Immigration Bill

Anne McLaughlin Excerpts

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Monday 9th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

The Government remain strongly of the view that specifying a maximum time limit for immigration detention would be arbitrary, would not take account of individual circumstances and would encourage individuals to seek to frustrate the removals process until the time limit was reached, so having a negative impact on our ability to enforce immigration controls and maintain public safety. In response to the concerns expressed by a number of Members here and in the other place, we accepted that there should be greater judicial oversight over detention, and we tabled a motion, the effect of which would be that individuals would automatically be referred to the tribunal for a bail hearing six months after their detention began or, if the tribunal had already considered whether to release the person within the first six months, six months after that consideration.

This House approved that motion but, although some peers accepted that the issue of judicial oversight had now been satisfactorily addressed, others remained concerned that six months was too long without that oversight. After careful consideration, we propose again a duty to arrange consideration of bail, but we are now reducing the timing of an automatic bail referral from six to four months. This earlier point of referral reflects the fact that the vast majority of persons are detained for fewer than four months.

Moving on to amendments (a) to (f), the Government have listened carefully to the concerns expressed in this House and the other place on the issue of detaining pregnant women. The motion agreed in the other place would maintain the 72-hour time limit agreed in this House, extendable up to a week with ministerial approval. We have listened carefully to the points raised by the peers who have tabled these amendments. In order further to strengthen the safeguards, we have tabled amendments that will make it clear that pregnant women will be detained for the purpose of removal only if they are shortly to be removed from the UK or if there are exceptional circumstances that justify the detention. The guidance will also make it clear that they should be used in very exceptional circumstances, underlining our expectations in regard to the use of this power.

We have also proposed an amendment that would place an additional duty on officers making detention decisions in respect of pregnant women to have due regard for their welfare. These additional measures, alongside the 72-hour time limit, would act as statutory safeguards to complement the Government’s wider package of reform, which includes the new adults at risk policy, a new gatekeeper function and new safeguarding teams. We also intend to ask Stephen Shaw to carry out a short review to assess progress against the key actions in his previous report.

I turn now to Lords amendment 87. The Government have always been clear about our commitment to identifying and protecting vulnerable refugee children, wherever they are. We wholeheartedly share their lordships’ underlying intentions in this regard. We have a moral duty to help. Our efforts to date, both within and outside Europe, have been designed to do just that. Our commitment to help those in need stands comparison with any other country. The UK has been playing its part in supporting European neighbours to provide support to those who have arrived, by already providing nearly £46 million of funding to the Europe-wide response to help the most vulnerable, including infants and children. This assistance will support vulnerable people including children on the move or stranded in Europe and the Balkans. In addition, the £10 million Department for International Development fund announced on 28 January will support the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Save the Children and the International Rescue Committee to work with host authorities to care for and assist unaccompanied or separated children.

As the Prime Minister made clear last week, we will accept the amendment. However, we have always made it clear that, in implementing it, we must do nothing that would inadvertently create a situation in which more children put their lives at risk by attempting perilous journeys to Europe. That is why only those from Greece, Italy and France who were registered in the EU before 20 March will be eligible for resettlement, when it is in their best interest to come to the UK.

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

Among the most vulnerable children are the 10,000 who have gone missing. Will the Minister clarify whether those children, who were probably not registered before 20 March, are to be excluded from the provisions he has just outlined?

[James Brokenshire]

I will come on to the issue of registration, which has been highlighted by a number of people, in a moment. To be clear, we are not seeking to impose an over-burdensome or legalistic requirement on children to prove that they have been formally registered, but we will need to see some evidence that they were present in Europe before 20 March. This will avoid creating a new and perverse incentive for families to entrust their children to people traffickers. Our focus will be on reunifying children with families in the UK, but we will also consider cases of children at risk of exploitation or abuse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

I quite understand the difficulty that the Government face. As I am sure that my hon. Friends will agree, the British Government have done more than any other Government apart from that of the United States of America to help those fleeing the torment in Syria and other parts of the middle east. I warmly welcome that part of the Department for International Development budget; that is a good use of its budget, though I may disagree with other parts of it. I accept that the Government face some opposition to their policy from Conservative Members, but the Government’s original policy was absolutely right. The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), representing the new champions of the premier league—he is not wearing his scarf today; clearly he has deserted his—[Interruption.] Ah! The scarf is under there! He said that he hoped that the amendment would not exacerbate the pull factor, but I am afraid that all reasonable opinion in this country will conclude that it will do precisely that. If we agree to this amendment, we are sending out the message that Britain is a soft touch. Also, it is a cruel policy, as I have said to the Aldershot News & Mail—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) is being facetious about the Aldershot News & Mail; it is a very important organ of communication.

The policy is cruel because it will encourage desperate, tragic parents to send their children across the inhospitable seas of the Mediterranean in search of a better life. Who can blame them for wanting to do that? However, they are parents and their responsibility is to their children. It is not our first responsibility; it is that of the parents, and they will be encouraged by this measure to send their children across that dangerous sea and put them at risk in the hope that they will be able to get not just to other safe countries—France, Greece or Italy—but to the United Kingdom.

If this House is saying, in the middle of a debate on whether Britain should remain a member of the EU, that—[Interruption.] Members on the Opposition Benches should not sneer. If this House is saying that Italy, France and Greece are not safe countries, why on earth are we members of that organisation?

[Anne McLaughlin]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

If the Scottish National party would like to intervene, of course I accept that intervention, but if the SNP feels so strongly about this, it should not ask the British Government for money. Put up your own money to cover the costs.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Does the hon. Gentleman understand that in Calais tonight there are children sleeping in containers that sleep 12 people? They are sleeping alongside adults, strangers to them, and there is nobody supervising. Does he think that is safe?

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

The whole point is that they are in safe countries. The criticism should be levelled not at the British Government, but at other Governments. If the Scottish nationalists wish to take the children in and they have the capacity in Scotland, they should pay for it themselves and not ask the Minister to go to the British Treasury to fund it. Put your money where your mouth is.

I fear that the Lords amendment will send out a very dangerous message. It is also an insulting message to our continental partners, whom we all know, because we see it night after night on our television screens, are wrestling with the consequences of this tragic migration flow into Europe. The Lords amendment sends out a damning message to them that they cannot cope and that their conditions are inadequate to look after vulnerable people.

That is my first point. My second point is this: my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) rightly asked the sanctimonious hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), who is parading his compassion—[Interruption.] We have free speech in this country. My hon. Friend made the point that there is a shortage of 10,000 foster carers in our country to look after our own children in need of foster care.

UK Citizens Returning From Fighting Daesh

Anne McLaughlin Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. Whichever side of the argument we take—whether we are supporters of these individuals or have reservations—their stories suggest that there is no clear policy. Those stories do not give us great confidence in our border controls, as different individuals have clearly been treated in different ways.

