Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Drew Hendry Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 25th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the expertise of the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), who outlined in great detail the significance and importance of the new clauses. Yet again, the House has the opportunity to get it right, and to get it right now, today, rather than at some point or when parliamentary time allows or after consultation or in due course. Why not do it today?

I have heard no arguments from Ministers in Committee, on Second Reading or here this afternoon to excuse why it cannot be done today, now, with the new clauses that have been so diligently and expertly proposed by right hon. and hon. Members. As I said yesterday, these are cross-party new clauses. They are the most widely supported new clauses I have seen, and there is no reason why the Government cannot accept not only the proposals from this side of the House but the diligent work of their own Back Benchers on the new clauses. It makes absolute sense.

I support the Government amendments before us, both the correcting ones and those that allow Scottish Ministers and their responsibilities to be added to the Bill. It is good that they have been brought forward now, although I am slightly wary that that happened at such a late stage and that the problem had been missed. Regardless, I am happy to see them today. I also support the amendments on information sharing between agencies, which make sense.

I am, however, concerned that the Government will not accept the “failure to prevent” amendment. As I said in Committee, when the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) was a Back Bencher he was very supportive of the “failure to prevent” provisions, right up until 13 October 2022, when he said:

“Of all the measures we have talked about today, this would have the biggest effect in terms of cutting down on economic crime, because lots of our financial organisations are complicit when it suits their interests to be so.”—[Official Report, 13 October 2022; Vol. 720, c. 310.]

There is nothing in the Bill that would change that situation, but the new clause would. As I pointed out in Committee, now he is not just the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton but the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. He has argued for a “failure to prevent” economic crime offence not just on 13 October last year, but on 7 July 2022, on 1, 22 and 28 February 2022, on 2 December 2021, on 9 November 2021, on 22 September 2021, on 18 May 2021, on 9 November 2020, on 25 February 2020, on 19 July 2019, on 23 April 2019, on 18 December 2018 and on 9 October 2018. Given that the hon. Gentleman has spent his parliamentary career arguing for this, it beggars belief that now he is a Minister with the power to implement it, he is not actually doing so.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

These are very important points. Given their importance, should the Minister not put down his phone and listen to what my hon. Friend is saying?

[Alison Thewliss]

One Minister is on his phone and the other—the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton—is sitting at the back of the Chamber having a gab. This is not ideal, but perhaps the Minister has already heard what I have to say and does not want to hear it again.

“O, wad some Power the giftie gie us

To see oursels as others see us!”

National Security

Drew Hendry Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Tom Tugendhat]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that institutions and structures are what guard us against the “here today, gone tomorrow” whims of politicians, and that setting up such structures is the way we keep ourselves safe. Indeed, the best of our institutions have endured for hundreds of years in order to guarantee those freedoms. The right hon. Gentleman can be absolutely assured that I will be looking at ways in which we can embed such structures to ensure that we keep ourselves safe.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

I congratulate the Minister and welcome him to his new role. May I ask him to answer a serious and simple question? He has made great play of cyber-security and the need for us to be technologically aware of threats. If he was made aware that a civil servant or Government employee had been sacked for sharing Government documents in personal email accounts or devices, would he sanction that person’s re-employment, even if they had apologised?

[Tom Tugendhat]

One of the reasons I have always enjoyed debating with the hon. Member is the fact that he finds new ways of asking old questions. I was delighted to hear the question, but I am afraid I am going to return to my old answer, which is that I will not comment on ongoing cases.

Western Jet Foil and Manston Asylum Processing Centres

Drew Hendry Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Suella Braverman]

My hon. Friend is right. The Labour party does not have any solutions to the problem, so it would rather spend airtime on a distraction. That is what this is all about.

Yes, we are having some success with returning people more swiftly to Albania. It is early days and I do not want to overplay it, because it is still very difficult legally, but those agreements with safe countries are vital to ensuring that people who come from a safe country—not from persecution, not fleeing war—can be legitimately returned because they are not here for asylum.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

The Home Secretary is responsible for national security. If she were made aware of a Government employee—a civil servant—who, despite apologies, had been sacked for sharing Government material several times on their private email or device, would she sanction their re-employment?

[Suella Braverman]

As I have made clear, I am very willing to apologise for mistakes that I have made, but what I am not willing to do is apologise for things that I have not done. As I have said, it is not right that there has been a breach of national security. It is not right that there was a document about security matters, intelligence agencies or law enforcement. Those things are simply not true.

