Windrush Compensation Scheme (Expenditure) Bill

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I wish to restate to the Committee that I will call Divisions only when they are really essential. As always, the Chair will listen to the debate and form a judgment on whether to exercise that discretion. I am reminding the Committee now, as we reminded the Committee that sat yesterday, that today the bar is a high one and that arguments in favour of going through the Division Lobbies will need to be very persuasive.

Clause 1

Expenditure on the Windrush Compensation Scheme

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

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 2, at the beginning, insert “Subject to subsection (3),”

This is a paving amendment for Amendment 2 which requires modifications to the Windrush Compensation Scheme.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 4, page 1, line 7, after “persons” insert

“from not only Caribbean but also from other Commonwealth countries who arrived in the United Kingdom before 1 January 1973 and persons who have a right of abode or settled status (or who are now British citizens) and who arrived to live in the UK before 31 December 1988,”

This amendment clarifies that the Windrush Compensation Scheme is not literally limited to men and women who originally came to the UK from the Caribbean Commonwealth.

Amendment 2, page 1, line 9, at end, insert—

“(3) Subject to subsection (4), modifications that must be made to the scheme before subsection (1) comes into force are set out in sections [Responsibility for the operation of the Compensation Scheme], [Consultation on simplifying the application process], [Time limit], [Public consultation on limits, tariffs and caps], [Legal assistance], [Restrictions] and [Standard of proof], and [Appeal to the First Tier Tribunal].

(4) Subsection (3) does not prevent payment of interim awards under the Windrush Compensation Scheme.”

This a paving amendment which requires modifications to the Windrush Compensation Scheme before final payments can be funded by money provided by Parliament.

Amendment 5, page 1, line 9, at end insert

“, taking into account the impact of those difficulties on the family life of those persons”.

This amendment would require the scheme to take account of the impact on the family life of people who encountered difficulties in demonstrating their lawful immigration status.

Clause stand part.

Clause 2 stand part.

New clause 1—Responsibility for the operation of the Windrush Compensation Scheme—

“Within two months of the date on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must arrange for operation of the Windrush Compensation Scheme to be the responsibility of an institution other than the Home Office.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to move the operation of the Windrush Compensation Scheme to an institution other than the Home Office.

New clause 2—Consultation on simplifying the application process—

“The Secretary of State must launch a public consultation on the applicants’ experience of the application process under the Windrush Compensation Scheme.”

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to launch a public consultation on the applicants’ experience of the application process.

New clause 3—Time Limit—

“No time limit applies to when applications for compensation under the Windrush Compensation Scheme must be received.”

This new clause would ensure that no time limit can be imposed on when applications should be received.

New clause 4—Public consultation on limits, tariffs and caps—

“The Secretary of State must launch a public consultation on the limits, tariffs and caps in the Windrush Compensation Scheme.”

This new clause would require a public consultation on the limits, tariffs and caps in the scheme.

New clause 5—Legal assistance—

“The Windrush Compensation Scheme must make provision for the reimbursement to applicants under the scheme of their reasonable costs of legal assistance in making applications for compensation under the Scheme.”

This new clause would allow applicants to recover their legal costs in applying to the scheme.

New clause 6—Restrictions—

“(1) Compensation under the Windrush Compensation Scheme may not be denied to any individual on the basis that they have a criminal record.

(2) Awards of compensation under the Windrush Compensation Scheme may not be reduced on grounds that the individual failed to contact the Home Office at an earlier stage.”

This new clause would modify the restrictions on the payment of compensation under the scheme.

New clause 7—Standard of proof—

“No requirement may be made of applicants for a level of proof beyond the balance of probabilities for claims under the Windrush Compensation Scheme, including any claims relating to—

(a) loss of earnings

(b) reimbursement of private medical fees,

(c) reimbursement of international student fees, and

(d) loss of access to banking.”

This new clause would apply a civil standard of proof to claims for compensation under the scheme.

New clause 8—Appeal to the First Tier Tribunal—

“(1) The Secretary of State must make provision by way of regulations for claimants to have a right of appeal to the First Tier Tribunal against any determination issued under the Windrush Compensation Scheme.

(2) An appeal under subsection (1) must be brought on the grounds that the determination was not in accordance with the Windrush Compensation Scheme.”

This new clause would allow claimants to appeal to the First Tier Tribunal against determinations made under the scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald]

We need the Bill to pass this evening so that compensation can continue to be paid to the victims of the Windrush outrage. I dearly want that to happen, and I encourage all who may qualify for compensation to seek advice and to make claims. Ultimately, ensuring that compensation can continue to be paid is all that really matters this evening.

However, this Committee stage gives us a short opportunity to probe the Government on various aspects of the scheme where we think improvements can and should be made. Some of those suggestions will be all the more important given the findings of the lessons learned review that was published last week. The report represents an utterly damning indictment of Home Office policy over many years and should represent an absolutely pivotal moment—a turning point—in how Governments, and indeed Parliament, develop and debate immigration policy, as well as in the role that considerations of race must play in policy development. As the review points out:

“The department didn’t consider risks to ethnic minorities appropriately as it developed the policy. And it carried on with implementing the scheme after others pointed out the risks, and after evidence had arisen that those risks had materialised.”

This was not just a simple mistake, in the way we usually use that word; it was really an act of pretty outrageous recklessness.

This debate is understandably overshadowed by the coronavirus crisis and takes place in an understandably sparsely attended Chamber. All of that is completely understandable, but it means that this is not the appropriate moment for Parliament to have its final say on the lessons learned review. Therefore, probably the most important ask I would make of the Government today is that they make a commitment to find a suitable future date in Government time, on a Tuesday or a Wednesday afternoon, so that we can have a full day’s debate, with full and proper scrutiny of the Wendy Williams review and its implications. The period of profound reflection called for by her review should happen here in Parliament, as well as in the Home Office.

Against that background, I now turn briefly to the specific amendments and new clauses we have tabled, which are largely self-explanatory, so I can go through them in fairly quick order. Amendments 1 and 2 are simply paving amendments, and allow us to make the key points we want to make through new clauses 1 to 8.

