Asylum Accommodation Contracts

Afzal Khan Excerpts

Wednesday 10th October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) on securing this timely debate. I thank all Members for their contributions and for the important and powerful examples they have given from their own areas.

I, too, will start with an example from my constituency. A few months ago I was approached by a journalist who had visited asylum accommodation for mothers and babies in Longsight, Manchester. The conditions he described and evidenced were truly shocking. There were bedbugs on the family’s bed—he sent me photos of the children’s bites—and the mother could not sleep because of the sound of mice. Traps were full of cockroaches, and the extent of the damp was worsening a child’s asthma. Although supposedly for mothers and babies, this was in fact a mixed hostel, with families in the basement, and the upper floors inhabited by men. One mother was forced to stay in such accommodation for months, even after her doctor and health visitor had asked for her to be moved. As I said at the time, nobody, let alone families with children, should be forced to live with cockroaches, bedbugs, damp, leaks and mice.

The even greater tragedy, however, is that that was not an isolated case—we have heard about such things again and again this afternoon. The conditions in much asylum accommodation have long been appalling, and concerns have been raised consistently and by a wide range of parliamentary and external bodies. The Home Affairs Committee, the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have all published highly critical reports of the current COMPASS contracts.

Less than a year ago, I was in this Chamber discussing urgent recommendations made by the Home Affairs Committee, many of which have yet to be resolved. The Home Secretary is currently sitting on a report from the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration, which was sent to him on 9 July and should have been published within eight weeks. Third sector organisations and faith and community groups have been ringing alarm bells about the contracts for years. Last month, 14 local authorities took the unprecedented step of writing to the Home Secretary to warn that the asylum accommodation system is on the brink of collapse, and that he must personally step in. It is therefore unacceptable and profoundly undemocratic that the Government are taking an “as is” approach to the new contracts, which are due to be renewed next month.

What Labour is calling for, and what a Labour Government would oversee, is the return of responsibility for asylum accommodation, and the billions that come with it, to local authorities. In the absence of that, the very reasonable key recommendations from local authorities and third sector and community groups should be incorporated.

There are three broad issues that urgently need to be addressed. First, key stakeholders are being kept in the dark on the procurement process. Feedback during the consultation was not taken on board, and problems were treated as one-offs, rather than as symptomatic of wider failings. In a letter to the Home Secretary, the leaders of eight local authorities in Yorkshire said they were disappointed by the decision to seemingly limit public scrutiny until the re-tender process was closed. They described the transition to the current COMPASS contracts in 2012 as a failure, with mass sudden homelessness prevented only by local authorities stepping in.

Local authorities, charities and community groups are an essential part of asylum accommodation delivery. They are already central to integrating asylum seekers, and they are the ones who step in when things go wrong. It is essential that the Government are transparent with both the public and Parliament during this procurement process.

Secondly, local authorities lack oversight over asylum accommodation. Asylum seekers are not evenly distributed across the UK, with 35 local authorities—less than 10% of the total—hosting three quarters of the asylum seekers in dispersal accommodation. Many towns and cities across the north of England have more asylum seekers in a handful of wards than entire regions in the south and east of the UK. This often causes problems in local areas, especially as local authorities have no power to veto where accommodation will be procured.

I outlined earlier the awful condition of some accommodation. Local authorities need the power to inspect properties and safeguard vulnerable people. Despite being the ones who step in when contracts fall short, often to prevent destitution, local authorities do not have the power to regulate the conditions of asylum accommodation. The new contracts must give more powers and resources to local authorities to oversee and inspect accommodation in their areas.

Finally, all these measures must improve the shocking conditions of asylum accommodation. No one should be forced to share a bedroom, and providers should respect local rules on homes in multiple occupation. There must be better provision for vulnerable asylum seekers. To highlight just one example, pregnant women are being moved late in their pregnancy and at very short notice, interrupting their maternity care. That can have a significant impact on the mental health of the women, who have often already faced significant trauma. Maternity Action has called on the Government to require contractors to comply with existing Home Office guidance on the dispersal of pregnant women and new mothers and to collect data to enable the Home Office to monitor compliance with that guidance.

The proposed COMPASS contracts are worth £4 billion and will be binding for the next 10 years, with no review period built in. The previous contracts did not have adequate review provisions, but there was at least a break clause after five years. So far, the Government have not recognised or addressed the wide-ranging criticisms of the current arrangements. Will the Minister commit to taking a more transparent approach to ending the appalling conditions that are, at the moment, common in asylum accommodation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point; I will certainly think about it.

On break clauses, there are indeed mechanisms within the contracts being proposed to ensure that any changes that the Home Office wishes to make in the future can be enacted appropriately, so these are not contracts that are set in stone for a 10-year period. As I said, there is a break clause at seven years, but we will also have the opportunity to make changes that we may need to make.

[Afzal Khan]

I thank the Minister for giving way. I have two very simple questions for her. First, can she tell us what significant improvements there will be in the new contracts? Secondly, can she say whether there will be any penalties for any breach of contract or poor performance?

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am conscious that I only have a couple of minutes left and I was hoping to move on to the bits of my prepared speech that actually include those points.

Alongside the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, we continue to explore how central and local government can work better together to enable us to meet our international commitments and to let service providers, local partners and civil society play their part. We are currently working with a number of local authorities to develop a place-based approach to asylum and resettlement, and considering how closer working and greater collaboration could work in practice.

As I have said, I have met many local authorities and the devolved Governments, but we are determined to improve standards and will stipulate more standardisation in the initial accommodation estate. That will ensure that there are dedicated areas for women and families, and more adapted rooms for those with specific needs, including pregnant women.

The new contracts will improve service-user orientation, to help service users to live in their communities and access local services. There will be better data-sharing with relevant agencies, to better join people to those services. The new contracts will also focus on safeguarding and improvements to support—

British Citizenship Fees: Children

Afzal Khan Excerpts

Tuesday 4th September 2018 Westminster Hall

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I thank the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) for securing this debate and also the other Members who have contributed. There appears to be a consensus that the amount charged is not acceptable.

As of April this year, the cost of registering a child for citizenship was £1,012—a 51% increase since 2014. There are no exemptions, waivers, reductions or refunds for the fees, even though the Secretary of State has the power to make provision for them. Such outrageously high fees mean that children from poor and low-income families are prevented from accessing their right to citizenship. Constantly increasing the price of an application makes it almost impossible to plan for future costs, and increases the chances of people losing status because they cannot afford the price. It is important to stress that the children would not be claiming anything. They are not paying for citizenship to be granted by the Government, but for their existing entitlement to citizenship to be recognised.

Speaking to the Home Affairs Select Committee, the Home Secretary said the fee is,

“a huge amount of money to ask children to pay for citizenship”.

He said he would

“get around to”

looking at fees. My first question to the Minister is: has anybody got around to looking at the issue yet? The aspect of fees that I personally have greatest difficulty with is the profit that the Home Office makes on the applications. Of the £1,012 that is charged, £372 is the cost of administration and almost two thirds is profit. The Free Movement website estimates that the Home Office has made nearly £100 million in profits over the past five years. Such profits are unjustified because it is far from clear where the profits go.

It used to be the case that additional charges on visa and citizenship application fees contributed to a migration impact fund, which had a direct and measurable impact on communities experiencing high levels of migration. One of the first things that the coalition Government did was to scrap that widely praised scheme. They have since introduced a controlling migration fund, which is less accountable and less directly measurable than the previous scheme.

