Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme

Debate between Anne McLaughlin and Victoria Atkins

Thursday 6th January 2022 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. I welcome the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), to her place.

I welcome the fact that the scheme is finally starting, but it has taken far too long. The Minister talked about the “emerging situation” in Afghanistan, but it is not emerging. As she said herself, ARAP started in April and there was an emergency in August.

I welcome some of the specifics in the statement, such as working to recognise Afghan qualifications to enable people to work here in their profession. However, it feels as if there has been a bit of sleight of hand, and I want to know more about the figures. The Government cannot keep patting themselves on the back and talking about up to 20,000 people, because any number below 20,000 is “up to 20,000”. We have to be clear about that. I also share the concerns about restricting the ARAP criteria, which are leading to understandable suspicion about the reasons. I found the exposé in The Times deeply worrying.

I have a number of questions for the Minister. Will those who are here on ARAP but are being transferred to the ACRS retain the right to family reunion? I hope that she will answer that question today, and I very much hope that she will be able to allay our fears.

I was a bit confused on reading through the statement. Do people have to be identified or can they apply for the scheme? My reading of the statement was that it could be 2023 before any new Afghans arrive in this country. Surely that cannot be right.

The Minister rightly said that British nationals in Afghanistan

“experienced the same trauma and have the same needs as their Afghan neighbours”,

but what about those who did it—those who got out and have arrived or will arrive here by boat? Are their traumas and their needs not the same? The Nationality and Borders Bill says not; it says that they are illegal and could face up to four years in jail or be offshored, never to be reunited with their families.

The Minister talked about welcoming women and girls after year one. Nargis is 19. She and her husband fled to Pakistan, not realising that she would be in danger there, too. She is pleading with me, for the sake of her unborn baby, to help her escape. I told her that I would have news in January. Can the Minister please tell me what I should tell Nargis now?

Some of my constituents have family in hiding in Afghanistan. I have not heard anything today about how they can apply or whether anyone can apply—a crucial question, because the more vulnerable someone is, the less able they are to flee to a neighbouring country. How does someone in danger in Afghanistan apply?

Finally, I spoke this morning to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. It has been calling for details for some time, so it welcomes this confirmation, but it has a number of questions. The biggest question is whether everyone with indefinite leave to remain will get refugee status, which gives different rights. The families that COSLA is working with need to know so that they can make informed decisions. All 32 Scottish councils stand ready to support the Afghan schemes; I hope that the Minister can give them a bit more detail in her response.

[Victoria Atkins]

I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. Just to help her understand, the ARAP scheme stands alongside the ACRS, so there is no question of people being transferred between the schemes. If people have met the eligibility under ARAP, they remain under ARAP. The ACRS is, as it were, the civilian scheme, whereas ARAP particularly looks after locally employed staff who worked with the Government and with the armed forces.

ARAP principals have been evacuated—some 7,000, including dependants. Throughout this, we have extracted not just principals, but their spouse, partner, children or dependants under the age of 18. One of the reasons why we have the issue of housing so many people at once is the size of some of the families we are having to rehouse.

We do have people arriving. Again, I hope the House understands that the security situation in the region is such that we cannot give definite numbers of who will arrive when each week because, by definition, there are many factors out of our control. However, some 1,500 people have already arrived since Operation Pitting was closed, both under ARAP and those who will fall to be eligible under the ACRS.

The hon. Lady speaks about the very troubling case she has raised. Again, I hope she will understand—I have made this clear in previous statements—that I cannot give advice off the cuff at the Dispatch Box for people who are in great danger. However, we are working closely with countries in the region to find safe routes for eligible Afghans to be evacuated from Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. These efforts are ongoing and will continue as the situation changes and develops.

We are very keen to emphasise that the safety and security of eligible Afghans and their families is paramount. Indeed, the Minister for the Armed Forces visited the region recently to identify what more we can do to work with both third-country and in-country applicants. We are exploring a range of options. I cannot go into details, but we are very much working with a wide range of allies and partners to see what more can be done.

Finally, I welcome—genuinely welcome—the support of Scottish councils in playing their part in our United Kingdom-wide effort to give homes to our new Afghan citizens. In relation to refugee status, those who come under the UNHCR scheme will be given refugee status by virtue of being referred by the UNHCR. We do not plan to do the same for others, simply because everyone who comes under ARAP and the ACRS will have indefinite leave to remain and will be as free to work, to enjoy their lives, to build their homes and to build their futures as any other person with indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom.

