Immigration Bill

Anne McLaughlin Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

As somebody who served with the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) and others on the Bill Committee, there is a terrible sense of déjà vu, to put it politely, or “Groundhog Day”, not so politely, about this debate. We had a lot of these debates and discussions in Committee. I hope that those who did not join me in voting as I did in Committee would at least recognise that it was a very thoughtful process in which we went through the whole Bill in great depth and a great raft of amendments were tabled and debated. However, even the Opposition parties managed to run out of steam, allowing the usual channels to pull stumps some little time before the Committee stage was scheduled to finish. I hope that that in no way suggests that we cantered with unseemly haste through the important issues that the Bill seeks to address.

My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), who is no longer in her place, hit the nail on the head, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) in Committee. This is probably one of the most important issues that this House and this Parliament will deal with. If we get it right, we will engender a sense of an understanding of fair play and that this place “gets it”. If we get it wrong, we will seem to be even more disengaged from the communities that we seek to serve.

I am lucky to represent a predominantly rural constituency where even a casual glance at the census returns would suggest that immigration was not an issue that would be raised on the doorstep or in meetings. However, even in rural North Dorset, it has been, and continues to be, such an issue.

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

I represent a constituency that has a significant proportion of people who have come from other countries, and immigration was raised with me on the doorstep once in the course of a year. Parties such as the United Kingdom Independence party tend to do well in areas where there are few immigrants, so it is perception that is causing people to have a problem with immigration rather than reality.

[Simon Hoare]

This is noteworthy for Hansard—the hon. Lady and I have found something on which we agree. What we are seeking to do—this sits at the kernel of the Bill—is to shoot UKIP’s fox: the idea that the country, the Government, Parliament, Westminster or Whitehall has become rather soft and flabby on this issue and needs to—

[Anne McLaughlin]

rose—

[Simon Hoare]

Let me address the hon. Lady’s first intervention and then I will be happy to give way to her again.

Although I represent North Dorset, I have the most enormous pleasure—the first prize in the lottery of life—to be a Welshman. I was hoping for some supportive comments there, but no. I come from Cardiff—a very mixed, culturally diverse city, which, thank God, has hitherto had very little tension between the communities. However, it was becoming an issue back in the 2010 election, and people are very keen, irrespective of the immigrant make-up of a community, to address it. That is what this Bill is all about, and what all these amendments—

[Simon Hoare]

Before I give way to my hon. Friend I must first take the intervention from the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin).

[Anne McLaughlin]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that rather than shooting UKIP’s fox with this Bill, the Government are allowing the party that has one single MP in this place to make the rules and are pandering to what it calls for?

[Simon Hoare]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. All I would say to him in reply is that the Bill has been brought forward in the United Kingdom Parliament and has had full and forensic discussion both on Second Reading and in Committee, as it will today on Report and, doubtless, on Third Reading. I suggest he should say to his friends holding ministerial office and other positions of power in Scotland and the Scottish Parliament that, when they are in effect carrying out duties passed to them under a devolved settlement, they should ensure that how they deliver such policies and put them in place on the ground always reflects the national law of the land.

When I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, I was simply concluding that if the new clauses and amendments, which would in effect devolve immigration to Holyrood, were agreed to, the United Kingdom Government would by definition need to find ways of controlling the movement of people from Scotland south into England, and very possibly people going from the south to the north as well. As I have said, we teased out in Committee—both in the evidence sessions and the other sittings—the SNP’s firm commitment to have an open-door policy and no fetters on immigration. My constituents in the south of England will be grossly alarmed by that.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House anything that any SNP Member said that leads him to believe we support an open-door, open-borders policy? I cannot think of anything, and I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) cannot do so. What is the hon. Gentleman referring to?

[Simon Hoare]

Unlike Lord Green, I had no difficulty understanding what she and the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), who knows precisely what I am referring to, said at any time in Committee. However, the tone and the tenor, the winks and the nods, and the direction of travel of the questions and the amendments in Committee—and, indeed, of the amendments today—can only lead one to assume that SNP Members, for reasons that are entirely respectable for them to deploy, do not believe in having any control of immigration at all. That is the narrative arising from the heartland of the hon. Lady’s speeches. The hon. Gentleman, who was also a member of the Public Bill Committee, told us that nobody raised with him the issue of immigration on the doorstep during the election campaign.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

My hon. Friend makes an apposite point. This must all be about fairness, about robust regulations, about proper ministerial oversight and about the scrutiny of ministerial duties by this place. That is absolutely the right chain of command. We all know that things go wrong, whether in the healthcare system, in education, in the police or in the armed forces. Regulations are not necessarily followed to the letter, but—this is a horrible phrase that we all trot out and it sounds frightfully trite—lessons will be learned. I do not say this to be sycophantic, but my right hon. Friend the Minister has humanity and compassion at his core, and he will always ensure that those regulations are fair and that they are applied fairly.