New clause 1 makes a simple but fundamental point. As I argued on Second Reading, it is surely not only pretty crass but counterproductive for the Home Office to be responsible for operating the compensation scheme. If an institution ruins someone’s life, their faith in the compensation scheme is surely not enhanced if the very same institution then sets the rules and makes the judgments on compensation applications. That is even more the case if someone still has concerns that the same institution could do further damage to them or their life. That is exactly how it is with the Windrush compensation scheme.

I repeat that I want people to come forward and to apply. I say to the Minister that making the scheme independent of the Home Office will undoubtedly increase uptake and interest in it. Ultimately, given what these people have been through, how can any of us in this House criticise them for having concerns about providing information to the Home Office? Making the scheme independent is what the Windrush victims and campaigners have been asking for, so even at this late stage I urge the Government to think again about the institutional framework.

New clause 8 provides an alternative opportunity to introduce an independent safeguard through a proper, independent appeal to a tribunal system. Applying for compensation in this way is a full-blown and complicated legal process. The overall sums for the taxpayer, although not insignificant, are not huge either, particularly given the sums we have been talking about in recent days. However, they could and should be pivotal and life-changing for those who are obtaining compensation. This is also about the significance of the scheme and the importance of getting it right. All of that justifies proper, independent judicial scrutiny of controversial and contested decisions.

New clauses 2 and 4 are designed to encourage the Home Office to continue to consult and make improvements to the scheme as we proceed. The Minister has engaged previously, and he has made changes, and we encourage him to continue to take that practical approach.

More significantly, new clause 4 seeks further consultation on the various restrictions, tariffs and caps that are part of the scheme. Clearly, there was extensive consultation prior to the scheme being launched and I do not criticise any of that for one moment. That was valuable work, but I submit that everything now has to be reviewed in the light of last Thursday’s report. That report puts this scandal in a very different light from others where compensation has been awarded and from where practice may have been copied. Such was the flagrant disregard for the impact of Home Office policies, it surely is right that we revisit all the limits and restrictions on the losses that can be recouped. Quite simply, we must look again in the light of last week’s report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

No, I want to see more getting the compensation they are entitled to. That is why we are bringing the Bill forward and why we would have looked to have done more engagement events to reach out to those affected, as she touched on in her remarks. That has been inevitably curtailed by the situation we face. We have extended the scheme for another two years—it was to end in April next year, but it has been extended to April 2023—because we want more people to come forward and apply to it.

I will come in a moment to some of the ways in which we are looking to engage and get to more people. Hopefully, the next set of statistics produced will show that, for example, some more significant compensation awards have been made since the first statistics were produced. We are careful not to put out statistics that could identify an individual and what they may have received, because that is not an appropriate way to go about things as a Government.

Let me return to new clause 1. Moving the operation of the compensation scheme from the Home Office would risk significantly delaying payments to claimants. That is because the first stage in deciding a claim for compensation is to confirm an individual’s identity and eligibility, which is linked to an individual’s immigration status. It would be difficult to decouple this process from the Home Office, which is the Department that confirms this status. We have, though, established an independent review process for those dissatisfied with their compensation offer. The independent review is conducted by the Adjudicator’s Office—a non-departmental public body that is completely independent of the Home Office. The adjudicator can look at, among other things, whether the Department has followed its policies and the use of discretion by the Windrush compensation scheme.

New clauses 2 and 4 seek to require the Department to launch public consultations on applicants’ experiences of the application process, and on the scheme’s limits, tariffs and caps. I reassure Members that our approach to designing the scheme was informed by 650 responses to a call for evidence and nearly 1,500 responses to a public consultation. We also held several public events, and the previous Home Secretary appointed Martin Forde QC—an experienced barrister on all aspects of health law—to advise on the design of the compensation scheme. There are 13 categories under which people can claim compensation. The scheme awards compensation according to actual losses, as well as tariff-based awards. Although some categories of award have an upper limit, there is no overall cap on the amount that an individual can receive in compensation under the scheme, nor a set budget limit on payments to be made.

New clause 3 would see the scheme left open indefinitely. Let me reassure the House that this Government are committed to ensuring that all those who wish to make a claim are able to do so. This is why we announced last week that we were extending the duration of the scheme until 2 April 2023. It is also why we announced the launch of a national communications campaign and a £500,000 fund for grassroots organisations to promote the Windrush taskforce and Windrush compensation scheme. However, as I said on Second Reading, there is a balance to be struck between setting a date far enough in the future to enable people to feel confident that they have time to make their claim, but soon enough to encourage people to put in their claim and get the compensation that they are due. The Government believe that the two-year extension provides this, but there remains the option to extend the duration if that is required. I say in response to the point fairly made by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East that we would not close off consideration. However, we think it is right to have a timeframe in order to encourage people to come forward and make their claims.

New clause 5 intends to allow applicants to recover their legal costs in applying to the scheme. The team have worked proactively to ensure that the design of the claim forms is simple and easy to understand, and they were tested with users to ensure that legal assistance is not required. The introduction of this clause might serve to encourage organisations to take advantage of potentially vulnerable individuals and to charge them for unnecessary support to complete a claim. Should claimants need support, the Home Office already has provision for a contract with Citizens Advice to provide free independent advice. We will soon be launching a procurement tendering process to select an organisation to provide free independent advice and support to claimants for the duration of the scheme up until April 2023, and the £500,000 fund for grassroots organisations announced last week to promote the compensation scheme includes provision for advice services.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I take the Minister’s point about the work that has been done to try to make the scheme simple, and to have a tendering process for services that will provide advice. But this is not just about the form; it is about the process of putting together sometimes complicated evidence, particularly for the bigger awards. Surely there is a possibility that the Government could consider making available even a small panel of certain firms with expertise in this area—for particularly difficult or high-value claims. That is just something to think about.

