Refugee Children: Family Reunion in the UK

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2018 Westminster Hall

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

Thank you, Dame Cheryl, for chairing today’s debate so astutely, so we could hear so many powerful and thoughtful speeches. I pay a warm tribute to the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) for introducing the debate, for his powerful advocacy on the issue, and for securing such an amazing turnout. I emphasise that on Friday 16 March we have a significant opportunity to change the rules on family reunion and legal aid for family reunion applications. If as many hon. Members as possible could put that date in their diary, that would be greatly appreciated.

It is good to debate this important issue again; it must be the third or fourth time we have debated it in the last couple of years, which illustrates the strength of feeling among hon. Members and their discontent with the rules. That discontent essentially falls into two parts: first, discontent about the difficulties that families face in going through with a family reunion, even when people qualify under the rules; and secondly, discontent about the rules being drawn too tightly.

Before I touch on each of those aspects, it is important to recall how important family reunion is. It is important that people applying to come here can be reunited with family members, because very often that provides a safe, legal route to a place of safety—a route that would not otherwise exist. It is also vital for the family members who are here already. Their lives can be made unbearable, as hon. Members have attested, and their integration can be made much more difficult by separation from, and the suffering of, their loved ones who are unable to join them here.

Family reunion helps to achieve the aim, which I think we in this Chamber all share, of reducing the number of dangerous journeys that have to be made. It also undermines the people smugglers’ business model. After all, which people are most likely to do anything open to them—to move heaven and earth—to get to the UK? People in dangerous or difficult situations who have a reason to be here in the form of family. If there is no safe, legal route, people with family in the UK will be the most likely to turn to the people traffickers.

I turn to the first issue that I outlined: the procedures for those who are fortunate enough to qualify. As I will show, the requirements can be complex, and it is not straightforward for a person to prove that they meet them, as the Red Cross explained in an excellent report. Even proving what would seem a very simple part of the rules, such as two people’s relationship, is sometimes not easy. In the case of children, we instinctively think of a birth certificate, but what if someone is from, say, Eritrea? How do the UK Government form a view on whether to give such documents evidential weight? Will we need an expert report on the authenticity of that birth certificate? Should we get a DNA test? What if the child is adopted or is a stepchild? All that is without even thinking about language and cultural barriers, never mind levels of education.

I used to be an immigration solicitor, and had the fortune to assist a number of families with such applications. It was always clear as day to me that legal aid to provide that advice was appropriate. I am glad that it is still available in Scotland for family reunion applications; it should be available in the rest of the United Kingdom, given how important and difficult these issues are.

Turning to the various rules that apply to children seeking to be reunited here, part 11 of the immigration rules allows for pre-flight children who are under 18 to obtain refugee family reunion with parents here. It is a solid enough starting point, but even here there are some questions. For example, why should a 17-year-old who moved out of the family house to go and study, just months before his family fled, be excluded from the scope of the rules? Much more fundamentally, why draw the line at 18? Everyone here would be horrified to be told that their 18-year-old had to be left behind, while their 15 and 17-year-old siblings were able to come to the United Kingdom. A more generous option would, of course, be to make the provision available for those up to the age of 21 or 25, or we could apply a test of whether the adult child was still part of the household, and/or a dependent. There are different perspectives, but unfortunately, again, UK immigration rules seem to take one of the most restrictive options possible.

If someone does not qualify under the general family reunion rules, they look to part 8 of the immigration rules, where there are alternatives for children. Here is probably where we find some of the greatest injustices. For children seeking to join other relatives, such as siblings or uncles and aunts, the tests are infinitely more difficult. They must prove not just their relationship, but

“serious and compelling family or other considerations which make exclusion of the child undesirable”.

Crucially, the sponsor must also be able to prove an ability to maintain and accommodate the child without recourse to public funds.

Hon. Members will all have had—some spoke about this—new refugees at their surgeries. An example would be a Somali couple, who have been here just a few months with younger teenage children. They may be making good attempts to integrate and learn English, but may be hindered by the distress of separation from a niece or sister who they fear for and believe is vulnerable without other family support. The idea that they will be able to meet all those financial tests so that their sister or niece can arrive here is ridiculous.

If there are serious and compelling considerations that make exclusion of a child undesirable—itself a tough test—surely in no circumstances should there be an additional financial test. That test can force families into horrible choices. What if the family has enough financial resources or accommodation to meet the tests in relation to one child, but not a second? Just this morning, I heard of a family forced to make such a horrendous decision. They could pick one child, but not both; otherwise, the financial and accommodation tests would not be met.

Injustice is served not only to kids seeking to join relatives other than their parents, but to adult children seeking to join their parents. Those 18 and 19-year-old kids have to meet some even more fiendishly challenging legal tests: they have to show that they are in not “exceptional compassionate circumstances”, but “the most exceptional compassionate circumstances”. Think about a 19-year-old daughter living alone in a refugee camp in Kenya. Today, those are hardly exceptional circumstances, never mind the most exceptional, but I think most people in the Chamber would think that she should qualify for family reunion. How many of us could honestly say that if we were in the position of the Somali couple to whom I referred, we would not be tempted to resort to the people smugglers, if that was the only route by which we could get our daughter to the United Kingdom? Government policy is, in essence, in danger of driving parents to make those decisions.

The same maintenance and accommodation requirements risk an even more horrendous situation. Imagine that a 19-year-old in a refugee camp has been seriously harmed. How can it be that we might end up with a decision that says, “I acknowledge that you are living alone in the most exceptional compassionate circumstances, but we’re still not going to let you in, because you aren’t earning enough money yet to meet the financial thresholds”? That would be an incredible injustice.