On the subject of fairness, I want to say a few words about workers, employees, employers, landlords and housing. The hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras and I have discussed the fact that a survey might produce results that suggest x, y and z, and that we can extrapolate data from that, however small or large the sample pool is. The rules and regulations that now govern access to the private rental property market—certainly those that apply to affordable housing—are pretty strict and robust. In conjunction with the clauses in the Bill that introduce new responsibilities for employees and employers, one is tempted to say, not as a cheap, knocking political point, that the quantum has become so large due to the rather shy—nay, potentially deleterious—attitude of Labour when in government.

The Government and their agencies cannot seek to solve all these problems. That is why it is perfectly proper to expect a landlord who is just about to enter into a rental agreement, and his or her agent, to carry out the most forensic tests possible to ensure the legitimacy and qualification of the individual or family seeking accommodation. That will not place a particular onus on them. In order to avoid the scenario that the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras has raised, the advice given by the Residential Landlords Association to its members and the advice given to the residential letting agencies will have to make it clear what their duties are. It will be important to stress to both that they are helping the Government and the country by playing an important role in addressing this issue.

That takes me from the right of access to housing to the question of access to work, from the point of view of the employee and the employer. The Bill is absolutely right to address these issues, and the amendments are at best mischievous and at worst devious as they attempt fundamentally to undermine the provisions. I have little doubt that employers, whether large or small, usually seek to kick back from any new regulations or guidance under which they will have to operate, but that should not fetter our need to impose such regulations if we are convinced of their efficacy. I am convinced of the efficacy of the measures in the Bill, and I believe that the amendments would undermine them.

There is no point in hon. Members, irrespective of which side of the political divide they might fall, wringing their hands about trafficking, slavery or forced labour, if, when an opportunity arises to augment previous legislation such as the rules in the Act governing gangmasters, they then say, “Oh no, this is a step too far. This will place too great an onus on the employer. We must seek to resist this.” That sends a mixed and confusing message to those evil individuals who are now benefiting in labour and cash terms from forced and indentured labour. I stress that this is just my judgment of the matter, but if the Bill as amended in Committee does not prevail, it will be holed below the waterline. That is why, if and when the official Opposition or Scottish National party Members press any of their new clauses or amendments to a Division, I shall be trotting into the No Lobby, where I hope many of my hon. and right hon. Friends will join me.

[Anne McLaughlin]

I spent five long weeks on the Immigration Bill Committee. It was an interesting experience, but unfortunately I found very little I could agree with. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) and I, and hon. colleagues on the Labour Benches, did some pretty forensic questioning. The conclusion I certainly reached from the responses that we got was that the motivation behind much of the Bill was not as stated. It cannot be, because it is clear that much of it will not work, and that it will not do what it apparently sets out to do. What it will do, however, is impact negatively on anyone who does not look, sound or even seem to be British.

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the right to rent is a good example of the problem that she is highlighting, in that landlords might be scared to rent to someone who might not seem to be British?

[Anne McLaughlin]

My hon. Friend has taken the words right out of my mouth. I was about to say that the right to rent is the perfect example of that.

The Residential Landlords Association has made it clear that its landlords are worried that fear of committing a criminal offence, by inadvertently renting to the wrong person, will lead to them behaving in a racist manner, because they will simply not take on as a tenant anyone about whom they have doubts—because they are not white, because their surname is not British sounding or because they do not have a passport. They will not take the risk. Making it harder for those people to get accommodation will put some of them in danger. They might have no choice about where they lay their head at night and, in some circumstances, with whom, or they could end up on the street. I do not want that for people who have the right to live here; nor do I want it for people who do not have that right. I do not want it for anyone.

If the Government were to write the script for a film, it would be a black and white one, in more ways than one. It would be very straightforward. In their mind, if someone is refused asylum and we squeeze the life out of them by forcing them on to the street and starving them, they will simply stroll up to UK Visas and Immigration one day and say, “Okay, I give in. You win. Send me home.” We never get to know what happens to them, but here in Britain, we all live happily ever after.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

We discussed this matter in Committee. The hon. Lady refers to asylum seekers. Does she mean failed asylum seekers—in other words, people who have claimed asylum but whose claims have not been upheld—because obviously, those who are asylum seekers are supported through the system?

