Investigatory Powers Bill

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I pay tribute to my colleagues in the Joint Committee who have scrutinised this Bill for their sterling work, and I particularly thank our Chair, Lord Murphy, and the Clerks and experts who did such a fantastic job in supporting us. Most importantly, I thank those who provided written and oral evidence to the Committee, including all those who work so hard to protect us from terrorism and serious crime. They made our understanding of these issues much clearer, even if resolving them remains incredibly difficult.

The issues are many and varied. A number of hon. Members have focused on the right balance between security and privacy, which is fundamental to the Bill, but there are also other issues. By attempting to plug one gap in security, do we create a different problem elsewhere? That issue arises in relation to hacking and encryption. Why should we put future-proofing ahead of clearly defined powers and responsibilities? What precedent does the Bill set for other countries? There are also more practical questions, such as whether everything the Bill proposes can be done—that issue arises for internet connection records. We must assess the implications of the Bill for important freedoms and protections, including its effect on journalism, and its influence on relationships between lawyers and clients, and between whistleblowers, constituents and their MPs. What are the implications for UK tech businesses?

Despite those questions, there is undoubtedly need for legislation—no one in the House is denying that—because, as various reports have pointed out, the existing scattered miscellany of provisions across various obscure statutes undermines the rule of law. We must also remember that we are here in part thanks to Edward Snowden’s revelations, and the breakdown in trust that followed between the public and business on one hand, and intelligence agencies and law enforcement on the other. As we know, MPs—never mind the public—had no idea of extent of the capabilities that services and agencies were using.

[Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that public trust is undermined when laws that are designed for serious crimes are used for minor crimes and things such as antisocial behaviour? Does he agree with the shadow Home Secretary, who called for a proportionality clause to be included in the Bill to ensure that that does not happen in practice?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I have severe difficulties with some of the provisions on internet connection records in the Bill. There are tests of proportionality in the Bill, but the shadow Home Secretary was proposing a different threshold for the types of crime for which we could use internet connect records, and we will consider that proposal with an open mind.

The context informs the tests and standards we need to apply to the Bill, so we can restore the trust the hon. Gentleman talks about. First, the Bill must comply with and support the rule of law by clearly defining the investigatory powers that public institutions have available, and the limits and safeguards that apply. Of course, it must itself be consistent with the law, including international human rights law and the right to privacy.

Secondly, there must be strong oversight of the use of these invasive powers and a body that can independently scrutinise the work of the organisations using them. Going further, that body must also have the powers and expertise necessary for ensuring that the powers are not being exceeded or abused. The ability to look under the bonnet, as some of the witnesses to our Committee described it, and see what is really going on is the only way we can avoid another Snowden incident in future.

Thirdly, there is a need for the Government to shoulder responsibility for justifying each and every one of the invasive powers sought and avowed. Parliament should not give an inch without being properly persuaded of their absolute necessity. This is the first time Parliament has debated many of them. Some, as has been said, go further than our European neighbours or even our “Five Eyes” colleagues.

In the time available, I will focus on the second of those areas of concern, the oversight and limits on powers. The introduction of judicial oversight is, to my mind, very welcome. I do not want to re-tread the debate about whether judicial review is the appropriate standard. The minutes of the Joint Committee will record that I voted to remove that test so that a general merits test was instead what was applied. My view, for what it is worth, is that if we are going for a double lock, it should be a proper double lock with two proper bolts of equal strength. The Bill Committee will form its own view on that.

I welcome the fact that the Government have made some attempt to respond to recommendations, strengthening the oversight role of judicial commissioners through the use of an in-house legal adviser, appointment of counsel and access to technical expertise, and through their ability to communicate with the tribunal directly, and to hear from whistleblowers. However, other recommendations have been rejected, including significant proposals to make the tribunal more transparent, broader rights of appeal and public hearings. The Bill Committee will want to push further on issues such as the appointments process and the process for agreeing the commission’s budget.

Very significant question marks still remain with regard to legal privilege and the protection of journalistic sources. Much more scrutiny work is required in this area. I also remain utterly dissatisfied with the Government’s response to one important criticism of the ability to significantly modify warrants without judicial oversight, something that risks running a coach and horses through judicial protections. I accept the principle of the Bill, but there is still a lot of work to be done to persuade me to vote for it.

Child Refugees: Calais

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Monday 29th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

It is also about ensuring that there is support in and around the region to prevent people from going out in boats, putting children’s lives at risk. That is why the work done at the London conference, in providing additional education to ensure there is a sense of positive hope, was absolutely the right thing to do. That was backed up by our £2.3 billion commitment to aid and assistance in and around the region. My right hon. Friend is right about ensuring that the hotspots initiative is in place to see that help and support are given at the first opportunity, and that is what the Government are committed to doing.

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

Does the Minister not understand that France’s Dublin procedures for unaccompanied children are just not fit for purpose and that it takes up to a year even for take charge requests to be issued? In that light, should we not be welcoming, rather than challenging, the recent tribunal decision in ZAT to shortcut the admission of three children from the horrendous Calais camps so that they can join their families here? As the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) suggested, should we not be looking to welcome the other 100 or so Calais children identified by Citizens UK as having family in the UK, so that they, too, can be reunited with their loved ones? Just how much public money has been spent on litigation in this case in an attempt to prevent refugee children in Calais from reaching their families here? Would not that money be far better spent on ensuring that Dublin III processes are fit for purpose and on safeguarding those children?

[James Brokenshire]

The most appropriate thing to do is to see that those young children receive help and support at the earliest opportunity, which is why I emphasise again the need to see that asylum claims are made quickly in the French system. The Dublin III arrangements can operate effectively; indeed, senior French representatives have told us they see no reason why appropriate claims cannot be completed within a period of two months. There are clear processes and procedures that should be adopted, and we urge everyone to get behind them and make them work effectively.

Asylum Support Contracts

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Westminster Hall

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer.

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) on securing this timely debate and on an excellent speech. Indeed, I am in the happy position of having agreed with pretty much everything that everyone has said so far—though I might yet disagree with myself.

The red doors and red wristbands have rightly grabbed a lot of headlines. As I said in the Chamber at the time of the urgent question on red doors asked by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), such issues have to be looked at and dealt with urgently, but the real concern is that they are only the tip of the iceberg. What hon. Members have set out in the Chamber today about asylum accommodation confirms that to be the case. Members have spoken about the poor quality of accommodation, which is overcrowded and unsafe, inappropriate sharing, poor placement facilities, short notice evictions, issues of privacy and unannounced visits to the property, poor treatment by staff and many other problems.

Red doors and red wristbands were perhaps crass and eye-wateringly negligent rather than anything else, but the growing number and widespread nature of the complaints we are hearing suggest that we need to look much more closely at the operation of the contracts. There is also now a good spread of research that backs up the view of all hon. Members that there are fundamental problems with the operation of the existing contracts. It is worth looking briefly at the detailed evidence and research available.