Refugees from Ukraine

Drew Hendry Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Tom Pursglove]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the work he has been doing as a constituency MP in aiding his constituents to come across to the United Kingdom. I hope I can give him a little bit of reassurance by saying that we are working tirelessly to simplify those processes. I know the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) asked specifically about translation; on the translation of those web forms, I can tell her that work is going on at pace to provide translation of the appropriate guidance to help people to complete those forms in both Russian and Ukrainian. I hope that answers her point.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

Given that the United Nations is reporting that some 3 million people have fled Ukraine over the past number of weeks, half of them children, is 5,500 really something to crow about? Why can the Government not get a move on with this, allow people to get to safety, do the security checks when they are here and speed up the process so that more people are brought to a safe place out of the horrendous crisis they face?

[Tom Pursglove]

The hon. Gentleman speaks with great passion about these matters. I have set out some detail about the work that is going on to speed up those processes, and I will come on to greater detail about that in my remarks. One point that it is important to place firmly on the record is that, in relation to children, particularly unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, there are sensitivities involved. It is obviously very important that all the right safeguarding checks and processes are in place.

I also recognise that there are issues here where we need the agreement of the Ukrainian Government, to ensure that we are working in lockstep with them to get this right. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recognise why that is crucial.

[Drew Hendry]

I am grateful to the Minister for taking a further intervention on this point. He talks correctly about safeguarding. Nobody is suggesting there should not be safeguarding for children; it is absolutely critical that children are safe—but children must be safe. Cannot the children be safe first, and then we do the safeguarding? Can we not speed up the process so that the checks are done when children are in a safe place—as opposed to an unsafe place, which many are in at the moment?

[Tom Pursglove]

To illustrate the point I was making for the hon. Gentleman’s benefit, I repeat that it is important that we have agreement with Ukraine on how those matters are approached. It would not be right, for example, for us to remove unaccompanied children from Poland without that agreement in place. Of course, as he would rightly expect, and because it is something that we as Ministers are very mindful of, we will continue to work constructively with the Ukrainian and Polish authorities to ensure that we get it right and that we do our bit on this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) talking about a warm welcome. Of course, a warm welcome entails more than just our mouthing the words; by its very nature, it needs actions, in relation to shelter and safety, in order for people to feel welcomed. Plaid Cymru has long called for a compassionate and generous response to everyone—every human being fleeing persecution and wars. We firmly reject the notion that our support is given only to a certain few. Believing in our common humanity, we believe that everybody deserves shelter, safety and the opportunity for a flourishing life.

The public outpouring of support for the Homes for Ukraine schemes is unprecedented, yet it is also frustrating to see that the support offered so far for refugees from Ukraine falls short of that ambition. As many have said thoroughly, this is especially pronounced when we make the comparison with how other countries have responded. I do not want to go into all the detail, and many other countries have been listed already, but I just wish to refer to Ireland. That nation has a population of 5 million. Obviously, it is a country that we in Wales compare ourselves with; its capital city is my nearest one. Crucially, it is a sea-girt nation in almost every respect. How many people are received is not a matter of geography—Ireland, with its population of 5 million, has received more than 6,600 refugees—but a matter of attitude. It is unfortunate to see attitude at work here. None the less, I welcome the fact that the Government are now listening and finally providing some pathways for refugees from Ukraine to enter the UK.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

The right hon. Lady has made an important point about the action that has been taken by Ireland, which has not only taken the numbers it has with the population it has—the UK Government should reflect on that—but supplied every one of those Ukrainian refugees with a personal identification number to access services. That means that when they land in Ireland, they have support. People are fleeing their houses, and they have left their possessions and sometimes they have left their loved ones behind. They are tired and hungry, and they need support. What a difference in attitude we see here; what a missed opportunity for a Government who want to portray themselves as a world power to gain soft power, as Ireland has done. Is this not a lesson for this Government? Should they not look at what is happening elsewhere and institute some of that compassion themselves?

Windrush Compensation Scheme

Drew Hendry Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Gentleman makes a thoughtful comment about community-based detention and detention as a whole. Detention is there for a reason. Obviously, other discussions and debates have taken place around this, but importantly when it comes to the Windrush lessons learned review, the way in which people were treated and, through the Home Office and immigration enforcement, put in detention was completely wrong. We have to make sure that that does not happen again and that we do not have cases like that again. Clearly, that is part of the wider work with the lessons learned review.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

The recommendations state that the Home Secretary should urgently review all “compliant environment”—in other words, hostile environment—measures “individually and cumulatively”. Will she apologise for the hostile environment’s role in this and follow the recommendation to review it to the letter?

[Priti Patel]

I have spoken about the recommendations and implementing the report, and obviously I will update the House on how we will implement those recommendations.

