Public Order Bill

Debate between Chris Philp and Stuart C McDonald

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

The way my right hon. Friend puts it is good. It is in exactly those circumstances, where the police are concerned that one of the specified crimes may be committed, that they can use this power. Those crimes are specified in clause 11(1), and include offences under section 137 of the Highways Act 1980—that is wilfully obstructing the highway—offences under section 78 of the relatively new Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which involve

“intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance”,

and various offences under the Bill, which include causing serious disruption by

“tunnelling…being present in a tunnel… obstruction etc of major transport works”,

interfering with critical national infrastructure, as well as “locking on”, which I think is the point made by my right hon. Friend.

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

This was raised the last time we had this debate, but the Minister mentioned the crime of nuisance. The threshold for that is incredibly low. An inspector could be concerned that there was a chance that someone would commit this offence by being seriously annoying or inconveniencing somebody, and then we let loose suspicionless stop and search of hundreds, potentially thousands, of people, for no further reason than that. Is that not a ludicrously low threshold for triggering these search powers?

[Chris Philp]

I am not sure I entirely agree. The offence of intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance is set out in section 78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, and I do not accept the characterisation of that offence as simply a minor one. Causing huge inconvenience to other members of the public is not something that this House should treat lightly, particularly as we have seen examples in recent protests of ambulances not getting through, and of people unable to get their children to school or to attend medical appointments. I am not sure I accept that characterisation.

A number of changes have been proposed in Lords amendments 6B to 6F. They first propose a higher level of authorisation for suspicionless searches. By the way, the other place is not disputing the principle; it is simply seeking to change some of the thresholds, one of which would involve changing the authority level in a way that would be inconsistent with the use of searches under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 in other contexts.

Another change relates to the time periods. As Lord Hogan-Howe, a former commissioner of the Metropolitan police, pointed out, the use of the power has to be practical and reducing the time threshold to just 12 hours would limit the ability of police forces to use these powers in a meaningful way. We should take seriously the opinion of the noble Lord who used to be the Met commissioner.

The changes proposed in the other place would also require a chief superintendent to provide authorisation for this matter, when an inspector is acceptable under the existing section 60. I think that overlooks the urgency and speed with which these protests can unfold, and the speed at which decisions need to be made. It also has potential to cause confusion if there is a different level of seniority here, compared with the well-established section 60.

Finally, the amendments proposed in the other place would set out in statute a requirement for the forces to communicate the geographical extent of an order. The Government recognise that communication of any power is important for understanding and transparency. I am aware that most forces already communicate their section 60 authorisations—I have seen that happen frequently in Croydon and it is gratefully received when it happens. But, for consistency, it is important to keep these new powers as close as we can to existing legislation, although the Government encourage forces to communicate any use of this power, in the way they already do for a section 60 order, where it is operationally beneficial to do so. There is a lot to be said for consistency, which is why I respectfully encourage Members of this House to gently and politely disagree with the other place in their amendments 6B to 6F.

Public Order Bill

Debate between Chris Philp and Stuart C McDonald

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 7th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

In just a moment.

As the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) correctly said in an intervention, these so-called suspicionless stop and searches can only take place in the absence of personal suspicion, when an officer of the rank of inspector or above believes, or has reason to believe, that in the next 24 hours a number of offences may be committed in the locality. That reasonable belief is required before any suspicionless stop and search can take place, and even then it is time-bound to a period of 24 hours. We think that that is proportionate. We have heard some views from the police and, in particular, from the His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary, which has said: “On balance, our view is that, with appropriate guidance and robust and effective safeguards, the proposed stop and search powers would have the potential to improve police efficiency and effectiveness in preventing disruption and making the public safe.” So this is something that HMIC has supported.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I think we all accept that suspicionless stop and search can be triggered quite rightly, for example if there is a danger of terrorism, but the Bill now allows it to take place when, for instance, there could be a danger that someone somewhere might commit a public nuisance or lock themselves to a fence. That could lead to hundreds or even thousands of suspicionless searches, which is surely disproportionate.

[Chris Philp]

I do not accept that. When there is a reasonable suspicion that in the next 24 hours offences may be committed which may themselves have a profoundly disruptive effect on members of the public, it is reasonable to prevent that. Let me point the hon. Gentleman to the example of the protests on the M25 last November, when a 10-mile tailback was caused. I suggest that preventing that would be a reasonable thing to do.

Lords amendment 17 deals with the question of journalists. As I have said previously, although the law as it stands does protect journalists—in fact, an apology rapidly followed the arrest of the journalist in Hertfordshire —the Government accept that clarification and reaffirmation of journalistic freedom is important, so we accept the spirit and the principle of the amendment. We have improved the wording slightly in our amendment in lieu, but we accept that journalists need special protection.

Lords amendments 18, 19 and 20 deal with serious disruption prevention orders. There has been some confusion over this, on both sides of the House, so I will reiterate the point for the purpose of complete clarity. The Government have accepted the point made in the Lords that a conviction is required before a serious disruption prevention order can be made. That is a significant concession. However, we do not accept Lords amendment 20, because clause 20—as formerly numbered —simply allows for an application to be made at a time after conviction, but a conviction must previously have taken place. We have therefore tabled an amendment in lieu.

