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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rushanara Ali Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

If he will bring forward a strategy to support victims affected by court delays as a result of the covid-19 outbreak.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

If he will bring forward a strategy to support victims affected by court delays as a result of the covid-19 outbreak.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)]

We continue to make significant progress on criminal courts’ recovery. Since August, magistrates courts have consistently completed more cases than they are receiving. In the Crown court, millions of pounds have been invested in perspex screens, technology and Nightingale courts to enable thousands of hearings to be listed each week. Significant progress, too, has been made to accelerate the roll-out of the section 28 pre-recorded cross-examination service to support alleged victims to give their best evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rushanara Ali]

I hope the Minister will meet with me as well to discuss this matter. The delays, as my colleagues have already said, have meant that victims of serious violent crime, such as rape, sexual abuse and other kinds of crime, are facing a double threat: first of the crime and then of the delay. That is causing huge trauma. In the context of half a million unheard cases, can the Minister specifically state how many of the 200 additional court venues have been provided and how much additional funding has been provided to deal with the additional crisis caused by coronavirus?

[Alex Chalk]

Let me deal with this point about courts. Because so much money has gone into providing perspex and so on, the number of courtrooms available for trials is higher than the baseline. That is important. Even before this pandemic, we had increased by 50% the amount of funding that was going into rape support centres, because we recognised the importance of providing that support. We will continue to support individuals through independent sexual violence advisers and through providing that capacity in our court system so that victims can get the justice they deserve.

Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill

Rushanara Ali Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 9th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for her question. Indeed, in the lengthy answers that I am giving, I am trying to do just that. What I am trying to explain is—I know that she knows this—that the TPIM mechanism is not something that is entered upon lightly. It involves a high degree of resource and a high intensity of resource management. It is a self-evident truth that the resources of the state, however large they may be, are not infinite and therefore choices and priorities have to be allocated. What I can assure the House of is that of course every time we assess that the grounds are met and that there is a risk, we will act. That is what our security services do, day in, day out, for us. What I am saying is that the change in the threshold creates that greater agility. I accept that it will be a lower standard, yes, but the reason for that is to allow for greater flexibility when our operational partners come to apply them.    



I was talking about the importance of TPIMs’ use being proportionate. I believe that the annual review of TPIMs, which is going to be part of this process to qualify the question about their indefinite duration, strikes the right balance between the need for vigilance and control against the need for those basic civil liberties that we all guard jealously to be maintained. Let us not forget that where it is no longer necessary or proportionate to extend a particular TPIM for the purposes of public protection, that TPIM will be revoked. That check and balance is very much at the heart of the regimen that we are proposing in the Bill.

The Bill also amends legislation governing serious crime prevention orders. Those are civil orders imposed by the courts that protect the public by preventing, restricting or disrupting an individual’s involvement in serious crime, which of course includes terrorism. The Bill supports the use of these orders in terrorist-related cases by allowing counter-terrorism policing to make a direct application to the High Court for a serious crime prevention order. We are therefore streamlining that process. The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation has noted that these mechanisms are at the moment an under-utilised tool in terrorism cases, and I believe that by streamlining the process we will see a greater reliance upon them.

We are also adding the offences of breaching a TPIM notice and breaching a temporary exclusion order to the list of relevant terrorism offences that can trigger the registered terrorist offender notification requirements. Again, the independent reviewer has publicly confirmed his support for that change. The regime requires individuals aged 16 or over who have been sentenced to 12 months or more in custody for a relevant terrorism offence to provide certain information about changes in their circumstances, such as their address, to the police and to notify them of any foreign travel plans. Together, these changes strengthen our ability to manage the risk posed by those of terrorism concern in our community, including those who have been released from prison without a period on licence.

The Bill also reforms how we deal with terrorist offenders under the age of 18. We recognise, of course, that there is a separate sentencing framework for that category of offenders, and that it has distinct purposes and aims that differ from those relating to adult offenders. We have carefully considered which measures it would be appropriate to apply to under 18-year-olds in developing this proposed legislation. Although we remain firm in our aim to ensure that custody should be used only where absolutely necessary, it is a sad and inescapable fact that some young people are susceptible to radicalisation or to the adoption of extremist views, and that among those, there are a few who pose a very serious threat to the public.

