Oral Answers to Questions

Philippa Whitford Excerpts

Monday 25th April 2022 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

1. What steps her Department is taking to increase the number of safe and legal routes to the UK for nationals of (a) Ukraine and (b) Afghanistan.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your statement.

The Government have introduced two new safe and legal routes for Ukrainian nationals: the Ukraine family scheme and the Homes for Ukraine scheme. As of 21 April, more than 71,000 visas had been issued under both schemes. Under the schemes, neither route is capped, and the Ukraine extension scheme permits Ukrainians who are already in the UK to extend their stay.

[Dr Whitford]

Members from throughout the House have called on the Government to make it easier for people from Ukraine to seek sanctuary in the UK. Will the Home Secretary explain why the schemes for those who try to flee the Taliban are so limited and why, according to her own Department, the Nationality and Borders Bill does not establish safe and legal routes for those fleeing war, conflict or persecution?

[Priti Patel]

First, the new plan for immigration spells out absolutely the Government’s approach to safe and legal routes. As I have said many times in the House, every safe and legal route needs to be bespoke, based on the crisis that we are seeking to address.

Secondly, in response to the hon. Lady’s question about Afghanistan, she will know that under the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme we will welcome up to 20,000 at-risk people who have been affected by the most appalling events in Afghanistan. That scheme was announced last year and will include women and girls and members of minority groups, given their vulnerability.

Refugees from Ukraine

Philippa Whitford Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

This is one of my concerns in that just getting accommodation by signing up to the website is not going to solve this, both because people will need all sorts of support to integrate and because they will be traumatised. Would it not be better for local councils to create lists of people with accommodation? The idea that this can be handled from here across the UK is not going to work; it should be as localised as possible.

[Mr Bone]

The hon. Lady raises a very interesting point. I have a lot of time for what she has to say, which has merit. One problem with getting Afghan refugees settled was the extra time that it took to go from the Home Office down to the local authority. North Northamptonshire Council has the ability to deal with this, and to do so quickly—and I am not a fan of centralised systems that are based on a computer that is liable to break down—so that is certainly worth looking at.

On the wraparound support that local authorities will provide, I think the Minister said there might be some extra help with education. In winding up, will he expand on that?

In summary, what my constituents have said about getting refugees over here is that, first, we should be looking after them as they come across the border. We are doing that with money. They also think that the Government have now got it right with the schemes—a little slow, I think they would say, but they are getting there. It is right that there are checks and that we do not just let any people in. On the human trafficking front, the easier we make it for traffickers to bring people in, the more people will come in and be forced into prostitution or forced labour. The Government are getting it right, and I congratulate them on what they are doing. I just wonder whether they could look at one or two points on how education will be dealt with, and whether we can speed up the process and get vulnerable women and children to local authorities quickly, rather than having to go through a more bureaucratic system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). I do not know why he is surprised about the reasonableness of the Scottish National party Members—I believe we are the epitome of reasonableness. One could not pay a higher tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), who stands on the shoulders of those who are reasonable in the House. Perhaps the hon. Member for Wellingborough should have listened to my speech before coming to that conclusion, but we shall leave him to determine that.

I think the one thing that unites the whole of the UK just now is that we all stand by Ukraine. We all want to do everything possible to assist the efforts to find safe places for the millions of refugees who are now fleeing Russian aggression. We stand in awe of their passionate defence of their country in the face of what must be terrifying situations and we want to do everything possible to ensure that those who attempt to flee will be met with all the hospitality this nation can summon.

Like every Member, my mailbox has been flooded with constituents willing to offer accommodation as part of the scheme set up by the Government; and if not accommodation, they want to help with resources, materials and cash donations. As every Member also finds, my whole constituency seems to be engaged in making collections for Ukraine. I pay particular tribute to the Polish community in my constituency—the largest Polish community in Scotland, owing to the world war two fighter pilots it hosted and who settled in the city of Perth. The effort has been simply magnificent: 10,000 people per hour signing up to the accommodation scheme, with 89,000 people signing up on the first day, leading the portal to crash. If Putin counted on the people of these islands being indifferent to a conflict at the other end of Europe, he will have been very quickly disabused of that notion. I am sure he will have observed the sheer compassion our constituents have demonstrated for the victims of his aggression.

What our constituents want—it is quite a simple request, really—is for the Government to match their passion to do something about the current situation. They want the Government to be fully engaged and to act to match the energy we are seeing across the whole of the UK. Our constituents have helped to ensure that there has at least been some sort of movement by the Government, by applying pressure and writing to their Members of Parliament. I hope that effort continues over the next critical weeks. They should not have to shame the Government into action. We should expect the Government to lead that effort without any cajoling from our constituents.