The profits are also potentially unlawful. The Secretary of State has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children and to act in children’s best interests. The high cost of fees is in conflict with that duty. The impact assessment for the latest fee increase makes no reference to children and protecting their rights. Protecting the welfare of children has become even more vital as the hostile environment extends to more and more aspects of everyday life. Many children do not even know that they need to register for citizenship until they are prevented from taking out loans and going to university, accessing the NHS, or even going on school trips.

The costs of citizenship are not only contained in the fees. Recently, a family in my constituency approached my office for help; they were at the end of their tether. They had already paid the enormous cost of citizenship for their child. They were then asked to pay for a DNA test, even though the Immigration Minister had said that that was not Home Office policy. The family had only a week to get all the information together. In the end the application was refused, and they had to pay for an appeal. In total they have paid £1,783, and they were not in the best financial circumstances to begin with.

The immense complexity of our immigration and nationality system and the lack of legal aid, coupled with constantly increasing fees, makes it very difficult to gain documentation as a young person in the UK. I want to touch on why it is important for young people to have citizenship rather than other forms of temporary or permanent leave. It is vital that children have certainty about their lives and future prospects. Registering citizenship ends a young person’s engagement with the laborious, complex and high-cost immigration process. It is also vital to a young person’s identity that we, as a country, recognise that they are British. Other forms of leave do not reflect the identity that the young person might feel very strongly in themselves. It can be humiliating for someone who has no other place to claim as their home not to have the ability to rent a property, get a job and open a bank account with the most obvious form of ID—a passport.

In conclusion, the Government are undertaking a lessons learned review of Windrush. An essential part of that is to make sure that such a disaster never happens again. We have a large population of undocumented citizens who are a ticking time bomb for another Windrush-like scandal. The issue should be treated with urgency. Will the Minister set out what steps she is taking to review fees for registering children as British citizens in the immediate future?

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

I refute that. The Government very clearly have a separate shortage occupation list for Scotland, which I would have made clear at the Scottish Affairs Committee and am doing again today. The Migration Advisory Committee has specifically looked both at sectors and at regions. We absolutely believe that immigration policy should be reserved and I will continue to hold that view. However, I used the opportunity of the parliamentary recess to travel widely—to Scotland, Northern Ireland and, just last week, to Wales—to hold roundtables with business people and to talk to them about the impact of Brexit on labour mobility and their expectations. All of that work is important to me and feeds into the forthcoming policy on immigration post- Brexit.

I hope that I have reassured the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton that we have got round to looking at this. He asked specific questions about safeguarding children and the impact assessment for immigration and nationality fees. The Home Office takes its responsibility for the welfare of children very seriously. We make sure that we treat children with care and compassion and that is an absolute priority. I want to make it clear to him that citizenship, unlike leave to remain, is not a necessary prerequisite to enable a person to remain in the UK and enjoy any of their convention rights. As such, the Home Office’s view is that there is no breach of the European convention on human rights in requiring a person to pay a fee for citizenship applications.

[Afzal Khan]

Will the Minister explain why it is appropriate that children should pay fees to subsidise a visitor who is coming to Britain for a short period?

[Caroline Nokes]

I would very gently point the hon. Gentleman to the Immigration Act 2014, which gives us the ability to set fees. That has enabled us to look very carefully at the range of services provided by the borders, immigration and citizenship services and to make decisions accordingly. I am sure that he would agree that we want visitors to come to the UK to contribute to our economy. Particularly over the coming months and years, it is absolutely imperative that we make Britain an outward-looking, open country where visitors can come easily and help us to continue our sustained economic growth.

I am committed to reviewing our approach to setting fees for visa, immigration and nationality services, including taking account of the issues raised in this debate, the debate in the House of Lords in June and representations made to me elsewhere. As I have said, with fees from immigration and nationality services bringing in more than £1.3 billion of income per annum, which contributes significantly to our ability to afford and maintain a secure and effective border, decisions have to be taken in the round.

In the meantime, the Government remain entirely committed to maintaining the welfare of children who come into contact with the immigration system, ensuring that they are treated fairly and humanely. I am sure we will return to this issue, and that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East will not let it go. As I have said, I have noted the strength of feeling expressed by all who have spoken today and I have given my word that I am giving active consideration and am keen to see it brought to a resolution.

TOEIC Visa Cancellations

Afzal Khan Excerpts

Tuesday 4th September 2018 Westminster Hall

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) for opening the debate in such a powerful and forceful manner. I also thank all other Members who contributed.

The situation of TOEIC students has a long history. The original controversy came to light in 2014, when BBC’s “Panorama” uncovered an unacceptable situation of bogus colleges and fake tests through which people were illegitimately gaining UK visas. There was a crackdown, and the Government revoked or curtailed the visas of thousands of students. We have now reached a point where the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction. Thousands of innocent students have been victims of the crackdown. A prolonged and unnecessarily hostile legal fight with the Home Office has taken years to reach a settlement. The effect on innocent people caught up in the TOEIC scandal has been catastrophic and constitutes a grave injustice. The Government have not confirmed the numbers, but I have seen estimates that between 4,000 and 7,000 students have been falsely accused of faking their tests and deported.

Four years after the scandal, many students still have no resolution to their cases. For many, their mere presence in the UK was made unlawful. They have been subject to the hostile environment, stripped of the right to study, to work, to find accommodation and to access banking and NHS services. Because the charge is of having engaged in fraud, many students have felt compelled to stay in the UK to clear their names. They are unlikely to obtain entry clearance in the future without removing the charge from their record.

In 2016, the Home Affairs Committee heard from a witness who clearly said that they did not cheat on their English language test. They were arrested, their home was searched and they were taken to prison and made to wait 20 hours until somebody came and told them why they were even there. The combination of a traumatic event like that, followed by years of legal uncertainty over their status, has caused psychological and emotional damage, potentially to thousands.

The TOEIC scandal and the prolonged aftermath expose two wider problems in the Home Office. First, the appeals process is insufficient and is not conducive to swift justice. High fees, the stripping back of appeal rights, the lack of access to legal aid and the hostile environment combine to make it very difficult for people to seek justice and rectify wrong Home Office decisions. Initially, the TOEIC group was only allowed out-of-country appeals. It took a prolonged legal fight to establish that they should have the right to contest the decision in the UK. It is extremely difficult to launch an out-of-country appeal. The technology often does not work and any difficulties can result in a case being postponed for months.

The Financial Times featured the case of a man who emigrated to the UK from Bangladesh. His student visa was suspended over allegations he cheated on an English language test in 2014. He returned to Bangladesh and now faces a two-hour walk to the nearest place where he can use the internet to make an international telephone call. His case has been adjourned until December, leaving him with months of uncertainty before he can clear his name. He described his situation as follows:

“My future is being destroyed here, not only financially but morally”.

In the case of Ahsan, which was decided at the end of 2017, the judges ruled that students who had lived and studied in the UK for a number of years should not be summarily removed from the UK with only an out-of-country appeal. The NUS is aware of at least eight cases currently before the Court of Appeal that are due to be heard in November. Is the Minister aware of any ongoing cases where appellants are not allowed to be in the country? Will she confirm what the Home Office’s approach is to TOEIC appeals? Will the Home Office restore the rights of those appealing while their case is being decided?

The second issue that has been exposed by the TOEIC issue is the Home Office’s lack of a human face. Many of the students accused of cheating on their English language tests have never had the chance to speak directly to anybody at the Home Office about their case. Many of the students accused of cheating speak very good English. I heard of someone studying for a degree in English literature who was accused of cheating on their English language test. Why would someone possibly cheat when their vocabulary is wider than that of many MPs? Can the Minister tell us if those accused of cheating will have the chance to sit their tests again to prove that they can pass on their own?

