Budget Resolutions

Debate between Alison Thewliss and Nigel Evans

Monday 11th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I will touch first on arts funding. As a Member of Parliament who has a number of arts institutions based in my Glasgow Central constituency, I gently welcome the theatre, orchestra, museums and galleries exhibition tax relief. The Royal Scottish National Orchestra has said that the relief

“ensures the RSNO remains committed to serving Scotland’s communities, concert halls and schools.”

However, that comes in a wider context, as the Musicians’ Union has pointed out, of cuts to the arts over many years. It has talked about the impact of a decade of austerity. General secretary Naomi Pohl said that she fears “frankly, we are stuffed” if a Labour Government do not put money into the arts. There needs to be some change to ensure that our music and arts venues can continue.

The RSNO has done a huge amount to diversify what it does. It is involved in making music for motion pictures, as well as filling concert halls in the city of Glasgow and other places besides. It has asked that the UK Government consider proposals to exempt employers in the cultural sector from national insurance, which would encourage companies to bring workers often used on a freelance basis into employment. That is particularly important given how many freelancers, particularly female freelancers, were excluded from support during covid. I leave that for Ministers to consider. Will Ministers go further on VAT to encourage people back out to enjoy cultural events and bring life back to our cities and town centres? Music tickets having 20% VAT on them is a real inhibitor to that.

This Budget should have been a moment to bridge the funding gap for our public services, which they so desperately need. Instead, the Budget appears more concerned with setting traps for a future Labour Government. The Conservative party is once again bringing its own naked political interests into government, and we are all left paying the cost. It is money for Canary Wharf, not the Calton, or Cowcaddens or Kinning Park. The concerns raised by organisations such as the Child Poverty Action Group should not be ignored. The stark reality is that there is little in the Budget to address the crisis conditions being experienced by children and families living in poverty. The Chancellor’s claim that the Government do not pass their bills on to the next generation rings particularly hollow when 4.2 million children live in poverty in the UK today. Who does he think will be this next generation?

The decisions taken in this Budget risk leaving a legacy of millions of young people living with the scars and the real harms of growing up in poverty: hunger, poorer educational outcomes, the health risks associated with cold and damp homes, and stagnant economic growth leading to fewer opportunities. The Glasgow Centre for Population Health has commented particularly movingly on this lost 10 years of austerity and its impact on public health. It says that it could take another 10 years just to get us back to where we were in 2011. Opportunities have been lost for so many people as a result.

I call on the Government yet again, as I do at every Budget, to scrap the two-child limit on universal credit. At the moment, 222,000 families are affected by the policy, which is life limiting and damaging. It is making it more difficult for larger families to put food on the table, and it is driving them to almost impossible choices. The Government must scrap it. Equally shameful is that the Labour party will not scrap it, either. Those young people are being condemned to a life lived in poverty. That is not good enough, and the Government should do better. They could bring in the equivalent of the Scottish child payment, which is now £26.70 per child per week for eligible families. It is helping to keep those families out of the food banks and protecting the life chances of those children. They could increase the healthy start benefits to the level of best start foods, so that families do not have to go to food banks to get infant formula, as they could afford those things if they require them.

There is a serious gendered impact of the Government’s policies. The Women’s Budget Group has highlighted the regressive nature of cuts to national insurance. The cuts disproportionately affect lone mothers and couples with children. Single men will receive around £500 more than a lone mother, and couples without children will receive more than £1,200 more per year than families. Half the benefits go to the wealthiest households, and only 3% to the poorest. Yet again, the Government’s cutting taxes for Tory voters on the back of the people who can afford it the very least is warped.

There needs to be a lot more support for public services and infrastructure, greater cost of living measures and a just transition. The OBR points out that there is

“no real growth in departmental spending per person over the next five years.”

This Tory Government are committed to that, and Labour is committed to copying and pasting that policy. Scotland deserves better than this broke, broken Westminster Government. We want better than a UK that has been declared the world’s second most miserable country, behind Uzbekistan, with 35% of respondents distressed or struggling at the worst. In Scotland we think of what we could have: Ireland with its budget surplus, and Norway with its oil fund. Scotland deserves much better than this. We deserve independence.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Unsurprisingly, Jim Shannon is the last Back-Bench contributor. We have a bit more time, so I am not putting on a time limit; I know the hon. Member will not abuse my generosity. Could any Member who has participated in the debate start to make their way to the Chamber for the wind-ups?

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Debate between Alison Thewliss and Nigel Evans

3rd reading
Wednesday 10th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I oppose this anti-boycott Bill on several points. It is difficult to see its timing as anything other than a cynical move by the UK Government. The Secretary of State talks about support for community cohesion and a peaceful two-state solution, but this Bill does nothing to achieve either. Instead, it will seriously curtail our civil liberties and undermine devolution. If the volume of correspondence I have received on this Bill is any indication, the people of Glasgow, as ever, see right through the Tories.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) mentioned the granting of the freedom of the city of Glasgow to Nelson Mandela. In 1986, Glasgow District Council renamed St George’s Place as Nelson Mandela Place as a mark of the city’s solidarity with Nelson Mandela, who was still imprisoned at the time. The point was that the South African consulate was located on the street and was forced to use an address bearing the name of South Africa’s most high-profile political prisoner.

This act of international resistance would simply not have been possible if this legislation had been in place in 1986 as, at that time, the UK Government were still refusing to condemn apartheid. Who would want to speak with one voice when that was what the UK Government were saying on Scotland’s behalf? Indeed, even discussion of such an act would have been unlikely to take place under clause 4’s gagging effect. According to Liberty:

“In practice, a public body seeking to comply with the Bill is likely to take steps to distance itself from anything which suggests that it holds any political or moral views as to the conduct of foreign states, for fear that it could be found to be in breach of the ban or the related prohibition on statements.”

This legislation will undoubtedly alter the executive competence of Scottish Ministers and should be opposed by all of those who value devolution.

The provisions in this Bill are disproportionate and, frankly, unnecessary. The Bill hands sweeping powers to the Secretary of State and the Treasury to request information from the devolved Administrations to assess whether a breach of the boycott ban or gagging clause has occurred and to impose a compliance notice. This is a huge overstep. There are already significant protections in Scottish procurement legislation for bidders from countries where a relevant trade agreement exists. It is not clear what problem the UK Government are trying to fix with this Bill. Worse, the Bill makes it unlawful for Scottish Ministers even to publish a statement that they would have acted in a certain way if not curtailed by these measures. The legislative consent memorandum published by the Deputy First Minister describes this as an “assault on democratic expression”.

As we head into an election year, the Prime Minister is affirming that the legacy he and his predecessors will leave behind will be one of a democracy in tatters, faith in public institutions annihilated and our hard-won rights stripped bare. It is increasingly the case that the only hope left for people in Scotland to protect our democratic freedoms is the hope of an independent Scotland.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Miriam Cates, to speak until 6.42 pm.

UK-Rwanda Partnership

Debate between Alison Thewliss and Nigel Evans

Wednesday 6th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Did the hon. Member just swear?

[Alison Thewliss]

No, he quoted the Home Secretary!

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Please use other words.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Thank you very much for your statement, Home Secretary, and for answering questions for well over an hour.

[Alison Thewliss]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Accuracy is incredibly important in this House, and I would not want something incorrect to be on the record. The Home Secretary said in his statement:

“Other countries have since copied our plans with Rwanda”.

I can find no evidence that that is accurate. Can you advise on this point of accuracy, Mr Deputy Speaker, because no country is copying the plan with Rwanda?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On a point of accuracy, those who are being moved to Albania will be under Italian law. That is not the case in the Rwanda plan.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

We will now move on.

Points of Order

Debate between Alison Thewliss and Nigel Evans

Thursday 18th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and advise him to go to the Table Office and put the question to the Clerks, because I think they will have a better idea of the timetabling of any announcements that will be made either today or later on.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, I apologise for not giving you prior notice, but I have only just received the email that I wish to raise. The email is from UK Visas and Immigration on a constituent’s case. My constituent claimed asylum in December 2020 and the email I have received from them today says that,

“your client may expect to receive their asylum decision by 31 December 2023”.

That is quite a long time to wait in limbo for a decision, as I am sure most hon. Members would agree. Have you received any notification from Home Office Ministers about any statements to the House with an update on the asylum backlog, which is having a serious impact on the lives and wellbeing of so many of my constituents?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. This is a very serious issue, and people being left in limbo is clearly not acceptable. I have not received any notice that there will be any statements today, but should that alter, people will be informed in the usual way. Those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the point she has made and will make sure it is passed on to the Home Office.

Public Order Act 2023

Debate between Alison Thewliss and Nigel Evans

Tuesday 16th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. The Front Bench there is reserved for His Majesty’s official Opposition. I would be delighted to suspend the House for 10 minutes so I could go and have a cup of tea, but I am sure hon. Members will take their usual positions in order that we can start the second Opposition day motion on behalf of the SNP.

4.52 pm

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes that the Public Order Act constitutes a serious infringement on the rights of the people to protest; and makes provision as set out in this Order:

(1) On Tuesday 23 May 2023:

(a) Standing Order No. 14(1) (which provides that government business shall have precedence at every sitting save as provided in that Order) shall not apply;

(b) any proceedings governed by this Order may be proceeded with until any hour, though opposed, and shall not be interrupted;

(c) the Speaker may not propose the question on the previous question, and may not put any question under Standing Order No. 36 (Closure of debate) or Standing Order No. 163 (Motion to sit in private);

(d) at 12.30 pm, the Speaker shall interrupt any business prior to the business governed by this Order and call the Leader of the Scottish National Party Westminster Group or another Member on his behalf to present a Bill concerning the repeal of the Public Order Act 2023 of which notice of presentation has been given and immediately thereafter (notwithstanding the practice of the House) call a Member to move the motion that the Bill be now read a second time as if it were an order of the House;

(e) in respect of that Bill, notices of Amendments, new Clauses and new Schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time;

(f) any proceedings interrupted or superseded by this Order may be resumed or (as the case may be) entered upon and proceeded with after the moment of interruption.

(2) The provisions of paragraphs (3) to (18) of this Order shall apply to and in connection with the proceedings on the Bill in the present Session of Parliament.

Timetable for the Bill on Tuesday 23 May 2023

(3) (a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be taken at the sitting on Tuesday 23 May 2023 in accordance with this Order.

(b) Proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at 4.00 pm.

(c) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) at 7.00 pm.

Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put on Tuesday 23 May 2023

(4) When the Bill has been read a second time:

(a) it shall, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme Order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;

(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.

(5) (a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.

(6) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (3), the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;

(c) the Question on any amendment, new clause or new schedule selected by the Chairman or Speaker for separate decision;

(d) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a designated Member;

(e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and shall not put any other Questions, other than the Question on any motion described in paragraph (15) of this Order.

(7) On a Motion made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall

put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

Consideration of Lords Amendments and Messages on a subsequent day

(8) If on any future sitting day any message on the Bill (other than a message that the House of Lords agrees with the Bill without amendment or agrees with any message from this House) is expected from the House of Lords, this House shall not adjourn until that message has been received and any proceedings under paragraph (9) have been concluded.

(9) On any day on which such a message is received, if a designated Member indicates to the Speaker an intention to proceed to consider that message—

(a) notwithstanding Standing Order No. 14(1) any Lords Amendments to the Bill or any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly;

(b) proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under subparagraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed;

(c) the Speaker may not propose the question on the previous question, and may not put any question under Standing Order No. 36 (Closure of debate) or Standing Order No. 163 (Motion to sit in private) in the course of those proceedings.

(10) Paragraphs (2) to (7) of Standing Order No. 83F (Programme Orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments to a conclusion as if:

(a) any reference to a Minister of the Crown were a reference to a designated Member;

(b) after paragraph (4)(a) there is inserted—

“(aa) the question on any amendment or motion selected by the Speaker for separate decision;”.

(11) Paragraphs (2) to (5) of Standing Order No. 83G (Programme Orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings on consideration of a Lords Message to a conclusion as if any reference to a Minister of the Crown were a reference to a designated Member.

Reasons Committee

(12) (a) Paragraphs (2) to (6) of Standing Order No. 83H (Programme Orders: reasons committee) apply in relation to any committee to be appointed to draw up reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with this Order as if any reference to a Minister of the Crown were a reference to a designated Member.

(b) The composition of the committee shall (notwithstanding the practice of the House) have three members from the government, three members from the largest opposition party and one member from the second largest opposition party.

Miscellaneous

(13) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings on the Bill to which this Order applies.

(14) (a) No Motion shall be made, except by a designated Member, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order.

(b) No notice shall be required of such a Motion.

(c) Such a Motion may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.

(d) The Question on such a Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (c) shall thereupon be resumed.

(e) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on such a Motion.

(15) (a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings on the Bill to which this Order applies except by a designated Member.

(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(16) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(17) No private business may be considered at any sitting to which the provisions of this Order apply.

