Refugee Family Reunion Routes: Sudan

Debate between Patrick Grady and Stuart C McDonald

Wednesday 29th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman makes perfect sense. Organisations such as the Red Cross and RAMFEL, which I have been working with on this topic, are fantastic. The more support we can give them and people across the United Kingdom, the better.

These are precisely the circumstances in which we should have refugee family reunion rules. I regret to report that, unfortunately, the rules and processes are making it harder for these people than it should be. In particular, while UK rules are pretty generous for spouses, partners and children—I acknowledge that—they are more restrictive for other categories of relative, including siblings. Most of the children I am talking about today have lost their parents, and it is an older sibling here in the UK that they are seeking to join.

Furthermore, the rules require enrolment of biometric information before an application will even be looked at. That means the children cannot even get over the starting line, because the visa application centre in Sudan, understandably, had to close after the outbreak of the conflict. If there is no way to safely provide biometric information, surely we should stop asking for it in advance?

I will set out precisely how the application of the family reunion rules and procedures has impacted on the children. I am using pseudonyms to protect the identity of individuals. Sixteen-year-old Adila fled to Sudan to escape persecution in Eritrea, including forced conscription into the army. As a lone 16-year-old girl in a war zone, she clearly faces significant risks. She has already been displaced from Khartoum to a city in eastern Sudan and is struggling severely with her mental health. She seeks family reunion with her older brother, who is a recognised refugee here in the UK. However, hers is one of a number of cases that cannot get off the ground because the Home Office insists she attends a visa application centre to enrol biometric information. The centre in Sudan is closed, so that would mean having to make an irregular and dangerous journey to a neighbouring country to do it there.

I acknowledge that the Home Office does consider applications to defer enrolment of biometric information until the person either arrives at or is at least en route to the UK, so that the application can proceed. But even a cursory look at the relevant policy document shows that it is only in very few circumstances indeed where the Home Office allows that to happen. When 16-year-old Adila asked to defer enrolment, she was refused that application. The Home Office said she had not proved her identity with reasonable certainty and asserted that having crossed one border irregularly—fleeing Eritrea to get to Sudan—she could obviously manage to do so again.

I do not believe that that is a fair approach to take to a 16-year-old girl in Sudan. Allowance has to be made for the fact that Eritrean refugees in Sudan will almost certainly not be able to produce passports. A degree of latitude is therefore required. The idea that because someone fled over a border in fear of persecution, they can just be called on to make another dangerous and irregular journey is in itself a dangerous idea. It rides a coach and horses through the Home Office’s own policy. It would not be worth the paper it is written on. If an unaccompanied 16-year-old girl in a war zone cannot avail herself of the deferral policy, who on earth can?

Seven of the other individuals are in a similar situation. They cannot apply because they are in Sudan and there is no place to go to enrol their biometric information. Even among those who have made it out of Sudan, similar issues can arise. For example, Fatima, a 15-year-old Eritrean girl, had originally made a family application to join her brother in the UK just prior to the outbreak of the war in Sudan. She had got as far as booking an appointment at the visa application centre in Khartoum. That, of course, had to be cancelled when the centre closed after the outbreak of fighting. Fatima ended up trafficked from Khartoum to South Sudan some weeks after the outbreak of war, and was released only on the payment of a ransom. She clearly remains at severe risk of kidnapping, sexual exploitation and all other manners of harm. There is no visa application centre in South Sudan, but again the Home Office refused to defer biometric enrolment.

RAMFEL asked the Home Office if, as an alternative, mobile biometric enrolment could take place—someone would travel to South Sudan from a regional VAC to take the biometrics there. If required, RAMFEL would offer to pay, but even that reasonable offer was refused. I ask the question again: if those circumstances do not merit the deferral of biometric enrolment or other compromise action, what on earth does?

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Is that not the problem with the hostile environment? There are no circumstances; they do not want people to come. It does not matter how dreadful the circumstances are that people are living in. It does not matter that this is the country where they have family members who can make them feel at home and welcome, and help them to start to overcome the trauma they have gone through. The Home Office does not want to know. Computer says no. The door is closed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Patrick Grady and Stuart C McDonald

Monday 17th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (Ind)]

10. What recent assessment he has made of the impact of the cost of living crisis on the levelling-up agenda.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

24. What recent assessment he has made of the impact of the rising cost of living on the levelling-up agenda.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Dehenna Davison)]

The rising cost of living is being felt by people right across the UK, but particularly those in some of the least affluent areas, where particularly high inflation combines with low wage growth. That makes levelling up even more important. While providing immediate relief through the energy support package, the Government are also determined to help places build long-term economic resilience and growth, because we know that local growth means better opportunities and a better life for local people.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Patrick Grady and Stuart C McDonald

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 20th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

Members on both sides of the House might agree that the Lords got it right when they said that the timetabling arrangements for this House left a lot to be desired. We have one hour to debate 12 substantive and important amendments, and we will end up voting on them for three hours. It makes absolutely no sense.

I could be very succinct and just say that the SNP position remains that this is an atrocious and horrendous Bill, and therefore we support everything that the House of Lords has attempted to do to rein it in, but I will not. However, out of deference to some of the very good speakers on both sides of this debate, I will try to stick to points on one or two of the amendments.

