Asylum Seekers: Removal to Rwanda

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary whether she will make a statement on the planned removal of asylum seekers to Rwanda.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)]

Our world-leading migration and economic development partnership with Rwanda is a global first and will change the way we collectively tackle illegal immigration. This is a global problem that requires international solutions.

Rwanda is a fundamentally safe and secure country with a track record of supporting asylum seekers. Individuals will be relocated to Rwanda and have their asylum claims processed by the Rwandan authorities. The partnership is an important part of our reform of the broken asylum and migration system. I welcome the High Court’s decision on Friday on this, but, with legal proceedings ongoing, it would be inappropriate to comment further than to say that we comply fully with our legal and international obligations.

We aim to move forward with a policy that offers new opportunities for those relocated to Rwanda and enables us to focus our support on those most in need of our help. The British public rightly expect us to act. Indeed, inaction is not a responsible option when people are drowning and ruthless criminals are profiting from human misery. Decisive leadership is required to tackle the smuggling of people through illicit and criminal means. This evil trade must be stopped.

The principle of the plan is simple: people will no longer be able to pay evil people smugglers to go to a destination of their choice while passing through sometimes several safe countries. If someone comes from a safe country, they are picking the UK as a preferred destination.

Uncontrolled immigration reduces our capacity to help those who most need our support. It puts intolerable pressure on public services and local communities. Long-lasting change will not happen overnight; it requires a long-term plan. As I have said many times before in this House, there is no one single solution, but this Government will deliver the first comprehensive overhaul of the asylum system in decades.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I sincerely thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.

This is not world-leading policy. If anything, this leads to the total shredding of the refugee convention. This cash-for-deportations policy is akin to state-sponsored trafficking and transportation. What is more, it is a grim political stunt being rushed out to shore up the Prime Minister again. Why else was this flight organised before the relevant provisions of the horrible Nationality and Borders Act 2022 were brought into force? What is the Minister’s explanation for that?

More fundamentally, why are Ministers pressing ahead when even the most basic safeguards are not in place? I fear that the age assessment processes are totally inadequate and will see children sent to Rwanda. As I understand it, such a difficult process is being crammed into a 30-minute interview with two immigration officers, with young people left unaware of their rights to challenge the decision that they are an adult. Is that accurate? How on earth can such vulnerable people as trafficking victims, torture survivors and LGBT people be identified by a basic screening interview, which is another process that the Minister know takes a long time? Why is it permissible at all for trafficking survivors to be part of the inadmissibility procedures?

Access to legal advice is crucial, so let me ask: can the Minister confirm how many of those scheduled to be on the flight tomorrow have not yet been able to seek legal advice? There is no functioning joint committee or monitoring committee yet, so how can it possibly be right to proceed when these basic oversight bodies are not yet established? He knows that the overwhelming balance of legal opinion, including that of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, is that this policy is totally illegal. Surely, if the Government had any final shred of respect for the rule of law, they would at least wait until a final ruling in July before commencing this policy.

This is a policy that will not work on its own awful terms. Will the Minister confirm that the Rwandan asylum system has capacity only for a couple of hundred new cases each year, and has he been made aware of the evidence that, even now, more risky routes are already being tried by smugglers as a result?

In conclusion, this will not hurt horrendous people smugglers one jot, but it will badly hurt those who have fled persecution and sought protection here, and this policy brings shame on the UK internationally.

[Tom Pursglove]

I am grateful to the SNP spokesman for his questions, and it is fair to say that we will have to agree to differ on this. We have had many debates over the last few months on this issue, and I will comment on the broad issues he has raised, while of course reflecting the fact that there are ongoing judicial proceedings.

First, I want to say that I feel the hon. Member’s use of language at the beginning of his remarks was not the sort I would expect from him. He is usually temperate in his use of language, but to compare the new partnership with human trafficking is, frankly, plain wrong and very offensive not just to this Government, but, I would argue, to the Rwandans.

The hon. Member knows full well, because I have said so repeatedly, that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children will not be transferred as part of this partnership. There will be a thorough screening process in place, and that is ongoing. Of course, cases are looked at on a case-by-case basis, taking proper account of all the relevant circumstances. On the point about access to legal advice, people are able to access legal advice in detention in the usual way.

It probably has not escaped the hon. Member’s notice, and the House’s notice, that the UNHCR places asylum seekers in Rwanda, which I think speaks volumes about its judgment. [Interruption.] Hang on! The shadow Home Secretary likes to chunter from a sedentary position, but she will have her opportunity in a moment. The truth is that the UNHCR, through its actions in placing people in Rwanda, clearly believes that it is safe for people to be placed there. We have of course been through our own thorough processes to make judgments with our country information notices, and that is the right and proper way of handling this.

Again—I have said this many times before, but it bears repeating—we will always live up to our international obligations and the laws that we are supposed to be subject to.

National Security Bill

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 6th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee. I am grateful to the Home Secretary for setting out the detailed context of this Bill and to the Minister for Security and Borders and his team for providing a briefing before the recess and talking through parts of the Bill and answering questions on it.

I think everybody here today agrees that we need a Bill that, as the long title to this one says, makes provision

“about threats to national security from espionage, sabotage and persons acting for foreign powers”.

Indeed, as we have already heard at some considerable length, the need to update our espionage laws is clear from the Russia report, from the Law Commission report and for a million other reasons as well. For those reasons, we will support the Bill’s receiving a Second Reading this evening. Indeed, parts of the Bill could be particularly welcome, such as steps to tackle disinformation and interference in elections; those have great potential if done correctly.