A growing number of individuals have been profiled in the media. Some have even been on more than one tour, as it were. I have been in contact with 20 families, some of whom I will refer to this evening, including that of one of my own constituents, Aiden Aslin. Two Britons and an Irishman were arrested this weekend crossing back from Syria into northern Iraq, so this remains a topical issue. At least one British citizen, a former marine, Konstandinos Erik Scurfield from Barnsley, has been killed in action. The Foreign Office says that owing to the difficulties and the lack of consular services in the area, it is difficult to estimate whether more British citizens have been killed in action and what may have become of their bodies.

Behind every one of those individuals is a family. I have been in regular contact with my constituent Aiden’s mother, Angela, and his grandmother, Pamela, throughout his 10 months abroad. I cannot overstate their concern and anguish. Their initial thought was that one day they would turn on the television and see their son and grandson in an orange jacket. In their case, at least, there is also acceptance that their son and grandson took this extraordinary decision freely, in sound mind and good faith, because he could not continue to watch the atrocities on the television every night and turn a blind eye. I would not dare to generalise about the motives of all who have gone out there, but I have now met several, and they are brave and good people who deserve our respect and fair treatment under the law.

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to seek a bit of advice about the highly unusual case of a UK citizen injured fighting the forces of Daesh whom I met in a refugee camp in France. He is leading a pretty miserable existence there because he refuses to abandon his wife and baby boy who had to flee Kurdistan, but are not entitled to seek asylum in the UK. The family do not meet the minimum income requirements for spouse visas, partly because of his injuries. How can we help this courageous UK citizen who fought our common enemy, Daesh, and get him and his family out of their miserable existence in the refugee camp in Europe and back here where he belongs?

Oral Answers to Questions

Anne McLaughlin Excerpts

Monday 11th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend raises an important point and describes the variety of tasks that our police forces carry out, and the variety of skills and operational capabilities that they need. I am very conscious of the marine capability requirements in Hampshire. It is, of course, an operational matter for the police to determine how they spend their budget and what they use it for. Crucially, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has ensured that we can protect police budgets, when precept is taken into account, over the next four years.

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

Two weeks ago, when four of my colleagues and I were in Calais, the French authorities tear-gassed the Calais camp simply because a protest was going on outside it. Does the Home Secretary approve of such measures, and if not—if she agrees with me that measures should be proportionate to the situation and that refugees must be treated humanely—will she contact her French counterpart and express the concerns of this Parliament?

[James Brokenshire]

I was in Calais last week having discussions with the French authorities about those issues, and the very clear message was that those who are there should claim asylum. That is the best and most effective way for them to get the help that they need, and that is the clear message that needs to come from this House.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Anne McLaughlin Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

As Members have heard, on the three main aims of the Bill, the SNP agrees with the Government. Laudable as those aims are, however, they are certainly not always in concert with the effects of the Bill. In the words of the Internet Services Providers Association, ISPA—not to be confused with the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, IPSA—

“there is a disconnect between what can be found on the face of the Bill and what the Government says the Bill will be used for. Given that the Bill is highly intrusive, the Government must put all of its intentions for how it plans to use the powers on to the face of the Bill. Reliance on speeches and…documents, such as codes of practice, to make clear what the Bill explicitly intends is unsatisfactory.”

The SNP and I have a number of other concerns, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) so eloquently laid out. As the SNP’s civil liberties spokesperson, I have received a large volume of emails on the matter. I want to focus on the concerns most frequently raised with me by civil liberties campaigners and my constituents. Time is very tight, so I have to chop my speech to pieces. I will try to be specific and to speak even more quickly than I am doing now.

One concern is that the Bill legalises practices that have been introduced without any parliamentary scrutiny, and it uses the fact that they are already happening as some kind of justification for their efficacy, legality or morality. We should be wary of legitimising steps taken by state agencies without our knowledge or consent, before we have had a full debate on whether we consent to those powers. I refer, of course, to the bulk powers in the Bill. It is not good enough to say, “We have not had any major disasters so far.” That is the cowboy builder’s approach to our liberties. It is equivalent to saying, “Keep your fingers crossed and hope that the roof does not cave in,” and it is not good enough.

Like many civil liberties campaigners, I appreciate the fact that targeted interception with appropriate oversight plays a vital role in keeping our constituents safe. Nobody has a monopoly on that—we all want to be safe, and we all want to feel safe—but the key issue is targeting. The majority of the case studies that were provided, and experience of terrorist attacks elsewhere, show that, by and large, individuals involved in such attacks attract attention from the authorities in advance of the attacks.

[Simon Hoare]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Anne McLaughlin]

I am speaking as fast as I can; I cannot possibly give way. I am very sorry.

Such leads must be followed up in a targeted manner, and we must protect our much valued civil liberties and the freedoms for which, so we are told, Britain is famed.

I find it disturbing and somewhat frightening that the Home Secretary has refused to accept the recommendation, by one of the three parliamentary Committees that have detailed their concerns, to exclude from the Bill the use of surveillance powers for the economic wellbeing of the UK. From the passion and determination with which British politicians of all hues fought to keep Scotland in the UK, and if we accept, as I do, that they did so not just for Scotland’s own good, it is clear that they believed that our independence would have an adverse impact on the UK economy. Notwithstanding the fact that I do not necessarily agree with that premise, I am interested to know whether all independence campaigners are vulnerable under this legislation.

[Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Anne McLaughlin]

No.

As Members may have heard, the First Minister of Scotland has recently announced a new initiative, starting this summer, to argue for independence, so it is best that we know.

Campaigners have rightly been somewhat alarmed to read clause 1(3), in which the Government tell us that some of the protections enjoyed by citizens of the UK—indeed, the only protections explicitly named in the Bill—exist

“by virtue of the Human Rights Act 1998”.

The Government are not only pushing the Bill through hastily and to a tight timetable, but asking us to accept protections in a piece of legislation that they are doing their utmost to scrap. We want a Bill that we can fully support. For us, we do not yet have such a Bill.

Draft Immigration (Health Charge) (Amendment) Order 2016

Anne McLaughlin Excerpts

Monday 29th February 2016 General Committees

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

I am struggling to understand what the benefit of the order is and what its justification is, and I want to raise a few points. I understand from what the Minister said that perhaps things have changed slightly since I read up on the matter. The idea that this is a cost-cutting measure is interesting, because we do not know what it costs us for Australians and New Zealanders to use our national health service, notwithstanding the fact that most of them are young and therefore less likely to use the NHS in the first place. The NHS has only recently started to collect data based on the nationalities of those using it, and I would like to hear more about that.

The reciprocal arrangements we have traditionally had with Australia and New Zealand work only if we do actually reciprocate. The Minister said something that I did not hear completely. Will he clarify what he said about how we still have a reciprocal arrangement between Australia and the United Kingdom? I am not content that, as the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras said, people have come over here and are paying national insurance and income tax, and they are also paying a surcharge for health, whereas we do not do that when we go over there.

