Asylum Reforms: Protected Characteristics

Debate between Jim Shannon and Kirsty Blackman

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Kirsty Blackman]

I absolutely agree, and there was a very similar case in my constituency. There was a woman here with her young child, and it had been agreed that her husband was eligible for reunification with his family here under the ARAP scheme, but he was in hiding in Pakistan. No matter how much we pressed the Home Office, the woman and her young child were left here without their husband and dad. He was unable to come over, because the Home Office refused to take action. Part of the issue is the lack of humanity and consideration for individual circumstances created by the Home Office machine. Blanket policies discriminate against people in protected groups, not taking into account that there are nuances, differences and family circumstances that need to be in place.

Going back to the requirement to contribute, that will cause particular issues for those who cannot, or find it difficult to, contribute in the classical sense. The UK Government said there would be special consideration of vulnerable groups, but have not laid out what those will be and what the consideration looks like. Not making clear who those vulnerable groups are and how those considerations will work risks significantly disadvantaging people.

It is worth noting that, eight years on from receiving asylum and the right to work, the average income of refugees in Scotland is only £13,000, which is significantly lower than the median income. That is partly because refugees, by their nature, have suffered trauma, post-traumatic stress disorder and are unable to work full time in many cases, through no fault of their own. Due to that level of discrimination, and partly because they may not have long-term settled status, employers may be less keen to take them on. People who are trying to work, or have even been working full time for eight years, are earning significantly less than average. If we try to measure contribution, compared with people who were born here and have had a settled life—white men, for example—it will be difficult for any refugee from a protected characteristic group to meet that bar.

Other issues include regular reapplications and a reduction in appeals. There will be a 30-month period to reapply for status. We know that 50% of appeals from women win. A reduction in the number of appeals, allowing only one and no subsequent appeal, will entrench the fact that the Home Office makes wrong decisions. If 50% of appeals win, the Home Office has clearly made wrong decisions in half the cases that go to appeal. The people more likely to appeal, whose cases are negatively looked at, have more complicated pasts and issues with disclosing what they have faced.

Regarding trauma and violence against women and girls, the UK Government have suggested that not disclosing trauma early in the process will likely have a negative impact on their case. If people do not disclose their protected characteristics, there will likely be a negative consideration from the Home Office. People born here who have experienced sexual violence can take 20 years to come to terms with the situation and raise it with the authorities. We are expecting refugees, who have been through significant trauma, to disclose that information to a legal aid lawyer they do not know. He could be a man from their community who looks like an authority figure or the person who abused them, or might be part of the religious community that perpetrated the abuse. We will punish them for not being able to disclose the sexual violence they faced, or their sexual orientation to someone they do not know.

We also know that when it comes to legal aid, for example, the increase in the number of appeals will significantly gum up the system, and the system is already significantly gummed up. The UK Government inherited a system that was a mess in terms of the length of time that asylum decisions took. Adding in a significant number of extra reassessments at 30-month periods is simply unworkable. We are already waiting years for people to get decisions—even children who are supposed to have special consideration and who are supposed to receive decisions more quickly.

We got an email from a constituent this week whose children have still not received a decision. We have had a number of emails from constituents about asylum decisions, but the one that struck me came in yesterday. We had spoken to the Home Office about it and the email said, “Could you please tell us what is happening with this case?” And the Home Office said, “No. If you have not heard anything by December, get back to us.” The person still has not had a decision, despite the fact that children are supposed to be considered more quickly. If the UK Government cannot meet their obligations now, how will they meet their obligations within a 30-month period? What will they do about legal aid to ensure that legal aid lawyers are willing to take on the more complicated cases, the cases of sexual or domestic violence, or where the individual presenting is LGBTQI? At the moment, legal aid lawyers often look at those cases and say, “No, it is too complicated. The legal aid money does not cover it. Why would I bother doing that when I can do an easier case?” There is a significant problem. If the Government are going to make sweeping changes, especially the significant number of reassessments, they need to fix the legal aid system, or people with protected characteristics will be negatively impacted even more than the people without protected characteristics.