[Anne McLaughlin]

I thank the Minister for giving me the opportunity to make a point about the language that we use. He says “failed asylum seekers”; I say “refused asylum seekers”. Let us not forget that the majority of those who are refused—or failed—by this Government go on to win their appeal when it comes to court.

[Kelly Tolhurst (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

The hon. Lady uses the phrase “asylum seekers”. Does she accept that the Bill focuses on a range of categories of people who are living here and may become illegal, and is not specifically targeted at asylum seekers?

[Anne McLaughlin]

I absolutely am aware of that, but we have limited time so I have to focus on the most important impact this part of the Bill will have on people. That is why I am talking about the most vulnerable people and they are the asylum seekers who have been refused.

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady believe that any asylum seeker should be failed?

[Anne McLaughlin]

I would not use that language about anyone, but I understand that people come here seeking asylum who are not entitled to it. I made that clear in Committee, as did all members of the Committee. I am talking about asylum seekers who do need our help, who should be entitled to asylum and who tend to win their appeals. It is therefore accepted that they do require asylum and we need to give it to them.

Right to rent will not provide the Government’s desired “happy ever after”. It simply will not work, but it will increase discrimination and racism. It certainly should not be implemented in Scotland without seeking the permission of Members of the Scottish Parliament, to whom housing is devolved, among other things. It should be removed in its entirety from the Bill.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

The hon. Lady’s party has often repeated the call for a more relaxed approach to asylum. In fact, it opposes the enforced removal of failed asylum seekers and pledged in its last manifesto to close the Dungavel detention centre, which is the only such centre in Scotland, making this very much an English problem.

[Anne McLaughlin]

There are a number of countries across the world, if the hon. Gentleman cares to read up on this, that do not make much use of detention, but use other ways of enabling people. Indeed, the family returns process in this country works very successfully to return a number of families when there is no other option for them. It is not essential to always detain people.

If our amendments to get rid of right to rent are unsuccessful, I ask the Government to accept amendment 46, which relates to something that I cannot believe is anything other than an oversight. In Committee, I asked for a bit more detail on when someone who provides a roof over a destitute person’s head becomes liable to criminal prosecution. There are many people who already do that as volunteers in an act of compassion or, if we want to bring the Christian faith into it, as other Members have done, as good Samaritans. I want clarity that those people will not find themselves facing court or even prison simply for showing kindness to another person.

I have received only partial reassurance from the Minister, thus amendment 46. Getting full reassurance on this matter is more important than it has ever been, because more people will need this kindness than ever before if the Bill goes through as it is. There will also be more people offering such support. One of the greatest reactions to the refugee crisis that escalated over the summer months was people, in their thousands, asking how they could help. Members on both sides of the House said how proud we were of those people. “Let them in,” they said, “and we will house them.” Thousands of people right across these islands offered to open their homes to house those in desperate need.

At that time, the offer was in response to the mainly Syrian refugees. Of course, refugees who have been granted leave to remain will not be affected—at least, not directly—by the Bill because accommodation will be provided for them. However, now that the debate has started, people are looking at the asylum seekers who are already in the UK with fresh eyes. Charities are saying to the people who offered help, “We have many refused asylum seekers who are currently destitute. Why not house them instead?” However, if they do so and the Bill goes through unamended, those kind, compassionate, generous people could be criminalised.

I said that the Minister has given me partial reassurance and I will explain why. If no money changes hands, there is no issue. People are allowed to let a refused asylum seeker—or failed asylum seeker, as Government Members like to say—stay at their home as long as no money is exchanged. That was welcome news to organisations in my city of Glasgow, such as Unity and Positive Action in Housing, which both do an incredible job in keeping vulnerable people off the streets with very little funding.

However, what if a householder cannot afford to do that? What if they are rich in compassion, but poor in finances? It costs money to let another person live in one’s home. There are heating costs, lighting costs and food costs. Even if it is not part of the agreement, people will hardly sit down to dinner knowing that another person under their roof is going hungry. Some charities therefore pay a nominal sum to the householder—not a profit-making amount or a commercial rent, but a nominal sum to cover their costs. I have had no reassurance about where those people stand. In response to that question, the Minister said that exemptions had been made for refuges that house victims of trafficking. Why not exempt anyone who houses a refused asylum seeker because otherwise they would have to live on the street? Are the Government really going to make criminals of those people, who are still volunteers because they are not making any money out of it? Will the Minister criminalise them for having the decency to share what they have with a stranger in trouble and for not being wealthy enough to cover the increased costs themselves?