(18) (a) The start of any debate under Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) to be held on a day on which proceedings to which this Order applies are to take place shall be postponed until the conclusion of any proceedings to which this Order applies.

(b) Standing Order 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply in respect of any such debate.

(19) In this Order, “a designated Member” means—

(a) the Leader of the Scottish National Party in this House; and

(b) any other Member acting on behalf of the Leader of the Scottish National Party in this House.

Honestly, I think it would have been quite sensible for the SNP to fulfil the Opposition role in this place, Mr Deputy Speaker, because it would appear that His Majesty’s Opposition are not bothering to turn up this afternoon for this desperately important debate.

The Public Order Act 2023 is a massive overstep in power. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) has said, it is

“a draconian and utterly unjustified attack on protest rights.”—[Official Report, 7 March 2023; Vol. 729, c. 209.]

The right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association are fundamental human rights. The Public Order Act, both in the letter and in the application, which we saw during the coronation, not only undermines that right—it totally and completely shreds it.

Illegal Migration Bill

Debate between Alison Thewliss and Nigel Evans

Report stage
Wednesday 26th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have just passed a Bill for which the Home Secretary is unable to make a declaration under section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998 that it will be compatible. Others have suggested that it will break the refugee convention, the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings, the United Nations convention on the rights of the child and the UN convention relating to the status of stateless persons. I seek your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sure that none of our constituents sent us to this place to break the law, and it seems to me that we have perhaps done so in voting for the Illegal Migration Bill. Given that we have a very special duty in this place to be guarantors of human rights in this Parliament, collectively and individually, can you advise what we might do?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order and forward notice of it. I can only respond to the bits for which the Chair is responsible, and I am content that the House has proceeded perfectly properly, but her comments are on the record.

Illegal Migration Bill

Debate between Alison Thewliss and Nigel Evans

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I beg to move amendment 186, page 2, line 32, leave out “must” and insert “may”.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 139, page 2, line 33, leave out “four” and insert “five”.

This amendment adds a fifth condition to the duty to remove.

Amendment 187, page 2, line 33, at end insert

“subject to the exceptions in subsection (1A).”

Amendment 188, page 2, line 33, at end insert—

“(1A) This section does not apply to a person who was under the age of 18 when they arrived in the UK”.

Amendment 189, page 2, line 33, at end insert—

“(1A) This section does not apply to a person (“A”) who is an Afghan national where there is a real risk of persecution or serious harm to A if returned to that country.”

Amendment 190, page 2, line 33, at end insert—

“(1A) This section does not apply to a person who is a refugee under the Refugee Convention or in need of humanitarian protection.”

Amendment 191, page 2, line 33, at end insert–

“(1A) This section does not apply to a person (L) where there is a real risk of persecution or serious harm on grounds of sexual orientation if L is removed in accordance with this section.”

Amendment 192, page 2, line 33, at end insert—

“(1A) This clause does not apply to persons who there are reasonable grounds to suspect are victims of torture.”

Amendment 195, page 2, line 33, at end insert—

“(1A) This clause does not apply to persons who there are reasonable grounds to suspect are victims of trafficking or slavery.”

Amendment 196, page 2, line 33, at end insert—

“(1A) This clause does not apply to an individual who meets the definition of an “adult at risk” in paragraph 7 of the Home Office Guidance on adults at risk in immigration detention (2016), including in particular people suffering from a condition, or who have experienced a traumatic event (such as trafficking, torture or sexual violence), that would be likely to render them particularly vulnerable to harm.”

Amendment 282, page 2, line 33, at end insert—

“(1A) This clause does not apply to a person who has been diagnosed with AIDS or as HIV positive.”

Amendment 193, page 3, line 8, after “person” insert

“is not a citizen of Ukraine, and”.

Amendment 194, page 3, line 8, after “person” insert

“does not have family members in the United Kingdom, and”.

Amendment 197, page 3, line 9, leave out “on or after 7 March 2023” and insert

“more than one month after this section comes into force”.

Amendment 285, page 3, line 11, at end insert

“with which the United Kingdom has a formal legally binding agreement to facilitate returns required under this section, and”.

This amendment would restrict the duty to arrange removal of people who travelled to the UK through a safe third country to cases where that country has a formal, legally binding agreement with the UK Government on migration returns.

Amendment 2, page 3, line 12, after “race” insert “gender”.

This amendment would explicitly add persecution on the basis of gender as potential reasons for the purposes of the third condition.

Amendment 198, page 3, line 15, leave out subsection (5) and insert—

“(5) Subsection (4) is to be interpreted in accordance with article 31(1) of the United Nations Convention on Refugees.”

Amendment 123, page 3, line 18, leave out from “they” to end of line 19 insert

“lawfully settled or found protection in another country outside the United Kingdom where they faced no serious risk of persecution or violations of their human rights and which complies with the requirements of the 1951 Convention on Refugees”.

This amendment would redefine “in both cases” so that it complies with the meaning of that phrase in Article 31 of the Refugee Convention as interpreted by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees.

Amendment 140, page 3, line 21, at end insert—

“(6A) The fifth condition is that the person was either—

(a) aged 18 or over, or

(b) under the age of 18 and was in the care of an individual over the age of 18,

at the time they entered the United Kingdom.”

Amendment 199, page 3, line 22, leave out subsection (7).

Amendment 200, page 3, line 41, leave out “unaccompanied”.

Amendment 6, page 4, line 4, at end insert—

“(d) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person is cooperating with a public authority in connection with an investigation or criminal proceedings related to people smuggling offences, and that it is necessary for the person to remain in the United Kingdom for the purposes of such cooperation.”

This amendment would provide an exemption from the duty to remove for people assisting with investigations or prosecutions for people smuggling offences, similar to the exemption provided by clause 21 for victims of modern slavery.

Amendment 70, page 4, line 4, at end insert—

“(d) the person enters the United Kingdom from Ireland across the land border with Northern Ireland.”

This amendment would provide an exemption from the duty to remove for people who arrive in the UK from the Republic of Ireland via the land border with Northern Ireland.

Amendment 136, page 4, line 4, at end insert—

“(12) Accommodation provided by the Secretary of State to a person who meets the conditions in this section must not include hotel accommodation.”

This amendment is intended to restrict the use of hotels by those who meet the conditions in clause 2.

Amendment 284, page 4, line 4, at end insert—

“(12) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the date on which this Act is passed, and at intervals of once every three months thereafter, lay a report before Parliament on the number of people who have been removed from the United Kingdom under this section.”

Clause stand part.

Amendment 201, in clause 3, page 4, line 5, leave out “Unaccompanied.”

Amendment 141, page 4, line 6, leave out subsections (1) to (4).

This amendment is consequential on the addition of the fifth condition.

Amendment 202, page 4, line 7, leave out

“at a time when the person is an unaccompanied child”

and insert

“if the person is a child or arrived in the United Kingdom as a child”.

Amendment 295, page 4, line 7, leave out

“at a time when the person is an unaccompanied child”

and insert

“where the person is an unaccompanied child or is a person who arrived in the United Kingdom as an unaccompanied child.”

This amendment seeks to remove the obligation on the Secretary of State to remove a person where the person has ceased to be an unaccompanied child.

Amendment 148, page 4, line 9, leave out subsection (2).

This amendment seeks to remove the provision in the Bill which enables the Secretary of State to remove unaccompanied children from the UK.

Amendment 203, page 4, line 11, at end insert “but only if—

(a) it is in the child’s best interests, and

(b) in accordance with UN Refugee Convention, the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child”.

Amendment 204, page 4, line 12, leave out “unaccompanied”.

Amendment 205, page 4, line 15, leave out sub-paragraph (c).

Amendment 206, page 4, line 17, leave out subsection (4).

Amendment 283, page 4, line 24, at end insert—

“(6A) For the purposes of this section, if C claims to be under the age of 18, but the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to dispute this claim, C’s age may be verified by a scientific age assessment.

(6B) A scientific age assessment conducted under this section may only entail medical methods, which may include x-ray examination.

(6C) A scientific age assessment may be conducted regardless of whether C has given consent.

(6D) The process or conclusion of the scientific age assessment is final and is not liable to be questioned or set aside in any court.”

Clause 3 stand part.

Amendment 299, in clause 4, page 4, line 28, leave out

“or the power in section 3(2)”.

This amendment would remove the requirement, in relation to unaccompanied children, to disregard relevant protection claims, human rights claims, slavery or human trafficking claims, and applications for judicial review.

Amendment 208, page 4, line 39, leave out “must” and insert “may”.

Amendment 294, page 5, line 2, leave out from “(2)” to the end of line 2 and insert

“must be considered under the immigration rules if the person who made the claim has not been removed from the United Kingdom within a period of six months starting on the day the claim is deemed inadmissible.”

Amendment 209, page 5, line 2, at end insert

“until such time as the Secretary of State withdraws her declaration under subsection (2), or a successful appeal is brought under subsection (4A)”.

Amendment 212, page 5, line 4, leave out “not”.

Amendment 213, page 5, line 5, leave out “no” and insert “a”.

Amendment 210, page 5, line 7, at end insert “subject to subsection (4A)”.

Amendment 135, page 5, line 7, at end insert—

“(4A) No court shall make any order to the effect that a person removed pursuant to the duty in section 2 (1) shall be returned to the United Kingdom.”.

This amendment is intended to block courts from ordering individuals to be returned to the UK.

Amendment 211, page 5, line 7, at end insert—

“(4A) If no removal takes place and no decision is made on a person’s protection or human rights claim within six months of a person’s arrival, then the declaration that such a claim is inadmissible is to be treated as a refusal of the claim giving rise to a right of appeal under section 82(1)(a) or (b) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.”

Clause 4 stand part.

Amendment 214, in clause 5, page 5, line 34, leave out paragraph (b).

Amendment 301, page 5, line 40, leave out paragraph (b).

This amendment would prevent unaccompanied children being removed to the countries listed in subsection (3), including countries listed as “safe” under new section 80AA(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (see clause 50).

Amendment 13, page 6, line 33, at end insert—

“(c) in a case where P is a national of a country to which their return may reasonably be expected to constitute a breach of Article 33 of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees of 1951.”

This amendment would add to the list of exceptional circumstances, in which a person should not be returned to a country of origin ordinarily considered safe, cases in which their removal may reasonably be expected to constitute a breach of the principle of non-refoulement under Article 33 of the Refugee Convention.

Amendment 215, page 6, line 39, at end insert—

“and the following conditions are met–

(a) the removal is pursuant to a formal, legally binding and public readmission agreement between the United Kingdom and the country or territory;

(b) the country or territory meets the definition of safe state set out in section 80B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, as shown by reliable, objective and up-to-date information;

(c) the person has been declared inadmissible under section 80B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, or section 4(2) of this Act;

(d) the country or territory in question is the country or territory with which the person was found to have a connection under section 80B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002;

(e) taking into account the person’s individual circumstances, it is reasonable for them to go to that country or territory; and

(f) the person is not a national of that country or territory.”

Amendment 216, page 7, line 3, at end insert—

“and the following conditions are met—

(a) the removal is pursuant to a formal, legally binding and public readmission agreement between the United Kingdom and the country or territory;

(b) the country or territory meets the definition of third country set out in section 80B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, as shown by reliable, objective and up-to-date information;

(c) the person has been declared inadmissible under section 80B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, or section 4(2) of this Act;

(d) the country or territory in question is the country or territory with which the person was found to have a connection under section 80B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002;

(e) taking into account the person’s individual circumstances, it is reasonable for them to go to that country or territory; and

(f) the person is not a national of that country or territory.”

Amendment 306, page 7, line 10, at end insert—

“(11A) For the purposes of removal under this section—

(a) where persons arrive in the United Kingdom as a family group, the provisions of this section must apply to them as if they were a single person so that, if they are removed, they are removed to the same country which must satisfy all the provisions of this section in relation to each person;

(b) “family group” means two or more persons who have any of the following relationships—

(i) parent, child, sibling, aunt or uncle, niece or nephew, cousin, husband, wife, grandparent, grandchild, legal guardian, or

(ii) any other relationship which may be set out by the Secretary of State in regulations.”

This amendment seeks to ensure that family members arriving in the UK together would be removed to the same country. For example, this amendment would prevent a husband being removed to a country listed in the Schedule only in respect of men, with the wife being removed to a different country listed in the Schedule.

Clause 5 stand part.

That the schedule be the schedule to the Bill.

Amendment 17, in clause 6, page 8, line 12, after “international organisations” insert

“including but not limited to, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees”.

This amendment would add an explicit requirement for the Secretary of State to have regard to information from the UN High Commissioner for Refugees when considering whether to add new countries or territories to the Schedule of safe third countries to which a person may be removed.

Clause 6 stand part.

Amendment 142, in clause 7, page 8, line 22, leave out from “Kingdom” to end of line 24.

This amendment is consequential on the addition of the fifth condition.