Afghanistan Policy

Debate between Anne McLaughlin and Victoria Atkins

Monday 13th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

I am happy to give my hon. Friend that assurance. We recognise the risk. We want to work with specialist organisations to ensure that we help the most vulnerable, which of course include minorities who are LGBT+.

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

The Minister talked in her statement about a referral process for those inside Afghanistan where it is possible to arrange safe passage, thus acknowledging that that is not always possible. Last week, the Home Office released proposals to engage in push-backs of boats in the channel carrying refugees and asylum seekers. Will she confirm that that policy means a boat carrying Afghan asylum seekers fleeing the Taliban who, as she said, could find no safe passage, would be forcibly pushed back from UK waters?

[Victoria Atkins]

We are setting out safe and legal routes for Afghans who need to be resettled. As the hon. Member will know, other countries across Europe through which people are making their journeys are safe countries, and we would strongly encourage people making their way into safe countries in Europe and elsewhere to apply for asylum in those countries. The resettlement schemes are about helping people in region, and we very much hope to help the numbers that we have talked about.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Court Bill

Debate between Anne McLaughlin and Victoria Atkins

Report stage
Monday 5th July 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I rise to speak to new clause 91 and amendment 117.

Amendment 117 simply says that the Scottish Government reserve the right to amend the code of conduct governing data extraction if the UK code of conduct is not suitable for our distinct policing service. I cannot imagine why the Government would not just accept that amendment, so I look forward to hearing that they have.

New clause 91 will instruct the Secretary of State to conduct a review of the criminal offences set out in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Let us face it: after 50 years, it is high time. That argument is gaining traction across party and with good reason. One of my colleagues will be saying more about that later in the debate, so I will simply say that my support for it is wholehearted. Our approach to drug misuse and addiction should be a public health approach, because that is what saves lives.

Mr Speaker, I understand that I have unlimited time, but I can reassure you that I will talk as briefly as I can to allow other speakers to make their contribution. I will look at three areas of the Bill.

I have said before that the curbs on the right to protest are draconian and contrary to international law—it is not just me saying that, of course—and I know colleagues will say more on that shortly, but people out there need to be aware of how the provisions will impact on them. I always use the example of the WASPI women, the Women Against State Pension Inequality. I do that because, whether it is anti-war protesters, the Black Lives Matter movement or those who are desperately worried about the environment, there is always a cohort in here ready to tell us what is wrong with those protesters: how “dangerous” they are and how we need to clamp down on them.

Now, nobody is going to tell me that the Women Against State Pension Inequality are a threat to any of us. The opposite is true. These are older women who should be retired by now, but they have had their retirement stolen from them by the UK Government. So many times we have all gone across the road to join thousands of WASPI women and their supporters from all across the UK, but because of the exclusion zone to be thrown up around Parliament they will be prevented from ever doing that again. We are to hear and see nobody unless they agree with us. That is just one tiny part of the curbs on the right to protest. It is not what we expect from the so-called bastion of democracy.

I want to turn briefly to serious violence reduction orders. Members might ask why, given that they apply only to England and Wales, but here is why. I was quite shocked to hear the Home Office attempt to make a comparison between serious violence reduction orders and the work of the hugely successful Scottish Government-backed Scottish Violence Reduction Unit. The Scottish VRU adopts a public health approach to violence. I urge hon. Members not to be fooled by attempted comparisons. The underlying principle—

[Victoria Atkins]

rose—

[Anne McLaughlin]

I know that Mr Speaker is trying to create time for other people, but I will give way briefly.

[Victoria Atkins]

I just want to correct the hon. Lady. In the Bill Committee I was drawing a comparison not with the orders but with the serious violence duty, which I imagine she welcomes because we have looked carefully at the Glasgow model. We would argue that we are going further than the Scottish Government, because we are making the provision a legal duty. I hope she would support that in principle.

[Anne McLaughlin]

The underlying principle of the Violence Reduction Unit is that the causes of violence are deep-rooted and that we need a public health approach. These orders do not take a public health approach. In order to make a lasting improvement, numerous agencies have a role to play, including education, social services, health, justice and the third sector. Rather than creating barriers to education, housing and employment, the multiagency approach in Scotland actively removes them. The focus in Scotland has been on listening to the community, not dividing it. SVROs conform to outdated reactive practices. By the time one is issued, the damage has been done. The Government say they represent a public health approach, but a public health approach emphasises prevention. It is glaringly obvious when we think about it: fewer crimes create fewer victims, and that reduces demand on public services. Crime prevention is the public health model in action and that is not what these orders represent.