Back in 2013 the Home Affairs Committee reported:

“The reports that we have received on the quality of the accommodation are extremely worrying...Problems cited in evidence include pest infestations, lack of heating or hot water, windows and doors that could not be locked, lack of basic amenities including a cooker, a shower, a washing machine and a sink and a general lack of cleanliness. Furthermore, many of those who submitted evidence cited difficulties in contacting housing providers and the slow resolution of problems.”

All that sounds incredibly familiar.

In 2014 a National Audit Office report criticised G4S and Serco for “poor performance” and

“still failing to meet some of their KPIs”.

The report found that the companies had taken on rented

“housing stock without inspecting it, and subsequently found that many…did not meet the contractual quality standards.”

The Public Accounts Committee later published a report concluding:

“The standard of the accommodation provided has often been unacceptably poor for a very fragile group of individuals and families.”

In 2014 the Scottish Refugee Council also undertook research into the extent and impact of accommodation issues in Scotland. In short, it pointed to poor standards, poor treatment by staff, poor information on rights and entitlements, and poor oversight by the Home Office of whether contractors are meeting obligations.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the practices of some of the companies, Orchard & Shipman in particular, which turned up one night with no notice at 9.30 pm to evict one of my constituents? Only by good luck was he able to contact my office and prevent his eviction. Does my hon. Friend agree that such practices also need to be reviewed?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend. That case fits in exactly with the narrative that we have heard from so many hon. Members today.

A final piece of evidence comes from an October 2015 investigation by Jonathan Darling at the University of Manchester, which highlighted similar problems, including increased distance between asylum seekers and providers, with buck-passing between contractors and subcontractors; breakdowns in communication between key partners; and considerable variations in dispersal accommodation quality, support and opportunities for community integration. In any view, all that is a considerable evidence base and a considerable cause for concern.

As hon. Members have noted, the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), is always quick off the mark, so we have already heard evidence from G4S and its Middlesbrough subcontractors about the red doors incident, and yesterday we heard from the contractors responsible for the wristbands in Cardiff. There was extraordinary consistency between the two evidence sessions. Everyone in essence said, “Our performance under the contract is fine,” and, “We meet our key performance indicators”—indeed, staff at one contractor were actually paid bonuses for meeting those KPIs. “We are inspected,” they said, and Clearel even said that Home Office inspectors were well aware of the wristband scheme and had raised no complaints. Clearel also said, “We don’t get many complaints.” In fact, at one point the Clearel manager seemed to be saying that there had been about 19 complaints from 6,500 householders over a certain period of time, if I noted his evidence correctly.

I am not usually a cynical person, but what all that says to me is that we should also be concerned about the key performance indicators, the complaints system and the inspection system, because those processes are not flagging up red doors or wristbands and, too often, not flagging up the myriad other complaints that we have heard about today. The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth made that point well.

[Jo Stevens]

On the KPIs, I understand from the evidence to the Home Affairs Committee yesterday that nine or 10 things are looked at monthly by the contract management board. An executive oversight board provides further scrutiny. Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that that system does not seem to be working at all, because nothing is picking up the problems that we have all been talking about this morning?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The hon. Lady makes an excellent point and I agree wholeheartedly. Having only 17 Home Office inspectors for some 36,000 placements seems wholly inadequate. Furthermore, the lack of complaints is not surprising given the vulnerable nature of many of the people who use the services, as hon. Members have said, and given the evidence that induction packs are often insufficient, if they are even given out at all. It is little surprise that it is not the KPIs, inspections or complaints that are throwing the problems up—it is campaign groups, non-governmental organisations and diligent investigative journalists.

The question is, what more would we discover if we had a thorough inquiry into how the contracts are working? At the moment we can only speculate, but we can all agree that there are enough danger signs for us to say that we definitely need such an inquiry. I have asked for the Home Affairs Committee to undertake that task, although I agree that other possibilities exist.

In fairness to the Immigration Minister, he did not make the decision to switch to the COMPASS contract. That decision was made in 2009, with the then target contracts phased out in time for COMPASS kicking off in 2012. As the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) pointed out, the ambition was to save £140 million on services over seven years by replacing 22 separate contracts with six larger COMPASS contracts.

Although the Minister was not responsible for instigating the contracts, he will soon have to decide whether to extend them and I hope that he will not do so without a thorough and wide-ranging review of contractor performance. I also hope that the Home Office will wait for such a review before pressing ahead with the welcome plans to broaden the number of local authorities involved in dispersal.

We on the Opposition Benches doubt whether such services can ever be amenable to contracting when the only possibility to maximise returns is cutting corners and costs and the people accessing services have no choice in who provides their housing. In other words, they have to like it or lump it, and many asylum seekers will lump it silently. Serious consideration should be given to changing fundamentally how we provide housing for asylum seekers, including a possible return to provision by local authorities. We also have to consider whether the savings envisaged by the COMPASS contracts have been delivered.

[Andy McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman is making an important contribution. On local authorities stepping back into the breach, does he share my concern that while that is desirable, it would be a disaster if money did not follow that move? If that path is pursued, my fear is that Government will simply expect local authorities to take that on without that qualification.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Absolutely. There is a huge question mark over whether sufficient resources have been provided to fund the contracts and that remains as a question whether services are returned to local authorities or not.

We must consider whether the savings envisaged in the COMPASS contracts have been delivered by so-called efficiencies or simply by lowering accommodation standards. I thank the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth for ensuring that the House considers asylum support contracts, which will require even more detailed and thorough consideration in the months ahead.

Migration into the EU

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Westminster Hall

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

It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I think I have only three minutes, so I shall be short and sharp.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr Holloway) on securing the debate. He is straight talking and forthright and, although I fundamentally disagree with him on a number of points, I thank him for giving us the further chance to discuss what is undoubtedly the defining issue of this Parliament.

I want to speak briefly about the argument, which is often put, that we should seek to support refugees near the conflict zone, rather than protecting them within Europe. Who would disagree with that, on paper? I do not think anyone would; but the plain fact is that it is almost impossible for all refugees from countries racked by several years of conflict to be supported in that way. Those countries have neither the resources nor the capacity to cope. It is a challenge, indeed, but it is not unsustainable for Europe to offer protection to more refugees. What is unsustainable is to take the approach of not offering shelter for further refugees.