Families are left to make an application to the entry clearance officer outside the rules, desperately hoping that he or she will exercise discretion and allow that 19-year-old in anyway. The Government say that this is the answer to the problem, but there were only 21 cases in 2015 and 49 in 2016 where such applications were successful. In the circumstances we face, those are worryingly low numbers. If the rules are complex, the guidance on how to exercise discretion, which again requires exceptional circumstances and recognises that grants will be rare, is even more so. We also have to acknowledge that those successful in applications outside the rules will be granted much more restrictive rights than if they had been successful under the rules.

If there were time, I would also criticise the unfairness towards refugees who have been granted UK citizenship and are deprived of family reunion rights. I could also criticise rules on post-flight children, which are restrictive as well. I join other Members in criticising the intransigence of the Government in refusing to allow refugee children who are here to sponsor their parents to come here, a situation that the Home Affairs Committee has described as “perverse”. The Government’s argument that it would create a pull factor is not based on any evidence, and is horrendously unethical. At the end of the day, we need to do what is just and fair. The idea that we should treat people—children in this case—unfairly simply to disincentivise other people, including children, from seeking asylum in our country is pretty outrageous.

I hope that the Minister is listening to the arguments that have been powerfully made by hon. Members from across the House. If not, I hope that hon. Members will join us on Friday 16 March in ensuring that progressive change is made to the UK’s family reunion rules.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)]

Thank you, Dame Cheryl. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney) on securing this debate and I reassure him I will certainly leave him a couple of minutes at the end.

I start by thanking everyone here today who has contributed with thought-provoking and compassionate contributions. I have listened carefully to the many accounts of how important it has been for refugees in Members’ own constituencies to have their family members join them, to support their wellbeing and their integration into society. Like other Front-Bench spokespeople, I will not pick out individual contributions at length as I am conscious that I am very short on time, but I would reassure hon. Members that during the past five weeks or so that I have been in this role, I have taken the time to meet representatives from charities in my own constituency and nationally. I was particularly moved to meet Lana and Yameena, two Southampton University students. Lana had very specific experience of refugees when she was living in France and her family had welcomed a number of young refugees into her home. She was very clear to describe them to me as her brothers.

I assure the House that we are listening to the concerns about refugee family reunion. I know from my early discussions with non-governmental organisations and international organisations the importance placed on the issues, and that has been reinforced during our debate today. They are also issues my predecessor discussed on many occasions with NGOs, in the context of our wider asylum and resettlement strategy. I look forward to continuing that important work.

Several colleagues have focused on the question of extending the family reunion criteria, which is the subject of Baroness Hamwee’s private Member’s Bill and of the private Member’s Bill from the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil)—if the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law) can be nervous about the pronunciation of that, he can probably imagine how I feel—which was introduced earlier this week and is due to come before this House for Second Reading on 16 March.

The Government’s policy objective for refugee family reunion remains to ensure that we are able to bring together pre-flight families and dependents who are in precarious or compelling circumstances. We must ensure that our policies support those who need our protection who cannot remain in their country or region of origin. I would therefore ask hon. Members to reflect on the policy objective of the private Member’s Bill, because the proposals, as currently drafted, would go far beyond that. It could lead to the policy being used by significantly more people who have no protection needs or who are not necessarily in precarious positions.

The Government strongly support the principle of family unity and we have a comprehensive approach to refugee family reunion set out in the immigration rules and our family reunion policy. Our starting point is that family reunion is a matter for immigration rules and policy, rather than primary legislation. Many hon. Members have highlighted that the family reunion rules provide only for immediate family members of refugees, but the immigration rules and resettlement schemes provide for extended family members to join their family here, if they are in the most precarious and dangerous circumstances.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The Minister is right to highlight that there are other routes available to different family members, but will she comment on the maintenance and accommodation test? Even if an applicant can show that they are living in the most compelling compassionate circumstances, that application could still be rejected because the sponsor in the United Kingdom does not meet a certain financial or accommodation threshold. Surely that is an unjust way to go about things.

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that with me. That is one of the points that I will take away with me from today’s debate.

We provide for British citizens to sponsor family members, there is provision to grant visas outside the rules in exceptional cases, and the mandate refugee scheme enables those recognised by the UNHCR as refugees to join close family members here in the UK.

I have noted the concerns raised today that so-called family reunification under the Dublin regulations may no longer be available post Brexit. However, Dublin does not confer immigration status simply because an individual has a family member in the UK. It is a mechanism for deciding the member state responsible for considering an asylum claim. It is for those seeking asylum and not those granted refugee status.

Having said that I was not going to pick up particular points, I would like to pick up on those made by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), who raised the Sandhurst treaty. Many Members have referenced Dublin III and the Dubs scheme. I was fortunate in 2015-16 to be a member of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe with Alf Dubs—he insisted that I call him Alf at all times, so I apologise if I refer to him incorrectly today. Travelling abroad with Lord Dubs was an incredibly instructive experience. The Sandhurst treaty was signed very soon after I came into this role—I think within the first two weeks.

I reassure the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport that we have committed £3.6 million to enable us to strengthen our co-operation with France on the operation of the Dublin regulation and the development fund, and to work with it to identify projects that support genuine claims through the Dublin process. A significant part of the Sandhurst treaty was about looking at the whole route for refugees. It is crucially important that we do not look at it in isolation either in the middle east and north Africa region or in Calais. We have to look at the entire journey that individuals make.

On the 480 children that will be accepted under Dubs—the number was at 220 when I came into this role—we are determined to ensure that, by changing the date and working closely with Greece and Italy, we fulfil that requirement. I regard it to be an absolute priority to take the 480 young people we have committed to.

Anyone transferred under the Dublin regulation will be expected to leave the UK if they are found not to need protection. Our family reunion rules will continue to enable immediate family members to reunite with their loved ones in the UK safely, regardless of the country in which they are based.