Perhaps I am being a little unfair. I actually want to congratulate the Government on their efforts so far. We are impressed by some of the measures we have seen brought forward, which seem to be making a practical difference. The Minister rolled off the impact that the measures are having on the Russian economy and the oligarchs. They are being felt across the whole of Russia. They are not enough, however. The Minister— I think I heard him correctly, but he can correct me if I have got it wrong—said that there are currently 5,500 refugees in the UK. I think that was the figure he gave, but the number of refugees is about to reach the 3 million mark, so 5,500 seems to me—I do not know about you, Madam Deputy Speaker—a very small figure to be proud of, particularly when 1.8 million have gone to Poland, 263,000 to Hungary, 230,000 to Slovakia, 453,000 to Romania, and 337,000 to Moldova, doubling its population. Fair enough, those nations border Ukraine, but Germany has taken in 147,000 and Ireland, which has a tenth of the population of the UK, has taken in some 6,646. The Minister tells us there are no problems or issues with Home Office procedures and there is no difficulty with bureaucracy, but why are we still at 5,500 people? I look to him to tell us that there will be a rush or a surge of people who are going to get here. We are waiting to see that surge happen, and we have to see it in the next day or two to be convinced that the Government are doing everything possible to act as if this is some sort of emergency.

We hear all the stuff about security concerns and the latest security advice. I am sure that to the Minister it sounds very convincing and I am pretty sure that is the sort of advice he is getting, but the questions that have been put to him are legitimate. Surely all our European allies and friends are getting the same advice, so are the Government unique in acting responsibly while the rest of the European nations are acting irresponsibly on the advice they are receiving from their security services? How on earth are they able to do more and get the numbers in that, for instance, Germany has, while the UK can get only 5,500? The suspicion remains—I hope it will be quelled—that the smokescreen of security advice is just another UK effort to slow, to deter, to frustrate and to do everything possible to make sure that people do not attempt to come to the UK. The Minister has to convince us in his summing up that that is not the case and that the Government will be doing everything they can.

I know this is difficult for the Conservatives. I get it. I know what it is like for some Conservatives. I have been observing them for the past 20 years and I shadowed home affairs for five years. I know their profound ideological beliefs when it comes to issues around immigration and people coming to the UK. I acknowledge the fact that they are deeply conflicted just now. I almost feel sorry for them, because they are obviously seeing all the images that we are seeing and I believe that they really want to do something for the refugees they observe in such difficulty. They want to make sure they are doing everything possible, but that conflicts with their inherent obsession of seeing the UK’s doors remain all but closed. I know they want to offer refuge to people in crisis, but that is weighed down by practically everything that informs them about immigration, refugees and anybody seeking to come to our shores. For years, they have fomented a deep, deep antipathy to everything to do with immigration and entry to the UK. Wanting to do the right thing, they cannot help being pulled back and constrained by their very essence and political nature.

We can almost see that tension play out before our eyes in real time. There is the usual do-nothing, indifferent initial approach. Then there are inflammatory comments from the Minister about letting people pick fruit. That is the bad side, but then there is talk of 100,000 or 200,000 refugee places being available. Then there are another couple of weeks of the Government doing nothing, to see whether they have got away with it. Then there are U-turns and offers of accommodation schemes, but they are always counterbalanced by failing to meet Europe in offering visa-free access. It is a wee bit like watching the very point at which Dr Jekyll is fighting Mr Hyde for control of the body.

Part of me thinks that we should be grateful that the Government are even doing any schemes whatever, given their inherent disposition. Let us remember that this is a Government whose major political programme of the past few years has been delivering a Brexit that had immigration, taking control and stopping people coming to the UK as its cold, beating heart. This is a Government who designed the hostile environment with the most careful attention to detail—a Government who sent hate vans to the streets of London that showed handcuffs and told illegal immigrants:

“Go home or face arrest”.

[Dr Whitford]

My hon. Friend is giving praise for the fact there has been movement. I am sure that all of us who have repeatedly been in this Chamber for statements and urgent questions to try to get movement and get people here feel the same, but the problem is that it has been so slow that my constituent who is trying to get her mother from Mariupol missed the window of opportunity to get her here. She has had no contact with her mother for almost a week. There will be people trapped in eastern Ukraine who have no chance of getting here because they did not set off, because they did not have somewhere to go. That slowness will have had a direct impact on people’s outcomes and on people who die in eastern Ukraine.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that case. We have heard all week about such cases, in which the inaction and initial slowness to respond have led to real and profound difficulties for our constituents. She is absolutely right to highlight that case.

Given their background, maybe it is too much to expect a Government who can dream up all the horrors from hate vans to hostile environments to be a friend to refugees all of a sudden. I know that they want to do the right thing, but everything they know—everything that informs the deep-seated ideology that runs through the whole party of government—is getting in the way.

It will be up to the British people to resolve the tension and the balance, and to fortify the Dr Jekyll part of the Government’s split personality. It is as if every time the Government reach for the apple of righteousness, they feel the creaking branch below, breaking their fall as they descend back into their pit of bedevilment around immigration. The people of these islands will have to keep the Government focused on doing the right thing and not let them give in to the temptations of their dark side.