For millions of Syrians in neighbouring countries there have been years of living in tents with no prospect of education or work. For many, life as a refugee in neighbouring countries is grave. Lebanon, a country the size of Devon and Cornwall with a population of under 5 million, already hosts 2 million refugees. Amnesty International’s report “I Want a Safe Place” notes that Syrian refugee women face the risk of serious human rights violations and abuse in Lebanon, including gender-based violence and exploitation. Jordan, a country of 6 million people, has taken in 1 million since the Syrian war in 2011, but has now blocked access because, it says, international donors have provided only one third of the funding needed to support those already there. Syrian refugees in Jordan also face huge challenges. More than half are children and although legally they can attend school, they rarely do, because most work 12 hours a day in jobs such as scrap metal collection or construction. More than one in four Syrian refugee women in Jordan, as elsewhere, head households alone, struggling for money while suffering isolation and a fear of sexual violence.

We should bear in mind that, although Turkey ratified the refugee convention, it did so with a geographic limitation. It recognises only refugees originating from Europe, so Syrians receive only a restricted form of temporary protection, with limited rights. Its record on respecting refugees is far from unblemished. Asylum seekers’ access to adequate housing, health services and work is limited and bureaucratic problems prevent refugee children from getting access to secondary education.

On Monday, the Secretary of State for International Development said:

“If we can give Syrians hope for a better future where they are, they are less likely to feel that they have no choice other than to make perilous journeys to Europe.”—[Official Report, 8 February 2016; Vol. 605, c. 1320.]

Again, implicit in that is a recognition that many have felt and continue to feel that they have no choice but to make that journey. The question remains the one that I asked on Monday: what happens with the million that are already in Europe and the other million that will come before the measures announced on Monday are put in place? The only possible answer is the sharing of responsibility throughout the EU, as proposed by the Commission. It is time for this Government and Governments on the continent to step up to that challenge.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

We will provide assistance to the European Asylum Support Office and to Frontex to help with the establishment of processing centres right on the frontline, to help deal with the problem and co-ordinate things on the ground. That is a core priority. We also continue to support Frontex in its mission to rescue people from the sea. I pay tribute to the Border Force officers, Royal Marines and military medics currently on the VOS Grace, which has rescued several thousand people over recent months and will continue its operations, transferring to off the coast of Libya at the end of this month.

The link between organised crime and migration is clear and unprecedented, and has contributed directly to ongoing suffering and loss of life. For that reason, the UK is playing a leading role in tackling people smuggling and is increasing joint intelligence work to target the cruel gangs that exploit human beings for their own gain. The work of the organised immigration crime taskforce is progressing, bringing together 100 officers from the National Crime Agency, the Border Force, immigration enforcement and the Crown Prosecution Service to pursue and disrupt the organised crime gangs operating across Europe and Africa. We are also harnessing intelligence through Europol, which is proving helpful and fruitful.

I have been challenged about our response in Europe, and I have already identified not only the support that we are providing in the Syrian region but the direct support that we are providing in Europe. Since the crisis began the Government have been clear about our view on relocation: it is the wrong response. It does absolutely nothing to address the underlying causes of the crisis, and it does nothing more than move the problem around Europe. The reality is that it has not even been good at doing that. Commitments have been made over recent months to relocate 160,000 people, but only 497 people have been relocated to date. Instead, we believe that it is most effective to provide support to countries facing particular pressures, and our focus will remain on helping the most vulnerable who remain in the region as part of a comprehensive strategy to end the crisis.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

If the Government will not take part in relocation, what should happen to the million people who arrived last year and the million who will arrive this year? Where should they go? Who should take on that responsibility?

[James Brokenshire]

We have clear rules in Europe that those in need of humanitarian protection should claim it at the first opportunity. We have provided aid assistance and expert support within Europe, and we stand ready to commit more to the hotspots initiative, ensuring that those in need of protection can be better identified. In the past fortnight, we announced the £10 million fund that I mentioned earlier, part of which is intended to harness the Dublin regulation by supporting effective identification of children who need to be reunited with their family. Where family reunion under the regulation is achievable, we will help to match things up by having better systems in place. That is about direct assistance.

Litvinenko Inquiry

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 21st January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right in his description of what has happened in relation to Lugovoy in Russia. That tells us all we need to know about Russia’s attitude to the action that took place on the streets of London. Russia does of course participate in such a way—it is a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council—and, as I said in my statement, there will be national interests that require the British Government to engage guardedly with Russia. For example, there are issues relating to Syria and the resolution of the conflict there. However, I assure my right hon. Friend that we are very clear about such issues in relation to Russia. We were clear about those issues in the SDSR. That is why, when we engage with Russia, we will, as I say, do so guardedly.

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

I, too, thank the Home Secretary for her statement. I pay tribute to Sir Robert Owen and his inquiry team for their work, and indeed to all those who have contributed to getting to the truth. All Members will share a sense of outrage at this cowardly and awful murder, and we again express our condolences to Mr Litvinenko’s family. As the Secretary of State has said, the apparent involvement of the Russian state at the very highest level makes this murder doubly shocking.

It will clearly take some time fully to digest all the findings and recommendations of the report and to think through its implications, but some initial questions arise. Most immediately, we need to know what more, if anything, can be done to bring Mr Litvinenko’s killers to justice. We welcome the action against Mr Kovtun and Mr Lugovoy announced today, and the request made to the Director of Public Prosecutions. However, what, if any, further options are being considered? Will we hear from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs about what he believes to be the appropriate response?

To look back at the circumstances of the murder, will the Home Secretary say what, if any, information our security and intelligence services had about Mr Kovtun and Mr Lugovoy prior to their meeting with Mr Litvinenko? Were they aware that the meeting was taking place, and had they assessed whether it represented a risk to his life? Most importantly, what do we know about how the killers were able to acquire such a significant dose of radioactive polonium and use it in this country as a weapon? Finally, what more can be done to prevent any such awful event from happening again in future? Has any assessment been made of the risk to those who have fled regimes and sought shelter in the UK, so that we can prevent such attacks from happening again?

[Mrs May]

As I have said, we all share the hon. Gentleman’s desire to bring these individuals to justice. That is why I have written to the DPP this morning to ask her to explore whether there are any other options that she can look at in relation not just to the extradition of the two individuals, but to criminal asset freezes.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs should make a statement on this issue. As the hon. Gentleman can see, my right hon. Friend is present. The statement I made is obviously the view of the Government, and we have discussed the approach we are taking on these matters.

The hon. Gentleman asked about access to polonium-210. As I said earlier, this is a very detailed report, and sections of Sir Robert Owen’s report cover that particular issue. We are grateful to Sir Robert for the thoroughness with which he has conducted his inquiry.

Asylum Seekers: Middlesbrough

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 20th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

As I highlighted, I spoke to the chief executive of G4S this morning and asked that work be done to assess whether this is an isolated issue. I have asked how we can talk to all the providers under the COMPASS contract and how inquiries can be made with their subcontractors as well. From initial investigations, it seems that some providers of social housing might, for maintenance purposes, paint in a particular colour. We are investigating that further. Jomast made the point that about 20% of its property portfolio is asylum accommodation. We will focus on this issue as part of the audit work I have commissioned, and we will see whether lessons can be learned about the ongoing maintenance assessment. Inspections are undertaken to identify whether accommodation remains suitable or whether steps need to be taken by our contractors. I have tasked out that work as part of the examination. I underline again that we take hate crime very seriously and will remain focused on it in our forthcoming work.