Pretty much every hon. Member raised legal aid and the cost of legal representation for family reunion cases. On 30 October, the Lord Chancellor announced the start of a review of legal aid reforms, which will include an assessment of the changes to the scope of legal aid for immigration cases, and will report later this year. Although family reunion cases generally do not fall within the scope of the legal aid scheme, exceptional case funding may be made available where it is legally required. We are committed to providing clear guidance and application forms to support applicants through the family reunion process, and are working with key partners such as the British Red Cross and UNICEF to improve the process for considering family reunion applications.

It is vital that our focus remains on those most in need of our protection—particularly those fleeing conflict. The Government have invested significantly in supporting the most vulnerable refugees through our resettlement programmes, which offer safe and legal routes to protection and are designed to keep families together. By 2020, we will have resettled 20,000 refugees from Syria. We announced this week that we are at the halfway point, so 10,000 vulnerable families have been resettled in this country and a further 3,000 children and families have been resettled from the wider MENA region. Last year, we provided 6,212 people with protection under all our resettlement schemes. Over the past five years we have issued 24,700 family reunion visas, and since 2010 we have provided 49,830 people with protection status in the UK—they are entitled to apply for their qualifying members to join them.

I believe that our comprehensive approach to refugee family reunion already caters for the types of case that hon. Members are concerned about and provides safe and legal routes for families to reunite here. However, we need to concentrate our efforts on ensuring that our existing resettlement schemes are used to full effect, and that the current rules work properly and effectively. In that way, we will continue to help those who need it most.

I have already met representatives from UNICEF and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. I thank the Refugee Council for sending me the report “Safe but Not Settled”, which looks at how the separation of refugees in the UK from their family members affects their successful integration into their new life in the UK. I look forward to further meetings with representatives of the Refugee Council, the Red Cross and other non-governmental organisations to discuss the important issue of family reunion in the coming weeks.

I therefore ask hon. Members from both sides of the House and representatives of NGOs to continue working with the Government to build on the existing family reunion policy and process to make our resettlement schemes and immigration rules work in the most effective way. In that way, we can ensure that more families are reunited as quickly, legally and safely as possible.

Proscription of Hezbollah

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 25th January 2018 Commons Chamber

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

This has been a passionate but thoughtful debate, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) and her colleagues on bringing it to the House.

Members have repeatedly made it clear that Hezbollah in its broadest sense has engaged in atrocious terrorist activity. They have highlighted attacks in the middle east and beyond. In 2012 in Bulgaria, a bus of Israeli tourists was blown up. In Buenos Aires in the 1994, the bombing of the Israeli embassy was followed by the detonation of explosives outside the Argentinian-Israeli Mutual Association. Plots and activities have extended to Thailand, Nigeria, Cyprus and many other countries. Those arguing in favour of the motion have made a powerful case for full proscription. The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and others have highlighted the knock-on consequences of sticking only with partial proscription for law enforcement here, including the seizing of financial assets.

Is there any possible counter-argument? In supporting partial proscription, the Home Office under the previous Labour Government pointed to the

“legitimate political, social and humanitarian role Hizballah plays in Lebanon”,

while in a debate just before Christmas, when this issue was raised, the Security Minister pointed out that Hezbollah formed part of the Government of Lebanon. That has meant that much of this debate has focused on whether Hezbollah is just one organisation and whether it is realistic to divide it into political, military and terrorist parts, as some countries do, including the UK—but not just the UK—for the purposes of proscription. In the December debate, the Minister himself said:

“If…the non-military wing is viewed as not separate…we will review the situation, use the law and take the required steps.”—[Official Report, 19 December 2017; Vol. 633, c. 1018.]

Members have argued today that these are false and unreal distinctions, pointing even to the rhetoric of Hezbollah itself and arguing that there is a unified decision-making power in the Consultative Council.

The next question is: does it matter that there is a degree of unity at the top, if there are clearly distinct branches that can be separated? It is only fair to record that different countries have taken different approaches to that question. For the Netherlands, as we have heard, it did matter and was conclusive. In its annual report in 2004, its general intelligence and security services stated:

“It can also be concluded that Hezbollah’s political and terrorist wings are controlled by one co-ordinating council. This means that there is indeed a link between these parts of the organisation. The Netherlands has changed its policy and no longer makes a distinction between the political and terrorist Hezbollah branches”.

In fairness, not all countries take that approach. It is not, for example, the approach taken in Australia, where what it refers to as the External Security Organisation of Hezbollah is listed as a terrorist organisation but not Hezbollah as a whole. In the statement explaining their decision, the Australian Government do not seek to argue that they are very distinct organisations. They describe on one hand a

“pragmatic political organisation with deep roots in Lebanese society”

that

“maintain a social welfare network that encompasses education and health services”,

but at the same time include what they describe as “a branch”—the ESO—responsible for

“the planning, coordination and execution of terrorist attacks against Hizballah’s enemies outside of Lebanon”.

Despite the fact that the Australian Government take the view that the ESO is a branch of a bigger organisation, they simply chose to proscribe the branch rather than the whole organisation. So different Governments can come to different views.

As some hon. Members have pointed out, it is relevant to note that under the 2000 Act, the Home Secretary has powers but not a duty to proscribe organisations—it is a “may”, not a “must”. As some have alluded to, one wonders whether there are other considerations at play here, including a desire to keep certain diplomatic channels open and concerns about maintaining stability in Lebanon. In the past, the President of Lebanon has asked the EU and its member countries not to proscribe Hezbollah, describing it as an essential component of Lebanese society. However, in response, the right hon. Member for Enfield North fairly points out that countries that do proscribe the whole group continue to play a diplomatic role in the country—things do not have to end there. So I do not envy the Minister the task he has or the decisions he has to make.

One problem I have raised before in debates on the proscription of terrorist organisations is that the information hon. Members have at their disposal is, I suspect, but a drop in the ocean compared with what is available to the Minister making the decision, and I think that was essentially the point the hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) alluded to in his intervention. I wonder whether there may be a role for the Intelligence and Security Committee in scrutinising such decisions and in advising Members more generally.

