Nationality and Borders Bill

Chris Stephens Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 20th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

First, I thank the hundreds of constituents who have written to me asking me to oppose the Bill, which I will this evening. I am proud to be here as a Member of Parliament for Glasgow. I praise Glasgow’s role as a dispersal city, and the great work of organisations such as the Govan Community Project and the Govan Home and Education Link Project, which help asylum seekers on a daily basis.

Glasgow is well aware of the reality of asylum seekers’ experiences, which we cannot really contemplate. Victims of torture, sexual violence and persecution—that is the reality of asylum seekers’ experience. As restrictions ease, the Government had an opportunity to introduce some substantial legislation to address the inequalities that the covid pandemic has exposed, such as an unemployment Bill to deal with precarious work or, indeed, to reform the broken social security system. I am afraid that this Bill exposes the Conservative party in all its guises, because it is the politics of the dog whistle—the politics where every person seeking sanctuary is viewed with suspicion.

I read Hansard today and the phrase “economic migrants” was used liberally by Conservative Back Benchers yesterday. Perhaps they could benefit from Show Racism the Red Card coming in here, as they do in classrooms in Glasgow, and explaining the difference between an asylum seeker, a refugee and an economic migrant, because I suspect that some Conservative Back Benchers would fail that simple test. It is the politics where the legal profession is collectively dismissed as Marxist, despite some incredible court rulings. For example, Serco obtained an extraordinary High Court ruling that private sector companies, which the Government use across public services, do not have to comply with basic human rights legislation when providing accommodation to asylum seekers.

It is surprising to hear Government Members say that the legal routes issue is different from those in the Bill. It is not. If the Government close legal routes to seek sanctuary in this country, it cannot be a surprise that people would be so desperate that they choose to try other routes into the UK. There has been a lack of real engagement in the consultation process for the Bill. The Bill was, of course, published before any formal response to the consultation—a consultation in which many organisations that deal and work with asylum seekers on a daily basis raised real concerns that have not been addressed.

Depriving asylum seekers of the chance to obtain competent legal representation and to challenge poor decisions increases the risk of returning people to extremely serious danger. That approach also ignores the numerous reasons why refugees may be unable to provide all the evidence and information regarding their case at an early stage in the procedure. Such reasons include a lack of knowledge of the system. Asylum seekers do not have expertise in the UK’s immigration system when they get here fleeing oppression. They do not know what evidence they have, so it should not be a surprise that people who are survivors of trauma do not immediately disclose information, especially women and survivors of sexual violence.

There are a number of concerns. I mentioned accommodation. It is astonishing that Home Office providers of asylum accommodation do not need to use registered social landlords to provide that accommodation. Even worse, the Government now want to legislate to increase the use of military barracks. That is utterly unacceptable and will do serious harm, I fear, to the mental health of many of those seeking sanctuary in the United Kingdom. By vowing to continue that practice, the Government are ignoring the views of public health experts. It really is astonishing.

The independent chief inspector of borders and immigration described the Home Office’s use of that sort of accommodation as a “serious error of judgment”, while the immigration court ruled earlier that the Home Secretary failed to ensure that deaths in immigration detention centres were properly investigated. A Home Affairs Committee report published in December 2018 described the conditions in which vulnerable people are being housed as “degrading” and called on the Home Office to show “greater urgency”.

My last concern is that we want to follow the Australian model. Centres in Australia saw cases of sexual abuse and the rape of refugees leading to some falling pregnant, and there were instances of staff using unreasonable force, while the remoteness of offshore facilities also caused deaths due to the lack of healthcare facilities.

Glasgow has risen up to the Home Office time and again, as we did in Kenmure Street, and I was very proud to be there exercising my right to freedom of peaceful assembly. The people of Glasgow in opposing the Bill say this: “Say it loud, say it clear: refugees are welcome here”.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Chris Stephens]

The Minister has referred to Glasgow’s dispersal area, but there are also individuals who have come over on false passports because that is what they were given to flee their country of origin. They are children, but their passport says they are adults. What assistance will the Home Office give those individuals?

[Chris Philp]

Where somebody claims to be, or says they are, under 18, if there is any doubt, there is already a system—and in future there will be a better and more rigorous system—for properly assessing someone’s actual age. There are risks in both directions. If we wrongly assess someone to be over 18 there is a risk, but equally there are risks in the other direction, and it is time those risks were recognised.