However, all that does not mean that we will give the Government a blank cheque as they take the Bill through its different stages, and we would be failing in our duties as Opposition MPs if we did. That is particularly true in a policy area such as this: there is perhaps a tendency for Government, and even Parliaments, to write blank cheques for the security and intelligence services every time they come calling with a list of new powers and capabilities that they seek.

Like everybody here, for the reasons that the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State set out, I am immensely grateful for the critical work that those in the services do, day in, day out, on our behalf. They have our full respect. None the less, they are not perfect: from time to time, news stories emerge that remind us of that fact—for example, the recent BBC revelations about a particular covert human intelligence source. These agencies also have immense powers, so we should always rigorously test the need for new powers, new criminal laws and new restrictions, and we should always be on the lookout, as the shadow Home Secretary said, for ways and means that ensure that the agencies are held to account and that we get to look under the bonnet at what is going on without undermining their work or making it impossible. It is against that background that I will briefly highlight some of the issues that we will want to pursue and to test the Government on as the Bill progresses through the House.

In relation to part 1, most of the new offences seem at first sight to make sense and can be justified, though we will test whether they are a fair and proportionate response to the Russia report and the Law Commission recommendations in particular. These are complicated offences, so we will challenge the Bill to see whether the Government have gone far enough, or—more likely—whether they have gone too far. Key concepts will need close scrutiny. The foreign power condition and the foreign power threat activity definition, for example, are pivotal concepts that are also potentially very broad. The whole concept of the safety or interest of the UK could also be challenging and something of a moving feast as well.

As we have heard, clause 23 will need great scrutiny. It disapplies certain extra territorial provisions in relation to offences of encouraging or assisting crime under the Serious Crime Act 2007. The explanatory notes claim that the new paragraph that could be inserted into that Act

“ensures that those working for or on behalf of the intelligence agencies would not be liable for support they provided to activities overseas…where that support was deemed necessary for the exercise of the intelligence agencies’ functions.”

That all sounds benign, but others have made the argument that the provisions, as drafted, go way beyond what is described in those notes. For example, I hope we would all agree that, if Ministers take steps that lead to an unlawful drone killing of a family overseas, or if information is provided that leads to extraordinary rendition and torture, those Ministers should not be able to put themselves completely beyond the rule of law in those circumstances. That is exactly the type of behaviour for which we have been condemning other Governments, so if that is the impact of clause 23 there is a strong case for it to be rethought.

[Stewart Hosie]

On that particular point, is it not more perplexing that there is the carve-out of removing the ability to be convicted for certain overseas offences, given that the defence of acting reasonably already exists?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, which we will have to look at. There are other provisions in legislation that provide protection for those involved in the work of agencies, so we do not think that the case for this new carve-out has been made at all.

Part 2 will also need close scrutiny; we turn here to state threats prevention and investigation measures. I do not think that any of us here should ever feel comfortable about curtailing people’s liberties by ministerial fiat rather than as a punishment for a proven crime. In fairness, I think the Home Secretary recognised that in her speech. We have come to accept that such “prevention and investigation measures” are a necessary part of the fight against terrorism. Our position on TPIMs has been to cut their wings, improve oversight and limit their invasiveness, rather than to do away with them altogether. It may be that we end up with STPIMs as well, but we will probe the Minister closely on the case for requiring them at all.

Ministers always promise—the Home Secretary did today—that powers will not be used inappropriately and excessively. That is welcome, but they should not have the power to do things that are inappropriate or excessive in the first place, because those who follow them into office may take a different view of what is inappropriate or excessive. Restrictions have to be in the Bill rather than in ministerial undertakings.

Part 3 is also a mixed bag. We absolutely see the need for freezing and forfeiting damages that could be utilised for terrorism. There could also be an arguable case for powers to reduce damages in certain national security proceedings, but we will examine that closely. On the other hand, there is a real question over whether courts already have sufficient powers and whether there are sufficient safeguards and processes that prevent undeserving cases from winning damages in the first place, so we will again press the Minister on that.

Much less persuasive is the case for restricting legal aid in utterly unconnected proceedings on the grounds of a past conviction for terrorism. That was raised by the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), and I am very sympathetic to that while recognising that this is one of the few “England and Wales only” provisions.

As we heard, we need to scrutinise not just what is in the Bill, but what is not—or not yet—in it, and two issues are particularly important. As has been touched on, the Minister and the Home Secretary have set out that the foreign agent registration scheme will be amended. Various complaints have been made about that not being in the Bill as we debate it today.

I return to my experience during the passage of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022—a slightly more acrimonious piece of legislation. Having really important provisions about citizenship and age tests being introduced at pretty short notice in Committee meant that we did not have the chance to ask witnesses about them or to get briefings about them from important organisations.

Something as important as the foreign agent registration scheme needs more than a couple of days before a Committee sitting if we are going to give it proper scrutiny. I am very sympathetic to the idea of allowing us some time on the Floor of the House to debate the details. In principle, the idea is very welcome and the provision is required. However, as we all have acknowledged so far, there will be very tricky lines to draw in the sand between those who should be required to register and those who do not. We must also guard against having a massive Henry VIII clause that simply leaves it to the Government to set out the scheme at a later date. That would not be acceptable either.

Also missing from the Bill—this is apparently not going to be amended by the Government—are updates to the Official Secrets Act 1989 or any concept of a public interest defence to charges under it. As we heard, that Act is almost as out of date as the other laws that we are updating through the Bill. The Law Commission was clear that a public interest defence was required to ensure that the Government were not able to abuse legislation as a

“cloak to mask serious wrongdoing”.

It suggested a statutory commissioner to investigate allegations of wrongdoing or criminality made by civil servants or members of the public where disclosures of such concerns would be an offence under that Act. We support those ideas on the type of provisions that look under the bonnet, as I referred to earlier.