First, I turn to Lords amendment 5B, which simply states,

“For the avoidance of doubt,”

part 2 is compliant with the refugee convention

“and must be…given effect as such.”

The Minister has said several times that that is precisely the Government’s objective, so why on earth does he have a problem with putting those words in the Bill? I suspect that there are two answers, the first of which is that in reality, part 2 does not remotely live up to the demands of our international obligations. Former Supreme Court judge Lord Brown said in the other place:

“I truly believe, as do many others, that several of these provisions flagrantly breach our obligations as interpreted by the UNHCR”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 April 2022; Vol. 820, c. 1882.]

We respectfully agree with Lord Brown.

I suspect that the second reason for resisting this amendment is that Ministers are desperate to keep those words out of the Bill to make it more difficult to ask a court to adjudicate on whether the Bill is, in fact, consistent with the refugee convention. As Lord Brown said—he was directly addressing something that the Minister said here at the Bill’s last outing—it was

“quite wrong to suggest that there was no need for this amendment because the courts would anyway deal with the challenge to the legislation based on suggested non-compliance. I repeat: the amendment is vital. The courts otherwise cannot go behind the definitive clauses in the Bill and would have to apply them, compliant or not.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 April 2020; Vol. 820, c. 1883.]

We agree; the Bill is fundamental to what we are doing here.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is right that the amount of scrutiny time being afforded to this House is ridiculous. If the Government are not prepared to come to any kind of compromise with the House of Lords, would it not be even better for all these powers to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, so that the people of Scotland could build the kind of humane immigration and asylum system that hundreds of constituents in Glasgow North have lobbied me to advocate for in this House?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has just said.

I turn to Lords amendments 15 and 13B, which bring us back to the sweeping criminalisation of asylum seekers and others arriving in the UK. We are talking about Afghans, Syrians, persecuted Christians and Uyghurs. Those are causes that many in this House advocate and speak up for all the time, and yet when these people come to our shores, suddenly we are planning to let them down, offshore them, discriminate against them, treat them abysmally and criminalise them under this legislation.

The Minister has said today that the Lords have defined the criminal offence too tightly and he wants to go back to a sweepingly broad offence. He assures us that that does not really matter, because we will not use the provision against the Afghans and Syrians; it will be used only in egregious cases. We cannot pass criminal laws on the basis of wishes and assurances expressed at the Dispatch Box that we will be quite reasonable in how we use them. He has to come up with the tight wording for the criminal offence that he is aiming at. If he does not, I am afraid we cannot support it at all; in fact, we fundamentally oppose it.

We believe that the Bill represents completely the wrong approach, and we continue to support the House of Lords in all it is doing to try to rein in the worst aspects. I hugely regret that we have had such a pitiful amount of time to say what we have to say about the amendments. In deference to other Members, I will sit down now and do my voting later on.

HMRC Tax Office: Cumbernauld

Debate between Patrick Grady and Stuart C McDonald

Tuesday 14th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend.

Secondly, the Government must take responsibility for the consequences of the proposed closure on the town of Cumbernauld. It is fair to say that HMRC and the Government have failed to show one iota of interest in the implications for the town and community. Earlier written answers sought to assure us that all the appropriate impact assessments would be carried out, but they proved to be hollow assurances as the economic impact assessment was never commissioned.

Thankfully, after a little encouragement, North Lanarkshire Council worked effectively with PCS to do what the Government should have done and looked at the economic consequences for Cumbernauld. The assessment confirmed what we all could guess: local shops and businesses benefit greatly from the footfall of tax office workers spending money in the town centre adjacent to the tax office building. A conservative estimate suggests an annual loss of almost £1 million at supermarkets, local cafés and food outlets alone. That significant loss of footfall will have a severe impact on the local economy.

However, absolutely none of that has played any role in HMRC’s plans, and it has shown no interest in the impacts. If HMRC will not listen, the Government should. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) mentioned earlier, the Government’s towns strategy, published last November, said that

“for too long, the benefits of this unprecedented growth in many of our world-renowned cities has not been felt as strongly by communities in our towns and rural areas… Successive Governments have often focused on cities as engines of economic growth.”

I largely agree with that, but a focus on rebalancing is exactly why the tax office ended up in Cumbernauld in the first place. During the 1960s and 1970s, there was cross-party consensus not only on dispersing existing civil service jobs from London to other parts of the UK, but on the creation of new positions. It was against that background that Cumbernauld was selected for a new accounts office in 1976, albeit that the opening was later postponed until 1978. The office was expected to have a hugely positive impact on employment in the town, with most of the jobs being new and recruited locally, and that is exactly what happened. Everyone in Cumbernauld knows somebody employed in the tax office. What a tragedy it is that, 40 years on, UK Ministers are standing idly by as HMRC runs roughshod over such policy goals.