I think it important to emphasise that there will be a free vote on buffer zones, at least on the Government side, because it concerns an issue of conscience, namely abortion. There is no Government position on this matter, and Members will vote according to their consciences. We have heard Members on both sides of the House speak about this issue passionately and with conviction.

Hillsborough Families Report: National Police Response

Debate between Chris Philp and Stuart C McDonald

Wednesday 1st February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.

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

May I also start by commending the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) and his colleagues not just on securing the urgent question, but on all their campaigning work on behalf of survivors and families affected by Hillsborough? The persistence, bravery and decency of the people of Liverpool over these 34 years has been utterly extraordinary in the face of cover-up and smear, but they need more than warm words—they need a comprehensive response. The long overdue police report, while a start, does not provide a complete response. That needs the Government, and we should have had a Government response before now.

As Bishop Jones has said, the wait has been “intolerable”, and the families are speaking about the bishop’s report gathering dust. I appreciate that questions are being raised that will not be answered today, in the light of the announcement of a spring publication, but can the Minister at least assure us that when that long overdue response from the Government is published, we can have a full debate on the Floor of the House on its findings?

Secondly, the Minister referred to engagement with the families. There has been some good engagement, but there have been some ropy times as well, so can he say a little more about what form that engagement will take going forward?

[Chris Philp]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for the sentiments he expressed, which I completely understand. In relation to a full debate, scheduling business in the House is not my responsibility, but it would seem to me like a reasonable request to make, and I will certainly pass it on to my colleagues who are responsible for scheduling parliamentary business. Families have been fully engaged. One reason why the independent pathology review, which had been commenced, has been temporarily paused is to allow for more engagement to take place, because families rightly felt that they wanted to be more involved. That engagement is continuing. Critically, before the Government response is published, there will be more such engagement, for the obvious reasons that the hon. Gentleman rightly points to.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Chris Philp and Stuart C McDonald

2nd reading
Tuesday 20th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)]

I thank all Members who have spoken in this extremely thorough two-day debate.

The public expect this House to protect our borders, they expect us to combat the dinghies crossing the English channel and they expect us to remove those with no right to be here. This Bill will deliver those people’s priorities. The Labour MPs who say those priorities are somehow racist are not only wrong, but they are insulting our fellow citizens who rightly want proper border control. The Bill is fair but firm: fair to those in genuine need, but firm towards those seeking to abuse the system. Let me reiterate the Government’s commitment to supporting those in genuine need. Of course, we cannot help all 80 million displaced people around the world who may wish to come here, but we will play our part.

First, we are continuing our world-leading resettlement programme. We are working with the UNHCR. We resettle the world’s most vulnerable. We have resettled 25,000 people in the last six years—more than any other European country—half of them children. We will be strengthening that arrangement by immediately granting indefinite leave to remain to those entering via the resettlement programme. I am concerned about the poor integration outcomes in the resettlement scheme—fewer than 5% are in work after a year—so we are going to do more on integration. We are also going to draw in a wider range of persecuted people, recognising, for example, that the most persecuted group globally are persecuted Christians, whom we should make an effort to look after as well.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The Minister talks of what the public expect, but one thing I do not think they would expect is for this Government to create a criminal offence that would see a Uyghur fleeing genocide in China, a Syrian fleeing war crimes or indeed a persecuted Christian who gets here without a visa subject, potentially, to a four-year prison sentence under this Bill.

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Gentleman mentions Syrians fleeing war crimes. Our resettlement programme has principally focused on Syrians fleeing war crimes, who, via the UNHCR working in the region, have been able, safely and legally, to come to this country in greater numbers than are seen in any other European resettlement programme. That is quicker, safer and easier than illegally crossing the channel in a dinghy. We are not just running Europe’s resettlement programme; as we speak, we are bringing locally engaged staff from Afghanistan to the UK, and we have opened up a route for British nationals overseas from Hong Kong to come here, escaping the oppressive regime of the Chinese Communist party. In addition, 29,000 people have come in the past six years as part of refugees family reunions. So when the Opposition claim that we are not offering safe and legal routes, that is simply not true.

The Scottish nationalists have been saying that Scotland would like to do more. I am very disappointed, as I said in my intervention, when I was able to get in, that out of the 32 local authorities in Scotland only one, Glasgow, takes dispersed asylum seekers. If Scotland wants to do more, they have the opportunity to do so. Moreover, when it comes to taking unaccompanied asylum seeking children under the national transfer scheme, Scotland took only a very small handful of the 600 or so who were transferred last year. Scottish National party Members cannot talk about money, because those children have more than £50,000 a year of funding going with them. There are children right now in Dover who need to be looked after, so I call on the Scottish Government to put action behind their words and take some of those children on—tonight. They do not need independence to do that; they can do it now.