Let me give the Minister an example of where he can start. The failure to get the Dnipro orphans out of Poland and home is now simply a disgrace, and it must be fixed right now. The orphans are still in Poland waiting for the UK to resolve its almost idiotic bureaucracy and get them to Scotland, where accommodation and support await them.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Philippa Whitford Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will endeavour to be brief too.

I think that across the House we all have a common endeavour: we all support a just peace in the middle east. That just peace will need to be based on dialogue, the rule of law and peaceful respect. Israel has a right to exist and a right to peace and security within its borders, but we also recognise that a deep injustice has been done to the Palestinian people, and that injustice is continuing. Everything in the middle east is connected to everything else, and it is important for all of us, as outsiders, to view it in totality rather than through a particular prism.

We believe that international law should be applied to all sides, and there are more than two sides to this dispute. Peace is made not among friends but among enemies, and difficult conversations with difficult people need to be taken forward to create the conditions for peace to happen. Dialogue is not supported by declaring stakeholders, however unpalatable, to be persona non grata or illegal. That said, we recognise, of course, the odious nature of Hamas. As a gay man, I need no reminder of the reality of that obnoxious organisation.

Proscribing all of Hamas will bring the UK in line with the US, all EU states, Japan and Canada, and Australia is in the process of adopting similar measures. We recognise the wider construct. However, we have unease at this proposal, and that unease boils down under three heads: the timing, the process, and the implications of this proposal in the real world.

On the timing, why is this being done now? I listened with great attention to the Minister. I did not find much I disagreed with, but I also did not find much that we could not have heard two or three years ago. Hamas was an odious organisation as the EU proscribed it; the UK took a different path. That that line is being changed now begs more questions than we have had answers today.

As recently as 18 months ago, in response to a written parliamentary question in June 2020, Minister Brokenshire set out the UK Government’s position as follows:

“The political wing of Hamas is not proscribed as it is considered that there is a clear distinction between Hamas’s military and political wings.”

That was the position very recently. I have not heard much today to suggest that much has changed. I would hate to think that this measure has been brought forward for domestic or, indeed, party political purposes, playing fast and loose with peace in the middle east—an issue that we must all take gravely seriously.

On the process, the Australian Parliament has just concluded a thoroughgoing review of this very question. Where was the UK Parliament’s similar review? Where was the engagement of Parliament in these processes? I do not doubt that there has been a process, but this House has not heard much of it. The House needs far greater opportunity to scrutinise how we got to this proposal, rather than just the opportunity to nod it through. The Australian Parliament has reached broadly the same conclusion, so I am not necessarily disagreeing with the proposal; I am, however, querying how we got here.

As Members on both sides of the House have already asked, what consultation has there been with allies—especially countries, such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia, that do not proscribe Hamas but have back-channel dealings with it, on both finance and other matters? Crucially, what consultation has there been with the humanitarian non-governmental organisation community?

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend will know that my husband and I spent 18 months as volunteers in Gaza in the early ’90s and have been running a breast cancer project between Scotland and Gaza for the last five years. My concern—I apologise for being late due to the change of time and my slow speed of running—is this. Do we not need clarity on the position of small education and healthcare NGOs in Gaza supporting the 2 million people there? The work that I and my volunteers do inevitably involves the Ministry of Health because that is who runs the hospitals. It is simply unavoidable. I am afraid this will send a chill when I am trying to recruit breast cancer specialists in Scotland to keep supporting this wonderful project.

[Alyn Smith]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention and I pay tribute to the work she has done over a long period and her humanitarian efforts in Gaza in particular.

I refer to the explanatory notes to this statutory instrument. The final sentence states:

“A full impact assessment has not been produced for this Order as no, or no significant, impact on the private, voluntary or public sector is foreseen.”

I am glad to hear that, but I have to say that I find it quite unbelievable. I think it fits into a pattern of behaviour we have seen on the ground. The Minister will be aware of the Israeli Government banning six Palestinian humanitarian NGOs on deeply spurious grounds. I am concerned about anything that shuts down the space for dialogue and civil society in this conflict.

That is our final unease on this matter: the implications. What will be the effect—I would be grateful to the Minister if he could reassure me and I am open to that reassurance today—of this listing on NGOs, big and small, and on civil society? The reality in Gaza especially is that Hamas is a fact of life. You cannot get anything done—you cannot get aid delivered, you cannot have a medical project, you cannot have a civil society dialogue—without Hamas’s active involvement one way or another. I do not say that as a matter of anything to be glad about, but it is the reality. How will this listing impact on the NGOs trying to promote dialogue and civil society, and trying to deliver humanitarian aid? Anything that would limit their activities or curtail their active involvement is surely a retrograde step. I would be grateful to the Minister if he could reassure us on the specific point that nothing in this measure or in the future will limit pragmatic humanitarian engagement within Gaza, and within Israel and Palestine. There is already a chill under way. Palestinian reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah has never been more important. I would hate to see anything done by this House that would limit the scope for that dialogue and engagement.