[Joanna Cherry]

As usual, my hon. Friend is giving a considered speech and I support everything that he has said so far. Notwithstanding the Government’s reluctance to use the Bill as a vehicle to introduce a public interest defence, it is likely that a cross-party amendment would seek to do that at some point. Will he confirm that the Scottish National party—our party—would support that?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Yes, absolutely. The versions of such an amendment that I have seen look very promising and we would like to give our support to that if we can.

In conclusion, we need a Bill, and we certainly support this Bill on Second Reading. However, there is a lot for us to get our teeth into, both in terms of what is in it and what is not. We look forward to engaging critically but constructively on all these issues as the Bill progresses.

Draft Passport (Fees) Regulations 2022

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 26th May 2022 General Committees

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Cummins. I, too, thank the Minister for introducing the draft statutory instrument. As he said, most of this is pretty technical and the changes are not hugely significant. For that reason, we will not be opposing it, either. But I will make two or three short points.

Obviously, and as the Minister acknowledged, the background to all this is the challenges and difficulties facing the Passport Office at the moment and the fact that we all have large numbers of constituents who are struggling to get hold of passports in time for their holidays. I have said quite a bit about that in the Chamber already, so I need not repeat what I have said previously. However, to justify the passport fee, we need transparency from the Passport Office as to how it is performing. The Minister said again today that 250,000 passports are being processed every week, but we also need to know how many applications are being made and what the up-to-date position is on the backlog. If there could be more transparency about exactly where the Passport Office is on that at any given time, that would be hugely helpful.

Another aspect of transparency is about the policies that staff are operating to. Hon. Members have already mentioned the very helpful desk being operated at Portcullis House. I pay tribute to the staff there for their patience in the face of overwhelming demand. However, it does seem to be a very fast-moving and complicated policy picture. I understand that this week, for example, a rule was introduced whereby someone would not be able to escalate or accelerate the passport process unless they had been waiting for six weeks. It would be useful to know whether there is a place where MPs can go to see the policies that staff are operating to, so that we can understand exactly how things are operating. There have been cases where I have gone away from PCH with a certain piece of advice, only for the constituent to tell me that they eventually got through on the phone line and were told something a little different, so a little more transparency and clarity about exactly what rules and policies are in place at any given time would be useful.

In relation to that specific, six-week rule, I can sort of understand it in the context of people who had allowed their passport to run down and perhaps at least should have been aware of the need to apply in advance. There is a specific issue about those who have lost their passport. I have a constituent who has applied for a passport three or four weeks in advance of their holiday. That is not because they had got complacent or allowed their passport to run down, but if the six-week rule then prevents them from accelerating the process, that causes difficulty, so I wonder whether there is a way to apply a different rule for those who have lost their passports or had them stolen.

I mentioned the telephone line. Lots of constituents are still complaining that they are struggling to get through. They are having to wait hours and racking up significant phone bills. Can the Minister say a little more about what work is being done to address that and, as I said, the sometimes slightly inconsistent responses that we get?

As the Minister said, these regulations do not increase passport fees, but as I understand it, they do continue the system whereby citizens are charged a fee that is actually higher than the cost to the Passport Office of producing the passport. We have complained about that before and we again place on the record our objection on the basis that this is really an essential Government service to our citizens, and the idea that the Passport Office is making a profit sits uncomfortably with us. The Minister will say that it is reinvested elsewhere, in Home Office policy areas. To our mind, that argument could be made in relation to visit visas, for example, but this is something a little more fundamental. It is about people’s citizenship, and it is inappropriate to be making a profit on that.

[James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)]

To their complete credit, the SNP spokesman and the shadow Minister are raising some really good points, and I endorse all that has been said this morning. My question is simple: does the hon. Gentleman agree that, ultimately, the statutory instrument in question will speed up the process and provide a much more efficient process for the benefit of all?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I am not sure that this statutory instrument will make much difference in the grand scheme of things. I will come to the one element of it that appears to be designed to address that. It is about increasing incentives to ensure that people actually turn up for their appointments and therefore we are not losing the slots. I support that, and it might make a little difference. In fact, the deadline for priority passports has been slowed from seven days to eight days, so this will not fundamentally alter the way things are happening.

I have made a point about the profit. Moving on to the idea that application fees will not be refundable, I absolutely get the idea in relation to the 48 hours and not getting the booking fee back. That seems absolutely fine. But failing to refund even the cost of the actual passport application for people who do not show up seems to me a little harsh. I think it might end up making a rod for the Minister’s back. Again, why not just leave it at the booking fee or perhaps a proportion of the application fee? He has mentioned that there will be a policy of giving refunds in compassionate circumstances, but that would not cover, for example, someone who gets stuck in a traffic jam, a tube breakdown or anything like that. I think it is going to be difficult, so I wonder whether the Minister could look generously at what that policy will be and perhaps move it beyond compassionate circumstances.

As I said, on the whole, there is nothing too controversial about all this, and I am grateful to the Minister for explaining the background.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I want a little clarity. At one point, there was reference to compassionate circumstances, which to me sounds rather more limited than “good reason”, such as a broken-down train or whatever.

[Kevin Foster]

For example, someone might have glued themselves to the road outside or to the door, or witnessed a crime on the way. Again, we could get a very long list of reasons why people, through no fault of their own, were unable to get to an appointment. However, we will not draw up an exhaustive list, because we could be here all day doing that, only for someone to say, “Have you thought of this?”—so no. We intend to be generally flexible, but if someone just forgets, does not bother or whatever, that is the point at which we have to say, “Well, I’m sorry, but public resource was wasted. A slot that could have been used to process a passport for someone else was wasted.”