Let me be clear: we will always play our part for those in genuine need, but we should choose who deserves our help. Illegal immigration undermines that choice. Instead of the UK being able to choose the children and families most in need, illegal immigration instead allows those who pay people smugglers or who are strong to push their way to the front of the queue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Philp]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his very timely intervention and I agree with what he says. This Bill contains provisions such that people arriving by small boat and other illegal means will be liable to prosecution and a four-year jail term, and people smugglers will face a life sentence. This Bill also gives Border Force the powers it needs to make interceptions at sea. Let me be clear: nothing in this Bill would have made the Kindertransport from the 1930s illegal. That was an authorised and organised programme that would be perfectly legal. Indeed it is rather analogous to the safe and legal route we are at this very moment offering locally engaged staff from Afghanistan. Let me also reassure the House, and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), that there is no intention in this Bill to criminalise bona fide, genuine rescue operations by the RNLI.

Let me also be clear that nothing in this Bill infringes our international obligations. Opposition Members should study article 31 of the refugee convention, which makes it clear that it is permitted to impose penalties where someone has not come “directly” from a place of danger and where they did not have a reasonable opportunity to claim asylum somewhere else.[Official Report, 22 July 2021, Vol. 699, c. 10MC.] The people coming from France are not coming directly from a place of danger, as required by article 31, and they did have a reasonable chance to claim asylum in France. These measures are wholly consistent with our international obligations.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

rose—

[Chris Philp]

I must finish soon. I apologise.

My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) asked about the legal system, which also needs reform as it is open to abuse. People make repeated human rights claims to asylum and modern slavery claims, which are often strung out over many years in an effort to avoid removal. Very often those claims are later found to be without merit. For example, in 2017, 83% of the last-minute claims that were raised in detention to frustrate removal were later found to be without merit. I have seen terrible examples of murderers and rapists making last-minute claims, without merit, to avoid deportation. It is not just me saying that. Let me quote what the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Burnett of Maldon, said in a judgment last October:

“Late claims raised shortly before…removal have been endemic, many fanciful or entirely false…It is a matter of regret that a minority of lawyers have lent their professional…support to vexatious representations and abusive late legal challenges.”

In those remarks, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales is saying that change is needed.

The Bill also contains measures on age assessment. We are the only European country not to use scientific age assessment. Recent evaluations in Kent concerning 92 people claiming to be children later found that half were not. There are obvious and serious safeguarding issues if men who are 23 years old, for example, successfully pretend to be under 18 and get housed or educated with 16-year-old girls. We cannot tolerate that.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Chris Philp and Stuart C McDonald

2nd reading
Monday 19th July 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I am afraid that I regard this as a dreadful Bill, and the Refugee Council was absolutely right to characterise it as the “anti-refugee” Bill. There are eight welcome clauses on nationality, but thereafter what we see risks trampling international convention after international convention, and vulnerable children, stateless children and victims of trafficking will all pay a penalty. Nowhere is the retreat from international law, international co-operation and basic human decency more apparent than in the absolute trashing of the refugee convention as it approaches its 70th birthday. A convention that has saved and protected countless millions of people is being undermined by one of its first champion countries.

Refugees and asylum seekers—we have skirted over this so far—will be criminalised, stripped of their rights and offshored. That is true whether they are Uyghurs fleeing atrocities in China, Syrians fleeing war crimes or persecuted Christians seeking refuge here. The Bill does absolutely nothing to stop them getting in boats in France; what it does is punish them when they get here. That is morally reprehensible.

It is not just the Bill’s awful ends that justifies the Scottish National party refusing it a Second Reading and stopping it in its tracks but the means by which it seeks to pursue those ends. We are talking about a unilateral rewriting or reinterpretation of our obligations under international law. That is, once more, a hugely dangerous precedent to set. It will make our international partners query whether this country gives two hoots about international law and keeping its word.

Secondly, to put it directly, what we have here is a deliberate policy decision to inflict harm on people seeking sanctuary by criminalising them, splitting them from their family, forcing them into destitution, putting them in legal limbo and offshoring them. That is not just ineffective and dangerous, but morally outrageous.

Not only is the Bill the opposite of the right solution, but it wrongly identifies the problem that needs solving. The problem in the asylum system is simply down to the incompetent management of it by this Home Office and this Government. We live in a world in which 80 million people have been forcibly displaced, and 30 million of them are outside their country of origin and are therefore refugees. Four million of them are asylum seekers pursuing recognition as refugees. Some 86% of them are hosted in developing countries, 73% in neighbouring countries.

What we are asking of wealthy western countries barely scratches the surface of their share of responsibility. In European terms, what has been asked of the UK is very little at all. I applaud and support everything that has been achieved through the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme and other resettlement programmes, but none of it justifies what the Government propose today.

The Government regularly trot out that they have resettled more Syrian refugees than other European countries. In absolute terms that is true but, per head of population, neighbours such as Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Finland and Ireland have all resettled more. Yes, although the UK resettled a few thousand more Syrians than Germany and France, those two countries have offered sanctuary to more Syrians through their asylum systems by massive margins.