We all have a common aim in this process. I think everyone on all sides of the House today has indicated our clear support for justice and peace in the middle east, but surely the way to that peace is dialogue, and anything that limits that dialogue must be properly ventilated and properly scrutinised. From the SNP’s perspective, we will not stand in the way of the proposal, but we believe it needs far better scrutiny than we have been able to do today and will need far more scrutiny in future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

I support the proscription of Hamas in its entirety as a terrorist organisation. Every protection and reassurance must be given to the Jewish community in this country, and antisemitism has no place in our society. I also appreciate that since we have left the European Union, the EU’s ban on Hamas in its entirety is no longer in place, and we must have an alternative measure in this country. However, I want to ask the Minister a number of questions. First, what advice did the Home Office receive from the Proscription Review Group? Was it comprehensive advice, or was there simply a feeling—which was judged by other means—that action of this kind was necessary?

I am also concerned about the fact that there appears to have been very little consultation, if any, with organisations and bodies that are engaged in conflict resolution efforts and humanitarian work in the occupied Palestinian territories and in Gaza in particular. Aid agencies such as Oxfam, Medical Aid for Palestinians and Save the Children do excellent work in Gaza, and the nature of their humanitarian work means that they have no choice but to engage with civilian agencies in Gaza which are under the control of Hamas. Indeed, it is impossible to enter Gaza without contact with Hamas agencies. In this context, I want to refer particularly to a non-governmental organisation, based in Britain, called IDEALS.

Since 2012, IDEALS has been supporting the development of a local limb reconstruction service in Gaza. Training fellowships at King’s College Hospital here in London have been provided for three orthopaedic surgeons, and there have been training fellowships for nurses and physiotherapists, helping to establish the multidisciplinary team that is required to provide such complex, long-term care in Gaza. Specialists from the hospital have also visited Gaza on many occasions to work alongside local colleagues, continue the training process, and provide clinical care for patients. That good work must continue. I am sure we are all united in supporting it, and I think it would be quite wrong if anything were done here that might impede its continuation.

I know that the Home Secretary and the Minister have no wish to obstruct the work of respected, effective charitable organisations such as IDEALS, Oxfam and Save the Children, so will the Minister now give a commitment that such agencies will not be inadvertently impacted by this designation? I heard what he said earlier about governmental support for aid programmes in Gaza, but I am particularly concerned about non-governmental organisations, particularly smaller ones.

[Dr Whitford]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that if there had to be an individual process rather than a general exemption for humanitarian work, that might be beyond some of the projects that are running in Gaza, and they would simply be lost?

[Wayne David]

These issues clearly need to be examined, and that is why I regret the lack of prior consultation and discussion. I ask the Minister to give a commitment that they will be looked into in great detail, and that that will be done in partnership with the organisations that could be impacted. I also ask him to give a cast-iron commitment to ensure that the good work to which a number of Members have referred will indeed be continued, and that there exists no impediment of any kind that will cause a material obstruction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)]

I support this measure for the reason set out by the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds)—namely, that there is no doubt that the political wing of Hamas supports its military operations. As we have heard, these operations include attacks on Israeli civilians that are completely unacceptable.

We are all opposed to any use of indiscriminate violence in the middle east, but there has been a lot of it, with a terrible loss of life as a result. If we are honest, however, these repeated outbreaks of violence are the consequence of the absence of a political process. We all support a two-state solution—a safe and secure Israel living alongside a Palestinian state—but the shape of that state, which is needed to bring an end to the terrible suffering of the Palestinian people to which the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) referred, is becoming less and less clear. Some argue that it has disappeared because of the growth of settlement building and annexation. The truth is that there is no peace process at the moment. In my view, that is because of an absence of courageous political leadership on both sides of the conflict.

I have always been greatly struck by the parallels between the middle east and Northern Ireland. Progress was eventually made to bring the Northern Ireland conflict to an end when the leaders realised that courage was required to find a different way forward. In the case of the Provisional IRA, its leaders eventually said to their troops, “We are not going to bomb Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom; we have to lay down our bombs and bullets and engage in a political process.” Similarly, the Unionists took the step to sit side by side with their former sworn enemies. That took courage and a lot of quiet, patient and at times secret diplomacy. The Minister said that the Government’s policy was not to talk to Hamas. That was the Government’s stated policy in 1972 in respect of the IRA, but we now know that the Home Secretary met Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness in secret to see whether a way forward could be found.

I am mentioning this because it is relevant to second of the two issues that I want to raise with the Minister, about the consequences of the order and how it will be applied in specific circumstances to specific organisations. The first issue relates to medical and humanitarian work; the second relates to the activities of groups such as Forward Thinking, a widely respected organisation that is trying to bring people together to find a peaceful way forward.