Amendment 138, page 8, line 24, at end insert—

“(1A) P may not be removed from the United Kingdom unless the Secretary of State or an immigration officer has given a notice in writing to P stating—

(a) that P meets the four conditions set out in section 2;

(b) that a safe and legal route to the United Kingdom from P’s country of origin existed which P could have followed but did not follow;

(c) that the safe and legal route specified in paragraph (b) has been approved by both Houses of Parliament in the previous 12 months as safe, legal and accessible to persons originating in the relevant country; and

(d) the number of successful applications for asylum in each of the previous five years by persons following the safe and legal route specified in paragraph (b).

(1B) Any determination by the Secretary of State to remove P from the United Kingdom based on information provided by the notice referred to in subsection (1A) may be subject to judicial review on the basis that the information was flawed, and the Secretary of State may not remove P from the United Kingdom while any such judicial review is ongoing.”

This amendment would prevent the Home Secretary removing a person from the United Kingdom unless and until the Secretary of State has confirmed that a safe and legal route existed but that the person nevertheless chose to follow an alternative route which resulted in them arriving in the United Kingdom without leave.

Amendment 121, page 8, line 30, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

“(ba) any protection claim, human rights claim, claim to be a victim of slavery or a victim of human trafficking as defined by regulations made under section 69 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 made by P has been resolved, and

(bb) any application by P for judicial review in relation to their removal from the United Kingdom under this Act has concluded.”

This amendment would make clear that no one can be removed from the UK until their protection claim, human rights claim, claim to be a victim of slavery or trafficking has been resolved or their application for judicial review in relation to their removal has concluded.

Amendment 18, page 8, line 36, at end insert—

“(3A) A notice under subsection (2) must—

(a) be provided in a language understood by that person, and

(b) provide information about how that person may access legal advice.”

This amendment would require the notices of removal to be provided in a language understood by the recipient, and to include information about how the recipient may access legal advice.

Amendment 217, page 8, line 37, leave out subsection (4).

Amendment 218, page 9, line 11, leave out subsection (8).

Government amendments 165 to 167.

Clause 7 stand part.

Amendment 219, in clause 8, page 9, line 29, after “family” insert “who arrives with P and”.

Government amendment 168.

Clause 8 stand part.

Amendment 286, in clause 9, page 11, line 8, at end insert—

“(8) The Secretary of State must, within 30 days of the date on which this section comes into force, publish and lay before Parliament an assessment of the impact of this Act on—

(a) Government expenditure on asylum support; and

(b) the use of contingency accommodation (including the specific use of hotels)

provided under section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.”

Clauses 9 and 10 stand part.

Amendment 220, in clause 11, page 13, leave out lines 19 to 36.

Amendment 221, page 13, leave out from the beginning of line 37 to the end of line 28 on page 14.

Government amendment 169.

Amendment 143, page 14, line 36, leave out lines 36 to 38 and insert—

“(2G) Detention under sub-paragraph (2C) or (2D) is to be treated as detention under sub-paragraph 16 (2) for the purposes of the limitations in paragraph 18B (limitation on detention of unaccompanied children).”

This amendment would remove the provision which enables a person of any age to be detained “in any place that the Secretary of State considers appropriate” and would reapply the existing statutory time and location restrictions on the detention of unaccompanied children.

Amendment 65, page 14, line 38, at end insert

“provided that it is compliant with the Detention Centre Rules 2001 and that local residents who may be affected are properly consulted.”

Amendment 71, page 14, line 38, at end insert

“, except in the case of an unaccompanied child or where a relevant family member is aged under 18, in which case sub-paragraph (2H) applies.

(2H) Where this sub-paragraph applies, the Secretary of State must consult and take into account the advice of the Children’s Commissioner as to whether—

(a) detention of the child or young person is compatible with the rights of the child or young person, and

(b) whether the place proposed for detention is suitable for ensuring the well-being of the child or young person.

(2I) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, subject to any appropriate redactions of personal data, advice received from the Children’s Commissioner under sub-paragraph (2H).”

This amendment is intended to give the Children’s Commissioner (who has responsibility for the welfare of under-18s in reserved/excepted matters across the UK) a role in ensuring that their rights are taken into account in the detention decision, and that any detention accommodation secures their welfare.

Amendment 145, page 14, line 41, leave out subsection (4).

This amendment would remove the provisions which disapply the existing statutory time and location restrictions on the detention of children and their families.

Amendment 222, page 15, leave out lines 27 to 43.

Amendment 223, page 15, leave out from the beginning of line 44 to the end of line 34 on page 16.

Amendment 144, page 16, line 40, leave out lines 40 and 41 and insert—

“(2E) Detention under subsection (2A) or (2B) is to be treated as detention under sub-paragraph 16(2) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (limitation on detention of unaccompanied children).”

This amendment would remove the provision which enables a person of any age to be detained “in any place that the Secretary of State considers appropriate” and would reapply the existing statutory time and location restrictions on the detention of unaccompanied children.

Amendment 147, page 16, line 40, leave out lines 40 and 41 and insert—

“(2E) Detention under subsection (2A) or (2B) is to be treated as detention under paragraph 16(2) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 for the purposes of the limitations in paragraph 18B of Schedule 2 of that Act.”

See explanatory statement for Amendment 146.

Amendment 21, page 17, line 9, leave out subsection (11).

This amendment seeks to remove the provisions which disapply existing statutory time limits on detention of pregnant women to people detained under powers set out in this clause.

Clause 11 stand part.

Amendment 226, in clause 12, page 17, line 20, leave out

“in the opinion of the Secretary of State”.

Amendment 227, page 17, line 24, leave out lines 24 to 28.

Amendment 228, page 17, line 42, leave out

“in the opinion of the Secretary of State”.

Amendment 229, page 18, line 1, leave out “reasonably”.

Amendment 230, page 18, line 2, leave out

“the Secretary of State considers to be”.

Amendment 231, page 18, line 39, leave out

“in the opinion of the Secretary of State”.

Amendment 232, page 19, leave out lines 1 to 4.

Amendment 233, page 19, leave out lines 11 to 20.

Clause 12 stand part.

Amendment 234, in clause 13, page 20, line 32, leave out subsection (3).

Amendment 124, page 21, line 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 11 on page 22.

This amendment would remove the prohibition, for the first 28 days of detention, on the grant of immigration bail by the First-tier tribunal and the ouster of judicial review of detention.

Amendment 235, page 21, line 12, leave out subsection (4).

Government amendments 170 and 171.

Clauses 13 and 14 stand part.

Amendment 238, in clause 15, page 22, line 30, at end insert—

“(1A) The power in clause (1) may only be exercised if the exercise of that power is in the best interests of the child, or children, being provided for.”

Amendment 239, page 22, line 34, leave out “may” and insert

“must, as necessary to secure the best interests of the child,”.

Clause 15 stand part.

Amendment 240, in clause 16, page 23, line 2, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

Amendment 241, page 23, line 3, leave out

“on a certain date (the transfer date)”

and insert

“as soon as reasonably practical”.

Amendment 242, page 23, line 10, leave out subsections (4) to (8).

Clause 16 to 18 stand part.

Amendment 246, in clause 19, page 24, line 27, at end insert

“but only with the consent of the Senedd Cymru, Scottish Parliament or Northern Ireland Assembly.”

Clauses 19 and 20 stand part.

Amendment 247, in clause 21, page 25, line 17, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert

“grounds of public order prevent observation of the reflection and recovery period, or if it is found that victim status is being claimed improperly.”

This amendment seeks to align provisions in clause 21 relating to exclusion from trafficking protections to those in article 13 of the European Convention on Action Against Trafficking.

Amendment 24, page 25, line 19, at end insert—

“(aa) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person is a threat to public order, within the terms of section 63(3) of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.”

Amendment 125, page 25, line 20, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

“(aa) grounds of public order prevent that person being provided with a recovery and reflection period in accordance with Article 13 of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking.”

This amendment, together with Amendments 126 and 127, would ensure that the disapplication of modern slavery provisions extends only in accordance with the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking.

Amendment 126, page 25, line 29, leave out paragraph (b).

This amendment, together with Amendment 127, would ensure that the disapplication of modern slavery provisions extends only in accordance with the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking.

Amendment 292, page 26, line 2, at end insert—

“(d) a decision has been made by a competent authority that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person is a victim of sexual exploitation (“positive reasonable grounds decision”).”

This amendment seeks to remove potential victims of sexual exploitation from the provisions requiring them to be removed.

Amendment 127, page 26, line 25, leave out subsections (7) to (9).

This amendment, together with Amendment 126, would ensure that the disapplication of modern slavery provisions extends only in accordance with the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking.

Amendment 291, page 26, line 36, at end insert—

“(9A) A person whose removal from the United Kingdom is enabled by subsection (2), shall only be removed to a state that is a signatory to—

the European Convention on Human Rights, and

the Council of Europe Convention on Action Against Trafficking.”

This amendment seeks to restrict the removal of victims of modern slavery to countries which are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights and the Trafficking Convention.

Clause 21 stand part.

Amendment 249, in clause 22, page 27, line 11, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c) and insert

“grounds of public order prevent observation of the reflection and recovery period or if it is found that victim status is being claimed improperly.”

This amendment seeks to align provisions in clause 21 relating to exclusion from trafficking protections to those in article 13 of the European Convention on Action Against Trafficking.

Amendment 288, page 27, line 17, leave out subsection (2).

This amendment seeks to remove the bill’s restrictions on the provision of modern slavery support to those subject to the provisions in clause 2.

Clause 22 stand part.

Amendment 289, in clause 23, page 27, line 30, leave out subsection (2).

See explanatory statement for Amendment 288.

Clause 23 stand part.

Amendment 290, in clause 24, page 29, line 13, leave out subsection (2).

See explanatory statement for Amendment 288.

Clause 24 stand part.

Amendment 250, in clause 25, page 30, line 34, leave out subsection (2).

This amendment leaves out an exception to the general sunset provision relating to Scottish trafficking legislation.

Amendment 251, page 30, line 39, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).

This amendment removes provisions allowing the Secretary of State, in regulations, to make certain provisions which would alter the operation of the two-year sunset clause in relation to clauses 21 to 24.

Clause 25 stand part.

Amendment 252, in clause 26, page 31, line 26, leave out “25(3)(c)” and insert “25(3)(b) or (c)”.

This amendment seeks to ensure that certain regulations altering the operation of the two-year sunset clause in relation to clauses 21 to 24 require use of the draft affirmative procedure.

Amendment 253, page 31, line 29, leave out subsections (2) to (6).

This amendment would remove powers to allow revival of provisions excluding trafficking and slavery protections without using the draft affirmative procedure.

Clauses 26 and 27 stand part.

Amendment 129, in clause 28, page 33, line 25, leave out “to deportation” and insert “for removal”.

The purpose of this amendment is to replace the term “deportation” with “removal”.

Amendment 130, page 33, line 25, at end, insert—

“(3A) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend any primary or secondary legislation relating to immigration, asylum, criminal justice and counter-terrorism, including this Act, in order to replace consistently the terms “deport” or “deportation” with “remove” or “removal”.”

The purpose of this amendment is to replace the terms “deport’” and “deportation” with “remove” and “removal” consistently across all relevant existing UK law.

Clause 28 stand part.

Amendment 254, in clause 29, page 33, leave out lines 36 to 40.

Amendment 255, page 34, line 5, leave out “ever”.

This amendment, along with Amendment 256, would ensure persons were not excluded permanently from leave to enter or remain.

Amendment 256, page 34, line 7, after “United Kingdom)” insert

“at any time in the last three years”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 255.

Amendment 257, page 34, leave out lines 8 to 12.

Amendment 258, page 34, line 13, after “(5)” insert

“and such other exceptions as may be set out in immigration rules”.

Amendment 259, page 34, line 14, leave out “must” and insert “may”.

Amendment 260, page 34, line 24, leave out “must” and insert “may”.

Amendment 261, page 34, line 25, leave out “must” and insert “may”.

Amendment 262, page 34, line 27, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

This amendment, along with Amendments 263 and 264, seeks to require the Home Secretary to admit a person to the United Kingdom, or allow them to remain, if necessary to comply with international obligations.

Amendment 263, page 34, line 37, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 262.

Amendment 264, page 35, line 1, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 262.

Amendment 265, page 35, line 8, leave out lines 8 to 20.

Clause 29 stand part.

Amendment 304, in clause 30, page 35, line 31, leave out “has ever met” and insert

“is over the age of 18 at the time of entry into the United Kingdom and meets”.

This amendment seeks to exclude children, whether as unaccompanied children or as members of a family, from the disapplication of future grants of British citizenship.

Amendment 266, page 35, line 34, leave out subsection (4).

This amendment and Amendments 267 to 271 would remove provisions preventing children born in the United Kingdom from ever accessing UK citizenship, because their parents had at any point in the past met the conditions in section 2.

Amendment 267, page 36, line 24, leave out subsection (8).

See explanatory statement for Amendment 266.

Clause 30 stand part.