The Bill will therefore ensure that the courts have the right range of tools at their disposal to deal with those under the age of 18 who commit serious terrorist or terrorist-related offences. We will do that by introducing a youth equivalent to the special sentence for offenders of particular concern. This will mean that, if convicted of terrorist offences serious enough to warrant custody, these offenders will serve a fixed period on licence once they have been released into the community. This will ensure that they receive an appropriate level of supervision. We are also replicating the changes to the extended determinate sentence to ensure better public protection from young terrorist offenders who have been assessed as dangerous. This removes Parole Board consideration of the two-thirds point for the most serious terrorism offences, and in the interests of public protection, it gives the courts the option to apply an extension period of up to 10 years on licence. I accept that this is an exceptional series of measures, but we are dealing with an exceptional type of offending.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

Can the Secretary of State explain, first, what additional resources will be made available within the prison system to ensure that those who commit terror offences are not then left there to radicalise other young offenders? That has been a huge concern, and the Government have been pretty lacklustre in dealing with it. Secondly, when they are released, what resources and support will be made available to local authorities and other partnerships to ensure that other young people are not susceptible to their influence? It is one thing to sentence, but quite another to deal with the underlying challenges in communities.

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that issue. I can give her the strongest reassurance that, though at times it might appear, from some of the coverage of how terrorism is monitored in prison, that our system is failing, it is not. There are many aspects of the counter-terrorism regimen in our prisons that are world leading and which other countries are learning from and coming to us for help and advice on. I can say this about our recent announcement: the doubling of the number of specialist probation officers, and imams with specialist training, will further improve the way we deal with terrorism both inside prisons and in the community.

I can reassure the hon. Lady that, after 2017, when the Home Office and my Department came together with the joint extremism unit that deals with terrorism, a visitor to a prison with a particular specialism—Belmarsh, for example—would have seen embedded in the command and control structure police officers, probation officers, all parts of the system working jointly around a particular offender: not just monitoring but anticipating and understanding the trends, themes and information emerging. A lot of this is of a sensitive nature and it would be wrong of me to dwell too heavily upon the detail, but I can say that we have created separation centres. Those are challenging, as one should not use them on a whim and there needs to be a clear basis on which to separate individuals of known extremism from the rest of the prison population. Otherwise, there is a danger of creating an even more worrying unit or cadre of individuals who feed off each other and whose agenda of hate and terror is only entrenched by their being separated from the rest of the prison community.

The hon. Lady is right to say there is a challenging balance to be reached between separation and the danger of the proselytization of these views among other more susceptible members of the prison community, but we have the resources and are ploughing them in. The Bill is only part of the step-up approach I announced earlier this year. She can be reassured that not only is the work being done in prisons but—to deal with her point about the community—the specialist probation officers will have a community role as well. Furthermore, as I will refer to shortly, the statutory review of Prevent will give us all an opportunity to hone, improve and refine our approach to terrorism within the community.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Lammy]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his careful and considered observations. Of course he is right in what he says, because when we are talking about this category of offender we are often talking about gross immaturity, and with appropriate intervention and the appropriate assessment it is possible to effect de-radicalisation. The removal of the Parole Board in this means that that assessment is not made at all. I think that behind the Secretary of State’s words and this Bill is the understanding that we will put this cohort automatically on licence, but of course that comes at a cost. Notwithstanding that, we want the intensive scrutiny of the Parole Board, with it looking once, twice, three times at this cohort of this offender. Removing that is a profound decision, as the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation suggested. For those reasons, I hope that the scrutiny that is required of that decision is undertaken carefully in Committee.

The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism legislation also rightly raises concerns about extending the maximum licence period for serious terrorism offenders to 25 years. We have concerns about both the proportionality and the cost of this reform. Even indeterminate sentences for public protection prisoners have the prospect of their licence period being terminated when they are no longer considered a risk. Importantly, the Government have not gone into sufficient detail about how they will pay for the heavy administrative burden this will place on probation services, coming after a decade of austerity and cuts, where we have seen changes that the Government are now determined to change once again. As we plunge into the deepest recession of our lifetimes, how does the Secretary of State propose to pay for this massive growth in the number of those under licence?

In addition, there are specific circumstances in relation to Northern Ireland that of course require scrutiny and discussion as we move forward. In terms of sentencing, these are the Opposition’s major concerns that we plan to address in Committee, but we also share the concerns raised by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation when it comes to the changes of monitoring tools available to the security services and counter-terrorism police.