Throughout the Windrush scandal, we heard calls for the return to a face-to-face approach in immigration. Lucy Moreton from the ISU, the union for borders, immigration and customs staff, said that face-to-face interviews with visa and immigration applicants vanished around 2014. That had a bearing on the Windrush scandal, and it clearly has had a bearing on TOEIC as well. As part of her review of Windrush, and of the Home Office’s handling of the TOEIC scandal, will the Minister commit to reintroducing a human face to the Home Office’s approach to visas and immigration?

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Lady asks whether the Home Office has offered compensation. We have not, because what we have seen in successive High Court judgments is that our ability to rely on an accusation of fraud was appropriate. We heard a lengthy quote from a senior High Court judge, who, it is interesting to note, said in a subsequent case that new evidence that the Home Office had provided was focused and much more substantial. That same judge also found that evidence was sufficient to make our accusation of fraud.

[Afzal Khan]

The question that is being asked is not about the Home Office being right in some cases. The question is, in the cases where it has been wrong, has it offered any compensation?

[Caroline Nokes]

The Home Office has enabled people to take cases to judicial review. The Home Office has established that we can rely on the evidence of fraud that we very clearly have, and the links to criminal gangs. It is important that we recognise that there was significant, widespread and indeed very lucrative fraud taking place in these cases. Our enforcement investigations uncovered evidence of impersonation and of proxy test-takers. I very much regret that this has happened. Innocent applicants may well have been caught up in widespread fraud, but we also have reports from judges that there were a number of different reasons why individuals might have undertaken the deception, even if they spoke very good English.

Non-EEA Visas: Inshore Fishing

Afzal Khan Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) on securing the debate.

Fishing is an economically as well as culturally important sector for the UK. The UK fishing industry employs approximately 12,000 people, of whom an estimated 20% are non-EU migrants. As demonstrated by the passionate speeches in this debate, the sector faces an acute labour shortage. This is a common thread in a number of sectors: agriculture, care work, hospitality and the NHS are all already suffering from labour shortages. The net migration target, delays in the immigration Bill and lack of clarity in the Brexit White Paper all contribute to uncertainty and potential exploitation in these areas. The Government must get past Cabinet infighting on Brexit and provide these vital sectors with clarity and security for the future.

For the last eight years, the Government’s migration policy has been driven by a wrong-headed net migration target. Reducing numbers is put ahead of the concerns of business and our economy. Fishing is a prime example of a sector that has suffered under this target. The Home Affairs Committee found that the net migration target undermines public confidence,

“because it acted as a quarterly reminder that the Government was unable to control immigration in the way it had promised.”

As the Institute of Directors and many other business groups have pointed out, it is a completely random number, plucked out of thin air because it sounds good, absent of any understanding of the needs of our economy. Recent concerns around the quality of data underlying the target should be the final nail in the coffin for the net migration target. With such serious doubts around the data underlying these net migration figures, an immigration policy that drives only towards reducing the net migration numbers is impossible to defend.

The immigration Bill that was originally promised last year has been pushed back to the autumn, brought forward to this side of the recess and pushed back again to the end of this year. The Government have been saying for months that all migration concerns will be addressed by the Migration Advisory Committee’s report. I found it astounding that the Government do not feel the pressing need to address this issue. While there are, of course, concerns about migration post Brexit, a number of sectors, such as inshore fishing, are suffering labour shortages now, even with access to the free movement of labour. These sectors cannot wait for the vague promises of clarity in the MAC report in September. The MAC’s remit is broad. There is no guarantee for fishing, agriculture or any other sector.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct: we cannot wait until September for that. Although some of the newspapers might not be here, this debate is being watched outside. I have just received a message from my constituent. Christina MacNeil said:

“Surely this will be resolved as soon as possible—it’s not rocket science to see the benefits that will be gained.”

I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point.

[Afzal Khan]

I agree with that comment. The sectors that are suffering will be central to the MAC’s recommendations. Even if they are, we will have to wait for a Government response and it will take time to implement whatever the proposed scheme turns out to be. The Brexit White Paper published last week contained only 20 paragraphs on immigration. They are very narrow. There is no mention of what the proposals will be for low-paid, so-called low-skilled workers, often found in the inshore fishing industry. At this point, there is no time for the Government to bring an immigration Bill before the recess. I hope that when we come back in September they will move quickly to provide clarity and reassurance to sectors already suffering from shortages.

I would like to address briefly the risk of exploitation in this sector. In the last 10 years, deeply concerning reports of slavery and human trafficking aboard British fishing ships have come to public attention. Isolated working combined with poor regulations makes fishing workers particularly vulnerable to abuse. Remedies are often out of reach. Living conditions are often poor. Many migrant workers live aboard their vessels while in port. These vessels are not designed for long-term living. This sector is already hard to regulate. Certain visa arrangements are leaving workers at a higher risk of exploitation. The current transit visa system and 12-nautical-mile exemption leave loopholes open for exploitation. Without the opportunity to build a network in the UK, workers are less resilient. It is vital that whatever scheme we end up with, workers are not tied to their employers in the way that we have seen with domestic workers.

The Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority has done good work in the area of labour inspection and enforcement, but its remit is very narrow, covering only food processing, agriculture, horticulture and shellfish gathering. The UK’s enforcement model is complex and confusing. A number of different bodies are responsible for different parts of the labour market. According to Focus on Labour Exploitation, the UK has one of the poorest-resourced labour inspectorates in Europe. The International Labour Organization recommends a target of one inspector per 10,000 workers. The UK falls well below that target, with one inspector for every 25,000 workers.

It is vital that proactive inspection efforts are increased as we leave the EU and new opportunities for exploitation arise. Self-identification among victims of exploitation is low. The most vulnerable to abuse are the least likely to come forward. This includes migrants, who, faced with a hostile environment, are fearful about their immigration status and potential immigration repercussions for them coming forward.

In conclusion, the Government’s migration policies have, so far, been driven by the net migration target and Tory infighting on Brexit. The inshore fishing sector provides stark illustration of the damage of this approach. The Government have again delayed the immigration White Paper. Sectors such as fishing cannot wait another year for clarity on their future workforce. The Government must get on with announcing their future migration policy and ensure that it provides adequate protection for vulnerable workers.

[Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)]

I remind the Minister to allow a minute at the end for the mover of the motion to respond.

Oral Answers to Questions

Afzal Khan Excerpts

Monday 16th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

There is clear and published guidance on how a family unit may be defined, and on the separation of individuals from their family group for immigration reasons. Cases may involve pre-existing separation of family units for non-immigration reasons. For instance, in the case of foreign criminals, children might already have been taken into care when the individual received a custodial sentence.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

The Prime Minister has condemned Trump’s family separation policy, but this Government’s hostile environment separates parents from their children every day. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) pointed out, last week the Home Office was forced to pay £40,000 in damages for falsely imprisoning a father, unlawfully separating him from his daughter for three months. The Home Office failed at every stage of the process. The Home Secretary has said that he will pause the hostile environment, but immigration detention is a key part of it. Will the Government look again at indefinite detention, and at the use of detention more widely, and publish the Shaw review in good time for us to examine it before the summer recess?