Going back to the family reunification changes that are being suggested, Home Office figures tell us that 92% of the people who receive grants under family reunification are women and girls—92%. On the massive reduction in the number of family reunification applications that are accepted or in family reunification routes, 92% are women and girls. I do not understand how the Government can suggest there is not a disproportionate impact on people with protected characteristics when just this one specific measure has a massive impact on women and girls specifically. I understand why the Government have not produced an equality impact assessment. They do not want to see what is in such an assessment, but they should produce one. They have a public sector equality duty to do so. The Home Office is still bound by the public sector equality duty. It does not not apply to the Home Office. It applies to the public sector and it has not published one.

On the length of time and the possibility of people being required to wait 20 years to receive leave to remain, we know that the lack of stability adds a significant negative impact on people. We know that that lack of stability is multilayered in the impacts that it has. I have already touched on the issues with employment. Employers are less likely to take people on if they do not have permanent leave to remain. Employers do not necessarily understand the immigration system. Good employers can be terrified of falling foul of the Home Office. If they can see that somebody was born in another country and does not have citizenship yet, they decide not to employ them. That means people are stuck in limbo for a significantly longer time because of the Government’ s decision—much longer than in some other countries, by the way.

Not enabling people to work at 12 months makes us an outlier in Europe. In some EU countries, people can work from day one. In many countries they can work from two months. That gives an increased level of stability than if requiring people to be out of work for 12 months, and then only able to access jobs on the occupation shortage list or immigration list. Some of those jobs are not as acceptable or not as possible for people who have protected characteristics. A disabled person may not be able to access some of those roles. If we are more flexible in the roles that people can access, we are more likely to have people able to contribute, because they will be more able to do jobs that work for them.

That lack of stability also means, potentially, that people will have no recourse to public funds for a significant length of time. No recourse to public funds is horrific and should be cancelled, particularly for those people with dependants. I never again want to see a family come in to my office whose children are malnourished because the UK Government have said that they have no recourse to public funds, or who are being threatened with homelessness because they are unable to claim anything. I had a family come in whose four children had not eaten fruit for days. How is it acceptable that the UK Government can decide that people have no recourse to public funds, and then keep them in limbo for such a long period?

Women for Refugee Women looked at the number of destitute women and spoke to them about what destitution meant for them in the asylum system. Of the women in the asylum system who had no recourse to public funds, 38% had stayed in an abusive relationship because of their inability to access public funds and the fear that they would be homeless or destitute as a result of leaving that relationship. A further 38% of those women who stayed in abusive relationships were raped as a result. The UK Government’s policies are forcing women into destitution and unsafe situations and relationships. Among women in that group who were destitute as a result of the UK Government’s policies, 8% were forced into sex work to get enough money to feed themselves or their children, or to clothe their children. How is this a humane situation when it is negatively impacting women more than men and where those protected characteristics are not being protected?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. There have been incidents in the last year, which I am sure the hon. Lady is aware of, where women have been trafficked into the United Kingdom. They have been brought in illegally and when they are sometimes able to escape from their captors or kidnappers—their pimps or whatever they call them—they then find themselves in an unbelievable circumstance where they are here illegally. However, that is not by their own choice but through the coercion of others. Does the hon. Lady feel that there must be some methodology to help those people who are victims and find themselves in unbelievable circumstances?

[Kirsty Blackman]

There should be some methodology, but the Government are going the wrong way on this. They are looking to tighten up the modern slavery and trafficking regulations and make it more difficult for women to claim that they have been trafficked—even when they have. We know that there are women that have been held in Yarl’s Wood or detention centres after being trafficked because they do not have the correct paperwork. Of course they do not have the correct paperwork; they have been trafficked, used in sex work and forced into these horrific situations, and the Government are putting them in a detention centre and then saying that they will not get a visa because they did not have the right documentation.