In reality, the “Building our future” programme seems to be doing the opposite of the Government’s stated aim of renewing our towns. New offices are being located in prime inner-city locations in places where I have absolutely no doubt that the offices would have been filled by private sector tenants in any event. That is not the case in Cumbernauld where the site owner, Mapeley, is protecting its position in case HMRC fails to renew the lease, but it is not protecting the position by seeking new people for the lease and creating new jobs, but by knocking it down and seeking planning permission to build houses on the site. New housing is needed, but not at the expense of around 1,200 good-quality jobs.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is being generous with his time. I am incredibly disturbed by a lot of what he is saying, because I seem to remember in 2014 that the presence of all these civil service jobs at HMRC and, as we were discussing last night, at the Department for International Development site in East Kilbride was one of the strengths of the Union. All those jobs were going to be at risk if Scotland voted for independence. Has he noticed that all the warnings about the risks of voting for independence—losing civil service jobs and economic chaos—are starting to come true? Will he tell the House whether we voted for independence?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It would not take too long to google a nice picture of the Better Together campaign outside HMRC in Cumbernauld, where it was warned that all the jobs could be retained only if we remained part of the United Kingdom. If the Government’s apparent new-found enthusiasm for protecting and nurturing towns is genuine, that is one strong reason why the Government should intervene and ensure that HMRC considers whether the closure is compatible with other Government objectives.

Of course, the other huge development since “Building our future” was first drafted is Brexit. The precise impact that Brexit will have on HMRC’s work remains as clear as mud, but it clearly means more work. Trade with the EEA, and even trade between the UK and Northern Ireland, will now have greater implications for HMRC. It has been acknowledged that significant additional staffing will be required, and it should be recognised that that need will not be temporary. It will therefore be useful to know the Government’s current estimate of the number of additional HMRC workers required as a result of Brexit. how many have been recruited and, indeed, how many have been recruited in Scotland. In short, it is clearly nonsense to think that we should simply ignore these realities and allow HMRC to press on as if nothing has happened. It is time to pause and think again.

It is frustrating that the Cumbernauld site was in the running for selection as one of the 13 hubs. To almost all intents and purposes, it meets the—albeit dubious—criteria used in the selection process. Cumbernauld is a large site, with good access by train and motorway to the cities of Edinburgh, Glasgow and Stirling, to the graduate populations located there and to the airports at Edinburgh and Glasgow. Of course, it has the added benefit of a pre-existing experienced and dedicated workforce. There is no sensible reason for not using the Cumbernauld site.

We know from written answers that HMRC has the option of extending the lease of the Cumbernauld premises. Surely it makes sense to do that now, even if at first it is for the short to medium term while we revisit the longer-term strategy of HMRC.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Patrick Grady and Stuart C McDonald

Wednesday 3rd July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

9. What recent assessment she has made of the effect of the UK leaving the EU on the progress of talks on restoring devolution in Northern Ireland.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

10. What recent assessment she has made of the effect of the UK leaving the EU on the progress of talks on restoring devolution in Northern Ireland.

Refugee Family Reunion

Debate between Patrick Grady and Stuart C McDonald

Thursday 20th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

I, too, start by paying a massive tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), first, for securing this debate, but secondly, for his relentless pursuit of reform of the family reunion rules in the face of what hon. Members have rightly described as pretty shabby Government behaviour in relation to his private Member’s Bill. I dare say there were other topics he could have picked for his Bill that would have made him even more popular among the citizens of the Outer Hebrides, if that was possible, but he chose this one because he believes passionately in it. He has thrown himself into this cause heart and soul, and I thank him for doing so. More generally, we have had some incredibly powerful and measured speeches from across the Chamber, so I thank all hon. Members for their contributions.

This debate and the motion tabled have been a very fitting way to mark both World Refugee Day and Refugee Week. It is a week during which we celebrate the rights enshrined in the refugee convention—as has been pointed out, we helped to draft it—and also commit to defending the principle that states should provide shelter for those fleeing persecution from other countries. As hon. Members have pointed out, it is also a week during which we celebrate the huge benefits that refugees can bring to their new homes if they are given the chance to flourish.

It is often said in this Chamber, and it has been said again today, that we have a strong track record of offering sanctuary to refugees, and I agree, although the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) was quite right to point out some of the challenges posed by certain political and tabloid voices, and the need for all of us to be leaders in defending the rights of refugees. However, we should not see this simply as an act of charity, because this country does benefit too. We must also say thank you to our refugee community for the massive contribution they make in all walks of life.

World Refugee Day is also a good time to thank all the organisations and individuals up and down the UK that work relentlessly to support refugees and campaign on their behalf. As we have heard, many of these organisations have been in Parliament this week, either hosting or attending Refugee Week events. We have had Play for Progress, which my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar hosted. I was lucky enough to host René Cassin, and we have had the International Red Cross, the International Observatory of Human Rights and many more. I would like to take this chance to pay particular tribute to the Scottish Refugee Council, which does tremendous work day in, day out. It is a source of lots of information and ideas for me, and I wish it well as it launches its own refugee festival today.

Finally on the subject of Refugee Week, like the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I am pleased to see the Minister for Immigration here today because—and this may cause shockwaves in the Chamber—I too want to commend her and the Home Office for what they have announced this week about refugee resettlement. As the hon. Gentleman has said, the Syrian vulnerable persons scheme has been a tremendous success, and it is excellent that the experience and expertise gained in operating that system, offering safety to 20,000 vulnerable Syrians by 2020, will not suddenly become redundant, but instead be put to greater use in a broader resettlement scheme thereafter. As an Opposition spokesperson, it would be remiss of me not to suggest that the Government might go further both on numbers and in giving a longer-term commitment, but it is a very welcome step in the right direction, and I thank the Minister and her Department for that.

