Sudan: Government Response

Debate between Andrew Mitchell and Stuart C McDonald

Monday 22nd April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

The hon. Lady is entirely right. The World Food Programme told me, when I was in Chad, that it effectively had supplies of food only until the end of May. That is one of the reasons why Britain has increased so substantially its bilateral aid, and why my noble Friend Lord Benyon went to the Paris meeting on Monday last week to make sure that others, too, put their money where their mouth is and supported the desperate situation she described.

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

This morning I had the pleasure to meet some brilliant organisations working on behalf of people in Sudan who are desperate to be reunited with family here in the UK. They want answers to two questions. First, given the circumstances people are having to live in, why is it taking over a year for many applications to be decided? Secondly, why do the Government demand that these people make dangerous and illegal cross-border journeys before they will even consider their applications, because they have to enrol biometric information? That seems completely counterintuitive. Will the right hon. Gentleman give the Home Office a polite kick up the backside and urge a change in approach?

[Mr Mitchell]

If the hon. Gentleman would like to give me details of any specific cases, I will of course make sure they are looked into.

Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme: Pathway 3

Debate between Andrew Mitchell and Stuart C McDonald

Thursday 19th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mr Mitchell]

I ask my hon. Friend to allow us to consider whether we can provide any further information, but I want to be absolutely clear and concise in what I say today. Those are the reasons why we are not giving out further figures.

I was going to say something about broader support for Afghanistan from His Majesty’s Government, but I will not. I think I will conclude—

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The Minister was clear on the 1,500 cap, but he did not offer a defence of it. We are talking about people who in essence are now at risk because they assisted the UK mission. Why should we be saying to people, “Sorry, not this year—we’re full up”? Why should there be a cap?

[Mr Mitchell]

There will always be arguments for and against figures. That is the settled position of the Government and I am not in a position today to comment any further on it.

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) asked me about refugee status; all those arriving in the UK under the ARAP and ACRS have the right to work and access education, healthcare, and public funds. I hope that is helpful to her.

In conclusion, the UK Government remain committed to offering a safe and legal route to the UK for eligible British Council, GardaWorld and Chevening alumni affected by the appalling events in Afghanistan in August 2021. I acknowledge and understand the strength of feeling in the House about the speed of progress. The Government remain acutely aware of the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan and are working with partners to try to influence the Taliban. We are also working at pace to deliver on our commitment to relocate eligible Afghans who supported the UK mission and our wider values and are at risk as a result. I look forward to the day we can confirm to the House that we have succeeded in repaying that debt of honour.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Andrew Mitchell and Stuart C McDonald

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 20th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald]

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

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

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

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

[Mr Mitchell]

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

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

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

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

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