Furthermore, the issue formed part of our planning to deal with the surge: we felt that it was appropriate to be clear and proportionate. If someone rings us up beforehand, it is £30, and if someone rings us up more than 48 hours before, completely free of charge, because someone cancelling with 48 hours’ notice allows us to readvertise the slot and, at the moment certainly, we know that other people will be only too happy to take up the slot. We felt that that was proportionate, because most people will ring up and cancel. We feel that £30 is not a huge cost barrier, but is enough to be an incentive to ring up and cancel at a point when we can readvertise the slots to someone else.

I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire that all appropriate security checks continue to be done on all passport applications. A number of checks are in place. Colleagues will appreciate why, for example, child passports might take slightly longer—certain checks apply for travel by under-18s.

Foreign National Offender Removal Flights

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 18th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the SNP spokesperson, Stuart C. McDonald.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

I, too, thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, but I do not thank him either for the fact of the statement, which I agree was completely pointless, or for the overblown rhetoric it contained—rhetoric that I more commonly associate with the Minister’s boss than the Minister, who I have a great deal of respect for.

On that note, my first question is, why can we not try to have a sensible, grown-up discussion about this complex policy area? It is frankly nonsense to speak about “sides”. There is a balance to be struck, and it is our responsibility as legislators to debate that sensibly. It is perfectly legitimate for us to question whether the balance is in the right place or to question the disproportionate impact on some communities. As I have pointed out before, in endless urgent questions and on similar topics, Stephen Shaw, the Government-commissioned independent expert, said that the deportation and removal of people brought up here from a young age was “deeply troubling” and entirely “disproportionate”. Yes, of course many deportations are absolutely justified to protect the public, but it is nonsensical to ignore the fact that some are very cruel, particularly when they relate to people who have lived almost all their lives here and have absolutely no connection to the place they are being deported to.

The Government refuse to acknowledge the fact that these decisions can have profound impacts on the family life of the partners, spouses and children of those being deported, and on others, or that it is legitimate to press the Government on that. So let me try a different argument. If someone has been here since they were in infancy, grew up here, was educated here, commits crime here and is potentially dangerous, why is it fair on the country to which they are deported to have to manage that risk, especially if it is possibly far less equipped to do so, rather than this country, where that person was brought up? The Minister talks about letting people out on to the street, but he is letting people out on the street—just not our streets, but those of another country, with which they have absolutely no connection.

[Tom Pursglove]

What we do as a Government is take responsibility for our returns. We live up to our legal obligations in this space, and that is right and proper, and what the British people expect. But we understandably expect other countries around the world to do the same in taking their immigration offenders and those who have committed criminality in this country and are liable to deportation.

I was slightly surprised to hear the hon. Member say that there has been a lack of interest in these matters in the House. There has been quite a lot of interest, in terms of Twitter commentary and parliamentary questions, and I can certainly vouch for the fact that I have received ministerial correspondence. I also know that Members from across the House have had constituency correspondence on this, so there is certainly interest. On a day when we have had another of these flights—it has attracted considerable media attention, as these matters often do—it is right and proper that I am able to come to the Dispatch Box to set out the steps that the Government are taking. Quite often, Ministers are criticised for not coming to the House to set out such measures. I am here today, I am answering questions from across the House, and I am also here to reassure the British people that we have a plan and we are taking action.

HM Passport Office Backlogs

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Scottish National party spokesman, Stuart C. McDonald.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith) for raising this question, because this mess is causing untold misery for people and families across the UK. It is not, as Members have said, about hard-working staff; it is about leadership and planning. On that note, I am worried that the Home Secretary just does not get the scale of the problem. Yesterday, like the Minister, she invited colleagues to send details of their cases directly. My inbox is bursting at the seams and is about to explode with the cases. If all 650 of us were to send our cases to the Home Secretary, she would never be able to look at her inbox again. Does the Home Secretary understand the scale of the problem? Does that complacency explain why it took the Home Office until April to flag up this issue to the public and warn them of the change in target times?

I welcome the new facility at PCH. However, on the phone lines, what are folk being charged for phoning? For example, I know that colleagues have noticed that their constituency office phone bills are going through the roof because staff are having to spend hours on phone lines. I hope that is not the case for members of the public. I seek reassurance on that.

We have been reassured that the Home Office expected this year to deal with 9.5 million British passport applications and had been planning for that, but something has gone wrong. Was it the estimate? Apparently not, given what the Minister said, so what went wrong with the preparation? It is all well and good to be told that the Passport Office is processing higher or record numbers, but that is not the test—the test is whether there are sufficient numbers and that is clearly not happening. When will the Passport Office have enough staff to process sufficient applications?

[Mr Speaker]

I thought Ian Blackford had returned. [Laughter.] Come on, Minister.

Preventing Crime and Delivering Justice

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

The debate today is about preventing crime and delivering justice. We heard the Home Secretary’s claim, delivered without any sense of irony, to belong to the party of law and order, but this Government’s record is one of seeking out every opportunity they can to put themselves beyond justice and above the rule of law. We have had a decade of successive Tory Governments obsessed with chipping away at any institutions or activities that constrain or hold them to account: trade unions, charities, the Electoral Commission, our courts and, obviously, our EU member-ship. Now, it is human rights and protesters yet again in the firing line. To this Government even international law is almost inconsequential, broken quite readily, whether in a specific and limited way or by a complete trashing of the refugee convention.

This is a Government too often pursuing pet obsessions and short-term headlines instead of dealing with the basics. While people struggle to heat their homes and put food on the table because of the cost of living crisis, the Government, instead of taking the action we need, imagine up a Brexit freedoms Bill. Six tortuous years after the Brexit referendum, they are still trying to scapegoat Brussels.