The reason why resettlement is more important than ever is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar and the hon. Member for Strangford have said, that the global displacement of people has reached record levels. Just yesterday, the UNHCR reported that the population of displaced citizens has now reached 70.8 million people, and 25.9 million of them are refugees, which is almost double the number from a decade ago. The UNHCR estimates that 1.4 million refugees need to be resettled, but last year only 81,300 places were offered by 29 states—a gap of 90% that is getting bigger rather than smaller. Every place we can offer truly counts. Hon. Members have said that we can, and should, do more with the Dubs amendment, with relocations from Europe, and with the asylum system, and I agree.

The key part of my hon. Friend’s Bill—family reunion—can be part of solving the crisis that I have just spoken about. Many of those who apply to come to the UK under the refugee family reunion rules—and those who would apply under the expanded rules that we seek through the Bill—are themselves refugees, and it makes sense for them to be alongside their refugee families in the UK, rather than isolated in refugee camps. More fundamentally, however, family reunion is about the rights of those refugees who are already here. Refugee status will never be fully effective unless it comes with all those rights that are essential to allow a person to rebuild their life. The convention relating to the status of refugees ensures that refugees can work, study, and access housing and social security on the same basis as the host country’s citizens.

What could be more essential for someone trying to rebuild their life than the presence of their family? As the hon. Member for Strangford said, the Government do allow family reunion, and last year there were 5,806 cases of partners and children who were able to join refugees here. We welcome that, but our refugee family reunion rules remain more restrictive than international best practice, and more restrictive than leading refugee organisations would wish.

As the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) rightly said, the reforms in my hon. Friend’s Bill are modest, and they are also reasonable for all the reasons that have been set out today and in numerous debates beforehand. How can it ever be right that someone’s 18-year-old daughter cannot join her refugee parents here, but her 17 and 15-year-old siblings can? How can we say to refugee children living among us in the UK that even though they know where their parents are, we will not allow them to come here?

In response to such questions, the Government generally point to alternative routes in the immigration rules, but as everyone knows, those alternatives are more complicated, much more restrictive, and they come with far fewer rights than refugee family reunion. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) said, it is great that now and again there are exceptional cases and exceptional results are granted, but we want all refugees in the circumstances set out in the Bill to be able to access refugee family reunion rules in a straightforward manner.

In response to what the Home Affairs Committee called the “perverse” rule that stops children sponsoring their parents to come in under family reunion rules, the Home Office plays the “pull factor” card—an argument I hate. As the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, that argument is not founded on evidence, and it runs contrary to everything that leading international refugee organisations tell us. To my mind, it is also totally immoral because when looked at from a different angle, it essentially makes an example of refugee children who are already here. It says to refugee children, “We must ensure that you live separately from your parents so as to discourage others from coming here”, which is a brutal way for any Department to operate.

Such reasoning is also deeply flawed. If I had fled my country of origin and discovered that my child had ended up as a refugee in a third country, I would move heaven and earth to join them there. If I could not do it through family reunion rules, I would pay people smugglers or buy a dinghy to do it myself. Refusing to recognise the right of child refugees to sponsor their parents does not stop people using unsafe illegal routes—on the contrary, it forces more people to use them—and my hon. Friend’s Bill is about creating safe, legal alternatives.

The hon. Members for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous), and for Newport West (Ruth Jones) raised the issue of legal aid, which is also covered by my hon. Friend’s Bill. I know from my experience as an immigration solicitor how complicated those applications can sometimes be. The issue is set out in an excellent report entitled “Not so straightforward” by the British Red Cross, which notes

“the need for qualified legal support in refugee family reunion”.

People can still get that support in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and they should have it in England and Wales as well.

My hon. Friend has won this argument and he won the vote last year, and it is disgraceful that the Government are not honouring and implementing the will of the House. It is not clear whether the Bill is being blocked by the Home Office or the Treasury or—more likely—by the Whips and business managers.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Is it particularly frustrating that the Government are not willing to provide time for our hon. Friend’s Bill to progress, given how much time is available? Nothing else of any substance is happening, and with the greatest of respect to the next Backbench Business debate, if Members keep that going until 5 o’clock we will be quite impressed. Time and capacity is available, and many other private Member’s Bills are also not getting the light of day that they deserve.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. There is enough time for a five-day debate on the Bill.

Access to Medical Cannabis

Debate between Patrick Grady and Stuart C McDonald

Monday 8th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

rose—

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

rose—

Public Health Model to Reduce Youth Violence

Debate between Patrick Grady and Stuart C McDonald

Thursday 13th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I very much welcome that intervention. This is probably a good moment to pay tribute not just to the organisation my hon. Friend mentions, but to organisations across Scotland and the United Kingdom that do such good work on the ground to try to divert people away from violence.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) said. We can all think of similar initiatives in our own constituencies. The Children’s Wood in Glasgow North primarily supports teenagers who start to engage in antisocial behaviour. Instead of just calling the police to get them taken away, local volunteers went out and worked with them. Now those same teenagers, instead of being involved in antisocial behaviour, are active parts of that community. That preventive strategy is seen at all levels.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which highlights another very useful and innovative community response.

