Immigration Bill

Anne McLaughlin Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

As somebody who served with the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) and others on the Bill Committee, there is a terrible sense of déjà vu, to put it politely, or “Groundhog Day”, not so politely, about this debate. We had a lot of these debates and discussions in Committee. I hope that those who did not join me in voting as I did in Committee would at least recognise that it was a very thoughtful process in which we went through the whole Bill in great depth and a great raft of amendments were tabled and debated. However, even the Opposition parties managed to run out of steam, allowing the usual channels to pull stumps some little time before the Committee stage was scheduled to finish. I hope that that in no way suggests that we cantered with unseemly haste through the important issues that the Bill seeks to address.

My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), who is no longer in her place, hit the nail on the head, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) in Committee. This is probably one of the most important issues that this House and this Parliament will deal with. If we get it right, we will engender a sense of an understanding of fair play and that this place “gets it”. If we get it wrong, we will seem to be even more disengaged from the communities that we seek to serve.

I am lucky to represent a predominantly rural constituency where even a casual glance at the census returns would suggest that immigration was not an issue that would be raised on the doorstep or in meetings. However, even in rural North Dorset, it has been, and continues to be, such an issue.

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

I represent a constituency that has a significant proportion of people who have come from other countries, and immigration was raised with me on the doorstep once in the course of a year. Parties such as the United Kingdom Independence party tend to do well in areas where there are few immigrants, so it is perception that is causing people to have a problem with immigration rather than reality.

[Simon Hoare]

This is noteworthy for Hansard—the hon. Lady and I have found something on which we agree. What we are seeking to do—this sits at the kernel of the Bill—is to shoot UKIP’s fox: the idea that the country, the Government, Parliament, Westminster or Whitehall has become rather soft and flabby on this issue and needs to—

[Anne McLaughlin]

rose—

[Simon Hoare]

Let me address the hon. Lady’s first intervention and then I will be happy to give way to her again.

Although I represent North Dorset, I have the most enormous pleasure—the first prize in the lottery of life—to be a Welshman. I was hoping for some supportive comments there, but no. I come from Cardiff—a very mixed, culturally diverse city, which, thank God, has hitherto had very little tension between the communities. However, it was becoming an issue back in the 2010 election, and people are very keen, irrespective of the immigrant make-up of a community, to address it. That is what this Bill is all about, and what all these amendments—

[Simon Hoare]

Before I give way to my hon. Friend I must first take the intervention from the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin).

[Anne McLaughlin]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that rather than shooting UKIP’s fox with this Bill, the Government are allowing the party that has one single MP in this place to make the rules and are pandering to what it calls for?

[Simon Hoare]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. All I would say to him in reply is that the Bill has been brought forward in the United Kingdom Parliament and has had full and forensic discussion both on Second Reading and in Committee, as it will today on Report and, doubtless, on Third Reading. I suggest he should say to his friends holding ministerial office and other positions of power in Scotland and the Scottish Parliament that, when they are in effect carrying out duties passed to them under a devolved settlement, they should ensure that how they deliver such policies and put them in place on the ground always reflects the national law of the land.

When I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, I was simply concluding that if the new clauses and amendments, which would in effect devolve immigration to Holyrood, were agreed to, the United Kingdom Government would by definition need to find ways of controlling the movement of people from Scotland south into England, and very possibly people going from the south to the north as well. As I have said, we teased out in Committee—both in the evidence sessions and the other sittings—the SNP’s firm commitment to have an open-door policy and no fetters on immigration. My constituents in the south of England will be grossly alarmed by that.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House anything that any SNP Member said that leads him to believe we support an open-door, open-borders policy? I cannot think of anything, and I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) cannot do so. What is the hon. Gentleman referring to?

[Simon Hoare]

Unlike Lord Green, I had no difficulty understanding what she and the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), who knows precisely what I am referring to, said at any time in Committee. However, the tone and the tenor, the winks and the nods, and the direction of travel of the questions and the amendments in Committee—and, indeed, of the amendments today—can only lead one to assume that SNP Members, for reasons that are entirely respectable for them to deploy, do not believe in having any control of immigration at all. That is the narrative arising from the heartland of the hon. Lady’s speeches. The hon. Gentleman, who was also a member of the Public Bill Committee, told us that nobody raised with him the issue of immigration on the doorstep during the election campaign.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend makes an apposite point. This must all be about fairness, about robust regulations, about proper ministerial oversight and about the scrutiny of ministerial duties by this place. That is absolutely the right chain of command. We all know that things go wrong, whether in the healthcare system, in education, in the police or in the armed forces. Regulations are not necessarily followed to the letter, but—this is a horrible phrase that we all trot out and it sounds frightfully trite—lessons will be learned. I do not say this to be sycophantic, but my right hon. Friend the Minister has humanity and compassion at his core, and he will always ensure that those regulations are fair and that they are applied fairly.

On the subject of fairness, I want to say a few words about workers, employees, employers, landlords and housing. The hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras and I have discussed the fact that a survey might produce results that suggest x, y and z, and that we can extrapolate data from that, however small or large the sample pool is. The rules and regulations that now govern access to the private rental property market—certainly those that apply to affordable housing—are pretty strict and robust. In conjunction with the clauses in the Bill that introduce new responsibilities for employees and employers, one is tempted to say, not as a cheap, knocking political point, that the quantum has become so large due to the rather shy—nay, potentially deleterious—attitude of Labour when in government.

The Government and their agencies cannot seek to solve all these problems. That is why it is perfectly proper to expect a landlord who is just about to enter into a rental agreement, and his or her agent, to carry out the most forensic tests possible to ensure the legitimacy and qualification of the individual or family seeking accommodation. That will not place a particular onus on them. In order to avoid the scenario that the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras has raised, the advice given by the Residential Landlords Association to its members and the advice given to the residential letting agencies will have to make it clear what their duties are. It will be important to stress to both that they are helping the Government and the country by playing an important role in addressing this issue.

That takes me from the right of access to housing to the question of access to work, from the point of view of the employee and the employer. The Bill is absolutely right to address these issues, and the amendments are at best mischievous and at worst devious as they attempt fundamentally to undermine the provisions. I have little doubt that employers, whether large or small, usually seek to kick back from any new regulations or guidance under which they will have to operate, but that should not fetter our need to impose such regulations if we are convinced of their efficacy. I am convinced of the efficacy of the measures in the Bill, and I believe that the amendments would undermine them.

There is no point in hon. Members, irrespective of which side of the political divide they might fall, wringing their hands about trafficking, slavery or forced labour, if, when an opportunity arises to augment previous legislation such as the rules in the Act governing gangmasters, they then say, “Oh no, this is a step too far. This will place too great an onus on the employer. We must seek to resist this.” That sends a mixed and confusing message to those evil individuals who are now benefiting in labour and cash terms from forced and indentured labour. I stress that this is just my judgment of the matter, but if the Bill as amended in Committee does not prevail, it will be holed below the waterline. That is why, if and when the official Opposition or Scottish National party Members press any of their new clauses or amendments to a Division, I shall be trotting into the No Lobby, where I hope many of my hon. and right hon. Friends will join me.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I spent five long weeks on the Immigration Bill Committee. It was an interesting experience, but unfortunately I found very little I could agree with. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) and I, and hon. colleagues on the Labour Benches, did some pretty forensic questioning. The conclusion I certainly reached from the responses that we got was that the motivation behind much of the Bill was not as stated. It cannot be, because it is clear that much of it will not work, and that it will not do what it apparently sets out to do. What it will do, however, is impact negatively on anyone who does not look, sound or even seem to be British.

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the right to rent is a good example of the problem that she is highlighting, in that landlords might be scared to rent to someone who might not seem to be British?

[Anne McLaughlin]

My hon. Friend has taken the words right out of my mouth. I was about to say that the right to rent is the perfect example of that.

The Residential Landlords Association has made it clear that its landlords are worried that fear of committing a criminal offence, by inadvertently renting to the wrong person, will lead to them behaving in a racist manner, because they will simply not take on as a tenant anyone about whom they have doubts—because they are not white, because their surname is not British sounding or because they do not have a passport. They will not take the risk. Making it harder for those people to get accommodation will put some of them in danger. They might have no choice about where they lay their head at night and, in some circumstances, with whom, or they could end up on the street. I do not want that for people who have the right to live here; nor do I want it for people who do not have that right. I do not want it for anyone.

If the Government were to write the script for a film, it would be a black and white one, in more ways than one. It would be very straightforward. In their mind, if someone is refused asylum and we squeeze the life out of them by forcing them on to the street and starving them, they will simply stroll up to UK Visas and Immigration one day and say, “Okay, I give in. You win. Send me home.” We never get to know what happens to them, but here in Britain, we all live happily ever after.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

We discussed this matter in Committee. The hon. Lady refers to asylum seekers. Does she mean failed asylum seekers—in other words, people who have claimed asylum but whose claims have not been upheld—because obviously, those who are asylum seekers are supported through the system?

[Anne McLaughlin]

I thank the Minister for giving me the opportunity to make a point about the language that we use. He says “failed asylum seekers”; I say “refused asylum seekers”. Let us not forget that the majority of those who are refused—or failed—by this Government go on to win their appeal when it comes to court.

[Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

The hon. Lady uses the phrase “asylum seekers”. Does she accept that the Bill focuses on a range of categories of people who are living here and may become illegal, and is not specifically targeted at asylum seekers?

[Anne McLaughlin]

I absolutely am aware of that, but we have limited time so I have to focus on the most important impact this part of the Bill will have on people. That is why I am talking about the most vulnerable people and they are the asylum seekers who have been refused.

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady believe that any asylum seeker should be failed?

[Anne McLaughlin]

I would not use that language about anyone, but I understand that people come here seeking asylum who are not entitled to it. I made that clear in Committee, as did all members of the Committee. I am talking about asylum seekers who do need our help, who should be entitled to asylum and who tend to win their appeals. It is therefore accepted that they do require asylum and we need to give it to them.

Right to rent will not provide the Government’s desired “happy ever after”. It simply will not work, but it will increase discrimination and racism. It certainly should not be implemented in Scotland without seeking the permission of Members of the Scottish Parliament, to whom housing is devolved, among other things. It should be removed in its entirety from the Bill.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

The hon. Lady’s party has often repeated the call for a more relaxed approach to asylum. In fact, it opposes the enforced removal of failed asylum seekers and pledged in its last manifesto to close the Dungavel detention centre, which is the only such centre in Scotland, making this very much an English problem.

[Anne McLaughlin]

There are a number of countries across the world, if the hon. Gentleman cares to read up on this, that do not make much use of detention, but use other ways of enabling people. Indeed, the family returns process in this country works very successfully to return a number of families when there is no other option for them. It is not essential to always detain people.

If our amendments to get rid of right to rent are unsuccessful, I ask the Government to accept amendment 46, which relates to something that I cannot believe is anything other than an oversight. In Committee, I asked for a bit more detail on when someone who provides a roof over a destitute person’s head becomes liable to criminal prosecution. There are many people who already do that as volunteers in an act of compassion or, if we want to bring the Christian faith into it, as other Members have done, as good Samaritans. I want clarity that those people will not find themselves facing court or even prison simply for showing kindness to another person.