There were newspaper reports of a Cabinet rebellion to stop imports of foie gras being outlawed. How about a rebellion to protect workers’ rights or human rights, or to help our constituents to heat their homes and put food on the table? This is a Government who are out of touch. Those skewed priorities are just as evident in the sphere of justice and home affairs, with two Departments cut to the bone by a decade of austerity pursuing obsessions, pet projects and ridiculous headlines instead of taking the action and making the investment required to deliver the decent public services we need them to deliver. This Government are just not getting on with the job. People just want their passports delivered on time! Despite all the fuss made by Brexiteers, it does not matter what colour the passports are if they arrive too late. The Home Secretary very generously agreed to take away individual cases, but I think she will find that her inbox will be absolutely overflowing with thousands of emails if we take her up on that.

If the Government are to insist on Ukrainians applying for visas—we continue to argue that they should not—then they need to be delivered speedily and efficiently, because leaving those fleeing war in limbo is unforgivable. The Home Secretary seemed to talk up the fact that 19,000 had arrived here. I salute the generosity of the British people in opening their homes, but there are already 27,000 in Ireland, a country that is about one-thirteenth the size of this country. The bureaucracy put in place by this Home Secretary is not allowing this country to step up to the plate. In fact, the whole asylum and immigration system needs to be sped up, with decision making improved and the hostile environment ditched. For those who are victims of that hostile environment, we need an overhaul of the Windrush compensation scheme, because it is appalling that people continue to die without seeing a penny of what they are due. If the Government are serious about the lessons learned from that disaster, we need a more serious set of actions to implement Wendy Williams’ recommendations, including a migrants commissioner.

All those very basic issues need to be addressed, but instead what we get in this Queen’s Speech are further attacks on our rights. Before I turn to the main offenders in the legislative programme, let me highlight the Bills for which we will offer some support and bring some light to the Home Secretary’s afternoon. An overhaul of espionage laws is badly overdue, as we know from the Russia report, the Law Commission and various other sources. We need a more resilient state with espionage laws that are fit for the 21st century and able to keep pace with the ever-changing threats that we face. However, we will always watch out for proper oversight and mechanisms to ensure that the powers are not abused by Government, and we will press the case for a public interest defence.

We welcome the economic crime Bill. Again, that is long overdue, with my hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), among the voices that have been calling for action for years. We have welcomed the online safety Bill and we recognise that it is now truer than ever that feeling safe requires regulation of the online as much as the offline.

We also support the ideas mentioned in relation to the modern slavery Bill, particularly around action on supply chains, but any modern slavery Bill worthy of the name should repeal some of the provisions of the odious Nationality and Borders Act 2022, which was passed just last month and which will undoubtedly make life worse, not better, for victims of trafficking, including those who face being sent to Rwanda. We will engage positively, though cautiously, with discussions about the Protect duty and that draft Bill. However, these are not the dangerous obsessions or pet projects to which I referred. Those come in the form of the legislation to meddle with the Human Rights Act and to undermine yet again the right to protest.

The Human Rights Act

“works well and has benefited many”.

The Government know this as they were told so by their independent review body, which noted that many so-called problems with the Act are more to do with perception than reality, requiring a remedy through a focus on human rights education, not a radical overhaul. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has also done excellent work in highlighting the “enormously positive” impact of the Act on the protection of human rights in the UK, concluding firmly that no case for reform had been established.

This is about people being able to have a practical means of enforcing our human rights, challenging unlawful Government policies and securing justice. It is about ensuring that people interacting with the state, whether that is the police or in care homes or hospitals, are treated with dignity and respect. Our public services are better, not worse for being fully accountable to our constituents in the courts here, instead of their having to travel to Strasbourg to vindicate their rights. That is what the Government risk undermining and damaging, not delivering justice but seeking to protect themselves from it. We will oppose the proposals every step of the way.

The proposals tell us something much more fundamental about the British constitution, because the Human Rights Act is, after all, a piece of legislation that is absolutely crucial to the devolution settlements. That has not been recognised at all in this debate. Along with the Scotland Act 1998, it is absolutely fundamental in setting out what the Scottish Parliament and Government can and cannot do. It is the same for Wales and it is pivotal, too, for Northern Ireland.

Not for the first time, here is a Tory Government fixing up the balance of powers in the United Kingdom not through negotiation, agreement and endorsement, but unilaterally, without consent and absolutely without cause. In most states and most countries, such fundamental changes would require agreement; approval in all the impacted legislatures; sometimes even double majorities; sometimes endorsement through referenda. But here in the UK, the Tories can rewrite the constitutional settlement to suit themselves in the blink of an eye, such is the lack of checks and constraints on them.

A Home Office focused on Scotland would tear up the immigration system that has served us so badly, left us without the people we desperately need for our economy and public services, and undermined the rights and security of so many of the people we already have welcomed. It would utterly reject an asylum system that is expressly and increasingly designed to make people suffer.

If we really wanted to prevent crime and deliver justice, we would overhaul the out-of-date Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, which exacerbates one of the most persistent and difficult public health challenges that we face today. This is the scourge that is inextricably linked with so much crime, overcrowded prisons, serious and organised crime groups, county lines, modern slavery, drugs deaths and ruined lives. The Misuse of Drugs Act is not working and, in too many respects, is now undermining efforts to tackle all those fundamental problems. Even very obvious evidence-based policies, such as overdose prevention facilities, remain hugely difficult because of that Act. There were some very welcome steps in the Government’s drugs strategy, but for real progress to be made, we continue to make the case for that Act to receive a radical review and overhaul.

Those are just some of the things that we desperately need from this Home Secretary and this Government, but they will never be delivered. They are a Department and a Government that deliver nothing of substance for the people of Scotland, instead undermining our rights and undermining the Scottish Parliament. This Government will not deliver. More than anything, this Queen’s Speech shows us that we in Scotland need to get on with delivering for ourselves.