In conclusion, I congratulate hon. Members on bringing about this debate and on posing serious and difficult questions to the Government. I am sympathetic to the case they make, and I await the Minister’s response with interest, because it is fair to say that, so far, there has not been a coherent counter-argument.

Draft Investigatory Powers (Interception by Businesses etc. for Monitoring and Record-keeping Purposes) Regulations 2018 Draft Investigatory Powers (Technical Capability) Regulations 2018 Draft Investigatory Powers (Review of Notices and Technical Advisory Board) Regulations 2018 Draft Investigatory Powers (Codes of Practice) Regulations 2018

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 25th January 2018 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. We all agree that we must give our intelligence, security and police services the tools needed to fight serious crime and terrorism, and I pay tribute to the amazing work they do day in, day out on our behalf. However, it is also vital that any new powers are proportionate, focused and in accordance with the law.

The Investigatory Powers Bill—I sat on the Joint Committee to which the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Torfaen, referred—contained some important and welcome developments, including those set out by the Minister. It consolidated and, in some places, clarified existing law and introduced new oversight procedures. Despite what the Minister says, it was also a very controversial piece of legislation, and there were many important debates on where the balance lies between empowering security and intelligence services and protecting individual liberties and privacy.

My party had huge issues with the developments regarding the bulk powers contained in the Bill and, of course, with new powers regarding internet connection records. Ultimately, we voted against the Bill. Whether one supported or opposed the Bill, we can all agree that such debates are not only difficult and important, but very complex and technical. I think that the debate should continue.

Excepting the draft Investigatory Powers (Interception by Businesses etc. for Monitoring and Record-keeping Purposes) Regulations 2018, we have concerns about the scope of some of the regulations, which outline practice in relation to some of the powers we objected to during debates on the Bill. For example, industry has raised concerns with us about the scope of the technical capability notices that might be issued. Arguably, they contain new and slightly broader powers than those envisaged in the Bill.

The more fundamental point is that we have a problem with process. Issues surrounding investigatory powers, including bulk acquisition, should receive the fullest scrutiny and, we believe, greater scrutiny than that which a Delegated Legislation Committee can provide. The Minister himself referred to 400 pages of codes and guidance. The ideal would be for fuller Committee scrutiny, including evidence gathering or at least a debate in the House. Although opposing the regulations will not deliver that, at the very least it will ensure that the whole House has the chance to vote. The Minister, as ever, has presented his case impeccably; we simply believe that the regulations should be tested more thoroughly. For those reasons, we will object to three of the four sets of regulations.

Draft Transfer of Responsibility for Relevant Children (Extension to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2017

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd January 2018 General Committees

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

It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Hosie. I congratulate the Minister on her recent appointment and wish her all the best. She takes up the immigration portfolio at an interesting time. It is good to be able to start on a positive note. The Scottish National party fully supports the statutory instrument and it is good to see that there has been close partnership working with the Scottish Government on this. It is right that responsibility for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children is shared fairly around the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. A fair share of responsibility might be an argument we could turn to in a different context and the migration crisis more generally.

Will the Minister have a look at the Scottish Government’s guardianship service for unaccompanied minors north of the border? Peer reviews have said that it has been successful and made a real difference to unaccompanied children, who have to deal with rules and legal challenges and issues. If she will have a look at that and see whether there is scope to roll it out in the rest of the United Kingdom, that would be a good first step in her new role.

Corrosive Substance Attacks

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 20th December 2017 Westminster Hall

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

It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Bailey, and to see the Minister in her place. Most importantly, I congratulate the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) on bringing this important and timely debate to the House, and on her comprehensive and passionate analysis of where we are and where we need to get to.

On a Saturday night back in October, three men in Abronhill in my constituency suffered life-changing burns during an attack with corrosive liquid, after the front door to their flat was kicked in and they were confronted by two men in dark clothing with their faces covered. It was a shocking reminder that this type of appalling attack can happen anywhere. Until then, I was probably in the same twilight zone as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) in thinking that this happens somewhere else. Although, as we have heard, this new phenomenon so far has wreaked its tragic consequences most significantly on the good people of London, it is only a matter of time before we see those consequences more widely spread, unless urgent action is taken to stamp it out now.

Hon. Members have set out the scale and the nature of the issue we must address, with 454 crimes related to noxious or corrosive fluids in London alone during 2016. The UK now has one of the highest rates of acid attacks in the world. As has been said, these attacks very often appear to be gang-related, which is a distinct feature of the challenge we face in the UK. What needs to be done? I very much welcome the steps that the Home Office has already taken to try to combat the recent increase in acid attacks in the UK. A proposed ban on the sale of the most corrosive substances to under-18s is certainly a step in the right direction, considering that the majority of acid attack suspects in the last couple of years have been aged between 10 and 19, if I am correct. The hon. Member for West Ham raised some very sensible questions in that respect.

The Government review on corrosive substance attacks and associated punishments is welcome. That review explains that, given the mixture of devolved and reserved competencies potentially involved here, the UK Government are working closely with the Scottish Government on this issue. Indeed, as Annabelle Ewing, the Minister for Community Safety and Legal Affairs in the Scottish Government, has said, it makes sense to adopt a

“consistent approach across the UK”

with regards to corrosive substance attacks.

I believe that the immediate priority must be to further clamp down on access to these substances. The hon. Member for West Ham said that that could be done in a fairly straightforward manner, by identifying the most harmful corrosive substances that are currently considered only reportable substances, such as sulphuric acid, and reclassifying them as regulated substances. That means that members of the public would require a licence to purchase such substances. Other options have been highlighted that would allow purchases of substances to be more easily traced, such as requiring the use of a bank card. We need research to be conducted to establish whether those corrosive substances that are found in everyday household items can be deconcentrated but maintain effectiveness. That could be an important contribution to what we are trying to achieve. We also need to think about online sales, perhaps requiring a collection point where age and licensing requirements can be enforced.

