Nationality and Borders Bill

Angela Crawley Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 19th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Absolutely, as there is in Canada.

Members from all parties in this House, sitting on the Front Benches and the Back Benches, regularly speak up for some of the most oppressed people on the planet. We have seen brave interventions on Uyghurs fleeing atrocities in China. The plight of Syrians fleeing a decade-long conflict has been championed, and Christians around the world, including Christian converts, have numerous ambassadors in this Chamber, but we have hardly come to terms with what this Bill means for them.

This Bill prompts a question: why speak up against persecution abroad only to say, when they come knocking at our door seeking shelter, “You are not our responsibility. Go somewhere else”? France seems to be the popular answer among Conservative Members. What if France and the rest of Europe say the same thing? We would end up with the system of international protection of refugees breaking down, as the UNHCR points out.

If the Bill passes, that is exactly what it means. Prior to the Bill, we would have sheltered people fleeing persecution. The Bill expressly seeks to discourage them from coming here by making life miserable for those who do. Today, if a Uyghur, Syrian or persecuted Christian convert arrives in the UK to seek asylum, life will be far from plain sailing, precisely because of the outrageous waiting times, the dreadful asylum accommodation, the prohibition on work and the dreadful levels of financial support. They get here and, thanks to our amazing non-governmental organisations and charities, they slowly start to rebuild their lives.

But next year, if this Bill passes, for many of those Uyghurs, Syrians or persecuted Christian converts claiming asylum here, things will be infinitely bleaker, and that will be a deliberate policy choice of this Parliament. Arriving next year, the Uyghur, Syrian or persecuted Christian will be much more likely to be criminalised, regardless of arguments about whether they had come here directly or not.

Section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 already punishes illegal entry by those without leave to enter. Sensibly, however, those who claim asylum on arrival are granted immigration bail, which does not count officially as entry. Clause 37 of the Bill changes all that. It would essentially criminalise the very act of arriving to claim asylum, because, as the explanatory notes acknowledge, the majority of asylum seekers will not have the ability to secure entry clearance. Despite the Home Secretary’s protestations last week, as the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) said, this criminal offence will apply to Uyghurs, Syrians, persecuted Christian converts and anybody else, and the penalty is up to four years in prison.

The next problem for the Uyghur, Syrian or persecuted Christian convert is that although they are absolutely obviously in need of international protection, this Government, in their wisdom, are not even going to consider their claim for protection for six months. The Government are trying to pretend that that is some sort of replication of the Dublin regulations that the UK was party to prior to Brexit, but of course it is not, because, as we have heard, there are no returns agreements with any remotely relevant country and little indication at this stage that there will be any time soon. Any such returns agreement would have to be carefully circumscribed so as to be consistent with the convention and to have carefully considered the circumstances of the individual, including any ties to the UK, such as family members here.

By contrast, the powers in the Bill will allow the Home Secretary to remove a Uyghur, persecuted Christian or Syrian to any country at all, even if there is no connection, and with very little by way of restriction. Today, the Uyghur, Syrian or persecuted Christian faces outrageous delays in asylum protection systems, and the Bill simply adds another six months.

Where will the Uyghur, Syrian or persecuted Christian be during that time—during that limbo—while the Home Office goes through the futile motions of seeking to remove them? Just now, for those who seek asylum we have a struggling, privatised, over-concentrated system of dispersed asylum accommodation. Numerous Committees have told the Home Office how it could be improved, only to be ignored. Under this Bill and this plan, that is not where the Home Secretary envisages the Syrian, the Uyghur or the persecuted Christian going. Instead, the grim future for these refugees appears under this Bill and this plan to be the disgraceful, disreputable open prison-like conditions that we have already witnessed at Napier or Penally.

Even worse, as we have heard, they may face being removed to an offshore centre to have their claim resolved. Here is the real asylum shopping: the British Government grubbing around to find a country to palm off their responsibilities on to. Let us think of the outrages and the lack of accountability we have seen in relation to immigration detention and the Napier open prison—the abuses that have been meted out there and the harm done. As we know from the Australian experiment, that will be as nothing compared to the hell that is likely to await at an offshore asylum facility. How on earth have we gone from having a Parliament where there was widespread support for time-limiting and restricting the use of detention, to imposing a form of it that is infinitely worse?