What about the charities? There are charities, such as the Action Foundation in Newcastle, that seek out philanthropic landlords who will make the houses that they own available for refused asylum seekers to rent at a heavily discounted rate that is paid by the charity. Those philanthropic landlords will now be committing a criminal offence, but will the charities also be committing an offence? They need to know. Do the Government really intend for that to happen? Other groups, such as Abigail Housing in Leeds and Open Doors Hull, provide accommodation not in family homes, but in houses that are lent by their owners, empty vicarages and church buildings. Abigail Housing raises funds in order to pay a nominal rent, not a commercial rent. Nobody is making a profit.

Dozens of charities, individuals and church groups across these islands are carrying out this kind of work. Will they be committing an offence? It certainly seems that those who support their charitable aims by providing the accommodation will be. Are men and women of God to be prosecuted for doing as the Bible asks them to do and not turning the other cheek? Are the Government comfortable with potentially having to imprison faith leaders for up to five years? I urge the Government to think again, otherwise they are saying to the thousands of people who responded to the refugee crisis in a manner that we were all rightly proud of, “No, you can’t help. Yes, there is a need and we are going to increase that need by making more refused asylum seekers homeless, but if you dare to help, we will criminalise you.”

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Lady makes her points with the same eloquence and passion that she showed in Committee. She asked me to evidence what I said about the open-door policy and what I perceive the SNP’s position to be, but she has effectively just done that. She is talking about refused asylum seekers, and those who have no right to be here, being allowed to stay for as long as they like, based on the philanthropy of individuals. Such philanthropy is to be championed and supported, but when people have gone through the whole process and their claim has been refused, surely she will admit that it is time for them to go home.

[Anne McLaughlin]

The hon. Gentleman, and his Government, know full well that some people simply cannot go home. Indeed, people in such circumstances are often sent not home but to detention centres, where they languish for a long time because they cannot be sent home. I am not talking about every asylum seeker, or about keeping people here indefinitely; I am saying that we should not criminalise people who open their homes to those in desperate need. To be clear, I oppose the right to rent in its entirety, and I question the British Government’s right to override the wishes of the Scottish Parliament. I hope that this particular topical issue will turn out to be simply an anomaly that the Government will put right.

[Mr Burrowes]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, and I will speak to the new clauses to which my name has been added. New clauses 8, 9, 13 and 32 are unique in that they have a cross-party feel, which should not go unnoticed. I have not had the pleasure of being involved in all stages of the Bill, but I think that cross-party support for these new clauses is a unique aspect to our deliberations; I do not think it has happened until now. As the Minister has noticed, there is cross-party concern about the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) about fair play. We are concerned to ensure that our immigration system stands up to scrutiny from beginning to end, and that fair play is imbued within it.

Fair play matters for those who shout loudest and campaign loudly—whether before elections or in other campaigns throughout the year—just as much as it matters for those who are relatively voiceless, or perhaps do not even have a vote. Fair play should be about “the other” and those who are not as loud, and we want to uphold the fundamental British values of fairness and due process. Indeed, one could refer back to Magna Carta when considering issues of detention, and the right and duty to detain people only after fair and due process, and not for administrative purposes alone. Although I concede that immigration detention is not the main purpose of the Bill, it will not surprise the Minister that these new clauses have been tabled.

When dealing with detention, it is important that we uphold principles that have stood this country well for many years. The rest of the world looks at how we handle detention and whether we do so with fairness, and when dealing with those who are detained for administrative reasons, the bar is set that much higher. We must be proportionate, reasonable, and do things in a limited way, so that a limited number of people are in detention for as short a time as possible. Regardless of whether the new clauses are accepted, we must ensure that that principle is applied.

--- Later in debate ---

That naturally brings us to amendment 20, for which I think there is an incredibly strong argument. It is hugely important that we insert a defence for somebody who finds themselves, through no fault of their own, coerced, exploited and enslaved to provide labour. I said on Second Reading that we should insert such a defence. When we talk of slavery, many in the Chamber will hark back to the good old days of William Wilberforce. As a country, we have a considerable heritage and a proud tradition of standing against slavery, but when Wilberforce got involved in anti-slavery movements in 1787, he was preceded by a Belfast man called Thomas McCabe, who in 1786, in response to the creation of a company with slave ships in Belfast, disrupted the meeting at which the agreements were to be signed and declared: “May God wither the hand of any man who signs this declaration to create this company.” He started an anti-slavery revolution in Belfast that spread to the rest of the UK and started a tradition we proudly remember today.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the UK not only abolished slavery but took full advantage of the slave trade and benefited from it, and that we continue to benefit from its inheritance?