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Gentleman will have heard me say that some cases might involve pre-existing separation. As I have highlighted, back in 2009 there were more than 1,000 children in detention, and that number has now been reduced to 44. The Home Office has acknowledged the mistakes that were made in the case he mentioned, but it is important to reflect on the role that detention plays in ensuring that those who have no right to be here and no right to our public services are removed in a timely manner.

Draft Immigration (Provision of Physical Data) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Afzal Khan Excerpts

Monday 16th July 2018 General Committees

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

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

The Labour party opposes this draft statutory instrument. Significant powers to collect biometric data have been too widely defined and the regulations have been drawn up without regard to vulnerable groups, adequate consultation or the Brexit negotiations.

Our first area of concern is the scope of the powers in the draft regulations. Will the Minister clarify what data the Home Office will collect, and from whom, under this statutory instrument? The EU settlement scheme says that EU citizens will be required to provide a facial image, but does not mention other biometric data. Will she confirm that EU citizens applying for settled status will not be required to supply, beyond a facial photograph, fingerprints or other biometric data? Will she also confirm that the draft regulations do not allow any changes to those requirements without coming back to Parliament? Will she confirm that the Home Office will not have the power to collect biometric data beyond fingerprints for non-EU family members of EU citizens?

The Home Office has repeatedly emphasised that the application process will be streamlined, user-friendly and entirely digital. Will the Minister confirm that requiring applicants to provide biometric data, including fingerprints, means that an application cannot be completed online? That will place further barriers to registering this large population before the end of the implementation period, and increase the likelihood that we will have a large undocumented population, come the end of the transition period.

The draft regulations deal with family members of EU citizens, but do not specify to which family members they refer. That leaves open the possibility that British-born children, or children who have spent most of their life in the UK, may be required to pay to provide biometric data. Can the Minister confirm that special consideration will be made for children, so that they do not have to go through the lengthy and expensive process of providing biometric data? The Migration Observatory has highlighted the children of parents who either do not apply for settled status or do not know that their children need to apply as being particularly at risk. How is the Minister further protecting children who are dependent on their parents for a settled status application?

Secondly, we are concerned that not enough is being done to mitigate the impact of this measure on vulnerable groups. Not enough has been done to reduce the costs for citizens with lower income. In the case of a family of five, regardless of their financial situation, they will need to pay £227.50 to apply for a status that they did not need before. This is a significant cost for individuals and families to bear, and might even deter them from applying for settled status, which would leave them vulnerable, as they might become undocumented in the country. What financial assistance will the Government provide to low-income people who need to apply for settled status?

Can the Minister also confirm whether providing biometric data to the Home Office will be an additional cost, and therefore an additional barrier, to applicants? The former Immigration Minister spoke to the Lords EU Select Committee in December and assured it that we could forgo health insurance for students and those who are economically inactive. There is no mention of that in the statutory instrument, so can the Minister confirm those comments?

Although it is welcome that, to some extent, advice and support for applicants will be provided, it is not clear what the scope of that assistance will be, or how many caseworkers there will be and what training they will receive. The Minister has talked before about a customer contact centre. Can she provide any further information about who will staff the centre and whether information disclosed to it will be passed to immigration enforcement officials?

The question of how employers, landlords or banks have been consulted on the settled status scheme remains ambiguous. Applicants need to prove their status to these people or bodies in order to obtain a work contract, bank account or rental agreement. There is already evidence that EU citizens are being discriminated against in the rental and employment markets. What specific consultation has taken place with employers, landlords and bank groups on the settled status scheme and how has their advice been incorporated thus far?

We are concerned that successful applicants will not be given any physical document that evidences their status, as current biometric residence card holders are. This is a serious problem for the digitally illiterate. For example, there are particular concerns among the Gypsy, Traveller and Roma communities that this decision will effectively amount to exclusion of their communities, so will the Minister consider introducing physical proof of status?

Our third area of concern is around the lack of consultation. Paragraph 10 of the explanatory memorandum says:

“The Home Office has not undertaken a full public consultation, but the policy has been discussed with its internal and external stakeholders, such as groups representing EU citizens in the UK”

and other groups. What specific groups have been consulted to represent EU citizens in the UK, and how have their assessments of the amendments been incorporated in the draft? Also, what further details can be provided about the future full public consultation that will take place?

Paragraph 5 of the explanatory memorandum says that the Minister for Immigration believes this statutory instrument is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. However, as this statutory instrument deals with collecting biometric data, we do not believe that it is enough for the Minister to make that judgement on her own. Will she carry out a full and thorough consultation on the instrument’s compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights?

Paragraph 12 of the explanatory memorandum says that the impact on the public sector

“is expected to be minimal as these Regulations only affect individuals.”

Tens of thousands of EU nationals work in our NHS and public sector. The Scottish Government are paying for all public sector workers’ settled status applications. Will the Minister consider doing that for other parts of the UK too?

Finally, we are concerned about the potential impact on negotiations with the EU. The statutory instrument has been drafted without regard for the Brexit negotiations or the EU law that still applies to the UK while we are a member of the EU. The Government have consistently neglected the negotiations. The previous Secretary of State for the Brexit Department hardly visited Europe for negotiations, and the new Secretary of State has decided to take an evening off rather than attend the first day of the first round of negotiations since he got the job.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

The shadow Minister is making a number of points. Clearly there is a pay-off between full and maximum consultation and having something that is implemented in a timely way, so that it is available for people as soon as possible. On his second point—which is beginning to deviate into personal criticism of the politicians involved—does he accept that, for those of us on the Brexit Select Committee, this is an incredibly important development that is absolutely in kilter with the tone of the negotiations, which is to resolve problems for citizens, whether European or British?

[Afzal Khan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I do not disagree that it is important; that is precisely why I am asking the questions. It is vital that we get this right.

What discussions has the Minister had with the EU to establish whether it will accept the provisions in the instrument, and what evaluation has she carried out to establish that the powers are legal while we are still members of the EU, given that we are not requiring UK citizens to submit the same kinds of data? There are serious concerns that the EU settlement scheme will cause an explosion of bad advice from phoney solicitors, exploiting vulnerable applicants. With vital protections stripped away in the recent Data Protection Act 2018, there is an even greater need for good advice. What is the Minister doing to make legal advice available for those who need it among the 3.6 million?

I have outlined the serious concerns that the Labour party has about the statutory instrument. The powers have been insufficiently defined, there has been no thorough consultation, and there has been too little regard for our negotiations with the EU. The EU settled status scheme is being introduced in the context of the “hostile environment”. Ministers have claimed that the process will be straightforward and streamlined, and that caseworkers will be given the benefit of the doubt. However, such an approach would require a total overhaul of the culture and training in the Home Office. I do not believe that that can be achieved in 18 months, so it is essential that we protect all the safeguards, checks and balances that we can.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill (Seventh sitting)

Afzal Khan Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Wallace]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I understand his dividing line of accidental or unavoidable, but many more people are killed in this country as a result of domestic abuse than terrorism. Many more people are killed because of knife crime or violent crime every year than terrorism. It is the same; no one went out to look for that. That is the position. We could probably debate all day where we would draw the line. That is one of the challenges we face.

The Government are committed to ensuring that victims of terrorism receive effective support that is comprehensive and co-ordinated. That is why last year we set up the cross-Government victims of terrorism unit to co-ordinate support to UK citizens directly affected by terrorist events at home and overseas. We continue to work across Government, including with the third sector and private sector organisations, to improve and strengthen the support available so that victims receive the best possible support now and in the future.

