Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme

Rushanara Ali Excerpts

Thursday 6th January 2022 Westminster Hall

[Rushanara Ali (in the Chair)]

Before we begin, I remind hon. Members that they are expected to wear masks when they are not speaking in the debate, in line with Government guidance. I also remind Members to take daily tests when coming on to the estate, which can be done either on the estate or at home. Please give each other enough space—I can see you are already doing that. Hansard colleagues would be very grateful if you could pass on your speaking notes afterwards.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for her statement today and also for her dedicated hard work on this really challenging but very important issue. I also commend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing this debate. I very much support what he said, particularly regarding targeted religious minorities, which I want to focus on in my speech, particularly because I am concerned about those in my role as the Prime Minister’s envoy for freedom of religion or belief.

In the penultimate Prime Minister’s questions before Christmas, I asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister whether the promised gift of resettlement for Afghans who are members of religious minorities would be available by the end of Christmas. If I am right, last night was Twelfth Night, so, being generous, may I give the Minister the benefit of the extra day and say thank you for getting the ACRS up and running now? I note, however, that it is only from the spring that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees will refer refugees to the scheme, based on assessments of protection need. That sounds more like a Coptic Christmas timeline to me, but, more seriously, the delay in providing refuge and support for vulnerable religious minorities concerns me, and I know that it concerns many of my colleagues in the organisation of which I, as the Prime Minister’s envoy, am a member. That is the 33-country alliance of envoys, which is called the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance.

The alliance issued a statement in support of vulnerable individuals being targeted in Afghanistan because of their faith or belief. I commend that statement to the Minister, not least because it demonstrates that there are international partners who most seriously do share our concerns about the vulnerable situation of those being targeted for their beliefs in Afghanistan. I will just read out a little from it:

“We hold grave concerns for…members of religious minority groups who are at risk, including Shi’a and Ismaili Muslims, Hazaras, Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, non-believers, and others. We call upon all parties and international agencies to recognize the vulnerabilities of these individuals being targeted because of their faith or belief.”

The statement goes on to call for, among other things,

“a renewed humanitarian effort by the international community.”

I was interested to note today in the Minister’s statement her reference to the scale of the challenge and the need to co-ordinate closely with international partners, as indeed the alliance has done. It was very encouraging that, during the preparation of its statement, two alliance countries, the US and Brazil, got together; one supplied a plane and the other supplied the visas, and they were able to fly out 193 members of religious minorities from Afghanistan. It is that kind of international co-operation that I am sure the Minister is speaking of, but could I ask her, please, for more information as to how the UK is doing this and how we can fulfil the IRFBA statement’s intent?

I have of course spoken directly to members of several religious communities, as I know many colleagues have, so I will not go into detail as to the concerns that I share about the risks to these communities, but I am pleased that the Government have, rightly, included religious minorities in the criteria for eligibility for the ACRS, and I was pleased today in the House to hear the Minister’s assurance that the scheme is open now to vulnerable religious minorities and that that could be combined with community sponsorship. I will say a little more about that shortly.

First, with regard to the UNHCR refugee referral scheme starting in the spring, could the Minister clarify that it is based on the Government’s announced eligibility criteria, which specifically include minority groups, and that it is not wholly delegated to the UNHCR’s assessments of protection need? In terms of protection services, the principle of non-discrimination prevents the UNHCR from specifically targeting minority groups, so it means that arguably members of the LGBT community, who were rightly evacuated under the ARAP—Afghan relocations and assistance policy—scheme, might well not have been eligible under the UNHCR scheme. A further concern about the scheme is that religious belief is not a specific UNHCR eligibility criterion or an automatic indicator of need in its own right. In the past, that led to criticism of the operation of the Syrian resettlement scheme when it came to resettling religious minorities—specifically Christians—in the UK.

I hope that Members will bear with me as I cite some figures that bear that out. In 2017, the Barnabas Fund obtained data that revealed that in 2015, of the 2,637 individuals recommended to the UK by the UNHCR for resettlement, only 43 were Christians, even though Christians are widely accepted as constituting 10% of Syria’s pre-war population; only one was Shi’a, who were estimated to be 1.5% of the population; and only 13 were Yazidis. The following year, 2016, of the 7,499 individuals recommended to the UK by the UNHCR for resettlement, only 27 were Christians, 13 were Shi’a and five were Yazidis. Interestingly, it is estimated that Syria’s pre-war population was 74% Sunni Muslim, 13% Shi’a and Alawite, 10% Christian and 3% Druze, and that there were 70,000 Yazidis.