Homes for Ukraine: Visa Application Centres

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 28th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We come to the SNP spokesperson, Stuart C. McDonald.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

We are seeing the biggest movement of refugees across Europe since the second world war, and the Home Secretary’s response is to erect a massive wall of bureaucracy and red tape. That bureaucracy is causing totally avoidable misery for the Ukrainians fleeing war, and anger and frustration for generous hosts right across the UK. We on the SNP Benches have said it before and I will say it again: let us just scrap these visa requirements now.

The Minister will cite security again, but I will push back on that. Does he accept that around 140 countries—not just those in the EU—allow Ukrainians to arrive without visas? Will he confirm that scrapping the visas does not mean no checks? How many nationalities does his Department already allow to arrive into the United Kingdom without visas? He is not saying that there are no security checks for them, so why do we not apply the same principles to Ukrainians?

The UK shares an open land border with a country that does not require visas from Ukrainians. Does that not undermine somewhat the security arguments that the Minister keeps putting to us? There is still time to fix this, but not much. Let us just scrap the visa requirements now.

[Kevin Foster]

The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that the Government take a different view. It is for each country to decide its policy based on the intelligence and the assessments it receives, and that is partly driven by its geographical situation and, in Europe, whether it is part of the Schengen border-free zone.

Our position is based on the advice we have received. We have changed some of the systems of application based on that advice, and all our policies, particularly around visa national or non-visa national status for particular nationalities, are driven by a comprehensive assessment that includes security and other matters. I hope colleagues will appreciate why I will not outline the exact details on the Floor of the House, in a public forum.

As I have touched on, nearly 90,000 visas have already been issued. We are certainly seeing more progress every day, and we look forward to welcoming a large number of people to the UK.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 26th April 2022 Commons Chamber

I congratulate the Home Secretary and the Minister on at last grappling with an asylum system that is simply not fit for purpose. The Opposition would do well, in a measured and considered way, to back the Government in that respect, rather than backing these essentially destructive Lords amendments. They are destructive because they are not in tune with the spirit of the Bill, and they certainly will not assist any Government in reforming our broken asylum system.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

I will start by recalling that what we are debating this evening is the fate of Syrians, Afghans, Eritreans, persecuted Christians, trafficking victims and others who seek sanctuary in the United Kingdom.

A rather perplexing set of votes in the other place means that we are down to just three Lords amendments. While the remaining amendments may be small in number, however, they are huge in significance. Assuming that this place fails to do its duty by agreeing to them, I hope the other place, unlike the Minister, will do its duty by continuing to insist on them.

With the exception of some welcome provisions on nationality, we continue to believe the whole Bill should be scrapped. However, for as long as it is before us, we support amendments that seek to ensure as far as possible that the Government act in accordance with the refugee convention and allow that compliance to be considered by the courts. That means accepting their lordships’ amendments on interpretation and on restricting the offensive clauses on differentiation.

The Government have totally lost the argument. The overwhelming weight of legal opinion, as well as that of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, is on our side of this argument. No one with an ounce of common sense would just accept this Government’s assurances that everything accords with the refugee convention, nor would they give up the ability to test it in court—and we certainly should not. Today, it seems that the Minister’s argument is basically that it is Parliament’s role just to declare itself in compliance with the refugee convention. Of course that is absolute nonsense.

I reiterate SNP support for the right to work for asylum seekers, and pay tribute to the Lift the Ban coalition members, including in particular the Maryhill Integration Network and many others who have campaigned with passion and integrity on this issue. This policy is the right thing to do for integration, it is right for the public purse and therefore it is right for our citizens and overwhelmingly right for asylum seekers.

The evidence against the policy remains pathetically weak to non-existent, and warm words about deciding cases within six months mean nothing when that prospect appears as remote as ever. The reality is that people are being left in limbo for years, and excluding them from the labour market for years risks effectively excluding them from work forever and undermining integration.

The Home Secretary has repeatedly told us that she is all for safe legal routes. Indeed, last week she told my right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), the leader of the Plaid Cymru group in Parliament, that this Bill

“actually puts safe and legal routes into statute.”—[Official Report, 19 April 2022; Vol. 712, c. 41.]

The Home Secretary has complained on various occasions that I have not read the Bill, but I am beginning to question whether she has read her own Bill, because that is clearly utter baloney. There is not a single sentence in the Bill as it stands that puts a safe legal route into statute. On the contrary, clause 11 empowers the Secretary of State to diminish safe routes for family members. Their Lordships’ amendments give just a little bit of protection for those rights.

The final argument I want to make relates, believe it or not, to the 2019 Conservative party election manifesto. In advance of this debate, I forced myself to look at that document; indeed, I forced an unfortunate member of my staff to look at it as well. As far as we can see, the words “asylum” and “refugee” feature in that manifesto only once, and in the following terms:

“We will continue to grant asylum and support to refugees fleeing persecution, with the ultimate aim of helping them to return home if it is safe to do so.”

The manifesto also said:

“We will ensure no matter where in the world you or your family come from, your rights will be respected and you will be treated with fairness and dignity.”