My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) talked about the work of IDEALS, and other organisations have been referred to in the course of the debate. We know that in the case of IDEALS, NHS volunteers from all over the country have gone repeatedly to Gaza to advise very capable Palestinian surgeons—I have visited the main hospital in Gaza—on the management of the most complex injuries that arise from bombs, bullets and blasts. There is now more capacity than previously existed, precisely because of that work. The question that I want to put to the Minister is: will NHS staff be able to carry on doing that work without fear of prosecution? It has been pointed out that they have to talk to the authorities there in order to be able to do that work.

[Dr Whitford]

Does the right hon. Gentleman also recognise that because of the blockade it is impossible for doctors in Gaza to get out and train, and that we therefore have to bring the training to them?

[Hilary Benn]

I recognise that, and it is one of the consequences of the blockade that has affected the people of Gaza for a very long time.

Secondly, what about peacebuilding organisations such as Forward Thinking? Over the years, as the Minister may be aware, Forward Thinking has brought leaders of the parties to the conflict, from Israel and from the Palestinian side, to Britain and Northern Ireland to meet former foes who talk them through the journey they made that led from armed conflict to the Good Friday agreement. That has included leaders from Hamas. I have seen the work of Forward Thinking at first hand, and I have participated in some of it. It is deeply impressive and, in my view, very important.

The Home Office document, “Proscribed terrorist groups or organisations”, published in 2015, sets out the offence and draws attention to section 12(4), which

“provides a defence, in the case of a private meeting addressed by a member of a proscribed organisation, if a person can prove that they had no reasonable cause to believe that the address would support the proscribed organisation or advance its terrorist activities.

Further, the explanatory notes to the Terrorism Act 2000”—

the explanatory notes are designed to help the courts and prosecutors in deciding whether it is in the public interest to prosecute—

“explain that the defence in section 12(4) is intended to permit the arrangement of ‘genuinely benign’ meetings…designed to encourage a designated group to engage in a peace process or facilitate delivery of humanitarian aid where this does not involve knowingly transferring assets to a designated organisation.”

There is also the question of journalists. On reading the guidance, it seems to me that the activities I have highlighted would not be caught by this order, but I look to the Minister for reassurance.

None of the individuals involved will want to fall foul of the law. I recognise what is said in the Home Office document but, for the kinds of organisations that a number of Members have raised, it is not a satisfactory answer to leave people in the following position: “Well, there is a defence. Hey, if you are prosecuted, you can go to court and advance the defence. You may win, you may not. You may be found guilty.”

Will the Crown Prosecution Service now produce guidelines on the implications of this kind of order for the activities to which I have drawn attention? I am aware that the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation suggested such guidance in 2018, and I understand that in October 2020 the Home Secretary said she had written to the Attorney General to ask her to discuss the question of such guidance with the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Can the Minister tell us how those discussions are going? That would help to reassure Members who want the good work of Forward Thinking to continue while supporting the order today. We have an obligation to the staff who do the work and to the trustees of the organisation, because what they are doing is self-evidently good and important work, and I hope it will be able to continue.

Afghanistan Policy

Philippa Whitford Excerpts

Monday 13th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

My right hon. Friend will be pleased to know that once we have dealt with the immediate emergency of moving 15,000 or so people from quarantine hotels into bridging accommodation—I hope and plan that that will be concluded this week—we can then start really to set in stone some of our plans for integration. There are all sorts of ideas, including equivalence qualifications involving the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that we get people into the jobs market as quickly as possible. Of course, we will also be measuring English language fluency to help those who are a little bit further from the jobs market towards the jobs market so that they can be truly independent and have their own futures here in the UK.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

Obviously, quite rightly, a lot of the discussion is around ARAP, but what about UK citizens and UK residents who are trapped? My case is of a woman with three tiny daughters who is stranded having cared for a relative and got caught by covid, and now she does not know what to do. How do I get help for her?

[Victoria Atkins]

If I have understood the hon. Lady correctly, the person she is describing is already within the asylum scheme—

[Dr Whitford]

rose—

[Victoria Atkins]

Will the hon. Lady give me the privilege of perhaps speaking to me afterwards, because I have misunderstood her question? I do apologise.

EU Settlement Scheme

Philippa Whitford Excerpts

Wednesday 7th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]]

During the Brexit referendum, the Prime Minister promised that nothing would change for EU citizens in the UK. Yet everything has changed, as millions of people who had settled here have had to apply for permission to remain in their homes and jobs. Conservative Members dismissed this as no big deal, but my husband is German, and, after spending more than 30 years working as a doctor in our NHS, he felt as if the rug had suddenly been pulled from under his feet.

The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams) highlighted the importance of language, and I agree with him, but while our First Minister in Scotland reached out to EU citizens on the morning after the referendum, the language in this place described them as bargaining chips and playing cards. The most upsetting thing for my husband was when the former Prime Minister described EU citizens as “queue jumpers”, implying they had somehow cheated the immigration system to settle here. Such language already made EU citizens feel unwelcome even before Brexit was completed, and it contributed to an almost 90% drop in the number of EU nurses coming to the UK. That is a loss the four national health services could ill afford, especially with the challenges of this last year.