In the ACRS, the Government have made membership of a minority group a specific eligibility criterion, consistent with the new plan for immigration. Let me quote the wording of that plan for the record, because it is good and clear. It states:

“We will also ensure our resettlement offer encompasses persecuted refugees from a broader range of minority groups (including, for example, Christians in some parts of the world). We know that across the globe there are minority groups that are systematically persecuted for their gender, religion or belief and we want to ensure our resettlement offer properly reflects these groups. We will strengthen our engagement with global charities and international partners to ensure that minority groups facing persecution are able to be referred so their case can be considered for resettlement in the UK more easily.”

Although the Minister’s response to my question earlier today gave me hope, I would like more information about how the new plan is to be implemented, particularly because, to date, I am not aware of the evacuation to the UK of any individuals who have been targeted specifically because of their religion.

Despite good intentions, there is real concern that religious minorities will still not be included in the ACRS in the spring, or indeed in the first year of the scheme’s operation, if it is based solely on the UNHCR protection criteria. The Home Office does not have to rely solely on the UNHCR for resettlement assessment; it could conduct such assessments itself. It is clear that, in the case of Afghans in Afghanistan, the UNHCR does not have a mandate to deal with their situation; it can do so only if they arrive in Pakistan, for example, which is risky and causes many other challenges. The assessment could be done by the Home Office in house, as it is currently for some asylum applications, and it could be assisted by trusted partner organisations.

As I said I would, I come to the community sponsorship scheme. I suggest that one way to harness the Government’s commitment to the scheme, which is welcomed by the UNHCR and would provide a bespoke legal route of resettlement for religious communities, is to look at the Canadian scheme of community sponsorship for resettlement. Very substantial numbers of refugees have been resettled as a result of that scheme, which involved close to 2 million adult Canadians supporting local community sponsorship of Syrian refugees, many of whom were survivors of violence or torture whose life, liberty, safety or other fundamental rights were at risk. Many were vulnerable women or girls. Two thirds of the resettled refugees coming to Canada were privately sponsored by Canadian citizens under that scheme. Recent research suggests that comparative data emanating from that programme over the past 40 years demonstrates that sponsored refugees have better and quicker integration outcomes than refugees settled through more traditional Government schemes.

[Rushanara Ali (in the Chair)]

Order. Does the hon. Lady mind wrapping up? We have one more speaker whom I want to fit in.

[Fiona Bruce]

I will do so, Ms Ali.

I suggest to the Minister that we consider the main elements of the Canadian community sponsorship model and see how we could adopt them in the UK. May we meet to discuss this issue? Finally, I place on the record my commendation of the volunteers in my constituency, the Welcome Churches in Sandbach and the LOL Foundation in Congleton, which have done so much to support the Afghan refugees in Sandbach.

[Rushanara Ali (in the Chair)]

I call Alison Thewliss. I would be very grateful if you could keep your speech to about three to four minutes.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

It is good to see you in the Chair, Ms Ali. I am glad to be able to participate in the debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for securing it. I will start by reflecting on his comments about the urgency of the situation.

The Minister said in her statement earlier that people on the ground have the best understanding of the security situation in Afghanistan, and that is certainly true according to my constituents’ accounts of their families who are stuck there. There has been a lot of reference to safe and legal routes, but the reality is that the Government cannot expect people to sit tight and wait for the Taliban to chap their door. People on the ground know the Taliban and have experienced living under them, so it is no surprise to any of us that those who can run do so and keep running until they get somewhere where they feel safe. For many of those people, that is the UK, because they have family here. We have an Afghan diaspora in Glasgow—people who fled before and have come to make their home in Glasgow.

The Government should not be going about their business, as they are with the Nationality and Borders Bill, by penalising those who got out, who sought safety and who managed to leave Afghanistan. They would not have wanted to leave the country and they had seen change in recent years, but with the Taliban coming in as swiftly as they did, people had no alternative, and many of them ran. Many constituents who have been in contact with me had family there—perhaps the husband was living in my constituency and the wife and children were living in Afghanistan. This is also a symptom of the hostile environment, because those families could not afford to bring their wives and children over, as they did not meet the minimum income threshold. Those families could have been safe, had it not been for the policies that the UK has been pursuing.

One of my constituents, who was visiting his wife and five children, is very worried about getting back. He feels defeated. He emailed me just as the debate was starting, saying:

“We are still waiting and still here. Everyone knows that the British government forgot their nationals in Afghanistan. I have sent too many emails but now I stopped sending them emails, because no response and no benefits and not worth sending emails to them, nearly five months now. There’s no way going out and we are waiting for them. Me and my family are fed up staying here. Everyone is in tension, depression and bad economic and hard situations… I just answer your email because you sent me, otherwise I stopped sending emails to anyone. The big issue is my wife’s biometric card is expiring soon on this 22 February. If that expired then all of my family will be troubled going back to Glasgow because I can’t leave her alone here as well. She has been in Glasgow for almost 10 years”.