I have received only partial reassurance from the Minister, thus amendment 46. Getting full reassurance on this matter is more important than it has ever been, because more people will need this kindness than ever before if the Bill goes through as it is. There will also be more people offering such support. One of the greatest reactions to the refugee crisis that escalated over the summer months was people, in their thousands, asking how they could help. Members on both sides of the House said how proud we were of those people. “Let them in,” they said, “and we will house them.” Thousands of people right across these islands offered to open their homes to house those in desperate need.

At that time, the offer was in response to the mainly Syrian refugees. Of course, refugees who have been granted leave to remain will not be affected—at least, not directly—by the Bill because accommodation will be provided for them. However, now that the debate has started, people are looking at the asylum seekers who are already in the UK with fresh eyes. Charities are saying to the people who offered help, “We have many refused asylum seekers who are currently destitute. Why not house them instead?” However, if they do so and the Bill goes through unamended, those kind, compassionate, generous people could be criminalised.

I said that the Minister has given me partial reassurance and I will explain why. If no money changes hands, there is no issue. People are allowed to let a refused asylum seeker—or failed asylum seeker, as Government Members like to say—stay at their home as long as no money is exchanged. That was welcome news to organisations in my city of Glasgow, such as Unity and Positive Action in Housing, which both do an incredible job in keeping vulnerable people off the streets with very little funding.

However, what if a householder cannot afford to do that? What if they are rich in compassion, but poor in finances? It costs money to let another person live in one’s home. There are heating costs, lighting costs and food costs. Even if it is not part of the agreement, people will hardly sit down to dinner knowing that another person under their roof is going hungry. Some charities therefore pay a nominal sum to the householder—not a profit-making amount or a commercial rent, but a nominal sum to cover their costs. I have had no reassurance about where those people stand. In response to that question, the Minister said that exemptions had been made for refuges that house victims of trafficking. Why not exempt anyone who houses a refused asylum seeker because otherwise they would have to live on the street? Are the Government really going to make criminals of those people, who are still volunteers because they are not making any money out of it? Will the Minister criminalise them for having the decency to share what they have with a stranger in trouble and for not being wealthy enough to cover the increased costs themselves?

What about the charities? There are charities, such as the Action Foundation in Newcastle, that seek out philanthropic landlords who will make the houses that they own available for refused asylum seekers to rent at a heavily discounted rate that is paid by the charity. Those philanthropic landlords will now be committing a criminal offence, but will the charities also be committing an offence? They need to know. Do the Government really intend for that to happen? Other groups, such as Abigail Housing in Leeds and Open Doors Hull, provide accommodation not in family homes, but in houses that are lent by their owners, empty vicarages and church buildings. Abigail Housing raises funds in order to pay a nominal rent, not a commercial rent. Nobody is making a profit.

Dozens of charities, individuals and church groups across these islands are carrying out this kind of work. Will they be committing an offence? It certainly seems that those who support their charitable aims by providing the accommodation will be. Are men and women of God to be prosecuted for doing as the Bible asks them to do and not turning the other cheek? Are the Government comfortable with potentially having to imprison faith leaders for up to five years? I urge the Government to think again, otherwise they are saying to the thousands of people who responded to the refugee crisis in a manner that we were all rightly proud of, “No, you can’t help. Yes, there is a need and we are going to increase that need by making more refused asylum seekers homeless, but if you dare to help, we will criminalise you.”

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Lady makes her points with the same eloquence and passion that she showed in Committee. She asked me to evidence what I said about the open-door policy and what I perceive the SNP’s position to be, but she has effectively just done that. She is talking about refused asylum seekers, and those who have no right to be here, being allowed to stay for as long as they like, based on the philanthropy of individuals. Such philanthropy is to be championed and supported, but when people have gone through the whole process and their claim has been refused, surely she will admit that it is time for them to go home.

[Anne McLaughlin]

The hon. Gentleman, and his Government, know full well that some people simply cannot go home. Indeed, people in such circumstances are often sent not home but to detention centres, where they languish for a long time because they cannot be sent home. I am not talking about every asylum seeker, or about keeping people here indefinitely; I am saying that we should not criminalise people who open their homes to those in desperate need. To be clear, I oppose the right to rent in its entirety, and I question the British Government’s right to override the wishes of the Scottish Parliament. I hope that this particular topical issue will turn out to be simply an anomaly that the Government will put right.

[Mr Burrowes]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, and I will speak to the new clauses to which my name has been added. New clauses 8, 9, 13 and 32 are unique in that they have a cross-party feel, which should not go unnoticed. I have not had the pleasure of being involved in all stages of the Bill, but I think that cross-party support for these new clauses is a unique aspect to our deliberations; I do not think it has happened until now. As the Minister has noticed, there is cross-party concern about the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) about fair play. We are concerned to ensure that our immigration system stands up to scrutiny from beginning to end, and that fair play is imbued within it.

Fair play matters for those who shout loudest and campaign loudly—whether before elections or in other campaigns throughout the year—just as much as it matters for those who are relatively voiceless, or perhaps do not even have a vote. Fair play should be about “the other” and those who are not as loud, and we want to uphold the fundamental British values of fairness and due process. Indeed, one could refer back to Magna Carta when considering issues of detention, and the right and duty to detain people only after fair and due process, and not for administrative purposes alone. Although I concede that immigration detention is not the main purpose of the Bill, it will not surprise the Minister that these new clauses have been tabled.

When dealing with detention, it is important that we uphold principles that have stood this country well for many years. The rest of the world looks at how we handle detention and whether we do so with fairness, and when dealing with those who are detained for administrative reasons, the bar is set that much higher. We must be proportionate, reasonable, and do things in a limited way, so that a limited number of people are in detention for as short a time as possible. Regardless of whether the new clauses are accepted, we must ensure that that principle is applied.

--- Later in debate ---

That naturally brings us to amendment 20, for which I think there is an incredibly strong argument. It is hugely important that we insert a defence for somebody who finds themselves, through no fault of their own, coerced, exploited and enslaved to provide labour. I said on Second Reading that we should insert such a defence. When we talk of slavery, many in the Chamber will hark back to the good old days of William Wilberforce. As a country, we have a considerable heritage and a proud tradition of standing against slavery, but when Wilberforce got involved in anti-slavery movements in 1787, he was preceded by a Belfast man called Thomas McCabe, who in 1786, in response to the creation of a company with slave ships in Belfast, disrupted the meeting at which the agreements were to be signed and declared: “May God wither the hand of any man who signs this declaration to create this company.” He started an anti-slavery revolution in Belfast that spread to the rest of the UK and started a tradition we proudly remember today.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the UK not only abolished slavery but took full advantage of the slave trade and benefited from it, and that we continue to benefit from its inheritance?

[Gavin Robinson]

I am focusing on anti-slavery because we have a proud tradition of standing against those who exploit others and for those who are exploited. The hon. Lady makes the point that it continues today; I am making the point that in today’s debate, as we focus on amendment 20, we should not lose sight of the compassion this country has shown, continues to show and should show. That is why I support the amendment.

The hon. Member for North Dorset referred to the Minister’s compassionate heart. I do not doubt he has such a heart, but I believe that the small insertion of a defence would be preferable to the suggestion in Committee to let the decision be solely at the discretion of the Director of Public Prosecutions. If we, as the supreme Parliament of this country, cannot insert a defence and ask the DPP to exercise discretion in certain circumstances, what direction should she take in doing so? It is our role as parliamentarians to say that if somebody is being, or has been, exploited or enslaved in this country, the DPP should consider what we intended the defence to be against the offence of illegal working. I do not consider that to be an onerous insertion or amendment for the Government to consider. Every response to date has indicated that, as we heard on Second Reading, discretion should be provided and that such defences exist already in the Modern Slavery Act. If, therefore, there is no resistance to the prospect of such a defence, why not make provision for it?

I look forward to contributing to the further tranche of amendments, but for now I have outlined where my party stands on the current group.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendments 30 and 31 are concerned with appeal rights. Under the Bill, asylum seekers refused support under section 95 of the 1999 Act will retain their right of appeal. That appeal is extended to those refused support whose further submissions on protection grounds are accepted, or may be treated, as a fresh asylum claim. However, the Bill does not provide a right of appeal to failed asylum seekers refused further support because they do not face a genuine obstacle that prevents their departure from the UK when they have exhausted their appeal rights against the refusal of asylum. Common examples of a genuine obstacle will be where medical evidence shows the person is unfit to travel or there is evidence that an application for the necessary travel document has been submitted and is still outstanding. These are generally straightforward matters of fact which do not require a right of appeal.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Does the Minister agree that the children of parents who will not return—to my mind, mostly because they cannot—face genuine obstacles to returning, namely their parents, and that we should therefore support those children because they have absolutely no choice in the matter?

[James Brokenshire]

We had detailed and considered debate about this in Committee, to which the hon. Lady was party. The point I made there is that the family returns process engages with this so that we assist and work with families to bring about their return. She will recall our debates about the support that can still be made available by local authorities in respect of destitution cases. That support is potentially still available as we continue, as part of this process, to assist families in their entirety, with the appropriate safeguards, in seeing that they are returned if they do not have the right to remain in the UK.

The appeal statistics on asylum support do not give the full picture. In the year to August 2015, 37% of asylum support appeals were dismissed. Forty-one per cent. were allowed, but in many cases this was because the person provided only in their appeal the evidence required for support to be granted. Many of the remainder were remitted for reconsideration or withdrawn, in many cases also in the light of new evidence provided in the appeal. Few appeals related to the issue of whether there was a practical obstacle to departure from the UK. The previous independent chief inspector of borders and immigration found in his July 2014 report on asylum support that 89% of refusals were reasonably based on the evidence available at the time.

Amendments 42 to 45 would reverse the Bill’s reforms of support for adult migrant care leavers and require that they be provided with local authority support under leaving care legislation, even though all their applications and appeals to stay here have been refused. We believe that these changes are wrong in principle. Public money should not be used to support illegal migrants, including failed asylum seekers, who can leave the UK and should do so. The amendments would create obvious incentives for more unaccompanied children to come to the UK to make an unfounded asylum claim, often by using dangerous travel routes controlled by smugglers and traffickers. We are speaking of adults. If their asylum claim has been finally refused, automatic access to further support from the local authority should cease at that point. The Bill makes appropriate provision for their support before they leave the UK.

Amendment 2 would allow permission to work where an asylum claim has been outstanding after only six months, remove the caveat that any delay must not be of the asylum seeker’s own making, and lift all restrictions on the employment available. As we debated in Committee, we do not consider this to be sensible. We met our public commitments to decide all straightforward asylum claims lodged before April 2014 by 31 March 2015 and to decide all straightforward claims lodged from 1 April 2014 within six months. About 85% of cases are straightforward. We judge that this policy strikes the right balance. If an asylum claim remains undecided after 12 months, for reasons outside the person’s control, they can apply for permission to work in employment on the shortage occupation list. This is fair, reasonable and consistent with EU law.

Immigration Bill (Fifteenth sitting)

Anne McLaughlin Excerpts

Tuesday 17th November 2015 Public Bill Committees

[James Brokenshire]

As the Government have explained, the new offences relating to landlords and agents will be targeted at cases where there has been repeated or particularly serious behaviour as regards renting to illegal migrants or failing to evict them. As I made clear and as we have debated previously, it is not intended to target landlords who are unaware that someone is disqualified from renting, nor will such landlords meet the

“knows or has reasonable cause to believe”

threshold required for commission of the offence. It is not intended to take steps to prosecute landlords who are taking reasonable steps to remove someone they know to be disqualified from their property. I recognise that, in part, new clause 8 goes over ground that we have debated at length in Committee, therefore I do not see a need to rerehearse some of the issues debated previously.

