Return of Kings

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. The “This is Abuse” campaign has been extremely successful, and I am very pleased that the Government announced, just before Christmas, that we are continuing with it. It is so important that young people understand what is appropriate, understand what is appropriate in relationships and understand what a normal loving relationship is, as opposed to an abusive one.

My hon. Friend will know that the new domestic abuse offence—the offence of coercive or controlling behaviour—was commenced on 29 December. The new offence had been called for for many years. It was a difficult thing to do, which is why the Government made sure that we got it right, but we now have the ability to prosecute and convict offenders who never commit physical violence against their victims, but have abused them for far too long.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

I thank the Minister for her comments. I join her in condemning rape and violence in any form and, in particular, any attempt to blame the victims. I wholeheartedly agree with her that responsibility must always rest with the perpetrator.

We in the Scottish National party are pleased that the events have been cancelled. The anti-women agenda behind them is utterly and completely repugnant. In Scotland, our petition against the events, which were due to take place in Edinburgh and Glasgow, has attracted about 40,000 signatures. Members may be aware that SNP Members have signed an early-day motion condemning these sexist and hate-mongering meetings and the misogyny behind them.

In Scotland, Police Scotland has been working closely with anti-violence against women organisations. It put out a fairly strongly worded statement about the policing of the events that were to have taken place. It is obviously absolutely paramount, as I am sure the Minister would agree, that women should be able to go about their lawful business, day and night, in our cities and towns without being subjected to this sort of intimidation.

The Scottish Government and Police Scotland have worked hard on the investigation of sex crimes in Scotland. The Minister will be aware that a number of years ago —in 2008—the Scottish Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service set up a specialist national sexual crimes unit. I was very proud to be one of its founding prosecutors. Our conviction rates for rape and sexual violence have indeed increased, but we are still working very hard on that, as these are challenging crimes to prosecute.

I associate myself with the questions raised by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), and I thank her for asking this important urgent question. SNP Members, too, want the Istanbul convention to be ratified as soon as possible, and I am sure the Minister will reassure me that she is continuing to liaise with the devolved Governments about that.

Will the Minister reassure me about one point raised by the Member for Stretford and Urmston? If the Home Secretary becomes aware of any plans this gentleman—I use the word loosely—may have to enter the United Kingdom, will she liaise with the Scottish Government, and indeed the other devolved Administrations, on any future events?

[Karen Bradley]

I thank the hon. and learned Lady for her comments. I assure her that I will copy her into my letter to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). We want to take all the steps we possibly can, and I want to set out in depth the steps that the Government can take and what we will do.

The hon. and learned Lady mentioned the Istanbul convention. I assure her that we are liaising with the devolved Administrations to make sure that we ratify it as soon as possible. She talked about police forces. I want to pay tribute to Police Scotland, and to all police forces across the United Kingdom. It is worth making the point that such criminals do not recognise borders, and police forces need to work together to make sure that we tackle these crimes. Such crimes are not acceptable in the United Kingdom—and I mean the whole United Kingdom.

Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Order 2016

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd February 2016 General Committees

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Buck.

The Scottish National party opposes this order. We are concerned about the 25% increase across the board for family fees, and the huge hike in the administrative review fee from £80 to £400—a 500% increase. I am sure that the Minister will wish to emphasise, as he already has, that these are maximum ceilings and that lower indicative costs have been published for the coming year. But what guarantee do we have that they will not go to the maximum in the effort to make the system self-financing, which is the Government’s avowed aim? Committee members will no doubt have had an opportunity to look through the briefing from the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, which makes some pertinent points. In particular, it highlights the fact that there is no correlation with the ability to pay, and that study and business-centred immigration is favoured over child and family issues. The Minister has said that he has given reasons, but we have grave concerns that the fee increase will be a disincentive to families, particularly those already here trying to register a child.

All Members have constituents coming to us with examples of the difficulties posed for them by the immigration system, and in November the ombudswoman published a report that was very critical of the Home Office. Let me give a couple of examples of constituents who have come to me about administrative reviews, which the ILPA has also highlighted. One constituent applied for a settlement visa for his wife, but the Home Office failed to communicate with Cambridge English Language Assessment about her certificate, which clearly stated that she had passed the English language assessment, and the application was refused. My constituent was forced to submit an administrative review and wait several months before the decision was overturned. It was a clear error on the Home Office’s part and resulted in his wasting money. I am sure the Minister will say that in certain circumstances the administrative fee is refunded, but as the ILPA briefing highlights, it is not refunded in all circumstances. For example, it says:

“The fee is refunded if the application is successful. It is not refunded where the refusal stands, but on some other ground, the original decision having indeed been found to have been flawed”.

I feel that that is against the principles of natural justice.

There is also the issue that regardless of the expectation that the fee may be refunded, people still have to stump up at the outset. There is a huge difference between £80 and £400, and that may be a disincentive to go for administrative review. During the passage of the Immigration Act 2014, the Government sought to reassure us that review would be cheaper than bringing an appeal, but these proposed maximums suggest that they have abandoned that idea. We should also remember that the increases must be seen in the context of increased thresholds for spousal visas, the removal of appeal rights and the removal of legal aid.

I want to speak briefly about another constituency example. A gentleman and his wife came to see me. They are both entrepreneurs and have invested considerably in the Scottish and, indeed, the UK economy and employed many UK citizens. Their application for a tier 1 entrepreneurship visa was rejected on grounds that were purely due to a Home Office mistake—a typographical error which meant that it searched for and investigated the wrong company in relation to the evidence of investment that had been produced. My constituent had stumped up a total of £7,200 up front to get the application in. I hope, because I believe in the principles of natural justice even within the Home Office, that an administrative review will be granted. My constituent’s business success means that he is in the fortunate position of being able to stump up the fee, but that does not detract from the fact that people are already expected to lay out large sums, and now considerable increases are proposed.

I know that the Government have said that one reason for the increases is to fund the costs of the system and make it self-financing. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East will talk more generally about the benefits of immigration for the UK and why we should question whether the system needs to be completely self-financing, but I make the point that the costs of the system would be substantially reduced if the Home Office addressed its considerable inefficiencies.

The report published on 10 November last year showed:

“Poor handling of immigration-related complaints is a key reason why the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman upholds almost seven in 10 complaints about the Home Office…The top reason for the complaints were delays, which left many people separated from their loved ones, denied access to education or forced into the informal economy where they can face abuse. Poor decision making was the second issue highlighted in the report, cited in more than one in four upheld complaints about the Home Office.”