He did not want to give me any more information than that. There is a lot more that he would say if he could, but that is the kind of situation that I have been hearing about. Like many of us, I have had scores of constituents get in touch and I know of only a handful who actually made it out. Those constituents have been on the phone to me and others, crying and desperate for their families. It has been incredibly hard to listen to, and I can only imagine the pain they feel as they wait without information. I will be glad if the Minister makes some progress towards that today, but there are still a lot of unanswered questions.

As my former friend on the Treasury Committee, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), asked very reasonably, what happens to the people who had applications in process? That includes many of my constituents who have applications in process and now do not know what is happening. I have a constituent who is in Afghanistan with his wife. They keep getting given appointments by the UK Government for the visa centre in Islamabad, but Pakistan will not issue them an entry visa for them to attend those appointments. What conversations has the Minister had with other consulates and embassies around the world? Those people could get out if Pakistan granted them the visa that would allow them to go and collect what they are entitled to.

There has been a lot of talk about vulnerable women and girls, but boys and men are vulnerable too, which is why they are also running. They are at risk of being recruited to the Taliban; they are at risk of losing their lives due to their service. We should not forget that many people are made vulnerable by this situation, and we must recognise that vulnerability. Many people worked as suppliers to the British Army. They were not recruited or directly involved, and they were not fighting on the frontline, but in the eyes of the Taliban they are part of the problem.

Finally, I will briefly mention those who have made it here and the support being offered. I thank the Afghan diaspora in Glasgow and the Refugee Council in Scotland for their work, but those who come here need financial, legal, medical and educational support, and there is a cost involved in that. The Government must recognise that and provide local authorities with funds to ensure that people get the support they need to help them settle. It is all fine and well for the Minister to say that we want people to integrate and work and not to be dependent on the state, but they need support in the early days to get that right.

Refuweegee, a Glasgow-based organisation, has already had requests from people who have been dispersed around Scotland but not had the support that they require to settle, and it has been falling on charities to pick that up. Charities do not have the spare capacity to do that and should not really be asked to; the Government should be providing that support. I ask the Minister to answer my questions and for support for my constituents and their families who are so desperately in need.

[Rushanara Ali (in the Chair)]

Order. May I appeal to the Opposition spokesmen to shave a minute or two off their speeches so that the Minister has her full 10 minutes? I would very much appreciate it.

[Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)]

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairwomanship, Ms Ali. I will speak quickly. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this and, from a quick look at the Order Paper, many other debates in front of us—I cannot keep up with him.

On 18 August last year, just three days after the Taliban took control, the Conservative right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), a former Foreign Secretary, said this:

“There is something we can do right now: cut through bureaucracy and ensure that we look after every single Afghani who took risks for themselves and their families because they believed in a better future and trusted us to deliver it.”—[Official Report, 18 August 2021; Vol. 699, c. 1307.]

That was the rhetoric, the show of empathy, and the promises made by those on the Government Benches to help desperate Afghans in fear of their lives in the early days of Operation Warm Welcome. The right hon. Gentleman was not alone. Other Members proclaimed that

“Britain must fulfil its moral duty”—[Official Report, 18 August 2021; Vol. 699, c. 1335.]—

and that the

“Government are continuing the big-hearted tradition of the British people in offering safe haven to those fleeing persecution.”—[Official Report, 18 August 2021; Vol. 699, c. 1370.]

We have heard much of that again today.

In those early days of the withdrawal from Kabul, my office, like everybody else’s, received hundreds of emails and calls either from people who were in Afghanistan fearing for their lives, or from friends and relatives of people stuck in the most fearful of circumstances. With little to go on, the one lifeline and glimmer of hope that we could pass on to people was that, alongside the ARAP scheme, the Government would implement a resettlement scheme, with early figures suggesting that 20,000 refugees would be brought to safety. That figure, although arguably too low, at least gave some comfort that a plan was in place. Of course, we now know from whistleblowers within the Foreign Office that widespread failures within their Department meant that many cases were not even looked at, let alone dealt with.

It is now nearly five months since that pledge to resettle Afghan refugees was made, and only today have we had any clarity. Five months is a long time for people trapped in a country with a rising humanitarian crisis. Five months is harrowing for our caseworkers, who have been left to answer constituents’ pleas for help at home and abroad. Five months is insufferable for desperate relatives left with no other choice than to refresh a Government webpage that promises an announcement “soon”.