New clause 9 touches on some different points and seeks to place lodgers and instances where a person is renting to a family member outside the scope of the right to rent scheme. That was debated at some length at the time of the Immigration Act 2014 and was considered by the House in the context of its application to lodgers. There is already guidance about the position of those renting to close family. For example, undertaking a right to rent check provides a landlord with an excuse as regards the civil penalty. Where someone is confident that their family member is lawfully in the UK, there will be no need for them to undertake the checks to establish that excuse.

Our concern is that taking lodgers out of the scheme will mean that a significant number of illegal migrants and those who exploit them are left untouched, in essence creating a gap in the legislation. That would provide an easy means by which rogue landlords could avoid any sanctions, for instance by arguing that the property was their family home or by arranging for one tenant to take in another occupant as a lodger. Sadly, we know that there is exploitation, there are rogue landlords and that that is a risk. We believe that the checks are straightforward and should be no more difficult for someone letting out a spare room than for any other person who might be within the ambit of the Bill, for example through a formal tenancy. Anyone who accepts remuneration for renting property should accept the responsibilities involved in doing so, such as carrying out the basic checks previously debated and discussed in Committee. The concern about the gap that would be created and the risk that it might lead to further exploitation, with people being taken advantage of, means that we judge that this provision is not appropriate.

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

The Minister might remember that in a Committee sitting a couple of weeks ago I asked whether people who let out or gave a room via a charity, for no money or a token sum to cover their rising costs, were already exempt. I did not get an answer at the time, and I do not know whether that was because the Minister forgot, or did not want, to answer. Might this be an appropriate time to ask the question again? There are charities that fix destitute people up with others who have a spare room, and with some of the charities the person gets no recompense and with others they get a tiny amount to cover the increased fuel and other costs. Were such people already exempt, or will they be covered by the provisions?

[James Brokenshire]

I am sorry if I did not respond previously and I can assure the hon. Lady that it would certainly not have been from not wanting to answer. As she knows, a number of points are made during a debate and sometimes one might inadvertently pass over one of them. In respect of the right to rent scheme, and therefore the statutory excuse, which is what we are talking about, if no money changes hands the arrangement is exempt. I do not know if that helps her. There has to be what would be described in legal terms as some sort of payment or consideration for someone to be captured.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I am pleased to hear that, but some charities give a tiny, token amount for a donated room. It obviously costs more to have somebody living in a spare room, so the amount is not a profit or a commercial arrangement—it is just a token amount to cover the additional costs. Would that circumstance be exempt or would we have to introduce a provision at a later stage to exempt it?

[James Brokenshire]

It is obviously difficult, nor would it be right, for me to comment on specific arrangements. I have already talked about refuges and the separate exemptions that apply regarding the support provided for victims of trafficking, and in other circumstances within the definitions that were set out. I have spoken about the issue of nothing of monetary value changing hands, but ultimately we are looking at those with no right to be in the country. That is, I suppose, the basis of the question, and therefore some charitable support might be provided in other circumstances. That is why I must be careful in understanding the specifics, but I think that existing exemptions apply, and these were considered in detail when the right to rent scheme was original considered by the House. There are specific exemptions that we judge to be appropriate, and which cover, in particular, issues of vulnerability and abuse. Refuges play an incredible and essential role in providing appropriate support, and they are normally run by charities and other non-governmental organisations. It was right to put in those exemptions and we judge that they remain appropriate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

On a point of order, Mr Owen, I join the Minister in thanking so many members of the teams. In particular, I thank you and Mr Bone, for chairing these proceedings. It has been invaluable to me, in particular, going through such a process for the first time, and has ensured that we have got through quite difficult, technical business in an efficient way which has provided the safeguards that this process is intended to provide. We are all very grateful for that.

I extend my gratitude to the Clerks, who have helped not only in the proceedings themselves but in the preparation as well, and have ensured that we have gone through this process in the best possible way, and to all the support staff, in whatever capacity, both in this Room and sitting behind both teams. The support may be different and perhaps more luxurious on the other side, but that support is vital for both sides, to enable issues to be untangled where they can be untangled quickly and to allow probing, testing and challenge. The process has been useful.

I have had some difficult briefs in my time. In terms of the likelihood of ever winning a single vote, this goes down as one of the most difficult. I thought for one brief moment that we might just have sealed one vote a moment ago, but that was not to be. That is a reflection on the process, but I thank the Minister and the Solicitor General for the way they have dealt with our questions, the information they have provided and the assurances they have given on issues that are of real concern, not only in the Committee but to many people outside who will be affected by the Bill. They have willingly written or put on the record their position where they have agreed to meet our concerns, and we are grateful for that.

Perhaps we should add our thanks to the witnesses who came and gave their time and their evidence to the Committee, both orally and in writing.

[Anne McLaughlin]

On a point of order, Mr Owen, I am beginning to feel a bit sorry for Mr Bone, because this is twice you have had this. Perhaps you have engineered it this way. I add my thanks, on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North and myself, to everyone involved. This is obviously our first time on a Public Bill Committee. I was a Member of the Scottish Parliament for two years, but I never served on a Bill Committee. I was on the Audit Committee and the Petitions Committee, so this is completely new to me. As well as the Clerks, colleagues in the Labour party have been so helpful and generous. Our own researchers have been really good.

I will always remember my first experience on a Bill Committee as being a little like ceilidh dancing in that you work out exactly what you are doing just as the music stops. I am desperate for my next Bill Committee, because it has all now clicked into place.

It is not often that I have anything positive to say about Members on the Government Benches. [Hon. Members: “Oh!] They bring it on themselves. While the entire Bill is wrong and everything they said is wrong, the way in which it was said was respectful and the responses were comprehensive. While I completely disagree with everything that is being done, I thank Government Members, particularly the two Ministers. It was helpful and useful to have them here, and everything was done respectfully. However, I was worried when the Minister for Immigration said that it had been a measured debate, because I feel like I have not done my job properly.

Finally, I thank all the stakeholders and witnesses, who were incredible. I have read some of the really interesting evidence again, and they advised us and suggested amendments and taught me so much. I am looking forward to my next Bill Committee because of my experience here. I just want to thank everyone again and to thank my mum. I will sit down now.

[The Chair]

I am grateful. The last three contributions are known as bogus points of order, but they have been accepted and will be recorded because they were so eloquent. I want to echo what has been said and to say that we deal with serious matters in such Committees, but we have done so in a way that is a credit to Parliament. I am grateful to both Front-Bench and Back-Bench Members for their contributions. I also want to single out the Clerks for their excellent preparatory work before our meetings.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.

Paris Terrorist Attacks

Anne McLaughlin Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I can only respond to my hon. Friend by saying, “Nous sommes solidaires avec vous. Nous sommes tous ensembles.”

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

May I add my voice to those who have condemned the barbaric attacks on France, the Lebanon and those who were flying from Egypt to Russia? One of my many concerns is that, as has been said, there has been and will be a rise in Islamophobia. I welcome the Home Secretary’s acknowledgement that Muslims across the world are standing up and saying, “Not in my name.” In the light of that, I encourage everyone in this House to stop using the name of Islam when talking about these terrorists. It appears in the names that the terrorists have given themselves: ISIS, ISIL and Islamic State. I encourage everyone to use the term Daesh. It is a derogatory term, but they deserve it. That might break the link in people’s minds between Islam and terrorism.

[Mrs May]

I have considerable sympathy with the point the hon. Lady makes. I often use the term Daesh. As it happens, I have not done so this afternoon. She is absolutely right that this group is not Islamic and is not a state. We should not give the impression that either of those is the case.

Immigration Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Anne McLaughlin Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Public Bill Committees

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

The amendment is a common-sense proposal that will limit a policy that has been shown to be ineffective, costly and inhumane. Personally, I find it extremely frustrating that the Home Office’s own evaluation of the evidence highlights the problems with these proposals—primarily, that they do not work—yet we see the proposals being driven through by the Government regardless. I have to question why the Government are not listening to themselves.

We have heard from local authorities that what these policies end up doing is displacing the cost of support, in some cases from central Government to local government. In other cases, the costs are borne by charities and individuals who give their own income to support asylum seekers.

We have heard once or twice—or 45 times—in the course of our deliberations on the Bill that we have a system that has been shown to be very problematic at the least, and where the accuracy of decision making is at least in question. Given the fluctuating security situation in many countries around the world, the rapid mechanised movements of Daesh being an example, further qualifying submissions could rightly highlight the dangers of returning a citizen to their home country. So it is only right, under our international and moral obligations, that we have scope for further qualifying submissions. We should not be driving people into destitution as punishment for using those, no matter how short the length of time.

If any of us in this room were destitute for one day, we would probably be severely damaged by it. There is a saying that my mother still uses all the time. I do not know if it is a McLaughlin saying, a west of Scotland saying, or just a saying, but it is true that we do not know we are born. I am not seeing many nodding heads—it is not a McLaughlin saying. We do not appreciate what we have got and how it would be so difficult for any of us to go through what we are proposing to put other people through.

If an asylum seeker’s initial case has been decided upon, given the restricted support on offer throughout the case, combined with the length of time for that decision, the risk of grave consequences, including destitution, for those who are not supported for a period after lodging further submissions could be quite catastrophic for that individual and, in my opinion, shameful for these islands. I want no part in that.

That takes me on to amendment 225, which seeks to ensure that those who have received a decision on a claim based on further submissions are not cast into destitution on receipt of their decision. Studies from the Red Cross, the Refugee Council and Freedom from Torture have all found that the existing 28 days for successful claimants is insufficient. The amendment should be treated as a measure to streamline the system. If a claimant is ultimately successful, the grace period will support the obtaining of documentation to begin work. If the claimant is unsuccessful, the proposed grace period will allow the individual to make arrangements to leave the UK and reduce the likelihood of the expense and trauma caused by detention. If compassion is not a motivation, amendment 225 proposes what would be implemented in a system based on best practice and common sense.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne McLaughlin]

I always find—I am sure everyone will agree—that when looking at legislation it is important to remember who we are talking about and think through who will be affected by legislative changes. I will focus on one reason why amendment 226 is so important. I want to share with the Committee the story of Zara, whom I came to know extremely well, though not as well as my sister came to know her.

It took a long time for the trust to build up with Zara. She was extremely religious, came from a middle eastern country as an asylum seeker and had been refused asylum. She was therefore destitute. She came to trust my sister and, in her broken English, eventually managed to tell her what she needed. I do not want to say the words I am going to say, but I am going to say them anyway. What she needed was sanitary towels. She shared two stories—this came later, after more trust was built up—of cringe-worthy, humiliating experiences that she had gone through because she was destitute and had no support.

Once, when Zara was coming off the bus—and before anyone complains that if she had money for bus fares she had money for hygiene products, those bus tickets were given by a Glasgow charity that helps people with getting about—she heard a little boy saying something to his mum. She could not quite make out what he was saying, but he was pointing at her, and she realised was bleeding. Any woman would feel the horror and humiliation of that, but she was extremely religious and that was just the end for her.

Another experience came when a charity had made it possible for Zara to have three nights’ accommodation in the home of a very kind person. The Committee will be able to imagine what I will say. She bled through the night—because of her erratic lifestyle she had no idea that her period was about to come—and she was horrified when she woke up in the morning, went to clean the sheets and discovered the blood had seeped through to the mattress. There was no way of hiding from that very kind person, to whom she was extremely grateful, what had happened.