On modern slavery, I pay tribute to the work done by my right hon. Friends the Members for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). The Bill will ensure that we identify genuine victims of modern slavery and avoid unmeritorious claims that are designed to delay removal or deportation. Where someone is a genuine victim, we will ensure that they are properly looked after. This policy will make it clear for the first time in legislation that confirmed victims with recovery needs stemming from their exploitation will be entitled to a grant of leave, where that is necessary to assist them in their recovery, or to assist a prosecution. We hope that by encouraging people to bring their claims upfront in one go, asylum claims and matters involving modern slavery and human rights will be identified early and properly, and that we avoid some of the abuses that we have unfortunately seen all too often.

Some Members raised questions about detention, claiming that it was indefinite. That is not the case. We do not have indefinite detention, and 75% of people spend less than a month in detention prior to removal. The Hardial Singh case law principles mean that someone cannot be detained if there is no reasonable prospect of removal. There are frequent opportunities to apply for immigration bail, in addition to the protections afforded by article 5 of the ECHR. On the Dubs amendment that we have seen in the past, we prefer to prioritise, not people who are in safe European countries, but those who are in dangerous places.

The public expect us to look after those in genuine need. We will do so, but the public also expect us to protect our borders from illegal immigration and to promptly remove those with no right to be here. The Bill delivers those objectives. When the Labour party votes against it in a few minutes, it is voting against border control, and against removing dangerous foreign criminals who pose a threat to our constituents. The Labour party may not be prepared to protect our borders, but the Government are. I commend the Bill to the House.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Chris Stephens Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 8th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I rise to support the amendments in the name of my colleagues. I also speak in my capacity as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on immigration detention. We have many concerns about the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) mentioned, there is a degree of overlap between what I wish to say today and some of the measures that we addressed yesterday.

The UK Government propose a quasi-detention system for new arrivals. The all-party parliamentary group on immigration detention has taken a great deal of evidence on the harm that such facilities cause. We looked at Napier and Penally barracks, and others such as Tinsley House and Yarl’s wood, which were used for quasi-detention. We found, very much so, that these facilities undermined the health of vulnerable people, dehumanised them and also made vulnerable those who did not consider themselves that vulnerable to begin with.

Those facilities featured: physical and social isolation; prison-like conditions with people feeling under surveillance 24/7; and shared facilities, meaning a lack of dignity and privacy, and, of course, during the period of covid, the risk of covid, which the Government failed to take into account, basically facilitating an outbreak among those unlucky enough to be living there. Due to their very nature, the facilities also ended up being targeted by the far right, further making those who happened to be living there very, very vulnerable.

The evidence that we received in our inquiry found a lack of safeguarding, healthcare and access to legal advice. The Home Office equality impact assessment on the facilities set out that people seeking asylum were not analogous to British citizens and other permanent residents in need of welfare assistance. As we heard yesterday, facilities such as these and offshoring facilities were tried, and failed, in Australia.

The implication of what we are discussing today was discovered by the Jesuit Refugee Service, which in the course of its work encountered residents at Napier barracks whose asylum screening interviews had revealed clear indications of trafficking, yet individuals had been transferred to those sites when they should never have been there in the first place. This happened initially, which could perhaps be accepted as a mistake or oversight, but also as late as June 2021, when such issues should not still have been going on, and people should have been identified as victims of trafficking. Solicitors engaged in the site found similar circumstances, where people who had been trafficked ended up in this inappropriate accommodation.

The provisions are concerning in a number of ways, because such facilities are difficult for people to be in. I had a conversation with somebody earlier in the week who suggested that the UK Government and the Home Office have not thought this through. I disagree with that in some respects, because to me this is a very deliberate policy of removing people from legal support—their opportunity to make the best case of putting themselves before the immigration system—and from communities, where they could build links, settle in, make friends and engage with people who had perhaps come from their own countries. It is a deliberate policy of removing people from the healthcare and support they need to get well and recover from trauma. All those things make it easier for the Government to send these people away—and that is not done in the name of my constituents or my party. We do not agree with the proposals and this ideological pandering to the lowest common denominator, because the people we are speaking about are very vulnerable.

I fully support amendment 6 on late disclosure, because the provisions place people, such as those who ended up in this quasi-detention system, in a trap. I see people in my surgeries week in, week out who are already disbelieved by the Home Office. It puts people at risk to say that if they do not disclose everything at the point where they are being told that they must disclose, the case will be stacked against them.

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

Is this provision not of huge concern to constituents in Glasgow South West and Glasgow Central—women, in particular, who have been subjected to sexual violence and would not necessarily disclose that at the first interview?