We have a responsibility to protect people. It says in “Restoring Order and Control” that there are some rules in relation to the European convention on human rights and the Refugee convention around which there are not discretionary powers. For some—for example, in relation to family life—the public interest can be balanced against that requirement. However, when it comes to trafficking, the Government do not have that discretion. If they refuse to believe trafficked people, and it is later agreed that those people have been trafficked, the UK Government are putting them through more trauma. They are putting people who have experienced worse things than most of us could ever imagine through more trauma because they refuse to believe them. Then, because they may disclose this late, as they do not want to talk about the sex work that they have been forced into and the rapes they have suffered—because it is very difficult to talk about those things—the UK Government say to them, “Well, you didn’t disclose this in time, so you can’t be a true asylum seeker. You can’t be a true refugee because you didn’t come forward and talk about the most horrific moments in your life to a man that you don’t know.” That is in relation to legal aid support.

There are major issues with the continuing lack of stability. The changes away from hotel accommodation to some of the accommodation at barracks can mean that people are more isolated and less able to access support. In Aberdeen, we have little in the way of lawyers who can cover asylum cases—and immigration lawyers in general, actually—and people are having to travel significant lengths in order to get that, on their £7 or £9 a week. Someone cannot get from Aberdeen to Glasgow on seven quid a week—it cannot be done for less than about 30 quid, unless it is on a Megabus, and even that can be quite dear.

Accommodation does not take into account the fact that provision is not there. If people are going to be put in Cameron barracks in Inverness, for example, it is even more difficult for them to get to Glasgow or Edinburgh in order to speak to the right lawyer who will be able to help and be willing to take on their immigration case. Creating that extra level of isolation for people who are already struggling—putting people in an isolated community in the Cameron barracks, rather than in a community setting where they can integrate—means that people who are isolated will become even more so, and people who are at risk will become even more at risk.

We know that even in hotels, people suffer as a result of their protected characteristics, and who are at risk of harm as a result of unsafe situations. That is multiplied when people are moved out of hotels into places such as barracks.

I have a few more things to cover. In relation to the assessment of safe countries for removal, the blanket designation of a country as safe is inherently incredibly risky. It may be safe for some people to be in Syria right now, but it is not safe for everyone. It is not safe for a Syrian woman who came here as a result of gender-based violence to go back to her family in Syria—or to go back to Syria at all—because of the likelihood that her family would take action against her. It is not safe for a gay person who fled because they were correctively raped to go back to Syria.

The decision about blanket designations is really difficult, considering the Government are saying that they are looking at vulnerable groups and talking about individuals. Creating a blanket safe designation that can be changed at any point in that 20-year period means they can suddenly say to someone, “You are going to have to go back to this country where you were correctively raped, because the UK Government have now decided—with very little in the way of parliamentary scrutiny—that this country is safe.” The problem is that we have not got that information. The Minister may feel that there will be special categories in place, but we have not been told that. We have not been given the impact assessment for how that will look. We have not been told what those provisions will be. Somebody who is living here, who is terrified about being sent back, has no comfort right now, because they do not know whether their case will be considered separately or whether their country will just be deemed safe and they will be sent back.

Child Poverty and No Recourse to Public Funds

Debate between Jim Shannon and Kirsty Blackman

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Kirsty Blackman]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree, though, that that should not be the case? Those families should get support without needing a food bank to step in. Some people will always fall through the cracks, but it feels as if this is a system-wide problem, rather than just a couple of individuals falling through some cracks.

[Jim Shannon]

It is wrong that that happens—I always say that—but the food bank brings together the church, Government officials and people with good will. It is about the generosity of people. I hope that that does not sound negative to the hon. Lady, because it is not supposed to be, but I see the positives of food banks. I understand the reasons for her position, but I am always moved by the goodness of people who say, “This week, I am going to contribute some of my income to the food bank.” Uptake of the food bank in Newtownards is significantly up on the year before. She is right that it should not have to happen, but it does happen, and it is good that people step up.

I have met food bank representatives in my constituency, and the work they do each day to help others is incredible. For parents with babies, the food bank provides nappies, milk formula and other essentials that children require, which are increasingly expensive. The food bank steps outside the norms and, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North will know, it helps people with pets, for example. Those who are diabetic can access certain types of food that will not impact their diabetes. With inflation at just over 3%, we have to recognise the importance of food banks.