The Government’s approach to digital fundraising platforms is to promote self-regulation, with the aim of ensuring that transparency and the public interest are protected. The Fundraising Regulator, working with a number of digital fundraising platforms, has developed new transparency requirements, which it consulted on and announced just last month on 7 June. These changes were incorporated into the “Code of Fundraising Practice”, the rulebook for fundraising in the UK, and the platforms have until the end of August to make any necessary changes to their systems and processes. Most digital fundraising platforms have already registered with the Fundraising Regulator. Several platforms chose to waive or cap their fees in relation to some of the incidents last year, including the Manchester terror attack.

Alongside the updates to the “Code of Fundraising Practice”, the Fundraising Regulator has developed guidance for online fundraising platforms, to help them meet the expected standards of transparency. Guidance has also been produced to help members of the general public who want to use these platforms to ensure that they do not inadvertently breach the code and that they consider how funds will reach the intended beneficiaries.

We expect non-statutory regulation under the Fundraising Regulator to work, but as a backstop the Government have reserve powers to regulate fundraising under the Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Act 2016, should that prove necessary. We will not hesitate to do so, if that is the case.

These changes are already having an impact. One prominent for-profit funding platform has changed its practices; as well as being more transparent about its fees, it now offers donors the ability to make an additional payment to cover the fees, ensuring that the entire donation goes to the beneficiaries.

I have greater sympathy for a more directive approach when it comes to gift aid. Some digital fundraising providers include the gift aid amount when they calculate their charge. I think that is outrageous. Gift aid is taxpayers’ money that is given to charities; it is not meant for businesses that operate fundraising platforms. That is why my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury has asked Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to explore options to ensure that gift aid is passed on in full to the charities to which it is due.

Separate to the work of the Fundraising Regulator in improving transparency and the regulation of digital fundraising platforms, work is underway with the charity sector to better co-ordinate charities’ response to major emergencies. This programme is being supported by the Charity Commission, working closely with a range of charities, fundraisers and regulators, including the Fundraising Regulator.

In January this year the Charity Commission organised a roundtable event involving 25 charities, regulators, fundraising platforms and others, to start to develop a framework for a more co-ordinated charity sector response to national critical incidents. Attendees agreed to the principle of creating a collective framework for co-ordinating such responses. They formed a working group to develop the framework and operating principles behind any future disaster response. That work is progressing well and focuses on the themes of first response, fundraising, distribution of funds, and recovery.

I am sure that this is not the intention of the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark in new clause 5, but we believe that, at the moment, there might be unintended consequences for reducing the charitable funds raised to help victims of terrorism. Were the new clause to become law, some of the digital fundraising platforms might stop people setting up fundraising pages for the victims of terrorism, resulting in less charitable funds being raised. There is also a risk that funds already raised by established charities, using professional fundraisers, which could have been used to support victims, could not be used for the proper purpose. There does not appear to be a clear rationale, as I said earlier, about where we draw the line. I hope that he understands why I cannot support the new clause.

I assure the Committee that work is underway to improve the transparency of digital fundraising platforms and the co-ordination of charities’ responses to major incidents, including supporting victims of terrorism. I am happy to facilitate a meeting with the hon. Gentleman and the Minister with responsibility for charities to talk that through directly. As a Security Minister, my locus is over terrorism, but the wider regulation of charities across the whole sector—all types of charities—is the responsibility of another Minister. I am happy to present the hon. Gentleman’s intentions in this new clause to that Minister and then arrange a meeting between them.

I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman that we are working through the Fundraising Regulator and the Treasury to ensure that his concerns are met. At the same time, we are trying to balance the modern technology of the world, which a lot of people use to fundraise and collect donations.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

I support the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark. I am from Manchester—I am a former Lord Mayor—so I saw what happened there and I know how people feel. Millions of pounds have been raised in Manchester, because people there are generous. I think that they would find it offensive if someone was profiteering from the money they had donated in response to such a terrible attack. Is that acceptable?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

I do not believe the place for Government negotiation is in primary legislation. The ball is firmly in the court of the European Commission. Our position is an unconditional offer on security. The only time I ventured from the shelter of security to engage publicly on a European issue was when Michel Barnier said recently, in a rather dismissive and offhand manner, that we would not have access to any of these issues as a third country. That does not reflect the examples of special relationships with Europol, of which there are at least two—probably more.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned Denmark, which is unique as a member of the European Union that has pulled out of Europol. Switzerland and Norway, which are not EU members, have good access to Europol for the sharing of data. The point is, when the European Commission has wanted to, it has extended a bespoke or special unique relationship. I venture that the United Kingdom has contributed, shaped, funded and supported many of these European organisations. Europol was created predominantly by the United Kingdom, and it shares huge amounts of our data—our citizens’ data and our intelligence—with other European countries.

It is important that our unconditionality is taken on board and embraced by the Commission. My public venture to Mr Barnier, apart from a quip about gambling with safety, was that security was not a competition. We are not talking about trade. It is about working together, where the sum of the parts is greater than the individual contributions.

[Afzal Khan]

As I have said, I served as a vice-chair of the security and defence committee of the European Parliament, so I am aware of how important co-operation is. Does the Minister agree that if we want to be successful against terrorism we need to improve co-operation? We have benefited from co-operation.

[Mr Wallace]

We absolutely have. It is not just about scale or who is better at one thing over the other; it is genuinely that in such activity the sum of the parts is greater. The United Kingdom has developed a clear lead on counter-terrorism policy through our intelligence services and police services learning to work together on domestic issues quicker than our European allies. That needs to be scaled up to working internationally. At the same time, we need to navigate the real obligation of the state to protect its citizens’ data. It is not a free-for-all.

The hon. Member for Torfaen is right, and we are totally determined to get there through negotiation. It is not that we disagree; I simply take the view that primary legislation is not the place for individual parts of a negotiation. The new clauses would not make any difference, because the Government would not be bound to the outcome but just be saying, “This is what we intend.” The Prime Minister has said what our position is and what we want. I have said it to the Committee, and we have said it to the European Commission. It has been said on a number of occasions and no piece of primary legislation will change that. We agree with the intention, and I understand the symbolism of putting an objective into the Bill, but it is not necessary. As long as I am the Security Minister and the Government are negotiating, we wish that to be the case, and that is what we are asking for.

The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth worries about the new Brexit Secretary, but we are all in a team with collective responsibility and he was probably not aware in 2014 of the clear importance of intelligence and security sharing and how it makes a difference to saving lives every single day. Most recently—two weeks ago—the United Kingdom contributed a significant part towards foiling a plot in Cologne involving a terrorist who had managed to make ricin and was making a bomb to devastate that city and its people.

As long as I have breath in my body, I shall do everything I can, but I do not believe that primary legislation is the place for our negotiating objectives. I will happily arrange it for anyone who is in any doubt to visit our police officers to see how important that is.

Family Visitor Visas

Afzal Khan Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Cheryl. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) for opening this important debate and for so eloquently and forcefully putting the case forward. I thank all my colleagues for their contributions. It is also appropriate to thank all the tens of thousands of people who signed the three petitions. I am glad that we are debating this important topic.

The petitions we are considering raise two questions. First, do we want an immigration policy that respects the right to a family life, or one that breaks up families and prevents British citizens from being able to see their loved ones? Secondly, do we want a process that is effective, fair and transparent? I believe the answer to both questions should be yes. Our family visa system is not working. Too many visas are routinely rejected on false or unfounded grounds. Removing the right of appeal has meant that decision makers are not being held to account for poor performance. Where there is no accountability, prejudice and unequal treatment can flourish unchecked.