Apart from the emotional upheaval felt by many EU families such as mine, there are practical issues with the settled status system. Instead of automatically being granted indefinite leave to remain, as promised by the Prime Minister, it is an application process, which can be refused. While EU citizens would still have had to register, there would have been no question of refusal, and vulnerable groups such as the elderly or children in care would not now be in danger of becoming illegal. Only 2% of applications have been refused outright, but that is over 100,000 people, and 43% have been granted only the much less favourable pre-settled status, often despite living in the UK for many years. There is a real danger that many with permanent residency assume it means what it says and that they are secure, and do not understand that they now need to apply for settled status. Women in particular can struggle to gain full settled status if, owing to caring responsibilities, they do not have an unbroken tax record.

A widespread concern among EU citizens, as we have heard this afternoon, is the lack of physical proof of their status, particularly with the example of Windrush before them. Having to provide an online document creates problems for those with poor digital access, and some landlords and employers are already excluding EU citizens from the opportunity to work or rent a home as they simply cannot be bothered with the hassle. Whether it is a lack of health and social care staff, farm workers, HGV drivers or academic researchers, the UK will be poorer without the EU citizens who no longer come to live and work here and contribute to our society. This is particularly an issue in Scotland because of our ageing demographics and the risk of rural depopulation. The UK Government’s dismissal of Scottish requirements simply highlights the need for Scotland to be able to set our own immigration policies, and Government Members who dismiss that simply ignore the fact that Ireland still has freedom of movement.

Freedom of movement was the biggest benefit of EU membership that we all gained as individuals, and it worked in both directions. We have had the right to live, love, work or study in any one of 31 countries, yet we have taken that away from the younger generation, while EU citizens here contribute to our public services, communities and economy, as well as being our family, friends and neighbours. So despite the Prime Minister’s original Brexit promises, I can tell you that many EU citizens do not feel secure in the UK, but rather feel unwelcome and unsettled.

New Plan for Immigration

Philippa Whitford Excerpts

Wednesday 24th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, because we have to have the right sanctions and deterrents in place so that these people smugglers’ model is broken up. Of course, that will be part of the consultation and I will absolutely work with my hon. Friend and others on the whole proposal.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]]

It is shocking to see some of the overcrowded and squalid accommodation, including in military barracks, that is used to house asylum seekers. Safe accommodation for vulnerable people is critical in any compassionate and effective asylum system, but particularly in the middle of a pandemic. How does the Home Secretary plan, in her reforms, to improve the quality of housing for people seeking asylum?

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Lady will absolutely know that in terms of the contingency accommodation that we have had to use because of the pandemic we have looked at all sorts of options. On accommodation going forward, we use dispersed accommodation, and I come back to the point about working with local authorities, which will be part of our discussions and consultations going forward. It is vital that we grow that footprint and I would be more than happy for the hon. Lady to work with us in coming up with alternative proposals on accommodation.

UK Border: Covid Protections

Philippa Whitford Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. First, on people trafficking, he has been assiduous on this and he has heard me speak a number of times about the measures that we are bringing forward in terms of legislation and plans around tackling people trafficking and smugglers. We have some good reports on the criminal penalties and sanctions that have been levelled against individuals. Secondly, he is absolutely right about the fines that we are putting in place and the exemptions that are required in key areas such as goods, in particular, coming into the country.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]]

Pacific countries that controlled their borders have suffered less economic harm from covid. With evidence growing that the South African and other variants are resistant to antibodies, which could undermine the vaccine programme, when will the Government introduce this more rigorous quarantine, and how will they support the aviation sector through 2021, when these measures are likely to be needed?

[Priti Patel]

I refer the hon. Lady to my statement and the comments I have made about measures being under review and announcements being forthcoming. It is not for me to give a timetable for what is taking place, because obviously there is a lot of work that takes place day in, day out across Government around border measures and the overall approach with regard to coronavirus.

Scheduled Mass Deportation: Jamaica

Philippa Whitford Excerpts

Monday 30th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is this Conservative Government who are prioritising the victims and public safety. He is also right to say that the deportation of foreign national offenders, as we are required to do by law, happens as a matter of routine, week in, week out.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]]

Happy St Andrew’s day, Mr Speaker. This is not just about whether people are themselves connected to the Windrush generation. Deporting those who have been in the UK since childhood shows that the lessons of Windrush have not been learned. The Minister keeps referring to murderers and rapists, yet deportation applies to those with sentences as short as 12 months. Is it not time to provide legislative certainty and protection for those who come to the UK as children? Can the Minister say how many were originally included in this flight?

[Chris Philp]

I would like to reciprocate by wishing the hon. Lady a happy St Andrew’s day as well; I am sure the whole House will join me in that.