There must be greater capacity for free school meals across the UK, as I have said before in this House and directly to Ministers in the Northern Ireland Assembly. The figures highlight the need for change. In March 2024, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health revealed that 109,000 children in Northern Ireland were in relative poverty. With some 97,000 to 98,000 children receiving free school meals in Northern Ireland, there is a potential shortfall of around 11,400 children who are eligible for assistance and are not claiming.

What happens in Northern Ireland is not unique—it happens everywhere in the United Kingdom—so how will the Government reach out to those who are unable to take advantage of the system put in place by the Governments here and back home in Northern Ireland? More must be done to make parents aware of what they are entitled to.

I will bring my comments to an end, but I look to the Minister for reassurance that he hears the comments of Members from across this United Kingdom. Our children are important. I do not doubt for one second that he agrees with what we are saying, but I suppose we are looking for how we can address this issue—it is about solutions. First, support for parents is pivotal. Secondly, support must be accessible. Thirdly, we have a responsibility to ensure that we do not make life harder for our constituents.

I am ever mindful that responsibility is sometimes devolved, and that the devolved institutions sometimes have the responsibility, but this place could be the great convincer—it starts here at Westminster and filters out to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—in how to do it better. With great respect, I ask the Minister to engage with the devolved institutions to protect our children, get them out of poverty and, importantly, give them the best possible start in life.

Social Security Support for Children

Debate between Jim Shannon and Kirsty Blackman

Wednesday 23rd November 2022 Westminster Hall

[Kirsty Blackman]

I agree. The fact that the Government are unwilling to even measure child poverty shows the lack of importance they give to this issue. If they cared as much about it as they should, they should be willing to explain, “This is what the current situation is. This is the measurement. This is how bad it is. This is how many people are suffering and how many children are in poverty in the UK in 2022”—in the UK in 2022! How can we be saying this? The UK Government need to stand up, hold up their hands and say, “This is the current situation and this is how we are going to improve it.”

I want to set out a few specific asks, some of which have been made already. As my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts mentioned, 87% of those affected by the benefit cap are families with children. The benefit cap would need to increase by £942 to reverse the loss since 2013. Despite the fact that the Government are looking to increase it, this is only the fourth time that social security payments have risen with inflation in 10 years. If we in Scotland can find an extra £25 a week in order to provide the Scottish child payment, the UK Government, with their far vaster budget and flexibility in dealing with their fiscal situation, can surely afford to do the same. They can afford it, but they choose not to match the payments we are making in Scotland.

There is the issue of the sufficiency of social security. One in four people on social security skipped meals this summer. That was in the summer—before the additional price cap increase on electricity and gas; before the upcoming winter months when people will need to put their heating on; before people had to buy school uniforms for their children when school started again in August or September. That situation is set only to get worse, and the promise of a temporary increase in universal credit will not fix it. There is currently no way out of this. We have no certainty that there is not going to be a cost of living crisis next year. Certainly none of my constituents has that level of certainty.

Let me turn to the issue of debt repayment deductions that are made from universal credit and other benefits. We have a situation where the UK Government can take 25% off the standard allowance to reclaim debts. Sometimes, those debts are caused by overpayments that are no fault of the person, but entirely the fault of poor decision making in the DWP or job centres. To be fair, that does not happen all the time; I am just saying that sometimes it is an issue.

If the UK Government have done an assessment of social security payments and believe them to be sufficient—that people can afford to live on them—how can they justify putting in place a benefit cap or taking 25% off the standard allowance? They are saying, “This is what we believe is sufficient for people to live on, but we are just going to take a quarter of it away.” It does not make any sense. People already cannot afford to live on the social security payments they are receiving. When the amount people are getting each month is reduced because of those reductions or the benefit cap, it is even less sufficient. Again, the conditionality and sanctions in place reduce that basic minimum level of payment that people should be entitled to.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. There have been occasions where overpayments have been made to my constituents. The money has to be paid back, and they understand that. Reducing payments by 25% is very unfair. In the past, my staff and I have managed to negotiate a reduction of 10%. That option is more manageable and should be given to the person at an early stage. Does the hon. Lady feel that is the right way forward?