There are three main grounds on which family visa applications are unjustifiably rejected. As an MP with probably one of the largest immigration case loads, I can say this from personal experience and from evidence provided by campaigners and lawyers. First, the Home Office will claim an applicant does not have the means to support themselves while they are in the UK, when in fact they have proven that they can or that someone in the UK will take care of their expenses. My constituent’s mother wanted to visit her children in the UK after the passing of her husband. Clearly, it was an extremely emotional time when we would all want to be able to mourn our close family members. Her application was rejected because the Home Office claimed that she could not provide evidence that she was able to support herself while she was here, even though both her sons had agreed to support her for the duration of her stay.

Secondly, the Home Office will claim that it is not confident that the applicant will leave the country after their stay, even when they are here for a specific purpose or event, they have booked a hotel only for a certain period and possibly even a return flight, and they can prove they have permission from employers to leave work only for a limited period. Another constituent wanted her aunt to come and visit her. Her aunt has seven sons, two daughters and 10 grandchildren who she takes care of as a housewife in Pakistan. It is clear from her case file, and from my conversations with my constituent, that she fully intended to return after her visit, yet her family visa application was rejected because the Home Office did not believe she would go back at the end of her stay.

Thirdly, possibly the most infuriating and outrageous grounds for the Home Office to reject an application is because it has made a mistake. The case of Chinwe Azubuike was reported in The Guardian. She had not seen her family for 14 years when she invited them to London for her wedding. All of her seven applications on behalf of her family were rejected on the grounds that they did not “have sufficient funds available”, a claim that her immigration lawyer called

“unlawful, spurious and plainly wrong”.

As well as ignoring the fact that Chinwe and her husband had committed to pay all her family’s expenses, the decision was based on a basic error by Home Office decision makers, who confused yearly with monthly income. The accusation that the couple were lying about their income was therefore particularly insulting.

Basic errors resulting in outright rejections are not unique to the visitor visa system. I will discuss later wider failings in the Home Office, but from highly skilled migrants to the Windrush scandal, the Home Office cannot seem to get even the most basic information and checks consistently correct. The rate of refusals for visitor visas cannot be blamed solely on mismanagement and inefficiency. The assumption behind many of refusal letters is that, given the chance, nobody from Africa or the Indian subcontinent—such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, India and Sri Lanka—could possibly want to return home at the end of their visit to the UK. That is deeply offensive, not to mention plainly wrong.

I represent the great city of Manchester where, every two years, we have an international festival. Festivals up and down the country have difficulties.

[Kate Green]

My hon. Friend will know because the Gurdwara is in his constituency, although many of the worshippers are my constituents, that there is particular difficulty in getting visitor visas for members of the Sikh community to come to participate in religious festivals.

[Afzal Khan]

I am aware of that difficulty. There are similar issues when events are going on at the mosques. Manchester International Festival invited Abida Parveen, a renowned artist of international calibre, but it was a struggle—we all had to get involved to make sure she could get here. Only about a month ago, I got involved with another incident concerning an international artist. Many people, including my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Faisal Rashid), I am sure, enjoy listening to Abrar-ul-Haq. He struggled to get a visa for a charity event and the whole event had to be cancelled. There are issues here that the Minister should consider.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) touched on the introduction of e-visas in India, which is proving effective. I hope the Minister will elaborate on that and tell us whether e-visas will be rolled out to Pakistan, Bangladesh and other countries.

Let me turn to my first question: do we want an immigration policy that respects the right to a family life? Article 8 of the European convention on human rights states:

“Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.”

The Labour party believes that right should be protected. We are committed to allowing spouses to come to the UK without a minimum income requirement, we will not force children to pay more than £1,000 to obtain citizenship just because their parents were not born here, and we will allow all reasonable requests for visitor visas.

An estimated 15,000 children live without a parent because of restrictions on family visas. When a reasonable request for even a visitor visa is turned down, families can be devastated. Children grow up used to the possibility that they may never see their parents, even for a short visit. The Government’s spouse visa rules have already been found to breach article 8. The Government have tweaked the wording of their policy since that ruling, but the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants argues that that has not made a difference to decision making. The right to a family life will be a guiding principle for Labour as we review our immigration system in government.

Does the Minister believe that charging £1,000 for citizenship is in the best interests of a child and their family? Does she think denying people the right to come for family visits—for weddings and funerals—respects the right to a family life? Family visitors are tourists, who contribute to our economy by visiting our great sights. Does she believe it helps her colleagues in the Department for International Trade sell the idea of a “global Britain” post-Brexit for it to be almost impossible to sustain family ties across borders? How does the fact that anyone who comes to Britain runs a high risk of not being able to have their family visit them while they are here help to build trade links?

My second question is: do we want an immigration process that is effective, fair and transparent? The right to appeal in family visa cases was removed in 2013—a move the Labour party opposed. Before their abolition, one in three appeals was successful, which raises concerns about how decisions were—and still are—made. The Minister must address the underlying issues with the application process and reinstate appeals so that her Department can properly be held to account.

In a recent report, the Select Committee on Home Affairs made a powerful and convincing case that the “refusal culture” in the Home Office is in dire need of root-and-branch reform. It pointed out that the removal of legal aid and of the right of appeal removed a

“valuable legal check on decision-making within the Home Office despite no obvious signs that the quality of decisions had improved”.

That lack of vital checks and balances was a strong factor in the Windrush crisis.

A system that sets people up to fail, coupled with the removal of checks and balances, has caused the wrong people—some of them British citizens—to be caught up in the hostile environment. On top of that, there is no evidence that any of those policies achieve their apparent aims. The chief inspector of borders and immigration said that the right-to-rent scheme

“had yet to demonstrate its worth as a tool to encourage immigration compliance, with the Home Office failing to coordinate, maximise or even measure effectively its use, while at the same time doing little to address the concerns of stakeholders.”

The Government’s approach to visitor visas is part of a refusal culture and a punitive hostile environment, which work against people who want to come to the UK, against British citizens who want to maintain family ties and against our country’s best interests. The chief inspector of borders and immigration and the Home Affairs Committee—independent bodies that spend significant time and resources investigating the Home Office—are united in saying that the effectiveness of the hostile environment has not been proved, and the Government have consistently ignored legitimate concerns that it hits the wrong people.

We clearly need to re-examine the visitor visa system and immediately reinstate appeals. It took too long for Ministers to realise the extent and devastation of the Windrush crisis. We need proper checks and balances to avoid a repeat of that scandal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

If the hon. Lady will be a little generous with her patience, I will come to the point of the three petitions we are considering. I did think it important to give a little context to begin with.

I am absolutely committed to ensuring that the UK visa service is high performing, customer focused and continually improving—that last point is important—in terms of both products available and the route to apply for them. There is always room to improve and—as we respond to evolving demands and requirements, harness new technology and reflect customer experiences and needs—we have a good story to tell.

As I said, 99% of non-settlement applications were processed within 15 days and the average processing time last year was just under eight days. Overall, customer satisfaction remains high. Comparisons are not straightforward, but we continue to believe that our visa service stands up well against key competitor countries. Having said that, I accept that we occasionally make mistakes, and I will address that later.

We continue to innovate, and our mission to deliver world-class customer service is informed by customer insight. For example, Access UK, a new intuitive online application service, has been successfully rolled out. Within the next few months, almost all customers worldwide will be able to apply for their new visa, visa extension or change of visa type via the new digital platform. UKVI also offers premium services, which mean that a visit visa can typically be processed in five days, and in some locations there is a super-premium service.

