEA family members will use Home Office documentation. We have made it clear that we will not require employers to conduct retrospective checks on their existing EEA workers when the future border and immigration system is introduced.

[Alison Thewliss]

rose—

[Caroline Nokes]

I want to cover some more ground, because I am conscious that if I do not complete my comments, there will be a vote at 7.30 pm without my having responded to many of the points that have already been made.

The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire raised the issue of how individuals would know whether they had met the conditions to qualify for automatic leave. The draft order sets out the conditions that need to be met to qualify for automatic leave. They include a person being an EEA or Swiss national; holding an EEA or Swiss passport or national identity card; requiring leave to enter—that is, not having been previously resident in the UK before it leaves the European Union; and being entitled to apply for the EU settlement scheme.

A number of Members raised the issue of enforcement and how we would establish whether people had been here for more than three months. Those EEA and Swiss nationals who arrive after free movement has ended, in a no-deal scenario, should apply for European temporary leave to remain if they wish to stay longer. I am clear on the importance of clear communication, so that individuals understand their status. Upstream communications would seek to ensure that individuals are aware of the requirement to apply for European temporary leave to remain if they wish to stay longer than three months.

The Home Office is working closely with other Departments on communicating the immigration arrangements in a no-deal scenario to key sectors and stakeholders. That includes information on gov.uk to reassure inbound travellers, which went live on the 4th of this month. In addition, preparations are under way for a comprehensive communications campaign in two weeks. As I mentioned, the EU settled status scheme has so far received well over 160,000 applications. I have referred to the SI that will ensure that the scheme fee is lifted and that refunds will be possible.

A number of Members mentioned Windrush; the scheme’s design anticipates many of the Windrush issues. EEA nationals will have plenty of time to make an application. There are dedicated caseworking teams. Support is available for the vulnerable on the phone, in local libraries, in a dedicated call centre, and even in people’s homes. The Home Office has made available £9 million of grants to organisations working with the vulnerable, to enable them to assist those people in the process.

It is important that we provide clear communications on the rights of those in the UK before the UK leaves the EU, and on the requirements for those who arrive after the UK leaves. If EU citizens in the UK prior to exit fail to apply under the settled status scheme, they will not be here actively unlawfully in the same way as clandestine entrants or overstayers. We will give those who have reasonable grounds for missing the deadlines further opportunities to apply.

There was mention of entry via Ireland. We do not operate routine immigration controls on journeys from within the common travel area to the UK. However, EEA and Swiss citizens entering from Ireland will benefit from the leave by order provisions. Those entering from the Crown dependencies will already have leave granted by the islands, recognised by the UK under our integrated legal framework.

The hon. Members for Central Ayrshire and for Glasgow Central raised the subject of women who might be in abusive relationships. We accept a wide range of documents to evidence five years of residence, and dedicated casework teams will help applicants to prove their residence. As I said, we are providing £9 million of funding to help those with vulnerabilities, which is important to ensure they can access the support services we have targeted specifically at them.

I was asked in which circumstances leave would be cancelled at the border. The automatic leave to enter provision will ensure that we can continue to smooth the passage of legitimate travellers through the border, while maintaining the security of the borders. The ability to cancel leave is therefore a key element in making sure we maintain the correct balance.

A question was raised about whether the EU settled status scheme was compliant with the requirements of the general data protection regulation. We take our data protection and security responsibility very seriously. All our data activity must be compliant with the data protection legislation. We want to reassure applicants that we do not allow access to their information by any unauthorised person or body, and can share data only where it is absolutely necessary and where we have a legal basis for doing so.

There are some good examples of where the ability to share data has been of benefit, not least in the settled status scheme’s ability to share information with HMRC and the Department for Work and Pensions; that has enabled a significant majority of those going through the process to have achieved settled status already, without having to provide any additional information. The hon. Member for Gedling spoke about the complexity of the immigration rules, and I have some sympathy with his view. He may not yet be aware of the Law Commission’s consultation on the immigration rules, which is specifically designed to make them simpler and more straightforward, but I urge him and all hon. Members to participate in it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

The suggestion would be that European temporary leave to remain should be about identity and declaration of any criminal convictions, as with the EU settled status scheme, and that it would omit the HMRC check—although the issue is not necessarily an HMRC check, but evidence of residence. The Government will take as evidence of residence a wide variety of proofs; it does not have to be an HMRC check.

The hon. Lady raised the question of conversations between the Home Office and the DWP; I must say that they occur on a regular basis. I am conscious, and not only from matters raised with me by right hon. and hon. Members across the House, that there have been occasional incidents to date, and those are problems we are working hard to iron out with the DWP.

[Alison Thewliss]

The reason I mentioned the £30,000 threshold was to ask whether it would apply to people who are coming in for three months at a time and working.

[Caroline Nokes]

As I said, the hon. Lady is confusing this with the future borders and immigration system, which will enter service in 2021. We are engaging on that threshold over the course of this year. It is absolutely not part of the order and applies not to European temporary leave to remain, but to the future borders and immigration system; I hope that hon. Members have understood that. With that, I commend the order to the Committee.

Question put.