Covid-19: UK Border Health Measures

Drew Hendry Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to ask this question because these are cross-Government measures. Bilateral agreements will of course be with the Foreign Office, and on the test, trace and isolate approach, it is the Department of Health and Social Care. When it comes to sector-specific issues, they will be Department by Department, but when it comes to travel and aviation, it will obviously be the Secretary of State for Transport and me. I will continue to work collaboratively with all Government Departments.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

Regardless of the merits or otherwise of this measure, it will disproportionately hit tourist economies, especially in rural areas such as the one I represent. The Secretary of State said earlier that she understood the impact. What specific conversations has she had with the Chancellor about extending the furlough and issuing grants to help the sector to survive?

[Priti Patel]

I have discussions with the Chancellor on a regular basis, and, of course, that applies to all aspects of the economy, not just the furlough scheme. I would be very happy, having heard the hon. Gentleman, to take away specific points that he has and I will raise them with the Chancellor.

Immigration

Drew Hendry Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

Yes, certainly. I have mentioned the engagement with employers, and over the last few months we have also been meeting non-governmental organisations and academia. Indeed, in the hon. Lady’s own city of Bristol, we held a roundtable that was well attended by representatives of Bristol University, which is very keen that the voice of the student should be heard, as well as the voice of the institution. It is important that we continue to engage and listen to voices from across the entire country.

We are marshalling our reforms under three key themes: improving our customer service and responding more effectively to the individual needs of people who interact with the system; making sure that we respond better to vulnerable individuals who interact with our system, including by ensuring that our processes are accessible; and ensuring we are an open organisation that listens and responds when our customers and staff identify problems, using feedback to design our policies and procedures and to understand their impact.

The EU settlement scheme embodies those principles. We have listened and responded, building on the feedback that we received through the extensive stakeholder engagement and the two public beta phases before its launch in March. The customer experience is where we want the future system to be. The scheme is fully digital and genuinely world leading because applicants can validate their identity using their mobile device—including Apple customers later this year—and are provided with a secure digital status that, unlike a physical document, cannot be lost, stolen or tampered with.

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), who is no longer in his place, made the point about those who have only Apple, not Android, phones, and about how the broadband coverage in his constituency makes uploading documents difficult. I would say to him that his constituents do not have to travel on a 500 mile round trip to Edinburgh, because the postal route opened on 30 March in time to coincide with the original planned date of leaving the European Union.

The motion talks about rejecting the requirement for EU citizens to apply for settled and pre-settled status, but a declaratory system, under which they automatically acquired an immigration status, would significantly reduce any incentive to obtain evidence of that status. It would risk creating confusion among employers and service providers, and would have the effect of impeding EU citizens’ access to benefits and services to which they were entitled.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

The Minister talks about confusion among employers. In the highlands, in my constituency, the confusion among employers is over where they are going to source staff, as people have been chased off by the hostile measures taken by this Government. Is it not time to say that people in the highlands, who are just highlanders, should just be able to stay in their homes?

[Caroline Nokes]

On EU settled status, we have absolutely said to our EU friends, neighbours and colleagues not just, “You can stay,” but, “We want you to stay.” That is an important message, which I will continue repeating both in the House and outside it.

We have put in place a system that is simple and straightforward. In the vast majority of cases, people’s applications are being determined within one to four working days, and satisfaction with the scheme is high. We are at a point where well over 800,000 people have been through the scheme, and it is important that we continue to move from the current phase to making sure that as many as possible access their status. That is why we have put in place up to £9 million of funding for 57 voluntary and community organisations across the UK to help us to reach out to an estimated 200,000 vulnerable or at-risk EU citizens and help them apply. There are over 300 assisted digital locations across the UK, where people can be supported through their application, and it is important to reflect the fact that the scheme is working. Furthermore, it has been built at pace, is successfully delivering in large volumes, and is protecting vulnerable individuals, which demonstrates how the Home Office is building for the future.

I am proud to serve as Immigration Minister at this time of unprecedented change, during which we are engaging with stakeholders right across the country to build our future borders and immigration system, and I very much look forward to hearing further contributions from hon. Members this afternoon.

Windrush Compensation Scheme

Drew Hendry Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I do not have a list of everyone who responded to the consultation—there were some 1,400 respondents—but the consultation was wide-ranging and we had responses from many different nationalities.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

Is there a risk of a further Windrush, as hundreds of thousands of EU citizens who are applying for their rights risk missing the deadline? Will the Home Secretary accept the cross-party calls to enshrine their rights in law to avoid this situation?

[Sajid Javid]

It is precisely because we want to avoid another Windrush situation that it cannot be sufficient just to enshrine rights in law. What is needed with the EU settlement scheme is a proper process of documentation from day one.

Bill Presented

Employment Rights (Shared Parental Leave and Flexible Working) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Jo Swinson presented a Bill to entitle employees to request shared parental leave and flexible working on the first day of employment; to make provision for self-employed persons to take shared parental leave; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 April, and to be printed (Bill 374).