Finally, I support the amendments to delete part 4 of the Bill, on Travelling communities. That part of the Bill sickens me to my core. The Conservative hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) has been allowed by his party to get away with claiming that Travellers today are

“more likely to be seen leaving your garden shed at 3 o’clock in the morning…with your lawnmower”.––[Official Report, Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Public Bill Committee, 8 June 2021; c. 410.]

In other words, he is saying they are thieves. There can be no hiding from the fact that this is anything other than a full-on attack on the way of life of Gypsy Travellers. The Travelling community in Scotland are deeply concerned, as are all others across the UK.

Benefit Claimants Sanctions (Required Assessment) Bill

Debate between Anne McLaughlin and Victoria Atkins

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 2nd December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Anne McLaughlin]

If it is in order for me to say so, that is the last time I will let the hon. Gentleman intervene. When there is expenditure, it is about political choices. I choose to support people who are at their lowest, and I choose not to pay £400 million to redecorate Buckingham Palace. As he knows, I was talking about the long-term hidden costs.

[Victoria Atkins]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. She is contrasting supporting the most vulnerable with paying for Buckingham Palace. I speak on behalf of my constituents, and their median salary is £480 a week. I am not talking about Buckingham Palace; I am talking about being fair to people in my constituency who earn £480 a week. I am sure she agrees that that is not a great deal of money, and those people require fairness, just like the vulnerable people who Members on both sides of the House have mentioned.

[Anne McLaughlin]

That reminds me of a constituent who wrote to me about his benefits being sanctioned for 13 weeks and about how he is now back in work and how he hates benefits scroungers because they caused the sanctioning to happen.

[Victoria Atkins]

rose—

[Anne McLaughlin]

Will the hon. Lady let me develop my argument? That is just about turning people with very little against people with nothing. My point is that the Member for Louth and Horncastle—

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

The hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle.

[Anne McLaughlin]

The hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle, because the most important thing in this debate is that I say “hon. Member”, is it not? She said that she is not talking about Buckingham Palace, but her Government are, and she is supporting the Government to redecorate Buckingham Palace, while saying that we cannot support people.

The other thing is that the people on £480 a week may well be unemployed at some point and may well face benefit sanctions.

[Victoria Atkins]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Anne McLaughlin]

No, I will not let the hon. Lady in again.

It does not take a genius to work out that it will cost more if we put people out on the street. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South cited the figure from Crisis, which has done some studies. It found that 21% of the people it spoke to said that they became homeless as the result of a sanction. How much is it going to cost to rehouse people and to deal with the health and mental health problems that result from their having nothing, losing their home and being on the street? All sorts of figures are being batted around, but according to a story in Scotland’s Daily Record, the National Audit Office has said that, when the figures are added up, it costs £135 million more per year to implement benefits sanctions than we save by them. I think that that proves the financial argument.

On the academic argument, I have a report on welfare conditionality from the Universities of Glasgow and York. I am happy to send it to people if they want to read it. The report shows that conditionality in the welfare system does not work, if by “working” we mean that it helps people to move into employment. It does not help people into employment. The first wave of findings found that, in all the research on the impact of the current sanctioning regime, only one individual thought that sanctioning made them more active, which is less than 2% of those interviewed. Later, I will read out what somebody said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne McLaughlin]

May I just say that I think everybody is honourable in case I forget to say it again?

These are not isolated cases. My friend could not do that presentation and had to sign on because she could not afford to lose unlimited amounts of that meagre income. She had to refuse that business opportunity. The damage it did to her reputation and self-confidence was incredible. She could not say to the person inviting her to the conference, “I’m awfully sorry but I have to go and sign on that day,” because she was positioning herself as a serious business person. She lied, but did so unconvincingly and was offered no more opportunities. The impact on her self-confidence and ability to apply for further jobs or develop her business was dramatic. I know that because the person I am talking about is me.

That was only three years ago. The decision did not make me any more likely to find work; it made me far less likely to find work. I felt powerless and my confidence went. I continued to apply for jobs, but how many jobs will someone be offered when the words they write make it quite clear that they are not feeling it and do not have the confidence to do the job? If I have time, I will tell a story of being unemployed that shows why conditionality does not work, and what does work.

