Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Diane Abbott and Robert Goodwill

Monday 6th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Goodwill]

We are still considering that suggestion. I know that the shadow Home Secretary would like to visit as well.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

indicated assent.

[Mr Goodwill]

We did wonder whether the Home Affairs Committee would like to take precedence on a visit of that sort, but if it does not want to go, we will certainly look into the matter more urgently.

Unaccompanied Children (Greece and Italy)

Debate between Diane Abbott and Robert Goodwill

Thursday 23rd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Ms Abbott]

I have listened with a lot of care to all the speeches by Members on both sides of the House and now I have to make progress in order to leave time for my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South.

I have visited the camps in France and Greece. The children there may be in safe countries, but they are living in horrible conditions. That is despite the fact that so many local people do their best to be kind and helpful. Far from arguing, as some Members in this House have done, that providing more safe and legal routes from Europe is some kind of incentive, as if it is a choice, no one who has visited the camps and informal encampments and looked these families and children in the eye can seriously argue that they have come to Europe on some sort of jaunt and can easily be turned back. Remember that these are families and young people who have risked their lives, who have seen people die crossing the Sahara and who have then risked their lives again crossing the Mediterranean.

Of course it is true that the French Government should have done more in the past. It was because the French were so slow originally to register refugees of all ages that so many set their hearts on the UK, but let us be realistic about the conditions facing refugees in Europe. In Greece, the conditions facing asylum seekers were so dire that as long ago as 2011, the European Court of Human Rights ruled it unlawful to send people back there. Only last year, in December, did the European Commission finally decide that sufficient improvements had been made that other EU member states could start sending people back to Greece.

How far have conditions improved really? I am not so sure that they have. Last month, just weeks after the Commission said it was appropriate to send people to Greece, there were reports that three migrants in an overcrowded camp in Moria on Lesbos had died within 10 days of each other. It is thought that the immediate cause was carbon monoxide poisoning, after men sharing overcrowded tents inhaled toxic fumes from the heaters they had been forced to use in the harsh winter temperatures.

In Italy, where the number of new arrivals reached its highest ever level last year, conditions may have been worse still. Recent measures requiring the Italian authorities to fingerprint new arrivals have led to shocking abuses, according to Amnesty International. It has documented cases of the police using beatings and electric shocks to force compliance from those who are reluctant to have their fingerprints taken. So say that those countries are technically safe, but do not say that the conditions in those countries are acceptable and justify closing off one of the safe, legal routes for children to come from mainland Europe to this country when they have relatives here or other appropriate legal reasons for coming here.

On the question of local government capacity, we have heard that David Simmonds of the Local Government Association says that current Home Office child refugee funding for local councils covers only 15% of the funding costs. That is a serious matter when so many local authorities led by all parties—Labour and Conservative—are under terrible funding pressure. There has been very limited consultation with local authorities. All the evidence suggests that, given more time and appropriate funding, many more councils would step up to provide accommodation for child refugees. An absolute lack of capacity among local authorities simply has not been proven.

[Mr Goodwill]

Local authorities now receive £41,610 a year for each unaccompanied child under 16. I think that is slightly more than 15% of the costs.

[Ms Abbott]

I can only listen to the LGA, which said that the money covers only 50% of funding costs. The Minister must have that debate with local government.

It is all too easy to say that closing off routes, whether the Dubs scheme or Dublin, for refugee children in Europe is acting in their best interests—that somehow they will go back, and that the fact that we are doing good work in the region offsets the fact that children are being left in squalor at the mercy of people traffickers on the continent of Europe. It is all too easy, but it is not right. The hallmark of a civilised country is the fairness, the justice and the humanity with which it treats the most vulnerable. Who could be more vulnerable than refugee children?

I join many Members on both sides of the House who plead with the Government, even at this late stage, to fulfil the hopes and expectations of Members in this House and the other place when they voted for the Dubs amendment. We plead with the Government to fulfil not only their legal but their moral obligations, and to act to save the tens of thousands of refugee children still on the continent of Europe from the squalor, the people traffickers and the exploitation, and, perhaps above all, to save this country’s good name and reputation.