As the Secretary of State will know, he puts me in a strange position with his proposals relating to TPIMs. He will remember that it was a Labour Government, in 2005, which I served in, that first introduced control orders. Back then, in order to impose a control order, a Secretary of State needed only “reasonable grounds for suspecting” that the individual was or had been involved in terrorism-related activity. In 2011, the coalition Government raised the standard of proof, by replacing Labour’s control orders with TPIMs. The Secretaries of State could impose these controls only if they “reasonably believed” that the individual was or had been involved in terrorism-related activity. In 2015, the Conservatives raised the standard of proof even higher to require the Secretary of State to have evidence that on the balance of probabilities an individual was or had been involved in terrorist offences, but in the proposed changes we are debating today, the Government propose lowering the standard of proof from the balance of probabilities back to reasonable grounds for suspecting. The Conservative Government seem to have taken nine years to move away from Labour policy and then to return full circle back to it.

Whether or not it can be justified, lowering the standard of proof inevitably increases the chances of innocent individuals being subjected to serious constraints on their freedom. Given that the courts found no problems with the current threshold, as the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation notes, what are the reasons for this U-turn? As has been suggested by the Chair of the Select Committee and the spokesman for the SNP, the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), I do not think the House has yet heard the reason for this U-turn, given that it was not indicated in February, and given that the independent reviewer does not support it and the last one certainly did not support it. Were the Conservative Government wrong when they raised the standard of proof in 2011 and then again in 2015, or are they wrong today when they propose lowering it?

An additional and significant issue about which the reviewer has raised concerns is the removal of the two-year limit on TPIMs, allowing them to be renewed indefinitely. Let me remind the House what a TPIM can involve: overnight residence requirements; relocation to another part of the country; police reporting; an electronic monitoring tag; exclusion from specific places; limits on association; limits on the use of financial services; limits on the use of telephones and computers; and a ban on holding travel documents. This would mark an unprecedented restriction of rights for individuals who, we must remember, have not been convicted of any crime. It raises significant issues, and for that reason I suspect that it will occupy the Bill Committee. It is entirely right when the Secretary of State says that we must be strong on dealing with terrorism—of course, that unites the House—but because we believe in the rule of law and the democratic traditions that we inherit in this House, it is also right that we have the right safeguards, and it is those safeguards that we will very definitely want to scrutinise.

[Rushanara Ali]

My right hon. Friend makes a very important point about the balance between security and liberty. It is not easy for any Government to strike the right balance, but it is very important that this Government recognise that we cannot afford to lose the wider community—we must ensure that people are not wrongly convicted and there must be assurance that there are safeguards in place to protect innocent people while we go after those who are dangerous and who are committing crimes and acts of terror.

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the question in the manner that she does, because fundamental to our policing model in this country, even where it relates to terrorism, is the consent model. We must take the consent of communities with us, and when we lose consent, we get disorder. One might say that, in parts of the United States at the moment, one can see the loss of consent from particular ethnic communities. The point she raises is fundamental, and it is why we would not be doing our job properly if we did not scrutinise these changes carefully.

In 2015, the then Justice Secretary, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), commissioned a report by former prison governor Ian Acheson into Islamist extremism in prisons, probation and youth justice. The report found evidence of growing Islamist extremism in prisons and called for

“a central, comprehensive and coordinated strategy”

to fix it. Acheson proposed 69 recommendations, which were consolidated into a total of 11, eight of which we were told would be followed.

It is unclear, however, how many of his recommendations have been implemented and what effect any changes have had on de-radicalisation. Indeed, last year, when Acheson published a report for the Centre for Social Justice, he did not seem confident that much had changed. He wrote:

“Our unsafe prisons provide a fertile breeding ground in which predators, peddling extremist and violent ideologies, can prey upon the vulnerable, creating significant risks to national security and the public at large…On the present trajectory, it is all too conceivable that a future terrorist will have been groomed and radicalised within our prison estate.”

How can the Government justify their failure to include any new policies on rehabilitation or de-radicalisation? Where is the new funding for de-radicalisation in our prisons? Where is the extra support for our probation services? We know that the Government believe in stricter sentences, but what do they have to say about defeating the ideology of hate? Only one part of this package touches on this question, and even it does not attempt to solve it. It instead pushes back the legally binding deadline for the completion of an independent review of Prevent. That review was supposed to be completed by August 2020, and yet this summer it will be further delayed until next year.