The hon. and learned Gentleman asked about inspections. We will look at the processes and procedures to establish why the significance of this issue was not identified earlier. I have noted reports in the press and elsewhere of the issue having been highlighted to G4S and potentially to others. We are seeking to get to the bottom of that.

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

I congratulate and thank the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) for bringing this issue to the Floor of the House. The provision of accommodation to asylum seekers deserves significant scrutiny, so I welcome the Minister’s announcement of an urgent audit of asylum-seeker accommodation in the north-east. SNP Members and others across the House share his concerns and will have been appalled by the revelation of what seems to have been, at best, an eye-wateringly negligent red-door policy.

We question, however, whether an audit goes far enough. The story of the red doors is troubling, but the delivery of contracts for the provision of asylum accommodation across the country is a broader issue and raises similar serious concerns. Will the Government listen to those concerns? When I speak to the Scottish Refugee Council, I hear about problems of poor-quality accommodation; poor treatment of asylum seekers by staff, sometimes because of a lack of training, sometimes because of inexcusable abuse and mistreatment; inappropriate sharing of accommodation; and about not so much a lack of integration of the services referred to by the Minister but their complete and utter fragmentation. Will he broaden the inquiry into the provision of accommodation for asylum seekers to reflect those concerns? We need an inquiry that speaks to asylum seekers living in accommodation provided by Government contractors and to organisations such as the Scottish Refugee Council, which could have so much input. Finally, when will a decision need to be made into the extension of these contracts and what opportunities will there be for parliamentarians to scrutinise and input into that decision?

[James Brokenshire]

Property standards are monitored under the COMPASS arrangements by three key performance indicators, to ensure that accommodation is safe, habitable and fit for purpose. Accommodation is inspected frequently by G4S, the local authority and the Home Office, and, as I have indicated, housing officers visit a third of all properties every 28 days, on an intelligence-led basis, under our overall compliance approach.

The hon. Gentleman made a point about complaints. Provisions in the contract ensure that complaints should be escalated and taken seriously. Again, that is something I want the audit to understand in terms of the situation in the north-east. The matter will be pursued in that way. He also asks for a broadening of the arrangements. I do not judge that to be appropriate. I will see what the audit tells us and then consider whether further action is needed.

Proceeds of Crime

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 20th January 2016 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate.

The Minister has, indeed, been incredibly persuasive, so he will find no opposition from the SNP Benches. To put it mildly, all Members are enthusiastic about ensuring that the proceeds of crime are confiscated wherever possible and put to good use. In Scotland, the CashBack for Communities scheme has proved enormously successful and popular. It ploughs money recovered from criminals into free community initiatives for young people around the country.

Today, we are concerned with the safeguards that are in place for the powers that are designed to help recover certain proceeds of crime. The powers to detain, search and seize are clearly very invasive, so it is imperative to have appropriate safeguards. I will be helpfully brief, Mr Speaker, and will confine myself to the order on the cash searches code of practice, which is the only one that relates to Scotland.

The code of practice order relates to search powers, which can represent a significant interference with privacy rights. The code of practice must therefore ensure that the use of the powers is fully justified and that consideration is given to whether results could be achieved by less intrusive means. The code of practice must explain clearly what the reasonable suspicion amounts to, as well as making clear the necessity to seek judicial authority, or at the very least the authority of a senior officer, wherever practical. It must also outline how to conduct a proper search. The code appears to do all those things and it is, as the Minister says, essentially a reworking of previous drafts. For those reasons, we have no opposition to the order or the code.

I want to flag up one concern, however. On the one hand, it was a surprise to see a reference on page 4 of the code to the use of the powers by immigration officers. That possibility was not present in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. However, a footnote in the draft order explains that the UK Borders Act 2007 provides that part 5 of the 2002 Act should apply to immigration officers as it applies in relation to a constable. On the other hand, having been involved in the scrutiny of the Immigration Bill, I know that it is not a new experience to see police powers being handed out almost like sweeties. Successive Governments seem to have been tempted down that path. I am not saying that customs officers or immigration officers do not, on occasion, require similar powers to those of the police. However, whenever police-like powers are going to be handed to people who are not police officers, we need to be extra-vigilant and to demand a clear operational case and appropriate safeguards.

I would like to highlight the inspection of immigration officers’ powers to enter business premises without a search warrant that was conducted by the chief inspector of the UK Border Agency between October and November 2013. He reported that 59% of the cases he examined did not have the required justification for the use of the power, and that a further 12% had insufficient information for him to form an opinion. He found widespread non-compliance with the guidance, and ineffective processes for ensuring that staff were complying with the legislation and guidance. I could go on, but I believe that those findings cast a light on the need to be very careful when handing police-like powers to officials who are, quite simply, not police officers. We also need to be extra-vigilant when scrutinising the codes that guide the use of those powers, and to question whether the safeguards are sufficient to make up for the fact that they are being used by non-police officers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Monday 11th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

The hon. and learned Gentleman knows that we work very closely with the French authorities. We are working with them to make sure that their processing is done as swiftly and efficiently as possible. I must repeat that these are camps in France. It is a sovereign country and we cannot interfere in French matters.

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

Just after Christmas, 15-year-old Masud, an asylum seeker from Afghanistan, died in the back of a lorry trying to make it from Calais to be reunited with his sister here in the United Kingdom. The Home Office was seeking to defend his exclusion in protracted legal proceedings relating to the Dublin convention. Will the UK Government please reconsider their approach to the Dublin rules and, indeed, to their own family reunion rules to avoid similar desperate journeys ending in tragedy?

[Karen Bradley]

Refugees can seek asylum in the first country in which they arrive in the European Union. I cannot comment on an individual case, but it is important to make the point that people should not try to make that journey illegally. We have a relocation programme to bring 20,000 Syrian refugees to this country. I must restate that France is a sovereign country and we must not interfere in its affairs.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Will the Government reconsider the stress and anxiety caused by their policies to children who have one British parent and one non-EU parent? Last week we learned about Andrew McLaughlin, who served this country in Afghanistan and now has to choose between leaving Britain or leaving his wife and child, thanks to the grossly excessive financial requirements in the immigration rules. Why do the Government continue to defend the indefensible?

[Karen Bradley]

Our current family reunion policy is already more generous than our international obligations require, and we have no plans to widen the criteria under immigration law. We consider each individual on a case-by-case basis, but we have no plans to change the rules.