[Kevin Foster]

I hear the hon. Gentleman’s point. That was one of the areas covered when I met the independent adviser, and his advice is clear: he believes that the system is set up in a way that means people do not need specialist legal support to make a claim. The compensation team will work with the claimant to look at things such as HMRC data on past employment and to access Government records—for example, on immigration fees that may have been paid in the past when someone should not have needed to pay them. At the moment, we are satisfied that this gives people the opportunity to engage, and we are keen that this is about working with the person to find out how they were affected, rather than getting into the type of adversarial legal process that could have been the alternative to the approach that we are adopting.

New clause 6 seeks to prevent the Home Office from reducing compensation awards due to criminality or the timeliness of actions to resolve status. In response to direct feedback from claimants and stakeholders, the Home Office has already made changes to the scheme’s mitigation policy. Individuals are no longer expected to show that they took immediate steps to resolve their status, and that was clarified in new guidance published on 5 March.

While it is reasonable to expect individuals who encountered difficulty in evidencing their lawful right to be in the UK to have taken some steps to try to resolve that, the Home Office will now consider any evidence of steps that someone took to resolve their situation, even if those steps were not taken as soon as reasonably practical when an individual lost their job or took place before an individual encountered difficulties. For example, that could include writing to a Member of Parliament rather than approaching the Home Office directly. That change means that some people may qualify for higher awards, particularly where it relates to loss of employment.

With regard to criminality, those with criminal convictions are not precluded per se from making a claim for compensation. However, being mindful of the Government’s obligations towards taxpayers’ money, we may reduce or decline an award if a claimant has a record of serious criminality. I was asked to explain why we would do that. There may be a claim for loss of employment due to a person not being able to show their migration status. If that claimant then had a serious criminal conviction shortly afterwards or during that period, it would not inherently flow that their employment would have carried on but for the migration status issue, because that serious offence would almost certainly have cost them their employment. But as I say, that does not preclude, and it is not a bar. We are always open with this process, as we work with stakeholders and the independent adviser in particular, but that explains why that would be done—because it seems unfair to compensate with taxpayers’ money when that employment may well have been lost anyway following a particular type of conviction.

New clause 7 seeks that no requirement be made of claimants to demonstrate a level of proof beyond the balance of probabilities for claims for actual losses under the scheme. The scheme awards compensation according to both actual losses and tariff-based awards. Evidential requirements have been designed to be straightforward and not too onerous. However, we do ask claimants to provide as much evidence as they can, so that the best assessment can be made. Caseworkers will work with applicants and contact other Government Departments, such as Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, on their behalf where there may be evidential gaps. Where awards are tariff-based, caseworkers will make decisions on the balance of probabilities. Where awards are for actual losses, it is right that we seek to obtain an appropriate level of assurance that those losses were incurred, in order to fulfil our duty to properly manage money.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I ask the Minister to look at that again. I get the point that caseworkers have to be very careful and seek as much evidence as possible when it comes to certain types of losses, including loss of earnings, but to phrase it as “beyond reasonable doubt” seems pretty controversial. All I am asking is that he goes away and thinks about that and perhaps consults Home Office solicitors, because it seems very unusual to demand that standard of proof. I understand the need for evidence, but “beyond reasonable doubt” seems very strange.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I am grateful to the Minister for addressing some of the points raised. Through our interventions, I think the shadow Home Secretary and I have made it clear that we accept what the Minister has said, and we have asked him to go away with one or two points and ask further questions. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

[Ms Abbott]

I just want to confirm that it is not our intention to vote against the Bill, and it is our intention to not press our amendments.

Just before the debate comes to a close, I would like to express, on his behalf, the regret of my colleague and right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) for not being here. He is in self-isolation due to the current public health problems.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Bill reported, without amendment.

Third reading

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—(Kevin Foster.)

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I think I said all that I needed to say in Committee. The most important thing to happen this evening will be that we pass the Bill so that compensation continues to be paid. We have made some suggestions about how the compensation scheme can be improved, but we welcome the intent behind it and hope that it reaches as many people as it needs to reach.

Another important thing to happen this evening was the undertaking that there would be a proper and full debate about the lessons learned review that was published last Thursday. It was a hugely significant moment in modern British political history. There are so many aspects of the Windrush scandal that still have to be properly explored in this place, as well as within Government, and we look forward very much to playing our full part in that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. I can categorically say that work is already taking place across Government on suspending the tax and pensions disincentives—because they are disincentives at this time of crisis and national emergency. We want to make sure that retired police officers, for example, can come back and join the service. I have specifically asked Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs and the taxman to look at that, and they are doing so right now. When it comes to looking at special constables in the emergency volunteer scheme, we are absolutely doing that too.

I would like to take this opportunity to give the House this reassurance on policing. I am working with the National Police Chiefs’ Council every day—as, of course, is the Policing Minister—and engaging with Martin Hewitt, but also with all forces across the country. That is the right thing to do to understand the operational challenges they are facing and to make sure that our officers are supported, but also in terms of looking at all the ways we can make sure that we have flow in the service, bringing back people with the right kind of skills and capability to keep our country safe at this critical time.

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

On behalf of the SNP, I also echo your powerful words in relation to PC Keith Palmer, Mr Speaker.

The weekend saw a new but worrying development, with significant numbers heading to isolated and scenic areas—the highlands and islands, for example—for purposes of social distancing, not appreciating that these areas are not well equipped to deal with new arrivals as coronavirus spreads. Will the Home Secretary send a clear message that this behaviour is not appropriate? Although we do not want it to become a police matter, is she satisfied that sufficient powers are available to stop this trend continuing, if required?

[Priti Patel]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and his comments. He is absolutely right. He and the public have observed very clearly the type of behaviour that happened over the weekend. It is not acceptable. The Government could not have been clearer that, to save lives and protect the public during this public health emergency, it is right that we practise social distancing, in the way that the Government have outlined and are reinforcing, and that the chief medical officer and many others are reinforcing day in and day out.