We will not seek a Division today because we recognise that there must be progress on this issue, but we are very disappointed by the lack of focus on de-radicalisation. Indeed, some of the Government’s plans, including removing the Parole Board, may actively reduce the chances of rehabilitation in prison. Defeating the ideology, not merely imprisoning those hypnotised by it, is what is necessary if we are serious about preventing reoffending.

After Jack Merritt was killed in Fishmongers’ Hall, his father Dave wrote poignantly about how his son would have perceived the political reaction to his own death. Dave wrote:

“What Jack would want from this is for all of us to walk through the door he has booted down, in his black Doc Martens.

That door opens up a world where we do not lock up and throw away the key. Where we do not give indeterminate sentences, or convict people on joint enterprise. Where we do not slash prison budgets, and where we focus on rehabilitation not revenge. Where we do not consistently undermine our public services, the lifeline of our nation. Jack believed in the inherent goodness of humanity, and felt a deep social responsibility to protect that.”

Jack Merritt’s death was cruelly ironic, but it is a further bitter blow that in its wake, punishment for the offenders he sought to help will become more strict. It is undeniably true that Jack’s murderer never rehabilitated. He maintained his twisted ideology to the very end. However, we must not let this nightmare blind us into believing that second chances exist only in dreams. The murderous terrorist who took Jack’s life would no doubt like us to lose our faith in humanity. But Jack would like us to keep it. The very least we owe him is not to forget this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

Our overriding aim must always be to keep the British public safe and to ensure that horrific terrorist attacks, such as the ones at the Fishmongers’ Hall and in Streatham, cannot be repeated. We were all shocked and horrified by the attacks, and we mourn the death of Jack Merritt and Saskia Jones, who were killed on that day.

Of course, as has already been mentioned, over the years we have witnessed so many terrorist attacks, with so many lives lost and so much suffering, and it is vital that we have a set of policies to ensure that those who commit such atrocities are prosecuted. However, we must also make sure that we take action to do the prevention work to deal with the underlying causes. There must be proper investment in our schools, our local authorities and our communities, so that we can ensure that young people in particular are protected from the dangers of radicalisation, of being groomed online and of being prey to extremists, whether religious extremists or far-right extremists.

As we have heard, there is a growing threat of both kinds, and the mutually reinforcing threat of violent extremism from the far right and from the religious right—religious extremists—is going to pose an even greater danger to our society. It is therefore right that Opposition Members support the actions to ensure that sentencing is improved, but that has to come with proper safeguards, as my hon. Friends have already highlighted in this debate. That means that we have to question why it is that the Government have lowered the standard of proof for suspected terrorist activity, replacing it with “reasonable grounds”, which is a relative term, as we have heard.

We have already heard about some of the risks and dangers of doing that. We have heard about what that could mean in operational terms, and we have seen that many mistakes can happen despite the valiant efforts of our security, police and other services. Mistakes can happen at the operational level, which is why checks and balances have to be put in place to ensure that we strike the right balance between the liberty of people who have not done anything wrong but who may be suspected, and our security services and police having the right legal framework to work within in relation to those who are committing crime. This particular change is actually not going to make matters better, and it is likely to create greater resentment if mistakes are made, which is why I appeal to Ministers to reconsider it.

On my other major concerns, we need to make sure that, alongside the sentencing changes and ensuring proper checks and balances, the Government set as a matter of urgency a deadline for the review of the Prevent strategy. Without action on prevention, we will deal with only one side of the coin. I know all too well the dangers of Prevent not working. Although I recognise that many interventions over the years have had some significant success, the review is critical for us to learn the lessons of what does not work and what needs to be reformed and improved. We need radical action on supporting the young and those at risk, and on looking at online threats and the new threats that are emerging, particularly from the far right. I therefore hope that the Minister can say today when the review will be completed. I recognise that there is a delay, but we need an urgent response and we must ensure that the delay does not continue.

Another issue is how we resource our public services. Sections 36 to 41 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 place a duty on local authorities and partners to provide support for people who are vulnerable to being drawn into any form of terrorism. Yet local authorities were already facing cuts. My local authority, despite some support from the Government, will face a deficit of about £50 million. At a time of great pressure, local authorities should be properly supported when they have a duty around this agenda. I hope that the Minister will say what additional resources will be given to them, and also to schools to provide proper training and support for our teachers who are being expected to take action without proper support. I raised that issue previously after the three girls from Bethnal Green in my constituency went to Syria. That was years ago and I am not yet convinced that the Government have seriously taken on board the need for investment and support in our schools, local communities and youth services. Indeed, youth services have experienced dramatic cuts over the years. I therefore hope that the Minister will look at the wider agenda as the review takes place.