I ask the Government, why should families who want to come and live in this union of countries and contribute to our economies have to pay for the Home Office’s inefficiencies? What is the Home Office doing to address those inefficiencies, rather than putting the costs on to the applicants?

Serious and Organised Crime: Prüm Convention

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement today and for the courtesy of keeping me and the Scottish Government informed of her plans in advance of today’s motion. I agree with the shadow Home Secretary that the Home Secretary made a convincing and powerful case for participating in the Prüm decisions. It seems clear that the United Kingdom’s participation in those decisions will give police forces across the UK accelerated access to millions of fingerprints, DNA profiles and car registration records held across Europe. Such police co-operation across Europe can only be a good thing, provided that there are inbuilt safeguards respecting civil liberties and adherence to the highest scientific standards.

I welcome the UK Government’s engagement with both the Scottish Government and Police Scotland in developing the business and implementation case. I and my colleagues at Holyrood are encouraged by the progress to date. On the basis that the necessary civil liberties safeguards and high scientific standards will be built into the legislation and that there is proper and full involvement of the Scottish Government, the Scottish National party will support the motion.

I thank the Home Secretary for confirming clearly that the Scottish Government, the Scottish Police Authority and Police Scotland will be included in the membership of the group to have oversight of Prüm. I thank her also for confirming that the UK Government will continue to work closely with the Scottish Government to ensure that the views and concerns of the people of Scotland are given due consideration in the implementation of these decisions.

Clear benefits of Prüm for Scottish policing have already been shown. The Home Office pilot exercise which was used to inform the business case has already produced two hits for serious historical sexual crimes in Scotland, and these hits are currently being assessed and investigated. Prüm clearly offers advantages to Police Scotland over the current system in terms of both the speed of response and the ability to identify perpetrators more quickly and bring them to justice sooner. Under the current system, as we heard, all international inquiries have to be routed through Interpol. Even in a very serious case, it can take several days for a response to be received. For less serious crime requests, as we heard, it can take many days and even weeks or months for responses to be received.

However, under Prüm, DNA and fingerprint data will be uploaded to the Prüm database from the relevant national databases. These data can be automatically searched, with any hits being notified immediately in the form of anonymised data in the first part of the two-stage process that the Home Secretary explained. Further data quality checks can then be carried out by member states, and on completion full data exchange can take place. This will be much quicker under Prüm than under the current system. The same applies to vehicle registration checks—an EU-wide vehicle registration check could be completed instantly under Prüm, compared with the several days that that takes at present.

On oversight, it was originally proposed by the Home Office that the Information Commissioner and the Biometrics Commissioner would be responsible for auditing UK compliance with Prüm. This was problematic for Scotland because, although they have a UK-wide role, both these officials have a limited remit in Scotland. For example, the Biometrics Commissioner’s role is to keep under review the retention and use by the police of DNA samples, profiles and fingerprints, but their functions in the main do not extend to Scotland. Collection of DNA profiles and samples in Scottish criminal cases does not fall within the Biometrics Commissioner’s remit because these issues are wholly devolved as they form part of Scottish criminal procedure.

Against that background, I am very grateful to the Home Secretary for confirming that the oversight group that is to be set up will include members from the Scottish Government, the Scottish Police Authority and Police Scotland, as this will provide a vehicle that can be used to feed in any views and concerns about compliance in Scotland. As I said, Prüm is a mixture of reserved and devolved matters, and that is why discussions are ongoing between officials of the Scottish and UK Governments to establish what, if any, legislation will need to be laid before the Scottish Parliament. Once again, I thank the Home Secretary for her continued co-operation with the Scottish Government in this regard.

Turning to civil liberties and safeguards, SNP Members were pleased to read in the business and implementation case that the Government recognised that there were significant civil liberties concerns about the operation of Prüm. I am pleased that they have taken on board some of the key objections put forward by civil liberties groups such as Justice, Liberty and Big Brother Watch. I note that the Home Secretary said that she renews her commitment to addressing civil liberties issues in relation to Prüm.

It is crucial that a correct balance is struck between preventing crime, protecting national security and protecting individual civil liberties, particularly the right to privacy. The Home Office has proposed a number of safeguards that we are pleased to support. In particular, we are happy with the suggestion that any personal data that the UK sends to another member state must not be stored permanently on its systems or databases, and cannot be stored for longer than would be legal in the country sending it. We are also pleased that there will be oversight of, and periodic checks on, the lawfulness of the supply of data and compliance with Prüm.

I understand that if a foreign member state searches for DNA or fingerprints and that search is matched with a UK citizen aged under 18, their personal data can be accessed only if mutual legal assistance channels are used, and that the UK will not share data on those under 18 through Prüm. I also understand that there is an appreciation that if the crime for which someone is matched is very minor, the UK can refuse to send personal data.

Then there are the higher scientific standards in relation to DNA profiles to which the Home Secretary alluded, whereby rather than the minimum requirement of Prüm for at least six full designated loci, the UK Government will require that personal data will not be supplied unless the DNA match is at 10 or more loci. As she said, that means that the chances of a hit being wrong are less than one in a billion, which under Scottish criminal procedure would put the matter pretty much beyond reasonable doubt.

I welcome the undertaking that the United Kingdom will ensure that only those who have been convicted of a crime can be searched in the DNA or fingerprint databases. I applaud this as being in line with what has been standard practice in Scotland for some years. I appreciate that the coalition Government also embarked on this route in recent years.

As I said, these safeguards have been welcomed by civil liberties groups, but some, particularly Big Brother Watch, which the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) mentioned, still have concerns about certain aspects of Prüm. They have raised a particular concern about the vehicle registration database, which holds the personal data of all drivers, the majority of whom are not, of course, criminals. Safeguards are to be built into the system with regard to access to DNA and fingerprint data to protect innocent people’s data, so I wonder whether consideration might be given to whether, at least to some extent, such safeguards should be built into the recovery of vehicle registration data. The Home Secretary said that innocent Britons will have nothing to fear, and perhaps that ought to be borne in mind in this respect.

Big Brother Watch raised similar concerns in relation to Eurodac—the EU-wide database of asylum seekers’ and illegal migrants’ fingerprints. The persons whose fingerprints are on this database are not necessarily criminals, so I wonder whether the Home Secretary agrees that it is appropriate that we look at putting in place safeguards to ensure that it is accessed only in the most serious cases.