Amendment 268, in clause 31, page 36, line 31, leave out paragraphs (a) to (d).

See explanatory statement for Amendment 266.

Amendment 269, page 37, line 3, leave out sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii).

See explanatory statement for Amendment 266.

Clause 31 stand part.

Amendment 270, in clause 32, page 37, line 17, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b).

See explanatory statement for Amendment 266.

Amendment 271, page 37, line 29, leave out sub-paragraph (i).

See explanatory statement for Amendment 266.

Clause 32 to 34 stand part.

Amendment 274, in clause 35, page 38, line 8, leave out “may” and insert “must”.

Amendment 182, page 38, line 14, at end insert—

“(3) The Secretary of State may determine that the person is not to be an “ineligible person” for the purposes of sections 31 to 34 if the Secretary of State considers that there are compelling circumstances which apply in relation to the person which mean that it is appropriate to do so.”

This amendment would allow similar discretion to consider, exceptionally, applications for citizenship from those otherwise excluded as the Secretary of State will have in relation to applications for leave to remain, entry clearance and ETA under Clause 29.

Clause 35 stand part.

Amendment 275, in clause 36, page 38, line 17, leave out subsections (2) to (4).

Amendment 276, page 39, line 12, leave out subsections (10) and (11).

Amendment 277, page 39, line 35, leave out subsections (15) and (16).

Clause 36 stand part.

Clauses 52 and 53 stand part.

Amendment 59, in clause 54, page 54, line 34, leave out paragraphs (c) to (h).

This amendment is consequential on deleting clauses 21 to 28 relating to modern slavery.

Amendment 175, page 55, line 9, leave out paragraph (k).

This amendment is consequential on Amendment 174.

Amendment 174, page 55, line 14, at end insert—

“(4A) Regulations under section 51 (cap on number of entrants using safe and legal routes) are subject to a special super-affirmative procedure (see subsections (4B) and (4C)).

(4B) The number specified in regulations under section 51 must be the number specified in a resolution of the House of Commons agreed as a result of an amendable motion moved by a Minister of the Crown.

(4C) Regulations under section 51 may not be made unless a draft of the instrument specifying the number agreed by the House of Commons in accordance with subsection (4B) has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”

The intention of this Amendment is that the target number of entrants using safe and legal routes to be specified in regulations under clause 51 should be amendable by Parliament.

Clause 54 stand part.

Government amendment 172.

Clause 55 stand part.

Amendment 60, in clause 56, page 56, line 4, leave out subsections (2) to (4).

This amendment is consequential on deleting clauses 21 to 28 relating to modern slavery.

Clause 56 stand part.

Amendment 63, in clause 57, page 56, line 19, at end insert

“provided that the impact assessment required by section (impact assessment)has been laid before Parliament.”

This amendment is consequential on NC5.

Government amendment 66.

Amendment 64, page 56, line 22, after “sections” insert “(impact assessment) and”.

This amendment is consequential on NC5.

Amendment 61, page 56, line 32, leave out paragraphs (e) to (h).

This amendment is consequential on deleting clauses 21 to 28 relating to modern slavery.

Amendment 278, page 56, line 33, leave out paragraph (f).

Amendment 280, page 56, line 34, leave out paragraph (g).

Amendment 73, page 57, line 2, at end insert—

“(o) section [Safe and legal routes: regulations]”.

Amendment 50, page 57, line 2, at end insert—

“(4A) The Secretary of State may by regulations under subsection (1) bring into force the provisions in sections 21 to 28 on modern slavery.

(4B) For the purposes of subsection (4A) above, the Secretary of State may not make regulations until after an Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner has been—

(a) appointed; and

(b) consulted by the Secretary of State on the potential implications of the relevant sections.”

This amendment is intended to delay the entry into force of the Bill’s provisions on modern slavery until such time as the Secretary of State has appointed and consulted with a new Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner.

Amendment 279, page 57, line 2, at end insert—

“(4A) Section 23 may come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint, if the Scottish Parliament has indicated its consent to the section coming into force.”

Amendment 281, page 57, line 2, at end insert—

“(4A) Section 24 may come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint, if the Northern Ireland Assembly has indicated its consent to the section coming into force.”

Amendment 74, page 57, line 7, at end insert—

“(7) No regulations may be made under subsection (1) until regulations specifying safe and legal routes have been made under section [Safe and legal routes: regulations].”

Amendment 287, page 57, line 7, at end insert—

“(7) The Secretary of State must, within 30 days of this section coming into force, publish and lay before Parliament all relevant impact assessments carried out by the Government in relation to measures set out in this Act.

(8) For the purposes of subsection (7), “relevant impact assessments” includes, but is not limited to—

(a) assessments of the potential financial costs which may be incurred by the implementation of all measures set out in this Act;

(b) assessments of whether implementation of measures set out in each section of this Act could amount to a breach of any obligations of the United Kingdom under relevant domestic and international laws; and

(c) equality impact assessments.”

This amendment seeks to require the publication of a full set of impact assessments for the bill within 30 days of its coming into force.

Clause 57 stand part.

Amendment 293, in clause 58, page 57, line 9, leave out “Illegal Migration” and insert

“Migration, Asylum and Modern Slavery (Removals)”.

Clause 58 stand part.

New clause 1—Limits on detention—

“(1) No person under the age of 18 may be detained in asylum accommodation at any time.

(2) No person aged 18 or over may be detained in asylum accommodation for more than 28 days.”

New clause 2—Smuggling—

“(1) Not less than six months before this Act comes into force, the Secretary of State must publish a report to Parliament regarding discussions with the governments and authorities of other countries, including those bordering the English Channel and the North Sea, concerning the steps taken or proposed to prevent or deter a person from—

(a) charging refugees for assistance or purported assistance in travelling to or entering the United Kingdom;

(b) endangering the safety of refugees travelling to the United Kingdom.

(2) The report must focus on steps other than the provisions of this Act.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to publish a report on the actions that are being taken to tackle people smugglers.

New clause 5—Impact assessment—

“The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an impact assessment regarding the expected effectiveness of the changes made by this Act in stopping, or reducing the number of, Channel crossings from France by asylum seekers.”

New clause 8—Immigration rules since December 2020: report on effects—

“(1) Before bringing any provisions of this Act into force by regulations, the Secretary of State must commission and lay before Parliament an independent report on the effects of its immigration rules on the UK economy and public services since December 2020.

(2) The areas to be covered by the report must include but are not limited to—

(a) food supply;

(b) fuel supply;

(c) hospitality and tourism;

(d) the NHS;

(e) social care; and

(f) construction.”

This new clause would require the Government to commission and publish an independent report on the effects of its Immigration Rules on the UK economy and public services since December 2020.

New clause 9—Operational efficiency—

“(1) Within six months of the date on which this Act is passed the Secretary of State must commission a management review, to be undertaken by management experts outside the Home Office, of—

(a) the efficiency of the processing by UK Visas and Immigration of applications, and

(b) the efficiency of the removal by Immigration Control of persons whose leave to remain has expired.

(2) For the purposes of this section—

(a) “efficiency” includes fairness, and

(b) the review must include information regarding the numbers of appeals and their success rate.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to commission an independent management review of the efficiency of UK Visas and Immigration in processing applications and the efficiency of the removal process for those whose leave to remain has expired.

New clause 14—Independent review of children’s experiences of the asylum system—

“(1) The Government must commission an independent review of children’s experiences of the asylum system, including the support needs for young asylum seekers, failed asylum seekers, and refugees up to the age of 25.

(2) The report of the review under this section must be laid before Parliament within 6 months of the date on which this Act is passed.”

This new clause would give effect to a recommendation of the Home Affairs Select Committee in its report Channel crossings, migration and asylum (HC 199, 18 July 2022). It establishes a statutory duty on the government to commission an independent review of children’s experiences of the asylum system and ensure the presentation of its findings are presented to Parliament within 6 months of the Act.

New clause 15—Independent child trafficking guardian—

“(1) The Secretary of State must make such arrangements as the Secretary of State considers reasonable to enable an independent child trafficking guardian to be appointed to assist, support and represent a child to whom subsection (2) applies.

(2) This subsection applies to a child if a relevant authority determines that—

(a) there are reasonable grounds to believe that the child—

(i) is, or may be, a victim of the offence of human trafficking, or

(ii) is vulnerable to becoming a victim of that offence, and

(b) no person in the United Kingdom is a person with parental rights or responsibilities in relation to the child.”

This new clause would give effect to a recommendation of the Home Affairs Select Committee in its report Channel crossings, migration and asylum (HC 199, 18 July 2022). It would oblige the Secretary of State to provide every asylum seeker under the age of 18 with an Independent Child Trafficking Guardian to support their interactions with immigration and asylum processes.

New clause 16—Child protection workers—

“The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for the training and deployment of child protection workers to work with child migrants on the French coast.”

This new clause would give effect to a recommendation of the Home Affairs Select Committee in its report Channel crossings, migration and asylum (HC 199, 18 July 2022).

New clause 18—Rights and wellbeing of children—

“(1) In the exercise of duties and powers under this Act in relation to any individual who arrived in the UK as a child, the Secretary of State must have as the primary consideration the need to ensure and promote the best interests of the individual, including but not limited to—

(a) the right to a family life;

(b) the right to education;

(c) the safeguarding duties of public authorities;

(d) their safety, health, and wellbeing; and

(e) their physical, psychological and emotional development.

(2) In carrying out the duty under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must assure parity of treatment of all children under the age of 18 currently resident in the United Kingdom.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an annual report setting out details of how the Secretary of State has complied with the duties set out in this section.”

This new clause would confer a safeguarding duty on the Secretary of State in relation to all child asylum seekers (unaccompanied or not), including the need to ensure the parity of standards between safeguarding provisions for child asylum seekers and other children in the UK.

New clause 21—Organised immigration crime enforcement—

“(1) The Crime and Courts Act 2013 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 1 after subsection (10) insert—

“(11) The NCA has a specific function to combat organised crime, where the purpose of that crime is to enable the illegal entry of a person into the United Kingdom via the English Channel.

(12) The NCA must maintain a unit (a “Cross-Border People Smuggling Unit”) to coordinate the work undertaken in cooperation with international partners in pursuit of the function mentioned in subsection (11).””

This new clause would give the National Crime Agency a legal responsibility for tackling organised immigration crime across the Channel, and to maintain a specific unit to undertake work related to that responsibility.

New clause 22—Asylum backlog: reporting requirements—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the date on which this Bill was published, and at intervals of once every three months thereafter, publish and lay before Parliament a report on the steps taken and progress made toward clearing the backlog of outstanding asylum claims, within the preceding three- month period.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, “the backlog of outstanding asylum claims” means the total number of asylum applications on which an initial decision had not yet been made as of 13 December 2022.

(3) In preparing the reports required by subsection (1) above, “progress toward clearing the backlog of outstanding asylum claims” may be measured with reference to—

(a) the number and proportion of applications on which an initial decision is made within six months of the submission of the application;

(b) changes to guidance for asylum caseworkers on fast- track procedures for straightforward applications;

(c) measures to improve levels of recruitment and retention of specialist asylum caseworking staff; and

(d) any other measures which the Secretary of State may see fit to refer to in the reports.”

This new clause seeks to require regular reports from the Secretary of State on progress toward eliminating the asylum backlog.

New clause 27—Accommodation: duty to consult—

“(1) Section 97 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (supplemental) is amended as follows.

(2) After subsection (3A) insert—

“(3B) When making arrangements for the provision of accommodation under section 95 or section 4 of this Act, the Secretary of State must consult with representatives of the local authority or local authorities, for the area in which the accommodation is located.

(3C) The duty to consult in subsection (3B) also applies to any third party provider operating within the terms of a contract with the Secretary of State.””

This new clause would add to the current law on provision of accommodation to asylum seekers a requirement to consult with the relevant local authorities when making the necessary arrangements.

New clause 28—Detention: impact assessment—

“The Secretary of State must, within 30 days of the date on which sections 11 to 14 of this Act come into force, publish and lay before Parliament an assessment of any necessary expansion of the detention estate required as a consequence of the number of people detained under those sections, and any costs associated with that expansion.”

This new clause seeks to require the publication of an impact assessment for the bill’s impact on the size and cost of the detention estate.

New clause 29—Nation of Sanctuary—

“(1) The Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers must, within six months of the date on which this Act is passed, jointly publish guidance setting out how measures under this Act may be exercised in a way that secures compliance with—

(a) the Welsh Ministers’ commitment to make Wales a “Nation of Sanctuary”; and

(b) the plan published by Welsh Ministers in January 2019 entitled “Nation of Sanctuary – Refugee and Asylum Seeker Plan”.

(2) Before publishing the guidance, the Secretary of State and the Welsh Ministers must jointly—

(a) prepare and consult on draft guidance; and

(b) publish a response to the consultation.

(3) No guidance may be published under this section unless a draft of the guidance has been laid before and approved by Senedd Cymru.”

