Immigration Bill

Margaret Ferrier Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2015 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concerns for the wellbeing of the migrants being detained—an experience described by one man as his three years in a cage? The conditions in which migrants are detained lack any shred of dignity. Does my hon. Friend concur with me that the Home Office seems to have forgotten that human rights are universal and not conditional upon immigration status?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

My hon. Friend makes her point powerfully. The issue is not just a time limit going forward, but conditions of detention and moving away from routine use of immigration detention to make it a rare exception, rather than almost the norm.

In conclusion, there is widespread demand for change, and perhaps if there is one— just one—piece of silver lining on the dark cloud represented by this Bill, it will be a time limit on detention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

On Second Reading, I described the Bill as heinous. My experience as a member of the Bill Committee has not altered that impression. The Bill is divisive and disproportionate, and it ultimately lacks a credible evidence base.

The evidence sessions were embarrassing for the Government because the vast majority of the oral and written evidence the Committee received was damning of their proposals. Witnesses from the private, public and third sectors sent the underlying message that the Bill lacks a proper evidence base, is not necessary and is merely being brought about to appease the right wing of the Conservative party and UKIP.

I take issue with part 5, which, among other things, proposes to remove support from those whose asylum applications have been refused. That blanket approach does not allow for the consideration of personal circumstances, nor does it protect families with children. We heard evidence from a number of organisations that voiced concern, shock and deep disgust over part 5, particularly in respect of how it might affect the welfare of children.

In giving evidence, Ilona Pinter of the Children’s Society said:

“We think the risks for children from this provision are very serious indeed. Essentially, it would see families becoming destitute—they would no longer have accommodation and financial support under asylum support. That obviously brings with it a whole range of risks, from families being street homeless to families having to move around, potentially for short periods of time, to stay in potentially unsafe accommodation.”––[Official Report, Immigration Public Bill Committee, 20 October 2015; c. 72, Q165.]

Even Lord Green of Deddington from Migrant Watch, with whom I disagree on almost everything else, agreed that asylum seekers with children whose claim has been refused should be treated differently.

Part 1 sets out ambitions to reduce the exploitation of migrants. However, when individuals and, in particular, parents with children are pushed into a vulnerable situation, they are forced into making rash and desperate decisions that only increase their vulnerability and the dangers they face. Most reasonable people would accept that we have a responsibility towards those who have had their asylum application rejected. Amendment 29 seeks to ensure that we continue to uphold that responsibility.

Amendment 29 seeks to omit all the changes to support that have been made by the Government by removing clause 37 and schedule 8. Assuming that the Government are not minded to accept such a wholesale change, amendment 40 would ensure that some protection exists for the children of the families affected.

The Government have attempted to simplify the support that is provided in the immigration system by moving from two sets of regulations whereby asylum seekers can claim support to four sets of regulations dealing with support by local government and central Government. That is not simplification as I understand it. Under the Bill, local authorities will be legally prevented from providing support to families, including those with young children, when there are

“reasonable grounds for believing that support will be provided”

by Home Office provisions. In practice, that might create dangerous gaps in the system where support is not provided to vulnerable families.

It is worth repeating the horrendous story of the one-year-old boy, EG, who died in 2012, followed two days later by his mother, when they were left in limbo between two different types of support. In responding to that example, the Minister stated that the gap in provision was between support from two different Departments. I accept that, but can he guarantee with absolute certainty that his proposals will result in no gaps whatsoever between the support people receive from central Government and local government?

The changes that are proposed by the Government will create a significant financial and administrative burden for local authorities. The Government claim to have consulted widely, but the Scottish Government and Scottish local authorities were not content with the level of consultation from the Home Office before the introduction of these provisions.

The underlying reason for removing support from failed asylum seekers is to allow the Government to expedite the removal of affected parties.

[Margaret Ferrier]

As my hon. Friend says, the Bill proposes the removal of support from those who are due to be deported. That will obviously have an impact on the children of the families who are affected. To give some context, is it not the case that this support amounts to just over £5 per day? Removing that bare minimum amount of support will not lead to refused applicants being removed from the UK any quicker. We should support families until they are deported from the UK.

[Gavin Newlands]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. In Committee we tabled an amendment to try to ensure that support was pegged at 60% of income support, which would have increased support by just over £1 a day. It is not a massive amount of money—I am not sure that many Members of the House could survive on just over £6 a day.