With that, we ask the public to take responsibility. Of course, there are enforcement measures now in place, through a statutory instrument that was put in place over the weekend, which covers places for social gatherings —pubs, clubs and cafés, for example. The public have been observing those measures, but the police, local authorities and trading standards are working together now to make sure that they are being put in place.

My final comment is that the guidance that is coming from the Government and Public Health England is there to protect and save lives. I urge everyone—all members of the British public—to follow that guidance and absolutely not to use this period for any other practices. It is important that we observe social distancing and do everything we can as individuals to be responsible in our conduct.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)]

My hon. Friend is right to raise an issue that has been of concern in the media and across the country. As I said earlier, we are talking to the Security Industry Association about what more it can do, and we are in close touch with, in particular, the supermarkets as to how they are administering and making sure that those who need to get resources can do so. We are monitoring the situation very closely with our colleagues in the police, but, as I say, we hope and believe that, in the next few days, the good sense of the British public will reassert itself and everyone will start to behave appropriately.

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

May I welcome the fact that no recourse to public funds rules appear to be being looked at just now, but there is a host of other immigration and asylum policies, which surely also need urgent revision to deal with the coronavirus crisis, of which immigration detention, requirements to report or attend appointments and interviews, and shared asylum accommodation are just three. Are all of these issues being looked at urgently and could we simply receive a comprehensive update from the Home Office in early course?

[Priti Patel]

The answer is yes.

Asylum Decisions (Support for Refugees)

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2020 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir David. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) and congratulate her on securing the debate and on another brilliant speech, as well as on the brilliant work she does as chair of the APPG on refugees—including the “Refugees Welcome?” report. We are fortunate to have her chairing the group. I pay tribute, in fact, to every Member who has taken part in the debate. Every speech was excellent and showed huge knowledge. I mean no disrespect when I say that almost certainly that is partly because many of the same Members have been making similarly excellent points in excellent speeches for years on end. We now need the Government to listen and to act on some of the advice that is being provided.

I pay tribute also to organisations such as the British Red Cross, the Refugee Council, the Scottish Refugee Council, Crisis and the local organisations that Members have mentioned, which work at the coalface supporting the people we have been speaking about, and engaging in advocacy work on behalf of those vulnerable individuals. Without them we would not be able to make the case we are making today.

I think that this is the first chance I have had to welcome the Minister to his new post at the Home Office. I am never quite sure whether to congratulate or commiserate with those who are sent to the Home Office. He has a tough job ahead of him and I wish him all the best in it. If he is ever looking for constructive advice and help, I am happy to meet him at any point.

The debate highlights an absolute tragedy. The hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) was right to say that every grant of refugee status should be something to celebrate. It is another human being who is protected under international law as a person at risk of persecution in their home country. What a tragedy it is that, after we have taken that step and stepped up to our moral and legal obligations, the system works in such a way as to make the refugee homeless and destitute immediately. It is a tragedy and disgrace, and, as the hon. Member for Edmonton (Kate Osamor) said, we are a rich country and can and must do much better. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, all sorts of statistics show that the situation is not just a few isolated examples of folk falling through the safety net. It is a huge, widespread problem. It does not need to be like this, and many of the key problems could be solved simply by extending the move-on period. That is not a complete solution, but it would take us 90% of the way there.

I am sure that the Government will talk about liaison officers, post-grant appointments, signposting, integration funding and attempts to ensure that national insurance numbers are issued as part of the process of issuing biometric residence cards. That is all welcome and necessary, although even those processes need to be improved on. However, the overwhelming evidence is that it does not come remotely close to fixing the problems that have been highlighted. All the help in the world will not alter the fact that 28 days is insufficient time for moving on. There seems to be a fundamental failure to grasp that the moving-on process is a gargantuan task for many individuals, given what they have been put through. We are dealing, in many cases, with incredibly vulnerable people. By definition they are here because they have fled persecution in a different country, and all sorts of barriers can stem from that, including language, mental health issues—something that the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) referred to—and a fear of interacting with the authorities. Twenty-eight days is simply too short a time. As a result, already scarred lives are even more damaged by our Government’s failure to deal with this in a comprehensive manner.

The impact of that failure does not last only a few days; it can set back integration by months, years and even for life. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) gave powerful examples of that, particularly relating to women. At the stroke of a pen, Ministers could take a significant step toward fixing this by making the move-on period long enough for refugees to be able, with proper support, to navigate the system and establish themselves here.

Hon. Members set out a whole host of problems with the move-on period, which I will refer to briefly. First and foremost, 28 days is not only too short but is totally incompatible with the 35 days required, in theory, to access universal credit, and is inconsistent with the 56-day provision the Government put in their own homelessness legislation. Secondly, we heard about all the challenges in getting the necessary documentation to open bank accounts and to access social security and accommodation. The Government have taken steps in the right direction, but there is still an awful long way to go, and a joined-up approach is very much missing.

There is a lack of knowledge in some institutions—we heard about banks, but also local authorities and jobcentres—about what evidence is needed, and even about how to apply tests such as the habitual residence test. I am not sure whether problems accessing integration loans have been referred to, but there are still huge challenges relating to awareness and insufficient loans, particularly for those who might want to access accommodation in the private rented sector. As several Members said, extending the move-on period could save the Government £7 million because of reductions in rough sleeping and reduced local authority spend on temporary accommodation. It would also save the Scottish Government a small fortune in the amount that they have to pay out through Scottish welfare fund crisis grants.

Fifty-six days is the minimum period recommended by those at the coalface, and the reasoning was set out in detail by the hon. Member for Bristol West. My party is absolutely behind that, and we would also support flexibility for appropriate cases involving longer transitions. Why end asylum support before we know that the first universal credit payment has actually been made? The call we make is based on evidence from those working with people making the transition and on experience with constituents. If the Minister does not support 56 days, how does he justify 28 days? Will he explain why the Home Office thinks 28 days appropriate? I have completely failed to find any explanation as to why that is deemed an appropriate move-on period.