Immigration Rules: Spouses and Partners

Debate between Diane Abbott and Robert Goodwill

Tuesday 31st January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Ms Abbott]

Exactly. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for showing how the demonstration corresponds with this morning’s debate. The issue is not just that they are seeking to tighten immigration rules in the United States, but the harshness, the unfairness and the arbitrary way of how it has been done. These maintenance funds requirements are another example of harshness and unfairness, and of not thinking through how the changes would operate in practice. I have no hesitation in saying that this policy and these maintenance funds requirements are impractical, unjust and counterproductive.

As other Members have reminded us, this issue is still before the courts. This is not just a question of Opposition MPs making all sorts of aspersions on Government policy. In July 2013 the High Court did not actually strike down the rules as unlawful in general, but did find that the way they are applied amounts to a disproportionate interference with family life in certain cases. Several Members have raised the issue of the interference of these rules in family life. In July 2014 the Court of Appeal allowed the Government’s appeal against the High Court decision. In May 2015 the Supreme Court granted permission to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision; it heard the appeal last year and is yet to hand down judgment.

We might think that, faced with court rulings saying that these maintenance funds requirements have a disproportionate effect on family life, any Government concerned about supporting family life might step back and review their operation. When all is said and done, however we define a husband and wife and however we define a family, strong families are one of the building blocks of our society. Whatever their concern about what the tabloid press says about immigrants on any given day, no Government should wilfully pursue policies that have the detrimental effect on family life that these maintenance requirements do.

Like many Members who have spoken, I deal with the practical consequences of these rules every week in my advice sessions. As we all appreciate, I have the difficult task of trying to explain to distraught husbands or wives that these rules exist and that because of someone’s country of origin, they face this arbitrary hindrance on family reunion. In June 2013, as other Members have mentioned, a report by the all-party group on migration called for an independent review of the requirement and its impact. The Government have yet to respond to that demand.

As we know, the policy requires non-European economic area visa applicants to have available funds equivalent to a minimum gross annual income of £18,600. It is inherently discriminatory because it requires a higher income threshold in cases that include non-EEA children. It is also discriminatory because in many cases only the British and settled visa sponsors’ employment income can be considered. It discriminates against women because their incomes tend to be lower, and effectively encourages family and partnership break up. As other Members have said, the Migration Observatory found that 28% of non-EEA men and 57% of non-EEA women did not meet the threshold. Consequently, the policy hits some ethnic groups harder than others, notably Pakistani and Bangladeshi applicants.

[Mr Goodwill]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. Will she say what the official Labour party policy is on this issue? Would she reduce that figure or would she abandon it altogether?

[Ms Abbott]

We would do what so many people have asked the Government to do: review this policy and put in place rules that are fair, equitable and do not inevitably lead to the break-up of families.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Abbott]

We all share the Government’s concern that people should be able to speak English. However, if the Government are really concerned, why have they cut funding for English as a second language? Why have they cut the funding available to local authorities that were helping to provide that English training, often in the context of schools or other institutions?

[Mr Goodwill]

People have to get an English qualification at level A1 in their country before they come here. I represented Yorkshire in the European Parliament, and having represented many of the communities there, I know the disadvantage that many children face when they start school—perhaps second or third-generation English-born children—if they do not speak English as their first language. Having that ability in English is absolutely vital not only for the integration of spouses, but for enabling children to progress in life. That is why we set these levels and why, from 1 May 2017, we are introducing a new English language requirement for partners applying for further leave after two and a half years in the UK on a five-year route to settlement. That will require them to progress to A2 level from the A1 level required on entry.