European Agenda on Migration

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2015 Commons Chamber

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

I want to mention briefly three aspects of the European agenda on migration, the first document mentioned in the Government’s motion. The first of those three aspects is safe legal routes. That European agenda document acknowledges that

“vulnerable people cannot be left to resort to the criminal network of smugglers and traffickers. There must be safe and legal ways for them to reach the EU”.

Similarly, the House of Lords European Union Committee said that one effective way to address the root causes of irregular migration is to create safe and legal routes for refugees to enter the EU. The UNHCR endorsed an EU target of around 20,000 resettlements across Europe each year by 2020—a modest and wholly achievable proposal if there is political will. We welcome the Government’s resettlement programme, overdue as it may have been.

[Sir William Cash]

There has been an accumulation of documents over a long period. Had the proposal from the European Scrutiny Committee been taken up earlier, we would have been debating those documents when the numbers were at the level that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. We are now talking not about 20,000 or 40,000, but about 400,000, 500,000 or 600,000 migrants.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I am speaking first about plans for resettlement. I shall come on to relocation later. Resettlement through the UNHCR is not the only method of providing safe legal routes. We have urged and continue to urge the Government to listen to the expert organisations calling for broader family reunion rules, and to consider the case for humanitarian visas so that fewer people are compelled to risk their lives crossing the Mediterranean.

The second aspect of the agenda document that I want to mention, and probably the most important, concerns hotspots, which both the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have talked up in recent months. Everyone knows that Greece’s asylum system was already chaotic before the crisis began, and Italy’s is probably not much better, so expecting those systems to cope with the crisis would be unreasonable. That is where the so-called hotspot approach is supposed to help. The theory is that the full weight of EU asylum institutions will

“work on the ground with frontline Member States to swiftly identify, register and fingerprint incoming migrants...Those claiming asylum will be immediately channelled into an asylum procedure where European Asylum Support Office (EASO) support teams will help to process asylum cases as quickly as possible.”

In addition, €60 million was to be invested in emergency funding to support the reception of migrants and the provision of healthcare to migrants in member states under pressure.

I have not had the benefit of visiting any hotspots, but I have read and listened with concern to recent reports from those who have visited. Those include reports from the International Rescue Committee, which said that

“the way hotspots are currently being rolled out is causing chaos, increasing tensions and violence, and leaving more people without basic shelter.”

In October an update from the Commission explained some of the reasons why that might be the case. At that stage, only six member states had responded to its calls by providing just 81 out of 374 experts requested, and just six member states had responded to calls by providing 48 border officials out of the requested 775 border guards, screeners, de-briefers and interpreters that were thought necessary.

Lots of serious questions remain about how hotspots are to function and their basis in law, so I would be interested to know whether the Minister can comment on the legal basis for hotspots; whether people in those hotspots have access to legal advice; whether the way a person is dealt with in a hotspot area will depend on their nationality; the proportion of those in hotspots who are recorded as having claimed asylum; the number who have been removed directly from hotspots; and, more generally, when data on outcomes from hotspots will be published, and the UK contribution to all this.

Thirdly, on relocation, I was disappointed not to be able to attend the earlier debate that focused more intensively on that. The Government’s motion talks of

“working with the EU and Member States and other international partners”

to address current migratory pressures, but the difficult starting point for the Government is that they wash their hands of relocation plans, despite those being pivotal to the agenda on migration, and instead leave responsibility for that to everyone else.

The House of Lords described the Government’s reasons for opting out of relocation as unconvincing. I would say that that is being pretty kind to the Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) said, the idea that whether or not the UK takes part in relocation schemes affects the number of people attempting dangerous crossings is utterly unsupported by evidence. It has been several months since the UK first said that it was going to shirk its responsibilities in this regard, and still more and more people make the crossing. They are doing that because they are fleeing desperate circumstances, not on the off-chance that they will be incredibly lucky in a lottery of a relocation scheme and end up in the United Kingdom. A European relocation scheme should be a response to an emergency situation—a humanitarian crisis. As the Lords EU Committee said, failing to opt in means that we are failing to live up to our duty of solidarity and burden-sharing between member states.

A crisis on this scale requires collective action. Dealing with more than 900,000 people arriving in desperate circumstances is an impossible task for two or three countries to take on. In a Union of 500 million people their arrival poses a huge challenge—there is no doubt about that—but it is surmountable given that they represent less than 0.2% of the population. As the European agenda document states:

“No Member State can effectively address migration alone. It is clear that we need a new, more European approach.”

That is the approach that the Government should take rather than their head-in-the-sand approach to what is going on in Europe just now.

Immigration Bill

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2015 Commons Chamber

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

Stuart McDonald, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Indeed. I am grateful. I had not received intelligence as to who was going to speak for the SNP, but the hon. Gentleman is here and he will be heard.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 17—Residential Tenancies: repeal of provisions of the Immigration Act 2014—

‘(1) The Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows.

(2) Omit sections 20-37, 74 (2)(a) and Schedule 3.”

Repeals the provisions of the Immigration Act 2014 in relation to the right to rent.

Amendment 18, in clause 1,  page 1, line 9, at end insert—

‘(3A) The matters to which the Director must have regard in pursuance of his or her functions include the provision of assistance and support to victims of non-compliance in the labour market, as defined under subsection (3)(1).’

To ensure that the functions of the Director of Labour Market Enforcement are exercised for the purpose of protecting the victims of labour market exploitation and to make this explicit on the face of the Bill, mirroring section 41 of the Modern Slavery Act in respect of the Anti-Slavery Commissioner established by that Act.

Amendment 19, page 5, line 2, leave out clause 8.

To omit the clause on the new illegal working offence and maintain the status quo.

Amendment 20, in clause 8,  page 5, line 9, after “if” insert “without reasonable cause”.

To provide for a defence against the offence of illegal working.

Amendment 33, in clause 9,  page 7, line 11, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

“(1) In section 21 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (offence of knowingly employing illegal worker), leave out subsection (1) and substitute—

(1) A person commits an offence if he knowingly or recklessly employs an adult subject to immigration control, where—

(a) this adult has not been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, or

(b) this adult’s leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom—

(i) is invalid,

(ii) has ceased to have effect (whether by reason of curtailment, revocation, cancellation, passage of time or otherwise), or

(iii) is subject to a condition preventing him from accepting the employment.”

To restrict the criminal offence of “employing illegal worker” to where this has been done “knowingly or recklessly”.

Amendment 47, page 7, line 36, in clause 10, leave out “Scotland or”.

Removes the power for the Secretary of State to make regulations relating to illegal working extending to Scotland.

Amendment 48, page 7, leave out line 41.

Prevents the Secretary of State making regulations that confer functions on Scottish Ministers in relation to illegal working.

Amendment 49, page 8, line 5, leave out “an Act of the Scottish Parliament or”.