When it comes to removing people who are not British citizens—who are citizens of another country—but who put our constituents at risk, it is right that we move to deport as we currently do. The debate about whether some age threshold is appropriate is one that this House had in 2007, when the House rightly decided that anyone who is convicted of an offence and sentenced to more than a year is in scope. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) says something from a sedentary position. He himself voted for that Act, so he expressed his opinion on this matter in the Division Lobby back in 2007.

Immigration

Philippa Whitford Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kerr]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The truth is that this debate is a great opportunity to talk about the positive side of immigration: to talk about how people have come from all over the world to make their home here in the United Kingdom and in Scotland in particular, and how they make an invaluable contribution to our communities and our economy. But the SNP never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

Luckily, Government Members have heard already how immigration policy can be run at a UK level to take account of the local and sectoral issues throughout our economy. I would like to add my voice to those genuinely speaking up for Scotland, rather than casting around for more grievance and more excuses to talk about constitutional politics. Simply transferring responsibility for Scotland’s immigration to Holyrood, as the SNP proposes, entirely misses the point of how a UK-wide approach will ensure a positive environment to attract the very people our economy needs.

We cannot afford to have different systems operating in the United Kingdom, where people must be able to move freely around. I referred earlier to the various hugely influential voices in Scotland on this issue—the director of CBI Scotland, Tracy Black, the Food and Drink Federation Scotland, the Scottish Chambers of Commerce and NFU Scotland—who are saying that we should use Scotland’s influence to lead a UK-wide system that meets our needs. That is exactly what I am trying to do by making this contribution.

The proposals for a future immigration policy, however, as laid out in the White Paper, will cause real damage to the UK economy and must be changed. The truth is that the diverse needs within Scotland need to be accommodated within a flexible policy framework based on reality, rather than on an academic theory. Scotland’s needs for an immigration policy are the same as those in any other part of the UK. In our fishing communities in the north-east of Scotland, we find similar issues to those in communities in the south-west of England. In our industrial heartlands in central Scotland, we find the same issues as in the west midlands of England. In places such as Stirling, with its rural agricultural base and tourist attractions, we find the same issues as in Yorkshire, Lancashire, Cornwall and many other parts of England.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman says that there are no differences, except that England has developed an immigration issue because of population growth. The problem is that Scotland has a set population, with a diminishing working-age population. He quotes directors and business, but what about NHS Scotland? We need more people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie]

No, I will not on that point.

I am delighted to be called in this debate. I am pleased that it does not simply focus on the Prime Minister’s toxic legacy on immigration and the hostile environment that she and her hapless Government created, but recognises the positive contribution that immigrants and immigration bring to the country. In this debate, in this Chamber and in the country, I am sure that there will be positive discussion about how we improve the system to make it far more humane and—this is where I agree with the hon. Member for Stirling—far less arbitrary than it is at present. I am also pleased that the motion specifically references Scottish needs on immigration, both for demographic and different economic sectoral reasons. This is important, particularly for Scotland’s growth sectors, which I will say more about in a moment, along with making a small number of other specific points.

I note the value and benefit that migrants, and EU migrants in particular, bring to the economy and I will cite four of Scotland’s growth sectors to demonstrate that. In Scotland alone, in the food, drink and agriculture sector, 10,000 EU migrants are employed. That is 12% of total employment in the sector. One in eight people working in that entire sector is an EU or EEA worker. In tourism in Scotland, there are 17,000 EU workers, which is 9.5% of the total employment in that sector. In the creative sector, there are 10,000. Even in finance and business services, 9,000 workers—or 4% of the total employment in that growth sector—are from the European Union. That is before there is any mention of the contribution that migrants and migrant workers make to health and other vital public services. It is clear from those few examples that any attempt to constrain or restrict the flow of EU labour in any way would be profoundly damaging for businesses in Scotland. Their costs would undoubtedly rise—that is, if alternatives could be found at all—and output, particularly in agriculture, would most certainly suffer.

My second point is that inward migration delivers almost all the net population growth expected for Scotland. Without it, over the medium term, the population would remain static, but have a higher proportion of older people. Migration is therefore vital to ensuring that the proportion of working-age people is maintained, so that there are people to do the jobs that need to be done, and to pay the taxes to fund the public services on which we rely.

The Government’s argument is that there is still a mechanism in place for people to come, and the Minister spoke about the number of people coming to the EU in various capacities, but all sorts of skilled labour—not just highly paid skilled labour—is mobile; that is how it can come to Scotland, and to the UK. If we put up barriers, be they real, hard, financial, or even soft, perceived barriers, we limit the number of people who want to and can come to Scotland, because it might simply be easier for them to go elsewhere.

[Dr Whitford]

My hon. Friend talks about soft barriers. There has been a 90% drop in nurses coming from the EU, even though they are not obstructed as yet. Is that not a sign that people go elsewhere if they feel unwelcome?