Both the Minister and the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) mentioned the impact of adverse childhood experiences—ACEs. More recently, and significantly, this has been an increasing focus of Scottish Government policy. There is increasingly convincing evidence about how certain adverse childhood experiences can result in long-term effects on learning, health and behaviour. Remarkable research in Wales found that people who reported experiencing four or more ACEs are 15 times more likely to have committed violence, 14 times more likely to have been victim of violence in the past 12 months, and 20 times more likely to have been in prison at some point in their life. Many other studies show similar links, so working to prevent ACEs at all and to build resilience for those who have already experienced them now underpins policies in all areas. An ACEs hub, co-ordinated by NHS Health Scotland, is progressing national action, and the implications for justice policy are now reflected in the Government’s “Justice in Scotland: Vision and Priorities” for 2017 to 2020.

While detailed policies cannot simply be transplanted from one community to the next, and each has to be tailored to local need, there is no doubt that the principles behind a public health approach to violent crime, and particularly violent youth crime, are absolutely solid and evidence-based. I welcome, for example, what Mayor Sadiq Khan has done in establishing a violence reduction unit in London.

Similarly, the UK Government’s serious violence strategy includes some welcome steps, including the establishment of the new national county lines co-ordination centre, which the Minister mentioned, and a move towards a public health approach, but there are those who have expressed concern about it. Critics have expressed the belief that it is still overly dominated—certainly, as regards youth justice—by a criminal law enforcement response, with insufficient emphasis on some drivers of serious violence, such as poverty, and insufficient recognition of the impact of trauma on children caught up in serious violence. That is what some critics are concerned about. The Minister is a former colleague from the Home Affairs Committee, and I know that she is absolutely committed to this issue, so I hope that she can bring the Government with her in being able to respond to these questions and criticisms in the best way possible by investing in putting public health front and centre of their ambitions to tackle youth crime.

The Minister also mentioned the Offensive Weapons Bill, which was a welcome, if small step, as I said when we debated it. She mentioned a consultation on a statutory duty, which seems fine to me. We will monitor that with interest. However, I think we all absolutely agree that we cannot legislate our way out of these issues any more than we can arrest our way out of them. These challenges require evidence-based strategy and policies, and, as hon. Members have said repeatedly already, they require urgent and significant investment in them. Ultimately, everyone benefits if Government genuinely and urgently commit to that approach. We will support any and all initiatives that reflect that approach.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Patrick Grady and Stuart C McDonald

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 14th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

I want to speak briefly in support of amendment 137, tabled by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), who spoke so persuasively about the need to strengthen and clarify clause 6, particularly subsection (2).

If, utterly regrettably from my point of view, the UK is to leave the EU, it is important not only that there is a functioning statute book on exit day, but that it is as accessible and comprehensible as possible. The ordinary citizen must be able to understand their rights and obligations; businesses need to have clarity about the rules under which they will be trading and competing; and our courts require clear guidance about Parliament’s intentions. The rule of law and our economic interest require that. As it stands, however, there is still much work to do to achieve those aims, and that includes rectifying the lack of clarity in clause 6.

My starting point is clause 6(3), about which I do not think there is any dispute. Clearly, unmodified retained EU law should be interpreted in accordance with retained case law and principles of EU law. That is necessary to ensure that the statute book applies in the same way after exit as it did before. Immediately after that, however, we get into sticky territory, namely the status of post-exit European case law.

In the first months and years after exit, few cases in the CJEU will concern new EU rules that have nothing to do with the UK. Most will continue to relate to rules that existed before exit and that will in fact have been incorporated into the UK statute book by this Bill. In essence, such decisions by the CJEU are about how the law always was and should have been applied, including immediately prior to exit.

With apologies for moving away from highbrow discussions about the rule of law and the sovereignty of Parliament, I want to talk about the hypothetical EU widget regulations. If the EU widget regulations come into effect prior to exit, and a decision of the CJEU shortly after exit clarifies that the regulations do indeed apply to a new and cutting-edge form of six-sided widget, that decision would actually tell us and clarify what retained EU law was on Brexit day—the point at which it was incorporated into our laws. Yet the Bill appears to fudge or dodge the issue of whether such a ruling should be followed or even whether it should be given any consideration at all. Parliament is in danger of passing the buck to judges on what is actually a political decision.

Unlike his German counterpart, the UK manufacturer of a six-sided widget is unclear about where he stands and, importantly, so are our judges. Given that the widget directive is part of retained law, there is a strong argument that this Parliament should say that if the CJEU confirms in its judgement—despite it being handed down after exit—that when we incorporated the regulations they did apply to a six-sided widget, that should also be part of retained law in the United Kingdom, unless there is good reason to the contrary. That would seem sensible and desirable from a legal theory point of view and, much more importantly, from a practical point of view. If we are to make trade and competition with the EU as simple as possible, surely it makes sense for exactly the same rule, one still found in an EU regulation and one incorporated by the Bill into domestic law, to be interpreted in the same way unless there are very good reasons to the contrary. However, all clause 6(1) says is that a court or a tribunal is not bound by post-Brexit CJEU decisions, and clause 6(2) merely says it can “have regard to” such case law

“if it considers it appropriate to do so.”

Lord Neuberger says that that is not very helpful guidance for judges. Neither is it helpful for the six-sided widget manufacturer, who needs to know whether he must comply with the widget regulations and is not sure if domestic courts will follow the CJEU in deciding whether it does. Indeed, we might even find that courts in different parts of the United Kingdom could come to different decisions about whether to follow the CJEU’s decision on the widget regulations. Parliament has to do much better.