We need to examine the criminal law on possession and I look forward to seeing what evidence has been submitted to the Government review. Ultimately, there is a persuasive case for changing the criminal law so that the onus for proving the reason for carrying a corrosive substance lies on the carrier to provide an innocent explanation, rather than on the prosecution to have to uncover criminal intent, thus bringing the offence into line with knife crime legislation. The precise changes that should be made, and the range of responses that are required, should be informed by what comes out of the consultation.

As the hon. Lady highlighted, the final word must be with the victims, such as Katie Piper. Action to ensure appropriate support, including the immediate medical response and the long-term recovery plan, is necessary and absolutely is the right thing to do. Let us act quickly to ensure that the number of future victims is as close to zero as we can get. Ultimately, prevention is the best response and must be our priority. Obtaining a dangerous corrosive substance should not be as easy as it currently is, when one can just walk into a shop and select it from a shelf. Let us change that as quickly as we can.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 19th December 2017 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the background to the order and I am pleased to confirm that my party supports approving it this evening.

Our task in scrutinising draft instruments of this nature is not always straightforward, for the simple reason that the Secretary of State has access to information and intelligence that we as MPs for very good reasons cannot have access to. However, given what the Minister has said this evening, there is no reason for me to doubt that the Secretary of State has exercised her discretion appropriately in deciding to proscribe two groups in Bahrain and two in Egypt; nor, indeed, to doubt her conclusion on de-proscription, given the developments in Afghanistan, although the shadow Minister raised a couple of sensible questions on that issue.

I want to make two short points. First, this de-proscription again raises the question of why proscription orders never lapse, despite recommendations from the former independent reviewer of terrorism and the Home Affairs Committee, and despite the fact that the Home Office itself has acknowledged that at least 14 proscribed organisations no longer meet the statutory test.

Secondly, I accept that, when deciding whether to exercise powers under the Terrorism Act 2000, it is right for the Secretary of State to take into account the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism, but we have to look at the broader context in those countries as well. I echo the statement issued by the US State Department in June, when it too was taking action against individuals associated with the al-Ashtar Brigades in Bahrain. The statement said of the Government of Bahrain that

“we encourage the government to clearly differentiate its response to violent militia groups from its engagement with peaceful political opposition”.

There are no excuses for the grave human rights abuses being perpetrated by the Governments in both Bahrain and Egypt. If anything, those human rights abuses risk assisting the recruiters for the very terrorist organisations that we are seeking to clamp down on.

Asylum Accommodation

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 14th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I appreciate your calling me so early in the debate. It is with great pleasure that I follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). I congratulate her and her Committee on an excellent piece of work, which highlights a problem that should concern all of us, because in truth it affects all of us. We all, as taxpayers, pay for asylum accommodation, and we should all therefore, as taxpayers, be concerned about its quality.

The Home Affairs Committee has done the Government a great service in highlighting some of the problems with some of the accommodation. My right hon. Friend has been incredibly fair and patient in stating quite clearly that not all the accommodation is bad, and that some is of a different standard. The Committee has been thorough in its recommendations and I urge the Minister to revisit them, because they are very clear and some of them are worthy of again receiving proper scrutiny.

I speak as the Member for the constituency of Bristol West, where we have asylum seeker accommodation, but also as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on refugees. Earlier this year, the APPG published a report, “Refugees Welcome?”, which is about refugee integration. I am grateful that the Minister read that report and met me to discuss some of its findings. I am grateful to him for giving that time, but I want to remind him of some of the findings relating to accommodation.

The Home Affairs Committee referred to the Government’s review of

“the 28-day grace period for people granted refugee status and the Department of Work and Pensions’ ability to manage applications for support from people transferring out of the asylum system.”

I discussed that with the Minister, and he was keen to address it, so I welcome the comment in the Government’s response to the report that the Home Office has worked with the Department for Work and Pensions to establish a new process to address that. I will be grateful if the Minister updated us on how that process is progressing, particularly in relation to the issuing of national insurance numbers. That relates to accommodation, because refugees told us during our inquiry that they had difficulties if their 28-day move-on period, when they have to move out of their accommodation, was over before their national insurance numbers had arrived. Refugees spoke to me about having to try to hang around outside the accommodation they had previously lived at in order to wait for the postman to arrive, but not being able to take the post off them because that is not allowed. Those things were problems and continue to be, and they are related to accommodation and having to move out of it.

Our recommendation was that the 28-day move-on period should be extended. I understand why the Minister does not want to do that, but our counter-recommendation is therefore that, if we are going to stick to 28 days, that 28 days has to work. It has to mean that a national insurance number and a biometric residence permit are with that person in their asylum seeker accommodation on the day that they receive refugee status, otherwise we will create further problems for refugees down the line.

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

Does the hon. Lady agree that there will be significant problems owing to the roll out of universal credit, given the long waiting times involved in applying for that benefit?

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I completely agree, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point for me, because universal credit is a great concern. Again, I am grateful to the Minister for having allowed me to discuss that with him. I understand that the Government are trying to push the idea that nobody should be out of pocket because they can get an advance, but an advance is a loan. Refugees, by definition, do not usually have other family members to call on who have other funds that they can draw down. They are going to struggle, particularly if they have the compounding problems of a long wait for the first proper payment to come in and a 28-day move-on period, which means they will have often left the accommodation from which they made the application before that has been sorted out. The 28-day period does not marry up with the wait for universal credit, so yes, I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

My experience of some asylum seeker accommodation in my constituency—not all—and the evidence that the Home Affairs Committee has presented makes it hard for me to see why many refugees would feel welcome. The question in the title of our APPG’s report, “Refugees Welcome?”, would have to be answered: maybe not all the time. This is a fixable problem. I reiterate that, as taxpayers, we should be concerned when our money is paying for accommodation to protect people who have the legal right to apply for asylum in this country, but that accommodation is costing us a lot of money and is not fit for purpose. I urge the Government to revisit the Committee’s recommendations.