Having endured their limbo period, these three groups of refugees will finally have their case assessed by the Home Office. But instead of working to improve asylum decision making, the Bill seeks to make it harder for them to prove their case. It seeks to alter the long-established test set out in the refugee convention that the standard of proof required is a lower, but far from negligible, standard of real risk. That standard is clearly justified by the possible consequences of getting decisions wrong and the huge challenges of proving circumstances that happened thousands of miles away in a country the person has fled.

The Bill seeks to muddy the waters by applying a higher legal threshold. The claimant now has to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that they do belong to one of the protected convention groups and that they fear persecution based on that characteristic. That not only undermines the cautious approach in the convention, justified by the dangers that exist for asylum seekers, but pays no regard to just how difficult it is to prove events that happened in faraway countries.

In addition, by having two different standards of evidence in the same proceedings, it makes life harder for already struggling caseworkers. The judge or decision maker may be certain that the proselytising Christian convert will face the death penalty or torture on return, but now the “real possibility” that the claimant is such a proselytising Christian convert is not enough. If the judge is only 49% satisfied that the person is a proselytising Christian convert, the claim is going to be rejected, even though the risk of torture or death is absolutely certain if the decision maker has got that assessment wrong. I find that deeply troubling, and it is clearly inconsistent with the refugee convention.

Let us imagine that the persecuted Christian, the Syrian and the Uyghur have survived their limbo period and made it through the asylum system, and the Home Office refusal of their application has been overturned on appeal. Unbelievably, the harms inflicted on them by the Bill have barely started. On the contrary, the repugnant programme of disincentives is ramped up further, even after they navigate that system. Because they have stopped temporarily in a European country, they are to be treated as a second-class refugee. Regardless of what any Minister says, that is absolutely contrary to the refugee convention and, more importantly, it is simply disgraceful. It is not just nasty, but sickening—

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that on many occasions, particularly for those seeking asylum on the basis of their sexuality, those in the LGBT+ community are the most likely to be adversely impacted by this new legislation? Does he agree that more should be done to protect them and ensure that they can come here as a safe haven?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. There are all sorts of problems with provisions in the Bill that penalise late disclosure of information, which can very often be the case in modern slavery or LGBT cases, or even religious conversion cases.

Having established that these people are refugees—and the Government have had to recognise that—the system should allow them to rebuild their lives after the trauma of their persecution, their journeys and their asylum claim, but instead this Government still want to turn the screw. Instead of the stability and permanent residence refugees were once provided with, today they are given five years’ leave, with a review that is fairly light-touch, before settlement. But this Bill and the Government’s plan propose endless 30-month cycles of review and ongoing attempts to remove. Nobody can rebuild their lives in those circumstances—and I do not know how on earth the Home Office is going to cope with having to revisit every single asylum case every 30 months.

These refugees will not be entitled to public funds unless they are destitute. So if, say, the Christian convert finds some part-time, low-paid work—a big ask, given the language and cultural barriers, the enforced years out of work, and the trauma—there will be no universal credit to cover housing or income shortfalls, and if he or she was able to bring a child, there will be no support for that child. Their refugee family reunion rights will be diminished, according to the plan, meaning that they cannot be joined by a spouse or perhaps a child. The detail is not in the Bill, but that is what the plan suggests and the Bill enables.

That inevitably gives the Christian convert a choice: does the family stay apart or do other family members—often the women and children that the Home Secretary professes to be protecting—then have to follow and make their own dangerous journeys? Without the family, without state support and without stability, the Uyghur, the Syrian and the persecuted Christian convert have no hope of rebuilding their lives. That amounts not to a place of sanctuary, but to a place of punishment—and the Home Office has the audacity to claim that it is in their best interests. This is, in short, an outrageous way to treat refugees, and it is why the Bill is rightly being called the anti-refugee Bill.