Also, my understanding is that there is a lot of— [Interruption.] The Government Whip is shaking his head, so perhaps he can answer me and tell me where I have got it wrong. I know that they are not happy in Australia and New Zealand: they are saying, “Well, we’ll make it a reciprocal arrangement. We’ll reciprocate and we’ll impose a charge”. There are calls for that to be done, and those who would suffer most from that are UK nationals, because we outnumber the number of people coming to this country. For example, there are 63,000 New Zealanders living in the UK—which apparently makes up 0.09% of the population—whereas there are 265,500 UK nationals in New Zealand. In that respect, we have had the better end of the deal. The figures are slightly different when it comes to Australia, but my understanding is that we still outnumber the number of Australians who have come here.

I would be grateful for any clarification. If the Government Whip was shaking his head because I had misunderstood something, I would be very grateful to hear that.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

As I indicated in my opening comments, in the first six months since its introduction, the immigration health surcharge raised more than £100 million in income for the NHS in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is important to make that point, and we will report on the first year’s income, as the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras asked me to do.

I also want highlight the fact that a comprehensive study of migrant use of the NHS in England commissioned by the Department of Health found that the total cost of visitors and temporary visitors accessing NHS services in England alone was estimated to be up to £2 billion a year, with around £950 million spent on temporary migrants, such as students and workers, from whom no charge had been recoverable previously.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Am I not right in thinking that that is the Prederi report, which states that those are the best estimates, but that accuracy is by no means assured because of uncertainty about the numbers of people and their behaviour?

[James Brokenshire]

These are always estimates, but we judge that to be a reasonable estimate on which to base our policy. That was the basis on which the House legislated for the creation of both the immigration health surcharge and the previous order. In our analysis, non-EEA temporary migrants—workers and families—here for longer than 12 months had a weighted average cost to the NHS of a little more than £800 a head and a total estimated gross cost of more than £500 million a year. The figures for non-EEA students, for any length of stay, were just over £700 and about £430 million respectively.

The Government believe that those subject to immigration control should have a form of access to public services that reflects their immigration status. The previous order brought migrant access to the NHS into line with existing policy on access to benefits and social housing. It is a migrant’s immigration status, not their tax contributions, that governs their access to those services. We believe that the levy is appropriate and reasonable, and recognises the contribution that temporary migrants make to the wider economy.

Questions were asked about reciprocity, and in particular the reciprocal healthcare agreements with Australia and New Zealand. There is no intention to discontinue those agreements. They are more than 30 years old, however, and all three Governments concur that the time is right to review them and ensure that they are appropriate to the contemporary needs of our travelling citizens. The Department of Health has therefore entered into discussion with Australia and New Zealand on the scope of the agreements. The Government have no intention of discontinuing the agreements, but Ministers and officials in the Department of Health are looking at them.

Reciprocal healthcare agreements provide for a national of one country on a short, temporary stay in another country to receive free treatment. The agreement with Australia provides for a resident of one country who is visiting temporarily in the other, without becoming an ordinary resident, to be provided with free immediate medical treatment. However, all our Governments highly recommend the possession of adequate travel insurance because the agreements do not cover all treatment needs. In particular, they do not cover the costs of a medical evacuation.

What happens to our citizens going to Australia or New Zealand is a matter for consideration. Australia already levies a health charge for certain categories of visa applicant, including older migrants applying to become permanent residents and those with existing healthcare needs. In addition, students are required to have health insurance. In New Zealand, there is a consultation fee for anyone accessing GP care, and all foreign fee-paying students applying to study there are required to hold acceptable medical and travel insurance. Most visa applicants to the two countries are also required to meet minimum health standards, and in some cases they must undergo a medical examination. A visa may be refused if a migrant has a health condition that is likely to result in significant healthcare and community service costs.

It might be considered that this measure makes it harder for Australians and New Zealanders to come here, but I have already indicated that visitors would remain unaffected as a consequence of the reciprocal arrangements. Some 97% of Australian and New Zealand nationals who apply for a UK visa are successful. We continue to place great value on our links with both countries and remain committed to strengthening our relationship with them. However, we operate in a wider context, which includes the challenges of healthcare costs and managing migration flows. I find it interesting that the Scottish National party appears to be turning its face against additional funding for the NHS in Scotland. That is obviously the SNP’s prerogative, but we judge that this measure is appropriate, and I commend it to the Committee.

Question put.

Asylum Support Contracts

Anne McLaughlin Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Westminster Hall

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

I consider myself told, Mr Stringer, and I will duly comply— I will just speak very quickly.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) not only on securing the debate, but on a comprehensive speech that shows a clear understanding of the needs of asylum seekers and the problems occurring at the moment. It is important that those of us who stand up for asylum seekers keep on doing it. I am sure the Government must be sick of the sight of us by now, but we have to keep saying it until we get it right.

The situation with refugee support contracts highlights the problems with the Government’s agenda in a number of areas. The contracts singularly fail to deliver a service that supports the integration and success of our refugee communities. They hand over money to the private sector, despite the repeated failure of the companies to deliver the services that they are paid to deliver, and they fail to account for the important differences across the UK in terms of the devolved context and local authority arrangements.

It is only right that we remove the abstraction, as the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth has, and remember that we are dealing with real people who have fled unimaginable horror of a sort that we have been lucky in this country to avoid since the end of the second world war. Now, having safely fled the brutality of a new fascism, people arriving in our communities deserve and need our support to integrate and to build new lives. Hopefully, that is something on which we can all agree.

After the introduction of the COMPASS model in 2012, in which Serco became responsible for the delivery of asylum support in Scotland and Northern Ireland, we had the subcontracting of the contract to Orchard & Shipman. However, as a housing provider operating in Scotland, it is still subject to Scottish housing law, even if the contracts themselves remain under the control of Westminster. Given recent reports from across the UK, it seems likely that the contravention of local housing and environmental health law is of increasing importance.

Across the UK, we have had some truly horrific situations, which we have heard about today and over the past few weeks. We have had refugee houses easily identifiable by the colour of the door; stories of humiliation and harassment caused by the requirement for refugees in Cardiff to wear coloured wristbands; and a level of overcrowding that would be more appropriate in the slums of the 1900s, not the 21st century. It is clear to me that the system is broken, not just in one location and not just with one provider. That is why the Scottish National party is calling for an urgent inquiry. The Government must ensure that those who are given refuge in the UK are not demeaned by being forced to face stigma or conditions that no one born in the UK would be asked to face. Support and assistance must be there to assist resettlement and integration. The refugee situation is not going away. We need urgently to fix the system. That is why we need an urgent inquiry into this matter in the UK.

It is clear that there are problems with the contracts right across these islands. I know of some great local initiatives from community organisations and charities to support integration. In Glasgow North East, and I am sure in other constituencies, there are groups working really hard to support integration. In my constituency, we have groups such as the North Glasgow Integration Network, Royston Youth Action, A&M, and many others. We also have the Scottish Government’s new Scots initiative. But we must accept that the UK-wide contracts are causing UK-wide problems, and they merit a UK-wide inquiry.