This Bill not only breaches the refugee convention, but is utterly contrary to the 2019 Government manifesto. There is nothing in that manifesto about driving a coach and horses through the refugee convention. There is nothing about criminalising—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I stopped the shadow Minister, so I have to give the same advice to the spokesman for the SNP. We are not here to talk about manifestos and general matters this evening; we are here to talk about Government motions to disagree to amendments 5D, 6D, 6E, 6F, 7F and 7G, and only that. This Bill has been properly heard in general terms. We will stick to the exact points in front of us now.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The point I am trying to make, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I would be allowed, is that these amendments would bring the Government much closer to fulfilling their 2019 manifesto commitments than anything in the Bill today. The Bill rides roughshod not only over the refugee convention but over the Government’s own manifesto commitments. That is the point I am trying to make. It is an important point for this House, for the Conservative party and for this Government. It is also an important point for Members in the other place, because, yes, this is a Bill that breaches international law in egregious ways, and totally undermines the refugee convention and treats asylum seekers appallingly, but it is also, as I said, contrary to the Conservative manifesto. For that reason, if this is not the sort of Bill that the House of Lords should be using its modest powers to delay, then I really do not know what is.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Monday 25th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question because she makes an important point. There are a number of points to make in response.

First, on the reason why low numbers have come to the UK, as I have already said, more than 71,000 visas for both schemes have been granted. The Minister for Refugees, Lord Harrington, went to the region just 10 days ago to find out why and what more could be done to bring over families who have been granted their visas to come over. First and foremost, as we have heard repeatedly from the Ukrainian Government and from Governments in the region—[Interruption.] Would the hon. Lady like to stand up and respond? First of all, those families want to stay in region. That is a fact and that is exactly why we are working with the various Governments in region.

The hon. Lady made an important point about families and younger children. Much of that is down to the checks, because they are not always travelling with parents. Safeguarding checks are being undertaken to ensure that they are all linked members of families. They are important checks that have to take place.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

Less than half of 1% of Ukrainians fleeing Putin’s war have so far found shelter in the United Kingdom. There are currently more sheltered in Ireland than are sheltered here, despite our neighbours being 13 times smaller in terms of population. The real reason for this situation is the unnecessary, inappropriate and shambolic visa system that the Home Secretary has decided to impose. Approximately 140 other countries allow visa-free access. Surely, even at this late stage, the Home Secretary must lift visa requirements for all, or at least some, Ukrainians fleeing Putin’s war and get things moving.

[Priti Patel]

I have repeated many times the reason why we have checks and visas. I appreciate the political difference between the Government and the hon. Gentleman’s party, but we are not members of the EU; we do not have open borders. I acknowledge that he has a fundamentally different point of view when it comes to open borders and not having checks on those who come to our country but, in this case, security checks are vital.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson, Stuart C. McDonald.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

The hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) is certainly not alone: all our constituents are having to cancel holidays, miss funerals and rearrange visits, with even the new 10-week target routinely being missed. What will be done to avoid that predictable mess getting worse? Can we be assured that the 10-week target will not be lengthened further as we approach the summer?

[Kevin Foster]

I go back to the fact that we dealt with 1 million passport applications last month alone. To put that in context, we usually deal with 7 million in a whole year. Where there are compelling and compassionate circumstances, such as a funeral, applications can be expedited. For some time we have advised people to allow up to 10 weeks for an application to be processed. Last year we sent 4.7 million texts reminding people whose passports had expired to renew them. We have no intention of further extending the standard. We are processing most passports well within that time, but this is a virtually unprecedented surge in demand, and if people are planning to travel this summer, we advise them to get their application in as soon as possible.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 20th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Tom Pursglove]

I will make some progress but I will gladly give way later. The Government continue to work with international partners to ensure removals of people with no right to be in our country.

To turn to Lords amendment 4G, although the Government have accepted Lord Anderson of Ipswich’s amendments that introduced further safeguards to the deprivation of citizenship power, a further amendment was tabled by Baroness D’Souza that removed the provisions protecting the validity of deprivation orders made before the Bill’s commencement and alleging that they offered individuals no right of redress. That is simply not the case. These provisions explicitly ensured that anyone affected by the retrospective provision would still have a right of appeal, but removing them from the clause could cast doubt on the validity of deprivation orders already made before the provisions come into effect. That poses an unacceptable threat to the UK’s safety and security, as it could enable dangerous individuals to regain their British citizenship and thus the freedom to come and go as they please in the UK. Our position on that has not changed. I make it absolutely clear that we cannot allow that unnecessary security risk to happen.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

Will the Minister explain a bit more about why he thinks that that proposal poses such a danger? All the Home Office has to do is make the same decisions again. I think we are talking about 50 or 60 decisions, but this will mean that the proper safeguards are in place.

[Tom Pursglove]

I would argue that the safeguards that we have accepted, which Lord Anderson proposed with real sincerity, a real interest, expertise and experience in these matters, strike the right balance between keeping our people in this country safe from harm—that is, of course, the first duty of any Government and a responsibility that we take incredibly seriously—while making sure that there is judicial oversight of the process and that, as part of the Home Office’s work, we have internal checks to ensure that the powers will be used appropriately.

Lords amendment 5B relates to the compliance of part 2 of the Bill with the refugee convention. The Bill—I insist on this in the strongest terms—is compatible with all of our obligations under international law. Our position has not changed and we do not consider it necessary to put this on the face of this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I am grateful to be called to speak so early, and I will be as brief as possible.

I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that we have already had these discussions. In fact, the Government moved on the issue; they did so by putting proposals into guidance. The problem with guidance is that it is guidance—it is not obligatory—so the problem with Lords amendment 26B is that the Bill is incomplete, because until these measures are in the Bill, there is no support for confirmed victims after the national referral mechanism process is completed; it is all by judgment.