[Kirsty Blackman]

I am glad that the hon. Member has managed that on behalf of his constituents. That is actually not the preferred route that I would take. I would prefer to look at whether people can afford payments rather than coming up with an arbitrary percentage, which is the UK Government’s preferred choice. I would look at affordability. How much are their outgoings and incomings? Can they afford to make the debt repayments? That is what we do, and when organisations like StepChange are managing debt, they look at whether people can afford it.

Subsidy Control Bill

Debate between Jim Shannon and Kirsty Blackman

3rd reading
Monday 13th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman]

Thank you for calling me to speak in this important debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a delight to be present in this incubation Chamber, where viruses from all around these islands—every corner of them—can come to mix freely, so that we can return this toxic cocktail to our constituents, constituencies and families. I am delighted to be able to be physically present at this time.

I will speak briefly to new clause 1, which is in my name and those of my colleagues, as well as the other amendments that stand in my name. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) will fill in the rest of the details and explain more about our rationale for the new clause.

The logic behind new clause 1 is that agricultural subsidies do not fit neatly into subsidy control regimes. That has been recognised by the World Trade Organisation, which is the reason for its agreement on agriculture; it has been recognised by the European Union, which is the reason for the common agricultural policy; indeed, it has been recognised across the world. We, and the Scottish Government, still have no idea why the UK Government decided to go against the flow and include agricultural subsidies in the Bill, rather than providing a separate arrangement for them.

The new clause simply removes agriculture from the consideration. It does not mean that we should not have a control regime of some sort for agriculture, and it does not mean that we should not have rules relating to agriculture. It means that agriculture does not fit neatly here, and should not form part of the main subsidy control regime in the Bill.

Amendment 10 relates to streamlined subsidy schemes. The change for which we are asking would allow devolved Administrations to make such schemes. Given that those Administrations have devolved competences by law, it makes no sense that the schemes can only be made by the Secretary of State in the UK Government. Obviously we would like Scottish independence, but in the absence of a vote on that, we are not asking for devolved Administrations to be able to overstep their devolved competences. We are merely asking for parity—for the ability of devolved Administrations to create streamlined subsidy schemes. They would still only be able to do that within their areas of devolved competence, and they would still only be able to do it within their limited financial envelopes. We are not asking for anything strange or unusual; we are not seeking some sort of power grab; it is simply to do with parity.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I understood from discussions I have had with the Minister in the past that the intention was to give the regional Administrations a say in this process so that their views could be taken on board if necessary, but the hon. Lady seems to be saying that that will not happen. Have I got it wrong, or have I got it right?

[Kirsty Blackman]

Some parts of the Bill give the devolved Administrations a say, but many others do not. The key part concerns the issue of interested parties, which I will explain in some detail later.

Streamlined subsidy schemes can go through a “streamlined” process rather than being made by, for instance, a local authority in order to benefit organisations. We are not asking for all granting authorities to have access to that process; we are simply asking for parity of esteem for the devolved Administrations, specifically on streamlined subsidy schemes.

[Jim Shannon]

The point that I was trying to make relates to farmers’ subsidies and environmental schemes, which are critically important to Northern Ireland, as they are to Scotland.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. We are asking for the agricultural references to be removed from the Bill because we do not think that this gives us, or any of the devolved Administrations, the flexibility we need. The Welsh Government have raised concerns similar to those raised by the Scottish Government, particularly in relation to legislative consent. As I said earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith will speak in more detail about agriculture in particular, so it may be worth questioning her at that stage.

Let me now turn to the issue of tax declarations and the transparency database. There is already a subsidy control database, which is rubbish. There is very little on it because a huge amount of information is missing. The Minister has made it clear that this is a preliminary database, an interim measure, and not the final database. We have had a degree of reassurance from him that the new database will be better, but the way in which the legislation is drafted—the number of exemptions, and the length of time that authorities have to upload information—causes us great concern. and was raised a number of times in Committee.

