Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme: Pathway 3

Debate between Lyn Brown and Charles Walker

Thursday 19th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Because, to borrow a phrase from the Minister, this is a small but perfectly formed Westminster Hall gathering, we will start the Back-Bench wind-ups at 2.28 pm. Jim will do no more than 20 minutes and Debbie will do no more than five. The Minister has said—I think he will want to give a full answer—that if there is any chance we can squeeze out an extra two minutes for him, that would be good. I will manage the other three contributions, but just try to give the Minister a little extra time. I hope that is all right with the Labour Front Bench.

[Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

Only if I get my full 10 minutes.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

You will get your full 10 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Lyn Brown]

Sorry?

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

No need to worry, just some friendly heckling.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Lyn Brown]

Oh, really? I will remember that. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for bringing about this debate and allowing us all to discuss it today.

Hon. Members have rightly raised some horrifying cases. Last week, the BBC highlighted the case of Zuhra, who talked of her pride at having worked for the British Council in a massively high-profile role as a teacher who starred in promotional videos about her work. Now, because the Government have failed to offer her a way out, Zuhra lives in fear, constantly moving with her family to avoid being identified and targeted, while stifled by ever-increasing restrictions on women’s freedoms.

Despite the lack of any news about her application to pathway 3, Zuhra still has hope. Tragically, she blames herself for the danger her family is in thanks to her work for the British Council, but she still believes the Government will come through for her and her family. Will they? All I can say, after all that has happened, is that I pray that Zuhra is right to have hope, still, in this Government.

Let us face it: the abandonment of the people of Afghanistan during and following the withdrawal of international partners continues to be a source of absolute shame for this country. I personally advocated, as many colleagues did, for a Chevening alumnus who had reportedly been placed on the Taliban kill list. In total, I wrote to the Government about almost 900 cases of people in dire need in Afghanistan, following heart-wrenching cries for help from family and friends living in West Ham.

The bitter truth is that the Government utterly failed to match the urgency of those desperate pleas for help. Our Government did not prove capable of the same openness that our communities demonstrated when offering a welcome to those in dire need. In the months that have followed, the Government have time and again reduced the offer of sanctuary. We now know that, as of last month, just four people had been resettled under pathway 2 of the ACRS since the withdrawal from Kabul. I fully appreciate that this is not an FCDO responsibility, but that figure is appalling, and it weighs heavily on our international reputation.

Today, we are discussing the Government’s failure to deliver on the promise of pathway 3 of the Afghan resettlement scheme, which covers British Council contractors, GardaWorld security contractors and Chevening alumni. What links those three groups of people is that they all worked closely with the Foreign Office as an institution. They helped the UK to have a positive and secure place in Afghanistan and supportive relationships with its wonderful people over many years. Their vulnerability to reprisals today is the direct result of that work for us, and therefore the FCDO, along with the Government as a whole, owes them a debt of protection. Labour strongly supports protection for the more than 200 people who helped the FCDO in Afghanistan, and for their families.

Scott McDonald, chief executive officer of the British Council, is calling for urgent action to ensure that all those invited to provide biometrics are granted safe passage to countries neighbouring Afghanistan. He is surely right, because, as we know, an offer of protection from the Government is just the first step; many people will not have the right travel documents and will have to risk their lives trying to get them. It is concerning that we have not had clarity about what the Government are doing, despite constant calls from Members across the House. My colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton), the shadow Minister for peace and disarmament, has raised that point repeatedly since January last year. I also want to highlight the work of the chair of the British Council all-party parliamentary group, the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), as well as that of all the other hon. Members present in the Chamber today.

Despite those cross-party campaigns, rather than clarity, we have had corrections to the record. Last week, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the hon. Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty), told the House that half of the 190 former British Council contractors and their family members had been given the green light to come to the UK, but the Daily Mail has reported that just 47 have been invited to provide biometrics, and even those few will face extra security checks before they have any chance of coming here.

Then there was another correction. Last week, the Under- Secretary told the House that the figure of 1,500 was not “an upper limit” and that

“another cohort will be established from June”.—[Official Report, 11 January 2023; Vol. 725, c. 290WH.]

It now appears that 1,500 has been set as a maximum for pathway 3, and that any additional pathways that are opened will not be designed to help the same group of Afghans in need of protection.

If the Minister of State has any further details about future schemes that could be opened, and when, I am sure all of us would be very glad to hear about them today. However, if he cannot give us that, surely he can answer a very simple question: how many former British Council contractors are still stuck in Afghanistan, and when can we expect them to reach safety here? Will he also say whether he has had engagement with regional partners such as Pakistan to facilitate safe passage for British Council staff who are attempting to leave?

The Government need to face up to the consequences of their failure and recognise the true urgency of the situation. Former contractors continue to face daily beatings and intimidation from the Taliban because of their past work with the UK. Many say that they have heard nothing back from the Government about their applications for resettlement. The time this is taking, as a result of administrative barriers, is utterly unacceptable.