In 2019, the UK received around five applications for asylum per 10,000 people, compared with the European average of 14, putting the UK 17th in the table of member states, just behind Italy, Finland and Ireland. Similarly, the UK granted roughly two applications per 10,000 people, compared with the European average of 13, putting it 16th in the table. Yes, although by international standards the UK has a decent history of offering protection, let us not pretend that it has been bearing an unbearable burden that entitles it to rip up the refugee convention and start trying to pass refugees back up the chain to those that already do much more.

The real problem, as we have heard, is that the Home Office’s handling of asylum cases is abysmal. We have heard the extraordinary figures on how long it is taking, and it is not just the length of time it takes to make a decision but the number of decisions that it gets wrong. We are at record levels of successful appeals—it is almost 50:50.

It is not just statistics that cause grave concern but the regular stories of life inside the Home Office: impossible targets, a culture of fear, ill-treatment of staff, high staff turnover, a shortage of skilled asylum caseworkers and administrative chaos. Asylum decision making is a matter of life and death, and it seems clear to me that it should no longer be entrusted to the Home Office, a Department that has again shown itself to be unfit for that purpose. Such decisions should be removed from political interference and entrusted to an independent body, as they are in Canada. That would be a sensible approach.

[Chris Philp]

What about democratic oversight?

[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—

[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.

[Chris Philp]

Just like in any other European country.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Well, the dentistry profession and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees say that it is not accurate and it is entirely unethical.

The Home Secretary is also making it harder to identify victims of modern slavery and cutting their recovery period to the minimum allowed in international law.

There is so much that should be in the Bill that is not. I mention just one thing: the failure to end the disgracefully painful 10-year route to settlement that many essentially British kids face and the outrageous fees that others are charged for registering their entitlement to British citizenship. When will that finally be done? This is an abysmal and, indeed, shameful Bill. It does not remotely deserve a Second Reading.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Philp and Stuart C McDonald

Monday 12th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

My right hon. Friend is quite right to point out that countries such as France and Germany are obviously safe and that someone genuinely in need of protection or asylum can claim asylum quite properly and easily in such countries rather than attempting dangerous and unnecessary crossings over the English channel. Notwithstanding the CPS’s recent announcement, we can, do and will prosecute people who organise and pilot dangerous boat crossings across the English channel for gain or with the intention of avoiding immigration controls. The Bill, which will receive its Second Reading next week, critically contains provisions that will close some of the loopholes that may have led to the CPS’s recent decision and will make it clear that any attempt to arrive in the United Kingdom from a safe place, such as France, will be rightly treated as a criminal offence.

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

Each year, about 5,000 or so family members benefit from refugee family reunion rights, 90% of whom are women and children. Depriving refugees of family reunion rights would drive many of those women and children straight into the arms of despicable people smugglers through desperation to be reunited with their loved ones. Why on earth will the Government provide exactly that massive bonus to people smugglers through their nasty anti-refugee Bill?

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Gentleman is misinformed and misguided on this point. There is no plan to weaken or undermine the refugee family reunion provisions that have been used by 29,000 people in the last six years. In addition, in the last five or six years we have been operating Europe’s largest resettlement programme, which has seen an additional 25,000 people come to the UK directly from places from danger. Because we have these effective and well-used safe and legal routes, it is reasonable—indeed, it is our responsibility—to clamp down on the people smugglers who are exploiting migrants and charging them money to make an unnecessary and dangerous journey, often across the English channel from France, which is patently a safe country. No one needs to leave France to claim asylum. It could be quite easily and properly claimed in France.

Napier Barracks Asylum Accommodation

Debate between Chris Philp and Stuart C McDonald

Thursday 10th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

The judgment, as I said earlier, did not find that the conditions were inhuman or degrading, and it did not find that using dormitory or barrack accommodation was inherently unsuitable, so I agree with the spirit of my hon. Friend’s question.

We certainly need to reform the system. The people who are coming across the English channel on small boats are making a journey that is not only dangerous and illegal, but unnecessary. France is a safe country, Germany is a safe country, Belgium is a safe country and Italy is a safe country. The right thing to do—the safe thing to do, and the legal thing to do—is to claim asylum in the first available place. In relation to his last question, yes, all options are being considered.

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

The utterly damning judgment said expressly that if the MOD had treated soldiers in this way, that, too, would have been unlawful. But let us just run with the idea that this was six soldiers instead of six asylum seekers, and they were put in conditions where a covid outbreak was inevitable, where the fire inspectorate highlighted serious or significant risk of harm, where self-harm and attempts at suicide were occurring because of the prison camp conditions, and where failed screening processes meant that that group of soldiers included those who were particularly vulnerable to covid or mental ill health. Imagine MPs were then told that use of the accommodation was all based on Public Health England advice, without us ever getting to see that advice, and then a court case established that the opposite was true. [Interruption.] Yes—only thanks to the court case.

Knowingly placing soldiers or anyone else into a covid trap and a fire trap would lead to outrage, resignations and sackings. Why are the consequences not exactly the same when it is six torture and trafficking survivors from Eritrea or Sudan? Will the Minister apologise for telling the House that conditions at Napier were good enough for the armed services? If he thinks that, it is insulting to the armed services. Will he accept that the conditions are not good enough for the Government to use the barracks for any cohort of people, and what does he think the Home Secretary can learn from the precedent of Amber Rudd’s resignation for inadvertently misleading the Home Affairs Committee?