Thirdly, the rules seek to prevent burdens on the taxpayer. That is achieved through the minimum income threshold of £18,600 a year to be met by those wishing to sponsor a partner to come or remain here, with higher thresholds for also sponsoring dependent, non-EEA national children. It is right that those wishing to establish their family life here must be able to stand on their own feet financially. That is the basis for sustainable family immigration and for good integration outcomes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Diane Abbott and Robert Goodwill

Monday 23rd January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Goodwill]

I agree with the hon. Lady absolutely. As I mentioned, there is no limit on the number of students who can come here. Since 2010, we have seen a 17% increase in the number of university applications from outside the EU, while the Russell Group has seen an amazing 47% increase.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

The whole House knows that it is vital to maintain our global reputation as an open and fair place to study, but in mid-December last year the Home Office lost a major test case against international students. The Home Office claimed that the students had made bogus claims about English language skills. What were the total legal costs in this test case against Sharif Majumder? How many other cases were initiated and had to be dropped? What estimate has been made of the potential liability arising from students who were deported on the basis of evidence-free claims, but might now have a right to sue for wrongful deportation?

[Mr Goodwill]

I am slightly surprised that the hon. Lady has the brass neck to refer to bogus students in bogus colleges. We had to take away the sponsorship licence from 920 colleges that were recruiting students to take bogus courses. I will certainly get back to her in writing if I can provide some of the information she asked for specifically on that legal case.

EU Asylum Reform Package

Debate between Diane Abbott and Robert Goodwill

Monday 19th December 2016 General Committees

[Ms Abbott]

I noted the Minister’s saying that we are debating these measures after they have gone through the House because of a mistake “in this building”. Does he mean a mistake by the Clerks or the usual channels?

[Mr Goodwill]

The usual channels are particularly in the frame for this one—although it was not spotted by those who otherwise spot these things.

Refugee Family Reunion (Immigration Rules)

Debate between Diane Abbott and Robert Goodwill

Tuesday 29th November 2016 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I am happy to do so, Sir Alan. First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) on securing this debate on an important subject and pay tribute to the work of the all-party parliamentary group on refugees.

I want to make it clear that there is no need for a question mark when I say that refugees are welcome here. I was recently in Jordan and met a number of refugees, some of whom had just arrived from the berm. I had very helpful meetings with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which was selecting the most vulnerable families and children to come as part of the schemes we have in place. I am proud that we are the second biggest donor of humanitarian aid. That shows that we are determined to help those most in need in the most vulnerable locations, which in many cases is in the refugee camps, not, for example, in European Union countries.

I am aware of calls in favour of widening the family reunion immigration rules. That issue has been debated at length, including in both Houses during the passage of the Immigration Act 2016. The recent campaigns by the British Red Cross and the Refugee Council demonstrate the interest in this subject. This has been a good debate, and I welcome the thoughtful and passionate contributions from right hon. and hon. Members.

We recognise that families may be fragmented due to conflict and persecution and the speed and manner in which asylum seekers often flee their country of origin. That is why the Government have dedicated family reunion immigration rules and have granted more than 22,000 family reunion visas in the past five years. Our policy meets our international obligations and allows immediate family members who formed part of the family unit before the refugee sponsor fled their country to reunite with them in the UK. British citizens are able to sponsor their spouse or partner and children under the age of 18 to join them under the family immigration rules, providing they make the appropriate entry clearance application and meet the relevant criteria.

[Ms Abbott]

The Minister talks about how the system works. What does he have to say to the suggestion from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) that we should have a broader definition of family that is not just immediate family?

[Mr Goodwill]

I would not accept that. As I will say later in my remarks, we do not want to create the pull factor that results in people drowning in the Mediterranean or the Aegean. That is one of the major reasons why we are maintaining this policy.

European Union Agency for Asylum

Debate between Diane Abbott and Robert Goodwill

Tuesday 15th November 2016 General Committees

[Mr Goodwill]

I could not be so uncharitable, I am sure.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I volunteered to do this because I think the immigration challenge that Europe faces is no laughing matter. I have more junior colleagues in my Home Office team who were available to do it. Our constituents want to see us take the issue seriously.