International Women’s Day

Drew Hendry Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker, and I wish everybody here and beyond a happy International Women’s Day.

Women’s day was celebrated for the first time 110 years ago in the United States in protest at the working conditions to which garment workers—mostly female—were subjected. Although we as a global society have made significant strides towards gender equality since then, it is important to acknowledge that issues regarding the workplace, and about violence towards and the subjugation of women, are nowhere close to being resolved.

As we have heard, in this place 100 years ago Viscountess Nancy Astor made history and became the first female Member of Parliament to take her seat. Countess Markievicz of Sinn Féin was, of course, the first woman to be elected to this place, although she never took her seat. Today 209 women sit in the House of Commons, and 206 women in the House of Lords, but there is still work to do.

Some challenges have merely evolved in nature. For example, over a six-month period in 2017, women MPs were sent nearly 26,000 abusive tweets—that point has already been touched on, and I hope that the Government will respond to it. We need to address anonymity on social media, and the need for a compulsory code of practice for social media publishers. Social media giants must recognise their responsibility and cease hiding behind the description of “platforms”. They publish and make money from this issue, and they have an effect on our democracy, and especially on female politicians. Today, 2.7 billion women live in countries where their employment choices are legally restricted because of their gender. In Bangladesh, 73% of female garment workers have witnessed or experienced workplace violence. And here in England, Wales, and Scotland over half of women say that they have been sexually harassed at work.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. She is making a very powerful point. She will be aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) and I are ambassadors for White Ribbon Scotland. Does she agree that it is very important to get more men to sign up and speak out about violence against women, and that they should sign the pledge that says:

“never commit, condone or remain silent about violence against women in all its forms”?

That applies in Scotland, as well as in the other nations around the UK.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. What strikes me as a female politician is perhaps the risk of women talking about women’s issues and that in itself not generating status and attention. Of course, women’s issues are as much a matter for men as they are for women. That we are all here to discuss this matter is extremely significant.

Violence against women remains a major issue. Globally, one in three women will experience either physical partner violence or sexual violence in her lifetime. In 2017, 137 women across the world were murdered by a member of their own family every single day. Women and girls are routinely denied rights to their own bodies and lives. Some 9 million girls between the ages of 15 and 19 have been victims of forced sex in the past year alone. At least 200 million women and girls alive today are victims of female genital mutilation; 137,000 of them live in the UK.

There is still much to be done, but we should celebrate the progress we have made and the incredible women in our world today. Last year, Nadia Murad of Iraq—I was honoured to meet her two years ago; I am sure many others have, too—was awarded a Nobel peace prize for her work. She has amplified and raised the voice of the victim, not as a victim but as the voice of a survivor. That had so much impact and she very much deserved to receive the Nobel peace prize. Sinéad Burke, in Ireland, passionately advocates for people with disabilities to be included in design considerations. Rachel Williams of Newport, Wales, works tirelessly for survivors of domestic abuse since becoming a survivor herself.

I will be brief, because there are many other people who want to speak, but I am proud of this point: the National Assembly of Wales, my home Parliament of course, has now just about reached gender parity, with women currently accounting for 47% of our Assembly Members. I am optimistic for the future ahead of us.

One other point I am very proud of—other Members have raised it—is that we can now actually discuss periods in Parliament and talk about period poverty. I will mention Councillor Elyn Stevens of Rhondda Cynon Taf, whose campaign has been successful in the establishment in the National Assembly of Wales of a £1 million fund to address period poverty in Wales. For a woman of my generation, even five years ago I would have been embarrassed to talk about it—I would have gone bright red—but now we can talk about it.

I would like to end on these famous words:

“Here’s to strong women: may we know them, may we be them, may we raise them.”

At the same time, we must acknowledge that global power structures still exist which liberate some women—possibly us here—at the expense of others. We must therefore work towards liberation, equal opportunity and justice for women everywhere. Dydd Gŵyl Rhyngwladol Menywod hapus i chi i gyd: happy International Women’s Day.

Families of Commonwealth Soldiers

Drew Hendry Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

I am deeply grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue. Let me begin by paying tribute to all the men and women who serve in our armed forces. They put their lives on the line to protect ours and those of millions of people around the world.

My constituency is home to Fort George, the Black Watch, 3rd Battalion, and 500 soldiers. To them, and each and every one of the others, we owe a debt of gratitude for their service. That, of course, includes more than 6,000 men and women serving in the armed forces from foreign and Commonwealth countries, a number that is set to increase as the Army embarks on yet more recruitment campaigns across the Commonwealth.