This new clause would require the UK and Welsh Governments to jointly produce guidance setting out how measures under this Act can be exercised in a way which is consistent with the Welsh Government’s commitment of being a Nation of Sanctuary. No guidance can be published unless it has been approved by the Senedd.

New clause 30—Modern slavery decisions in immigration detention—

“(1) Within 60 days of the passing of this Act the Secretary of State must, by regulation, make provision for the establishment of an expedited process to decide modern slavery cases, where the referral of a potential modern slavery case has been initiated while the potential victim of modern slavery is held in immigration detention pending removal.

(2) In this section “referrals” and “modern slavery decisions” refers to the process for identifying and supporting victims of modern slavery and trafficking set out in section 49 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.”

This new clause seeks to require the Home Secretary to establish a process to fast-track modern slavery decisions made for the first time in immigration detention pending removal.

New clause 32—Refugee family reunion for unaccompanied children—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 2 months of this section coming into force, lay before Parliament a statement of changes in the rules (the “immigration rules”) under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 (general provisions for regulation and control) to make provision for refugee family reunion for unaccompanied children, in accordance with this section, to come into effect after 21 days.

(2) The statement laid under subsection (1) must set out rules providing for leave to enter and remain in the United Kingdom for unaccompanied children who are the family member of a person—

(a) granted refugee status or humanitarian protection;

(b) resettled through Pathways 1 or 3 the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme; or

(c) who is permitted to enter the UK through a safe and legal route specified in regulations made under section 51(1) (see also subsection (6) of that section).

(3) The rules under subsection (1) must—

(a) lay down no practice which would be contrary to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the Protocol to that Convention; and

(b) apply equally in relation to persons granted any protection status.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), “protection status” means leave to enter or remain that is granted to a person for the purposes of compliance with the United Kingdom’s obligations under—

(a) the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the Protocol to that Convention; or

(b) Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

(5) In this section, “unaccompanied children” includes a person—

(a) under the age of 18, who is—

(i) separated from both parents and other relatives, and

(ii) is not being cared for by an adult who, by law or custom, is responsible for doing so;

(6) In this section, “family member” include a person’s—

(a) child, including adopted child;

(b) sibling, including adoptive sibling;

(c) such other persons as the Secretary of State may determine, having regard to—

(i) the importance of maintaining family unity,

(ii) the best interests of a child,

(iii) the physical, emotional, psychological or financial dependency between a person granted refugee status or humanitarian protection and another person,

(iv) any risk to the physical, emotional or psychological wellbeing of a person who was granted refugee status or humanitarian protection, including from the circumstances in which the person is living in the United Kingdom, or

(v) such other matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(7) For the purpose of subsection (5)—

(a) “adopted and “adoptive” refer to a relationship resulting from adoption, including de facto adoption, as set out in the immigration rules;

(b) “best interests” of a child is to be read in accordance with Article 3 of the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.”

This new clause seeks to establish a passage for unaccompanied refugee children to be reunited with a family member who has been granted leave to enter and remain in the United Kingdom. This new clause would give effect to a recommendation of the Home Affairs Select Committee in its report Channel crossings, migration and asylum (HC 199, 18 July 2022).

New clause 33—Asylum claims by children—

“Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act—

(a) a child may claim asylum whether or not the child has leave to enter and remain in the United Kingdom; and

(b) a child claiming asylum may not be removed from the United Kingdom until the asylum claim is resolved, whether or not that child is accompanied by an adult with care of the child.”

This new clause would make explicit that a child would be allowed to claim asylum, irrelevant of arrival method, and would be excluded from removal whether the child is unaccompanied or with an adult who has care of the child (such as a parent).

Amendment 62, in clause 1, page 2, line 1, leave out paragraph (d).

This amendment is consequential on deleting clauses 21 to 28 relating to modern slavery.

Amendment 75, page 2, line 13, at end insert—

“(i) establishes and defines safe and legal routes to be open to refugees and asylum seekers with a legitimate claim to be able to come to the United Kingdom legally.”

Amendment 184, page 2, line 14, leave out subsection (3).

Amendment 185, page 2, line 28, leave out subsection (5) and insert—

“(5) So far as it is possible to do so, provision made by or by virtue of this Act must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with—

(a) the Convention rights,

(b) the Refugee Convention,

(c) the European Convention on Action Against Trafficking,

(d) the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, and

(e) the UN Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons.”

Amendment 1, page 2, line 28, leave out subsection (5).

This amendment would remove the subsection which disapplies section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Amendment 131, page 2 , line 29, at end insert—

“(6) Provision made by or by virtue of this Act must be read and given effect to notwithstanding any judgement, interim measure or other decision, of the European Court of Human Rights, or other international court or tribunal; and notwithstanding any international law obligation.”

The intention of this amendment is that the provisions of the Bill should operate notwithstanding any orders of the Strasbourg court or any other international body.

Amendment 181, page 2, line 29, at end insert—

“(6) Within one month of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must take such steps as are necessary to refer this Act to the European Commission for Democracy through Law, for the purposes of securing the opinion of the Commission as to whether this Act is compliant with the United Kingdom’s obligations as a party to the European Convention of Human Rights.”

Amendment 132, page 2, line 29, at end insert—

“(7) Section 4 (declaration of incompatibility), section 6 (acts of public authorities) and section 10 (power to take remedial action) of the Human Rights Act 1998 do not apply in relation to provision made by or by virtue of this Act.”

This amendment would disapply other provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 in addition to that already disapplied by clause 1(5) of the Bill.

Clause 1 stand part.

[Alison Thewliss]

The Scottish National party has tabled many amendments to the Bill, as we did yesterday, in a vain attempt to make it more palatable, although the Bill is so egregious as to be unamendable and unsupportable.

The aim of the Bill is reflected in a statement by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which said that it would

“'amount to an asylum ban—extinguishing the right to seek refugee protection in the United Kingdom for those who arrive irregularly; no matter how genuine and compelling their claim may be, and with no consideration of their individual circumstances”.

This is an extraordinary and extreme Bill. If it is passed, almost no one will be able to claim asylum in the UK—not children, not trafficked people or those at risk of persecution, and not survivors of torture. The Refugee Council has estimated that the Bill will result in as many as 250,000 people, including 45,000 children, being detained or left destitute in state-provided accommodation.

My colleagues and I have set out a range of exceptions to removal, and we have done so for a very clear reason: to humanise this brutal Bill, and talk about the specific impacts it will have. The Tories like to speak as if the people affected by the Bill are some kind of amorphous blob. They are not; each and every one of them is a real human being. They are people who have wept at my surgeries, and it is despicable that this Government care so little for their welfare, as well as for our international obligations. Names have been changed in a number of the examples and case studies I will use, but they are real people.

Amendment 188 is Hussein’s amendment. It asks for the duty of removal not to apply to people who were under the age of 18 when they arrived in the UK. Hussein was flown over from Djibouti aged nine by a woman he had never met. His travel documents were faked and his identity changed. He was made to look after another family’s children while still only a young child himself. It took him until adulthood to speak publicly about his case. Many of us will know him by his more famous name: Sir Mo Farah. Under the Bill, children such as Hussein Abdi Kahin would never have been given the opportunity to rebuild their life. They would have been denied citizenship, detained and removed. Unaccompanied children would not be supported, as they are through the excellent Scottish Guardianship Service run by Aberlour.

Scotland’s Children and Young People’s Commissioner, Bruce Adamson, has said:

“The UK is required to ensure that children seeking refugee status receive appropriate protection and humanitarian assistance, under article 22 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). The UNCRC also requires the UK to ensure that children are protected from exploitation and abuse, and afforded support for recovery. This Bill violates those obligations and many others. Its enactment would place the UK in clear breach of its international law obligations under a range of human rights treaties.”

I urge the Government to accept our amendment.

Amendment 189 would exempt Afghan nationals, and nothing said by the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs in the House earlier has made any difference to how I feel about this issue. There are still many Afghan nationals whom we do not protect. I wonder whether it might be possible to call this Tobias’s amendment, since the person in the case I will mention wishes to remain anonymous. The Independent reported:

“The air force lieutenant, who flew 30 combat missions against the Taliban and was praised by his coalition forces supervisor as a ‘patriot to his nation’, was forced into hiding and said it was ‘impossible’ to make his way to Britain via a safe route.”

That sparked indignation from the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) who would appear to be entirely detached from the reality of what he has voted for in this Bill. He tweeted:

“This is clearly not who we are as a nation. And is not how our migration system should operate. I hope the Government will look at this case specifically and address the wider issue of how an Afghan (who supported UK Armed Forces) can safely apply for asylum in the UK.”

Let me explain this to the right hon. Gentleman, and to all the others: if this Bill passes, which no doubt it will, that is exactly who this nation is. That is exactly how the UK migration system will operate. It is exactly what Conservative Members voted for in supporting this wicked Bill—no exceptions, no backsies, no fingers crossed behind their backs.

People such as that Air Force lieutenant, people who worked for the British Council, Afghan interpreters, educators, the widows and children of men who served with British troops, and the supplier of crockery to British Armed Forces, cannot sit and wait for the Taliban to find them and execute them. If they manage to get out, if they cross continents, step in a dingy and get across the channel, or even if they fly here via Pakistan on a visit visa obtained by pretending they will go back, the UK Government will not hear their case. They will put them on a flight to Rwanda. That is what inadmissibility means in practice, and the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East and his colleagues should catch themselves on.

Amendment 190 would exempt people who are refugees under the refugee convention or in need of humanitarian protection, because seeking asylum is not a crime.

Amendment 191 exempts people at risk of persecution because of their sexual orientation. I will call this Yvette’s amendment. I met her at the Rainbow Sisters drop-in last week. She is from Uganda, which has just brought in brutal anti-LGBT laws. Her statement to me last week was this: why would the UK Government send her back to neighbouring Rwanda? She would feel no safer there than in Uganda. Under the Bill, she would be offered no protection and sent back to her certain death.

Amendment 192 exempts people for whom there are reasonable grounds to suspect that they are victims of torture. I will call this Kolbassia’s amendment. Kolbassia Haoussou MBE is a survivor of torture and founder of Survivors Speak OUT. He is an incredibly brave man. He is a torture survivor from Chad who was detained on claiming asylum. He has spoken powerfully about the impact that that detention had on him and the uncertainty he faced. He has said that he would have killed himself rather than be returned to the hands of his torturers. The Bill would allow that to happen to Kolbassia.

We tabled amendment 193 to exempt citizens of Ukraine—but wait; I was not sure that the amendment would be in order, because there is a safe and legal route for people from Ukraine. We will not find them coming over in a boat in the channel; they do not need to do that because a safe and legal route exists. That should be the option for anybody in their circumstances.

Amendment 282 exempts people who have HIV/AIDS, because the Bill puts them at risk of not receiving treatment or of being returned to a country where they would face stigma, risk and potentially death.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Debate between Alison Thewliss and Nigel Evans

Report stage
Wednesday 25th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss]

I thank everybody who has contributed to the Bill. It has been a cross-party and worthwhile effort, and everybody who has been part of it has felt that. I hope the Government do their bit and take that cross-party effort in the spirit in which we meant it. We want to improve the Bill and for it to do everything it can do right now, rather than waiting for some distant point in the future when we come back and say, “We’ve still got these problems and this Bill, which could have addressed them, has not.” We have been there before. We had the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill, and other Bills while I have been in this House could have addressed or fixed these problems, yet we are here again today still not fixing all the problems. Who knows when parliamentary time will allow us to pass this way again.

I thank the experts who have given so much evidence to us individually and as parliamentarians in Committee and other places. In particular I thank Helena Wood of the Royal United Services Institute, Duncan Hames of Transparency International, Bill Browder, Oliver Bullough and Graham Barrow, the expert on Companies House. He has had his own health issues but has continued to campaign on Companies House. We wish him well and a speedy recovery, and all the best with his treatment.

I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands). He came on board with this Bill and was very supportive and helpful throughout its passage, raising the issue of phoenixing, which is of concern to many of our constituents. I encourage the Government to look at how they can fix phoenixing, and ensure that our constituents and companies based in our constituencies do not fall victim to companies that seek to abuse the system in such a way. I give great thanks to the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) who has been such a tremendous champion for all these issues over a long period. Her expertise, her contribution, and the way that she convenes people within this place has been incredibly important for this agenda, and I cannot thank her enough for that work.

I thank the Clerks and the Bill team for all they have done to help support us throughout the passage of the Bill. Putting together all the amendments is not easy, and under pressures of time they have been incredibly helpful in putting them together for us. I also thank Mhairi Love in my own office, and Sarah Callaghan in the SNP research office. Again, they have been incredibly helpful in putting together research on all these areas, and putting up with me when I go down a big rabbit hole of all the things about economic crime that live in my head most of the time. They have been very helpful indeed over the course of things.