On the European arrest warrant, I thank the Home Secretary for addressing a concern that I had, and that was raised by Big Brother Watch, about whether the match of a DNA sample, a fingerprint or a vehicle number plate would be enough to request the extradition of a British citizen, or whether further evidence would be required. I was pleased to hear her confirm so clearly that further corroborative evidence would be required before a European arrest warrant could be issued or implemented.

In conclusion, unlike others in this House—we have already heard from them today—the Scottish National party does not fear the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Unlike those who have tabled amendment (a), we believe that, far from threatening the civil liberties of British citizens, the Court of Justice will ensure that they are upheld, having regard to the charter of fundamental rights. It is, of course, open to this Parliament to set higher standards in relation to human rights and civil liberties, if it wished to do so.

Immigration Bill

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I agree that we need to enforce the immigration rules and laws that we have put in place, but the problem is that the resources and manpower are not being put in to do that. We do not need new powers and rules; we simply need resources to enforce the rules that already exist. I suggest that some of the rules already go far too far.

New clause 16 is a modest response to clause 13, which creates wide powers for immigration officials to close premises for 48 hours before any court involvement is required in certain cases of suspected illegal working. These could have very significant consequences, including for perfectly innocent workers whose place of work is closed for up to two days. Provision for statutory compensation, which our amendment would introduce, is designed to ensure that notices are not issued in an oppressive manner by immigration officials.

New clause 17 is without doubt the more significant of the two new clauses. It would remove the right-to-rent provisions in the 2014 Act. We have signed other amendments in relation to right to rent, starting with the crucial amendment 35, which would remove the criminal sanctions and what we regard as Dickensian eviction processes from the Bill. Amendment 46 is designed to prevent those letting out rooms on essentially a charitable basis from being criminalised. Finally amendments 54 to 57 remove powers for the Secretary of State to legislate by way of regulations for new Scottish right-to-rent provisions, with immense effect on devolved Scottish housing law.

We also support changes proposed by Labour Members such as amendment 22, which seems designed to fix what we can only presume to be a drafting anomaly under which a landlord or landlady would be guilty of an offence for renting to a person with no right to rent, even during the period of 28 days when they could not evict that person. We also fully back their amendments 23 to 26, which would remove the obscene proposals that would see landlords and landladies turned into not only immigration officers but High Court judges, and would see summary evictions without judicial oversight.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) will have more—much more—to say on these dreadful and draconian measures if given the opportunity, Madam Deputy Speaker. Our view is essentially the same as it was on Second Reading. Right to rent is not evidence-based, but in fact flies in the face of the evidence provided by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, and indeed parts of the Government’s own pilot review. It is unfair to place these duties and now criminal sanctions on landlords, and it will lead to inadvertent discrimination or racism, with foreign nationals and even British citizens without documents at risk of being rejected from a tenancy whenever there is a safe and easy option of a British passport holder to rent to. It will push more families away from authorities and immigration control, making enforcement harder, not easier.

The one part of the Bill from which something useful might actually emerge is the first few clauses of part 1, and the provisions for a Director of Labour Market Enforcement, which we welcome. It is sad that its presence in an immigration Bill suggests that the new role might be seen as one primarily concerned with enforcing immigration laws, so we have joined our Labour colleagues in supporting amendment 18, which is designed to ensure that the functions of the director are exercised for the purpose of protecting the victims of labour market exploitation.

More fundamental is amendment 19, which seeks to remove the offence of illegal working. We share the widespread concerns that, like other offences, it will have little effect in terms of immigration control, but will have other significant adverse effects. In this case, the negative consequence is to undermine the decent work that the Government have been doing to tackle slavery and trafficking. The Bill will drive exploited, undocumented workers further underground, and leave them more at risk of exploitation, rather than less.

While on this issue, we know that James Ewins’ report on domestic workers is with the Government but as yet not available to Members. We question why that is the case, and when we will be able to see and debate it in order to inform what should happen with this Bill if it gets a Third Reading.

Finally, in relation to part 1 of the Act, amendment 33 seeks to ensure that employers who innocently and inadvertently employ a person without the right to work are not criminalised by the Bill. It does so by applying a threshold of “knowingly or recklessly” to the offence of employing an adult without permission to work, instead of merely requiring that they have “reasonable cause to believe” that the employee may be such a person. We are concerned that the current test might catch people who are not the intended target.

There are two further sets of amendments in this first grouping that I need to speak to. The first set relates to how a number of these provisions would be implemented in Scotland. Clauses 10, 11 and 16 all include what I am told are referred to as Henry VIII clauses—broad powers to legislate for Scotland, and indeed Northern Ireland and in one case Wales. Whereas provisions on licensed premises, private hire vehicles and right to rent are set out in significant detail in schedules to the Bill, and subject to full legislative scrutiny, that is not the case for Scotland. Instead, the Secretary of State is given the sweeping power to legislate in a similar way for Scotland by way of regulation. The power includes the ability to amend Acts of the Scottish Parliament, without any consideration of that Parliament’s view on the matter—and that is despite the fact that liquor licensing, private hire car licensing and housing are all devolved matters.

I understand that Parliament has long been hostile to Henry VIII clauses, and rightly so. These clauses are particularly pernicious for the reasons given, and so should be rejected. That can be done by supporting amendments 47 to 53, which would remove the power to regulate for Scotland in this way, thereby requiring primary legislation and the full scrutiny that that entails. Alternatively, amendment 41 requires that any such regulations would require the consent of the Scottish Parliament, again enabling proper scrutiny. That is surely only right and proper in the circumstances.

Finally, on new clause 13 and amendment 32, this House witnessed a powerful Backbench Business debate back in September, led by the hon. Members for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), for Bedford (Richard Fuller) and for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), who I know will all want, if they can, to speak on the issue again today. On that day there were strong speeches on all sides of the House as it united to tell the Government that immigration detention without a fixed and certain time limit was no longer acceptable. We are the only country in the EU without a time limit so it is inexcusable for this country not to operate one. We on the SNP Benches would prefer that we move straight to a position where immigration bail is granted after 28 days, as set out in amendment 32. Alternatively, we will support new clause 13 to see progress towards that goal.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend will be aware that the immigration detention inquiry panel heard evidence from a consultant psychiatrist that those who are detained for more than 30 days suffer significantly more mental health problems than those detained for fewer than 30 days. Does my hon. Friend agree that this evidence reinforces the need for new clause 32?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I agree entirely. That is one of a huge number of reasons that were highlighted during the Backbench Business debate earlier this year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Like the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), we believe that the provisions on support are among the most draconian parts of the Bill; I agree with the Minister to the extent that the disagreement is one of principle.