[Sarah Champion]

As I listen to the story, my heart is being ripped out, but I think what disturbs me most is having to justify someone going on a bus, as if that is an extravagant luxury. Is that what we have come to?

[Anne McLaughlin]

The hon. Lady raises an important point, and I gave the justification I did because in this Committee I think I am getting to the stage when I can read the minds of some of the Conservative Members. As they did not intervene I explained how Zara managed to get on a bus.

I want to make it clear that I appreciate how uncomfortable people in this room might feel at hearing me talk about bleeding and sanitary towels. I would not normally do that; I am normally discreet, easily embarrassed and notoriously squeamish. I feel extremely uncomfortable standing here forcing myself to talk about periods, bleeding and sanitary towels, and repeating myself again and again. I am doing it because I want everyone to feel uncomfortable; I want us all to feel that discomfort, because we need to realise that whatever we feel now is a minuscule fraction of what the women I am talking about experience.

To continue reading minds, some Members might think that there are charities and good Samaritans, and ask whether help could not be got from them; but it was so painful for Zara to ask for that help. There are charities that go out to offer help, but they are primarily focused on putting a roof over someone’s head, and, if they cannot do that, on feeding them, because food is essential and hygiene products are not. They are essential only to someone’s mental wellbeing, and the charities obviously must concentrate on keeping people alive.

Again, to use telepathy—it is working well—Conservative Members may be thinking that the simple solution would be just to go home. That is all very well, but as we have heard so many times, a significant proportion of the decisions made about people are wrong. It may therefore be assumed that a significant proportion of the people who some Members may think choose to stay here and humiliate themselves with having to ask for sanitary products have no choice.

I cringe when I talk and think about Zara. I do not imagine that anyone in the room is not cringing, and I understand that, but we can do something about it. In this amendment, we are not asking for money for fripperies; we are asking for money for absolute essentials, so that people can, first, stay alive; and secondly, and just as important, are allowed their dignity. Anyone who votes against this amendment today must be honest with themselves and know that they are consciously and deliberately denying that dignity to these women and to many others. I appeal to the Minister and to Government Members to defy their Whip and vote aye—vote in favour of dignity for everyone.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone.

I apologise to the Committee if I repeat some of the comments that have already been made by my hon. Friends, but I feel we can never hammer home enough the points that we are trying to make today.

I will mainly speak to amendments 226 and 227. Amendment 226 would provide a very basic level of support—just over £5 a day—for destitute families who have been refused asylum. These amendments have three aims: to make sure that vulnerable children are not left destitute; to ensure that families continue to engage with the Home Office; and to head off the danger that the removal of asylum support will in practice see a massive transfer of responsibilities and duties of care from central to local government.

The first point is the most simple and in some ways the most powerful. To be entirely blunt, cutting support will mean that innocent families and their children will go without food or shelter. The Minister noted last week the importance of considering the best interests of children. As a civilised and compassionate nation, we cannot ignore the impact that withdrawing support would have on children’s welfare, health and wellbeing, or the very real dangers that they could be exposed to as a result of their family’s destitution. Without a safety net, families will resort to extreme measures, often turning to illegal work that drives them into the embrace of criminal gangs.

Removing support is also entirely counterproductive, in that it does not have the desired effect of encouraging families to leave the UK. Witnesses at the Committee’s evidence sessions told us the same thing time and time again—you do not get people to leave the country by cutting off their only means of support. All it does is give them every incentive to disappear and to stop engaging with the Home Office. Families will do that because given a choice between destitution in the UK or returning to a homeland where they believe they may be killed or tortured, they will choose the former as the least worst option. When we consider some of the absolutely desperate steps that people have taken to reach the UK to begin with, and that they have risked their lives to make the journey to Britain, we should not underestimate what they will do to stay here.

Removing support forces these families to find other ways to survive, and makes them easy prey for criminal gangs who will ruthlessly exploit their vulnerability for profit. One of the aims of the Bill is to tackle illegal employment, and the very welcome Modern Slavery Act in the last Parliament was intended to help to fight terrible crimes such as human trafficking. By removing support for failed asylum seekers, the Government may undermine both those aims, by gifting the criminals who prey on desperation a new group of people to target and exploit.

The Government seem to think that by encouraging people to leave the UK they can make savings, but their approach just will not have the effect that they intend. If they want to save money, they will do it by engaging people in the process of return. Some 40% of returns are voluntary, and even those that are not voluntary are made much easier when we have records on people and consequently know where to find them. Keeping people on the books costs money, but nothing compared to the alternative. The best way to save money is to conclude cases as quickly as possible, and encouraging people to drop off the radar by removing their support does the exact opposite.

Last week, the Solicitor General stated that he would write to me with full details of how judicial reviews would be funded. Obviously, I am yet to receive such details and I wonder if he could provide them today or before the end of the week.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

That is why the arrangements have been framed as part of a continuing process in respect of those whose asylum claims have not been upheld by the courts, in terms of the notification periods and further safeguards that exist.

The hon. Member for South Shields has highlighted on a number of occasions the position of local authorities and whether this measure will transfer costs and obligations to them. I have responded to that previously. We propose that Home Office support will continue to be available to a failed asylum seeker with a dependent child or children while there remains a legal obstacle to their departure from the UK—for example, outstanding further submissions, documentation not being available or practical obstacles such as medical reasons. Human rights issues should not be engaged by the cessation of Home Office support, as any risk of destitution could be avoided by the family’s departure from the UK with assistance with the required travel costs or by their compliance with the conditions of Home Office support—for example, in applying for any travel documents required to facilitate their departure. The package of measures will be subject to the new burdens assessment process in the usual way. I say to the hon. Lady that a system has been put in place to ensure that issues related to the transfer of burdens are properly factored in and addressed.

Schedule 3 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 provides for a process whereby local authorities assess human rights-related issues such as destitution. That will continue to apply. Equally, our duties in respect of children under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 will still apply. We are discussing with local authorities the practical implementation of streamlining some of the processes in schedule 6 to those in schedule 3 to the 2002 Act, to ensure that they operate efficiently and effectively. That feeds into the concept of family returns, which I spoke about previously, and the considered fashion in which we are approaching this. This is not come automatic cliff-edge point, as the provisions will apply to those who have a negative asylum decision subsequent to the Bill being in place. Therefore, it forms part of the overall removal strategy that I have previously explained.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I cannot remember his exact words, but the Minister seemed to say that families are choosing, and refusing, to go back to where they came from, and therefore they cannot get support. Without going into the arguments of whether they can go back, do the children of those parents have any choice? Can the children choose to go back to where their parents came from, or are they at the mercy of decisions made by the adults around them? If the answer is that they are at the mercy of those adult decisions, do we owe them anything?

[James Brokenshire]

I understand how the hon. Lady seeks to argue her points and I know how strongly she feels on these issues. If one follows the line of what she has just said, it would be impossible to deport any families who are here illegally. She indicated that because someone had a child, it is not the child’s fault that the family are about to be deported; therefore the family cannot be deported. I respect her position in articulating that, but I cannot agree with it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne McLaughlin]

On a point of clarification, I was not saying anything of the sort. I said that while they are here and those children have no input into the decision making, should we support them or punish them as well, because of the decisions of their parents?

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Lady says that if parents who are deliberately trying to frustrate the system have children, the state should automatically continue to support them. The point of the measures is that, on the basis of remaining obstacles, support will continue for all of the family in that situation.

That is why we have the family returns process. We have assisted return, where families are actively encouraged and assisted to leave while we put the family returns process in place, which has the humane nature of supporting people to see that they return. Obviously, where there are barriers to removal, support will remain, as I have already indicated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne McLaughlin]

The Minister is talking about people who have barriers to returning being exception, but regardless of the arguments about whether the adult is able to make that decision, the barrier to the child returning may be the parent’s decision. In that case the child will have barriers, but will not be an exception because the parents are not seen to have barriers.

On abdicating responsibility, I thought that if a parent was deemed to do that—I am not arguing that asylum-seeking parents are doing that—the state was supposed to take over. I thought that was what the legislation that the hon. Member for South Shields mentioned was about. Is there a duty on the state to take over if responsibility has been abdicated?

[James Brokenshire]

I think the hon. Lady is confusing certain issues. As I have already indicated, certain obligations exist under schedule 3 and also under section 17 of the Children Act 1989. We are discussing in detail with local authorities the interrelationship between such backstop support powers and how the different regimes fit together. That needs to be done in the joined-up fashion of understanding that if families are here unlawfully, they could and should leave and there needs to be encouragement through the returns process to ensure that they do. It is in that considered way that we propose the provisions, although hon. Members may disagree with our approach. That is, however, the stance that we seek to take, given the factors I identified and the interrelationship with local authorities I indicated.

Let me turn to amendment 227, which seeks to set the level of the cash allowances given to asylum seekers at 60% of the income support rate for people aged over 25. That would raise the amount provided from £36.95 to £43.86 a week.

The cash allowance is only one element of the support package provided to ensure that asylum seekers are not left destitute. That package needs to be seen as a whole. Accommodation is provided free and comes fully furnished and equipped with bed linen, towels and kitchen utensils. Utilities such as gas, electricity and water are also provided free. Recipients receive free healthcare and schooling for their children. The cost of travel to appointments to pursue an asylum claim—to attend asylum interviews, appeal hearings and meet legal advisers, for example—is also provided separately.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

The reason why I intervened on the hon. and learned Gentleman was that his hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham, I think, had alluded to the timing of the reports. The point that I was trying to get across—I will make it briefly in this intervention—was that, sadly, we do see people traffickers, through social media and other means, seeking to set out the position of certain member states and what people are entitled to and, in a very deliberate way, encouraging people to try to come to other European countries.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Will the Minister take an intervention?

[Keir Starmer]

The Minister was intervening on me. I take that intervention; I have no quarrel with it in any way, shape or form. This is an important point, because there is a real fairness and justice in allowing people to work if they want to work, rather than surviving on £5 a day. Most people would agree on that. The concern expressed by the Minister is that if the period is too short, it can have adverse consequences, which is a serious point that needs to be debated.

Immigration Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Anne McLaughlin Excerpts

Thursday 5th November 2015 Public Bill Committees

[The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)]

Clause 32 repeals section 3D of the Immigration Act 1971, which extends a migrant’s leave where that person’s leave to enter or remain is revoked or was varied with the result that he or she has no leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, and an appeal or administrative review of the variation or revocation decision could be brought or is pending.

Following the changes to the appeal system introduced by the Immigration Act 2014, it is no longer possible to appeal against the revocation of leave or the decision to vary leave where the consequence of that variation is that the person has no leave; it is also not possible to seek an administrative review of those decisions. Where somebody still has a pre-2014 Act appeal pending against the decision to revoke immigration leave or a relevant variation decision, there are transitional arrangements in place so that their leave extended under section 3D continues until their appeal is finally determined.

In a nutshell, given that section 3D no longer serves any purpose, it is right that it and references to it be removed from the statute book to avoid unnecessary confusion, and indeed to nod to a recent judgment by the Court of Appeal in which Lord Justice Elias said that he was concerned about over-complexity in the law in this area. It is in pursuance of that important function that I move the clause.