We have some fantastic organisations in Bristol West working with refugees, with some great volunteers and paid staff alike who are going the extra mile to help people to integrate and cope with often very difficult and unsatisfactory accommodation that sometimes just about meets the Home Office’s key performance indicators but really skirts up against the edges.

On visits that I made following the publication of the Home Affairs Committee report and during the course of the APPG on refugees inquiry, I came across accommodation where there are serious problems. I contacted Clearsprings, which is the provider in my area, to ask if I could make an announced visit. I wanted to give the provider a chance to show me its best stuff. The Clearsprings manager who took me round some of the accommodation—some of which I had seen before—did, to be fair, show me a mixture. Some of it was adequate—I would not call it great, but it was adequate—but some of it was not. I was concerned that action was taken only when an MP intervened and said to the Clearsprings manager, “This draught here, this rotten window frame, this problem here, which has clearly been a problem for the tenant for some time, needs to be fixed.” What about all the people in other accommodation—accommodation that we are paying for—that is substandard, unhealthy and unlikely to make refugees feel welcome or in any way integrated, and gives very bad value for money? An MP cannot intervene every step of the way. I am really concerned about that.

I saw some accommodation in which damp or heating were really problematic. In one home where a family was living, the mum had a very serious long-term health condition. Having a damp, underheated or difficult-to-heat home was making life miserable for her and severely impeding her chances of a safe recovery from that serious illness. Her husband was terribly upset by the fact that he felt he was failing to care for his wife at a time of serious illness. To be frank, the house was unheatable due to the fact that it had not been maintained.

I believe that home was unsuitable for long-term use, but the family had been there for a long time because their case had been deemed complex—or non-straightforward, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford said. That particularly worried me because children were living in some of the accommodation that was supposed to be temporary. I applaud the Home Office’s determination to stick to the six-month turnaround time, but once we have gone beyond that because a case is complex, people are still living in accommodation that is supposed to be temporary and is anyway substandard. There are real questions as to what we are doing to people who have fled war and conflict and to whom we have a legal obligation.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Hanson; you have evidently had a busy week. I welcome the opportunity to debate the Home Affairs Committee report, “Asylum accommodation”. I was pleased to have been involved in that inquiry. I thank my colleagues and the Committee Chair for all their work on that project, and for securing this debate.

In this debate I speak as the Scottish National party spokesperson, rather than as a member of the Committee; happily, from both perspectives, I fully endorse the Committee’s report and recommendations. Indeed, I pretty much endorse everything that every right hon. and hon. Member has said. Their critiques of the system have been knowledgeable, and there is absolutely no point in me repeating those powerful and damning criticisms.

Instead, let me address what needs to be done to resolve the problems that have been highlighted. Implementing the recommendations in our report would obviously be a significant start, but ultimately we need a radical rethink of how we approach asylum accommodation to address two overarching concerns.

First and foremost, we need to recognise that we have a system that demands that accommodation fit the budget, rather than ensuring that accommodation fits the asylum seeker. Secondly, the system drastically fails to address much more than provision of a roof and four walls—and even that, as we have heard, is often not up to scratch. There is so little in the system that takes into account broader issues of community cohesion, integration, or health and welfare concerns. In some instances, those other concerns are neglected absolutely; in others, local authorities and health boards have to pick up the pieces, and indeed the tab. “Savings”, as they are called under the COMPASS—commercial and operational managers procuring asylum support services—contracts, are almost certainly just part of a cost-shunting exercise.

As other right hon. and hon. Members have said, if the Minister really wants to make savings, he could consider letting those asylum seekers who have been waiting more than three months for a decision take up employment, pay for their own accommodation and pay tax. That would be good for asylum seekers, the communities in which they live, and the taxpayer.

As right hon. and hon. Members have suggested, there is a strong case for providing local authorities, perhaps in combination with other local service providers, with overarching responsibility and, crucially, proper funding for providing asylum accommodation in their locality. They are best placed to know in which areas accommodation would be appropriate, to link it with other necessary services, and to ensure accountability for standards. Of course, that would include the continued use of private accommodation. For all I know, it could continue to include the use of private contractors to assist in sourcing accommodation. Whereas private contractors now call the tune, that would place local authorities in control, but funding would have to match the cost of appropriate asylum accommodation, rather than accommodation matching a cut-price budget.

Glasgow City Council has a long track record of housing asylum seekers, under both the previous Labour administration and the new Scottish National party city government, which I am delighted to learn is determined to continue that tradition. In fact, that new SNP administration has intimated an interest in bidding for the new asylum accommodation contract in Scotland, but as right hon. and hon. Members have said, the odds are stacked against it. Most obviously, the contracts are divided up into huge chunks—this one is Scotland-wide—making it far from easy for a local authority, or even a combination of local authorities, to bid. A key concern is that the funding involved will not allow local authorities to deliver to the standards that they seek.

In fact, the new proposals seem so little different from the current contracts that they are more like COMPASS 1.1 than COMPASS mark 2. The system is set up in such a way that the current providers are absolutely odds-on favourites to win. It would be wise to pause and reflect on who we are talking about here, because along with the Home Office, those providers have to share the responsibility for the mess of the current contracts. One of them is also responsible for the scandal in the Medway secure training centre and the shocking scenes recorded at Brook House detention centre. Another provider was previously banned from bidding for Government contracts after involvement in an overcharging scandal. Will the Minister therefore meet senior representatives of Glasgow City Council when he is next in Scotland—if I understand correctly, that will be very soon—to discuss how such a public sector bid can be facilitated, so that we can at least ensure a level playing field?