[Mr Goodwill]

When the hon. Lady started her career in the Home Office she was involved in this particular area, as a fast-streamer, so I am sure that her expertise will be useful as she brings it to bear during the debate.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset for his opening words. I can reassure him that I did not feel any need to agonise over the decision—it was a fairly simple one—and I apologise for any part I may have played in any delays. I am sure he is aware that a lot has been going on, both in the Government and in Europe, since 23 June.

I thank the European Scrutiny Committee for selecting these important measures for debate and apologise for the late tabling of the motion and any inconvenience caused to the Committee by the change in date. The three measures under consideration—the reform of the Dublin regulations, the reform of the Eurodac regulation, and a proposal for a new EU asylum agency—represent the first wave of a package of proposals to reform the Common European Asylum System, or CEAS.

A wide-ranging package of reforms to CEAS was proposed by the European Commission in a communication published in April of this year. The migration crisis led to the Commission identifying priorities for addressing perceived structural shortcomings in CEAS: Dublin reform; reinforcing the Eurodac fingerprint database, which supports the operation of the Dublin mechanism; providing a stronger mandate to the European Asylum Support Office, or EASO; and further harmonising asylum systems. The proposals on harmonisation are not before us today.

It is undoubtedly necessary to develop an asylum and migration framework in the European Union that works to control illegal migration, deter abuse and prevent unwarranted secondary movement. That does not mean, however, that the Government agree with all the policy options that the Commission suggests. The Government have already decided not to opt in to the proposed EU agency for asylum. I apologise that the Committee did not have the chance to debate the proposal before the opt-in deadline, but I suspect it would have supported our opt-out.

The UK participates in the European Asylum Support Office, but there were several problematic areas in the proposal for a new agency which, in my view, would outweigh any benefits to the UK. The Government’s key consideration was the significant oversight that the agency could have had of the UK asylum system if the UK had decided to participate. Although we respect that our European partners may wish to pursue greater commonality in their asylum systems, we remain firmly of the view that the functioning of national asylum systems is a sovereign issue. The Government are, of course, committed to running a high-quality, effective asylum system. We will continue to support EASO and member states that face particular pressures, as well as to share our expertise widely within the EU.

Turning to the Commission’s proposal to reform the Dublin regulation, Dublin IV maintains the traditional, recognisable “Dublin” concepts to determine responsibility for examining an asylum claim. That includes provisions on family unity and the best interests of the child. The proposal introduces some procedural changes—for example, to time limits—and increases obligations on applicants to co-operate with asylum authorities by claiming in the first member state. The Government strongly support the “first safe country” principle, but within the proposal lies a corrective fairness mechanism based on a distribution key that allows for adjustments in the allocation of responsibility in certain circumstances. Essentially, it is a mandatory relocation mechanism.

The Government remain opposed to the use of relocation to address the migration situation in the EU. We have been crystal clear in all our engagement with European partners—both before and since the publication of the Dublin IV proposal—that we see no reason why a mandatory redistribution, relocation or corrective mechanism should be part of a single proposal under the Dublin regulation.

In that context, it is worth noting that the Commission was very clear when it published the proposal that should the United Kingdom not opt into the revised Dublin IV regulation, the Dublin III regulation would continue to apply between the UK and member states—a direct result of our engagement—so I hope that reassures my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset. As such, we believe that there is no risk that we would lose our current powers to return people to other EU member states as a result of this proposal. There is a clear precedent for two Dublin regimes operating in parallel, as seen with regard to relations with Denmark between 2003 and 2006, when different rules applied between states. Finally on Dublin reform, it is obvious that the legislative proposal will require significant negotiation, given the well-known divergence of views across the EU towards mandatory burden-sharing schemes.

Turning to Eurodac—the fingerprint database that supports the application of the Dublin regulation—we agree with the Commission that member states must be provided with appropriate fingerprint evidence to facilitate the operation of the responsibility mechanism and to enhance its role into other areas to address illegal migration and facilitate returns. The Eurodac III proposal includes new provisions to store data on persons found illegally present and to store facial images in addition to fingerprints. It enhances the personal data associated with the biometrics to include, for the first time, the name, nationality, date and place of birth of the data subjects and it stores the details of any travel documents held. It also lowers the age threshold for the transmission of data from 14 years of age to six to enhance the safeguarding of children.