There is so much that could be said about the undermining of efforts to support trafficking victims, the total absence from the Bill of protection for children, and the undermining of rights of stateless children. We need to know what the placeholder clauses will give rise to. We do not even have the chance to debate them here on Second Reading, and there are six or seven of them. The whole of the dentistry profession is up in arms at the suggestion that the discredited and unethical dental X-rays system could return as an inaccurate method of assessing age.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I welcome you to your role. I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate and to follow several hon. Members who have spoken so eloquently on this Bill—sadly, for the most part, on the Opposition Benches.

My colleagues and I will oppose this abhorrent legislation that rides roughshod over the refugee convention. As we approach the 30th anniversary of the convention, this Bill places some of the most vulnerable people in the world at risk of destitution, exploitation and family separation. The Government’s rhetoric and virtue signalling has failed to comprehend the valuable contributions that those people make to our society, regardless of how they got there. If the Bill is passed, it will, as we have heard, cast the UK adrift from international law, making it more insulated from other countries and staining what is still left of our international reputation on the world stage. It is insensitive, rushed and deeply problematic given its intention to effectively end the right to seek asylum in the UK. By doing so, it contravenes the refugee convention itself and also the European convention on human rights. The Bill proposes a two-tier system and a two-tier approach to asylum, despite there being no legal requirement in international law for an applicant to seek asylum in the first country they reach.

By bringing this Bill forward, the Home Secretary is ignoring both international and UK law with her approach, as well as being blind to the fact that how an applicant arrives in the UK is unrelated to the level of protection that they require. The Home Secretary encourages asylum seekers to use official schemes to make their application, fully aware that in many cases the abhorrent regimes that an asylum seeker is seeking refuge from will place them and their families at greater risk. The risk that many asylum seekers face is not a choice they make freely; it is a choice they make simply because it is the only choice they have left—to turn to criminal gangs for help, leaving them open to exploitation.

The UK simply cannot depart from international law on an issue that requires co-operation with other countries and by doing so refuse to play its part in supporting some of the world’s most vulnerable citizens. The Bill is shoddy, it vandalises the UK’s international reputation and it undermines the devolution settlement itself.

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

Stoke-on-Trent, which I am proud to represent, has the fifth-highest rate of asylum seekers per 10,000 of population, Glasgow being the first. Does the hon. Lady agree that the SNP-led councils outside Glasgow should step up and do their bit, and start being part of the asylum dispersal scheme?

[Angela Crawley]

I thank the hon. Member for that comment. Feel free to fund Glasgow City Council to deal with the situation that, frankly, the Government have caused.

Most importantly, the Bill ignores the reality of why people flee in the first place and seek safety. That wilful ignorance lies within the Bill’s severest risk of harm to refugees seeking protection in the UK. [Interruption.] The Bill would put the continued use of military-style barracks at the heart of the Home Office strategy, flying in the face of court rulings and expert opinion, including the NHS and Public Health England. [Interruption.] Their use has been ruled unlawful and the court has banned it by a decision of the High Court. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) wishes to make a further intervention I will take it, otherwise I will carry on. It is simply astonishing that the Home Office is casually disregarding that ruling and the views of public health experts, and placing this practice at the heart of the Bill.

The Bill is one of the many reasons that Scotland needs her independence and to break away from this insular little Britain that the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister are working to create. These are real people. These are real lives. That someone should arrive here, illegally by this Government’s definition, by exploitation or worse and be penalised for the very notion that they make it successfully here at all is absolutely abhorrent. This place should be regarded as a safe haven. The UK is that opportunity for many, many people. This Government turn their back on so many lives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Gullis]

Stoke-on-Trent, sadly, has the second lowest council tax revenue income of any local authority in England, yet all I am hearing from those opposite is excuses, excuses, excuses. The SNP has money for all these vanity projects, but it does not have any money to look after asylum seekers—I find it baffling. By creating new accommodation centres, removing asylum seekers to a safe third country while an asylum claim is pending, in the same ways as is being done in Denmark, increasing maximum penalties for entering the UK illegally, enabling the quicker and easier removal of foreign criminals convicted of horrific crimes such as rape and murder, creating new safe and legal routes that will be looked on favourably when people apply for asylum, and backing our Border Force to stop and redirect boats out of British waters, returning them to safe countries from which they came, such as France, this Bill is delivering the reforms that we need and that are wanted by the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke.