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

The clause will also cause problems for anyone seeking to have their claim handled in a just manner, because leave can be revoked if a person no longer meets the requirements for leave: for example, if someone is here as a spouse and they split up with their partner. Often, nobody is at fault, but imagine being the injured party who, to add insult to that injury, is then considered not to have the right to live where they have been living. By forcing the departure of those whose leave has been revoked but who are already well integrated into society and are law-abiding citizens and who have freshly been deemed illegal for whatever reason, including the one that I just mentioned, but who may in fact not be here illegally, the Government are making it difficult for justice to be done.

No immigration worker will make a correct judgment in all cases. I think we have all accepted that the accuracy of far too many judgments has been shown to be wanting by an appeal. The Minister talked about his frustration that Opposition Members seem to refer constantly to wrong decisions by the Home Office, and he is right—it is not always the Home Office’s fault—but sometimes it is about things that, although they may be the fault of the person applying, are trivial. For example, I had a friend who was married to a Sri Lankan and wanted her husband to live here with his wife and child, understandably. She was refused, and she had to start the entire process all over again because she inadvertently enclosed a photocopy of the wedding certificate instead of the original. [Interruption.] I can see from the Solicitor General’s response that we all agree that that is trivial. Sometimes it is the fault of the person applying, but the reasons are silly.

[The Solicitor General]

I am very familiar with cases of that nature, as I have many such constituency cases; I know exactly what the hon. Lady is talking about. There is an important policy purpose behind ensuring that we have original documents. I think that she can see the obvious point about the danger of relying on a copy that might not be a true representation of the original. If that is explained clearly to people—the guidance discusses the need for original documents rather than copies—hopefully such misunderstandings will cease. Probably in the case in question the application is entirely genuine, but there is a need to rely on original documents, and that is important.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I do not disagree, and my friend was very aware of the need to submit the original document; she just put the photocopy in accidentally without realising, but that meant that she had to start the entire process over again—and, if memory serves me correctly, she had to pay all over again. As well as people understanding how important it is to do the correct thing and provide the correct information, it would be useful if the Home Office could take into account the fact that someone made a mistake, and just ask them to sort it out. That is just one example.

The Government are looking at this situation the wrong way around. Instead of improving the accuracy of the original judgments or taking into account what we just talked about—the fact that problems could be sorted out relatively quickly—if feels as if they are trying to hinder reviews and appeals, worthy or not, by hampering appellants in submitting their claims. Human error alone will lead to faulty judgments which—given the consequences, such as having to appeal from overseas, or criminalisation for remaining in the UK—will inevitably lead to human suffering that could have been avoided. That is why previous legislators included a workable administrative review and appeals system. Those of us who have knowledge of that system will be familiar with its problems, but they pale into insignificance in comparison with the general policy of appeals from overseas and the criminalisation of those whose leave has expired.

There should be no doubt: those who support part 4 of the Bill will needlessly split up families. The fact that it will be impossible for families to stay together while appeals are dealt with makes a mockery of the Government’s professed support of family values. The family life of British citizens with foreign family members could hinge on such minor matters as faulty judgments, typos, stray documents or, to use my recent example, the accidental submission of a photocopy, which should be picked up during the appeal. Tat is no way to run an immigration system.

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

I want to make sure I have understood the measure. As I understand it, section 3D leave was for people whose leave had been cancelled or curtailed by the Home Office for various reasons including deception, so that they could bring an appeal—so they would be entitled to remain to bring an appeal. That seems sensible. There might be an error and it is usually best to put errors right. I have worked in a big organisation of 9,000 staff making hundreds of thousands of decisions. There is an always an error rate, however well trained the staff. It seems sensible therefore that if there has been an error the person in question should have the right to remain and appeal.

What happened, I think, is that the right of appeal was removed last year, but on an undertaking that there might be administrative review. Again, that might be quite sensible: we will remove the right of appeal but provide a different mechanism so that someone can simply correct a wrong decision. I understand that the administrative review procedure has not been put in place. Now, in cases where a decision is made to cancel someone’s leave, the Government want to strike out section 3D on the basis that since they will not let the individual affected do anything about it, there is no point in it. So when a wrong decision is made about an individual, what are they to do—in a nutshell?

[The Solicitor General]

I am grateful to hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. The hon. Member for Glasgow North East is concerned about the availability of administrative review. I am grateful for her more general observations, and I hope I answered them in response to the debate on clause 31; I hope that she will forgive me for not repeating my observations on those points. I mean no disrespect.

On the hon. Lady’s specific points, we do not think that administrative review should be available where a person has their immigration leave cancelled or revoked. There are a number of circumstances where it would not be appropriate. One example would be where a migrant worked in breach of their immigration conditions and had their leave cancelled. Another example would be a person whose conduct or behaviour has made it undesirable for them to remain here—people who facilitate sham marriages, for example.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Did the Solicitor General just say that the reason there should not be administrative reviews is because there are a number of circumstances in which they would not be appropriate? Surely we can surely write out the right for cases where it would not be appropriate, but still allow administrative reviews? If there are some cases where review would not be appropriate, there must be some where it would be very appropriate.

[The Solicitor General]

I will come to that point and the point that the hon. Lady made about error. It is an amplification of the intervention she kindly allowed me to have. In place of administrative review, the Home Office has an error correction policy for when immigration leave is cancelled. So an application for error correction under the policy does not extend the immigration leave, but it does allow errors to be raised with the Home Office. We are getting the balance right between effective immigration control on the one hand and the fairness point that the hon. Lady quite properly raised.

[The Solicitor General]

I will in a moment. I just want to finish this point. The Home Office contacts people who make applications and who have paid a fee to give them the opportunity to correct errors in their applications.

[Anne McLaughlin]

rose—

[The Solicitor General]

There are examples. The case of Iqbal, which we cited yesterday, was an example where individuals were invited to correct errors. So the process works. Statistics show that only 2.45% of applications were found to be invalid—invalid is when an application is made, but because of error it is of no effect, so the process is having an impact, which is good. I accept the point that the hon. Lady made about the case that she raised, but we believe that the error correction policy fills a particular gap and addresses the mischief that hon. Members have raised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Keir Starmer]

I beg to move amendment 223, schedule 6, page 91, line 7, at end insert—

‘(2A) Schedule 3 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (withholding and withdrawal of support) is amended as follows.

(a) in paragraph 6(1), after “person” insert “who entered the United Kingdom as an adult”

(b) in paragraph 7, after “person” insert “who entered the United Kingdom as an adult””

To ensure that all care leavers—including young asylum-seekers and migrants who came to the UK as children—are given the support they need while they are in the UK by amending Schedule 3 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 so it does not apply to people who initially came to the UK as children. It will not create an automatic right to support but make sure that a young person is not discriminated against on the basis of his or her immigration status.

I can deal with this amendment shortly. The intention is to ensure that all care leavers, including young asylum seekers and migrants who come to the UK as children, are given the support they need while they are in the UK by amending schedule 3 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 so that it would not apply to people who initially came to the UK as children. The amendment would not create a right to support but would ensure that a young person was not treated differently on the basis of his or her immigration status.

I will come to the nub of what sits behind the amendment. For adults, support continues under schedule 3 to the 2002 Act until the individual fails to comply with removal directions, whereas support can be withdrawn for young people if they are found to be unlawfully in the UK but have not been served with removal directions. There has been criticism of the impact of schedule 3 by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Office of the Children’s Commissioner. The Refugee Children’s Consortium has also expressed concern about it. This is a narrow but important point.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I am going to speak very slowly and clearly. For many years, this country and other countries have struggled to support children who are leaving the care system. It has been well documented that those children’s life chances are measurably lower than those who do not go through the care system. Of course, various Governments have taken different measures to address that issue over time. When it comes to asylum seekers, however, we have a situation where children who are even more vulnerable find themselves destitute and without proper legal support when their appeal rights are exhausted, despite growing evidence that approximately 3,000 unaccompanied children come to the UK each year. This is another example of immigration legislation not keeping pace with the legislation protecting the rights of children and young people who are in our communities already but are no longer being supported by the Home Office.

We know that destitution forces young people into grave situations, some of which will be made worse by the Bill. Exploitation in all its forms, homelessness and ill health all follow on from the state turning its back on a desperate and isolated young person who has left care. It is worth highlighting an example given by the Children’s Society of a torture survivor from Iran who came to the UK aged 17. His initial claim was rejected and he went without legal representation for his appeal. Once that, too, was rejected, his support from children’s services was cut off and he was made homeless. He lost the support of the counsellor who had been helping him to deal with the trauma of the torture he had suffered. His health deteriorated further as a consequence of sleeping on the streets. I always find it useful to try to put myself in someone else’s shoes, and I think that sleeping on the streets for one night would be enough to finish most of us off. The good news is that he then received support from a charity and a fresh solicitor. His new claim was successful and he was granted leave to remain. His life was on course to be so much worse than I imagine it is now he has that support.

Amendment 223 is a sensible measure that would provide some protection for asylum seekers who have been in the care system and who are, by their very nature, among the most vulnerable in our society. I feel confident and hopeful that the Minister will support it.

[James Brokenshire]

I thank the hon. Member for Glasgow North East and the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras for their comments, which were brief, clear and to the point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

I too will oppose the amendment. I think that the hon. Lady has put her finger on the problem of why immigration has become such a huge issue in our constituencies, especially when juxtaposed with what we hear in the House and in Committee about councils’ central funding being reduced, and an overall cap on Government expenditure. I think that most ordinary folk in our constituencies, irrespective of their political affiliation, conclude on the basis of common sense that once a fair system has been tried, tested and exhausted, there must be a point at which the state, centrally or locally, withdraws.

[Anne McLaughlin]

The hon. Gentleman speaks about when rights have been exhausted, but the example I gave was not of someone who had exhausted his rights; it was someone who did not have the legal support to make a proper appeal, which is why he lost. When he managed to get the help of a charity it was found that he was entitled to support here. We are not talking only about people who have exhausted all appeal rights but about people who have had poor decisions or poor representation, or no representation.

[Simon Hoare]

I hear what the hon. Lady says, but I have to say I find it slightly surprising, given the quantum of those bodies that came to give evidence during our witness sessions. Most of those organisations—indeed, the lion’s share—were clearly focused, on either a regional or national basis, on providing advice, help and support to people who were seeking to make an application. I am not doubting the veracity of what she says, but I would be rather surprised if the problem she mentioned was large scale. Clearly, even the individual to whom she referred was ultimately able to find professional advice and support, and the response that they were looking for.

The nub of the issue is this: the British taxpayer—the council tax payer and income tax payer—cannot be expected to keep signing blank cheques to continue to support people to reside in this country when all of the systems have been tried and tested and their right to remain has not been proved or accepted. Just a few months ago, I am sure all of us heard on the doorsteps—

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

I am trying to explain why, like the Minister, I oppose the amendment, Mr Owen. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood is absolutely right. During our evidence sessions we were all concerned to try to ensure that the measures in the Bill helped community cohesion. When one section of the community feels that it is losing the local services, to which it has contributed through its taxes, in order to support the funding requirements of people who should not be here, people start to get annoyed and we start to see some of the rather ugly scenes we saw in Burnley and other areas where that little bit of racial tension became a little too hot and too heavy.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Simon Hoare]

I think you are keen for me to finish, Mr Owen, so if the hon. Lady does not mind, I will not give way.