It is crucial that we get it right from the moment asylum seekers or refugees arrive in this country, because we are setting the tone for the rest of their stay. Just as we welcome tourists when they come here, we should welcome anyone who comes to these shores. Fifteen Syrian families were brought to my constituency in December, and I want to tell Members what happened to them the moment they arrived. I asked the Home Secretary last year whether we could have welcoming groups to show people coming into this country a true Scottish, Glasgow welcome, and she said that a taskforce was going to look into it. When the 15 Syrian families, who were mainly Muslim, arrived at Glasgow airport, I am told that they were greeted by Glasgow City Council with a packed lunch of ham sandwiches. I have nothing more to add to that.

There are now 15 new Syrian families living in my constituency who, as the Government tell us, were among the most vulnerable of those living in the camps in Syria. I am not in touch with them—none of them know that they are entitled to my help—but there are dozens of asylum seekers in my constituency who are living under the contracts we are discussing and who do know that they are entitled to my help. They do come to me, but I know of many more who are too afraid to do so.

We have seen in recent weeks that, under those contracts, the system is utterly failing. Will the Minister have the courage to recognise that and deliver the urgent inquiry that is so obviously needed?

Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Order 2016

Anne McLaughlin Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd February 2016 General Committees

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

I wonder whether the hon. and learned Gentleman has experience, as I have, of constituents coming to surgeries saying that they are entitled to work here but that the Home Office is months behind with getting the paperwork sorted. The Home Office has then advised people to phone the not-yet-premium-rate line but their employers have said, “Look, I can’t be bothered. I don’t have the time”. Not only will the measure deter people who cannot be bothered because they have others they can employ; it will deter those who just do not want to pay the extortionate rate to make the call.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention. It touches on an issue that we discussed in the Bill Committee, which is that for landlords and employers there is a risk, if checking immigration status is difficult and there is a penalty for getting it wrong—which, of course, there is—that they will default to a position where unless someone has a British passport and is white, they will not let them premises or employ them. That was not the first time that the concern was raised; it was brought up when the 2014 Immigration Bill was going through Parliament. All parties were concerned that there was a risk of indirect discrimination.

It is accepted that there is a risk. The Minister and the Home Office say that it is a manageable one, but one of the tools for managing the risk is the ability of landlords and employers quickly to get the advice they need. They say, unsurprisingly: “We are not experts in checking immigration status. There are many nationalities that will apply to rent a premises, or for a job, and we need to be able very swiftly to get an answer to any queries”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

As my hon. and learned Friend for Edinburgh South West says, the Government have stated that the excessive hike in fees is to cover the cost of running immigration services, with the aim of their becoming self-funding within four years. They say that those who benefit should pay for the services, which strongly implies that the British taxpayer does not benefit from immigration: immigrants add nothing to the UK, so why should the British taxpayer pay for those services? If we are going down that route, incidentally, I want to get out of paying for Trident. The Government do not have to reduce my tax bill; they could just put the money towards something that I think is beneficial. The idea is ridiculous because we have to take a collective approach to running these islands, and given that we do benefit from immigration, the costs should not be borne purely by those seeking to live and work here.

The Government recognise the impact of immigration in some circumstances, mainly where they can see a direct financial impact, but perhaps they need some help to see the bigger picture. We know that they recognise the benefits because it is only some who will be hit by these fee hikes. Large, wealthy multinational companies that require immigrant workers to make profits, for instance, will not see a rise in fees, with tier 2 sponsorship remaining at £1,476. Clearly the Government see that these immigrant workers are necessary for those companies and beneficial to our economy. Students who wish to study at our universities will also not experience a rise in fees, so again the Government can see the direct correlation between overseas students paying big money to universities and those establishments staying afloat. However, families who wish to be together and to practise the family values that the Conservatives are so fond of extoling will, in many cases, find the cost of being together out of reach. Are we to believe that “family values” is a reference to financial cost, rather than family relationships and bonds?

What of the student who we have previously welcomed because they will be paying big money for an education? Notwithstanding the problem of a lack of post-study work visas, there are still ways for that student to obtain a work visa, namely if he or she can get a graduate-level job. Let us take a civil engineer on a starting salary of just over £24,000 a year, although many start on lower salaries. They get a visa, they have enjoyed studying here and they want to settle for a while, so they apply to bring their spouse and children over. Do the Government honestly believe that a person on such a salary can afford to pay the proposed fees? This is yet another example of people being educated and gaining really useful skills at our universities, but the UK not getting the benefit of those skills. It does not make sense.

Far from embracing family values, the Government are clearly stating that families are not welcome, because otherwise why would they make it so excessively costly for them to come here to be with their loved ones? It is almost as if the Government do not believe that having a multicultural society and encouraging families of different ethnicities and cultures to mix is of any value to the UK whatsoever. It is as if they know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. The Government do not seem to realise that when people come to live and work here, they buy property, furniture and cars, go to local shops and contribute skills that we are often short of, so they do contribute to our economy. I am embarrassed that the migrant integration policy index has ranked the UK 38th out of 38 for family-friendly immigration policies.

Finally, like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West, I want to draw attention to the increase in fees for administrative reviews from £80 to £400. It is well documented that a large number of decisions are overturned at the review stage. Is this why the Government want to make such reviews out of reach to all but the better-off?

[James Brokenshire]

I am interested that the hon. Lady and the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West have suggested that the fees for admin reviews are rising to £400. The proposals published by the Home Office represent an increase in fees from £80 to £84.

[Anne McLaughlin]

If that is the case, why am I reading a figure of £400? The Government may charge up to that amount, and no one knows what the cost will be in the end. I remind the Committee about the large number of decisions that are found to be wrong at review stage and therefore overturned.

Perhaps the Minister forgets—I am sure that he has not—that I was a member of the Immigration Public Bill Committee. I am as certain as I possibly can be that he stated during our consideration that it did not matter if appeal rights were removed because an administrative review would be a cheaper option. Perhaps he is about to guarantee that all administrative reviews will cost the £84 he just cited, rather than £400, but I will be interested to hear what he has to say about the situation, given that he plans to increase the fees by an eye-watering 500% in some cases, although we do not know how many.

[James Brokenshire]

I appreciate the opportunity to clarify the situation in the light of some of more excitable statements that we heard from the hon. Lady about the increase in certain fees. It is important to state that the Government believe that those who use and benefit most from the immigration system should contribute more to that system’s cost, which means that it is appropriate to increase charges to users of services, application and processes, rather than continuing to rely on the UK taxpayer to meet the costs. As we set out at the spending review, the Government’s intention is that the border and immigration system is fully funded by those who use it by 2019-20. I think that that answers a question asked by the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras.

The order is, in our judgment, an essential part of the immigration fees framework, enabling us to set fees regulations over the next four years, setting maximum amounts, which will provide the flexibility to adjust fee levels within those ceilings. However, as I think I indicated at the outset of the Committee, the important point is the framework and that flexibility. It is not our intention to try to maximise revenue. Indeed, if the hon. Member for Glasgow North East looks at the maximum fees we allowed ourselves in the last such order that was before this House, she will see that we certainly did not use the full flexibility allowed by that order, and we would not seek to do so in these circumstances. It is about ensuring that we have that broad basket—that broad range—to enable the move to the process that I have outlined.