Amendment 137 provides alternative options. If there are reasons why domestic courts should not want to follow a CJEU ruling, the court could quite simply have regard to and then decline to follow the Court’s judgment. There could be very good reasons for that to happen, for example if Parliament had already decided to put in place its own separate statutory regime for six-sided widgets. Ultimately, if Parliament decides after a particular judgment by the CJEU that it wants to change retained law to take a different course, it can of course do that. However, there are many more rules where it would surely be sensible for this Parliament to leave them in place as they are and to seek to ensure consistency of application between the United Kingdom and the European Union so far as that is possible.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Perhaps one reason why the Government and the Brexiteers, who appear to be paying precious little attention to anything going on in the Chamber, are not really interested is because they want a bonfire of such regulations and a race to the bottom. That is the ultimate goal of the hard Brexiteers on the Conservative Benches.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I suspect my hon. Friend is absolutely right. My point is that there are many more rules where it would surely be sensible for this Parliament to leave in place exactly as they are, and not only that but to seek to ensure consistency of application between the United Kingdom and the European Union so far as that is possible. Clause 6(6) allows for even modified retained law to be interpreted in accordance with retained case law and principles if that is what Parliament intends.

We need a clear expression of intention that by leaving the rules unmodified and retaining the same rules in place on exit day, we are seeking for them to be applied in the same way here as across the EU. That is a much more political decision than I think the Minister accepts, which is why it should not be left to judges; it should be expressed clearly by this Parliament that that is what we want, if that is indeed what we want to happen. That will help judges, it will be good for the six-sided widget manufacturers who will understand the rules under which they have to operate, and, most importantly, it will be good for all citizens who will benefit from clarity about their rights. It is therefore imperative that Parliament makes this happen, through amendment 137 or otherwise.

Non-EU Citizens: Income Threshold

Debate between Patrick Grady and Stuart C McDonald

Monday 7th March 2016 Westminster Hall

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I, too, welcome the debate and am genuinely pleased to see the degree of engagement on this issue that use of the petitions facility has generated, not just in terms of numbers, although they are at first glance pretty remarkable, but in terms of the quality of submissions made possible through Parliament’s Facebook account. I also welcome the contribution of the campaign group Stop35k in engaging with those affected and making their voices heard.

We have heard some excellent speeches this afternoon, and I am pleased to see so many of my hon. Friends present. A lot of good points have been made. As my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) and for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) pointed out, it is important to focus on the specific issue we are debating. It is not yet—thankfully—about raising the threshold for people who are coming here. People are being allowed to come here and take up jobs at a certain salary level that no resident could be recruited to do, but when those people put down roots, a huge extra salary hurdle is put in their way before they are able to gain settlement.

There are so many strong arguments in support of the petition and they broadly fall into two categories. The first is that the introduction of the new £35,000 salary requirement will cause a hell of a lot of pain. As some of my hon. Friends have argued, the second is the question of why we would want to inflict that pain. What is it all for? The answer seems to be that it is not for very much at all. I will take those two sides of the coin in turn.

The threshold will cause pain and, most importantly, distress and upheaval for so many people who have made their homes and built their careers in the UK over several years. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North mentioned a powerful constituency case. Indeed, so many individuals will have their lives, plans and dreams turned upside down by the new provisions. Parliament’s Facebook page and case studies provided by Stop35k have allowed those individuals to explain their personal experiences. I will add another two or three examples that I spotted when looking at Parliament’s Facebook page this afternoon.

A typical example is Shannon, who has been here for more than seven years and who, but for the changes, would be eligible for indefinite leave to remain in a year. She studied at Imperial College London and has worked ever since on a tier 2 visa, doing very good work for a charity based in central London that communicates original science and development news and analysis aimed at helping the global south. She says,

“I don’t have anything anywhere else. I hope you can help skilled people like us stay in our homes and continue contributing making the UK as unique as it is.”

Megan has three university degrees and works in the international development sector, in which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North mentioned, very few jobs pay more than £35,000. She supports herself comfortably and presents no burden whatever to the UK system, but the rule means that she could be forced to leave. She argues:

“This £35k threshold determines the worth of an individual based solely on income rather than contribution to society, which is not just inhumane—it’s shortsighted. The UK will lose essential staff like nurses, teachers, and care workers, and for what?... I sincerely hope that Parliament will think better of this foolish, knee-jerk policy.”

Those case studies point out that people put down roots over time so the UK becomes home, and they illustrate the excellent contribution that those people make to our economy and society. Some might argue that people should have known that this was coming, but it is clear that many just simply did not know. One contributor to the Facebook page was pretty typical in saying:

“When I immigrated to the UK almost five years ago, there was no £35,000 rule…So the ‘deal’ I signed up for has been RADICALLY changed, but only after I uprooted my family and committed to this country…It’s iniquitous, in my opinion, to entice an immigrant with one set of rules, and then rip the rug out from under them like this.”

That point was also eloquently made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East.

Even if people were aware of the rule changes that were provisionally announced in 2011, they cannot refrain from getting on with life and they cannot make a conscious choice to not put down roots, make friends, or build up a home and private life here. Nor can we stop folk having the ambition of meeting the £35,000 threshold by the end of their visas.