I want to make an announcement, Mr Deputy Speaker, before everybody departs—[Interruption.] I am not going to the Government Benches; the Minister is welcome over here any time. I am not sure that his constituents would expect him to be an SNP Member, but any time he feels the need that is fine. As it is Burns Night, there is haggis in the canteen, and I encourage everybody to partake and get their honest, sonsie faces over to the canteen before it goes. I am looking forward to mine. Not related in any way to the Bill, the Ayrshire Fiddlers—not that kind of fiddlers—are in Strangers Bar, and Members should go and see them because they are very good indeed. Crucially for this Bill they are playing the fiddle and they are not on the fiddle, so please go and give them your support.

I finish with some lines from our national bard:

“O, wad some power the giftie gie us

To see oursels as others see us!

It wad frae monie a blunder free us,

An’ foolish notion.”

I ask Ministers to reflect on how others will see the Bill and make amendments to it in the other place to make it befitting of the commitment that we all have to seeing economic crime removed.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Happy Burns Night, everyone.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Debate between Alison Thewliss and Nigel Evans

Report stage
Tuesday 24th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss]

I agree. The hon. Gentleman is anticipating my moving on to new clause 20, which talks to some of those issues in great detail, and a very good amendment it is, too. We have talked about whether the fee of £100 is arbitrary, a finger in the wind. But it is a figure that we can put in the Bill to say, “Let’s start here”. It gives Companies House the resource with which it can do work.

It was pointed out by some of those who gave evidence to the Bill Committee that, if we are seeking to clamp down on those hundreds of companies being set up every day at £12 a pop, we need to replace that money with legitimate money; £100 would go some way to dealing with that gap and that discrepancy. We need to ensure that that money goes to increasing the staff at Companies House, and the capacity, ability and expertise of the people Companies House hires, because much of this is becoming incredibly technical. It is important that it has the resource to do that. All the agencies involved need that money, but Companies House, as the front door to a lot of this stuff, needs to be properly resourced to be able to do that.

I note that the Minister talked about not wanting to put in legislation the sum of money that that fee would require, but that is not quite how other parts of the system work. I have sat on Statutory Instrument Committees that set the value of passport fees. I understand that the House sets the value of visa fees. Therefore, within the immigration system, the House decides what that fee is and sets that fee. Yet it is not deciding to do so for companies.

I do not know whether the Minister intends the matter of setting a fee —at £100, or whatever it might be—to come before an SI Committee at some point, but that is not what the Bill says he is going to do. It is important to recognise that, in one area of government, the Government are setting a fee and deciding how much people should pay for things and that other parts of the system should have cost recovery. The visa fee goes way above cost recovery; the passport fee perhaps less so. We are talking about £75.50 for a passport, compared with £12 to register a company and £1,538 for a visa. Those things are not quite the same. The company fee could bear being significantly higher than the £12 it is at the moment, and there is a place in legislation where we could set that because that is what the Government do in other areas of legislation.

New clause 22 tabled by the Official Opposition—entitled “Person convicted under the Minimum Wage Act not to be appointed as director”—is laudable in its aims because the people flouting the rules should not get to be company directors. Being a company director is a privilege, not a right. For those people who have been convicted of not complying with the legislation, it is perfectly reasonable that they could be disqualified for a serious breach of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. It is reasonable to disqualify them.

On the issue of trust and company service providers, there is more that the Bill should and must do. It is unfortunate that the consultation on the Office for Professional Body AML Supervision is still ongoing, I understand, or certainly not concluded, because that should form part of this Bill. It has been widely acknowledged that OPBAS is not effective and is not working as the Government intended, but the Government do not yet know what they are going to do, how they will fix OPBAS, whether it will require further legislation in this House, whether it will involve stripping OPBAS of its AML supervision responsibilities and duties and, if it does, where those responsibilities will lie.

Our suggestion in new clause 35 is to make Companies House the AML supervisor in its own right. I have asked various questions on why the Government do not believe that Companies House should be an anti-money laundering supervisor. It seems to us on the SNP Benches that, if Companies House is the front door for every company registered in the United Kingdom, it should be liable for anti-money laundering regulations. If we are asking banks and other institutions to look at that, why not the Government agency responsible for the registration of every company on these islands?

That would give Companies House more duties and stop the flow of guff companies, terrible information and people who seek to defraud our constituents at the front door. It seems bizarre to me that the Government would not want to shut the front door firmly in the face of the crooks and the people who want to do that. There is also more that could be done, as mentioned in some of the Labour amendments, on the duty and powers of Companies House. We think Companies House should have powers, and not only powers, but duties—it should have to do those things.

I do not see why there is ambiguity in this legislation. If the Government are saying Companies House should do it, they should make Companies House do it, rather than leaving it up to interpretation or somebody’s decision further down the line. They should make Companies House do it. We all know that, if we are not forced to do a thing, we might not do a thing. We might not do the dishes, or the laundry, but if we are forced to, we certainly will. There is more that can be done to shut the door and tighten the regulations.

Through our amendments, we also seek to tighten the integrity of the register. That includes new clause 36 and our amendment 109. They reflect Labour’s amendment 103 and some of the other amendments that speak to the importance of identification numbers and the integrity of the register itself.

Much of the evidence we heard in the Bill Committee, as well as at various APPG events and other online events, indicates that the register as it stands is full of absolute guff. It has had—[Interruption.] The Minister waves the legislation, but the difficulty is that he is not intending to fix all that guff. He is allowing that guff to live on the register forever, because there is not enough in the Bill about the retrospective action Companies House has to take, looking through all the hundreds and thousands of companies that, over many years, have been allowed to filter on to the register unheeded.

Graham Barrow’s Twitter account is full every single day of companies being registered with information that is absolute rubbish. We must have a means of putting a duty and an obligation on Companies House to go back through the register, to clear it out and to say, “There’s no point having that stuff on there, because it is in effect meaningless and it’s gumming up the system for those who want to use the register in legitimate ways.”

We must be able to keep a check on Companies House: that is why new clause 36 says that it should seek to ensure that registrations contain accurate, up-to-date information and that it comes back to update Parliament on its progress updating that register. We cannot expect these things to happen overnight, because it is a big register and there is an awful lot on it, but we must ensure that it is accurate. If it is not, there are very real consequences for our constituents, as Graham Barrow pointed out. People have found themselves being defrauded when their names, their addresses or both have been used inaccurately. Those people have been chased or pursued by criminals and all kinds of things have happened to them because of fraudulent information on the Companies House register.

Someone may not even find out that their name has been used fraudulently. If they have a name such as James Smith, they may never find out. There are only three Alison Thewlisses on the register, but they are all me. There should be one identification—I should not be on the register as three people—and that is why we seek a unique identifier to track people throughout their lives. If someone’s name has been registered and used without their knowledge, with an address that is not theirs—a mailbox perhaps—they may not find out about it but may end up being liable for the actions of the fraudsters, so a lot more can be done on that.

We are also seeking through amendment 111 to limit the number of directorships that people can have. People may have multiple directorships, but is the director of 300 companies really able to do that job properly? Probably not. Those are probably not real companies and that person is probably not acting as a proper director. Again, on the Companies House register, many people are registered for hundreds of companies. As a red flag in the system, that should stand out to Companies House, which should be able to ask, “Is this person a real director?” and do more investigation. Our amendment would encourage that.

I am quite pleased to see that Government amendments 30 and 32 would give Scottish Ministers the power to present a petition to wind up Scottish limited partnerships, which have been comprehensively abused for several years now. That has been a real problem, and giving Scottish Ministers the power to do something about it is important. Although they are called “Scottish limited partnerships”, they have in practice very little to do with the Scottish Government, who can do little about them at the moment, so that is an important power. I am grateful to Michael Clancy of the Law Society of Scotland, who I hope is correct in his belief that that is a practical and useful measure. Will the Minister outline whether he has had any further discussions with Scottish Ministers, and how he thinks the power would work in practice?

I am prepared to leave my remarks at that—I appreciate that other Members want to get in and discuss other things—but I will leave the Minister with a quote from a Bill Committee evidence session on 25 October. Bill Browder, who has been a great champion of corporate transparency and standing against corruption internationally, told the Committee:

“You can write as many great laws as you want—there is some good stuff in this law, and good stuff in the previous laws—but if no one is going to enforce it, then you are never going to change the risk-reward and people are going to carry on doing stuff. All this will continue, and I will sit here 10 years from now making the same allegations about how this is a centre of money laundering.”––[Official Report, Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Public Bill Committee, 25 October 2022; c. 69, Q144.]

Nobody wants to be sitting here in 10 years—well, certainly not those of us on the SNP Benches—seeing money laundering going on unabated. We want the Government to take the opportunity that the Bill presents to close loopholes. To get that right, and get it right now, they should take the advice and knowledge that Members from across the House, and external organisations, have brought to the Bill. If the Government make the amendments and fix the Bill, they will have cross-party support for it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before I call Dame Andrea Leadsom, I remind everybody that a number of cases are still before the courts, and we do not know all the cases that there are. Even though the sub judice rule does not apply when we are legislating, Mr Speaker has urged caution for those live cases. If Members could do us a favour and look up cases that they intend to mention, that would be really useful.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Alison Thewliss and Nigel Evans

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 22nd March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Alison Thewliss, whom I must ask to sit down at 4.12 pm.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I must say to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) that Glasgow is far more diverse and far more welcoming of refugees than he will ever be. We in Glasgow are proud to welcome refugees. We are proud of our diversity I have been inundated with emails from my constituents about this anti-refugee Bill, and not one of those emails has been in support of the Government’s position, or of this anti-refugee Bill which will punish people who are fleeing from war, persecution and female genital mutilation in countries around the world.

In the past seven years I have dealt with 1,853 immigration cases, and all of them have been riddled with Home Office incompetence and Home Office indifference to the plight of my constituents, whom I value and whom I want to be welcome in Glasgow. That indifference and that incompetence are deliberate. They are meant to make people feel unwelcome, and they run absolutely contrary to everything that my constituents stand for. I am very proud that those in Kenmure Street in Pollokshields came out of their houses when they saw the attempts to take people away in Home Office vans and said, “These are our neighbours—let them go.” Glasgow welcomes refugees, and we want nothing to do with this vicious Bill.

Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill

Debate between Alison Thewliss and Nigel Evans

Committee stage
Monday 7th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. There are far too many private conversations taking place, and I am finding it difficult to hear the hon. Lady.

[Alison Thewliss]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was talking about people buying their seats at party fundraisers and at the heart of British democracy. That is something that this House should reflect on. This place needs to take a long hard look at itself and at what it has facilitated, allowed and ignored over the course of many years.

We in the SNP welcome this Bill—how could we not?—but we would argue that it is long overdue and does not go nearly far enough. The UK Government’s inaction and prevarication have given the oligarchs a head start to shift their assets, to lawyer up, to step down from companies and boards and to saunter unimpeded to their getaway yachts and go to places that will still have them. Co-ordinated and quick global action, including in the overseas territories, could have made this more difficult, as would action on crypto-assets. The recent Treasury Committee report highlighted the growing role of crypto-assets in economic crime.

We support Labour’s calls to cut the registration of overseas entities to four weeks. We all agree that 18 months was ludicrous, but six months still gives people far too long to shift their ill-gotten gains. I would be grateful if Ministers confirmed what they are doing to monitor asset flight, and if they could provide an estimate of how much money has already left. Our amendments 18 to 23 would lower the threshold for beneficial ownership from 25% to 10%. Evidence already points to the threshold being gamed and to people appointing family members and those they can easily control, and the Government need to be aware of that and do more to prevent it.

Building Safety Bill

Debate between Alison Thewliss and Nigel Evans

2nd reading
Wednesday 21st July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I wish to speak briefly on a few issues that affect my constituents.

First, I heard the intervention earlier from the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who asked about the quantum of Barnett consequentials for Wales. The Secretary of State said that the Welsh Government have not devised a scheme for existing consequentials yet. This becomes a bit of a strange paradox, because it would be daft for a Government on a fixed budget to commit to spending more than they have, and they cannot plan for that. If a devolved Administration were to establish a scheme without the certainty that the money was coming, they would then be considered irresponsible. Therefore, it needs to be made clear what those additional consequentials are for the devolved Administrations.

The Scottish Government have proceeded on the basis of the £97 million allocated to the Scottish Parliament and have set up the Scottish Government single building assessment scheme, which prioritises by risk. I pay tribute to Kevin Stewart MSP who, as Minister, spearheaded much of this work. There have been more than 100 expressions of interest in the scheme, but in order to ensure that it reaches as far as it can, the consequentials have to be made absolutely clear so that the problem can be tackled.

Let me take the opportunity to pay tribute to those in my constituency who have championed their fellow residents, including Lisa Murray of the Verde Residents Group and Hector Thomson and Barry Cooper of the Lancefield Quay Residents Association. Hector and Barry told me of the difficulties that they have had in obtaining building insurance for the development of which they are a part. There are hundreds of flats in that development and their insurance was suddenly withdrawn on 23 December 2020, leaving them very worried over the Christmas period about what would happen.