Amendment 13 would amend clause 33 in respect of a local authority or granting authority giving a subsidy in the form of a tax measure—a tax rebate or tax reduction. To give a theoretical example, if an authority says in April 2022, “We’re going to subsidise this company by not having them pay a certain kind of tax,” it does not have to put that on the database until the year after it appears on a tax declaration. It can be made in April 2022, it can appear on the tax declaration first in April 2023, and there would be no requirement to upload it to the database until April 2024, which is almost two years after the subsidy was made. By that time, an organisation that had been egregiously damaged by the subsidy would have sunk—it would have gone under.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

We discussed this at length, with a lot of banter, in Committee. But I have a concern that the provision does not say “directly” or “indirectly”. It does not make that as clear as it could. A clear statement from the Minister at the Dispatch Box would give me a level of comfort. I do not think that it is the intention of the Government to exclude the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, or the Northern Ireland Assembly from making these challenges, but I think that the Bill is written in a woolly enough way that it potentially accidentally excludes them.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Lady has outlined the issue very well on behalf of the Northern Ireland Assembly. This has to be an equality issue. If it should happen that some other part of the United Kingdom affects businesses in my constituency or in Northern Ireland, equality is part of that. Should not the Minister and the Government address the issue of equality for all those reasons as well?

[Kirsty Blackman]

I completely agree that there is not a level of parity here. There should be because the Government recognise that the Scottish Parliament has responsibility for some things—the Government recognise that most days. They recognise that in relation to the other devolved Assemblies, too. This is not about any of those Administrations having a veto; it is simply about the right to refer this to the Competition Appeal Tribunal in order for it to be looked at. It is not about any of those authorities being able to cancel subsidies, or to veto them in any way. It is simply about being able to raise that challenge. It is something that was raised by the witnesses in the Bill’s evidence sessions, so it is not something that I have just somehow invented, or that the Welsh Government have invented, or that the Scottish Government have invented. It is a real worry for people, so the more the Minister could say on this the better.

I will not speak for too much longer. I have just one more amendment—amendment 11—to cover. There are two schedules—schedules 1 and 2—in relation to the subsidy control principles. The subsidy control principles are set in the Bill, and it is clear that they are the principles that authorities need to look to in guiding the decision making about giving subsidies. There are two schedules: one for the general principles and one for the environmental principles, which relate specifically to subsidies around energy and environmental matters.

Working People’s Finances: Government Policy

Debate between Jim Shannon and Kirsty Blackman

Tuesday 21st September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman]

I am going to come on to that, because I am thinking there is a divide across this Chamber: the constituency cases we on the Opposition Benches are seeing do not appear to be reflected in the cases being seen by those on the Government Benches, or they would not be making this cut. If they were sitting around those tables with people crying because they are living in absolute poverty and destitution, they would not be choosing to cut this £20 a week.

Some 72% of families who need food bank help have at least one parent in work. In my constituency more than four in 10 families will be hit by the UC cut. Aberdeen has been hit by a triple-whammy: the oil price crash has meant many people have been made redundant; we have seen the reduction in the reliance on oil; and we have seen both covid and Brexit. All those things are having a significant impact on the people of Aberdeen, and particularly my constituency. We have seen massive house prices in our city, too, so people have not been able to save money, and they have not been able to get council houses because of the right to buy, which we have, thankfully, cancelled now in Scotland. They have not had the opportunity to get back on the housing ladder, and they are doing the kind of insecure work my great-granny’s mother was doing: they are cleaning hospitals and working as porters and carers. I defy anyone to tell me those people are not working hard; these are hard-working families, yet they are being slammed consistently by this Tory Government.

We are talking about absolute destitution. My hon. Friend on the Front Bench, the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), mentioned prepayment meters. I do not know how many Members have had a prepayment meter, but I lived in a flat with one when I had hardly any money. If a prepayment meter goes £20 into the red, it stops working—the electricity stops—and people do not just need a fiver to bring it back; they need to pay the full £20 to get back into the green. Many of my constituents are faced with those numbers ticking towards that negative £20 and wondering, “What on earth are we going to do about this? How are we going to pay for the electricity so our children have heat and do not freeze?” We had a guy come into my office one day. This chap was on universal credit, and he was one of those single people on universal credit who is literally destitute. That is a significant portion of single people on universal credit; they are living not just below the poverty line but below the line of destitution. This chap came into my office to say that he did not know what to do. He had not eaten in three days. His dog had not eaten in three days. He had sold every single item of furniture that he had in order to try to keep them both fed. He had sold his bed, so we managed to source a bed for this chap.