In our view, provisions that seek to use the further deliberate infliction of destitution, including of children, as a tool of immigration policy must be thoroughly opposed. The provisions fly in the face of evidence, are counterproductive and show a grim lack of compassion. We support all amendments seeking to prevent, or at least limit, the damage. They include amendment 29, which would remove clause 37 and therefore most of the damaging changes, and amendments 30 and 31, which would preserve all rights of appeal against decisions to refuse support. Amendment 40, tabled by Scottish National party Members, would ensure that families with children who are minors received section 95 support until they left the country.

The Minister referred to the pilot carried out by the last Labour Government, and that is still relevant to what is being proposed today. Similar proposals were abandoned because of the results of the pilot. It is interesting to look at the comments about the project made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights:

“The section 9 pilot has caused considerable hardship and does not appear to have encouraged more refused asylum seeking families to leave the UK…We believe that using both the threats and the actuality of destitution and family separation is incompatible with the principles of common humanity and with international human rights law and that it has no place in a humane society. We recommend that section 9 be repealed at the earliest opportunity.”

We believe that the same should happen to the equivalent provisions in this Bill.

Sadly, the Government have in their sights not only children but those who arrived as children and are now young adults. Rather cruelly, young care leavers will be prime targets. That is why we have tabled amendments 42 to 45, which would ensure that young people leaving local authority care were able to access leaving care support under the Children Act 1989 without discrimination. Amendments 42 and 43 would remove the provisions, added by schedule 9, that would prevent local authorities from providing leaving care support under the 1989 Act to young people who were not asylum seekers and did not have leave to remain when they reached age 18.

Amendment 44 would enable local authorities to provide leaving care support under the 1989 Act to young people who did not have leave to remain and were not asylum seekers. Finally in this group, amendment 45 would provide for the Secretary of State to make funding available to local authorities, as the specialist agency responsible for care leavers, to meet the duties, set out in the 1989 Act, to the latter group of care leavers.

Our amendments 39 and 36 bring us back to what I said about the first group of amendments relating to the broad powers, which we seek to rein in, proposed for immigration officers. Despite what the Minister says, those include powers for detainee custody officers, prison officers and prison custody officers to strip search detained persons for anything that could be evidence of their nationality—a very broadly defined power. The Minister points out that Government amendments 3 and 4 propose changing the name of the search from “strip search” to “full search”, but they do not in any essential way change the extent of the powers, which, to all intents and purposes as far as I still understand them, are basically strip search powers. For that reason, provision on the gender of the persons present during the search is made in clause 25(8). Our amendment 36 would remove the proposed power for custody officers to strip search detainees for documents that “might” establish a person’s nationality or indicate

“the place from which the person travelled to the UK or to which a person is proposing to go.”

Going further, we seek to tighten schedule 2(2) of the Immigration Act 1971. This power ostensibly deals with individuals on arrival in the UK for the purposes of determining whether they have or should be given leave to enter or remain. It has been used by the Home Office as justification for conducting speculative, in-country spot-checks involving “consensual interviews”. Amendment 39 would expressly limit this power to examination at the point of entry. The Minister argues that our amendment makes the power too tightly drawn, but in our view it is far better for intrusive powers to be tightly drawn than drawn broadly and arbitrarily.

The other atrocious provisions that amendments in this group seek to attack are those which provide that people should leave the UK even before their appeal against a Home Office decision has been heard. Amendment 27, which has support from Labour as well as SNP Members, would remove the offending clause 34, which extends powers of certification introduced by the Immigration Act 2014 to mean no longer just “deport first, appeal later” for those convicted, but “remove first, appeal later” for all. To us, these provisions are madness. They will mean people having to give up jobs, studies and family life while appeals are ongoing. Families could be separated for lengthy and unknown periods until their appeal is finally determined.

All this comes against a background of constant criticism of Home Office decision making, including in a recent ombudsman’s report. We should bear in mind that in 2014-15 42% of managed migration appeals and 42% of entry clearance appeals were successful. In 2013-14, the figures were 49% and 48%. Thousands of people could have to leave for several months because the Home Office got it wrong. The danger is that appeals will not be pursued or will be pursued inadequately given the costs of pursuing an appeal as a privately paying client from overseas.

[Joanna Cherry]

My hon. Friend will be aware that Home Office statistics state that only 24% of appellants removed under the current “deport first, appeal later” provisions go through with their appeals. Does he agree that this suggests that extending those provisions will make it much harder—in fact, probably impossible—for the majority of these appeals to go ahead? Is it not inherently unfair to hold appeals with the appellants unable to make their own case in person?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I am grateful for that intervention and entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend.

The Government seem to be attempting to cut net migration not just by limiting the class of people who can come under the rules but by making it nearly impossible for people to exercise their legitimate rights to stay. This is scraping the barrel of immigration control measures, and I will want to test the House’s opinion on that.

We regard as utterly unnecessary the part 7 provisions on the English language. Our amendment 34 would ensure that part 7 will not come into force in Scotland without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. We have faith that our public authorities, whether reserved or devolved, can determine that a worker has the necessary skills for the job, including speaking fluent English, and that normal complaints procedures would deal with any problems, as with any other complaint about competence. Part 7 creates unnecessary bureaucracy and is a clear example of immigration theatre and tokenism.

A number of other Members have made brave attempts to bring a silver lining to the cloud provided by this grim Bill. New clauses 11 and 1 seek to expand the range of people qualifying for refugee family reunion. I have asked questions, written letters and spoken in this Chamber on this point on several occasions, so I am very happy to provide my backing for such attempts. In the face of the most dreadful refugee crisis since the second world war, surely this is a sensible option that we can all support. Broader family reunion means that people we know should logically be sheltered in the United Kingdom do get to come here. This is the logical place for them because they have family support here and so will have help with accommodation and integration, for example. They will often even pay for their own flight. With little trouble for the Government or the taxpayer, we can extend a hand of friendship to more of those fleeing dreadful war and persecution.