[Anne McLaughlin]

The Minister has said a couple of times today that the reason for the change is that the service should be self-funded by those who use it, but the impact assessment—and everything else the Government have put out—refers to

“those who use and benefit”

from it. Maybe it was an excitable statement, in his view, when I talked about whether he recognised that we benefit from immigration, but can I ask: does he, in fact, recognise that this country benefits from immigration and that therefore we should share the costs?

[James Brokenshire]

If the hon. Lady looks at the things I have said and the approach we have taken, for example on the growth routes—she highlighted the 2% increase in tier 2 and tier 4—she will see that it recognises the contribution made in those circumstances. Therefore, that is the approach we have taken to the fees that we would propose for 2016-17. It is important that we strike a good balance between the economic interests of the UK and the need to maintain a sound immigration system. We will seek to ensure that fees for immigration and nationality services enable the UK to retain its position as an attractive destination to work in, study in and visit.

Donald Trump

Anne McLaughlin Excerpts

Monday 18th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.

I find myself standing here and, for the first time ever, agreeing wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn). None of us can be as surprised about that as I am, but I was even more surprised to hear him warmly quoting the words of President Bush—admittedly, President Bush the father and not the son.

Today is one of the times this year when we will mark the 500th anniversary of a book called “Utopia”, by Saint Thomas More, who was tried and executed not so far from this place. In it he envisaged a new future and a new ideal, writing from his heart about the liberties of thought and faith that he hoped what he called Englishmen—those whom Mr Hannan refers to as the “Anglosphere”—would express across the globe. Yet today a report has come out showing that the liberties Thomas More hoped for and desired are in trouble.

An online journal called “Spiked” has gone around various universities and found that freedom of speech is being challenged. In our colleges, so-called “safe spaces”, which might also be known as “spaces of censorship”, now cover some 39% of universities. That is a threat to freedom of thought not only in those universities. We can see that this debate is being covered by many of our friends from the fourth estate, and it is worth remembering that they, too, are part of the democratic process. Although we who stand here and speak in the Chamber might sometimes not like it, their role in holding us to account is equally as important as our role to speak the truth.

With that cry for freedom and liberty, I speak in favour of considering the motion, but rejecting exclusion, because liberty is not something that we can take in portion or in part. It comes as one and as a whole. As the first amendment to the US constitution makes clear, freedom of expression is essential for a free people. That is why, although I may not like what has been said and although I am absolutely sure that I would not support it, it is no place for me or this House to criticise a man running for elected office in a foreign country. We might not wish him here, we might not like him here, but we should not vote against his ability to speak or his right to travel when we, too, value the same rights of liberty.

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

rose—

[Tom Tugendhat]

Are you looking to intervene?

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

No, I am not. I call Anne McLaughlin.

[Anne McLaughlin]

To be clear, did the hon. Gentleman say that it was not our place to criticise? Surely that would be a curtailment of freedom of speech for those of us who are opposed to what Donald Trump said. I am pretty sure that the hon. Gentleman said that we do not have the right to criticise.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Lady is quite right: we have the right to criticise. However, I do not think that we should exercise that right on people who are running for elected office in foreign countries. It is for the American people to judge Donald Trump and to hold him to account. It is bad politics and bad judgment to intervene in the electoral processes of other countries and I would wish to do it as little as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

My hon. Friend reaches my point before me. I promise to deal with New York values at the end of my speech.

I turn, as I must, to Mr Trump. His comments about Muslims are wrong. His policy to close borders, if he is elected as President, is bonkers. If he met one or two of my constituents in one of the many excellent pubs in my constituency, they may well tell him that he is a wazzock for dealing with the issue in that way. I sense that my constituents, whether in New York or Tetney, in Minting or Mablethorpe, feel that their values are more than robust enough to survive anything that Mr Trump may say. We in Lincolnshire—in fact, we in the United Kingdom—should have enough confidence in our values to allow him to say whatever he wants in New York, New York, or in New York, Lincolnshire, or anywhere else in the world, because our British values are stronger than some among us here today appear to fear.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Does the hon. Lady understand that it is all very well for us to say, “We feel strong and we can withstand this, so you can criticise and offend and we will stand up to you,” but she and I are not Muslims living in a country where Islamophobia is already rising? Comments such as his, from someone who has such influence over so many people and is getting so much media exposure, can only harm not people like us, but those on the streets who feel vulnerable. They do not feel as strong as she and her constituents claim to feel.

[Victoria Atkins]

I can only give the hon. Lady reassurance. As someone who used to prosecute criminals for a living before I came to this place, any defendant who tried that on in court would get very short shrift from me and, I am sure, from the jury. We must not allow people who behave in such a disgraceful way—criminals who beat up other people on the basis of their religion or beliefs—to remove themselves from that by blaming someone on a different continent. If they beat up a Muslim on the streets of Britain, that is their responsibility and no one else’s.

One of the values that best sums up our country is the freedom to exchange thoughts and ideas within the law—the freedom to persuade or rebut; the freedom to inspire or eviscerate in argument; the freedom to speak; and the freedom to listen. That freedom is not always comfortable. Indeed, my hon. Friends the Members for South Dorset (Richard Drax) and for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) referred to the rising problem in some of our universities about allowing free speech and providing safe spaces for it, for fear that people may be offended, but the freedom of speech must mean that we will sometimes be offended. It means allowing those whose views we hold to be unedifying to speak their minds. Crucially, it also means the freedom to reply—to say, “No, Donald Trump, you are wrong, and you are wrong for the following reasons.” That freedom was hard won over centuries and it must be defended jealously, because it goes to the essence of democracy and the rule of law.

Opposition Members may rely on the argument of consistency—indeed, one Member said, “So-and-so has been excluded, so Mr Trump must be excluded.” Let us remind ourselves of the threshold that must be met for that to happen. The Home Secretary must conclude that the person’s presence in the United Kingdom is not conducive to the public good.

The House of Commons Library helpfully provided a briefing paper for the debate, which gives 14 examples of people who had been excluded by Labour Home Secretaries by May 2009. Of those, 10 were considered to be engaging in “unacceptable behaviour” by seeking to foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence. Nine were considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour in order to provoke others to commit terrorist acts or serious crimes. Five were considered to be fostering hatred that might lead to inter-community violence in the UK and one had spent 30 years in prison for killing four soldiers and a four-year-old girl.

I ask a simple question of those who would ban Donald Trump: are they really saying that his conduct, no matter how offensive it may be, meets those criteria? If Donald Trump poses any question for us as a country, the answer is not to fuel his publicity by talking about banning him—incidentally, this debate is doing that nicely—but to rebut his arguments. The answer is to challenge him in a robust, democratic argument on why he is wrong about the contribution of American and British Muslims to this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Double]

I agree with my hon. Friend that the response we are seeing is far more about people’s frustrations and concerns than about an individual man.