Immigration Bill (Ninth sitting)

Anne McLaughlin Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2015 Public Bill Committees

[James Brokenshire]

I think all I will do in response is amplify some of the points I raised in the previous debate on notices by the Secretary of State and the factors that he or she would take into consideration as part of the removals process. I indicated that medical issues may be a factor that he or she can take into account when determining whether to issue a notice. The clause is part of that process and builds on the debate we have had.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 14, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15

Extension to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland

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

I beg to move amendment 78, in clause 15, page 16, line 6, leave out “Scotland”

This amendment would limit the ‘right to rent’ provisions of this Bill so that they do not apply to Scotland.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 79, in clause 15, page 16, line 9, leave out “Scotland”

This amendment would limit the ‘right to rent’ provisions of this Bill so that they do not apply to Scotland.

Amendment 80, in clause 15, page 16, line 16, leave out paragraph (4)(b)

This amendment would limit the ‘right to rent’ provisions of this Bill so that they do not apply to Scotland.

Amendment 81, in clause 15, page 16, line 26, leave out paragraph 5(c).

This amendment would limit the ‘right to rent’ provisions of this Bill so that they do not apply to Scotland.

Amendment 82, in clause 15, page 16, line 31, at end insert—

‘(5A) The Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows, after section 76(3) insert—

(3A) Sections 20 to 37 and Schedule 3 shall not apply to Scotland.”

This amendment would limit the ‘right to rent’ provisions in the Immigration Act 2014 so that they do not apply to Scotland.

New clause 12—Immigration Act 2014: Extension to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

‘(1) The Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 76(2) insert—

“(2A) Sections 20 to 37 and Schedule 3 extend to England only unless an order is made under this section but no order may be made under this section—

(a) Extending the provisions to Scotland without the consent of the Scottish Ministers;

(b) Extending the provisions to Wales without the consent of the Welsh Assembly;

(c) Extending the provisions to Northern Ireland without the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly.””

To remove the power to extend by regulation the provisions of this Act on residential tenancies beyond England and to restrict the provisions of the Immigration Act 2014 pertaining to England unless the devolved administrations consent to their further extension.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I start by asking the Minister whether he will acknowledge that housing is a devolved responsibility. Lengthy provisions in the Bill affecting housing for those already in the country are in effect housing legislation under an immigration banner. The Law Society of Scotland believes that the residential tenancy provisions will require a legislative consent motion to be placed before the Scottish Parliament. My understanding is that the Minister disagrees with that. It is clear that the Bill affects all landlords and tenants in Scotland and thus fundamentally alters a sector for which legislation is devolved. Moreover, it is clear that the changes are not merely incidental. Calling it the Immigration Bill does nothing to change the fact that it substantially alters housing law in Scotland.

The Bill allows for the measures on residential tenancies to be brought into effect in Scotland simply through a regulation-making power. That power specifically prevents functions being conferred on Scottish Ministers and means that the regulations can revoke, amend or repeal any Act or order made by the Scottish Parliament. That would enable the Minister and the UK Government to use secondary legislation powers simply to overturn primary legislation on matters devolved to the Scottish Parliament without its consent and often against its will.

What has happened to the respect agenda? Where is the constitutional principle that the UK Government will not legislate on devolved matters in Scotland without the consent of the Scottish Parliament, which clearly represents the Scottish people? The Bill also runs counter to clause 2 of the Scotland Bill, which is being considered here in Westminster and is intended to recognise that principle in statute.

If the Scotland Bill is passed next week and the Immigration Bill is not amended, would I be right to tell the people of Scotland that this British Government have no regard for Scotland’s right to legislate on devolved matters? Given the enthusiasm with which the UK Government have embraced English votes for English laws, could some people not rightly suggest that it is perhaps a little hypocritical to attempt to ride roughshod over the will of the Scottish Parliament?

The Law Society of Scotland highlighted some other concerns. When issues such as asylum support, taken together with the housing law measures, are also taken into account, the changes to devolved functions such as local authorities, health, child protection and social work can no longer be described as incidental to a reserved matter, in this case immigration. Following the devolution referendum, it was clear that the settled will of the Scottish people was to have these issues decided in Edinburgh. It is also clear, given the SNP majority in Holyrood and the fact that only one Conservative MP was elected in Scotland, that these right to rent proposals do not have the support of the Scottish people or the Scottish Parliament. I propose that these provisions be removed from the Bill.

Of course, I am making the big assumption that the Minister is not going to rise to his feet shortly and tell us that this was an oversight and that he will of course amend the Bill to reflect the principle in clause 2 of the Scotland Bill and to include in the regulation-making powers in clause 15 a duty on UK Ministers to consult Scottish Ministers and to seek the Scottish Parliament’s consent to regulations before they are introduced. That would be the right thing to do and it would allow the Scottish Parliament to consult with relevant stakeholders in Scotland about these proposals.

[Keir Starmer]

If this is the appropriate time I shall speak to new clause 12, which is grouped with this. If it is not the appropriate time I shall wait.

--- Later in debate ---

There may be a change in view, and Opposition Front Benchers can speak for themselves. They may object to or disagree with the further extension or roll-out, or propose some further mechanism requiring parliamentary authority—I could understand that—but the manner in which they have gone about things, by ceding a reserved matter in this way, is striking and has much broader implications for their policy formulation. I urge hon. Members not to press their amendment.

[Anne McLaughlin]

This is the first time during the consideration of the Bill that I have noticed the Minister looking impatient. I appreciate that I might just be putting my interpretation on things, but he has been shaking his head and he looked quite defensive to me.

[The Solicitor General (Robert Buckland)]

We think you are wrong.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Do you want me to sit down and take interventions? I think that we have hit a sore spot, because the Minister is well aware that the measures will have a significant impact on—

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Anne McLaughlin]

I have not even finished my sentence, but okay.

[Simon Hoare]

It might help to know that we on the Government side see my right hon. Friend as a swan gracefully gliding over the surface of the legislative lake: paddling energetically underneath, but always maintaining a calm veneer.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I think the swan wanted me to give way to him as well.

[James Brokenshire]

I hesitate to intervene after the last intervention. All that I would say to the hon. Lady is that she is wrong; that is the fundamental thing. There is clearly a difference of view between us, but I am certain of the ground on which we stand and the points that I have elucidated about our belief that this is a reserved matter. She is obviously entitled to her particular view, but I would not want to give her an indication of any irritation with her at all. Far from it; she has made her points in a fair and reasonable way.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I thank the Minister for allowing me to find some common ground with him at last, because I too think that he is wrong. I think that the Scottish Refugee Council, the Law Society of Scotland and the Scottish Government are right, and that he should reconsider the so-called respect agenda between the two Governments. As my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North said, the Minister refused a meeting with the Scottish Government Minister for Housing and Welfare, who has significant concerns not just at a policy level but at an implementation level. She requested a meeting and was refused with a “My people will talk to your people; I don’t have to talk to you” sort of response, although maybe—definitely—not in those words. If there is respect between the two Governments, why would the Minister not just sit down with the Scottish Government Minister to go through things if he is so convinced that he is right? I do not withdraw the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Immigration Bill (Seventh sitting)

Anne McLaughlin Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Yes.

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

I want to start by declaring an interest. I am not sure whether it is necessary, but I am a registered landlord in Scotland. I do not actually rent out any properties, but it is worth mentioning.

We are opposed to the right to rent scheme, as we have said on many occasions. It is unfair on landlords and on tenants, particularly those who do not look, sound or seem British. My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) made the point that by virtue of her name she may have some landlords fearing that they cannot rent to her, which is utterly ridiculous.

I want to make several points. Most of them have already been covered, but they are worth reiterating. It is important for the Minister to accept that it is common, especially in areas with high numbers of young professionals or near universities and colleges, for a tenant to act in that agent capacity that we heard about. It is one example where the Bill could needlessly criminalise somebody who is not by any stretch of the imagination knowingly breaking the law. I hope he will look at that.

Amendment 85 is about ensuring that none of the criminal offences is committed in respect of tenancies entered into before the offences came into force. It is sensible to accept that one, because the person was not breaking the law at the time they entered into the tenancy. I hope that amendment 87—to use a term that I really cannot stand, but I cannot think of a more appropriate term—is a no-brainer and that the Minister will listen to the Residential Landlords Association, which is calling on everyone to support the amendment.

As currently drafted, the Bill would mean that, as soon as a landlord receives a notice from the Secretary of State that the tenant does not have the right to rent, they would automatically be committing a criminal offence. That is despite the Bill requiring landlords to give tenants 28 days’ notice to leave the property under the proposed eviction procedure. The Residential Landlords Association has asked us to support amendment 87 to prevent landlords being caught between the housing legislation and the Bill. It is a case of, “Which law will I break?” Which of those laws would the Minister suggest is the better to break?

Immigration Bill (Eighth sitting)

Anne McLaughlin Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

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

Start at the left and move to the right—

[James Brokenshire]

I would have said “to the right”, but I did not think it was necessarily appropriate.

[Anne McLaughlin]

The Minister is looking at things very differently from how I see them.

The Minister made a good point about discrimination—it will be harder for landlords, for example, to discriminate, because people will be able to say, “But I have ticked the check list and I have the passport or whatever.” However, it is hard to prove discrimination. If five people are going after one place—it is rarely only five—what would the potential tenants who are discriminated against do? They will not take the landlord to court. They might have evidence in their mind that they have been discriminated against, but what will they do with it? How successful would any case be?

That was not my main point, which is—

[The Chair]

Order. Interventions have to be shorter than this. Let the Minister deal with the first point, have a breather and then come back to the second one.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

In fairness to the hon. Lady, she focuses on an important point that reflects a comment made on Second Reading by the Scottish National party Member—unfortunately, I cannot remember her constituency name off the top of my head.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Glasgow North East.

[James Brokenshire]

Glasgow North East—how could I forget? The hon. Member for Glasgow North East said that because of her name, property not might be rented to her. A similar point is now being adduced by the hon. Member for South Shields. The point is that, sadly, discrimination would happen anyway if the landlord was not minded to rent for that reason. It is nothing to do with the scheme itself, which is simply about identifying individuals. If we are talking about a name, a racist and discriminatory landlord would, sadly, act that way anyway. That is my point. We have the right to work check and we wish to extend the right to rent check. But I think the hon. Member for Glasgow North East had another point to make.

[Anne McLaughlin]

The point I wanted to make has been made, but possibly has not been understood by the Minister. Yes, there are people who will discriminate anyway, but the Residential Landlords Association has said that its members were fearful that they would be forced, for fear of committing a criminal offence, to go the other way and behave in what they called a racist way. There are people who already behave in that way; we are referring to people who do not want to do so, but who say that fear of the law or not understanding what is required under the law will make them behave in that way.

[James Brokenshire]

That is why the offence is framed as it is. It is not about negligence but about conscious or deliberate turning of a blind eye. I take the hon. Lady’s point, but it is not set at that lower level.

Immigration Bill (Sixth sitting)

Anne McLaughlin Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Sarah Champion]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention; she is always fantastic on detail. My answer is yes, but I am not a lawyer, so I would like the Minister to lay out, in language that a former charity worker can understand, the protections for people who are exploited. To be honest, I am unclear. A number of our witnesses said they were unclear, although I recall that clarification was sought on this point.

I will give the hypothetical example of a woman who paid a criminal gang for her passage here and came expecting a job. She was given a job, but then told that she had to pay additional costs, which took away all of her income, effectively making her a slave without legal protection under our current system. She could be beholden to that employer for an indefinite period and be too terrified to speak out, because I can guarantee that the employer would use the fact that she would be reported and become a criminal if she did.