Three amendments in the name of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) similarly seek to bring some light from the darkness. Amendment 2 would introduce permission to work for those seeking asylum who have been waiting six months for a decision. My colleagues and I recognise that this is a positive step forward, and it has our backing. We also thoroughly welcome new clause 14 as a step forward in overcoming the unduly onerous financial thresholds attached to family visas, which the Children’s Commissioner for England recently reported had created thousands of what she called “Skype families”—British children able to communicate with a parent only over the internet. New clause 15 would improve rules relating to adult dependent relatives by removing unnecessary criteria, and it again has our full support.

Oral Answers to Questions

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Obviously, records of where the Syrian refugees are resettled will be maintained. If I understand my hon. Friend’s question, it was about Syrian refugees who may wish to access information about others who may have come to the country. As she will have noticed, the Minister is here and will have heard that, and he will consider the point she has made.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

On behalf of the Scottish National party, may I associate myself with the comments of the Home Secretary in relation to the terrible events in Paris on Friday night? With the first 100 Syrian refugees due to arrive in Scotland for resettlement this week, does the Home Secretary agree that it is imperative to make it clear to the public that these refugees are fleeing the same evil forces as were behind the attacks in Paris? Will she work with the Scottish Government and local authorities throughout the country to make sure that communities are supported to understand that and to make the vulnerable refugees feel as welcome as possible?

[Mrs May]

I thank the hon. and learned Lady for her remarks. It is one of the reasons why I was very clear yesterday when I did a television interview and set out the security arrangements that we have in place in relation to refugees, so that people can set aside concerns and understand that there are proper security arrangements. These individuals have been fleeing evil of various sorts, including the very evil that led to the attacks in Paris on Friday, and we wish them to be welcomed and to be able to reach sanctuary here and get the assistance that they need for their particular concerns, medical or otherwise. So it is right that the whole House should send out a message that we welcome and open our arms to those who have fled for their lives from the terrible evil of what is taking place in Syria.

[Mrs May]

I am happy to join my hon. Friend in welcoming the offer that has been made by Dartington Hall in respect not just of accommodation, but of support for refugees. That has been mirrored by organisations around the country. It is right that the Under-Secretary of State for Refugees has been working with charities, faith groups and other organisations to make sure not only that all the offers of help are listed and looked at, but that we can turn them into practical help for Syrian refugees, depending on what support is appropriate in the circumstances of the refugees that come to any particular region, such as my hon. Friend’s constituency.

[Joanna Cherry]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. and learned Lady is welcome to have a second bite of the cherry, on the assumption that the bite is small.

[Joanna Cherry]

I am very grateful, Mr Speaker. We are all aware that the Syrian refugees who are coming to the United Kingdom are particularly vulnerable individuals. They will need time and privacy to settle and integrate into the communities that they go to. Will the Home Secretary tell us what work the Home Office is doing to support local communities to give the refugees the time and privacy to integrate?

[Mrs May]

I am happy to tell the hon. and learned Lady that a considerable amount of work is being done by the Home Office, primarily with the local authorities that are receiving the Syrian refugees, to discuss the sort of support that is available to them. That links in to the last question I answered from my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston): it will often be possible for charities and other organisations to provide support and help for refugees in settling into life in whichever part of the United Kingdom they come to.

Paris Terrorist Attacks

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. It is quite clear from those who attacked in Paris and those who have attacked elsewhere that their poisonous ideology is against the way in which the west conducts its life—the sort of lives that we lead and the sort of structures that we have in the west and elsewhere in other parts of the world. He is absolutely right that it is not the case that if we take no action, they will take no action against us. It is clear that they have evil intent and, sadly, as we saw on Friday, they have put that evil intent into practice.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

I welcome the tone of the Home Secretary’s statement and thank her for advance notice of it. I also wish to associate myself and my party with the comments of others about the gratitude that we all feel to those who keep us safe, whether it be the police or the intelligence services. I also wish to add the condolences of Members on these Benches to those of the rest of the House.

I reiterate the comments that Scotland’s First Minister made at the weekend. Our thoughts, prayers and solidarity are with the people of Paris and France after this “unspeakably awful” and deeply shocking event. It is only right that we should review matters in the light of such events, and we should be in a position to give people the assurances that they require about their safety. However, it is important that we do not turn on each other. I welcome what the Home Secretary has already said about the Muslim community, who are a highly valued and integral part of Scottish and United Kingdom society. Will the Home Secretary assure me that she will stand alongside the Scottish Government in preventing these events from destroying or affecting that feeling of unity?

I also applaud the fact that the Home Secretary seems determined not to make a knee-jerk or ill-considered response to these atrocities and is approaching matters in her usual measured fashion. This morning, we heard the Prime Minister hint at the possibility of speeding up the passage of the draft Investigatory Powers Bill following this atrocity. I hear what the Home Secretary has said about that already, but will she confirm that there will be no curtailment of the necessary time already allocated for pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, and will she stand by her previous assurances to this House that adequate parliamentary time will be allocated for its passage?

As regards refugees fleeing the barbaric war in Syria, will the Home Secretary confirm that the Home Office already has in place robust and thorough screening processes and that she will remain resolved to protect and give refuge to these people? Finally and briefly, she mentioned increased security at a number of airports. Will she confirm that all airports with external flights are subject to such measures?

[Mrs May]

I thank the hon. and learned Lady for joining the condemnation of the attacks that took place last Friday, as she did earlier. She is right to say that we should stand united across the United Kingdom in condemnation of those attacks and that we should be united one community with another. None of us wants to see any sort of backlash against any part of the community in the United Kingdom as a result of the attacks. It is important that we give the reassurance that we are one nation, the United Kingdom, standing together against the terrible barbarity of these terrorists.

On the subject of the draft Investigatory Powers Bill, as I said in my statement, as we consider terrorism legislation, we review at every stage what is necessary as well as the timing. The Bill is significant and it is right that it should be given proper parliamentary scrutiny.

There are processes in place for the screening of refugees, and the process is twofold. The UNHCR, which refers refugees to the Home Office for resettlement here in the UK, undertakes screening that includes taking biometrics, interviews and looking at documentation. A further level of screening is undertaken by the Home Office that involves further biometrics and looking at security checks for the individuals concerned.

Draft Investigatory Powers Bill

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement, its tone and the care taken to address many of the concerns raised. I also thank her for the conversations I have had with her and her Ministers in advance of the publication of the draft Bill and for having confirmed to me that a Member of the Scottish National party will serve on the Joint Committee that will scrutinise it. I would be grateful if she could confirm that she will continue her open-door policy.