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Gentleman talks about the publication of the public health guidance. It was published online. He said it was only published because of the court case. It was published on 15 December—long before the court case was registered.

The hon. Member said the people there were sick. There are screening criteria to make sure that people who should not go there do not go there. If they become vulnerable during the time of occupation, they get moved out. I should also add that the people accommodated there are all young single men, almost entirely aged between 18 and 40. On the number who got covid—along with 5 million, or more than 5 million, other people in this country—not a single person was hospitalised that I am aware of. That is why we are taking further steps to make sure the site is covid-secure. I have listed some of them already: lateral flow testing three times a week now, numbers being reduced and enhanced cleaning. Those are sensible steps in response to the pandemic and in response to the court judgment.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Philp and Stuart C McDonald

Monday 7th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Fundamentally, this is a UK success story. This system is working, as evidenced by the 5.4 million applications and the 4.9 million grants. To be honest, given all the prognostications of gloom and doom that we heard a couple of years ago, this has been an astonishing success story. If any Member of Parliament has any particular case where a constituent has encountered difficulties, please send it in to my colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay, or to the Home Secretary, and we will make sure it gets dealt with quickly. We are completely committed to making sure that everybody who is entitled to EUSS status, which is many millions of people, gets that status, which they deserve.

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

First, we pass on our condolences and best wishes to the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster) and his family.

Despite our fundamental disagreements about the design of the scheme, we do all want it to succeed, but we are concerned that a lot of questions still remain outstanding at this late stage. One of the most fundamental is what happens when tens—possibly hundreds—of thousands put in a late application and have to wait for a decision? Will an EU national still be able to keep working as a carer in our NHS in the meantime, for example, or to rent the flat that they are staying in while they are waiting weeks and possibly months for a decision? Surely the answer to that must be yes. But is it?

[Chris Philp]

The answer is yes. Providing the application is received by 30 June, while the application is being considered—and if it is made on 30 June, clearly it will be decided after 30 June—that particular person will be able to continue working and living as normal with status. So the critical point is to make sure that the application is made by 30 June.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Philp and Stuart C McDonald

Tuesday 16th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

I ask the House to be aware that these deductions pay not only for fines, but for compensation to victims, and we should be mindful of that. These orders are ultimately made by a judge, who, in making the order, has discretion and will take someone’s circumstances into account. I repeat the point that I made previously: if someone is experiencing difficulty, it is always open to them to go back to the court to have the order remitted, either in part or in whole.

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

If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Philp and Stuart C McDonald

Monday 8th February 2021 Commons Chamber

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

The repurposing of disused Army barracks to house asylum seekers is proving a disaster and a disgrace. What is worse, the leaked impact assessment shows that this dreadful policy was justified by wild notions that proper support and accommodation could undermine public confidence in the asylum system. In short, the Home Office was pandering to gutter politics. Will the Home Office apologise for suggesting that people in the UK oppose decent support and care for asylum seekers, and close these barracks urgently?

[Chris Philp]

No apology is due. As I just said, the barrack accommodation units in question were previously used by the brave men and women of our armed services. They were good enough for the armed services and they are certainly more than good enough for people who have arrived in this country seeking asylum. We fully comply with all the relevant guidelines.

On the hon. Gentleman’s question about this country’s stance on asylum seekers, we now spend getting on for £1 billion a year on accommodating them. That record bears comparison with any country in Europe and, indeed, around the world. No apology is due and certainly none will be made.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The sad fact is that the policy undermines the UK’s reputation as a welcoming place. Almost as bad as the impact assessment are the Home Office claims that people who criticise the use of barracks are insulting our armed forces: it is the Home Office that insults our soldiers by using them as cover for such disgraceful policies.

The former senior military legal adviser Lieutenant Colonel Mercer has agreed that it is “wholly inappropriate” to house asylum seekers in disused Army barracks, saying that

“this treatment is nothing more than naked hostility to very vulnerable people.”

If the Minister will not listen to me, will he listen to Lieutenant Colonel Mercer and a host of respected medical organisations and close the barracks quickly?

[Chris Philp]

The closure of the barracks would be made a lot easier if more councils in Scotland—other than only Glasgow—would accept dispersed accommodation. That is the sort of thing that puts pressure on our accommodation estate. Thanks to the generosity of our approach, the number of people we are accommodating has gone up from 48,000 to 61,000 during the pandemic, because we have taken a thoughtful and protective approach. That is the right thing to do and we stand by it.

Immigration Rules: Supported Accommodation

Debate between Chris Philp and Stuart C McDonald

Wednesday 16th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. As he says, I think these proposals and this approach will command widespread public support. The public do not understand why people should cross the English channel in dangerous circumstances, facilitated by criminals, when they could perfectly easily claim asylum in France or somewhere else, which is of course what they should do. Characteristically, he makes an extremely pertinent and prescient point about the legal process, which the new Bill next year will most certainly address. At the moment, it is possible to bring a series of claims over a period of time—repetitively, sometimes vexatiously and sometimes even in contradiction with one another—with the express purpose in mind of preventing, frustrating or delaying the proper application of our immigration rules. We will be legislating to prevent that kind of abuse of the legal process, and I look forward to working with him on making that law a reality.