Definitional change for purposes of amendments 47 and 48.

Amendment 50, page 8, line 6, leave out “under such an Act or”.

Definitional change for the purposes of amendment 49.

Amendment 51, in clause 11, page 8, line 13, leave out “Scotland or”.

Removes the power for the Secretary of State to make regulations relating to illegal working in relation to private hire vehicles extend to Scotland.

Amendment 52, page 8, leave out line 18.

Prevents the Secretary of State making regulations that confer functions on Scottish Ministers in relation to illegal working relating to private hire vehicles.

Amendment 53, page 8, line 25, leave out paragraph (b).

Definitional change for purposes of amendments 51 and 52.

Amendment 35, page 9, line 4, leave out clauses 13 to 16.

Removes the extension of the right to rent legislation in the Bill.

Amendment 46, in clause 13, page 9, line 31, at end insert—

‘(5A) A landlord will not commit an offence under subsection (1) if—

(a) the landlord enters a residential tenancy agreement with an organisation or person who is supporting an adult mentioned in in subsection (2);

(b) the rental payment received by the landlord as a result of this tenancy does not significantly exceed the costs that are incurred by the landlord for having the adult occupy the premises.”.

Ensures that a landlord who has agreed by working with an organisation/charity to provide accommodation to support failed asylum seekers are exempt from committing an offence.

Amendment 22, page 10, line 4, at end insert—

‘(8A) A landlord does not commit an offence under this section during the period of 28 days specified in section 33D (4).”

To protect a landlord/landlady from prosecution for renting to a person without a right to rent during the period for which they are prohibited from evicting the tenant under section 33D(4).

Amendment 23, in clause 14,  page 12, line 1, leave out subsection (2).

To remove the provisions providing for summary eviction.

Amendment 24, page 13, line 18, leave out “Sections 33D and” and substitute “Section”.

See explanatory note for amendment 23.

Amendment 25, page 13, leave out line 24.

See explanatory note for amendment 23.

Amendment 26, page 13, line 26, leave out subsections (5) to (7).

See explanatory note for amendment 23.

Amendment 54, in clause 16, page 17, line 7, leave out “, Scotland”.

Removes the power for the Secretary of State to make regulations in relation to the right to rent scheme extending to Scotland.

Amendment 55, page 17, line 10, leave out “, Scotland”.

See explanatory statement for amendment 54.

Amendment 56, page 17, leave out line 17.

Prevents the Secretary of State making regulations that confer functions on Scottish Ministers in relation to the right to rent scheme.

Amendment 57, page 17, line 27, leave out paragraph (c).

Definitional change for the purposes of amendments 55 and 56.

Amendment 41, in clause 57, page 50, line 4, at end insert—

“(7) Regulations made under—

(a) section 10;

(b) section 11; or

(c) section 16

of this Act shall not come into force in Scotland without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.”

Ensures regulations made under the relevant sections cannot extend to Scotland without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.

Amendment 21, in clause 58, page 50, line 9, at end insert—

‘(2A) Section 13 shall come into force subject to the conditions set out subsection (2B).

(2B) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish an evaluation of the national implementation of provisions contained in sections 20 to 37 and Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 2014, and must lay a copy of the report before Parliament.

(2C) The report in subsection (2B) must include an assessment of the impact of those provisions on—

(a) individuals who have a protected characteristic as defined in Part 2, Chapter 1 of the Equality Act 2010, and

(b) British citizens who do not hold a passport or UK driving licence.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament an evaluation of the national roll out of the 2014 Right to Rent Scheme before the new offences in clause 13 come into force.

New clause 8—Detention of persons—exempted persons—

In paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971, after subsection (4) insert—

“(5) A person may not be detained under this paragraph if they are—

(a) a woman who—

(i) states that she is pregnant, where this is confirmed to be the case or,

(ii) is reasonably suspected to be pregnant by an immigration officer;

(b) a person whose initial claim for asylum to the United Kingdom was based on being a victim of one of the following:

(i) human trafficking;

(ii) torture;

(iii) sexual violence;

(c) a member of any other group as may be prescribed in regulations by the Secretary of State.”

This amendment would provide that pregnant women, people who claimed asylum as victims of trafficking, torture or sexual violence, and any other group prescribed by the Secretary of State, may not be detained pending an examination or decision by an immigration officer.

New clause 9—Time limit on detention—

In paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 after subsection (4) insert—

“(5) Subject to subsection (6), no person shall be detained under this paragraph for more than 28 days.

(6) Subsection (5) shall not apply where the person detained under this paragraph has a criminal conviction with a sentence of imprisonment for three months or more.”

This amendment provides that people shall not be detained pending an examination/a decision by an immigration officer for more than 28 days, unless they have a criminal conviction.

New clause 13—Review of Immigration Detention—

“(1) Before the end of the period of three months beginning on the day on which subsection (1) of section 32 comes into force, the Secretary of State must commission a report on detention under paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 that addresses the following matters—

(a) the process for, and detail of, introducing a statutory maximum limit of 28 days on the length of time an individual can be detained under that paragraph;

(b) how to reduce the number of people detained under that paragraph;

(c) how to minimise the length of time an individual is detained under that paragraph;

(d) the effectiveness of detention in meeting the Secretary of State’s objectives; and

(e) the effectiveness of procedures to review decisions to detain and to continue to detain.

(2) The Report must be published by a panel appointed by the Secretary of State.

(3) The panel appointed under subsection (2) must be independently chaired.

(4) On completion of the report, the Chair of the panel must send it to the Secretary of State.

(5) The Secretary of State must lay before parliament a copy of the report received under subsection (4).”

Reflecting the unanimous agreement of the House of Commons to the recommendations of the joint APPG on Refugees and APPG on Migration inquiry into immigration detention, the new clause requires the Secretary of State to appoint an independently-chaired panel to consider the issues raised therein and report to Parliament within three months of Schedule 7 to the Bill coming into force.

Amendment 32, in schedule 7, page 97, line 22, at end insert—

“(2A) The Secretary of State must grant a person bail if a person is detained under a provision mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) after no later than the 28 day following that on which the person was detained.”

To introduce a 28 day time limit on the amount of time a person can be kept in immigration detention.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I am unashamedly moving lots of amendments, and there are several others that we on these Benches support too, which I will come to in due course. The large number of changes that we want reflects our hostility to this Bill, which we oppose outright and will vote against this evening as ill-conceived and regressive, and which will do little to move the country towards the Government’s increasingly ludicrous-looking net migration target. If the Bill passes, perhaps one or two of these amendments might provide a little comfort in an otherwise bleak piece of legislation.