We have our political differences, and I am sure there will be some over the content of the draft Bill—as the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg) said, the devil is in the detail, so we will have to scrutinise it carefully—but I think we all agree that we have a responsibility to protect the rights of our fellow citizens while being realistic about the threats we face. We live in dangerous times, with threats of asymmetric conflict and an accelerating pace of technological change that unfortunately is often first embraced by those who mean us harm. It is only right when we discuss these issues that we put on the record our appreciation of those charged with keeping us safe—the police and the intelligence services—but we should also thank campaigning groups such as Liberty, Justice and Amnesty that remind us daily why it is important to protect our civil liberties, which were won and protected at the cost of the lives of the many people we will be remembering this Remembrance Sunday.

As David Anderson said in his report, the law in this area needs a thorough overhaul. We need a modern and comprehensive law that can cope with the challenges of modern technology while taking account of human rights and civil liberties, particularly the right to privacy. Only time and careful scrutiny will tell whether the draft Bill fulfils the aims he underlined, but I would be interested to hear if the Home Secretary thinks that the Bill meets his key recommendations.

Other countries are watching what we do, and it is important we get it right. SNP Members believe that access to private communications must always be necessary, targeted and proportionate, and I would be grateful if the Home Secretary could confirm that she agrees with us. Safeguards are crucial, and there is a debate about the oversight of access to communications, particularly about who authorises warrants. In common with many Members on both sides of the House, we hold that judicial oversight and authorisation might largely be the answer to the concerns, but we are concerned that a hybrid system—involving both political and judicial authorisation—might add an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy and lead to error and delay in urgent situations. Can she give us any comfort in that regard?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Joanna Cherry]

I am nearly finished.

I welcome the Home Secretary’s indication that protection of all parliamentarians’ communications will be put on a statutory footing, but will that protection extend to people communicating with parliamentarians, such as our constituents, whistleblowers and campaigners, and will there be not just oversight by the Prime Minister, but judicial oversight?

Finally, and briefly but importantly, the Bill concerns not only issues of national security but the investigation of serious crime, and accordingly it will impinge on areas devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Will the Home Secretary confirm that she is aware of this and that a legislative consent motion will be required in due course, and that she has engaged, and will continue to engage, with the Scottish Government?

[Mrs May]

On the hon. and learned Lady’s point about an open door, I have already spoke to Michael Matheson about the Bill, and my officials have been, and will continue to be, in touch with Scottish Government officials. I am well aware that it impinges on matters devolved to the Scottish Government—the operation of Police Scotland and the signature of warrantry relating to law enforcement powers—and we will work with them. There is a question about whether a legislative consent motion is necessary, but officials are working through that and considering whether it would be appropriate.

I recognise that the Scottish Government have raised the timing of warrantry. We have every confidence that the process will not add greater bureaucracy, but will add the necessary independent judicial authorisation. In emergency warrant cases, the Secretary of State will be able to authorise a warrant immediately, but that will be followed by a speedy review by the judge to ensure there is still authorisation.

The hon. and learned Lady asked if David Anderson’s recommendations, particularly about the Bill’s being comprehensive, had been met. I genuinely believe that this is a clearer and more comprehensible and comprehensive Bill, although given its length, some Members might wonder how I can say that. It is an important Bill that will set out much more clearly the different powers available to the authorities. She asked about necessity and proportionality. Of course, warrants will still be judged on whether they are necessary and proportionate—that will still be the test applied by the Secretary of State to any warrants signed. On the issue of liberty versus security, some people think it is a zero-sum game—that if we increase one, we reduce the other—but I am clear that we cannot enjoy our liberty until we have our security.

Wilson Doctrine

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Monday 19th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

May I begin by echoing the tribute paid to those Members who have harried the Government on this issue in recent years? It is important to remind ourselves of why we are having this debate. It is because four recent events have called into question the nature and scope of the Wilson doctrine and, indeed, whether it is in any way meaningful.

First, the submissions made on behalf of the Government to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal in the case brought by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) appeared to attempt to undermine the Wilson doctrine and to suggest that it was impossible to have it in the modern age, given the existence of the mass trawling of data.

Secondly, the content of last week’s IPT ruling seemed to be to the effect that the Wilson doctrine has no legal force and is just an ambiguous political statement. We are looking for clarification of that ambiguity.

Thirdly—this is very important from the perspective of Scottish MPs and, indeed, MPs from other areas with devolved Administrations—during the IPT hearing, official and hitherto undisclosed guidance that entered the public domain appeared to show that a change of policy regarding the scope of the Wilson doctrine had occurred around about 2014.

Fourthly, we are having this debate because of the Home Secretary’s comments last July, during a debate on the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill, in response to a question from the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson), who is now the deputy leader of the Labour party. It seems to me that many of us agree that that was the first time the Wilson doctrine had been described on the Floor of the House in caveated terms. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) has rightly drawn to our attention the fact that while we may not all disagree about what the Wilson doctrine should actually say, we need to know what the Government think it says.

In July 2014, the Home Secretary talked about certain rules and protocols that would enable interference with parliamentarians’ communications, but she did not say what they were. Instead of explicitly notifying Parliament that the Wilson doctrine was being in any way redefined, the Home Secretary simply presented her comments as a restatement of the original doctrine. However, as other Members have said, previous Prime Ministers, from Harold Wilson in 1966 to Gordon Brown in 2007, had not stated the doctrine with any such caveats. It is interesting and important to remember that, in paragraph 11 of the judgment, the IPT said it was satisfied that what the Home Secretary was referring to in Parliament in July 2014 was the contents of the official guidance to the security services, which we know had changed.

We are having this debate because it is not acceptable for the Executive unilaterally to abandon or modify such a doctrine without explicitly saying that that is what they are doing and informing Parliament. The removal of the protection given by the doctrine or its modification should not occur without any consultation or democratic scrutiny. The Chamber requires from the Government straight answers on their view of the nature and scope of the Wilson doctrine. There needs to be no more prevaricating. There is considerable discontent across the House. The Government should be in no doubt that there will be growing support for the early-day motion tabled by a cross-party contingent over the coming weeks. They need to take this issue very seriously.