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

I thank the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) for securing this urgent question. It seems to me that this is not about fixing the asylum system; rather, it is about blocking access to it, leaving people in limbo and undermining the refugee convention in doing so. The Minister has focused on the channel, but putting aside those crossing the channel, can he be clear on what percentage of asylum applicants the Department thinks is likely to be impacted by these inadmissibility rules and left in limbo? Can he be clearer on what statutory support and accommodation will be available to those who are put in that limbo situation? If this is really about replacing Dublin, surely we must wait to see what replacement agreements are concluded and what safeguards are in place before being asked to look at these changes.

Finally, if the Government are serious about fixing the asylum system, will they start by addressing yesterday’s news of 29 deaths in asylum accommodation this year alone? Can we have a clear Government commitment and published policy to record and investigate such deaths, to support the bereaved and to learn lessons so as to prevent further tragedies? Surely creating a legal limbo of several months will only make things worse, not better.

[Chris Philp]

First, as I have said, the people in this cohort will not be in limbo, because after a reasonable period, if no return to another country is possible, the asylum claim will be substantively considered here. The possibility of limbo that the hon. Gentleman referred to does not exist, as I have said twice already.

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman raised the question of destitution. As I said in response to the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), the people in this cohort will be eligible for accommodation and support, so the risk of destitution, which would be in contravention of article 3, does not exist either.

The hon. Gentleman asked about people crossing the channel and referenced the refugee convention. He will know that article 31 of the refugee convention talks about people

“coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened”

being immune to various forms of penalty. He will know that France is a safe country where people’s life and freedom are not threatened. Human rights are respected in France. Asylum claims can be processed in France and, indeed, in other countries through which this cohort typically pass prior to their arrival in France. That deals with the questions that he raised.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the very sad deaths in accommodation, every single one of which is, of course, a tragedy. I remind him that we have 60,000 people in asylum accommodation. While each individual case is very sad, if he studies the statistics he will see that the numbers are not out of line with what we would expect among a population of 60,000 people.

Scheduled Mass Deportation: Jamaica

Debate between Chris Philp and Stuart C McDonald

Monday 30th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s sentiments. This is about protecting the British public. I am aware of cases where people have been removed from the deportation or removal programme owing to various appeals and have then gone on to commit crimes against our fellow citizens. It is precisely the kind of repeat crimes that damage our fellow citizens, our constituents, that we are seeking to prevent.

In relation to the celebrities and everything they have been saying, they should pay attention to the fact that, as I said before, the majority of removals and deportations are to European countries, and any suggestion that there is a racial element to this is obviously confounded by a straightforward look at the facts. Over half of the flights are to European countries. Less than 1% of removals in the past year have been to Jamaica, and anyone who is assisting the Home Office in those flights is doing a service to the country by protecting our fellow citizens.

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

While some deportation decisions are clear cut, many more involve careful balancing exercises weighing up a whole range of factors. The problem is that it is very difficult to trust the Home Office to make those judgment calls as week after week its policies and practices are torn to pieces in report after report. Stephen Shaw, in his Government-commissioned report, said that the deportation and removal of people brought up here from a young age was “deeply troubling” and entirely “disproportionate”. Why not act on that advice and exclude in law the deportation of those who have spent their childhood years here?

More broadly, why not commission Stephen Shaw to review the whole framework on deportation ? Until something like that happens, we simply cannot and will not have any faith in those decisions. The Minister appears to repeatedly conflate deportations and removals, so can he give us the separate figures for deportations only?

[Chris Philp]

In relation to deportations only, the 1% figure is very similar to the figure for removals more generally. In relation to the hon. Gentleman’s point about Stephen Shaw, we did not accept his recommendation about age back in 2018, and we do not accept it now. We remain fully committed to implementing the obligations imposed by the UK Borders Act 2007, as passed by the last Labour Government. In terms of due process and decision making, of course there is an extensive set of legal processes that anyone is able to avail themselves of, and they frequently do. I mentioned that just a few days ago somebody convicted of murder got themselves taken off the flight by launching just such an appeal, so there are plenty of processes—I say that advisedly—that people can avail themselves of if they disagree with any particular decision.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Chris Philp and Stuart C McDonald

Monday 28th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)]

As another Croydon MP, I would like to add my words to those of my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), and pay tribute to Sergeant Ratana and his long track record of service to our local community. Everybody in the borough, from north to south, feels it deeply. Our sympathy and condolences go to his family at what must be an agonising and heartbreaking time.

On the question of resettlement, we are continuing to welcome family reunion cases, as we are obliged to do under the Dublin regulations, including from Greece—in fact, particularly from Greece. Already this summer, three flights have brought in refugees to reunite them with family members in the United Kingdom, so we are continuing to discharge our obligations.