A whole host of other related issues feed into the problem of post-decision support. They could all probably command a debate in their own right, so I will refer to them in passing. Hon. Members have done a good job of explaining why they are so important. First, asylum decision-making times seem to be growing out of control. We also heard about the right to work, and the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) in particular detailed how significant that is. Clearly, people will be less likely to require support or to fall into destitution if they have already been working by the time they have their decision. It is way past time for lifting the ban on the right to work.

We also need to look at the whole dispersal system, the huge delays in paying asylum support and the paltry levels of support that we give to asylum seekers. We need to recognise that they are hugely disproportionately placed in areas of already high deprivation, and we then pay them a pittance in support—£5.39 per day—none of which aids integration or makes a subsequent transition period smoother. Ultimately, the UK Government’s whole approach to integration needs to be looked at again. It seems almost as if it has been designed around the half of asylum applicants who ultimately will not be recognised as refugees. It is almost as if they are attempting to make the system as miserable as possible, to deter applications. We should design the system around the half of applicants who are refugees and will eventually be recognised as refugees. The aim should be integration from day one, which is the approach at the centre of the Scottish Government’s integration strategy.

As others have said, the Home Office’s approach means a two-tier system in practice, with a different approach to resettled refugees and refugees who come through the UK asylum process. I accept that the approach to resettled refugees cannot just be cut and pasted and applied to those who have come through the process here, but there are all sorts of examples of good practice that could be taken from the resettlement programme and applied to those who have gone through the system. As Members have said, one example is the up-front cash grant of £300 per person for resettled refugees while they wait for universal credit.

In conclusion, as I said at the outset, it is hugely frustrating that these issues have persisted for ages. Charities and parliamentary Committees have been reporting on this for years on end. I have a small worry that things might actually get worse before they get better. The hon. Member for Putney was among those highlighting the importance of funding for community organisations. As I understand it, EU asylum, migration and integration funding, which supports services such as the Scottish Refugee Council’s integration service, is due to end in September. It is important to know what the Government will do to replace that funding. More fundamentally, we need the Minister to agree that the position is completely unacceptable and that urgent action is required. More tweaks will not suffice. Some might be important, but we need the move-on period to be extended, as advocated by every single hon. Member who has spoken so far.

Immigration (Citizens' Rights Appeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2020 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. You will take a particular interest in this legislation, given your previous role. You will know better than anybody that I have been banging on about appeal rights for a considerable period, so I welcome the Minister’s introduction of regulations to enact them.

That said, I echo a fair number of the questions and concerns that the shadow Minister raised, particularly on funding for advice, and I will return to a couple of the technical issues that she raised. On whether someone should have the right to appeal against the decision that their application is invalid, although I understand that it is long-standing Home Office practice for there to be no right of appeal in those circumstances, the reason behind that escapes me.

Disputes about nationality may depend on quite technical nationality laws, so it is slightly disturbing that someone may not be able to challenge a decision that they are not French or Polish, for example. Issues of identity may depend on problems with the way that someone’s name is spelled, which can vary in official Government documents, so it is slightly worrying that 3,280 applications have been found invalid and that those individuals will not have a right of appeal. Will the Minister provide more information on the different types of “invalid” refusals? Are those 3,280 refusals to do with applicants’ identities or nationalities?

I also share the shadow Minister’s concerns about the 31 January 2020 deadline and the reasons why it has been picked as a cut-off point. Even from a selfish Home Office point of view, it seems strange to say to folk, “We are refusing your application, but rather than give you a right of appeal, we ask you to apply again,” only for the applicant to appeal if the same decision is made again. Why not just give those with outstanding applications the right to go straight to appeal?

I will finish my remarks on a broader point. Ideally, I would like the provisions to be in primary rather than secondary legislation. I understand that an immigration Bill is due in the not-too-distant future; perhaps the Minister can indicate when that will be. The appeal rights are a fundamental safeguard for lots of people; the shadow Minister mentioned Zambrano carers, but there are all sorts of others, too.

The Government very generously made a unilateral commitment to Zambrano carers and others, so the scope of the EU settlement scheme is broader than required under the withdrawal agreement, which is absolutely welcome, but those rights are enshrined only in immigration rules, and the appeal rights are enshrined only in secondary legislation. Rather than enshrining people’s right to be in this country in bits of legislation that can be changed virtually at the stroke of an Immigration Minister’s pen, I want them to be enshrined in statute, so that people have that protection.

As the Minister knows, I have all sorts of other fundamental concerns about the nature of the settlement scheme—whether it should be a declaratory system, digital only and so on—but I will leave those matters for when the immigration Bill is introduced. I absolutely welcome the establishment of the right of appeal.

The Minister has one or two questions to answer on the technical issues that the shadow Minister flagged up, and I look forward to further debate on the progress of the EU settlement scheme.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2020 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the reasons for the order, and I join him and the shadow Minister in paying tribute to the emergency workers and members of the public who have stood up to and responded to the recent terrorist attacks. The Scottish National party supports the additions and amendments that the Government have proposed to the list of proscribed organisations.

As the Minister said, the backdrop to this legislation is a rise in far-right activity, and therefore we particularly welcome the proscription of Sonnenkrieg Division and, via the separate order to which he referred, the addition of National Action, alias the System Resistance Network. There seems to be no doubt that those are vulnerable, sick and hateful organisations that are concerned with terrorism.

We have seen recent arrests and convictions of various members of proscribed right-wing terrorist groups. On the one hand, that suggests that the powers to proscribe are assisting police officers to disrupt activity, but on the other hand, it reminds us that proscription is far from a solution in itself—it is just a small first step. The very fact that since National Action was proscribed, we have had to add NS131, Scottish Dawn and System Resistance Network shows that, for these organisations, proscription is not the end in itself but a significant inconvenience. We need to ask ourselves at some point whether we are making it inconvenient enough for them and whether there might be other ways to deal with the process of terror groups morphing into one another.

The other part of the order seems essentially to be a tidying-up exercise in relation to the PKK and its aliases. As the Minister explained, the PKK is an organisation that has engaged in violence over many years, including during periods covered by ceasefires with the Turkish Government. It remains on the proscribed lists of our international allies, so adding appropriate aliases seems logical.