If we look at statements by previous Prime Ministers, we can see that they were unambiguous about the doctrine’s existence, nature and extent, despite the fact that there was sometimes pressure from those who argued against the absolute nature of the doctrine. I believe that such pressure was brought to bear on Tony Blair when he was Prime Minister, and he resisted it. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) has repeatedly reminded us that, in 2011, the present Prime Minister confirmed to the House that the Wilson doctrine was still in force. However, since the Home Secretary’s comments last July, hon. Members, including the right hon. Gentleman, have repeatedly sought clarification from the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary without success.

As the first Scottish MP to speak in this debate, I must address an important matter that emerged from the IPT hearing. It emerged that the most recent versions of the operational notes to the security services seem to exclude Members of the Scottish Parliament, the other devolved Assemblies and the European Parliament from any protection by the Wilson doctrine. That appears to be in contrast to versions of the same operational notes that appeared before 2014. SNP Members cannot imagine what event in 2014 could have provoked such a renewed interest in the activities of Members of the Scottish Parliament.

I hear the Home Secretary’s point about the discrepancy between what Jacqui Smith said when she was Home Secretary and the code of practice. However, we need to know why the code of practice and the official guidance seems, at least during some period before 2014, to have encompassed parliamentarians in the Scottish Parliament, the other devolved Assemblies and the European Parliament, but were subsequently changed. We need the Government to tell us what is going on. When the Wilson doctrine was first enunciated, there was no Scottish Parliament, other devolved Assemblies or European Parliament—[Interruption.] As my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin John Docherty) says, some people might like to return to that position, but that is highly unlikely.

We need to know why there has been a change in practice in relation to other parliamentarians in this country. The First Minister of Scotland wrote to the Prime Minister on 24 July seeking urgent clarification about this apparent change of policy, but two and a half months later she has still not received a reply. Liberty’s legal director James Welch has commented that removing the protection from the Scottish Parliament shows

“an arrogant lack of respect for democratic institutions”.

It might be said that such an arrogant lack of respect for the Scottish Parliament is often felt by SNP Members and Scottish parliamentarians.

I understand the Prime Minister to have said that there is supposed to be a respect agenda in relation to the Scottish Parliament. We need to know why the intelligence services and this Government think the Scottish Parliament is less of a Parliament or less deserving of such protection. Do they think Scots deserve less protection of their privacy when communicating with their MSPs than with their Westminster counterparts? As the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) asked, why should unelected peers of the realm enjoy greater protection than elected Members of the Scottish Parliament? Unlike Members of the House of Lords, Members of the Scottish Parliament and of the other devolved Assemblies have constituents’ interests to serve and protect. If there is a matter of principle about protecting communications between constituents and those who represent them, it should apply to all parliamentarians.

I want to stress that insisting on proper protection for the communications of parliamentarians with others is special pleading not on behalf of parliamentarians, but on behalf of the constituents, whistleblowers and campaigners who communicate with them. When people contact parliamentarians they are often in a vulnerable position—for example, somebody in a big Government body or a big corporate entity who wishes to blow the whistle on some official scandal. Yes, hon. Members of the House, the Scottish Parliament, the other devolved Assemblies and the European Parliament also have to be protected from intimidation or oversight by the Government so that they can help such sometimes vulnerable people and do their jobs without fear or favour.

What is to be done? The draft investigatory powers Bill to be brought forward in the autumn is an opportunity to refine the law to protect civil liberties and set minimum protections and safeguards across the board and, I suggest, for communications between parliamentarians and constituents. I very much welcome the Home Secretary’s statement that she will give further consideration to the position of parliamentarians in the Scottish Parliament and the other devolved Assemblies. I echo the call made by other hon. Members that there must be sufficient time to consider the Bill, but I am reasonably hopeful that we will be given sufficient time, because the Home Secretary has said that a draft Bill will be brought before the House.

[Chris Bryant]

I urge the hon. and learned Lady not to be too confident. Last time we had to pass such legislation, we had to pass the whole lot in a single day. We had to suspend all the normal processes in the House to take through the Bill in a single day.

[Joanna Cherry]

I was not in the House at that time, but I watched it on the television. I am aware of that, but I am giving the Home Secretary the benefit of the doubt, because she has indicated that it will be a draft investigatory powers Bill.

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for giving me an opportunity to restate what I actually said earlier in response to a comment by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). We are committed to and will shortly bring forward a draft investigatory powers Bill, which will be available for scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. The expectation is that it will report sometime in the new year, with a view to our introducing the Bill for its passage through Parliament. The aim is to make it a carry-over Bill, with a deadline of December 2016.

[Joanna Cherry]

I am very grateful to the Home Secretary for confirming that. I fully understand the concerns of those who were Members of the previous Parliament. If things were to be done in such a manner again, there would clearly be an enormous public outcry.

[Lady Hermon]

The Home Secretary has given a very interesting response to the hon. and learned Lady. Indeed, all the responses have been very interesting. Speaking as a Member from Northern Ireland, it is a growing concern that representatives from the devolved regions, particularly from Northern Ireland, have not been welcomed on to Standing Committees. I urge the hon. and learned Lady to insist that the Joint Committee that considers the draft Bill includes representatives of the devolved regions from this House.

[Joanna Cherry]

As a novice parliamentarian, I am not sure of the propriety of such a proposal. If the House would find it acceptable, I would endorse the hon. Lady’s suggestion enthusiastically. If the draft investigatory powers Bill encompasses a clause that impacts on any sort of privilege for the Scottish Parliament or the devolved Assemblies, it is crucial that there is consultation with those Administrations.

[Lady Hermon]

Last week, we looked at the Immigration Bill, which rightly extends to the whole of Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, it appears that no Member from Northern Ireland will be on the Standing Committee. Given that the matter we are discussing today is of such importance, it would be very helpful to have an MP from Northern Ireland on the Joint Committee. I am not saying which party they should be from, but there should be a representative from the region.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joanna Cherry]

I feel the hon. Lady’s pain. At present, it appears that the Standing Committee that will consider the repeal of the Human Rights Act will not contain a representative from Scotland. My party has taken up that matter. I very much endorse the spirit of the hon. Lady’s comments. There must be full and proper consultation with the Scottish Parliament and the other devolved Assemblies in relation to any legislative proposal about privilege for parliamentarians’ communications.

I am coming to the end of my comments and am conscious of the time. In my respectful submission—I stress the word “respectful”—there should be a strong legislative presumption in the forthcoming Bill against interception and other forms of surveillance in respect of parliamentarians. That presumption may be rebutted, but only on the basis of a clear and specific suspicion that a particular parliamentarian’s communications contain evidence of serious criminality or in truly exceptional circumstances, such as where national security is involved. The protection should extend to all parliamentarians, as I have said. The legislation should require independent judicial approval for any surveillance of a parliamentarian or interception of their communications.