That should not be happening in 2021. We should not be having those conversations with people, yet Government Members talk about £6 billion and say, “Oh, we’ve given £80 million to this scheme” or whatever. It does not matter if they have given £80 million to that scheme; it does not make a difference. What makes a difference is ensuring that these folk have enough money to eat—enough money to feed themselves and to clothe themselves. The hon. Member for Bury North (James Daly) talked about hope and aspiration. How can someone have hope and aspiration if they spend every single moment of every single day—

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Worrying.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Worrying—exactly. Worrying and thinking about what on earth they are going to do tomorrow, and what they are going to do the next day. Half of people who go to Trussell Trust food banks are in debt to the DWP because the universal credit system is so rubbish. People are in debt because they have had to take crisis loans due to the universal credit system.

That is before we talk about the £20-a-week cut. That is absolutely a cut for people who have been going through the hardest times. Government Members can talk about the £6 billion all they like, but the reality is that the damage that this cut will cause to people—the number of hospital admissions we will see and the number of people who will die as a result of the cut—will be far more and cost far more than £6 billion.

Erasmus Plus Programme

Debate between Jim Shannon and Kirsty Blackman

Thursday 21st June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I will come on to talk about those wider benefits. I will talk particularly about Aberdeen, but also the wider Scottish context.

In 2015, 2,098 students from Scottish higher education institutions travelled abroad—a huge number of students had that opportunity. Around 200 students a year from Aberdeen University get involved in the Erasmus+ scheme, and 350 students come to Aberdeen and become part of our university life. Aberdeen has the highest percentage of students who are EU nationals of any Scottish university, which make up a significant proportion within Scotland. Those EU nationals have shaped the university in my constituency, and made a huge difference. Indeed, 25% of people who live in Aberdeen city were not born in the UK, and a big reason for that is the number of students who come to both our universities—Aberdeen University and Robert Gordon University in the south of the city.

Scotland has much higher levels of participation in Erasmus+ than other parts of the United Kingdom, and 9.7% of students from Scottish institutions travel abroad. More than half of outward student mobility in Scotland is accounted for by the Erasmus+ scheme, so I cannot overstate how important it is. In England, fewer than 7% of students take time to travel abroad, so the scheme is particularly important for Scotland.

It is therefore important that we receive clarity. It is good that the UK Government have committed to participating in the scheme until the end of the current funding round, but universities need clarity now about whether they will be able to participate beyond that, so that they can plan for the future. Universities are looking at their courses and numbers of students who will go there in future years, and that clarity will make a huge difference.

Let me move on to the wider benefits of the scheme. Some 93% of learners agree that they see the value of different cultures after having participated in the Erasmus+ scheme, which is hugely important. If the UK Government wish to pursue a global Britain agenda—that is despite shutting us off from Europe in many ways that I would prefer they did not do—we need young people who are taking part in life in our universities to be able to travel, participate in and see the value of different cultures, and to make those links. The reality, however, will be more difficult.

[Jim Shannon]

One thing that came out of the information we all received was that 64% of employers considered an international experience important for recruitment, and that was up by 37% since 2006. If any evidence were needed to reinforce what the hon. Lady is saying, that is it.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I absolutely agree. Earlier we heard the statistics for students who are unemployed, and how low those numbers are for students who have studied abroad when compared with those who have not. That is incredibly important.

We need to make sure that we increase our links with the rest of the world, not decrease them. When our brightest and best students take part in the life of universities across Europe, they showcase the talent we have in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. We are able to receive the brightest and best students from other places so they can study in our universities. I have discussed this with Aberdeen University. The students who come to study in Aberdeen go back to their country and continue to have links with companies in our constituencies and our cities. They keep up the links they make, which has a huge positive economic benefit. Being part of the scheme is incredibly important.