I do not see how clause 8 helps that person in any way. I would like clarification from the Minister about how that person could have the confidence to come forward when their employer is telling them that they will be criminalised if they do so. Surely the best approach is to stick with clause 9, under which the employer becomes liable for the actions and will be criminalised for those actions.

We know where the employers are. They will be registered at Companies House and they will be filing their taxes. It will be a lot easier to follow that trail to get the prosecutions, particularly with limited resources, rather than spending an indefinite period trying to track down illegal workers when we do not know who they are, where they are working or their status, just on the off chance that we might catch and criminalise them so that we send out the right message. Surely it is better to go for the employers.

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

I wonder whether there is a misunderstanding, or at least an underestimation, of how vulnerable some of these workers are. Does the Minister realise the extent of their vulnerability? If he does, will he change his mind about criminalising those who work illegally?

I will cite an example of not a young vulnerable woman trafficked here as a sex slave, but someone whom hon. Members might use as an example of why we need to criminalise. On my travels a few years ago, I spent time with a man called Mehdi, who was fit and healthy in his mid-thirties. He was married to Rezi, who was pregnant with their first child. They sought asylum in the UK—I met him some years after all this happened—and ended up in Glasgow where, despite their best efforts, they were refused asylum because they could not prove they were in danger. She had a miscarriage and they were made destitute. They were told they would be deported and they embarked on a terrible downward spiral. They removed themselves from all support mechanisms, so frightened were they of being found and deported to certain danger, but they could not survive here, so Mehdi found a job. He knew he was not allowed to do that, as did his employers, who took advantage of that knowledge and made him work extremely long hours for £3 an hour.

Mehdi was abused, exploited and occasionally beaten. He was worked until he would regularly collapse with exhaustion, but he had no choice. Some Government Members might argue that he did have a choice because he could have gone back to his home country. However, he was not working not just to feed himself and get by in life in Glasgow, but to save money to buy false passports so that the couple could get out of the UK and away from the danger of deportation to his home country. Who among us would not do whatever it took to protect our loved ones and our own lives if we had to?

If the Bill had been in force when Mehdi was doing all that, what might the outcome have been for this loving and protective husband? This kindly but damaged man could very well have ended up in jail, followed by being deported to the country that he was so afraid of returning to. For him, the worst part would have been leaving his wife—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Before I ask Anne McLaughlin to continue her speech, I thought it might be advisable to take discussion of the clause with the amendment and not have a stand part debate. If anyone wants to make a contribution on the clause, please feel free to do so now.

[Anne McLaughlin]

It has come to my attention that some Conservative Members did not listen to absolutely every word, so I wondered whether they would like me to recap from the start, or just to summarise where I was.

I was speaking about someone I met on my travels who had sought asylum in the UK and ended up in Glasgow. Mehdi, with his wife Rezi, were refused asylum, were destitute and were threatened with deportation. They were terrified of being returned to their country of origin because of what would happen to them. Mehdi ended up working illegally for £3 an hour, being completely exploited, and he did that because he did not have a choice. The point I was making was that he did not do that just to get by and to be able to buy food and clothes. He was doing it because they were saving up to be smuggled out of the country, not back to their country of origin, but to another country that they would enter illegally because they were so afraid of being sent back to their home country.

I was making the point that if this Bill had been in place then, Mehdi would have faced the additional risk of going to prison. I spent some time with him and he was most certainly not someone who—

[Kate Hollern (Blackburn) (Lab)]

What situation would the family have been in had this legislation been in place then?

[Anne McLaughlin]

It would depend on whether he had been caught working. He would be prosecuted and could have been imprisoned. Thankfully for Mehdi and Rezi, that did not happen, but there are many other people like them. She was extremely vulnerable. Had the Bill been around and they had been imprisoned, she would have been left destitute, facing deportation without him by her side. With him by her side, she was terrified enough. He would have gone to prison and then, undoubtedly, he would have been deported separately from her.

A fit, healthy married man in his 30s who is working illegally is not someone we typically highlight when trying to attract compassion from those who wish to control illegal working and are also concerned about vulnerable people, but who among us could not feel compassion for Mehdi and Rezi? We should remember that even those who are not the archetypal exploitable worker often have truly heart-breaking stories and are often left with no choices. The Bill would make it even riskier for them. If it is riskier, they will become ever more dependent on their abusive, exploitative employers. They deserve our compassion and support to get out of those situations. They do not deserve the threat of a prison sentence hanging over them.

[Paul Blomfield]

On amendment 68, I welcome the observations the Minister made in his latter comments. The Bill creates an unreasonable anomaly between the caveats it provides for employers and the absence of any for employees. As I understand it, under clause 9, employers are only guilty of the offence of employing an illegal worker if they do so “knowing” or

“having reasonable cause to believe”

that the person is an illegal worker.

We are saying to employers that there is a test of reasonableness before they are criminalised for the act of wrongful employment. The problem with clause 8 is that there is no such test of reasonableness. With the amendment, we seek to bring some equivalence between the way we approach employers and the way we approach employees by enabling them to be able to demonstrate “reasonable excuse” for the predicament in which they find themselves. Although I have reservations about the entire clause, were the Government successful in retaining it, I hope they would look generously on the amendment, which could provide that equivalence.

I have concerns about clause 8 more generally, as it criminalises the act of illegal working. I take the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the shadow Minister that we might disagree on this matter across the House. However, I do not think we need to. A number of us have said that we are at one on the objectives of the Bill, as we were with the Modern Slavery Act. In seeking to ensure that clause 8 does not stand part of the Bill, we are at one with the Government’s policy objectives of achieving effective labour market enforcement and, indeed, of combating modern slavery. Less than two years ago, in November 2013, the Home Secretary made combating modern slavery a priority. I do not have the experience that Conservative Members and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham have of serving on that Bill Committee but I commend those who were involved on that legislation, just as I commend the Home Secretary on the priority that she placed on combating modern slavery. That aim won wide support, found expression in the Modern Slavery Act, and took us in the right direction. The problem with clause 8 of this Bill is that it risks undoing some of the good of the Modern Slavery Act.

I am sure that the Government do not intend to undermine their own legislation so soon after it has become law so I hope that the Minister will give serious regard to the points that we are raising in suggesting that clause 8 should not stand part of the Bill. I hope he recognises that if it does, slavery is more likely to thrive. I notice that he is shaking his head and I look forward to his response.

I put this to the Minister: what do we know? What is all the evidence clear about? I am happy for him to intervene if he disagrees, but all the evidence is clear on one thing. The more vulnerable workers are, the stronger the hand of the gangmasters or the unscrupulous employers who seek to exploit them. I am sure that the Minister agrees, as I notice he does not wish to intervene. Vulnerability plays into the hands of those who seek to exploit, such as unscrupulous employers. The more vulnerable workers feel, the less likely they are to come forward to report their abusers. Clause 8 increases that vulnerability and strengthens the hands of the gangmasters. I note that the Minister is again shaking his head. I would be happy for him to intervene if he can provide any evidence to suggest that that is not the case. When we took evidence from witnesses, we heard from many experts who said that this was the case; none said that it was not.

The clause, by threatening exploited workers with 12 months in prison if they are deemed to have committed the offence of illegal working, gives another crucial card to the suit of cards that gangmasters can play. It does not only affect those who have committed the offence of illegal working; it changes the psychology and relationship even between the employer and the employees who have not committed an offence. According to the National Crime Agency, in cases that it has taken up, 78% of those who have been exploited for their labour in the UK actually have the right to work here as EEA nationals. Rights awareness among those workers is low and their options are limited, which allows unscrupulous employers to hold the threat of removal over them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

I am pleased to know that I am following in sound footsteps, Chair, but I will take your advice.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is not only the exploitative employer who can continue to exploit the person who is working illegally? Undocumented workers face threats from all sorts of people. I spoke to somebody who had worked illegally for different reasons to the previous person I talked about. They were not only ruthlessly exploited by the employer, but were blackmailed by colleagues who themselves were working legally, but were aware or at least suspected that this person was working illegally. He faced blackmail, threats and intimidation. Although he said, “Actually, you don’t know what my status is”, the point that the blackmailers made was, “Are you willing to take that risk?” Of course, such workers are not. The exploitation comes from all around, not just from one employer.

[Paul Blomfield]

The hon. Lady adds another dimension to my argument that the clause makes those who are already in a precarious situation more vulnerable and open to exploitation. In an earlier intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham mentioned the evidence given by Caroline Robinson from Focus on Labour Exploitation, which works directly with victims of trafficking for labour exploitation and of which I am the trustee along with some Members from other parties.

FLEX has identified three drivers of labour exploitation. The first is the feeling among migrant workers that they deserve less or have fewer rights than UK citizens. The second is a lack of checks on labour standards in the workplace, including everything from health and safety to minimum wage enforcement. The third is a fear of officials, especially of immigration officials. The Bill makes each of those drivers worse, and clause 8 has a particular effect on the first and third factors.

First, on the rights of migrant workers, the clause puts the focus on immigration status as a condition of asserting labour rights. By criminalising the exploited worker, whether they are committing the offence of illegal working or not, they can be treated and threatened by a gangmaster as if they are. On the second driver, we have talked at length about a number of aspects of labour market enforcement. The Bill seems to reflect the Government’s desire to move further towards an intelligence-based approach to enforcement. Essential to that intelligence is whistleblowing. We need to ensure that we do nothing in the Bill to discourage exploited workers from coming forward and thereby give gangmasters another card to play. Sadly, the clause risks doing exactly that.

On the third driver of labour exploitation, the problem that we identified earlier—the overlap between labour market enforcement and immigration enforcement—is at the heart of the Bill. The clause gives undocumented workers another reason to be worried. The consequence is that labour exploitation is not rooted out and continues to be a pull factor for migration, which is against the Government’s policy objectives.

Mr Bone, I will take your advice. I will not ask the Minister to intervene, but I press him to share evidence from anywhere in the world that shows that the approach of criminalising workers, unlike many other aspects of the Bill with which we agree, assists in the policy objective that he outlined and we share.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

The Bill is doing both. It is taking steps in relation to employers and to employees, including with the overall enforcement approach. That is why I put things in that broader context. I will respond later to some of the specific questions on purpose, intent and how things fit in the overall deportation strategy. It is important to contextualise that so that the Committee understands the intent of the Government.

[Anne McLaughlin]

The argument I was making was not that we should allow people who are not permitted to work in this country to work in this country; my point was that those people are often the most vulnerable. A man who is fit and healthy and in his mid-30s might not appear to be that vulnerable on the face of it, but imprisoning him would not make him less likely to commit the offence—he was left with no choice—nor would it change his situation. My argument was not that it is in some way acceptable for people to lose their jobs because others are working illegally; I was arguing that the imprisonment aspect, the criminalisation, is not necessary and will make no difference.

[James Brokenshire]

I hear the point that the hon. Lady is making, although I do not want to get into the specifics of the case, as I am not entirely familiar with it, so it would not be appropriate or fair, for her or myself, for me to do so. In many cases, however, there is that choice of leaving the country. She might want to make a broader point about assisted voluntary returns and other means of appropriate removal, but that is the context for my arguments about the purpose of the clause and how it fits with other measures in the Bill to support the approach of discouraging people from coming to this country and to deal with some of the broader impacts of illegal working.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne McLaughlin]

Is the Minister not concerned that making it easier to bring about prosecutions and prove negligence will mean that employers are much more fearful of employing someone who, to them, does not sound, look or seem British? My fear is that people who genuinely intend to do the right thing will steer clear of employing anyone who does not appear to be British because they will be frightened of being prosecuted. They will be taking a big risk.