[Stuart C. McDonald [V]]

Conditions on the Aegean islands were an overcrowded living hell for asylum seekers, even before the fire at Moria left 13,000 homeless. Given what the Home Secretary said to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) about the importance of safe legal routes, surely the Government must now join Germany and France in offering to relocate some of the most vulnerable asylum seekers from the Aegean islands, even beyond those for whom they have responsibility under family reunion rules.

[Chris Philp]

We are investigating ways that the United Kingdom Government can help our colleagues in Greece. That includes the possibility of using overseas aid money to assist them, as well as looking at people who are entitled to be relocated to the UK under the Dublin regulations, and at what we can do to assist and expedite that process.

Channel Crossings in Small Boats

Debate between Chris Philp and Stuart C McDonald

Wednesday 2nd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) for her tireless campaigning on this issue. She has done a huge amount of work in this policy area. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) is absolutely right: people who are genuinely seeking a safe refuge could and should claim that refuge in the first country they reach. The people arriving in Dover yesterday and today have left from France, which is a safe country with a well-functioning asylum system. If their principal objective was to seek refuge from persecution, they could easily have done that in France or, indeed, any of the other countries through which they passed before they arrived in Calais.

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

Five years on from the day the world was shocked by little Alan Kurdi’s death, perhaps the Minister could just agree that the response to the channel crossings should be informed by empathy and evidence and not driven by Farage and friction. Will he confirm that, despite what he has said, there is nothing in international law that requires refugees to apply for asylum in the first safe state that they come to, even though the overwhelming majority do? Will he acknowledge that there will be good reasons, such as family ties, for many of the people attempting crossings to make their claims here instead of in France? Will he recognise that by failing to provide safe legal routes, the Government force people to use ever more dangerous alternatives and drive them into the arms of people smugglers, as at least two parliamentary Committees have previously pointed out?

Instead of bashing our brilliant human rights lawyers, will the Minister now put those safe routes in place; ensure a successor to the Dublin family unity rules; restart resettlement and commit to it for the long term; and reopen Dubs and other safe routes from Europe? That would be a response rooted in empathy and evidence.

[Chris Philp]

Safe routes from Europe are not the answer to this problem because, by definition, people in Europe are already in a safe country. Transporting people from one safe country in Europe to the United Kingdom does nothing to add to their protection. There are, of course, routes for family reunion—at the moment under Dublin and in the future under the United Kingdom’s own immigration rules. In relation to a safe legal route for people fleeing persecution, the hon. Member has already referenced the resettlement programme, which between 2015 and the onset of coronavirus saw just a shade under 20,000 people being resettled directly from dangerous conflict zones, mainly in the vicinity of Syria. Those routes have existed for the last five years, yet I am sad to say that illegal migration continued none the less.

Covid-19: Support and Accommodation for Asylum Seekers

Debate between Chris Philp and Stuart C McDonald

Monday 29th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

My hon. Friend, as always, makes a very good point. As I said in response to the shadow Minister a moment ago, risk assessments take place at the point of arrival and on an ongoing basis. I assure him that with asylum seekers, whenever UKVI identifies risk to others, appropriate action will always be taken. Everybody’s vigilance will be elevated to even higher levels after the incident on Friday.

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

This was a devastating incident, and we, too, wish all six who are in hospital a full recovery. We pay tribute to Constable Whyte and his colleagues in the emergency services for their bravery. Our thoughts are also with the wider asylum community in Glasgow.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) is absolutely right; there must be an independent inquiry, because huge questions persist as to why there was a mass move to hotels, how it was implemented and the extent to which vulnerabilities were or were not assessed. A huge gap has grown between the system that the Minister describes and reality as it has been described to us by people working on the ground.

For now, our focus must be on supporting people, so will the Home Office contribute funding for vital counselling and other support? Will the Minister reinstate even the pitiful cash support for individuals who are still in hotels? Will he ensure that the exit strategy is shared and consulted on with Glasgow City Council and other key partners? Will he maintain the pause in evictions? Will he speak to the leader of Glasgow City Council—a vital partner—as well as the Scottish Government? Finally, will he acknowledge that people are angry about what has happened, and that there are concerns that the Home Office’s approach to the asylum system has become so hands-off that it risks becoming a Cinderella service?

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Gentleman asked whether we would have discussions with Glasgow City Council about the ongoing asylum accommodation estate in that fine city, and of course we will. I believe that discussions took place this afternoon—in the last two or three hours—between Home Office officials and Glasgow City Council on the very topic of moving people out of hotels and into more stable accommodation.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned healthcare. Healthcare for asylum seekers, wherever they may be in the country, is taken care of by the local NHS or, in the case of Glasgow, by the Bridge Project, which is co-ordinated by Glasgow City Council. I have every confidence in the service that Glasgow City Council and the NHS in Scotland provide.