In response to the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), the Defence Secretary has said:

“We expect up to 1,350 Commonwealth citizens to join our armed forces next year.”—[Official Report, 26 November 2018; Vol. 650, c. 3.]

Like any other soldiers, sailors and aircrew, they will put their lives on the line in our service, and they will do so under the direction of this Government’s Ministry of Defence. Reflected in their service is the sacrifice also made by their families, who will find themselves affected. They are sometimes uprooted, and often left with the anxiety of knowing that their loved ones are doing a difficult and dangerous job.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) for securing this debate; I have always wanted to say that right, and I have had the luck to do so. The hon. Gentleman has been very outspoken and diligent in taking this matter forward. Does he agree that we have a duty of care to those who fight for Queen and country in whatever form that takes, that that extends to the family of service personnel and that it is outrageous that it is not currently discharged as well as he and I would expect?

[Drew Hendry]

Absolutely; my hon. Friend makes a great point. As I was going on to say, the sacrifice is also made by the families. They have the anxiety of their loved ones doing a difficult and dangerous job, yet their sacrifices often go untold.

As the Army Families Federation has said,

“Commonwealth members of our Armed Forces make up a significant and vital part of the UK’s Defence capability and, as a nation, we ask them to make significant sacrifices to do so.”

Is it right that the sacrifices they make in undertaking the duty of service should mean being kept apart from their families? No, it is simply not right; yet it is continually happening. The current immigration rules are keeping Commonwealth soldiers apart from their families. The report from the AFF reads:

“The UK recruits soldiers from across the Commonwealth to serve in our Armed Forces. There are currently over 6,000 personnel serving in the UK Armed Forces from foreign and Commonwealth countries, with more being recruited each year to fill technical and specialist roles.

Since December 2013, those who leave their country of origin to serve our nation are subjected to the Government’s minimum income requirements if they wish to bring their immediate family with them.

This requirement means that due to military pay scales, a Commonwealth soldier with a spouse and two children can end up waiting up to six years before they earn over the £24,800 needed for their family to join them.

It cannot be right that those who have signed up to defend our nation by serving in the Armed Forces are doing so at the expense of their family life. The current situation can result in personnel making the heart-breaking decision of choosing which child they bring with them to the UK and which they leave behind until their income has increased. The MIT should be removed as a barrier from those who serve in the Armed Forces.”

Louise Simpson, chair of the Cobseo Foreign and Commonwealth cluster, has said:

“We struggle to engage with recruiters to make sure that soldiers and service personnel understand the financial commitment that they have when coming to the UK particularly around the cost of visas and the minimum income requirements. There was a lot of press…about soldiers not understanding that they may not be able to bring their children in for almost 4 years because they are not earning the right amount of money. As an organisation, we feel that is immoral”.

She is right; that is immoral. This Government must accept that fact.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is doing the armed forces a great service. Does he agree that we must remember that these Commonwealth soldiers put their lives on the line just like British soldiers and therefore should be treated in the same way as British soldiers in terms of family, instead of having this limit of £24,000 and waiting for six years?

[Drew Hendry]

I absolutely and fundamentally agree. It is a disgrace that people are being asked to put themselves on the line and at risk without qualifying for the same conditions as others enjoy just because they were born in one of the nations of the UK.

In 2011 the Government announced plans to introduce a new policy on family migration. One of the major changes was to make the level of income threshold

“higher than that of the safety net of income support.”

Subsequently, the armed forces immigration rules introduced in the first quarter of 2013 closely aligned themselves to the rules for non-military and introduced the requirement for a soldier with one child to be earning at least £22,400 and a further £2,400 for each additional child. It could be many years before a recruit earns the salary needed to meet the threshold.

In 2011, the Government enshrined the armed forces covenant in statute. The Army Families Federation and the Cobseo Foreign and Commonwealth cluster group have urged the Government to consider the principles of the covenant with regard to the family needs of Commonwealth personnel. Commonwealth recruits find it very difficult to hold down a second job, due to their irregular hours. They also stand alone as a cohort within the armed forces, in that they are forcibly separated from their immediate dependants on recruitment, unlike their domestic peers.

In August 2014, the Prime Minister announced the introduction of a family test to be applied by Departments when devising policy. The guidance and documentation for the test state:

“Strong and stable families, in all their forms, play an important role in our society. Families have a major impact on the life chances of individuals and strong family relationships are recognised as an important component of individual, community and national wellbeing.”

While we think about those words, let us consider the case study of an Army private who enlisted in 2013, just prior to the new rules coming into effect. He had not even had the chance to bring his family to the UK, as he had not finished training. He has two children and a wife back home in Ghana, and he has been separated from them for six years. He is now earning enough to bring his wife and one of his children to the UK, but it will be another two to three years before he can bring his other child here. He is faced with the agonising decision of choosing which child should join him and his wife in the UK. How can that be right?