I want to address what I understand to be the announcement of new move-on support to be provided to local authorities in 20 dispersal areas in England. Don’t get me wrong: any sort of support for local authorities that are taking a disproportionate share of asylum seekers is absolutely positive and very welcome, but a number of concerns have arisen. This comes just four days before the deadline for intimating interest in the contracts. For a start, that suggests that the Home Office has not for a moment contemplated that local authorities might want to bid for the new contracts. Otherwise, why would such a material consideration not have been made public many months ago?

Furthermore—perhaps the Minister can clarify this—I understand that most of the funding comes from an underspend at the Department for Communities and Local Government, and that it is essentially one year of funding, with local authorities expected to fund year two. As this is an England-only scheme, it will not be open to significant asylum dispersal areas such as Glasgow, Cardiff, Swansea, Newport and Belfast. Cumulatively, those five councils alone account for more than 6,000 asylum seekers.

Will the Minister confirm what discussions he has had with the devolved Administrations about that issue, and whether there will be Barnett consequentials? I assume that there must be, because if there are not, it signifies that the Home Office does not see this as really being about the reserved issue of asylum. Will he also confirm whether the money comes with any strings attached, such as obligations to share information with the Home Office? Although I welcome the additional funding, it does not yet seem to represent a joined-up, holistic approach to the challenge that local authorities face in housing asylum seekers.

I am a realistic person; I know that the Home Office has a lot on its plate, and is struggling to cope with what it does at the moment, never mind the prospect of Brexit, so let me focus finally on two changes that I hope it will consider, even in these difficult circumstances. First, as other hon. Members said, it would be totally unacceptable to sign up to 10-year contracts that bind our hands even if the mess continues, so there must be some sort of review or break clause after three or five years. Secondly, local authorities must be given genuine power, and resources to play a far more significant role in how asylum seekers are housed. Those two small but significant asks are crucial for asylum seekers, local authorities and their communities, and I very much hope that the Government will listen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

I am saying that confusing the completely unacceptable and abhorrent scenes that we saw in the “Panorama” programme on Brook House with somewhere like Barry House and the work done by organisations around the country on asylum accommodation is simply wrong. It is a mistake to go that way. It gives the wrong impression and confuses two very different things.

Ultimately, the United Kingdom has a proud history of providing an asylum system that should look to protect and respect the fundamental rights of individuals seeking refuge from persecution. I have always been clear that I personally and we as a Government are committed to continuing to ensure that destitute asylum seekers are accommodated in safe, secure and suitable accommodation. They should be treated with dignity while their claims are considered.

Since the current system for asylum accommodation contracts began in 2012, there have been changes. It is important to be aware that the contracts for the provision of housing for asylum seekers demand high standards of accommodation—in many areas, higher than in the social housing sector. I should also be clear that a third of all properties are inspected every year—more than in social housing—and where it is required, appropriate and requested, that is done in conjunction with local authorities, to involve them in the process. It is a requirement that every property be inspected every month by the accommodation provider. We encourage service users to report defects to their provider as they arise.

The contracts also contain strict time limits within which repairs must be made, and we in the Home Office have an inspection monitoring regime to ensure that those time scales are met. The vast majority of accommodation provided has been maintained at a good standard, but as with all housing, property defects and issues can and do occur. Where they do, our providers are required to rectify them. If any hon. Members have examples of where that has not been done, I want to know about them so that we can chase them through the system.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Does the Minister understand that despite this apparently significant sanctions regime, the fact that so many problems still seem to arise repeatedly and routinely across the country has utterly undermined faith in the inspection regime? Is that not all the more reason to hand the inspection role to an independent organisation or to local authorities?

[Brandon Lewis]

I was just going to say that since the Committee published its report almost a year ago and started its inquiry two years ago, a number of improvements have been made to the contracts and services provided. We must be cautious about accepting some of the things that we read and the stories that we hear. That is why, if somebody raises an issue, I always want to look into it to get the detail. For example, if there is a complaint about accommodation, I will want to chase it further, and I encourage Members to give me details.

We need to be cautious about some of the examples. An hon. Member mentioned a case involving blood on the walls. Members should be aware that we have investigated that allegation, which has been repeated a few times. When questioned about it, the service user who was living there confirmed that the marks on the wall turned out to be not blood at all, but spilt fruit juice. We need to ensure that we are clear that the issues are issues; if they are, we should deal with them.

My right hon. Friend and predecessor informed Parliament last year of a number of changes made to the contracts already in place, including the provision of additional funding to increase the number of housing officers. Members have asked about asylum case working and welfare. We are increasing the number of asylum caseworkers. In particular, we are focusing on non-straightforward cases to reduce the number of people awaiting a decision. The Chair of the Committee referred to the letter that she received from the Home Secretary outlining the work that we will be doing and delivering on, particularly relating to pregnant women. As the letter outlines, there are some complications, but that highlights why we should not have a blanket approach; we should look at every person’s individual needs. We are looking at changes such as additional funding for increasing the number of housing officers, providing more funding to allow providers to procure properties for the increased number of service users, and exploring different commercial models to encourage providers to procure additional accommodation. Those changes build on feedback from stakeholders, including people who provided the evidence found in the Committee’s excellent report.

As well as those contractual changes, the Home Office has continued to inspect properties to ensure that the accommodation is of the right standard. Interaction with service users has increased by asking questions about their treatment and by ensuring that they are aware of their rights and of how to raise any concerns that they might have. We will continue to meet non-governmental organisations to discuss housing issues formally at an advisory board that we run, and informally by providing avenues for them to raise issues with senior officials.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Given that those companies were all willing to sign up to a five-year contract plus a two-year extension, surely that should be the most that we consider? There is no need to sign us up to a 10-year contract this time round.