[Stewart Hosie]

That is precisely my point. If that drop in numbers continued for more than a few years, the health service and other caring sectors would have a serious problem. It is not simply EU citizens but all migrants—all new Scots—who deliver benefit to our country. I will concentrate a little more on EU and European economic area citizens, but I will shortly move on to the contribution made, and the problems faced, by people from beyond the European Union who come here, either permanently or for short visits.

We should be thankful to the Government for the publication of “EU Exit: Long-term economic analysis”, which puts a hard GDP number on the benefit from EEA migration. We know that Brexit is bad economically, but every single non-EEA Brexit scenario modelled, including no deal, average free trade agreement, and the now lost and forgotten Government White Paper, was worse with a zero net inflow of EEA workers—around 2% of GDP worse over the forecast period. Net zero EEA migration has a hard-number impact; we know that, as do the Government, because they published it.

No one who cares about the economic wellbeing of Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or the UK as a whole should ever embark on a hostile environment policy that makes it difficult for people to come to the UK, or that in any way, shape or form stops EEA citizens living or working here, yet that is precisely what the Government have done, and it is not only EEA citizens who suffer.

I will give two brief examples of the unnecessary and arbitrary obstacles faced by people who wish to live here permanently or make a short visit. The first is of a South African lady who married a Scottish man who lived and worked in South Africa more than 15 years ago. They moved to Scotland. The lady travelled initially on a tourist visa, but was told that she had to go back to South Africa, where they no longer had a home, job or income, to apply for a UK visa. That obviously caused distress, and had a significant financial cost to a household with modest earnings. Forcing that lady to return to South Africa to apply for a visa that would allow her to live in Scotland with her husband delivered absolutely no benefit to the UK. It was a nasty, pointless, arbitrary and unnecessary piece of hostile bureaucracy that could be changed tomorrow if this Government cared anything for the people who live here.

The second example I wish to give is of a very successful Pakistani gentleman. He travels regularly overseas and has never overstayed on a visa in any country. Indeed, on his last visit to the UK, he left after only a couple of weeks, having visited all the friends and family whom he wished to see, which was the reason for his stay. Even though he had an excellent sponsor and an exemplary record from previous visits, his last visa application was rejected—and not on what you, Mr Deputy Speaker, I or a reasonable person would consider real grounds; he was told, wrongly, that he did not have

“enough incentive to leave the UK on completion of”

his

“proposed visit”.

Indefensible! That arbitrary judgment was handed down by some bureaucrat in the absence of any evidence whatever.

Weddings and funerals are missed, and family relations are destroyed, because of ludicrous, arbitrary decision making. If these decisions were made by some tin-pot despotic country, we would all rightly say, “That’s appalling. The rule of law has been abandoned in favour of arbitrary decision making.”

UK Fishing Industry: Non-EEA Visas

Philippa Whitford Excerpts

Monday 8th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

I do agree, and I thank the hon. Gentleman not only for his assiduous attendance at these debates and at other meetings but for his use of the term “highly skilled” fishing crews. Those who go to sea to bring the fish home to put on our plates are highly skilled. The root of the problem is in essence one of attitude, which somehow classes those brave, hard-working men as low skilled. Yes, I agree with him.

[Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the problem seems to be that when skill is defined, it is always still defined in academic terms? Actually, skill is an inherent ability that someone has to do a task, not necessarily academic at all.

Proceedings interrupted.

royal assent

[Mr Speaker]

I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Animal Welfare (Service Animals) Act 2019

European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019.

On resuming—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

That is absolutely the case. It is going to take a long time to get back to having fishing as a career, because the fishing industry has been talked down by teachers, career advisers and the rest for years now. I understand the reasons for that, but I think they are misplaced. It will be a long time before we change that attitude—and it is attitude that is behind this.

[Dr Whitford]

Is that not an issue when, particularly up and down the west coast, where inshore fishing is hit, we have skippers who own boats and therefore should be really successful but are not at sea because they cannot get crew?

[Mr Carmichael]

Indeed. They cannot get crew, so they cannot land fish, which affects jobs in the processing sector. There is a ripple impact, which affects everyone from the shoreside suppliers right the way down the line.

Returning to the youth mobility scheme, the Migration Advisory Committee concludes, at paragraph 7.53 on page 118:

“If the Government does want to provide a safety valve for the employers of low-skilled workers then an expanded Youth Mobility route could potentially provide a good option. The benefits of this option are that younger migrants are more likely to be net fiscal contributors (because the scheme does not allow dependants) and workers have freedom of movement between employers, which is likely to reduce the risk that employers will use migrants’ visa status to hold down their wages.”

So, according to the Migration Advisory Committee, the answer to the crew shortages in our fishing ports is to crew boats using New Zealanders and Australians on a gap year. I just wonder what world these people live in. That is insulting, and it is not just an insult from the Migration Advisory Committee; since the Minister and her colleagues rely on the report as the basis for continuing to refuse the most modest and common-sense proposal, it is an insult from those on the Treasury Bench themselves.

My plea to the Minister is simple. We have made this case times without number. Will she now please start to listen?