The current system is deeply destabilising for confirmed victims. I am talking about confirmed victims, not other people who have come over. These are people who we agree are victims of modern-day slavery, and we should be very generous to them. What else is there to do? They are victims. Confirmed victims currently receive support under the recovery needs assessment, or RNA, process. Under this process, many victims receive support only for short periods of time. There is no 12-month period, and they therefore undergo repeated needs assessments. The Minister should go through the system and see how painful this is for confirmed victims. It is destabilising and can be harmful to victims’ mental health; we know that. It requires victims to constantly provide “evidence” of need, with support available only for “needs arising from exploitation”. They are confirmed victims, and they do not know how long they will need support, which means that they are worried about what will happen if there is no agreement. That can put them back in the hands of the traffickers—the thing that we say we are against.

Justice and Care’s recent victim navigator study showed that when victims were given support for a minimum period, 89% of those supported by Justice and Care’s programme chose to engage with police investigations, and we got more prosecutions. One does not need a bleeding heart to see the sense of this. It will enable us to prosecute the traffickers. That is what I want my Government to do. Right now, the average percentage of victims who engage with investigations is not 89%, but 33%. People who are very worried, destabilised and uncertain about how long they will be supported for will not give evidence. They will not go to the police or engage with them, because they are frightened. If we give them a minimum of 12 months of support, we will get more prosecutions. As a result, we will both save money and provide some serious security for these victims. I genuinely beg the Government to make the change now, because it is decent, reasonable and the right thing to do. Can we please discuss the matter further before it comes up again, and can we do this?

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

Members on both sides of the House might agree that the Lords got it right when they said that the timetabling arrangements for this House left a lot to be desired. We have one hour to debate 12 substantive and important amendments, and we will end up voting on them for three hours. It makes absolutely no sense.

I could be very succinct and just say that the SNP position remains that this is an atrocious and horrendous Bill, and therefore we support everything that the House of Lords has attempted to do to rein it in, but I will not. However, out of deference to some of the very good speakers on both sides of this debate, I will try to stick to points on one or two of the amendments.

First, I turn to Lords amendment 5B, which simply states,

“For the avoidance of doubt,”

part 2 is compliant with the refugee convention

“and must be…given effect as such.”

The Minister has said several times that that is precisely the Government’s objective, so why on earth does he have a problem with putting those words in the Bill? I suspect that there are two answers, the first of which is that in reality, part 2 does not remotely live up to the demands of our international obligations. Former Supreme Court judge Lord Brown said in the other place:

“I truly believe, as do many others, that several of these provisions flagrantly breach our obligations as interpreted by the UNHCR”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 April 2022; Vol. 820, c. 1882.]

We respectfully agree with Lord Brown.

I suspect that the second reason for resisting this amendment is that Ministers are desperate to keep those words out of the Bill to make it more difficult to ask a court to adjudicate on whether the Bill is, in fact, consistent with the refugee convention. As Lord Brown said—he was directly addressing something that the Minister said here at the Bill’s last outing—it was

“quite wrong to suggest that there was no need for this amendment because the courts would anyway deal with the challenge to the legislation based on suggested non-compliance. I repeat: the amendment is vital. The courts otherwise cannot go behind the definitive clauses in the Bill and would have to apply them, compliant or not.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 April 2020; Vol. 820, c. 1883.]

We agree; the Bill is fundamental to what we are doing here.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is right that the amount of scrutiny time being afforded to this House is ridiculous. If the Government are not prepared to come to any kind of compromise with the House of Lords, would it not be even better for all these powers to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, so that the people of Scotland could build the kind of humane immigration and asylum system that hundreds of constituents in Glasgow North have lobbied me to advocate for in this House?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has just said.

I turn to Lords amendments 15 and 13B, which bring us back to the sweeping criminalisation of asylum seekers and others arriving in the UK. We are talking about Afghans, Syrians, persecuted Christians and Uyghurs. Those are causes that many in this House advocate and speak up for all the time, and yet when these people come to our shores, suddenly we are planning to let them down, offshore them, discriminate against them, treat them abysmally and criminalise them under this legislation.

The Minister has said today that the Lords have defined the criminal offence too tightly and he wants to go back to a sweepingly broad offence. He assures us that that does not really matter, because we will not use the provision against the Afghans and Syrians; it will be used only in egregious cases. We cannot pass criminal laws on the basis of wishes and assurances expressed at the Dispatch Box that we will be quite reasonable in how we use them. He has to come up with the tight wording for the criminal offence that he is aiming at. If he does not, I am afraid we cannot support it at all; in fact, we fundamentally oppose it.

We believe that the Bill represents completely the wrong approach, and we continue to support the House of Lords in all it is doing to try to rein in the worst aspects. I hugely regret that we have had such a pitiful amount of time to say what we have to say about the amendments. In deference to other Members, I will sit down now and do my voting later on.

[Mr Mitchell]

I draw the House’s attention to my registered interests.

I want to try to be constructive with the Minister this afternoon. I do not believe the Rwanda scheme will work, but I am full of good will towards the Home Secretary when it comes to trying to stop this ghastly, deathly channel trade. The Minister asks those who think that the scheme is impractical, ineffective and extraordinarily expensive what we would do. He is right to ask that, so let me try to answer.

There are four things we must do. The first, exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) said, is to employ more staff. We need to ensure that we process these asylum claims more rapidly. In Rwanda, it takes three months to process an asylum claim. We ought to have a much more streamlined system in this country, and ought to try to do away with all these lawyers, who extend and prolong the process unnecessarily. That is a point the Government should definitely address.

Secondly, we need to put right our dreadful relationship with France, our neighbour just 22 miles away. The relationship is not what it should be. There are plenty of senior officials and people of good will who have a much better relationship with France, and we need to address that point and repair the relationship. Nothing can be achieved in tackling this evil trade without our having a far better understanding with France. We need, if not its active support, then its passive acquiescence at the very least in the measures that need to be taken.

Thirdly, we need safe and legal routes. I asked the Minister to set out what those routes are, and of course he was not able to.