Given the constraints of time, I will leave it to others to deal with whether the Wilson doctrine applies to metadata, such as numbers, email addresses, times and locations, as opposed to the contents of communications. However, I will say that metadata may often be all that is needed to understand the nature of a communication, for example that it is from a whistleblower. At present, the interception of metadata does not require a warrant. In my respectful submission, it should do in the circumstances that we are discussing.

Finally, the suspicionless surveillance of parliamentarians and the wider public is contrary to a democracy governed by the rule of law. Intrusive surveillance must always be targeted and proportional.

Immigration Bill

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

I declare an interest: like many other hon. Members, my mother is an immigrant, and one who, like many other immigrants in the UK, has given a lifetime’s service in the NHS.

It is as a lawyer I wish to speak in this debate, however, because I am concerned about the Bill’s attack on civil liberties, the removal of in-country appeals in human rights cases, the Bill’s lack of respect for the rule of law and due process and the shift from judicial to Executive control of the immigration bail system. The independent all-party law reform and human rights organisation Justice, of which I am a member, has prepared a detailed analysis of aspects of the Bill pertaining to the rule of law. I recommend that Members have a look at its full analysis of these matters. Justice has grave concerns about the legal aspects of the Bill, as does the SNP.

I wish to focus on three specific areas: the extension of the enforcement powers of immigration officers; the new immigration bail system; and the extension of the “deport first, appeal later” rules to all human rights appeals. As has already been said, the powers of immigration officers are significantly extended by the Bill. This concerns me for a number of reasons. Immigration officers and detainee custody officers, prison officers and prison custody officers are not part of the regular police force, and they are not trained to the same degree or supervised in the same way. The power granted to immigration officers to enter and search premises without a search warrant solely because they have reasonable grounds to believe that a person in a premises is in possession of a driving licence and is not lawfully resident in the UK is a significant and arguably disproportionate extension of their current powers. Given concerns about the ability of the Home Office accurately to identify who is and is not lawfully resident in the UK, there are obvious risks for both British citizens and legal migrants, as well as illegal migrants, that their rights to respect for their private and family life and indeed their home under article 8 of European convention on human rights will be breached.

Another matter that concerns me is the broadly defined category of documents that immigration officers and other officers are empowered to search. While the power of immigration officers to search and seize these documents has the safeguard that they must not seize documents that they have reason to believe are legally privileged, there is no such safeguard in connection with searches by detainee custody officers, prison officers and prison custody officers when they are looking for relevant nationality documents subject to seizure. That is a grave concern. I believe that before these powers are conferred en masse, the Government need to examine how existing powers are being used and should make the case before Parliament for each additional power that is being sought.

On the bail system, individuals previously granted temporary admission, release or release under restrictions will all be subject to immigration bail. The Secretary of State will be empowered to vary conditions. The Bill will bring many more people within the immigration bail regime, while simultaneously shifting control of bail and restrictions on liberty from the judiciary to the Executive. That will include a far-reaching power for the Home Secretary to place electronic monitoring and residence conditions on bail in all cases. A large number of asylum seekers previously granted temporary admission will now be seen exclusively through a prism of detention and bail, casting aspersions of illegitimacy and even criminality. Those affected are real people. I have constituents in Edinburgh South West who are asylum seekers. They are not criminals who should be subject to bail: they are refugees.

That brings me to the extension of the “deport first, appeal later” rule to all human rights appeals, not just those liable to deportation. It is important to be clear that this rule is being extended not just to illegal immigrants, but to all immigrants, including those who have been lawfully resident up until the Home Office rightly or wrongly refuses their applications. The appeals fact sheet issued by the Home Office makes it absolutely clear that this power will be used to separate families, including parents, from children. That cannot be right. Moreover, if people are “sent back to where they came from”—an emotive phrase—before they can raise their appeal, there will be very real practical and emotional difficulties for them in pursuing that appeal. Again, I urge hon. Members to look at Justice’s detailed analysis of the practical and emotional difficulties that immigrants sent back to where they came from will face in progressing their appeal.

I am conscious of the lack of time I have left. I was anxious to highlight the rule of law aspects of the Bill. For the reasons I have suggested and for other reasons to be advanced by my hon. Friends in the Scottish National party as the debate progresses, I urge Members to decline to give this Bill a Second Reading.

Oral Answers to Questions

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Richard Harrington]

The Government are well aware of the point that my hon. Friend has made. I am pleased to report that I went to Portsmouth last Friday to visit the naval base to which the cutters run by Border Force returned from the Mediterranean. During their time in the Mediterranean they apprehended many people smugglers. It is the Government’s policy to ensure, through the taskforce, that that will increase, because this is a serious problem.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

Today, The Times and The Guardian have published a statement signed by more than 300 leading lawyers, including 12 retired judges, a former President of the Supreme Court, former Law Lords, 103 Queen’s counsel and prominent academics, calling on the United Kingdom Government to take a

“fair and proportionate share of refugees, both those already within the EU and those still outside it.”

They say that the UK’s “present offer” to take 20,000 is “deeply inadequate”. Does the Minister and his Home Secretary think they are wrong?

[Richard Harrington]

I listened to that interview carefully; the person concerned was asked what they did think was adequate and was not able to answer. I hope that listeners to the programme and people who have read this correspondence will be aware that this Government are doing a lot in the countries around Syria and our expenditure has so far been more than £1 billion to help people in the areas around Syria. In addition, we have our programme to help 20,000 of the most vulnerable refugees, which I am very proud of and want to see delivered very efficiently.

[Joanna Cherry]

If the Minister wishes to see the advert—I have a copy here—he will see that it was signed not by a person, but by 342 lawyers. Let me follow up with a second question. The Home Secretary suggested in her conference speech that she wanted to work with other countries

“to review the international legal definitions of asylum and refugee status.”

Is she really wanting to dilute the international protection offered to those at real risk of serious harm or persecution?

[Richard Harrington]

My right hon. Friend made it clear in that speech that it was our intention to be able to deal with a lot of fraudulent applications for asylum, so that we can concentrate on those people who really need it. The hon. and learned Lady should be very proud of this Government taking 20,000 of the most vulnerable refugees over the course of this Parliament.