Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme: Pathway 3

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2023 Westminster Hall

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

Thank you, Sir Charles. That is no problem at all.

I thank all hon. Members for their powerful contributions. In particular, I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who has done us a great service by securing this debate. In normal times, we would debate Afghanistan and the situation we have left it in much more frequently than we do. Obviously, other things have come to overshadow that, but he and other hon. Members have not let it slip, so I am very grateful to all of them for continuing to make the case.

The report by the Foreign Affairs Committee on the retreat from Afghanistan gives useful context. It described the withdrawal as

“a disaster and a betrayal of our allies that will damage the UK’s interests for years to come.”

It contains a section that succinctly describes what we are talking about. It says:

“Most damning for the Foreign Office is the total absence of a plan for evacuating Afghans who supported the UK mission, without being directly employed by the UK Government, despite knowing 18 months before the collapse of Afghanistan that an evacuation might be necessary. The hasty effort to select those eligible for evacuation was poorly devised, managed, and staffed; and the department failed to perform the most basic crisis-management functions. The lack of clarity led to confusion and false hope among our Afghan partners who were desperate for rescue. They, and the many civil servants and soldiers working hard on the evacuation, were utterly let down by deep failures of leadership in Government.”

Many of those described as having been utterly let down by the FCDO are now caught up in attempting to leave Afghanistan by using pathway 3 of the Afghan citizen resettlement scheme. As Members set out, they face huge peril, and it is right that we scrutinise very closely indeed how the Government are responding to their needs, given that stinging critique.

We welcome the fact that there is a bespoke scheme, but given what happened, it would have been totally unacceptable had there not been one. There are some positive features—for example, those who benefit from the scheme get indefinite leave to remain—but even here the absence of the full rights of refugee status for those on pathways 1 and 3 is regrettable. That point was made by the hon. Members for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) and for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier).

Overall, I am afraid our analysis is that the Afghan scheme has been totally inadequate. It has been too restrictive in criteria, too limited in ambition and too slow in implementation, and the consequence is that it will damage the reputation of the UK, as pointed out by Members in the debate last week. It will see a continued high number of Afghans resorting to irregular routes to the United Kingdom; there, they will meet the full force of the horrendous asylum reforms that the Government are implementing. I will make a few short points on those three criticisms: restrictive criteria, limited ambition and slow implementation.

First, there is the way that the three pathways are set up and their relationship with ARAP. The set-up is not entirely without logic, but I believe that there is a heavy stink of categories being tweaked for the Government’s convenience, rather than because it is fair or just. Given that he is here, I will take the liberty of quoting from the speech made last week by the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), in which he pointed out that

“People who got out under Operation Pitting have been retrospectively shoehorned into various schemes.”—[Official Report, 11 January 2023; Vol. 725, c. 287WH.]

That has allowed the Government to inflate the number of people who have been resettled—if we can call it “resettled”—under the citizens resettlement scheme. In addition, the criteria for ARAP were tightened so that those who would have got status under that scheme have now been counted towards the ACRS. The Government can say that they have made great strides towards their vague—and, I think, unambitious—target of 20,000 in the years ahead when, in reality, little progress has been made at all since August 2021.

If we take a step back, the reality is that we are called on to deal with two types of cases. First, there are cases where people have been put at a degree of risk because they contributed to our mission in Afghanistan. To my mind, there should be no question about our obligation to provide a safe home to all those individuals, but the Government have, in essence, defined that group much more narrowly by reference to military objectives and a direct employment relationship, rather than the broader objectives of the UK’s presence there. Surely the uncapped ARAP schemes should also apply for the British Council staff, the GardaWorld contractors, the Chevening alumni and so on.

Our obligation to these people is such that there should be no question of there being a vague ambition of 20,000 people or, worse, what seems to be a 1,500 cap per year for those on pathway 3. Our obligation to those people should be diluted or restricted in absolutely no way at all, and that is precisely the point made by the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay in his speech.

The second group of people are those in danger of persecution if they remain in or return to Afghanistan, not because of involvement in or support of the UK mission in Afghanistan but because of the general situation there, which has been described in detail by hon. Members. That is clearly a huge segment of the population and it is not an obligation that can lie solely on the United Kingdom, but we must play a role alongside our international allies. So far, our efforts in that regard have been absolutely inadequate. Pathway 2, for those outside Afghanistan and referred by the UNHCR, was supposed to reach 2,000 people in one year, but by September only four had arrived, if I am correct; I do not know if there is an update on that.