By increasing the capture of data on illegal migrants, Eurodac III will become more of a tool for managing illegal migration, and we welcome that. Its enriched data sets are also of significant value in terms of law enforcement access. I welcome the endorsement of the Government’s position on Eurodac and Dublin.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Abbott]

I am well aware of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I can only repeat what I said at the outset. Our immigration policy should be based on the facts, not on urban myth. It should be based on what is good for the economy and good for society, and it should be based on our values as a country. If that means that we have to go out and argue and campaign for that position, I for one am willing to do so. Anything else leads to a downward spiral of anti-immigration rhetoric, and we can see the consequence of that downward spiral in the result of the recent presidential election in the United States. The US electoral college has spoken, and of course the American people are entitled to elect the President of their choice, but we should never legitimise Donald Trump’s anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim and anti-women rhetoric, and we should be aware that one of his first appointments was of Steve Bannon, who runs the website Breitbart, which is largely regarded as anti-Semitic. We must work with our oldest ally as we have always done, but we cannot legitimise a political narrative of that kind.

[Mr Goodwill]

Would the hon. Lady clarify something? From what she said earlier, she appears to support a mandatory relocation measure in the EU. Is that indeed the position of the Labour party?

[Ms Abbott]

Broadly, we support these regulations in principle, and specifically we believe in much more genuine European co-operation. That is the position of the Labour party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

These figures have come from the UK as part of our overseas development budget. I can give my hon. Friend some clarification on whether any of that money has been channelled via the EU, but as far as I am aware, this is money from the UK Exchequer, not European money.

Start Network non-governmental organisations were given £11.5 million, £1 million was given to the IOM and more than £1.8 million of essential supplies were provided. They included 3,100 tents for over 15,600 people, 60,000 blankets, 8,000 sleeping bags and other basic items, including direct support for the German Government with returns and donating 40 ex-Ministry of Defence Land Rovers to the Bulgarian border police to help them patrol the green border with Turkey.

The key message on Dublin is that the Government maintain their position: we support the existing principles of the Dublin regulations, but do not agree to a mandatory redistribution mechanism as part of a revised Dublin regulation. I am still slightly confused about the Labour party’s position on that. Indeed, Dublin is important, as it prevents asylum shopping and reinforces the first safe country principle; redistribution does not.

[Ms Abbott]

The Minister may be confused about some things, but he is not half as confused as I am about what this Government’s response is to Brexit.

[Mr Goodwill]

As I have shown, our response to this crisis has been to step up to our obligations as part of Dublin, to go over and above our obligations by incorporating the Dubs amendment into the Immigration Act 2016, and to give the humanitarian and practical help that I have just listed. Given all the ways we are helping people in the region—I was in Jordan last week to see how that money was being spent, putting clean water into some of the refugee camps, helping with the registration of refugees and helping with the education of children in those camps—I think the Government can be proud of our record in that regard.

I have followed the debate with great interest and I thank those who have contributed. It is the Government’s position that it is necessary to develop an asylum and migration framework in Europe that works to control illegal migration, deters abuse and prevents secondary movement. That does not mean, however, that the Government agree with all the policy options suggested by the Commission or that they are right for the UK. These opt-in decisions will be fully in line with the national interest.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Diane Abbott and Robert Goodwill

Monday 31st October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Goodwill]

With equal brevity, I agree.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

I reassure the Minister that the Opposition do know that the camp is in France, but we are weary of French and British officials trying to pass the buck, even at this late stage, when desperate children’s lives are at stake. We know that there are more than 1,000 young people in the container compound at Calais without proper supervision and the help that they need. The Minister says that the assessment and transfer process has paused. Can he share with the House when it will begin again?

[Mr Goodwill]

The transfer process has been paused at the request of the French so that the relocation can take place and the children are not in the container camp, which so many people are critical of. We continue to work closely with our French colleagues to actually resolve this situation.