I will give an example of just how excruciating the situation can be for relatives. My office was contacted by an Afghan constituent who is currently undergoing treatment for cancer. She has seven siblings with nieces and nephew all currently stuck in Afghanistan, and she believes they are in danger because of who she is. Such is the stress and worry that her health has been impacted, and she believes that her recovery has been put in jeopardy by the torturous wait for a resettlement scheme to open. The scheme has now opened, but because my constituent’s family are in Afghanistan it is not likely to help them in the near future. What do I tell her?

The Minister told us today that the Government would be working closely with countries in the region to find safe routes for eligible Afghans to be evacuated, and that they were exploring a range of options, but she could not go into any detail. The situation is not new. They have had months to make these arrangements. It is far too late to start exploring options. As for the secrecy, I do not need to know and was not asking for the exact routes, but I need to know what progress has been made and what that is likely to mean for evacuating those in danger. I need something tangible to give people hope. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) made the good point that those who were previously entitled to visas are now unable to access them. How frustrating is that?

For the people we did manage to bring here, it is great that they have been invited here—great, but not charitable; it is just responsible. What about those still trapped in hotel accommodation in the UK? Last week, Prince William told Afghan refugees in hotels that he wished we could have brought more people here and asked, “Why is it taking so long to get people into permanent homes?” It is a good question. I understand that there are logistical challenges, but according to Home Office sources interviewed by The Times last week, it is more to do with the Chancellor forcing the Government to scale down their commitments in order to save money.

The Home Secretary and her team should be standing up to the Treasury, not simply moving people who are already in the UK into the ACRS, so that before we know it, bingo! We have managed to make up our numbers! As I said earlier, up to 20,000 could mean anything less than 20,000. It could mean 6,000 people, or 25. A limit of “up to” anything is utterly meaningless. The Government must understand that the failure to implement a resettlement scheme in time, and the fudging of figures has only and will only serve to drive those people into the hands of smuggling gangs or will force them to find alternative dangerous and illegal methods of entry.

Having sat on the Nationality and Borders Bill Committee with the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous), I assure the House that despite the Government’s calls for anyone looking to find sanctuary in the UK to only use safe and legal routes, they are failing to provide them. The Minister on the Committee repeatedly said, “That is what the legislation is all about,” but guess how many mentions said routes got in that very weighty Bill? None at all. The scheme, in response to an emergency five months ago, is supposed to be a great example of a safe and legal route. Family reunion is another safe and legal route, but we have some of the most restrictive family reunion rights in Europe, which have only become more restrictive post Brexit. The ARAP scheme—the only active scheme to resettle Afghan refugees so far—has recently narrowed its criteria to make it even harder for applicants to qualify. I want to double check something that the Minister said in the Chamber earlier. She said nobody would be moved from the ARAP scheme to the ACRS scheme. I would be grateful for confirmation of that.

I also want to raise the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities issue again. As I said, all 32 Scottish local authorities are ready to support the Afghan resettlement scheme. The Minister said earlier that people on both schemes would get indefinite leave to remain, but that is not the same as refugee status. Refugee status confirms rights and entitlements to things like family reunion and education. That is of great interest to our local authorities, and they are keen to know the answer. Will these people have fewer rights than refugees? If so, why? After all, they are refugees, are they not? One thing the Minister failed to tell us today was how the already under-resourced Departments involved would deal with the resettlement effectively and transparently.

The UK Afghanistan Diplomatic and Development Alliance is a network of former civils servants, diplomats and development officials who served the UK Government in Afghanistan. It says that many more staff are needed here and in third countries to speed up the processing of refugees and the enormous backlog of applications. It is also calling for an effective appeals process. As the Minister said earlier, we cannot help everyone but we must ensure that those who fall through the net are given the right to appeal their case.

I will end by speaking about another Afghan man who I have been trying to help. He fits the description the Conservatives are so fond of: he is a youngish man fleeing alone. He must be an economic migrant and go straight to jail—except he is not. He has been waiting five months for the help he was promised and on Christmas Eve—

[Rushanara Ali (in the Chair)]

Order. May I ask the hon. Lady to wind up her remarks?

[Anne McLaughlin]

I have two sentences left, Ms Ali. He decided to make a dangerous, illegal and treacherous journey to Iran. He fell and broke his leg. He did it because his wife was getting so desperate. She is now in hiding alone in Afghanistan, and he is now lying with a broken leg on a mountainside in Iran and he cannot afford hospital treatment. That is how desperate we make people when we do not speed up. I really do wish this well. I want it to work. I hope the Minister listens to us and makes some of the changes that we have asked for, but that is what we do to people when we promise them help and we do not give them it.