At some point, we need to have a review of the effectiveness of proscription and whether there are ways we can make it more difficult for proscribed organisations. There may also be questions to ask about how we scrutinise these orders in the House, but that is for another day. These are not controversial additions, so we join the shadow Minister in lending our support to the order.

Points-based Immigration System

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Government have been very clear and have listened to the messages from the 2016 referendum and the general election. Of course, this is about ensuring that the brightest and the best come here.

Through a points-based system, the British Government will have control over immigration and numbers. We will reduce numbers, in due course, for the long term, but we will also bring in new checks and measures, which is what the British public have been calling for. They want to know the Government are in control of a system that brings in tighter checks and tighter regulations. Yes, the system should not be closed for business—it should be open for business—and it should bring in the brightest and the best. The system should deal with some of the issues in getting numbers down, but it should also address the other routes in terms of EU migrants and the criminality checks that desperately need to be brought in.

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

Despite lots of competition, this pretend points-based system surely amounts to one of the most damaging, unimaginative and unpopular policy announcements made by a Home Secretary in recent years. Do not get me wrong: it will be fine for the big multinational companies in the City with their armies of immigration lawyers, but it will be a disaster for everybody else.

Surely the Home Secretary regrets that her paper insults half the population by characterising their hard work as “cheap” unskilled labour and, indeed, by insinuating that their work could just as easily be done by the long-term sick or by robots. Why have employers been given just a few months to prepare for these massive changes when the Home Office took three and a half years just to dream them up? Will she listen to the swathes of industry leaders telling her it will be impossible to fill vacancies because of the salary thresholds? Will she listen to the employers who are worried about being mired in the red tape and expense of sponsorship and visa processes?

Why has the Home Secretary removed even the half-baked temporary worker scheme that was meant to operate as a transitional measure? Why is there no provision for self-employed workers? What has happened to the remote areas pilot scheme promised by her predecessor and to the heavily trailed extra points that were to be on offer for working outside London? And why has she said nothing about the tens of thousands of extra families that will be destroyed if she extends the UK’s barbaric family migration rules to their relationships? Is that her plan?

This will be disastrous across all manner of key sectors in Scotland, from agriculture to hospitality, from fishing to manufacturing and from construction to social care. Free movement was the one part of the migration system that actually worked for Scotland. Does the Home Secretary even understand the basic point that reducing migration is a disastrous policy goal for Scotland? Has she read the Scottish Government’s paper on a Scottish visa, and will she finally commit to engaging on those proposals in good faith?

[Priti Patel]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. First of all, it is important to recognise that the new points-based system will work in the interests of the whole United Kingdom, which does include Scotland. Independent experts, including the Migration Advisory Committee, have recommended that a single, less restrictive system is absolutely right and is essential to attract the brightest and the best. Of course, we are already working with stakeholders across the country on how the system will work and how it will support all communities. I have already touched on various sectors, including seasonal agricultural workers.

The hon. Gentleman specifically asked about businesses. We are introducing greater flexibility for businesses, and those businesses that have engaged with the Home Office —[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) may shake his head in disagreement, but the business community specifically asked for a number of factors, including: abolishing the resident labour market test; removing the cap on the number of skilled workers; and reducing the salary threshold, as it has been.

We have reformed the exceptional talent route, and we are working on a simpler, streamlined sponsorship process, both of which businesses asked for. We also aim to reduce the time taken to process visas. Skilled workers will also be able to switch easily between employers through a sponsor licence, which is effectively what businesses have asked for. We have delivered on that through this system.

It is fair to say that businesses have not only been engaged. The chief executive of Hays, the recruitment giant, recently said:

“To build a world-class economy, our businesses need access to world-class talent and not just originating from…the EU.”

I have a final point to make to the Scottish nationalists. I appreciate that we have been engaging and we have had dialogue with them, but it is important right now that the Migration Advisory Committee—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) just stops chuntering and lets me make this point—[Interruption.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) speaks with a great deal of knowledge and insight about this issue. We must absolutely clamp down on the illegal routes that are being exploited, many of which are upstream—outside the United Kingdom —and on the appalling amount of human trafficking. There are many safe and legal routes that are supported by the British Government, and we will continue to support them.

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

Why do we not simply say unilaterally that we will continue to consider take charge requests on behalf of unaccompanied children from Europe? Why should children’s rights be subject to negotiations at all?

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Gentleman must recognise that any future agreement is a matter for negotiation, and it is not within the gift of the United Kingdom alone. We can work bilaterally, but this is about the reciprocal arrangements that we undertake with our EU counterparts. That is the approach that has been outlined by the Government, and it is the right approach.

Deportation Flight to Jamaica

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

Normally, the definition of a serious offence would be one that has attracted a sentence of 12 months in prison. On persistence, the nature of the offences would be considered. There is not a particular number that somebody would have to hit; it would be about the nature of their offending patterns. As my hon. Friend says, the public would expect serious or persistent offenders who are liable to be deported under the 2007 Act to be removed from this country unless the exceptions apply.

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

I agree that it is hugely troubling that the lessons learned review has not yet been published. It is totally unacceptable that this charter flight could proceed before all the lessons of Windrush are learned. Windrush should change everything; instead, the Home Office carries on as if nothing has changed.

Will the Minister admit that the flight will include people who were entitled to British nationality—including one individual who was in the care system—but could not access it because of complicated and expensive nationality procedures? When will access to British citizenship finally be made affordable and simple? Does the Minister accept that many on the flight have a far stronger connection to Britain than to Jamaica? As Stephen Shaw would put it, many are more British than they are Jamaican. Will the Minister confirm that the flight will leave 41 British children separated from their fathers and nine British citizens without partners or husbands? Is it not time to look at the legislation again?

Finally, written answers confirm that the Home Office has taken absolutely no interest in what happened to the people on its last charter flight to Jamaica. Is that not the height of irresponsibility?