I am pleased that the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) referred to e-visas. I have much enthusiasm for the introduction of electronic travel authorisations, which I very much hope to see when the immigration Bill is introduced. Perhaps I might be able to look forward to his support on that.

The immigration rules set out the requirements to visit the UK, usually for up to six months. They apply to all visitors, and all applications are considered on their merits, regardless of the nationality of the applicant. Visitors must satisfy the decision maker that they are genuine visitors to the UK, that what they are coming to do here is allowed and that they will not work or access public funds. The decision maker looks at all aspects of an individual’s application and makes a credibility assessment against the immigration rules on the balance of probabilities.

I turn to the petitions, which call for a new visa category for parents of British citizens similar to that in Canada, automatic approval of visitor visas for families of British citizens and British citizens to be able to appeal the refusal of a family visitor visa. I shall address each in turn.

The Canadian super visa permits the parents or grandparents of a Canadian citizen or permanent resident of Canada to visit for up to two years, rather than for six months at a time as is usual. There are additional eligibility requirements, including minimum income thresholds, financial sponsorship guarantees from the family in Canada, Canadian medical insurance policies and medical examinations. Facts about applicants’ ties to their home country, as well as the overall economic and political stability of that country, are considered.

The UK’s long-held position is that visitors are those individuals who, in the vast majority of cases, come to the UK for a maximum of six months. We do not consider being in the UK for two years at a time as temporary or visiting, and therefore we do not intend to adopt a model like that of Canada. To do so, thereby allowing a select group of people to remain in the UK for two years as visitors, would mean that important considerations against the immigration rules would not be applied consistently, which could raise equality concerns.

Visitor visas are available with long validities, which means that people do not have to apply for a new visa each time they want to visit. Additional services are also available that reduce the processing time if, for example, people need to travel urgently. Long-term routes for family members are available; I will address them later.

The next petition calls for automatic approval of visas for family members of British citizens. Automatically approving visas rather undermines the benefits that the visa system gives us in border security. Visas are an effective tool for the UK in reducing illegal immigration, tackling organised crime and protecting national security. Automatically approving visas for a select group of people without consistent consideration could also lead to discrimination against people who do not have family members settled in the UK, but have just as valid a reason for wishing to visit. There would also be a danger of additional complexity in the assessment process around how someone confirmed that they were the family member of a British citizen. Unintended consequences could make the application process longer, more difficult and costly for everyone, due to the resources needed to undertake any additional verification that may be required.

The vast majority of visitor visa applications made are granted. Last year, the figure stood at 90%. That equates to more than 2 million visitor visas issued last year, which is an increase of 10% on the previous year. Those statistics mean little to those who do not get the visa they have applied for, especially if they feel that a mistake has been made in processing the application.

[Afzal Khan]

Does the Minister believe that a relative abroad of anyone who lives here would fall into the same category as anyone else, or would they have a special position because family life required that relationship to be maintained?

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Gentleman asks an interesting question, but it is important that visa applications are considered consistently wherever the individual comes from in the world and whether they have family here or not. When we are seeking to attract visitors to the UK, we do not wish to discriminate against people who do not have family members here, which he pointed out was important.

That brings me to the third petition, on appeals. As we heard earlier, family visitor appeals were removed by the Crime and Courts Act 2013. At that point, no other type of entry clearance application, including those involving work or study in the UK, carried a full right of appeal in the event of refusal. The wide-ranging appeals reform introduced by the Immigration Act 2014 means that rights of appeal are now available only in cases involving asylum or humanitarian protection, human rights or rights under EU law. Where someone makes an application for a visitor visa and that application is refused, they will be provided with reasons for that refusal. It is open to those who have been refused to make a fresh application in which they can address any reasons given for the previous refusal.

There are practical reasons why a new application is a better approach than an appeal, both generally and for the individual visitor. Before the removal of the appeal right, such appeals accounted for about a third of all immigration appeals and, because of the volume of such cases in the system, they could take up to eight months to be concluded. Asylum appeals and other appeals on fundamental rights issues were therefore also delayed.

By the time the appeal had been determined, the circumstances might well have changed. For example, a document relevant to the application may have been found. There was also the possibility that the family event for which the visa was needed had already taken place, in which case the visitor, the person being visited and the appeal system—everyone—lost out. By contrast, the service standard for straightforward non-settlement visa applications is 99% processed within 15 days.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill (Sixth sitting)

Afzal Khan Excerpts

Committee Debate: 6th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 5th July 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister and I discussed some of these powers privately, and I welcome the chance to discuss them again. He is aware of a number of cases that I am concerned about regarding detention or stopping and searching at borders. I make it absolutely clear that, when needed to protect public safety—whether from hostile state activity or from those travelling abroad or entering this country to commit acts of terrorism—the powers must absolutely be there to enable searching, detention and other necessary processes to deal with that and to keep the public safe.

However, there are two crucial points. The first is that, wherever possible, action should be taken before we have to detain or search or interdict somebody at a border, particularly if that person is leaving the UK. We should, if possible, detain them at their home or interview them elsewhere—voluntarily or otherwise—because if we get to the stage at which somebody attempts to board a plane or a ship or a Eurostar or whatever, there will be a risk both to public safety and of unnecessarily detaining or disrupting the travel of individuals who are not guilty of any offence.

The second point, which the Minister is aware of, is that we need to be aware that individuals may travel with family members or other individuals who are in no way connected and should not be under the reasonable suspicion that may be directed at that individual. What steps are being taken to ensure that information and processes are being shared to ensure that such detentions, searches and interdictions take place at the earliest possible opportunity? What arrangements are there to ensure that relevant information is shared, wherever possible, between airlines or other forms of transport, the Border Force, the Passport Office, the security services, the police and others to ensure that those things I mentioned are done at the earliest stage? I will move amendments on that issue later.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

I shall be brief. I would like the Minister to take a couple of my questions into account when answering those raised by other Members. It is clear that this whole area gives a lot of power to officers, and that the term “hostile activity” risks casting an extremely wide net; in essence, anyone could be subject to the Bill’s invasive powers. Will the Minister explain how any confidential material obtained at the border will be protected? How do the Government intend to ensure that these powers will not lead to ethnic and religious profiling? In view of these broad powers, will the Minister also clarify whether any training will be given to officers?

[Mr Wallace]

First, the use of, effectively, no-suspicion stops on our border is not new. In fact, as we heard from those giving evidence to the Committee last week, lots of stops happen on our border, because borders are particularly vulnerable spaces. There are screening stops, in which people are asked questions about where they are coming from or going. There are also customs and excise stops, which go beyond that, and in which people are stopped and their bags and luggage are properly searched, perhaps in a side room. That is detaining, in a sense. It is not for a long period of time; it is certainly not as long as some of the scheduled stops that we will talk about.

Until someone is arrested, their access to legal advice and so on is different, because our vulnerability at a border, and our need to establish who, what and when, is really important for our national security. That is why many of those stops, in different guises—whether customs or identity screening—have been in place, sometimes, for hundreds of years. This is a development of that. In the Terrorism Act 2000, passed by the last Labour Government, the feeling was that, given our vulnerability at the border in a fast-moving world of millions of passengers, it was important to give our Border Force and our law enforcement community the ability to establish that information.