It would be ironic if we were to take the regressive stance of banning Donald Trump because he has called for a ban on Muslims entering the United States. We would surely be guilty of the thing we criticise him for. It would send a signal to the world that we are scared.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Does the hon. Gentleman understand the difference between what Donald Trump has said and what we are saying? Members on the Opposition side are calling for Donald Trump to be banned because of something dangerous that he said. He is calling for Muslims to be registered and tracked for no reason, because they have done nothing wrong. There is a huge difference.

[Steve Double]

I respect the hon. Lady’s view, but personally I take a different view. To ban him would simply play into the same fears that he promotes.

It has often been said that two wrongs do not make a right. I want to say that two bans do not make a right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

This petition, with more than 500,000 signatures, is a welcome indication of the scale of the revulsion with which we in these islands treat the xenophobia of Donald Trump. I am here to sum up for the Scottish National party. I doubt that many parties have a policy on Donald Trump; thankfully, such a policy has not been needed until now. Although I do not necessarily support a complete ban on Mr Trump entering the country, it is clear that his bigoted remarks against Muslims, against Mexicans and against other minorities—particularly his remarks about Muslims—deserve the utmost condemnation from all parts of the House and of society. I am proud of the petitioners and of all who signed the petition for rejecting his outrageous xenophobia and Islamophobia, and I hope that they will not take too much to heart the ticking off that they have had from some on the Government Benches for daring to raise the subject.

Some interesting arguments have been made on both sides of the debate. Those who are against banning Donald Trump, but who oppose him and everything that he stands for, have talked of bringing him here to educate him. I did not quite understand what other Members meant when they said, “I would like to invite him to my constituency and take him to the mosque to meet some Muslims.” Perhaps Members thought that those people would teach him a thing or two, and they would be absolutely right to do that. I believe that the strongest argument in favour of banning him is simply the argument of equality. Are Members correct to say that other, very similar, cases are treated very differently? That is something that the Minister needs to answer.

The fact that the petition was so popular highlights three worthy and important points. First, we in these islands reject wholeheartedly the notion of discriminating against anyone on the basis of their religion. Secondly, individuals of power such as Trump are happy to demonise others but would never consider that they could be treated in such a fashion. Thirdly, there has been public revulsion in this country and in the United States towards the statements of this public figure. Let us not forget the outcry from the many good people in the United States at Trump’s statements, which went against all the shared enlightenment values that tie together the United States and the countries of the United Kingdom.

In addition to recognising that Trump’s statements were distasteful, we should note the hypocrisy of the son of an immigrant, of a religious minority, advocating being so bigoted against other migrants and religious minorities.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

The debate in America is far more nuanced than the hon. Lady suggests. All the Republican candidates in this election are expressing the traditional American view that America is a melting pot, and that it does not matter where someone comes from, but they have to be loyal to the flag and loyal to America. Trump may be articulating this feeling in a particularly extreme and controversial way, but for us to deny that many ordinary people in America are worried about their Americanness would be to deny the real and valid debate that is going on in America.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne McLaughlin]

Thank you, Sir David. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) talks about Republican politicians, but there are other politicians and activists in the United States of America who do not agree with Trump’s assessment of the situation.

I want to look at Donald Trump, the man and the boy. As his first name suggests, he is the son of a Scottish immigrant, and I apologise for that. Like countless others, his mother, Mary Anne MacLeod, left her homeland during the great depression and went to what was, after all, the land of liberty. The same desire for economic opportunity is what motivates many migrants from many other countries to go to America today. The Mexican migrants whom Trump so roundly defamed are engaged in the same quest as the one his forbears undertook. As a man who purports to be proud of his New York heritage, Trump would do well to look to Lady Liberty for some advice on immigration.

Of course, we would do well to remind Donald Trump, the son of a Scottish Presbyterian, of the countless generations of immigrants who left these shores and went to the US in search of religious toleration. The Puritans may have got a shock when they landed on Plymouth Rock, but they went on to forge a society where someone’s religion was, to a greater or lesser extent, irrelevant in public life. Although trailblazers such as Al Smith and John F. Kennedy faced anti-Catholic prejudice when they ran for office, they were always able to fall back on the fundamental truth that religious bigotry goes against all the enlightenment values that America shares with Europe.

It is easy for those of us who are protected by this parliamentary bubble to consider proposals and rhetoric such as Trump’s to be distasteful, opportunistic, funny or crude. However, I do not think that anyone here would disagree that all of us in public life have a duty to work for the common good and to oppose discrimination.

[Lucy Frazer]

The hon. Lady said earlier in her speech that she hoped that the Home Secretary would consider whether this case is any different from others that have been raised. Does she not think that this case is considerably different from the other cases in that we are discussing a presidential candidate? If a presidential candidate was banned and then became President, the ability to forge links and to discuss policy on a whole range of issues would be extremely difficult.

[Anne McLaughlin]

That is why I am summing up by giving both sides of the argument. I am maybe just a bit more vociferous in my opposition to Donald Trump the person. I understand the hon. Lady’s argument, but the way in which I see this case as being different because Donald Trump is a presidential candidate is that he should be less likely to get away with such things because he has far more influence over many more people.

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

Surely the point is that Donald Trump wants to ban parliamentarians from this Parliament from entering America. As a presidential candidate, he should know better.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I completely agree. He should know better. I smiled to myself when I heard arguments from Conservative Members saying that we should not be interfering in anybody’s chances in the political process. Yet, there are MPs in this Parliament who Donald Trump would prevent from visiting his country. When someone of his prominence is running for the most powerful political position on the planet and is actively encouraging discrimination as state policy, it divides communities; it cannot do anything else. That example leads to countless acts of low-level bigotry and hatred that will never be reported.

I turn to some examples that have been reported and to the rise—not just from Donald Trump, but from his like—in Islamophobia. For example, after the Paris attacks, a friend of mine who is a Scottish National party councillor in Glasgow talked about his son being afraid to walk to school because he saw the headlines on the front pages of newspapers. One in particular claimed that a significant percentage—I think it might even have said “a majority”—of Muslims supported terrorism. The child was frightened to go to school. Some Muslim children are going to school and being called terrorists and bombers. They have absolutely no connection to any of the terrorist activities that are going on.

Today the Prime Minister announced funding to assist in English language lessons. I agree that we should support people—not force people—to integrate, but my understanding is that the funding is for Muslim women. What does religion have to do with the English language? How will that work? Will Muslim women routinely be tested to see whether their English language skills are up to speed? Has my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) already passed that test or does she have to take a test in English? It is ridiculous. If the Prime Minister did, indeed, say that the money was not for women who do not speak English, but for Muslim women, and if that is not just how some of the press interpreted it, it is wrong. That, in itself, will assist Islamophobia. I am sure that it was not deliberate, but we all need to remember that language is so important and we all would do well to mind the language that we use.

With Donald Trump, the issue is not just the language that he used, but the intent behind a prepared statement. In pre-war Europe, Jews were forcibly registered. Donald Trump has called for Muslims not just to be banned from going into his country, but to be registered and tracked. To my mind, there is no difference between that and what happened to the Jews in pre-war Europe. That leads me to a number of questions I have for the Minister.