[Kevin Foster]

Again, I am clear that we have checked that there is no one on the flight who would be eligible for British citizenship or nationality. We would not be able to deport them if they were. The cases have been through the courts. Again, I should make it clear that the law is very clear, the offences committed are very clear and we are very clear that the Home Office applies the rules based on the criminality, not the nationality, of the offender.

Windrush Compensation Scheme (Expenditure) Bill

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Money resolution & Programme motion
Monday 10th February 2020 Commons Chamber

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

It is good to have the opportunity to take part in this debate. Of course we must pass this Bill, because the victims of the outrageous Windrush fiasco must be compensated, but it must be done fairly and fully, and compensation must accurately reflect the impact that this scandal has had on their lives. It must happen as quickly as possible, because the process has been slow and drawn out. I concur absolutely with the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee and the shadow Home Secretary about the operation of a hardship fund.

I recognise that a lot of work and consultation has gone into designing the scheme, but although that work is welcome, it does not mean that we have to accept that the design is right. Indeed, the changes to the scheme announced last Thursday illustrate that changes can and should be made. Scottish National party Members think that those changes were steps in the right direction, but that others are required. The Bill gives us the opportunity to air those concerns. I will set out a few examples in a moment, but first it is important to put those concerns into context, and to reflect on what it is that we are compensating victims for and who the victims are.

Windrush must be among the most outrageous acts of negligence by a Government Department impacting its own people in modern British political history. In fact, the word “negligence” probably does not do it justice at all. “Recklessness” would be closer to the mark. As we have heard, the consequences have been disastrous: people wrongly subjected to the hostile environment; homes and jobs lost; and healthcare, pensions and access to social security refused. Some victims were subject to immigration enforcement, including the serious trauma of immigration detention. Some were removed or deported. Some felt compelled to leave. Some were refused re-entry when they went abroad for what they thought would be short periods of time. People were prevented from travelling to visit dying relatives or to attend funerals.

Why do we say that these harms were caused by recklessness on the part of the Government? Quite simply, because the Home Office knew that the implications of their ever more noxious hostile environment policies included that significant groups of people who were lawfully in the UK would be caught up in its tentacles. The Department was warned via inspectorate reports, by the 2014 “Chasing Status” report by the Legal Action Group, by high commissioners, by analysis of the right to rent carried out by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, and by others. The National Audit Office was clear that there were briefings to Ministers about the many thousands of lawful residents who did not hold biometric residence permits from at least 2013. As the NAO said, outsourced hostile environment policies

“predictably carried a risk of impacting on individuals who were, in fact, entitled to residence, but who did not have the necessary documents. The Department had a duty of care to ensure that people’s rights and entitlements were recognised...We do not consider that the Department adequately considered that duty in the way that it introduced immigration policy.”

In short, it seems that all the warning signs were ignored or deemed acceptable collateral damage. People quite rightly ask, “If all these warnings had related to white middle-class people with a louder voice, would those warnings have been ignored?” Instead, it was not until they were shamed into action by journalists such as Amelia Gentleman that the Government actually started to respond.

We also need to consider who these victims are. In the light of the history, I think it has already been accepted that there is little doubt that Windrush victims will have no trust in the immigration and nationality system or in the Home Office. In fact, they would be entitled to despise institutions that have heaped so much misery upon them. That is not the only thing we need to consider and remember about the victims when we go on to assess the design of the compensation scheme. Speaking to those who are working with and supporting the Windrush victims through the compensation scheme, it is repeatedly pointed out to me that we are often talking about fairly or even very marginalised, and sometimes vulnerable, individuals. Many are poor or not well off; hence there was no need for passports for foreign trips. Vulnerabilities can range from poor literacy all the way through to signs of post-traumatic stress disorder because of the ordeals that people have been put through. Many will have had other experiences of discrimination and racism in housing, employment and criminal justice.

Against that background, the compensation scheme must be generous and comprehensive, and also designed to allow even the most marginalised, terrified and vulnerable to access it. There is a workable scheme on which we can build, but many have expressed concern about its design, and I hope the Government will listen. The Minister has already made changes, and I hope we will continue to consider possible improvements to the scheme.

I will briefly mention a few concerns, many of which we will come back to in more detail in Committee. First, on the independence of the compensation scheme, it would surely be better for it to be operated independently of the Home Office. We are asking people to contact and apply to the same Department that caused them such misery in the first place. If the scheme must remain within the Home Office, then there must surely be strong, independent routes to challenge the decisions that it makes. We are far from convinced that the scheme has that feature.

Secondly, we need to scrutinise the application process. Has enough been done to ensure that it is as simple as possible? The application form declares that the Home Office does not think that people will need an immigration lawyer to complete it, yet question 1 alone asks about lapsed status, settled status, whether people were ordinarily resident, and the right of abode. How many people in this Chamber could provide a coherent description of all those concepts?

That leads me on to a further issue: funding for groups advising and supporting people to make applications. Funding for Citizens Advice is well and good, but it is not sufficient. People should have a choice. For some victims, Citizens Advice was one of the organisations unable to help them to rectify their terrible situations in the first place—not, I should say, through any fault of Citizens Advice. It is welcome that the Government are tendering for advice services, but I hope that it is possible for a range of different providers to be selected and not just one.

[Suella Braverman (Fareham) (Con)]

In 2018, the Government appointed Martin Forde, QC, to independently advise them on the compensation scheme, and the Government have also committed to having an independent adviser to oversee its delivery. Is the hon. Gentleman challenging the views of the independent expert who has made the recommendations, which the Government have largely followed?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

As I said at the outset, I welcome all the consultation that is happening. I also welcome the role that Martin Forde has played, but we do not have to simply take every chapter and verse of the design that he comes up with. Ultimately, we are the politicians and this is the Government, and we can do things slightly differently if we wish to. The Immigration Minister has already made some changes to the scheme. All I am saying is that there are changes that can make the scheme fairer and more generous, and I will continue to make that case. I absolutely respect the role that Martin Forde has played and I do not mean to diminish it in any way at all.