Contrary to what the Secretary of State has said, there is a failure in the market. He mentioned Aviva, but my understanding is that it has a limit of £50 million, whereas for Lancefield Quay it is £75 million. I understand that Aviva also has a bar on commercial property as part of that. Sure enough, there is an Indian restaurant at the bottom of Lancefield Quay, which will be exempted from securing coverage if that is indeed the case.

I urge the Minister to solve that problem. People are being offered insurance that is comprehensive but entirely unaffordable—or just about affordable, but not for everyone; at Lancefield Quay there are some people who cannot afford the insurance payments—so they do not have the comprehensive coverage that they think they need. There are implications if someone proceeds without adequate coverage for their mortgage, I understand, so that their property is not properly insured. The Minister needs to look at those issues and find a solution, because this is not working at present, and the Bill does nothing to address that. I also urge the Minister to look at issues with VAT and building materials, because at the moment, the Government are profiting from the work that is being done and residents are not.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The winding-up speeches will begin at 6.40 pm, with the Minister at 6.50 pm.

Obesity Strategy 2020

Debate between Alison Thewliss and Nigel Evans

Thursday 27th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) [V]]

I want to start by echoing the sentiments of the Obesity Health Alliance; in this debate, weight stigma does not help people lose weight. The right support, evidence-based weight management, and fundamental changes to our obesogenic environment and food systems are all required to tackle this.

The health harms caused by obesity are well known, but I initially wish to mention one particular aspect that does not get the attention it deserves: liver disease. On average 40 people die of liver disease every day. The Foundation for Liver Research and the British Liver Trust have sent a helpful briefing, but in truth I had already committed to mentioning it in this debate. My husband, Joe, was diagnosed with stage 2 non-alcohol related fatty liver disease in 2019, after wandering around complaining of a wee pain under his ribs for five years. Since his diagnosis, he has made difficult but necessary changes to his lifestyle; he has lost 22 kg, taken up hillwalking, and has been carefully monitoring his weight, and I am very proud of him.

Some 90% of liver disease is preventable and, luckily for Joe, at stage 2 it can be reversed; however, as it can remain asymptomatic for up to 20 years, three quarters of people are diagnosed at a late stage when it is too late for lifestyle changes or interventions. Liver disease is the third leading cause of premature death in the UK, with deaths increasing by 400% over the past two generations; this is in stark contrast to other major diseases, such as heart disease and cancer, so I urge the UK Government, who have acknowledged liver disease in their obesity plan, to come up with actions, including doing all they can to spread information about this disease and the ways of preventing it.

The disproportionate harm caused by covid 19 to older people, minority ethnic groups, the people living in greatest deprivation, and those with obesity, diabetes and respiratory and cardiovascular disease has highlighted new vulnerabilities and underscored existing health inequalities. While much focus has been put on the direct health impacts of covid, the SNP recognises that we must also work to shift our focus towards reducing those inequalities and preventing ill health. We want everyone to eat well, be a healthy weight and have equal access to care.

The ambitious and wide-ranging actions to address this challenge are set out in the Scottish Government’s diet and healthy weight delivery plan. The plan, which has over 60 broad-ranging actions, has a strong focus on prevention, including population-level measures to make it easier for people to make healthier choices, as well as more targeted interventions. Alongside this, the SNP Scottish Government also published “A More Active Scotland: Scotland’s Physical Activity Delivery Plan”. This recognises the importance of physical activity in promoting and maintaining healthy weight. Progress towards the outcomes set out in this delivery plan is being monitored through a dedicated set of indicators linked to the active Scotland outcomes framework”. The SNP Scottish Government are continuing to provide £1.7 million in 2020-21 for improvements to weight management services for children and young people. Earlier this year, the SNP Scottish Government also published the refresh of their diabetes improvement plan, which strengthens the actions in the original plan to improve the prevention and treatment of diabetes and the care of all people in Scotland affected by it.

The SNP has consistently pressed the UK Government to ban junk food advertising on television and online before the 9 pm watershed, and we welcome that this is finally coming to fruition. Online adverts on social media are an area the UK Government must tackle strongly, as other Members have mentioned, because they are pervasive. In our recent manifesto, the SNP renewed its commitment to halve childhood obesity by 2030 and to significantly reduce diet-related health inequalities by pledging to provide free school breakfasts and lunches to every primary school pupil in Scotland, all year round, and to all children in state-funded special schools in Scotland; and to pilot the provision of free nutritious school breakfasts in secondary schools and explore the feasibility of universal breakfast provision in secondary schools.

We also want to make Active Schools programmes free for all children by the end of the Parliament, continue to improve nutritional standards of food and drink in schools, and bring forward legislation over the next Parliament to restrict the use of promotions on food and drink that is high in fat, sugar and salt. We will also aim to enshrine the fundamental right to food in law, as the cornerstone of being a good food nation. That will form part of the commitment to incorporate UN human rights charters into Scots law.

Scotland has one of the world’s best natural larders, but we know that so many people do not eat well and that obesity remains a significant problem. Evidence shows that in less well-off communities it is more difficult to obtain good-quality, fresh food at a price people can afford. Community larder projects, such as the Govanhill People’s Pantry in my constituency, have been springing up all over the place and working hard to try to redress the balance, in this case by working with FareShare to provide access to food in the community.

The overriding issue of poverty is, of course, key to tackling a lot of the issues; access to sufficient healthy food and the means to cook it is not there for everyone, not least because of policies such as the two-child limit, the upcoming removal of the £20 uplift to universal credit and tax credits, the UK Government’s neglect of people on legacy benefits, and the pretendy living wage. They all contribute to a situation where people cannot afford to eat healthily. If the UK Government want to tackle obesity, they cannot continue to ignore this reality.

Investment in regenerating neighbourhoods, increasing access to walking and cycling, and improving parks is also significant in getting people out and about and moving. Just last night, alongside local councillors, I met mums and grans from the Calton Community Association, who are desperate to access the newly announced Scottish Government fund for parks so that their kids can benefit from outdoor play. An obesogenic environment, coupled with a culture that allows the insidious influence of food giants and their ultra-processed foods to be advertised not just to us but to our children, has proven to be a recipe for disaster. I am looking forward to watching the latest programme by campaigner Dr Chris van Tulleken, “What Are We Feeding Our Kids?” and urge the UK Government to tune in tonight. The supermarket aisles are heaving with unnecessary infant snack foods, and the new report by the First Steps Nutrition Trust should be essential reading for the Minister.

One significant point of difference in the UK and Scottish strategies concerns our youngest citizens. Scotland’s healthy weight strategy specifically mentions the significance of breastfeeding, which can of course have a positive effect on maternal weight, as well as that of babies. The UK Government are committed to consulting

“on our proposals to help parents of young children to make healthier choices through more honest marketing and labelling of infant foods.”

Ministers could start by doing more to protect babies and pregnant mothers from the rapacious global formula industry, and, in this the 40th year of the World Health Organisation’s international code of marketing of breast milk substitutes, fully adopt the code. That used to be something the UK Government would blame the EU for their inability to do, but they have lost that excuse and must now act. The code sets out to protect all babies, however they are fed. As the chair of the all-party group on infant feeding and inequalities, I do not set this up as any kind of false pro-breastfeeding/anti-formula battle, because I know that for many formula is essential. Many mums want to breastfeed, but are failed by a UK Government who do not see breastfeeding as a priority and do not invest in support. Some years ago, Norway changed its approach and it now has one of the highest rates in the world. Norwegian mums do not have different breasts from us, but they do have a Government who made their needs a priority.

The Minister said that if adverts did not influence people, they would not be used, and she is correct. Formula companies spend astronomical figures on marketing, a cost that gets passed on to consumers at the tills and makes it challenging for many families to afford formula, and on the promotion of follow-on and specialist formulas, which are not necessary, but exist largely as a means of cross-promotion. I hope the UK Government will also act on that, as they claim they intend to look at honest marketing and labelling. As an example of that marketing, I share the concerns raised by the UK’s Baby Feeding Law Group that the National Trust has formed a partnership with HiPP Organic, a company with many documented violations of the code over the years. We should be under no illusions: these kinds of partnerships exist to benefit the company and boost their brand, and I urge the National Trust to reconsider.

I wish to touch briefly on the issue of calories on menus, on which I have received many emails, as I am sure other Members have. I can see what the UK Government intend, and I appreciate that for some people having calories listed on menus may be useful—I have certainly eaten fewer Danish pastries since coffee shops started to put calories on the display—but the policy is not about anecdotes and headlines and must be based on evidence. For those with a history of disordered eating, this is a deeply serious issue and such triggers can be very harmful indeed, so I urge Ministers to be cautious in what they are doing and to listen to and learn from the evidence from expert organisations such as Beat and from those affected.

I commend the Government for taking action on a range of issues to do with obesity but urge them to look more widely at the factors that cause obesity and to follow the Scottish Government’s approach with a healthy weight strategy.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call Greg Smith, with a four-minute limit.

Income Tax (Charge)

Debate between Alison Thewliss and Nigel Evans

Thursday 4th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP) [V]]

It is just under a year since I stood up and made a speech in response to the 2020 Budget in a Chamber packed to the gunnels with MPs. The notion of delivering a Budget speech from my front room was absolutely unthinkable, along with many things we have adapted to over this past year, when we have seen economic shocks as well as personal and social ones. Phrases we rarely, if ever, used before are now in constant use: face coverings, social distancing, extended households, and furlough.

I appreciate that the Government had to move quickly to provide support in a rapidly changing and deadly pandemic. Choices were constrained by the circumstances, and large sums of money were rapidly moved to protect businesses from the worst economic crash any of us, we hope, are likely to see in our lifetimes. There is great hope on the horizon with the advancement of the vaccination scheme, but we cannot tell how long this crisis will last. The Chancellor and the Prime Minister have form in telling the public it will all be over by the summer, then by the autumn, by Christmas and by spring, so we need to caw canny with what lies ahead.

As I have said consistently, arbitrary cut-off dates in the support schemes are deeply unhelpful. The last cut-off for furlough planned for last year resulted in people losing their jobs as employers just could not manage the additional costs. Six months on, the only thing that has changed for businesses is an additional burden of debt and bills, with VAT deferrals coming back online soon. Businesses’ income has not increased, and adding to their employers’ costs is not risk-free. We on the SNP Benches support an extension to the furlough scheme for as long as it is necessary, in all countries of the UK. We also support the extension to the self-employment income support scheme, as announced by the Chancellor, but it does not go nearly far enough, leaving millions of people still locked out of covid support. The cliff edge in the fifth SEISS grant for those above or beneath the 30% drop in turnover seems incredibly unfair and incredibly steep. The Chancellor said yesterday that he will do “whatever it takes” to rescue our economy. He said that a year ago too and it is cold comfort to those who are yet to see a penny piece in support from his Government. The excluded have been mentioned over 1,000 times in Parliament by the gaps in support all-party group and reports from the Treasury Committee and the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. Solutions have been offered to this Government and it is unacceptable that the Chancellor continues to ignore these cries for help.

The Chancellor made much of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecasts of a quicker than anticipated recovery, but it struck me that the key considerations of the OBR’s forecasts should not necessarily be the forecasted numbers themselves, but the uncertainty around those numbers. It is that uncertainty that the Chancellor needs to respond to. The OBR has been clear on the unrealistic nature of the Government’s spending plans. The Treasury envisages only a 2% increase in spending after five years. That was already planned pre-pandemic and does not really capture the potential legacy costs of covid for our public services. The UK Government are planning further cuts of £3 billion to departmental budgets on top of the £12 billion cuts announced in November. The OBR describes the Government’s ability to meet those cuts while dealing with the pandemic as

“a significant source of uncertainty”.

I cannot stress enough how much I feel that the Chancellor cutting his way out of the crisis is the wrong way to go. The Chancellor said that once we are on the way to recovery we will need to begin fixing the public finances, but I object to that characterisation of the issue. Public finances are not something that get broken and need to be fixed; they should meet the needs of our population, not the other way around.

All countries around the world have stretched every sinew to save lives in this pandemic. As we see from the US and our European neighbours, the Chancellor ought to use the powers that he has open to him to stimulate growth and provide an investment-led recovery. The Scottish Government have outlined an ambitious five-year infrastructure plan with a particular focus on affordable housing. They are managing to do that even with a 5% cut to their capital budget. The Chancellor had an opportunity to reverse that and refused to do so yesterday. We have called on the Chancellor to provide a £98 billion fiscal stimulus to kickstart this investment-led recovery, with investment focused on creating jobs, boosting incomes and a green recovery. Instead, it looks like the Tories are returning to form and pursuing a contractionary policy against all better judgment. That approach did not help us to recover quickly from the 2008 recession and it certainly will not help us now. The risks of a long-term return to austerity are clear: we face stagnant productivity and years of lost growth. Public services have been cut to the bone. There is no doubt that without the previous 10 years of austerity our public services would have been in a much better position to deal with the impact of the pandemic.