Meanwhile, the circumstances of life in Afghanistan have become even more desperate. As we know, the Taliban have implemented more and more of their brutal ideology, particularly on women and girls, and on religious and ethnic minorities such as the Hazara people, who continue to face targeted attacks. Frequently, it is former officials or workers who are targeted, regardless of the Taliban’s official statements that personnel from the former Afghan Government would not be persecuted.

Many of those promised an opportunity for protection in the UK following the Government’s disastrous withdrawal have been failed. What does that failure say to the many foreign nationals around the world who work closely with our embassies and programmes? What does it say about how we value the non-UK staff and contractors who are utterly essential to our diplomatic, consular and development services?

In responding to the urgent question last month, the Minister said repeatedly that this process is moving from the FCDO to the Home Office as the initial stage is complete. Frankly, that news will fill many with dread. I hope he will recognise that the fundamental responsibility for offering these vulnerable people protection remains with the FCDO. If—or perhaps when—the Home Office fails yet again to do its part, I hope that FCDO Ministers will keep a close eye and perhaps step in to unblock things.

This debate is about a duty that we, as a country, owe to the people in danger because of their work with us. It is about making good just a tiny part of the damage wreaked by the Government’s failures in Afghanistan. I hope that the Minister will provide concrete assurances today that the shameful abandonment of so many good people and their families will be remedied soon.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

I thank all colleagues for providing the Minister with additional time to answer their questions and take interventions.

2019 Loan Charge

Debate between Lyn Brown and Charles Walker

Tuesday 20th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. Today we have heard some awful stories from my hon. Friends the Members for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and others, and I am grateful to everybody who has contributed to the debate and put the case so clearly.

There is no doubt that small business owners, contractors and others who have used these schemes will be significantly affected by the charge next year. Many are not wealthy people. They did not intend to avoid tax, and until recently many were not aware that there was even an issue. In some cases, the schemes were presented by agencies or employers as part of a standard contract. Some people could lose their livelihoods; some could lose their homes. The schemes we are talking about are a form of tax avoidance, and it is right that tax owed is collected. Avoidance should not pay—that is the principle. However, those who will be negatively affected by these schemes deserve our empathy and understanding, and many of the stories we have heard confirm that some of those affected are vulnerable and became caught up in these schemes without initially comprehending what they were all about.

If what is being reported is correct, it is an absolute disgrace that hospital cleaners, locum doctors, nurses, council workers, social workers and other people who work hard for the public on low or moderate pay were recruited into these schemes by tax advisers and bogus umbrella companies. It is an absolute disgrace that the Government are determined just to take on those individuals, rather than those who facilitated this avoidance for profit—those who fully knew what they were doing, and did it anyway.

If the reports are right, in some cases nurses or other public servants were made redundant by public sector organisations, only to be hired immediately as contractors through agencies who then facilitated these tax avoidance schemes. What action have the Government taken against those agencies? Some might say that this was fraud, because the schemes were not a genuine way to reduce tax liability. I have some sympathy with that view, because the schemes seem to have harmed many “clients”, and in my head I cannot justify a professional tax expert setting up such a scheme and getting a nurse, a social worker or someone else on a low or moderate wage involved in it. If it is not illegal for those tax experts to do that, it bally well should be.

Let me ask the Minister a direct question: if his Government maintain that these arrangements were illegal when entered into, why have they done nothing about the advisers who recommended them? Does he agree that when advisers promoted these schemes, they were promoting something illegal? The advisers get off scot-free while those who can ill afford it carry the can.

One of the employee benefit trust schemes we are talking about was created by Deloitte, which is one of the largest business services companies. It was put in place by Deutsche Bank, working with offshore entities in the Cayman Islands that were set up for this specific purpose. That was confirmed by the Supreme Court in 2016 following court rulings in 2014 and earlier. Two years on, however, there has been no investigation or prosecution, and no penalty for mass-marketing unlawful schemes. No accountancy firm has been disciplined by the professional body, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, and the Government did not even attempt to recover the legal costs spent fighting those cases. Why?

The Government’s priorities seem clear: they will not go after the enablers. We appear to be talking about advisers and employers who have exploited public service workers—workers who will see no benefit themselves—and at the same time directly reduced the tax that pays for those self-same public services. It is simply wrong, and it goes to show yet again how absurd, short-termist and unfair the outsourcing and privatisation policies have been.

We believe that clemency should be considered when businesses or people are at risk. As hon. Friends and other hon. Members have said today, if the loan charge causes businesses to go under next year, that will not help the Treasury recoup losses in the longer term. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) said, it will cost the public sector more if we have to evict people from their homes and rehouse them. I hope the Minister will tell us what the Government will do to treat everyone involved with compassion and care, particularly those who unintentionally fell foul of the schemes, including vulnerable people and those on low incomes. Campaigners say that the exact opposite is happening: people are being treated with little understanding or compassion by HMRC.