First and foremost, the Scottish National party condemns the impact that the provision will have on the individuals who are directly affected. Beyond that, we need to consider the impact it will have on the businesses and public services that employ those people. We are talking about teachers, classical musicians, IT workers, software engineers, professional ballet dancers, chefs and cooks, carers, media workers, biomedical and technological researchers, and many people with jobs in science and research, including in the NHS. We are talking about start-ups, employees of which will often earn less than £35,000 but will make a significant contribution to innovation and economic growth.

We are still concerned about nurses, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) pointed out, despite the Government’s temporary sticking plaster of using the shortage occupation list. Prior to that move, 3,365 nurses working in the UK potentially would have had to leave the country, with a recruitment cost implication of £20 million for the NHS. The Royal College of Nursing pointed out that there was a steep percentage rise in non-EU admissions to the Nursing and Midwifery Council register in 2015. If nursing is removed from the shortage occupation list again, the figures for future years are potentially even more worrying, particularly if overseas recruitment continues to rise as a result of a shortage of home-grown nurses and a crackdown on agency nurse spending. A stopgap answer for the NHS is not sufficient, but at least it has a stopgap measure—the other industries mentioned cannot rely on any such measure.

As several of my hon. Friends have argued, a one-size-fits-all policy is being used where, yet again, it is entirely inappropriate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) said, one size is being designed to fit all industries and jobs. The Government are also trying to make one size fit all nations and regions—a point made well by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East. One size simply does not fit all.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North highlighted the UK Government’s estimate of the damage to the UK economy of several hundred million pounds. Of course, the Migration Advisory Committee estimated that the cost to the UK economy would, in fact, be not far short of £800 million. The word “bonkers” springs to mind.

There will be personal pain, pain for business and public services, and economic pain, and for what? It is hard to find an up-to-date assessment of the numbers of people who will be affected but we are talking about comparatively small numbers in the grand scheme of things, particularly after various exceptions and exemptions are considered. Even the Government’s defence and response to the petition appears half-hearted, saying that the move

“is intended to make a modest contribution to the Government’s target of reducing net migration to sustainable levels.”

If the so-called gain is accepted, even by the Government, to be a modest one, why on earth inflict so much pain?

[Patrick Grady]

Is not the point that it is not really a modest measure, but a desperate one? The Government are so hidebound by this arbitrary target they have no chance of meeting that they will stop at nothing, even if it is at a cost to the economy and to people’s personal lives.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I absolutely agree. One word that could be used is “tokenism”. Someone described the measure to me as “immigration theatre”; it is all in pretend pursuit of the so-called target that my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow North and for Edinburgh East ripped to pieces. No one believes that the target is a genuine one. I think the Government recognise, to some extent, the ridiculousness of the move—hence the creation of an exemption for those whose job has been on the shortage occupation list at any time in the six years prior to a settlement application. There is an exemption for migrants who work in a PhD-level occupation, and for those who have a tier 2 minister of religion visa or a tier 2 intra-company transfer visa. With so many large exemptions and exceptions, should not the rule that we are creating those exceptions for be considered absolutely absurd?

As my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Kirsten Oswald) rightly asked, what assessment has been done of the displacement effect of the change? Will not the lives of thousands of non-EU citizens be disrupted, only for so many of them to be replaced with fresh migrant employees? If so, what on earth is the point?

The Home Office’s 2012 impact assessment states:

“The goal is a smarter, more selective, more responsive system that commands public confidence and serves the UK’s economic interests.”

In fact, all the signs are that the measure will have a negative economic impact and will undermine, yet further, any confidence that the public has in what the UK Government are doing on immigration.

I know that the policy was inherited by the Minister for Immigration and I know that his hon. Friend, the Under-Secretary of State for Refugees, who is responding for the Government today, has had nothing to do with it either. I wish that they would ditch it not only as singularly unhelpful, but as harmful and hurtful for all concerned.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Patrick Grady and Stuart C McDonald

Tuesday 1st December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I, too, place on record my thanks to all the organisations that have supported and advised MPs during the passage of this Bill. We have had a passionate and thoughtful debate and we have one final, brief chance to debate further, so I intend to take it.

Some would wish to criticise the Immigration Minister in the light of the latest abject failure to make any progress on the net migration target, but not us: we are critical of the net migration target itself, which long precedes the Minister. On Second Reading, I described the net migration target as unhelpful and unachievable. Last week’s announcement suggests that my description was far too understated. The immigration target is, frankly, total bunkum, complete baloney, and utterly bogus. There is no research or plan that explains why tens of thousands is the right target or an achievable target. Indeed, we learned today that the Chancellor’s spending plans appear to depend entirely on the net migration target being spectacularly missed. Without forecast inward migration, we will not be able to see through the spending plans that he set out last week. It is time for an honest debate on immigration about what is desirable and what is achievable.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Week after week at my constituency surgeries, I am left speechless as I try to explain to people coming from the most difficult of circumstances and wanting to seek a fresh home, make a fresh start and contribute to our society and economy, why this Government refuse to let them in. Does my hon. Friend agree that the net migration target is completely ideological and has nothing to do with what is actually good for the country?