New clauses 16 and 17 seek to rectify two provisions that exemplify for us where fundamental problems lie with this Bill. New clause 16 would put in place some restriction on one of the many significant, inappropriate and untrammelled powers that the Bill passes to immigration officers and other officials. A large part of the Bill seems to be a wish list of powers from UK immigration staff, which the Government unquestioningly want to hand over to them.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

If I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly he does not like the Bill, and his amendments and new clauses might make it a little more likeable. If they were all passed, would he be in the Aye Lobby this evening?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

We have done our best to make the Bill slightly more palatable, but even with all our amendments I regret to say that we would still find the damage that the Bill will cause unacceptable. Regardless of what happens today, therefore, we will be voting against Third Reading.

New clause 17, would repeal the right-to-rent provisions introduced by the Immigration Act 2014, provisions which, like their successor provisions in this Bill, will have limited effect on the Government’s pretend net migration target, but are none the less deemed necessary to make the Government look tough on immigration. As I said on Second Reading, it is in reality immigration theatre—acting out the part of immigration enforcer. But while there is little evidence that it will achieve much in terms of immigration control, its consequences on cohesion could be significant.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman talks about looking tough and effective. Does he not agree that that is the challenge for the Government in the Bill? We want to see immigration measures that are effective, not that just appear to be tough.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I agree that we need to enforce the immigration rules and laws that we have put in place, but the problem is that the resources and manpower are not being put in to do that. We do not need new powers and rules; we simply need resources to enforce the rules that already exist. I suggest that some of the rules already go far too far.

New clause 16 is a modest response to clause 13, which creates wide powers for immigration officials to close premises for 48 hours before any court involvement is required in certain cases of suspected illegal working. These could have very significant consequences, including for perfectly innocent workers whose place of work is closed for up to two days. Provision for statutory compensation, which our amendment would introduce, is designed to ensure that notices are not issued in an oppressive manner by immigration officials.

New clause 17 is without doubt the more significant of the two new clauses. It would remove the right-to-rent provisions in the 2014 Act. We have signed other amendments in relation to right to rent, starting with the crucial amendment 35, which would remove the criminal sanctions and what we regard as Dickensian eviction processes from the Bill. Amendment 46 is designed to prevent those letting out rooms on essentially a charitable basis from being criminalised. Finally amendments 54 to 57 remove powers for the Secretary of State to legislate by way of regulations for new Scottish right-to-rent provisions, with immense effect on devolved Scottish housing law.

We also support changes proposed by Labour Members such as amendment 22, which seems designed to fix what we can only presume to be a drafting anomaly under which a landlord or landlady would be guilty of an offence for renting to a person with no right to rent, even during the period of 28 days when they could not evict that person. We also fully back their amendments 23 to 26, which would remove the obscene proposals that would see landlords and landladies turned into not only immigration officers but High Court judges, and would see summary evictions without judicial oversight.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) will have more—much more—to say on these dreadful and draconian measures if given the opportunity, Madam Deputy Speaker. Our view is essentially the same as it was on Second Reading. Right to rent is not evidence-based, but in fact flies in the face of the evidence provided by the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, and indeed parts of the Government’s own pilot review. It is unfair to place these duties and now criminal sanctions on landlords, and it will lead to inadvertent discrimination or racism, with foreign nationals and even British citizens without documents at risk of being rejected from a tenancy whenever there is a safe and easy option of a British passport holder to rent to. It will push more families away from authorities and immigration control, making enforcement harder, not easier.

The one part of the Bill from which something useful might actually emerge is the first few clauses of part 1, and the provisions for a Director of Labour Market Enforcement, which we welcome. It is sad that its presence in an immigration Bill suggests that the new role might be seen as one primarily concerned with enforcing immigration laws, so we have joined our Labour colleagues in supporting amendment 18, which is designed to ensure that the functions of the director are exercised for the purpose of protecting the victims of labour market exploitation.

More fundamental is amendment 19, which seeks to remove the offence of illegal working. We share the widespread concerns that, like other offences, it will have little effect in terms of immigration control, but will have other significant adverse effects. In this case, the negative consequence is to undermine the decent work that the Government have been doing to tackle slavery and trafficking. The Bill will drive exploited, undocumented workers further underground, and leave them more at risk of exploitation, rather than less.

While on this issue, we know that James Ewins’ report on domestic workers is with the Government but as yet not available to Members. We question why that is the case, and when we will be able to see and debate it in order to inform what should happen with this Bill if it gets a Third Reading.

Finally, in relation to part 1 of the Act, amendment 33 seeks to ensure that employers who innocently and inadvertently employ a person without the right to work are not criminalised by the Bill. It does so by applying a threshold of “knowingly or recklessly” to the offence of employing an adult without permission to work, instead of merely requiring that they have “reasonable cause to believe” that the employee may be such a person. We are concerned that the current test might catch people who are not the intended target.

There are two further sets of amendments in this first grouping that I need to speak to. The first set relates to how a number of these provisions would be implemented in Scotland. Clauses 10, 11 and 16 all include what I am told are referred to as Henry VIII clauses—broad powers to legislate for Scotland, and indeed Northern Ireland and in one case Wales. Whereas provisions on licensed premises, private hire vehicles and right to rent are set out in significant detail in schedules to the Bill, and subject to full legislative scrutiny, that is not the case for Scotland. Instead, the Secretary of State is given the sweeping power to legislate in a similar way for Scotland by way of regulation. The power includes the ability to amend Acts of the Scottish Parliament, without any consideration of that Parliament’s view on the matter—and that is despite the fact that liquor licensing, private hire car licensing and housing are all devolved matters.

I understand that Parliament has long been hostile to Henry VIII clauses, and rightly so. These clauses are particularly pernicious for the reasons given, and so should be rejected. That can be done by supporting amendments 47 to 53, which would remove the power to regulate for Scotland in this way, thereby requiring primary legislation and the full scrutiny that that entails. Alternatively, amendment 41 requires that any such regulations would require the consent of the Scottish Parliament, again enabling proper scrutiny. That is surely only right and proper in the circumstances.

Finally, on new clause 13 and amendment 32, this House witnessed a powerful Backbench Business debate back in September, led by the hon. Members for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), for Bedford (Richard Fuller) and for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), who I know will all want, if they can, to speak on the issue again today. On that day there were strong speeches on all sides of the House as it united to tell the Government that immigration detention without a fixed and certain time limit was no longer acceptable. We are the only country in the EU without a time limit so it is inexcusable for this country not to operate one. We on the SNP Benches would prefer that we move straight to a position where immigration bail is granted after 28 days, as set out in amendment 32. Alternatively, we will support new clause 13 to see progress towards that goal.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend will be aware that the immigration detention inquiry panel heard evidence from a consultant psychiatrist that those who are detained for more than 30 days suffer significantly more mental health problems than those detained for fewer than 30 days. Does my hon. Friend agree that this evidence reinforces the need for new clause 32?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I agree entirely. That is one of a huge number of reasons that were highlighted during the Backbench Business debate earlier this year.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concerns for the wellbeing of the migrants being detained—an experience described by one man as his three years in a cage? The conditions in which migrants are detained lack any shred of dignity. Does my hon. Friend concur with me that the Home Office seems to have forgotten that human rights are universal and not conditional upon immigration status?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

My hon. Friend makes her point powerfully. The issue is not just a time limit going forward, but conditions of detention and moving away from routine use of immigration detention to make it a rare exception, rather than almost the norm.