The hon. Gentleman asked about meeting Glasgow City Council, and I would be very happy to meet the leader of Glasgow City Council at any time. As I mentioned, I will be meeting Glasgow MPs, if not later this week, certainly next week. On the question of restarting move-ons, I have been very clear that as the country returns to normal, so we would expect the asylum system to return to normal. In a measured, phased and careful way, we will return to the system as it was before, which worked extremely well, but we will be extremely thoughtful in the way we do that.

Covid-19: Asylum Seeker Services in Glasgow

Debate between Chris Philp and Stuart C McDonald

Wednesday 17th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

The hon. Gentleman can shake his head all he likes, but those are the facts. They are facts that evidence the compassion with which the United Kingdom deals with those very vulnerable people. He can shake his head, and he can fold his arms, but those are the facts.

Let me come on to some of the questions that have been raised. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West spoke at some length about the asylum support rate, but he did not talk about everything that is provided in addition to the cash sum of money, which was increased by 5%, well above the rate of inflation. The cohort concerned get free accommodation. All utility bills are paid for, council tax is paid for, free health care is provided under the NHS, and any children get free education. The method for calculating the cash support rate was tested in court some years ago and found to be lawful. The amount of money is essentially calculated by a formula which has been endorsed by the Court of Appeal. When Members talk about asylum support, I urge them to keep in mind all those other things—the free accommodation, the utility bills being paid, the council tax being paid, NHS healthcare and free education.

The covid situation that the country has been facing is thankfully now easing, but it has of course been a very serious public health crisis. We took the decision on 27 March to suspend the policy of the cessation of support. That is where an asylum seeker’s claim is decided, either positively or negatively, and we ask them to—with notice, of course—leave the supported accommodation estate. Clearly, if they have had a positive decision, they are entitled to find work or to universal credit. If they have a housing problem, obviously they are entitled to all the support that any of our constituents would be entitled to in the ordinary course of events. Clearly, they cannot continue to be supported in asylum accommodation indefinitely as they are essentially members of society like the rest of us who live their lives, just like all of us and our constituents do.

In the event they get a negative decision, the expectation is that they return—

[Stuart C. McDonald]

That was a very welcome decision, and I think it was based on advice from Public Health England. Can the Minister say categorically that Public Health England has been consulted on the decision to go back to cessation of support and evictions, and will he publish that advice as well as the earlier advice?

[Chris Philp]

I was just about to come to that point. When the decision was taken on 27 March to suspend the cessation of support policy—I am grateful that Opposition Members welcomed that move—it was announced as being effective until the end of June. To be clear, no eviction notices have been issued. We are going through the process of thinking carefully about how we transition back to a more normal state of affairs as the coronavirus epidemic abates, and we are doing that in a thoughtful and considered way. We are thinking carefully about all the angles, and we will talk to the relevant authorities, including local government, and take public health advice seriously. This matter is being considered and thought about carefully, and we will proceed in a careful way that gives proper attention to the various considerations. As I hope Members will have seen from our decision, we are determined to be responsible and careful in the way we handle this issue, and I believe our conduct has reflected that.

Let me say a word about the implications of our decision. Although we suspended the cessation policy, we still have intake because people are still claiming asylum. Either they present as cases under section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, or they make fresh claims for asylum. Those claims are not at the level they were before coronavirus, but the level is still quite high. The number of people who are being accommodated in asylum support is going up a lot. Indeed, in the past 10 weeks, it has risen by about 4,000—a significant number. We are working night and day to find accommodation for those extra 4,000 people, and the numbers are going up on a weekly basis. Members will understand that trying to find extra emergency accommodation is difficult, particularly in the middle of a pandemic, but we have done it. We have risen to the challenge, and I thank local authorities, and Home Office officials, for their tremendous work in finding those 4,000 extra places at short notice and in difficult circumstances.

Some questions were asked specifically about the city of Glasgow, which is well represented in the Chamber this evening. As the hon. Member for Glasgow South West said, a decision was taken in late March in relation to 321—he said 300—people who were in temporary serviced apartments. For a variety of reasons, it was decided that those apartments were not appropriate in the context of the coronavirus epidemic—they were not safe to stay in, and as a consequence, people were moved into hotel accommodation. Let me be clear that that is a temporary measure and is categorically not permanent. As soon as circumstances allow, if those people are still receiving asylum support, they will be returned to the sort of accommodation they were in previously.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned cash savings. Over the past 10 weeks, the additional cost of accommodating those extra 4,000 people has run into tens of millions of pounds, and possibly more than that. I assure him that no cost saving is being made anywhere in that part of the Home Office budget. The hotels provide three meals a day that meet dietary requirements. In terms of cultural sensitivity, Korans and prayer mats are provided, and during Ramadan, late evening and early morning food is provided for those who observe it.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned connectivity. Each room has a TV and, critically, wi-fi, and 24-hour reception staff are available, as are translation services and staggered meal times to cater for social distancing. There is full access to the building for cleaning and repairs. Laundry facilities are available on site; there is space for NHS staff and medical consultation, and full provision of things such as towels, soaps, sanitiser, bed linen, toiletries, and feminine hygiene products—all those things are provided. If any areas require further attention, the hon. Gentleman is welcome to write to me and I will happily address those matters.