[Angela Crawley]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the picture he paints is not the same as the one we experience in Scotland. In Glasgow, in Kenmure Street, people wrapped themselves around those who were being deported by the Home Office and said, “Refugees are welcome.” The picture he paints is not representative of the whole of the UK—it is inaccurate and false.

[Jonathan Gullis]

I have the greatest respect for the people of Glasgow, their council and their MPs, because they have got involved in the asylum dispersal scheme, and they deserve full recognition and credit for that. That is just like how Stoke-on-Trent has wrapped its arms around the people who have come to this country in need and looked after them. But we have simply said that our NHS, local schools and local council services cannot do this any more and it simply has to come to a point where fairness is applied equally. I say to the hon. Lady again that if all the SNP councils that are not in Glasgow want to, they can meet the Minister and get the asylum dispersal scheme signed up to and we can share the load across our country.

But let us talk about the Labour party, who will listen to the woke mob on Twitter rather than listening to the people in former red wall seats. The Labour party wants to sign back up to free movement, which its leader spent years arguing for when trying to block Brexit. He also believes that immigration controls are racist. I suggest that the Labour party champagne socialists of north Islington, whose Labour-run council had not given accommodation to a single asylum seeker by the end of 2020, and their leftie sponging lawyer friends who soak up taxpayers’ money by preventing foreign criminals from being deported should get out and talk to some real people rather than worrying about their likes on Twitter. The truth is that the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke want to take back control and this Bill delivers that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome you to your elevated position.

Many of my constituents in Stoke-on-Trent South are shocked and angered by the illegal crossings of the English channel. The integrity of our borders is broken, and my constituents are fed up of seeing people continue to enter the UK illegally. We must act to put an end to the profiteering of criminal people traffickers, for whom illegal routes have become an industry, and we must deter those who seek to make these perilous journeys across the busiest shipping lane in the world in no more than a rubber dinghy.

Clearly, there must be safe routes for those in desperate need. The UK and Stoke-on-Trent have a proud record of helping those in the greatest need, but what my constituents cannot understand is why there should be any need to make illegal journeys to do so: European countries are safe, and those attempting to claim asylum should do so in those countries.

We have seen repeated attempts to game the system, using any legal loophole to do so. There were 16,000 illegal immigrants last year yet, because the system is overwhelmed and repeatedly abused, deportations are declining. The increased pressures we have seen on the entire immigration system put enormous weight on the few asylum dispersal areas. Stoke-on-Trent has seen one of the highest proportions of refugees in the entire country.

[Angela Crawley]

Does the hon. Member accept the criticism from his former colleague Anna Soubry, who said the Conservative party is now a “Trumpian”, far-right, “populist” party?

[Jack Brereton]

I do not agree with that. We have absolutely supported those in the most desperate need. It is about making sure we support the genuine ones in those countries and regions. We have supported around 25,000 over the past six years in this country, which is the most in the whole of Europe. We will not take any lectures from the SNP, which talks so much about support for immigrants but does not do a single thing. Glasgow is the only city in Scotland to be a dispersal area. The rest of Scotland does not lift a single finger to help asylum seekers.

[Jack Brereton]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Cities such as Stoke-on-Trent are actually putting in the effort.

[Angela Crawley]

The hon. Member’s statement that Glasgow is the only place in Scotland that accepts refugees is untrue. South Lanarkshire, my local authority, has accepted a number of refugees, particularly after 2014. [Hon. Members: “How many?”] I do not have the numbers, but the fact stated by the hon. Member is untrue.