The family test sets out a number of questions that Departments should apply when devising policies that risk affecting families. Those questions include:

“What impacts will the policy have on all family members’ ability to play a full role in family life, including with respect to parenting and other caring responsibilities?”

The previous Chief of the Defence Staff commented in the Ministry of Defence’s 2016 strategy that our personnel could fully carry out their defence tasks only if they had the support of their families and the confidence that their loved ones would be able to access the right support when required.

In September 2017, a soldier who had been refused a visa for the UK as a result of the minimum income threshold appealed, with the assistance of the Army Families Federation, on the basis of exceptional circumstances. The judge said that the appeal was successful in the light of the compassionate circumstances of the case, particularly noting that the sponsor had a legitimate expectation that he would be able to bring his family to the UK when he signed up to the armed forces in 2017. He said:

“I find that it is not in the public interest to exclude the appellant”.

It is time to amend the existing immigration rules on the minimum income threshold to exempt the families of serving armed forces personnel.

However, the difficulties do not end there. My constituent, Denis Omondi, is a serving soldier in the British Army who, in 2011, found out that he was the father of a little girl in Kenya. He had previously been unaware of his daughter’s existence, but he then sprang into action, meeting and visiting his daughter as often as he could. There was an instant connection between them, and they are indeed a dad and daughter, so when his daughter’s birth mother said that she could no longer look after her, Denis became Ann’s sole custodian. He pays for her education and living costs in Kenya and is proudly responsible for her care and wellbeing. Understandably, he takes the role of being her dad very seriously. He also takes his job very seriously. He is a British citizen and a serving soldier in 3 Scots, Black Watch, stationed at Fort George, where he has loyally served, undertaking tours in Afghanistan, Iraq and Cyprus. Despite the demands of his work, he has used every opportunity to visit and spend time with Ann in Kenya.

With his wife battling cancer and as a dad missing his daughter, Denis set about applying for a visa to bring her to live with them in the highlands. To him, it was simply the most natural thing for them finally to be together as a family. Imagine his heartache when he opened the letter from the Home Office telling him that Ann’s visa application had been rejected. The reason given was that the Home Office considered that this soldier, committed to serving in the British Army, had not spent enough time with Ann to prove the relationship. That happened despite him providing evidence of visits, photos and calls with Ann, correspondence with teachers and care providers and much more. Denis and his wife were in disbelief at the news, and Ann was devastated to be kept apart from her family.

I could not believe it when I heard about their plight so, in this very Chamber, I pleaded with the Prime Minister to right the wrong. She promised that the Home Secretary would investigate personally, and he readily nodded his agreement. I thought that common sense and common decency would prevail, but that has not yet been the case. Since then, the anxiety, cost and pressure has built up on the Omondi family. A promise to look again eventually came, but only after relentless chasing. Confusion and chaos at the Home Office meant that I had to raise the case again, this time with the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Incidentally, I thank the Immigration Minister for the apology for saying that Dennis, Shelagh and myself had told lies about the situation with the mislaid paperwork and about the fact that no conversations with the Omondis had come from the Home Office. It has been said to me in writing that the Home Office apologises for that, and I am grateful, but I would rather that it got on with sorting the situation out for the Omondis. Here we are: a Prime Minister, two Secretaries of State, a heartbroken family and still no answer on whether this serving soldier will be reunited with his only daughter.

I found out today that so distrusting is the Home Office that it has arranged with a South African agency to call Ann and her birth mother to check out the detailed information supplied by the Omondis. I cannot believe that we would trust a member of the armed forces to go and put his life on the line for us, yet we cannot trust the information that he and his family are directly supplying here in the UK. What does that say?

“Your Army needs you” is a recruitment call-out, and the website details many benefits of joining, including promises of child and adult safeguarding and support for emotional wellbeing, all of which is sanctioned and promoted by the Ministry of Defence. Those promises will seem pretty hollow if the UK Government fail to do the right thing by someone whom they have called on to serve for them. Let us expedite this case so that this family can be reunited. The Tory Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, a former lieutenant colonel in the British Army, said:

“Commonwealth troops should be able to bring their kids to Britain. If they fight for us, they should be able to live with us.”

I agree.

Veterans Aid responded to my note this morning by saying:

“Since 2007 we have interacted with nearly 700 Foreign & Commonwealth veterans seeking help with status issues. These range from regularisation of their own status to complicated appeals to reunite, or keep together, families. Indeed during 2012-14 —well before the scale of the Windrush debacle was revealed—we highlighted two landmark cases that effected a change in the law.”