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady concur with me, as a former citizenship teacher—a great subject that her party introduced—that although citizenship is statutory, it does not have to be taught in lesson format and that it should be given greater emphasis in the curriculum to tackle the difficult stuff that she mentions?

[Rushanara Ali]

I agree and it is disappointing that the coalition Government made those changes. The important thing now is to look forward to see how we can make improvements. That requires the Government to focus not only on being tough on terrorism once an act of terror has happened, but on the causes. That means proper partnership and proper investment, which we have not seen in recent years.

It is not difficult for Governments of any party to introduce tough legislation. The heavy lifting is done in communities, schools, youth centres and places of worship. That is where we need to redouble our efforts alongside what is happening today so that we can genuinely work together as a society to prevent terrorism and extremism of all forms, far right as well as religious extremism. That is missing and I hope that Ministers will heed our advice, focus on the Prevent agenda and get it right so that others, particularly young people, are not at risk as my constituents were. They left the country and, as we all know, it ended terribly.

Draft Civil Legal Aid (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Rushanara Ali Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd January 2019 General Committees

[Lucy Frazer]

I will make three points: two relate to the SI and the third is more global. First, it is extremely disappointing that, in opposing the regulations, the Opposition will not enable us to provide for a smooth transition by ensuring that our statute book is fit for purpose if we leave the EU without a deal.

Secondly, I am very disappointed by the suggestion from my friend, the hon. Member for Bolton South East, with whom I work very well, that the regulations will have a massive impact. What we are doing with the legislation is simple: we are ensuring that, as we leave the EU, its member states do not receive preferential treatment vis-à-vis other third countries. Under World Trade Organisation trade terms, we are not allowed to give preferential treatment to one portion of the world. We are ensuring that we do not give a more favourable position to EU member states. Under the SI, as with all the SIs introduced by the Ministry of Justice, individuals from those member states will still be able to get the same treatment as EU nationals in this particular provision of legal aid. They will still be able to get legal aid under the same conditions as our residents under LASPO, as long as the matter for which they are claiming is in scope and subject to means and merits.

Thirdly, the hon. Member for Bolton South East made a very broad point about other matters not relevant to the statutory instrument. We will debate those matters in due course. She mentioned the important point of civil jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments, for which another SI will be introduced. She also mentioned family law. We, like the EU, think it is extremely important for us and the EU to get a deal to ensure that we have a reciprocal arrangement on family law. Indeed, a reciprocal arrangement on family law is one of the areas of mutual interest that the EU has identified and that it is willing to negotiate within a future framework. The matter under discussion, however, is a no-deal scenario.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

May I remind the Minister that it is extremely disappointing that her Government are still leaving the prospect of a no-deal situation over us? That is irresponsible and she should be concerned about that. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East raised legitimate concerns about British nationals who will continue to live in the EU. The Minister needs to focus on that. Thinking simply in terms of WTO rules is not appropriate because British nationals will still live in other countries, and in that context, we will need partnerships that allow them to have access to justice.

[Lucy Frazer]

The best way to protect the citizens whom the hon. Lady talks about is to ensure that we have a deal. The Prime Minister’s deal will allow us an implementation period to negotiate the very points that the hon. Lady identifies. One of those points is an agreement in relation to families, on which we would be able to get a reciprocal arrangement in future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rushanara Ali Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I can assure my hon. Friend that we are working urgently with the governor to address the situation, as well as addressing the overall issue of the number of suicides in our prisons, which is far too high.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

Reoffending rates among young offenders remain stubbornly high. Earlier this year, the Association of Youth Offending Team Managers said that there had been a record cut in funding for youth offending teams. What is the Secretary of State doing to address that?

[Elizabeth Truss]

The hon. Lady will not have to wait long before we release the Charlie Taylor report and the Government’s response, which will explain how we will improve outcomes in youth justice.

Metropolitan Police Service

Rushanara Ali Excerpts

Wednesday 6th February 2013 Westminster Hall

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) on securing this important debate. Like other colleagues, I pay tribute to the Metropolitan police and especially the officers in my constituency and across Tower Hamlets.