As we speak just now, lots of folk are having to be helped through the system by pro bono lawyers, volunteers and even students. Not only are difficult concepts of immigration and nationality law involved, but the process of documenting losses and damages is often not easy. Given the significance of these applications to the people making them, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), it is only right that legal aid funding be made available. Ultimately, is it not a bit rich for the Home Office, an institution that completely failed to understand its own immigration rules and laws despite employing an army of policy experts and lawyers, then to turn round and tell victims of those failures that they do not need legal advice? The Home Secretary herself referred in her speech to applications being complicated. That is why legal aid funding should be made available to all the victims.

The fourth issue is the time limit. We welcome the Minister putting the deadline back—the original might even have been capable of legal challenge—but we suspect that there may need to be a further rethink in future. We are also concerned that if a deadline remains, there must be generous provision for those who miss it and a very low threshold for considering reasonable excuses. That is necessary, given the vulnerabilities and isolation that many victims will have suffered. It is also necessary because the Home Office has limited its proactive search for victims to Caribbean countries, despite being told by the NAO that its reasons for not proactively searching for victims elsewhere do not add up. That must be revisited.

Fifthly, we share concerns that many of the limits, tariffs and caps in the scheme are wholly inappropriate. The range of immigration application fees that are recoverable is unduly restrictive, and so too are limits placed on legal fees related to those applications. Some of the lump sums seem surprisingly low. Right across access to social security benefits, housing, employment and education, we cannot accept restrictions on possible total awards. Why is the scheme not aiming to come closer to providing restitution for actual losses, rather than very limited broadbrush payments?

Sixthly, we are concerned about provisions that allow for compensation to be restricted for what essentially seems to be a form of contributory negligence, as well as for serious criminality. On the first point, how can it be right for the Home Office to say, “If only you’d contacted us, things would have been sorted,” and use that as a reason to reduce compensation? For many, simply looking at the eye-watering application fees would have been sufficient to think that fixing the situation was impossible. Others who did try to contact the Home Office to remedy their status ended up the subject of enforcement action and in immigration detention.

It seems that unsuccessful applicants were automatically placed in the migration refusal pool and therefore were at risk of removal, so who can blame people for not attempting the dangerous and seemingly insurmountable task of proving status and contacting the Home Office? After all, this Department was sending out “Go home” vans, but now we are saying in retrospect that at that same time, people suspected of being here illegally should have got on the phone to the Home Office to rectify their situation. That seems wholly unrealistic. The insistence that people would usually have contacted the Home Office within 30 days bears little resemblance to reality and could have severe implications for significant loss of earnings claims. We welcome the Minister’s announcement that the range of actions that the Home Office will accept as attempted mitigation is to be broadened, but we seriously question whether any such deductions are appropriate at all.

On criminality, we are unconvinced by the appropriateness of the provisions. Part of the guidance on this has been redacted from public view, and another section refers to situations where the

“offending was of such a nature that makes it inappropriate to make an award in whole or in part”,

which is vague and lacks clarity. As a point of principle, the fact that someone has a criminal record surely does not mean that the person is not owed compensation when they are wronged by the Government.

Finally, there is a huge issue over what caseworker guidance says about the standard of proof in certain cases. As a general rule, the guidance states that caseworkers should

“take a holistic view of the claim where there is a lack of supporting evidence and decide the claim on a balance of probability.”

That is welcome and as it should be, but a list of exceptions is then provided, including claims for loss of earnings, reimbursement of private medical fees, reimbursement of international student fees and loss of access to banking. The guidance demands that caseworkers

“must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt before making an award in these cases.”

That is the criminal standard of proof. I cannot for the life of me see why a loss of earnings claim for a Windrush victim should require to be proved to the criminal standard of proof, rather than the usual civil standard. That seems pretty outrageous, and I look forward to hearing why that is in the guidance. Members have raised various other issues with the scheme, and I look forward to exploring those in Committee.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend has laid out issues with the scheme as it stands and improvements that could be made. There are still ongoing cases with the Home Office where people such as highly skilled migrants have lost huge sums of money, had to fight in the courts to get their status proven and had decisions overturned in their favour. Does he agree that there needs to be a further look at compensation schemes where the Home Office has clearly got it wrong?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

My hon. Friend makes a perfectly valid point, and I fully support what she says about those individuals.

That brings me nicely to the concluding part of my speech. The Secretary of State was right to say that compensation cannot be an end to the matter. As one victim, Judy Griffith, said:

“I do think that we deserve compensation. But there is no amount that can truly reflect the fear and anxiety, frustration and ill health we have suffered.”

Indeed, the way we respond to what has happened must go way beyond the compensation scheme. It is about completely overhauling the institutions and hostile environment policies that led to this situation in the first place. Instead of defending the right to rent scheme in court, the Government should be scrapping it. It is about asking whether the public sector equality duty, at 10 years old, is working properly, particularly when it comes to making immigration policy; I think it is self-evident that it is not.

It is about listening to concerns that many EU citizens will face an even worse prospect if they miss the settled status scheme deadline; the shadow Home Secretary was right about that. It is about ensuring urgent publication of the Williams lessons learned review and responding. It is about no longer pricing people out of their rights, especially their right to British citizenship. And it is about a full-blown apology—not just for the fact that this all happened, but for the fact that Government caused it to happen.

Prevent Programme

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight this issue, and the good work that we see in such communities is a huge credit to the organisation and the people he has mentioned. We are determined to make sure that the police know they have our full support in doing all the work they do to ensure they protect vulnerable people and keep our country safe. I think their independence is a key part of the structure of that. We thank them for what they do, and we thank such organisations, as my hon. Friend has so rightly represented.

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

Is the Minister able to state unequivocally that the Ukrainian coat of arms will now be removed from this document?

[Brandon Lewis]

As I said earlier, that document has been withdrawn. The police are reviewing it, but I am not going to interfere with the independence of our police. This is a document drafted by the police for the police and we respect their independence, but they have outlined that they regret this happening and have explained why it happened so I do not expect to see this kind of mistake again in future.