[James Brokenshire]

That is why I made the point about negligence and how that is dealt with under the civil penalty regime but not the criminal provisions that I explained earlier. That feeds back into the debate we have had in respect of the bar that needs to be set for bringing prosecutions. That is why I made the comments I did in the previous debate about discrimination. The most serious cases involving the exploitation of illegal labour will continue to be dealt with under legislation that prohibits facilitation and trafficking. It is important to make that point in the broader context of the provision.

Subsection (1) amends section 21(1) of the 2006 Act by inserting, after “knowing”,

“or having reasonable cause to believe”.

That is the test. It is not negligence. The effect is to amend what is known as the mens rea, the knowledge or intention needed to make out the offence, in order to make the test more objective and the offence easier to prove, but still with that safeguard.

Immigration Bill (Fifth sitting)

Anne McLaughlin Excerpts

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Public Bill Committees

[Paul Blomfield]

I thank my hon. Friend for her helpful intervention. Throughout our deliberations, we should seek to draw on the evidence that we heard. The evidence cited by her and by my hon. and learned Friend the shadow Minister has powerfully made the case that the confusion of immigration functions and labour market enforcement is damaging and counterproductive to our objectives for the labour market and for immigration. The amendment seeks to provide absolute clarity. I hope that the Government will accept it.

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

The Scottish National party tabled the amendment with Labour because we believe that the primary purpose of the director of labour market enforcement should be to enforce the rights of workers and protect people from exploitation. Indeed, the Government’s background briefing states that the new labour market enforcement agency will be established to protect people against being exploited or coerced into work. The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association has said:

“Where those working or living in very poor conditions are deterred from accessing assistance because of their immigration status”—

this will clearly make it harder for them—

“or because of their vulnerability to threats by unscrupulous employers in relation to their immigration status, agencies will be restricted in their ability to gather the intelligence needed to exercise their regulatory functions and protect against labour market exploitation. A lack of clarity over the protective function of the labour market enforcement agency may therefore undermine its aims.”

It would be good to have a little more clarity.

Last week, one of the Conservative Members really shocked me with a statement about illegal workers. On reflection, I wonder whether there is a genuine, fundamental misunderstanding about some of these people that might need to be addressed. The comment was that if people knew that the Bill was being introduced and that it was going be so much harder to work here illegally, they would be less likely to allow themselves to be trafficked. That really shocked me. We are talking about the most vulnerable people, who are taken from other countries against their will. They do not choose or allow themselves to be trafficked. They are used and abused. The Bill will make it so much worse for them. Does the Minister believe that people are trafficked here because they choose to be or not? If there is a belief that there is an element of choice to trafficking, I understand where the measures come from. I would like to know that the Minister intends to protect the most vulnerable people.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

If the hon. Lady accepts the premise that the trafficker is the conduit for the individual to go from A to B, does she accept that if the individual understands that entry to B is now harder and tougher, it is likely that they will not be sought to be trafficked in the first place or that they will ask the traffickers to traffic them elsewhere? It is all about signal and message.

[Anne McLaughlin]

So there is the answer to my question. I really would love the Minister to respond and to understand that people do not choose to be trafficked. They do not say, “Please kidnap me, tie me up, bundle me into a van, and take me to a country that I’ve never been to where I can’t speak the language.”

[Simon Hoare]

That is kidnapping; it is not trafficking. Trafficking, in my judgment, is when somebody goes to somebody else who is providing that service and says, “I want to get from A to B. Will you get me there?” That might be in a private motorcraft, an aeroplane or whatever it might happen to be. When I talk about trafficking, that is what I am talking about, not about kidnap, which is illegal.

[Anne McLaughlin]

In legal terms, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. That is not what trafficking is. He needs to look up the legal definition of trafficking because trafficking happens against somebody’s will. We have to protect those people. Now that the hon. Gentleman understands, perhaps he will support this amendment.

[Byron Davies (Gower) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady accept that when I worked as a police officer in Romania, young ladies who wanted to come to the UK through Spain would look for a trafficker to facilitate that journey to Spain and the UK? That is trafficking, contrary to what the hon. Lady is suggesting.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I think the hon. Gentleman is making the decision to do what a lot of today’s media do, which is to focus on people who have an element of choice. Most people who are trafficked—well maybe not most people, but a significant number—are trafficked against their will. They are the most vulnerable people and the people we have to protect. This amendment is asking only that the new director pays attention to the rights of the most vulnerable people. We cannot say that one person has had an element of choice but another person has not, so we will not protect the second person. So no, I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says.

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

The premise of the amendment is:

“To ensure that the functions of the Director of Labour Market Enforcement are exercised for the purpose of protecting those vulnerable to labour market exploitation and to make this explicit on the face of the Bill”—

Where in the Bill is that purpose not explicit? Clause 3 refers to non-compliance and the interpretation of it. It specifically refers to the Employment Agencies Act 1973, the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 and anything else prescribed by the Secretary of State.

[Anne McLaughlin]

If the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is already explicitly stated, surely he will have no problem supporting this amendment.

[Paul Blomfield]

I wanted to develop the point, because I think that some of the discussion about trafficking is a diversion. Does the hon. Lady agree that the primary purpose of this amendment is simply to clarify the role of the labour market enforcement director and make it clear that there is no disagreement on either side of the House that such a director should focus on preventing those vulnerable to exploitation in the labour market?

[Anne McLaughlin]

If the hon. Gentleman was asking me to agree with him then I agree with him.

[Sarah Champion]

It is a clarification, courtesy of Google. The UN defines trafficking as

“the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability”.

As my colleague has just said, this gets to the nub of the problem. My understanding, and perhaps the Minister could provide clarity, is that when we are talking about trafficked people, the legislation is in place already so it can be enforced. What we are saying here is that a large number of people are in a grey area. They might, as in the example given by the hon. Member for Gower, have paid to come into this country to work but then, very quickly, find themselves in an exploitative situation.

We need clarity about the role of the labour market enforcement director. Is he very clear that he is responsible for enforcing good labour practice? Does he have the resources to do that and can he work collaboratively with the other agencies to make sure that when something like the Modern Slavery Act 2015 is enforced, that vulnerable person is taken care of?

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I rise to support amendments 56 to 58 and 62 to 64, but I will focus on the first three of those amendments lest I test the Committee’s patience.

Clause 2 is perhaps the only clause that my Scottish National party colleagues and I fully support. I wish that were the case for the remainder of the Bill, but I am afraid it is downhill from here. It is an outrage that we are talking about modern day slavery. The director of labour market enforcement, first and foremost, should be used to take action against exploitative employers and to protect workers from being abused and taken advantage of. Nice chap though he is, there is not much on which I agree with the Minister for Immigration on this Bill—or anything else for that matter. However, I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with him that it is unacceptable for any employer to recruit staff whom they think they can exploit because those employees are less likely or less able to complain about working conditions. It is a scandal that we still have to talk about slavery and exploitation in modern-day Britain. However, that is the experience facing many workers, particularly migrant workers, when they clock in each morning. I am sure that we have all been appalled, upset and angered by the frequent newspaper reports on the level of exploitation that some migrant workers have faced and, truth be told, we could possibly be accused of not responding appropriately or quickly enough.

I hope that the recruitment of a new director of labour market enforcement is the first step in addressing the plight of many migrant workers. It should be welcomed that we have already started to talk about the work that the director will undertake, and the strategy in clause 2 outlines the action that will be taken to eradicate modern day slavery and exploitation in the workplace. There is currently a worrying lack of information on the level of exploitation faced by migrant workers. We do not know how many are being exploited. We have little evidence of the physical exploitation that they face, and we have little insight into the activities of gangmasters.

Therefore, amendment 57, which is supported by Focus on Labour Exploitation among others, would allow us to gain a greater understanding of the challenges to operating successful, fair and effective labour market enforcement. An assessment of the risks will allow us to gain the appropriate level of evidence so that we can take action against rogue employers. The amendment details our vision for addressing the exploitation that can arise from illegal migrant working and the steps that should be taken to gather the required level of evidence. Amendment 58 would ensure that we can use the evidence that has been gathered to take an evidence-based approach to addressing worker exploitation. That is important, as it prevents any prejudice-based opinions or judgments from influencing what action should be taken.

During our evidence sessions last week, Caroline Robinson of Focus on Labour Exploitation said:

“The point about the protective purpose of the director is very important. For us, the core purpose of that role should be the protection of vulnerable workers and the prevention of exploitation. That has been at the centre of the work of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority and has been part of its success. That authority, as we know, operates on a limited budget, so the resources are also of critical importance. On the role of the director of labour market enforcement and the labour market enforcement strategy, what most concerns us is the power of the director to hold control of the budgets, governance of those labour inspectorates and shifting budgets according to the strategy.”––[Official Report, Immigration Public Bill Committee, 20 October 2015; c. 27, Q54.]

She also raised the point that, along with the director, the inspectorate needs further resources to ensure that our position is comparable to that of other EU countries. At the moment we have just 0.9 inspectors per 100,000 workers.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Other hon. Members have mentioned that figure; I will give a bit more information to put it into perspective. As the hon. Member for South Shields said, that figure compares very unfavourably with figures for the rest of Europe. In Ireland, for instance, there are 4.6 inspectors per 100,000 workers, Belgium has 12.5 and France has 18.9. I got that information from a policy blueprint published by FLEX in the past couple of weeks. FLEX has said:

“Enforcement of employment law…is at desperate levels, creating the perfect conditions for modern slavery to take place.”

I agree that there must be proper funding for inspection, otherwise it is pointless.

[Gavin Newlands]

My hon. Friend has highlighted the paucity of resources in this area, something that we will come back to time and again throughout this debate.

The resources question, raised by amendment 56, was also a cause of concern for Professor Sir David Metcalf, the chair of the Migration Advisory Committee. During our evidence session last Tuesday, Professor Metcalf raised concerns about the resources required to enforce measures and punish rogue employers who are failing to abide by labour market enforcement. After we have gathered evidence on labour market enforcement, we cannot be put in a position where we cannot use that evidence effectively because of a lack of resources. Professor Metcalf stated that, as things stand, he does not believe that the director will have the resources to be able to effectively deal with the problem of worker exploitation.

Professor Metcalf also stated that when working on the implementation and enforcement of the minimum wage he estimated that an employer would get a visit from HMRC once every 250 years and there would be a prosecution once in 1 million years. Quite frankly, that is a ridiculous position for us to find ourselves in, and we cannot allow ourselves to be put in it when it comes to tackling the issue of workers who are being exploited. Amendment 56 would require that the resources required to tackle the problem should be set out and calculated.

As I have said, we broadly support the clause, but clarification is required on a few matters, not least resourcing for the position of director. In our evidence session last week, Professor Metcalf said

“I suspect we just do not have the public finances for sufficient enforcement”

before going on to say that

“in the Bill, it does not actually set out quite what the resources are.”––[Official Report, Immigration Public Bill Committee, 20 October 2015; c. 18-19, Q33-36.]

I hope the Minister will go some way to answering that point today or else will support amendment 56, which would allow the new director the opportunity to assess the required resources.