Some 89% of all stops at the border are done in under an hour. The vast majority are inward not outward, but to the point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth, I also have a constituent who was stopped when outward bound. My constituent was held up, and a family holiday and lots of money were effectively lost. Having met the hon. Gentleman, we have started a piece of work to look at exactly what we can do to minimise that. A good example would be asking whether it is really necessary to stop someone on the way out; they could perhaps be stopped only on the way back in. If we do not think they are going to travel to fight in Syria, but we think they might be going to do something else, we could just wait until they come back, and people are much less likely to suffer financial risk if they are done.

In answer to the question by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, only officers who are specially trained are allowed to conduct a stop, search and detail. I think it would be illegal, and it would certainly be against the powers, to do it for arbitrary or discriminatory reasons. That would cover doing it on the basis of race or anything else. The no-suspicion power has been incredibly useful and has caught a significant number of terrorists, predominantly due to the fact that they have been stopped and data or biometrics has been seized. We have seen a number of cases. There was a guy from Wembley, I think, who was convicted of murder based on material recovered from a stop.

There will be safeguards in this new power. Our terrorism stops are reviewed by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. I have asked the Judicial Commissioner, Lord Justice Fulford, to review the use of the hostile state power on an annual basis. One of the reasons why we have introduced this is that the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation had serious concerns that in the past we were using a counter-terrorism power to stop people on a national security or hostile state concern. This is our response to what I think was David Anderson’s recommendation to take that forward.

The hon. Member for Torfaen and the Scottish National party have spoken about no-suspicion and the fact that we should have reasonable grounds. The biggest challenge is that the way our intelligence is presented to us can often be very broad. It can be based on a method, on a threat on a date, or on a plane, rather than on a person. The Government’s reading of the law is that if we had to have reasonable grounds, it would be too narrow for us to be able to respond to some of that intelligence threat.

It may even be that we have gone to a state of “critical”, where an attack is imminent but we do not know from which direction. I have personal experience, doing this job, of where we had some “reliable” intelligence about an attack in one part of the country, but in fact an attack happened in an entirely different place at another end of the country. The information was enough to consider raising the threat level, but not enough to know exactly where it was happening. I remember having rather an uncomfortable night, going out and having in the back of my head what I had been told might happen; while I was pleased that it did not happen, something else then happened elsewhere. It is a challenge; it is a difficulty. It is the way our intelligence is often presented to us, and that is why we need a no-suspicion stop.

There are protections for journalistic material and legal privilege. Because the seizing at this stop would not be under suspicion, the examining officer would have to apply to the Judicial Commissioner for that to be further examined, and the Judicial Commissioner could say no. We have included protections for journalists, lawyers and so on, to ensure that that happens, because we do not want the power abused, especially when we are talking about a hostile state rather than terrorism. Of course, hostile states are pretty clever at how they try to penetrate or come into the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wallace]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. All such schemes, including his, restrict people’s right to a lawyer, one way or another. They either say, “I don’t trust your lawyer, so you can have my lawyer,” or—this is how the Government are doing it—“We have exceptional grounds, authorised by a chief officer, because we are suspicious of something”.

The hon. Gentleman makes a point about police stations, but many of these examinations are about establishing who, what, where and when. We should remember that in the port stops power, to balance the removal of some rights, these verbal discussions are not admissible in court as evidence, unlike in a police station, where everything said can be taken down in evidence and used. We give that protection, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) pointed out.

[Afzal Khan]

I accept what the Minister says about trying to balance rights by not allowing such conversations to be used as evidence, but would it not be better and in the wider interest to allow the use of solicitors from a pool and be able to use those conversations as evidence?

[Mr Wallace]

If I were to propose such a restriction on which lawyers could be consulted, I would find difficulty in the House of Lords. Let me proceed.

Accepting the amendments would in effect offer an opportunity to those engaged in activity of such severity to frustrate and obstruct an examination. Let me address the key point raised—the evidence we heard last week on restriction of the right to consult a solicitor in private. We must be clear that schedule 3 would allow use of the power only when an officer at least of the rank of commander or assistant chief constable has reasonable grounds for believing that allowing the examinee to exercise his or her right to consult a solicitor privately will have certain serious consequences.

The provisions are largely modelled on similar provisions in PACE: namely, where there are reasonable grounds to believe that private consultation will result in interference, injury to another person or hindering the recovery of property. Due to the potential severity of an act of terrorism, schedule 8 to the 2000 Act outlines additional consequences that might justify allowing the legal consultation to take place only within the sight and hearing of a qualified officer. Those include interference with information-gathering relating to an act of terrorism, alerting a person and making it more difficult to prevent an act of terrorism.

Schedule 3 to the Bill contains a similar consequence as a ground for allowing non-private legal consultations, namely the consequence of interference with information gathering about

“a person’s engagement in hostile activity.”

The need for the restriction is clear. It is there to disrupt and deter a detainee who seeks to use their right to a solicitor to pass on instructions to a third party. It already exists in legislation in schedule 8 to the 2000 Act, which the Bill seeks to replicate. In giving evidence to the Committee, the chair of the Law Society’s criminal law committee questioned why this restriction went beyond the equivalent provisions in PACE code H, which relate to a situation where an individual has been arrested on suspicion of a terrorism offence. PACE code H provides that:

“Authority to delay a detainee’s right to consult privately with a solicitor may be given only if the authorising officer has reasonable grounds to believe the solicitor the detainee wants to consult will, inadvertently or otherwise, pass on a message from the detainee or act in some other way which will have any of the consequences specified under paragraph 8 of Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000.”

Those consequences include harming others or tipping off terrorism suspects. In such circumstances,

“the detainee must be allowed to choose another solicitor.”

We have considered that carefully, but there are two main reasons why it is not feasible from an operational standpoint. First, in the circumstances described, where the police are concerned that an individual will use their solicitor to pass on instructions, allowing them access to a different solicitor in private will not prevent that possibility. The solicitor might be completely oblivious to the fact that their client is using them to pass on instructions to a third party. For instance, a detainee might ask the solicitor to contact someone and pass on a specific message, such as the fact that they are being detained and their location, with the solicitor unaware that the message will trigger some prearranged activity.

Secondly, inviting the detainee to choose another solicitor is not as straightforward at a UK port as it is at a police station. Unlike a detention under PACE, where there is time and access to a duty solicitor, it might take a substantial amount of time for an alternative solicitor to arrive at a UK port. To offer that option up front to the detainee, who is already presenting reasons to believe they are up to no good, provides another means for them to obstruct and frustrate the examination against a ticking detention clock.

Despite those reservations, I draw the Committee’s attention to two important safeguards that govern the exercise of such a direction. The first will ensure that a direction may be given only by an officer of the rank of assistant chief constable. The second will ensure that the officer present during the detainee’s legal consultation must not be connected with the detainee’s case. I reassure the Committee that the safeguards to the schedules have been carefully considered, following lessons learned through the exercise of the equivalent police powers, the work of the independent reviewers of terrorism legislation and our engagement with the public in respect of the existing powers for counter-terrorism purposes.

In relation to the amendments before us today, I stress that we should not hinder the ability of our law enforcement professionals to disrupt and deter those who present a threat to this country due to their involvement in terrorism or hostile state activity. Accordingly, I invite the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North to withdraw his amendment.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill (Fourth sitting)

Afzal Khan Excerpts

Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 3rd July 2018 Public Bill Committees

Therefore, with the Committee’s leave, I would like to indicate clearly that we are going to look at a better solution for the issue in the amendment, which will take on board the very clear recommendations from Opposition Members and others, to make sure that the Bill reflects an offence that deals with the current threat of streaming.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)]

Will the Minister look at not only the question of the clicks, but what possible safeguards could be incorporated? For example, we talked about journalists and academics.