[Brandon Lewis]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates that there is a difference between the business model and the kind of investment that people make on a longer contract compared with a shorter contract. That does not change my point about wanting to get the balance right to ensure that we have a contract length that encourages and requires organisations to make good, solid investments.

With those contracts, we will make a number of improvements as a direct result of stakeholder feedback, which I will outline before I give the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford a chance to reply. I will respond more fully to the Committee on the points that I have not been able to cover. It is important to note that we will require more proactive property management and will continue to operate a rigorous inspection regime. We will stipulate more standardisation in the initial accommodation estate—the full-board accommodation that many asylum seekers enter if they have an immediate housing need. That will ensure that there are dedicated areas for women and families and more adapted rooms for people with specific needs, including pregnant women.

The new contracts will improve service user orientation to help them live in their communities and access local services. Underpinning that will be better data sharing with relevant agencies so that they are in a better position to join people to the services they need, which covers the point that a number of hon. Members made. Building on enhancements to safeguarding that have been put in place across the immigration system in recent years, other changes will focus on safeguarding and supporting vulnerable service users. They include the introduction of standardised health checks to identify people with specific physical and mental health needs, and more uniform training for providers’ staff on safeguarding best practice.

Alongside the new accommodation and support contracts, we will introduce a national contract to provide users with advice and assistance for completing applications. It will support service users through the end-to-end asylum support system, help them to co-ordinate the issues and problems that they encounter, and ensure that they are referred to the right people so that those problems can be resolved.

The advice, issues resolution and eligibility contract will provide a single contact point for service users to register complaints—thereby building a relationship—and to report problems. It will build on the work that we in the Home Office have undertaken with the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that newly recognised refugees can swiftly access benefits and employment support services. We will commence procurement for that contract in 2018.

I am grateful for hon. Members’ interest and input in the debate and for the passion and clarity with which they made their cases. That shows a common view that in principle, we want to ensure that we provide for people seeking asylum. That experience means that when they gain asylum, they can take part in and make a valuable contribution to society and have a valued life of their own. That is something that we should be proud of as a country and I am determined to continue that.

Online Hate Speech

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 30th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is true that we all listen more carefully to criticism from our friends than from people with whom we do not have a relationship. I hope that the Prime Minister’s comments will have some impact on the President. It is interesting to note my hon. Friend’s advice regarding Twitter accounts; I am sure that many of us share his view.

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

The Scottish National party has long taken the view that the current President of the United States should not be afforded a state visit to the United Kingdom, and yesterday’s actions have reinforced that absolutely. We respect the office of the President of the United States, which is a fantastic country and ally. However, the sharing of tweets by an extremist, offensive and racist organisation is not fitting of someone holding such high office and must be condemned unequivocally. We welcome Downing Street’s suggestion that the tweets were wrong, but we call for the Government to go further because is not one of the key dangers of a state visit that we have absolutely no idea what the President will say or tweet next and before he visits? What does he actually need to say or tweet before the idea of a state visit is ditched once and for all?

Oral Answers to Questions

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Monday 20th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

I am sure that the right hon. Lady will appreciate from previous answers that she has received that it is not just a matter of having empty spaces, but it is good news that children are now coming through from both France and Greece. As I have pointed out before, these other countries are sovereign states, and it is absolutely right that we do things in a way that works for them. I have been to Greece and to Italy to talk to people about what more we can do to make the process work fluidly. Ultimately, however, these are sovereign states that are working with the children, and we have to do what is right and what is in the children’s best interests.

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

The 15-year-old Syrian boy referred to by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) waited 14 months before the news of his transfer came through. What could be done to speed up transfers under the Dubs scheme?

[Brandon Lewis]

We are always working with our partners in other countries, including Greece, on how we can make the system move as fluidly as possible. I am as keen as the hon. Gentleman to see people coming through that system as quickly as possible, but ultimately we have to do what is in the best interest of those children and we have to respect the law of sovereign states such as Greece.

Independent Review: Deaths in Police Custody

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Monday 30th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point, drawing on his own experience. As I said in my statement, on every day in every force, the vast majority of the work that the police do is absolutely fantastic and is conducted to the highest levels of integrity and professionalism. Nevertheless, when things go wrong—and they do go wrong—we have to get to the truth and there has to be accountability. The report demonstrates that in the past the journey has been too difficult, there has been too much defensiveness and there has not been a strong enough feeling that the system is on the side of the families and the victims. That is what we have to change.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement, and like him I thank Dame Elish Angiolini and her colleagues for their invaluable work. In her report, Dame Elish speaks of the humbling dignity and tenacity of the families of those who have died in police custody, and like the Minister and the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), I pay tribute to them and those who have supported them.

I have three questions. First, the report suggests that a national coroner service is required to overcome inconsistencies in funding and practice between different local authorities. What is the Government’s initial thinking on that? Secondly, the report emphasises how vital what happens in the immediate aftermath of a death in custody is. Will the IPCC be funded to ensure that an officer or a team can attend quickly after a death in custody to co-ordinate the initial steps, as recommended in the report? Finally, the report reminds us that we must also remember that in 2015 there were 60 deaths of individuals within two days of their leaving police custody. What steps will be taken to ensure that the risks of that happening are properly assessed and reduced?

[Mr Hurd]

The hon. Gentleman makes three important points. The recommendation on a national coroner service is one of the recommendations on which the Government are least persuaded at this time. The ministerial council will explore the idea, but the Government’s first instinct is to explore what further role the Chief Coroner can play in meeting some of the report’s recommendations and requests.

The hon. Gentleman asked about what happens after an incident and the role of the IPCC, and he is clearly critical of that. If he reads some of the Family Listening reports that came out with the review, he will see some really shocking stories of how bereaved families are treated at that deeply traumatic moment. That has to change, and it is one of the things I will be discussing with Michael Lockwood, the first director general of the new Independent Office for Police Conduct.