The impending deadline of April next year and the potentially severe consequences for anyone on a low wage who does not meet that deadline justify concerted outreach to those who have loan balances outstanding. We cannot let vulnerable people who have been exploited end up with massive tax debts hanging over their heads for many years to come. If we see bankruptcies, failing businesses, repossessions and even suicide, that will be because this Government have not done the outreach needed and not invested in adequate training. It will also be because the context for the charge is a cut to the HMRC workforce of 17% since 2010, even while they are rightly being asked to do more to tackle such complex problems.

We should not let the Government’s approach to loan schemes distract us from their absolute failure to deal with large-scale tax avoidance. Loan schemes are far from the only form that avoidance has taken in recent years, and are small in comparison with the tax avoidance methods used by the ultra-rich. Labour supports strong measures against tax avoidance. We want the Government to go much further. We want them to go after the enablers-those who knew that the schemes were tax avoidance and illegal, but who peddled them anyway. Thank you.

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

And thank you, shadow Minister. This gives the Minister extra time to answer all the questions he has been asked. He will leave two minutes, because he is generous, for Mr Baker to wrap up at 3.58 pm.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Lyn Brown and Charles Walker

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 10th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Lyn Brown]

I have heard some specious arguments in this place.

I hope that the Lords amendment is acceptable to Government Members and the Minister. It is explicit that the inquiry should not begin until the Attorney General determines that it would not be prejudicial to any ongoing relevant criminal investigations or court cases. To oppose the amendment is therefore tantamount to admitting that the Government are no longer committed to an investigation into corruption between news organisations and the police, and that they are not prepared to investigate how allegations of corruption are dealt with. If the Government block Lords amendment 24 today, the public really can have no option but to draw the conclusion that this Government have no commitment to asking the important and hard questions of our national institutions.

I now turn to Lords amendment 96, with consequential amendment 302, which was proposed in the other place by Lord Rosser. The purpose of the amendment is to establish the principle of parity of legal funding for bereaved families at inquests involving the police. Many hon. Members have championed this cause, including during the passage of the Bill. I pay particular tribute to the tireless campaigning and personal commitment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). Unequal funding at inquests and the injustice associated with that was highlighted by the sorry saga of the Hillsborough hearings. The scales of justice were weighted against the families of those who had lost their lives. Public money was used not to discover the truth, but instead to defend an untenable narrative perpetuated by South Yorkshire police. The coroner dealing with the first pre-inquest hearings into the 21 victims of the 1974 Birmingham pub bombings backed and commended applications for their bereaved families to get legal funding for proper representation, but did not have the power to authorise the funds.

Fees in major cases have attracted considerable public interest, but inquests at which the police are legally represented are not confined to major tragedies such as Hillsborough; far more common are inquests into the deaths of individuals who are little known. Many bereaved families can find themselves in an adversarial and aggressive environment when they go to an inquest. Many are not in a position to match the spending of the police or other parts of the public sector for their own legal representation. In fact, bereaved families have to try, if at all possible, to find their own money to have any sort of legal representation. Opposition Members believe that the overwhelming public interest lies in these inquiries discovering the truth. It follows that public money should be there to establish the truth, not just to protect public institutions, and that must mean equal funding.

In the other place, the Government accepted that many would sympathise with the intention of the amendment. When she was Home Secretary, the Prime Minister commissioned the former Bishop of Liverpool, James Jones, to compile a report on the experiences of the Hillsborough families. We are encouraged to wait for his report before considering the issues further, yet we already know that a system of unequal funding at inquests is wrong. Public funds are used to deny justice and hide the truth. The Government need to act now to change a process that appears to be geared more towards trying to grind down bereaved families than enabling them to get at the truth. The Government really should accept the amendment.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I urge Ministers to listen closely to the hon. Lady’s strong point. When someone dies while in the care of the state in a detained environment, people too often go up against the might of the state. That is simply not fair and it should not be tolerated.

[Lyn Brown]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point.

We also support Lords amendments 136 to 142, which were tabled by Baroness Brinton, along with consequential amendment 307. Those amendments are designed to improve the way in which the criminal justice system interacts with victims of crime, and they are based on the work of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer). I presume that the amendments will be acceptable to the Government because, as we have heard, they would enact the 2015 Conservative manifesto commitment to introduce a victims’ bill of rights. Let me remind the Minister of what that manifesto says:

“we will strengthen victims’ rights further, with a new Victims’ Law that will enshrine key rights for victims”.

I understand that the former Minister, the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), already committed to a Green Paper on this issue in a private meeting with the campaign group Voice 4 Victims in February last year, but we are yet to have sight of that. This Bill is the ideal opportunity to take the matter forward, so I encourage the Government, even at this late stage, to think again and not oppose the amendments.

The House will know that victims’ rights are protected in the victims code, which was introduced in 2005 by a Labour Government. We still support that code, but the rights included in it are not legally binding, and in the past few years it has become clear that a firmer legal basis is required to give distressed and vulnerable victims the protection that they need.