More recently, in a case remarkably similar to the one that I have described, Veterans Aid

“successfully helped to reunite a father from Sierra Leone with his daughter. It took nine months to resolve.”

That is not Veterans Aid’s core business, but on the basis of considerable experience with a similar case, it was happy to advise if required. The charity continued:

“Behind each ‘case’ there is a tale of human misery and while the details differ, the causes rarely do. Residency and status regulations are complex and inflexible. Advice to those about to leave the Armed Forces is either not given, or not given a priority. Costs relating to residency and citizenship applications are prohibitively high—and well beyond the budget of a typical former infantry soldier with a family.”

When families are in this country, the difficulties do not end, and they continue when soldiers do manage to be reunited with their families. One such case is that of another constituent of mine, a serving Commonwealth soldier who has done tours in Afghanistan, Kenya, Jordan, Cyprus, Germany, Ireland and France. His wife and stepdaughter applied for naturalisation in September 2017, but there is no decision yet.

[Jim Shannon]

Once again, the hon. Gentleman has advanced a very good, comprehensive case. The soldier in the field who is doing his duty in uniform is always conscious of his family back home. The distress that he obviously experiences because of what is happening is bound to have an effect on him in the field, as it does on his family back home. Is it not really important that the Minister now, in response to the hon. Gentleman, takes this case on personally and sorts it out as soon as possible?

[Drew Hendry]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his words. Absolutely—it is just the right thing to do. There is no dubiety here. He is absolutely right about the effect on people.

As I was saying, my constituent’s wife and daughter applied for naturalisation, with no decision yet. That means that despite his being a UK citizen, his wife and daughter do not have recourse to public funds and are not allowed to work, and the Home Office currently has all their identification documents. They have been waiting well over a year, and are yet another family of a Commonwealth soldier suffering at the hands of the Home Office, which insists that the case is “complex”. When I ask for a timeline for the decision, we are told that it cannot give us one, and so on.

Another case is that of Emmanuel, who is happy to be named. He wanted to bring his auntie over for a visit, but was unable to do so because she did not earn enough in Ghana, and the Home Office would not accept him paying for her visit here. He basically just wanted to see his family before he went off for a tour in Iraq in 2018. He wrote to my assistant, Callum:

“Dear Callum,

Good day and thank you very much for getting in touch.

Even though we felt abandoned in our own case, I will be more than glad for the MP to mention my case as an example and use my name if need be, so Parliament and the Home Office knows that these are real issues affecting real Commonwealth people.

I am sad to say that after two attempts, my auntie never was issued the visa. This is unacceptable, what is happening to Commonwealth citizens serving in the British army and it’s super bad for the recruitment drive!

It’s bad enough that these men and women, having signed blank cheques with their lives for this country, still pay the full cost for their naturalization to become British, and yet their loved ones cannot even visit them to keep them sane. My support for Mr Omondi in getting his daughter is massive, as it affects all of us Commonwealth people, especially when I and my partner have experienced this ill treatment. We are still devastated by what has happened to us, because I was going through postnatal depression then. Extend our thanks to Mr Drew for flying the Commonwealth flag for us in this matter.”

All these cases are simple. We have asked these people to come and do a duty for us—to put their life at risk, and to obviously involve their families, because that is a part of the job. I am asking the Minister now to take this seriously. In the case of Mr Omondi, I would like an answer. In the case of this entire situation for all Commonwealth armed services personnel, there is a big job to do to sort this out. Let us see the changes made that need to be made, and let us see those Commonwealth soldiers and armed forces personnel treated with the dignity that they deserve.

[The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) for bringing this subject to our attention during tonight’s debate. As he said, we are all rightly proud of our armed forces and the contribution made to the tri-services, whether it be the Army, the Royal Air Force or the Royal Navy, by our Commonwealth personnel. There is a long tradition of recruitment from the Commonwealth, which we are all proud to see continuing. Like the hon. Gentleman, I have a military base in my constituency—the School of Army Aviation at Middle Wallop.

In the Home Office, as in all other Departments, we are absolutely committed to upholding our obligations under the armed forces covenant, to ensure that no one who is serving or has served, or their family, is disadvantaged because of that service. The Home Office works closely with the Ministry of Defence and the individual services to make sure that those who choose to enlist in Her Majesty’s forces are well informed and fully aware of what the immigration requirements are for them and their families.