First, does the Minister agree with some of his colleagues that the impact of Donald Trump’s saying what he did is no greater and no more dangerous than their constituents saying it to one another? Secondly, is he comfortable that somebody such as Donald Trump will automatically be allowed to come into this country when I know several people who cannot get their wives or husbands into the country even for a visit? I see that the Minister is shaking his head. Are those people not as deserving of the right to visit the country? If Donald Trump is to be allowed into the country, will the Immigration Minister expect him to retract what he said before he comes here?

Another question I have is: if the President of China had called for all Christians to be refused entry to China, would he still have been invited to this country last year or would we have been saying, “Oh, but he’s the President”? So many in this debate have said, “Oh, but Donald Trump might be the President”, “He’s got the right to offend”, or “But lots of my constituents think like that.” Would the President of China have received the same treatment that Donald Trump is getting from this Government?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

On that very point about banning heads of state, it is widely known that Mecca has banned Christians for hundreds of years, yet we entertain and have entertained the King of Saudi Arabia. Indeed, both Mecca and Medina are banned for Christians.

[Anne McLaughlin]

For several reasons, Saudi Arabia being among them, I am not comfortable with the fact that the UK Government are cosying up to a number of people.

I do not expect that the Minister is writing all my questions down or will answer them all, but I live in hope. Does he agree with me that my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire always gives top-rate, passionate speeches about her personal commitment to equality for all? Is it acceptable for us to welcome in the man who would stop her and her children entering the United States? My final question is: will the Minister join me in condemning the nasty, abusive, racist tweets that my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire has sat here receiving on account of her daring to speak out against Donald Trump, and does he think that Donald Trump’s anti-Muslim statement may have contributed to the abuse that she constantly has to put up with?

Donald Trump is on the record as saying that his second favourite book after the Bible is “The Art of the Deal” written by one Donald J. Trump. Perhaps it would be more beneficial if he spent time reading the constitution of the United States.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is making a very good speech. On the point about the constitution of the United States, Donald Trump has suggested that Cruz—another Republican candidate in the election race—cannot stand for the presidency either. That shows that his views are confined not only to Muslims, but to other people. The man’s whole attitude is questionable. In which political direction is he going? More importantly, where is the Republican party going when it puts up two candidates and one is as bad as the other?

[Anne McLaughlin]

I agree with that. It is a matter for that political party, but it is a good point and perhaps a good reason for us all to support Hillary Clinton to become the next President of the United States. I am sorry—I forgot that I am not allowed to comment on the presidential elections.

As President Obama’s press secretary pointed out, Donald Trump’s statements make him unfit to be President. He cannot pledge to uphold the constitution of the United States if he does not believe in religious liberty and freedom from discrimination; or is he going to amend the constitution on his own? How would the people of the United States put up with that? Although Trump’s right-wing rhetoric might help him to pick up votes in the primary, in the general election the vast majority of voters in the States will no doubt be horrified that such an individual could lead them on the world stage. Trump believes himself to be plain-spoken. I understand some of the arguments of people who do not just want robotic politicians who churn out rehearsed press statements, but there is a huge difference between that and this case. Appealing to fears and prejudice is not the language and common sense of people here or in the United States.

It is tempting to give Trump a taste of his own medicine and to bar him, but would he love it? Would we be giving him a gift? Would it just, as some people have argued, give him even more publicity, or is the argument stronger that we will give him publicity by letting him in because, having said what he said and caused such controversy, he will be on every TV programme and chat show in the land spouting his nonsense? I do see an argument for allowing Trump in to do that because he will not be able to help himself. He will say things that will render him chargeable, guilty or able to be prosecuted for inciting racial hatred.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

He is hardly a murderer.

[Anne McLaughlin]

He is not a murderer, but surely the argument cannot be that we want to ban, jail or charge only murderers. There are other crimes, and we are talking about a crime that has a real impact, maybe not on my life but on many people’s lives. There have been many suggestions by Government Members that we should keep quiet about this and that members of the public who signed the petition, some of whom are here today, should just keep quiet.

I have tabled an early-day motion marking Martin Luther King day, which is today—in fact, today is the 30th anniversary of Martin Luther King day—and I encourage everyone to sign that EDM, if they have not done so already. I will quote Martin Luther King:

“The ultimate tragedy is not the oppression and cruelty by the bad people but the silence over that by the good people.”

We will not be silent.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I agree with the policy that the Prime Minister has rightly identified today, in seeking to ensure that language is there to make sure that we help migrants to participate and integrate better in everyday life. That is the building block behind the policy that the Prime Minister has rightly identified.

Equally, the Prime Minister has been prepared to look at some uncomfortable facts; for example, the fact that in 2011 22% of British Muslim women spoke poor or no English compared with just 9% of British Muslim men. Therefore, it is how we can target that support at those communities in the greatest need that is important, and that is precisely why Louise Casey has been engaged, as part of her work, to go about identifying that.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Does the Minister understand the point I made earlier, that making this help available for migrant people who do not speak English is different from saying, “You must do it if you are a Muslim woman”? This support should not be aimed at a religion but at people who require it.

[James Brokenshire]

This is not a Muslim-only scheme, and the point that I rightly make is that it is targeted at those communities that are most impacted and most affected. Equally, that is why I make the point about the 22% figure that the Prime Minister has rightly highlighted today.

I will address the issue of exclusion. The Home Secretary has the power to exclude a national from outside the European Economic Area and refuse them entry to the UK if they have personally directed that that person’s exclusion from the UK is conducive to the public good. This power is derived from the royal prerogative and is exercised by the Home Secretary in person. Exclusion decisions are not taken lightly or in isolation. The Home Secretary makes every decision on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the information available and a wide range of policy and operational factors. These factors include views from across Government, including from the Department for Communities and Local Government, and from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. They also include consideration of any interference with the person’s human rights under the European convention on human rights, such as their article 10 right to respect for freedom of speech. The hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) has also underlined some of those factors and elements that are part of the policy that we adopt in considering matters of exclusion.

The Home Secretary uses her power to exclude foreign nationals to protect us from national security threats, to protect us from radicalisers and hate preachers, and to protect us from people who seek to undermine our core British values. The policy is not targeted at any particular community; it is targeted at all those who advocate hatred or violence, regardless of their origins or beliefs. The Home Secretary has prevented neo-Nazis, Islamist extremists and anti-Muslim hate preachers from entering the UK. She has excluded more preachers of hate than any other Home Secretary before her—103 since 2010—and she will continue to use the exclusion power against those who seek to do us harm.

The Government have a long-standing policy of not routinely commenting on those who are being considered for exclusion for sound legal reasons, and I will maintain that position this evening. However, what I can say is that the US remains our most important bilateral partner. It is in the UK’s interest that we engage all presidential candidates— Democratic and Republican—even though we may disagree profoundly on important issues. Where there are clear differences of opinion, the most effective way to influence our American partners is through a frank and open exchange of views in taking on those arguments. Today’s robust debate has provided a platform to do just that.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I thank the Minister for giving way again; I have almost forgotten what I was going to say. He said that the Home Secretary has a policy position of not commenting on people who are being considered for the exclusion list. Does that mean that he can neither confirm nor deny that Donald Trump is being considered for that list?