I have no notes on the moral argument because it should go without saying. Let us take one single person—this is not about parents who are struggling to feed their kids—who is living on £73 a week. Does any hon. Member imagine that that is easy or manageable?

[Victoria Atkins]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Anne McLaughlin]

No. I want to talk about the people who need to be talked about.

It is a struggle. If that person’s washing machine breaks down, they cannot get it fixed on £73 a week. They have holes in the bottom of their shoes and it is raining non-stop—perhaps that is just a Glasgow thing—and cannot afford to buy new shoes. They cannot afford to be part of what their friends and family are part of. The Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) said that they can apply for 60% of their benefits, which means they can get £40 a week if they know about it and if they are successful. They cannot live on £73 a week, never mind £40 a week. That is immoral. The only reason for sanctioning is to say to people, “You are too lazy and you are workshy.” It is punishment and that is all it is.

I had bad and good experiences. My good experience was that I had an adviser who had faith in me. He built my confidence. I had already been a Member of the Scottish Parliament. It was not as if I was lacking in confidence, but it goes instantly when people are treated as if they are children, or as if they are work shy and do not want to go out and earn their own living. Nobody wants not to work. There are reasons why people do not apply for work, and we need to investigate them. They might be lacking in confidence. I have met so many people who say, “Who would employ me?” So they are not applying for jobs because they think, “Who would employ me?” Nobody is helping them and people are taking their money away from them, so that they lose even more confidence. It is unacceptable and it just does not work.

I have not seen the film, “I, Daniel Blake”; I just need to go to a constituency surgery; I do not need to see the film. However, I will see it and we should all thank Ken Loach for making it—I want everyone to see it. I am not saying that members of the Conservative party do not know anything about real life—I would not say that—but for those who have not experienced anything like this situation, please go and watch it. Government Members said it was fiction but it is based on fact.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne McLaughlin]

I will not give way to somebody with lots of power; I want to talk about people with no power. The reality is that the true motivation behind these sanctions is political ideology that says, “We are better than you”.

Now, if this Bill is not passed today—I am guessing that we will not get it through today—[Interruption.] There they go again, Madam Deputy Speaker, telling me that I do not have the right to speak. I am sick of hearing that in this House. It is important that what we are saying to people here is—

[Victoria Atkins]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that passions are running high in the Chamber but I do please ask the hon. Lady to reflect what Members across the Chamber are saying—

Psychoactive Substances Bill [Lords]

Debate between Anne McLaughlin and Victoria Atkins

Wednesday 20th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

I am sure that the hon. Lady knows that the situation she has just described in which youths place an order with a dealer and then distribute the substance among their friends is entirely consistent with the law as set out in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. The message is that if you buy the drug and then distribute it, you are a supplier in the eyes of the law. I would be interested to know why she thinks there should be a distinction between these substances and the more serious drugs that are dealt with under the 1971 Act. Surely we are still trying to achieve the same aim: to stop the supply of harmful substances.

[Anne McLaughlin]

My understanding was that we were trying not to mirror the Misuse of Drugs Act. We have moved on, and this Bill is not about criminalising individuals for possession, as they can be under the Act. The Bill does not have to mirror the Act exactly. The key issue is the effect that criminalising a young person for a foolish mistake can have on their life chances. Drugs blight enough lives already—that is certainly the case in my constituency—and we do not need to penalise someone who is acting on behalf of his or her peer group, a small group of friends, without any financial motive. These young people are not drug suppliers. Obviously, we might question the sense of their decision to buy drugs, but it should not be a criminal offence. A young person could be pressurised by their peer group to purchase these substances, and they might do so in order to gain the recognition of their peers, but if they were caught they could end up with a substantial criminal conviction.

[Victoria Atkins]

Surely the point is to introduce clarity to the young people that the hon. Lady is describing. Ecstasy is a class A drug, and if a young person buys it, they risk going to prison for a very long time if they are prosecuted and convicted. If a young person buys one of these new psychoactive substances that is minimally different from MDMA, and the dealers get round the problem by saying that it is just a little bit different from ecstasy and therefore does not fall under the 1971 Act, that young person could be placed in a very difficult position. They would have to be a scientist to know the difference between the two substances. My question is: should we not be encouraging clarity to differentiate between those drugs, to enable young people to know that they should not be buying those substances and distributing them?