As the Immigration Minister, I am responsible for the borders, immigration and citizenship system, including how it applies to the armed forces. That includes our provisions for foreign and Commonwealth members of Her Majesty’s forces, foreign and Commonwealth family members of our service personnel and members of international armed forces and their families. I am also the Minister with responsibility for the armed forces covenant and veterans’ issues in the Home Office, which means I take a direct interest in the issues affecting our current and former service personnel and their families. I take extremely seriously my role of ensuring that the immigration system operates in supporting the families of our dedicated service personnel who join Her Majesty’s forces from Commonwealth countries. That involves keeping up to speed with the work conducted by the Ministry of Defence and other Departments in delivering our cross-Government commitment to our armed forces covenant obligations. It also includes keeping our policies relating to the armed forces under review, and acknowledging and championing where our policies are meeting our covenant obligations.

[Drew Hendry]

I am grateful for the Minister’s comments about the armed forces covenant. Will she take account of the request of the AFF and Cobseo foreign and Commonwealth cluster group urging the Government to consider the principles of the covenant with regard to the family needs of Commonwealth soldiers?

[Caroline Nokes]

Well, of course. I think I have already indicated that we have to look at the needs of not only service personnel and former service personnel but their families when considering our obligations under the covenant.

As the subject of today’s debate is families of commonwealth soldiers, I trust that hon. Members will find it helpful if I set out some of the Government’s policy background. From December 2013, a dedicated part of the immigration rules known as “Appendix Armed Forces” was introduced. As the name suggests, it was developed especially for the family members of those who had chosen to enlist as members of Her Majesty’s forces. The purpose of the change was to align dedicated routes with the broader immigration framework. It was also designed, with joint input from the MOD, to ensure that the provisions therein fulfilled our obligations under the armed forces covenant. Although the military sponsor remains exempt from immigration controls for the duration of their service, family members who come to the UK to join them are considered under the dedicated rules for Her Majesty’s forces families in “Appendix Armed Forces”.

As members of Her Majesty’s forces are regularly posted abroad and their families are rightly encouraged to accompany them, the rules make special provisions to account for that. First, a standard grant of limited leave for Her Majesty’s forces family members is for five years, rather than the 30 months that is standard for other family applications. Importantly, that saves them the cost of a second application fee. Secondly, time spent overseas on an accompanied posting is treated as time spent in the UK for immigration purposes. That means that any time spent accompanying their partner or parent on an overseas posting does not prejudice their eligibility for settlement after spending five years with limited leave. We are proud of our continuing commitment to our armed forces and their family members, including Commonwealth nationals who bravely offer their service to Her Majesty the Queen and our country. As I have indicated, I am committed to ensuring we uphold our obligations and do right by all members of the forces and their families.

As the Minister with overall responsibility for immigration matters, I am acutely aware that some of the applications received by my Department fall into what can be called the “complex cases”. I thank the hon. Gentleman for taking the trouble to set out his constituents’ cases in such detail. He will of course know that I cannot comment on the detail of individual cases on the Floor of the House. I hope he will understand that I can speak only in general terms. Without going into specifics, I accept that applications involving families can involve a variety of reasons, as family dynamics themselves can become ever more complex. This is not isolated from marriage or relationship breakdowns, the setting up of new family units and myriad other causes.

Although I shall certainly not speak about specifics, it is important to explain some of the background. These applications can be, by their very nature, time-consuming for decision makers to consider, and I make no apology for that. Although we are striving to have more streamlined processes, we must never lose sight of the fact that one of our primary duties is the protection of the public. That is especially true when we are looking at applications made on behalf of children. In some cases, the application may not have been properly completed, or there might be gaps in the provision of the information that we require to make a sound, well-balanced decision. In some instances, it may well be that we ask for more information, or that we ask to speak to the sponsor. Such additional measures are taken only when it would assist the decision-making process and other options have been exhausted. Understandably, that might be frustrating for some sponsors or applicants, but we will do it only to safeguard the interests of the applicant. All Members will be aware that we have statutory obligations to minors and to others who may be vulnerable for other reasons. Again, I make no apology for officials being assiduous in making responsible decisions.

My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I are conscious of the hon. Gentleman’s point about the income threshold and how it might affect Army families. Although I stand firmly by the principle of the minimum income threshold, I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I have listened carefully to the points he has made this evening.

The Government have a proud tradition of supporting our armed forces and recognising the invaluable service that they give to the United Kingdom, and that includes Commonwealth nationals who come to the UK to serve in the forces. That is one reason why we explicitly provide for Commonwealth personnel to obtain settled status after they have discharged, enabling them to remain in the UK permanently and, if they wish, to become British citizens. We also recognise the valuable role that families play in supporting our armed forces, which is why we have immigration rules specifically for forces family members. We greatly value the contribution and sacrifices made by Commonwealth members of the forces, and their families, in ensuring the security of the UK and protecting our citizens. We want them to go on playing an important role in our armed forces, and we are committed to upholding our obligations to them.

Question put and agreed to.