The Government’s announcement that the police budget will go down by 20%—£2 billion—in this Parliament and Mayor Johnson’s announcement that a further £500 million will be cut from the Metropolitan police service budget mean that we will lose 1,500 members of staff, on top of the 4,000 uniformed officers who have lost their jobs since the cuts began.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) said, police numbers have gone down and crime has gone up over the same period, and that is also true in my constituency. There are now 163 fewer uniformed officers in Tower Hamlets than when the Government came to power in 2010. Over the same period, crime has gone up by a dramatic 9% in Tower Hamlets. That contrasts with six successive years of crime reduction in the borough under the previous Government. When I raised that issue with the Home Secretary during Home Office questions on 7 January, as reported in column 14 of Hansard, she said that the Metropolitan police had indicated that they wanted to change the number of police community support officers to increase the number of police constables available. Yet the evidence shows that Tower Hamlets has 103 fewer police officers and 58 fewer PCSOs than in 2010. I wrote to the Mayor of London to seek clarification a few weeks ago, soon after that answer, and have yet to receive a response.

We face the closure of three police facilities, as my hon. Friend has mentioned, and a cut in proven and effective safer neighbourhoods teams, from six officers to one police officer and one PCSO. As he said, we were the first to innovate and pilot the safer neighbourhoods initiative, which has proved extremely successful at reducing crime in our borough and around the country. It seems bizarre that the Government and the Mayor of London want to reverse that important provision, with its proven track record of success. It is dangerous and simply puts public safety at risk. I therefore appeal to the Minister to re-examine those issues, especially in the light of the dramatic increase in crime in the borough.

My constituents do not have confidence in the proposals of the Mayor of London. They made that clear in a recent consultation led by the deputy Mayor, who was rather short of facts and unclear about what exactly was going on. We highlighted the risks and showed the evidence, and asked him to think again. In particular, it is critical that the Mayor of London and the Government should consider the matter in the context of recent risks such as hate crime, which the police dealt with valiantly and immediately, because they still have some capacity to do so.

Similarly, during the riots, community and police working together managed to stop a major riot happening in our borough; and we stopped the English Defence League exploiting those divisions across London to create more unrest. That required 7,000 police officers, despite a ban, and it shows how desperately we need police officers working with the community, and community support officers. I ask the Minister to examine those issues closely, and to see what the risks are—not just the risk of a rise in crime, but the risk to community relations in our city.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rushanara Ali Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)]

9. What steps his Department is taking to support victims of crime.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

11. What steps his Department is taking to support victims of crime.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

17. What steps his Department is taking to support victims of crime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

I announced yesterday that we were making changes to the compensation scheme, but we are making no changes whatever to the compensation for victims of rape and sexual offences at any level of the tariff. We accept that it is important to compensate those victims, and we are trying to strengthen the support that we give to the victims of sexual offences. We are also supporting outside bodies that give support to such victims. I think that my hon. Friend will find that nothing I said yesterday remotely reduces our commitment to the victims of rape and sexual offences, and that, since we have been in office, we have been steadily improving the services that we provide.

[Rushanara Ali]

Given that 61% of victims feel that the justice system is ineffective, and that the victims code will not be placed on a statutory basis, how will the rights of victims be properly protected by this Government?

[Mr Clarke]

I do not think that 51% of victims have a factual basis for saying that. I share the hon. Lady’s concern, however, that whenever questions are asked, if they are asked in the right way, we get that kind of answer. We have to get across to the public that the system does indeed punish offenders properly and attempt to reform them, and that we are steadily attempting to improve the support that we give to victims. It is extremely important that the criminal justice system should give the highest regard to victims, because protecting and giving justice to them and their families is one of the principal aims of the service.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rushanara Ali Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Nick Herbert)]

Yes, we do. As we develop our proposals, including for the neighbourhood resolution panels that I described earlier, we want to consider what role magistrates may play in that. They are, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, an important lay resource, and we should think of new ways to make use of them.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

T6. How does the Secretary of State plan to fill the nearly £280 million gap in social welfare law in respect of the provision of crucial advice and support on housing, debt and employment issues to some of the poorest people in our country, given that there is little to no evidence that the voluntary and charitable sectors will be able to back-fill that gap? The £20 million referred to does not seem to go far enough.