[Anne McLaughlin]

I am not arguing that we should not be discouraging young people in that way. I am arguing that if someone buys these substances for themselves and a couple of friends, we should not criminalise them as though they were drug dealers when they clearly are not. I worry that, further down the line, Members of this House will be contacted by the parents of someone who has foolishly purchased such a substance on behalf of himself and one or two friends and has been convicted of supplying drugs. That young person’s life chances would be greatly diminished. Of course we hope they will be discouraged by our telling them what will happen to them if they make these purchases, but I certainly do not think we should punish them and label them as a drug dealer for stupidly buying stuff for their friends. On the whole, people pass a strong moral judgment on anyone with any kind of a conviction relating to drugs, but an even stronger judgment is passed on anyone convicted of supplying drugs. We are talking about a young person getting these substances for himself and his friends, not a young person who has become a drug dealer, yet that is what the conviction would be for.

Donald Trump

Debate between Anne McLaughlin and Victoria Atkins

Monday 18th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Victoria Atkins]

My hon. Friend reaches my point before me. I promise to deal with New York values at the end of my speech.

I turn, as I must, to Mr Trump. His comments about Muslims are wrong. His policy to close borders, if he is elected as President, is bonkers. If he met one or two of my constituents in one of the many excellent pubs in my constituency, they may well tell him that he is a wazzock for dealing with the issue in that way. I sense that my constituents, whether in New York or Tetney, in Minting or Mablethorpe, feel that their values are more than robust enough to survive anything that Mr Trump may say. We in Lincolnshire—in fact, we in the United Kingdom—should have enough confidence in our values to allow him to say whatever he wants in New York, New York, or in New York, Lincolnshire, or anywhere else in the world, because our British values are stronger than some among us here today appear to fear.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Does the hon. Lady understand that it is all very well for us to say, “We feel strong and we can withstand this, so you can criticise and offend and we will stand up to you,” but she and I are not Muslims living in a country where Islamophobia is already rising? Comments such as his, from someone who has such influence over so many people and is getting so much media exposure, can only harm not people like us, but those on the streets who feel vulnerable. They do not feel as strong as she and her constituents claim to feel.

[Victoria Atkins]

I can only give the hon. Lady reassurance. As someone who used to prosecute criminals for a living before I came to this place, any defendant who tried that on in court would get very short shrift from me and, I am sure, from the jury. We must not allow people who behave in such a disgraceful way—criminals who beat up other people on the basis of their religion or beliefs—to remove themselves from that by blaming someone on a different continent. If they beat up a Muslim on the streets of Britain, that is their responsibility and no one else’s.

One of the values that best sums up our country is the freedom to exchange thoughts and ideas within the law—the freedom to persuade or rebut; the freedom to inspire or eviscerate in argument; the freedom to speak; and the freedom to listen. That freedom is not always comfortable. Indeed, my hon. Friends the Members for South Dorset (Richard Drax) and for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) referred to the rising problem in some of our universities about allowing free speech and providing safe spaces for it, for fear that people may be offended, but the freedom of speech must mean that we will sometimes be offended. It means allowing those whose views we hold to be unedifying to speak their minds. Crucially, it also means the freedom to reply—to say, “No, Donald Trump, you are wrong, and you are wrong for the following reasons.” That freedom was hard won over centuries and it must be defended jealously, because it goes to the essence of democracy and the rule of law.

Opposition Members may rely on the argument of consistency—indeed, one Member said, “So-and-so has been excluded, so Mr Trump must be excluded.” Let us remind ourselves of the threshold that must be met for that to happen. The Home Secretary must conclude that the person’s presence in the United Kingdom is not conducive to the public good.

The House of Commons Library helpfully provided a briefing paper for the debate, which gives 14 examples of people who had been excluded by Labour Home Secretaries by May 2009. Of those, 10 were considered to be engaging in “unacceptable behaviour” by seeking to foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence. Nine were considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour in order to provoke others to commit terrorist acts or serious crimes. Five were considered to be fostering hatred that might lead to inter-community violence in the UK and one had spent 30 years in prison for killing four soldiers and a four-year-old girl.

I ask a simple question of those who would ban Donald Trump: are they really saying that his conduct, no matter how offensive it may be, meets those criteria? If Donald Trump poses any question for us as a country, the answer is not to fuel his publicity by talking about banning him—incidentally, this debate is doing that nicely—but to rebut his arguments. The answer is to challenge him in a robust, democratic argument on why he is wrong about the contribution of American and British Muslims to this country.