[Gavin Robinson]

I am focusing on anti-slavery because we have a proud tradition of standing against those who exploit others and for those who are exploited. The hon. Lady makes the point that it continues today; I am making the point that in today’s debate, as we focus on amendment 20, we should not lose sight of the compassion this country has shown, continues to show and should show. That is why I support the amendment.

The hon. Member for North Dorset referred to the Minister’s compassionate heart. I do not doubt he has such a heart, but I believe that the small insertion of a defence would be preferable to the suggestion in Committee to let the decision be solely at the discretion of the Director of Public Prosecutions. If we, as the supreme Parliament of this country, cannot insert a defence and ask the DPP to exercise discretion in certain circumstances, what direction should she take in doing so? It is our role as parliamentarians to say that if somebody is being, or has been, exploited or enslaved in this country, the DPP should consider what we intended the defence to be against the offence of illegal working. I do not consider that to be an onerous insertion or amendment for the Government to consider. Every response to date has indicated that, as we heard on Second Reading, discretion should be provided and that such defences exist already in the Modern Slavery Act. If, therefore, there is no resistance to the prospect of such a defence, why not make provision for it?

I look forward to contributing to the further tranche of amendments, but for now I have outlined where my party stands on the current group.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendments 30 and 31 are concerned with appeal rights. Under the Bill, asylum seekers refused support under section 95 of the 1999 Act will retain their right of appeal. That appeal is extended to those refused support whose further submissions on protection grounds are accepted, or may be treated, as a fresh asylum claim. However, the Bill does not provide a right of appeal to failed asylum seekers refused further support because they do not face a genuine obstacle that prevents their departure from the UK when they have exhausted their appeal rights against the refusal of asylum. Common examples of a genuine obstacle will be where medical evidence shows the person is unfit to travel or there is evidence that an application for the necessary travel document has been submitted and is still outstanding. These are generally straightforward matters of fact which do not require a right of appeal.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Does the Minister agree that the children of parents who will not return—to my mind, mostly because they cannot—face genuine obstacles to returning, namely their parents, and that we should therefore support those children because they have absolutely no choice in the matter?

[James Brokenshire]

We had detailed and considered debate about this in Committee, to which the hon. Lady was party. The point I made there is that the family returns process engages with this so that we assist and work with families to bring about their return. She will recall our debates about the support that can still be made available by local authorities in respect of destitution cases. That support is potentially still available as we continue, as part of this process, to assist families in their entirety, with the appropriate safeguards, in seeing that they are returned if they do not have the right to remain in the UK.

The appeal statistics on asylum support do not give the full picture. In the year to August 2015, 37% of asylum support appeals were dismissed. Forty-one per cent. were allowed, but in many cases this was because the person provided only in their appeal the evidence required for support to be granted. Many of the remainder were remitted for reconsideration or withdrawn, in many cases also in the light of new evidence provided in the appeal. Few appeals related to the issue of whether there was a practical obstacle to departure from the UK. The previous independent chief inspector of borders and immigration found in his July 2014 report on asylum support that 89% of refusals were reasonably based on the evidence available at the time.

Amendments 42 to 45 would reverse the Bill’s reforms of support for adult migrant care leavers and require that they be provided with local authority support under leaving care legislation, even though all their applications and appeals to stay here have been refused. We believe that these changes are wrong in principle. Public money should not be used to support illegal migrants, including failed asylum seekers, who can leave the UK and should do so. The amendments would create obvious incentives for more unaccompanied children to come to the UK to make an unfounded asylum claim, often by using dangerous travel routes controlled by smugglers and traffickers. We are speaking of adults. If their asylum claim has been finally refused, automatic access to further support from the local authority should cease at that point. The Bill makes appropriate provision for their support before they leave the UK.

Amendment 2 would allow permission to work where an asylum claim has been outstanding after only six months, remove the caveat that any delay must not be of the asylum seeker’s own making, and lift all restrictions on the employment available. As we debated in Committee, we do not consider this to be sensible. We met our public commitments to decide all straightforward asylum claims lodged before April 2014 by 31 March 2015 and to decide all straightforward claims lodged from 1 April 2014 within six months. About 85% of cases are straightforward. We judge that this policy strikes the right balance. If an asylum claim remains undecided after 12 months, for reasons outside the person’s control, they can apply for permission to work in employment on the shortage occupation list. This is fair, reasonable and consistent with EU law.