Meanwhile, pathway 3 supposedly prioritises vulnerable people from within Afghanistan, but it does not really do that at all. Someone gets such priority only if they have already established that they meet other eligibility criteria, such as being a British Council staff member or a contractor. It seems wrong that there is no more general pathway for vulnerable groups such as the LGBT community, religious minorities, political activists or women, in particular those who have taken up jobs such as acting as a judge.

Alongside that, there is the powerful point made by the hon. Members for Rutherglen and Hamilton West and for Sheffield, Hallam that there are no additional pathways for those with obvious links to the United Kingdom, such as having family here, perhaps being former residents or other such ties. Surely it makes sense for people who live here—with parents, siblings or others, perhaps, still in Afghanistan—to much more easily be able to sponsor them to come here. I commend the many organisations that wrote to the Prime Minister earlier this week to explain that family separation not only has a terrible impact on the individuals in Afghanistan, but puts a colossal strain on family members here in the UK. Those families need to be reunited.

The failure to provide routes for such people who have clear links to the UK—whether under pathway 3, a family reunion or anything else—brings me to my final point, which I just touched on. There is clearly a significant possibility that many of these people will therefore seek to make it here irregularly and, as has been said, that is borne out by the number of Afghans arriving in small boats. Members will have heard me speak at length in the Chamber about my opposition, and my party’s opposition, to the approach being taken by the Government to people arriving in small boats. I will leave that broad debate for another day, but surely even those who support the Government must be given pause for thought about the implications for Afghans who arrive in the small boats.

Given what has happened there, how can it possibly be right to criminalise and detain, and then pack off to Rwanda, people who were so badly let down by the Foreign Office in Afghanistan? Among them will be those who would qualify for some of the pathways but gave up waiting, as well as those who do not qualify for any of the pathways but, for utterly understandable reasons, have sought to have their claim heard in the United Kingdom. What is wrong with simply treating these people with dignity, hearing their asylum claim and granting it quickly in the overwhelming number of cases?

Finally, I mentioned those who qualified but gave up waiting. That brings me to the “too slow” criticism. It is painfully slow, as we explored in last week’s debate, and as has been expressed this afternoon. I was going to ask the Minister also about the number of staff who are operating here. He has given us an answer, but I thought that the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) made a very good point about the number of staff who are working on other schemes.

The Home Office actually seems to enjoy creating extra work for itself, even though it struggles to get through what it has already been tasked with. For example, asylum claims now have to be reviewed every three years, and people are having to make a decision on admissibility six months before they will even look at the asylum claim. We have 2 million EU citizens with pre-settled status who will now be asked to apply again for full settled status. Why not ask the Home Office to stop giving itself so much additional unnecessary work and move those people to work on the Afghan scheme? It would be a simple solution.

It also seems that a lot of the infrastructure that the UK built up during the Syrian resettlement scheme has been allowed to rot away because, for years, the Government failed to explain their long-term resettlement strategy or numbers. That is something that they are still a bit guilty of. There is also another debate to be had about the deficiencies in how those who make it here from Afghanistan have been supported, but at least they are here, so I will leave that for another day, given the clock.

In summary, we owe the people of Afghanistan. Setting up the schemes was essential, but, in practice, they have been too restrictive, too unambitious, and too slow. We are not coming close to living up to our obligations, and there must be a significant ramping up of resources and of effort.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mitchell]

I ask my hon. Friend to allow us to consider whether we can provide any further information, but I want to be absolutely clear and concise in what I say today. Those are the reasons why we are not giving out further figures.

I was going to say something about broader support for Afghanistan from His Majesty’s Government, but I will not. I think I will conclude—

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The Minister was clear on the 1,500 cap, but he did not offer a defence of it. We are talking about people who in essence are now at risk because they assisted the UK mission. Why should we be saying to people, “Sorry, not this year—we’re full up”? Why should there be a cap?

[Mr Mitchell]

There will always be arguments for and against figures. That is the settled position of the Government and I am not in a position today to comment any further on it.

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) asked me about refugee status; all those arriving in the UK under the ARAP and ACRS have the right to work and access education, healthcare, and public funds. I hope that is helpful to her.

In conclusion, the UK Government remain committed to offering a safe and legal route to the UK for eligible British Council, GardaWorld and Chevening alumni affected by the appalling events in Afghanistan in August 2021. I acknowledge and understand the strength of feeling in the House about the speed of progress. The Government remain acutely aware of the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan and are working with partners to try to influence the Taliban. We are also working at pace to deliver on our commitment to relocate eligible Afghans who supported the UK mission and our wider values and are at risk as a result. I look forward to the day we can confirm to the House that we have succeeded in repaying that debt of honour.