[James Brokenshire]

As I say, we do not comment on individual matters, but I would cite what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has rightly underlined in saying:

“The best way to defeat such nonsense is to engage in robust, democratic debate and make it very clear that his views”—

that is, Donald Trump’s views—

“are not welcome.”—[Official Report, 9 December 2015; Vol. 603, c. 990.]

We have also had remarks about Donald Trump’s comments in respect of investment in Scotland. The appointment of Global Scots is, of course, a matter for the Scottish Government. The UK Government have never given Mr Trump awards or appointments, honorary or otherwise. Mr Trump has threatened to withhold investment in Scotland in response to the calls to ban him from the UK. Over the years, Mr Trump has made a number of different statements about the scale of his investments in the UK and his willingness to maintain them. The UK is the No. 1 destination in Europe for inward investment and the World Bank has ranked the UK as the sixth easiest place in the world to do business. So, any organisation that makes promises about investment in the UK should live up to those promises.

In conclusion, we will not win the fight against extremism by demonising communities and tarring an entire religion because of the actions of a few, and we will not defeat the threats we face by acting in isolation. We will win the fight by working together, standing shoulder to shoulder with people of different faiths and different backgrounds, defending our values, and by showing that division, hatred and hostility have no place in our societies.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Temporary Class Drug) (No. 3) Order 2015

Anne McLaughlin Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2016 General Committees

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

I agree with most of what has been said, and I will certainly not oppose the order. However, I have one question. The matter will be dealt with under the Psychoactive Substances Bill, but in the meantime we are dealing with this order. I understood that the Psychoactive Substances Bill was due to come back towards the end of last year or the beginning of this year, so my question is: when is it likely to come back? As we are legislating today, I am concerned that there might be a delay.

Healthcare: Yarl’s Wood

Anne McLaughlin Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) on her heartfelt, moving speech. I want to thank her for crying—I am not the only one who does that in this place. She said that she wanted to be the voice for women detained in Yarl’s Wood and she has been that incredibly well today. Her demonstration of how deeply she feels will matter to them when they watch the debate.

If the UK Government need more evidence of the desperate human consequences of unlimited incarceration of vulnerable people, the shameful reports of inadequate healthcare as well as the dire treatment of female detainees in Yarl’s Wood should be telling enough for them to abandon their inhumane policies. I appeal to the Minister, who I know has a humane side to him—sometimes a very humane side—to do something now. We are waiting on the outcome of reports, but we already have significant reports, so we should not wait for more of them before we do anything.

Yarl’s Wood is a prison for people who have committed no crime, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) pointed out, where diabolical health and safety standards threaten the lives of innocent people, many of whom have already been victims of torture and trauma. Evidence of the degrading, inhumane consequences of indefinite detention shows the vital need for time-limited detention as a matter of urgency. The Scottish National party has long supported that. The UK Government are fundamentally failing to protect some of the most vulnerable women seeking refuge.

Yarl’s Wood fails to meet the most basic standards of health and safety for detainees and is a “place of national concern”. Those are not my words, but those of the chief inspector of prisons, Nick Hardwick. I sincerely hope that the Government will listen to that and do something as a matter of urgency.

I want to return to something that the hon. Member for Edmonton talked about. Last year, 90 of the 99 pregnant women detained were later released and not deported. I think it was the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and the hon. Member for—[Interruption.] She and the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy)—I do that in every debate—asked, if 90 of those women were later allowed to go to homes in the UK, what were they doing there in the first place? The hon. Member for Bishop’s Stortford—

[Mrs Spelman]

Good try—Meriden. [Laughter.]

[Anne McLaughlin]

The constituency names do not come up on the Annunciator in Westminster Hall. In an equally moving speech, the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman) noted that in 2015 there were—I think she said—only two pregnant women in Yarl’s Wood. I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether that is because the Government are now politically opposed to the detention of pregnant women and whether we can expect that number to go down rather than up.

I also pay tribute to the right hon. Lady for speaking movingly about how deeply she feels about the situation, and in particular for mentioning her experience of miscarriage. That is not an easy thing to do, but she recognised her duty to do that to highlight the problems faced by other women.

I share the shame that the hon. Member for Walthamstow mentioned she feels. She did something important: she spoke in this place the words of women currently in detention. The hon. Member for Rotherham—I know where she represents—has been a true champion of those seeking asylum. She rightly questioned why 90 pregnant women were at Yarl’s Wood in the first place if they were released.

The SNP has long called for an end to the unlimited detention—imprisonment, in fact—of migrants. It recently advocated that a 28-day maximum time limit be written into the Immigration Bill, based on evidence that being locked up for any longer would be catastrophic for the detainees’ health. An unlimited period of detention not only causes damage to health, but is a fundamentally unnecessary and expensive exercise.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), who is our immigration spokesperson, asked a parliamentary question in September about the cost per capita of detaining someone in one of these centres. The reply from the Home Office was that last year the average cost to hold an individual in detention was £91 per day. I would argue, as others have, that that money could be better spent elsewhere. The Home Office has also said that the UK detains immigrants only as a last resort, but in 2013 it detained just over 30,000. Germany detained just over 4,000, Belgium just over 6,000 and Sweden almost 3,000. During that time, Germany received four times as many asylum applications as the UK, and I do not think anyone would accuse Germany of being a soft touch. We are the only EU country to have no time limit on detention.

Many of the women detained at Yarl’s Wood have backgrounds that include trafficking and torture, as well as physical and mental abuse. A young woman who fled persecution in Uganda on account of her sexuality talked about the lack of support for those with mental health problems and how the lack of appropriate healthcare in the detention centre led to suicidal thoughts. I understand that some counselling services were withdrawn last year; will the Minister give us an update on that? Surely that was a mistake and those services will be reinstated, because if anywhere needs it, it is that place. We must address the failures not only in Yarl’s Wood but in the immigration system as a whole. We cannot put up with a prison-like system, not only because of the financial consequences, but because of the devastating human cost, which is simply not just.

I pay tribute to a choir that came to this place from Manchester at Christmas. In fact, they might have sung in this Chamber. They are called WAST—Women Asylum Seekers Together—and it was incredibly moving to witness them just before Christmas. All the women had been in detention and were now out, but the damage that had been done to them, by not only the detention but whatever had happened in their past, was visible.

I conclude by repeating something I have said on more than one occasion in this place. I know that we no longer detain children, but I am going to use the words of a 10-year-old boy who I knew extremely well. He was in Yarl’s Wood with his mother and could stand it no longer, and said to her, “Mummy, please can we just die? Please, dying would be better than this. Let us die.” That child was 10 years old. It does not matter what age someone is; if we are doing something to people that makes them feel like they want to die, we have to do something about it. We cannot keep waiting for report after report after report. Listen to the reports that have come out already and take action as soon as possible.