The OBR’s analysis of the Budget explicitly cites

“higher rates of infection, hospitalisations, and deaths”

in the UK as a driver of economy inactivity. Its figures are stark. The UK’s GDP fell 9.9%, the worst in the G7. One in five UK residents contracted coronavirus. One in 150 were hospitalised. One in 550 died—the fourth-highest mortality rate in the world. Under this Government, the pandemic has hit the UK’s economy harder than other major economies and yet the Chancellor continues to underfund our precious NHS, which is expected to return to its pre-covid spending plans after March 2022.

We in the SNP are calling for the Chancellor to look to Scotland for inspiration. The Chancellor should match the Scottish Government’s £500 thank you payments to the NHS. He should prioritise a pay rise for health and care staff, and increase NHS funding to Scottish levels per head, which would deliver an extra £35 billion for the NHS in England and an extra £4 billion for NHS Scotland in Barnett consequentials. We need to shockproof our NHS for the future and make sure that those who have served on the frontline of this pandemic know how much we value their contribution.

Throughout the pandemic, the voluntary sector has been instrumental in ensuring our communities are resilient enough to weather the many emerging challenges, including food security, tackling rough sleeping, combating loneliness, improving digital connectivity or finding safe places for those experiencing domestic abuse. Increasing gift aid temporarily from 20% to 25%, making it easier to claim for small donations, would be a real boost to the sector. I ask the Government to consider that for the upcoming Finance Bill.

A choice has been made in this Budget not to place the burden of the debt on those who can afford it the most. The Treasury said that this is not the time for new fiscal rules, but instead announced the intention to start a consultation at the end of the month. They have kicked the can further down the road. I think the Chancellor has done that for two reasons. First, by doing it outside the Budget process he will avoid the fiscal analysis and proper scrutiny a Budget would face. Secondly, he is giving high earners enough time to shift savings into ISAs or other tax-free schemes. We are already seeing financial advice cropping up on how people can avoid the coming tax hikes.

The Chancellor’s message of fairness rings hollow if he is only buying time to protect himself from scrutiny and to give high earners a head start to hoard their wealth. Instead, we have seen a stealth tax rise for ordinary earners. The personal allowance, after which people start to pay income tax, will rise from £12,500 to £12,570 from 6 April, but will then be frozen until 2026 rather than rising with inflation. That is a tax rise in real terms—the OBR says that it will bring 1.3 million people into the taxation system, with households that earn least the hardest hit.

I want the Chancellor to bring forward measures to tackle child poverty and boost household incomes. As page 14 of the Red Book recognises:

“The economic impact of restrictions has not been felt equally. Staff in the hardest hit, largely consumer-facing sectors, such as hospitality, are more likely to be young, female, from an ethnic minority, and lower paid.”

But the UK Government have done nothing in the Budget to tackle the problem they have identified.

Conditionality in universal credit is forcing people out to work and putting their health at risk unnecessarily. The Government could establish a real—not a pretendy—living wage at the real Living Wage Foundation rate. They could end no recourse to public funds, increase statutory sick pay and match the Scottish child payment throughout the UK. They could ditch the Tory public sector pay freeze and make the £20 uplift to universal credit permanent.

The Chancellor could extend support to those on legacy benefits, including many people who are disabled and carers, who have been completely forgotten by the Tories. He could scrap the benefit cap and remove the two-child limit and the pernicious rape clause, which forces so many families into poverty and increasing numbers of women into making heartbreaking choices like terminating a third pregnancy. What a cruel, wicked Government this is.

As things stand, we face a six-month cut-off date for the uplift to universal credit that will coincide with the end of furlough, the end of mortgage payment holidays and a likely peak in unemployment. The Chancellor has accepted that the uplift is a lifeline for families through the pandemic, so why does he plan to rip it away at the worst possible time? If nothing else, I expected the Chancellor to understand the importance of the social security system as a safety net that allows for a flexible labour market. If he wants people to be able to retrain and equip themselves to face a post-pandemic world, he needs to provide the support to enable that.

We are seeing the Tories shy away from redistributive policies during the worst recession that we are likely to see in our lifetimes. History is reporting itself yet again, as we in Scotland watch with horror a Tory Government that we did not vote for trying again to balance the books on the backs of those who can afford it the least.

It is often the case that the people most affected by austerity policies are women. During the pandemic, women have shouldered the disproportionate burden of caring duties and are more likely to have switched to part-time work, and they are more likely to struggle in the scramble for jobs when things start to open back up again. They are more likely to have already been impacted by the welfare reform before the pandemic began. I had hoped to see some commitment from the Chancellor on the disproportionate economic impact that women have felt over the past year, but there was not even as much as a patronising pat on the head for mums in his speech yesterday.

It is undeniable that our labour market is heavily segregated by gender, and some of the sectors that are dominated by women have been the most affected by covid restrictions. For example, the childcare sector employs mostly women and is vital for ensuring that many more women can go back to work. It has been struck by lockdown restrictions to the extent that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has questioned the sector’s long-term sustainability as demand changes and unemployment increases after the furlough.

The hair and beauty industry is also a large employer of women and is heavily supported by women’s money. I have met staff from salons in my constituency, as have, I am sure, many others in the House. Hundreds of jobs for women are on the line if the Government provide no support. Chopping VAT for the sector, as demanded by the Save Our Salons campaign, would be a real boost to a sector where it is feared that many will not survive this crisis.

My colleagues and I have previously asked the Treasury to look at VAT reductions for specific sectors or economic areas. We have called for and welcomed the VAT cut for hospitality and tourism, and would have preferred the 5% rate cut to last longer so that the sector could really see its benefit. That is particularly true for the music and events sector, which has not been able to sell many tickets this past year.

VAT cuts for repairs to buildings would help to end the scourge of derelict buildings in my constituency and many others, and encourage investment in our built environment rather than demolishing and rebuilding. VAT cuts could also be used to boost investment in energy efficiency measures, thereby contributing to our net zero ambitions.

The Tories long claimed that all sorts of things would be possible after Brexit, but now that we have left the EU, Budgets are coming and going with no regard to those issues. Not only have Scotland’s industries suffered after Brexit, but we are not even seeing the promised targeted tax cuts, which could lead to real benefits in our economy.

I am sure I was not the only one to notice that the Budget made scant mention of Brexit, which will be of little consolation to Scotland’s shellfish industries and the countless others affected by delays to exports and charges applied to imports. The OBR did not miss this, though, and says that

“we now expect the temporary near-term disruption to EU-UK goods trade to reduce GDP by 0.5 per cent in the first quarter of this year. This reflects both that exports appear to have been hit harder than imports and that the trade disruption will affect UK supply chains.”

It does not rule out further disruption either, as well as a long-run loss of productivity of 4%.

The SNP has called on the Chancellor to mitigate some of the damage done by Boris’s botched deal by providing a Brexit compensation package for Scotland in line with the EU’s €1.5 billion for Ireland. Scotland’s community stands to be battered further by some of the impacts of Brexit. We have seen the end of EU structural funding, and the threat of a shared prosperity fund controlled from Whitehall, bypassing our democratically elected Scottish Parliament. There are madcap money-spinning schemes such as the Boris bridge through the Beaufort’s dyke munitions dump, rather than schemes that our communities want and need, with local jobs focused on a green and sustainable recovery.

Scotland’s ambitions to grow our tax base and maintain the long-term funding for public services are massively undermined by the hostile environment for immigration. Brexit and the pandemic have conspired to stop people moving to Scotland. The Tories are actively and brutally cutting migration to satisfy their own arbitrary targets, and Scotland’s economy will suffer for it. I was absolutely furious to hear the Chancellor talk about attracting in highly skilled IT professionals, as outlined on page 62 of the Red Book, because he seems to forget that there are already many people here whom the Home Secretary has tried to deport for the heinous practice of making a legitimate amendment to their tax returns. Highly qualified migrants, many of whom work in IT already and who have made their home here, have been treated abysmally by this Government. Having heard how their friends and relatives have been treated, bankrupted and made to feel like criminals, many will not want to come here. The rule 322(5) scandal is still affecting people today, including my constituents. I urge the Chancellor to listen to organisations such as the Migrants’ Rights Network, and fix this injustice once and for all.

On a whole host of issues, the economic illiteracy of this UK Tory Government knows no bounds. Further polling out this morning shows that 71% of people in Scotland believe that we would fare better outwith the UK, with 53% already backing independence. We face a choice of two futures in Scotland, and I hope that soon we will have the opportunity to take matters into our own hands.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The time limit is now introduced.

Taxation (Post-transition Period) Bill

Debate between Alison Thewliss and Nigel Evans

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 9th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss]

I have almost finished, so I want to make a little progress, but I will try to bring the hon. Lady in later.

I am curious about what assessment the Government have made of the chilling effect of these changes. It is also very interesting that the customs duties will benefit the Irish Exchequer and be to the detriment of our people who wish to export. I note that paragraph 12 of schedule 1 will amend the Isle of Man Act 1979, and that part 6 of new schedule 9ZB to the Value Added Tax Act 1994, which is inserted by schedule 2, also relates to the Isle of Man, so I would be grateful if the Government told us what communication they have had with the Manx authorities on the proposals. Obviously those proposals have come out overnight, so I do not know what discussions have been had, but it would be very interesting to find out.

Scotland has not been offered the deal that Northern Ireland has been offered. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury spoke about the benefits of the EU single market that people in Northern Ireland will enjoy. Lucky them. Scotland is the only part of this supposed Union of equals not to get any of what we asked for, and we will see our own industries disadvantaged. To add insult to our very evident injury, Baroness Davidson and the then Scottish Secretary, the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), threatened to resign if Northern Ireland was given different treatment. Just a couple of years ago, they said:

“Having fought just four years ago to keep our country together, the integrity of our United Kingdom remains the single most important issue for us in these negotiations.

Any deal that delivers a differentiated settlement for Northern Ireland beyond the differences that already exist on an all Ireland basis (eg agriculture), or can be brought under the provisions of the Belfast Agreement, would undermine the integrity of our UK internal market and this United Kingdom…We could not support any deal that…leads to Northern Ireland having a different relationship with the EU than the rest of the UK, beyond what currently exists.”

Well, that is exactly what we have. It is exactly what the Bill is and what it does, yet those two Members are still about. The Scottish Conservatives really do have more faces than the town clock.

To move on to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, he has an absolute brass neck to describe the situation in Northern Ireland as the “best of both worlds”. He said on ITV that Northern Ireland would have

“access to the European single market, because there is no infrastructure on the island of Ireland, and at the same time unfettered access to the rest of the UK market.”

“The best of both worlds”—in Scotland, we have heard that before. The Better Together campaign told us that the only risk of losing our place in the EU was if Scotland voted for independence. Where are we now?

The United Kingdom Internal Market Bill farce undermines yet further the integrity of this crumbling Union, and today’s Bill takes another sledgehammer to the support structures that this Government believe are stronger than they are. The people of Scotland—those who voted no as well as those who voted yes, and those who were unable to vote six years ago—have been watching what has been going on. They do not want a UK Government who drag Scotland out of the EU—they voted very clearly, by 62%, to remain—they do not want a UK Government who threaten to break international law and spoil our standing in the world, and they do not want a UK Government to force Scotland into an insular and poorer future. People want their chance to have their say. The 15 polls in a row that now back independence show clearly to me and everybody else that the people of Scotland believe that things have changed. As Winnie Ewing said:

“Stop the world, Scotland wants to get on.”

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Members should be aiming to speak for not much longer than four minutes, if we are to get everybody in. I call Sir John Redwood.

Points of Order

Debate between Alison Thewliss and Nigel Evans

Thursday 4th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for clarifying that he is now withdrawing his amendment. On the first part of his point of order, I know that the Leader of the House has respect for the Chair, but I suspect that he has more attention towards nanny. I shall therefore make every endeavour to ensure that the Leader of the House and nanny are made aware of the first part of the point of order.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the House made reference to cleaners having to be in this building anyway. I feel that the way he did that was incredibly dismissive of the work that those people do for us in this building. May I ask you whether it is your understanding that those cleaners are put at infinitely more risk by the presence of hundreds of additional people in this building than they would be if we were not here?

Coronavirus

Debate between Alison Thewliss and Nigel Evans

Monday 9th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

If Members continue to be pithy, we will get everybody in.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Last week I asked the Secretary of State about the advice given about coronavirus to DWP decision makers. We were not particularly reassured by the answers given by Department for Work and Pensions Ministers this morning, and that advice has still not appeared in our inboxes. Can he please follow that up?

Jobcentres and the DWP Estate

Debate between Alison Thewliss and Nigel Evans

Thursday 20th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr Nigel Evans (in the Chair)]

Order. Just before this intervention, I would give a gentle reminder that we are now under some time limits, in order to give equal time to the Labour Front-Bench spokesperson, and Members will also want to hear what the Minister has to say. Are you taking an intervention now?

[Alison Thewliss]

Yes; I am just about done.