Immigration Bill

Debate between Patrick Grady and Stuart C McDonald

Tuesday 13th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

I, too, congratulate the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) on his new role. I agree with much of what he said. We on the SNP Benches acknowledge, are proud of the fact and prefer to emphasise that people who choose this country as their new home make a tremendous contribution to our public services, our economy, our culture and, most importantly for many of our citizens, our family lives.

From our point of view, the Bill does not deserve a Second Reading because—it is important to put this on the record—we regard the Government’s net migration target of tens of thousands as entirely unhelpful, as well as utterly unrealistic, and the Bill will bring its realisation not a second closer. Indeed, I genuinely doubt whether any member of the Government thinks that that target is achievable. That is why it is fundamentally dishonest to continue to go through the motions of pursuing it. A target that is virtually impossible for the Government to deliver can only further undermine public confidence in government and in immigration control. A Bill designed to pursue a bad target is likely to lead to bad law, and so it is with this Immigration Bill. In a sense, this is immigration theatre: the Government want to be seen to be doing something, so they go through the motions of yet another Immigration Bill—and to hell with the consequences.

That is our starting point in considering the Bill, and although that is clearly one of the key issues we need to address, the other issue that all hon. Members must consider, regardless of whether they agree with us about the net migration target, is different. For even those in the Chamber who want immigration to be cut back need to ask themselves: what will the Bill achieve in reality, where is the evidence for that and what will the cost be in terms of civil liberties, human rights, the rule of law, community cohesion and the other aspects of life in this country that we hold dear? Regardless of one’s starting point in this debate, when those simple tests are applied, the Bill fails them utterly. It therefore does not deserve a Second Reading.

The Bill fails those simple tests because if it is to be effective and achieve anything, it requires effective Government agencies. Is there any area of policy where the Government have proven less effective, reliable and up to the job than immigration? John Reid described the immigration directorate as “not fit for purpose” in 2006. Just two years ago, the Home Secretary said that

“the performance of what remains of UKBA is still not good enough.”

She described it as a “troubled organisation” that

“struggles with the volume of its casework”.

She criticised its IT systems and its reliance on manual data entry and paper files. She said:

“The agency is often caught up in a vicious cycle of complex law and poor enforcement of its own policies”.—[Official Report, 26 March 2013; Vol. 560, c. 1500-1501.]

She abolished the UK Border Agency.

Are we really to believe that UK Visas and Immigration is now so well organised that we can feel comfortable providing it and its officers with swathes of new powers and responsibilities, while sweeping away its accountability to courts and tribunals? The Home Secretary may be formidable but, with respect, she is not a miracle worker. Another round of viciously complex legislation is the last thing we need, as anyone who deals with UK Visas and Immigration, including hon. Members, will surely understand.

The Bill also fails the tests because to be effective it will rely on civilians, including landlords and landladies. We are setting off down a road of amateur immigration control, as if we are to become a nation of immigration officers. Again, anyone who deals regularly with immigration work, including hon. Members, will be well aware of what a complex issue this is. It is not one in which it is appropriate for amateurs to be involved in enforcement. As with decisions of the Home Office, we search in vain in the Bill for proper rights of appeal and redress against amateur enforcement decisions. Indeed, judicial scrutiny of evictions is torn apart.

The Bill fails because it is not based on evidence of what is effective in ensuring that immigration rules are complied with, as the shadow Home Secretary said. The clearest example, which he set out, is the so-called right to rent provisions. The House was assured by Ministers that the right to rent legislation would remain light touch and be tested thoroughly, with the results of the tests being used to inform further development. Yet here we are, several months after the Prime Minister announced its roll-out, with proposals to move away from the soft-touch approach envisaged by hon. Members. The House is yet to see the results of the Government’s pilot scheme. I agree with the shadow Secretary of State that that is a most unacceptable way of treating the House.

What was the point of the Government consulting on asylum support, when the Bill was published just a week after the consultation closed, without any Government analysis of the responses, let alone a reaction? Much of the evidence that is available on employment, right to rent and asylum support suggests that the Bill will, in some respects, make immigration control more difficult by driving people and families away from regular contact with immigration authorities. This is a politically motivated, rather than evidence-led, piece of legislation.

The Bill not only fails the tests but becomes dangerous when we consider the costs that will come with it. Even if it might somehow shave a pitiful few thousand off the net migration figure, what price are we paying to do that? The effects of the Bill should appal traditional Conservatives. It will tie up landlords and landladies in immigration red tape and put them at risk of prison sentences. It will arm immigration officers with broad new powers. Most fundamentally, it will strike a significant blow against community cohesion.

The Home Secretary spoke about community cohesion last week, yet her Government’s explicit and almost dystopian goal is to create a “hostile climate”, as if we can hermetically seal off the bad migrants, while the rest of the multicultural UK goes about its business as usual. That approach reached its lowest ebb with the horrendous “go home” vans, which illustrated the key point that the hostile climate that the Government seek to create affects all of us who live in it.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Will my hon. Friend join me in commending the work of the integration networks in cities and communities across Scotland? During the recess, I visited the Maryhill integration network, which does a huge job in helping people to adapt to Scottish society. The stories that I heard from immigrants and asylum seekers there would be enough to make anyone weep. Ministers ought to meet the integration networks to experience at first hand the issues that face asylum seekers in our country.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

That is precisely the sort of work that the Government should support, rather than going through the motions of pursuing their impossible net migration target.