In conclusion, there is widespread demand for change, and perhaps if there is one— just one—piece of silver lining on the dark cloud represented by this Bill, it will be a time limit on detention.

[Rebecca Harris (Castle Point) (Con)]

As I have had cause to mention previously in the Chamber, immigration was the single most important issue for my constituents in Castle Point at the recent election and remains so. I am sure many hon. Members in all parts of the House find that to be the case. Having spent several weeks sitting on the Committee that considered the Bill, I fully support it as the Government have drafted it.

I shall speak in particular on new clauses 8 and 9, dealing with time limits on detention. Although I fully appreciate the thinking behind such amendments, I cannot support them because introducing a time limit on detention is, I believe, a poor approach to an important issue. I believe also that new clause 13 is premature as we await the results of several Government reviews of the whole system of detention.

The Home Office already has a policy to safeguard against unnecessary or arbitrary detention of individuals. Detention must be used sparingly and for the shortest period possible, and cases must be assessed on an individual basis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

I have fallen into my usual trap, Madam Deputy Speaker. I always like to set a backdrop to my remarks, and I am trying to explain the kernel of the Bill, why it has come about, and why the amendments and new clauses are, in my judgment, fundamentally wrong.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North East has taken me neatly on to my second point—the amendments in her name and the names of her hon. Friends. The position of the separatists is entirely disingenuous on this issue. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) told us that they would be unable to support the Bill not only if new clause 16 were not passed, but if the whole raft of other SNP amendments were not passed as well. We should not be unduly surprised by that, because in Committee we were able to tease out from their questioning of our witnesses that Members representing Scottish seats in the SNP interest believe in uncontrolled and unfettered immigration—an open-door policy. Moreover, they seek, on behalf of their friends in the Scottish Parliament, to assume to themselves powers and privileges reserved to this House with regard to the control of immigration, and suddenly, via the back door, to see it as a new devolved power. Anybody with a strand of Unionism and common sense in their body should seek to resist that, and that is why I will vote against the amendments.

In essence, at the heart of these amendments, SNP Members are seeking to encourage further devolution—further separation—and to have a greater tension between the regions and the countries of the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow North East says, with her customary self-deprecatory humour, “Us?” Yes, I do mean the SNP. Government Members will seek to resist the devolution of power over the control of immigration into, let us be frank, a small island with incredibly porous borders, given our coastal and island nature. It would be folly to open a Pandora’s box of devolution with regard to immigration issues. This affects the whole of the United Kingdom.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Simon Hoare]

With the most enormous pleasure, as always.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I rather think the hon. Gentleman is missing the point about the amendments and new clauses. The Bill has very detailed provisions for England and Wales, and in some cases for Northern Ireland, but it just provides the Secretary of State with a broad, sweeping power to do the same for Scotland, without any scrutiny in Parliament or in the Scottish Parliament. Even if the hon. Gentleman does not agree with us about getting approval from the Scottish Parliament, he should at least agree about getting rid of the regulatory powers so that this would have to be done in primary legislation, with full scrutiny in this House, rather than by a Henry VIII clause.

[Simon Hoare]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. All I would say to him in reply is that the Bill has been brought forward in the United Kingdom Parliament and has had full and forensic discussion both on Second Reading and in Committee, as it will today on Report and, doubtless, on Third Reading. I suggest he should say to his friends holding ministerial office and other positions of power in Scotland and the Scottish Parliament that, when they are in effect carrying out duties passed to them under a devolved settlement, they should ensure that how they deliver such policies and put them in place on the ground always reflects the national law of the land.

When I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, I was simply concluding that if the new clauses and amendments, which would in effect devolve immigration to Holyrood, were agreed to, the United Kingdom Government would by definition need to find ways of controlling the movement of people from Scotland south into England, and very possibly people going from the south to the north as well. As I have said, we teased out in Committee—both in the evidence sessions and the other sittings—the SNP’s firm commitment to have an open-door policy and no fetters on immigration. My constituents in the south of England will be grossly alarmed by that.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

As I have said, the current Home Office policy is to use detention sparingly and for the shortest period necessary, which is why our work on ensuring a more efficient and effective system consistent with our obligation is absolutely consistent with the themes redolent in paragraphs (b) to (e) of new clause 13. The difference is that I believe that having a 28-day time period does not advance the cause. It is a blunt instrument that does not take account of the full range of different circumstances that are redolent here from foreign national offenders to those who might not be compliant with the requirements we put upon them or who abscond, so we need to look at the situation on a case-by-case basis. I repeat, however, that we are conducting our review in the light of our focus on efficiency and effectiveness, and we will revert to the House as I have outlined.

A number of other points, including about the right to rent, have been highlighted in the debate. The right-to-rent scheme restricts the access of illegal migrants to the private rented sector, stopping them setting down roots and building ties. The scheme, which has been rolled out to parts of the west midlands, has not proven difficult or burdensome for landlords, but it has led to illegal migrants being apprehended.

The scheme has been in place for one year and is working as intended. The Government published an extensive evaluation of the right-to-rent scheme’s first six months, and this found no hard evidence of discrimination or any new barriers to lawful residents accessing the private rented sector. Repealing the right-to-rent scheme would remove a significant part of the Government’s measures to deter illegal migration. The Bill’s provisions on residential tenancies are aimed to make it easier for the majority of reputable landlords to evict illegal migrant tenants and to crack down further on those rogue landlords who do so much to damage the sector.

The offences are framed to allow for the prosecution of those who are or who have knowingly rented to illegal migrants or who have or had reasonable cause to believe that they were renting to illegal migrants. We believe that that is the right approach, but a conviction will be possible only where the offence has been proven to the criminal threshold of beyond reasonable doubt. These offences are not designed to catch out a landlord who has made a genuine mistake, and it is difficult to foresee a situation in which it would be in the public interest to pursue a prosecution against a landlord making reasonable efforts to remove illegal migrants from their property.

There are concerns about people being evicted without adequate notice or without sufficient safeguards in place—and points were raised about these in the debate on some of the other amendments. However, safeguards already exist. The Secretary of State will serve notices only where she is satisfied that the migrant is here unlawfully and only after taking the migrant’s circumstances into consideration. Should there be recognised barriers to illegal migrants leaving the UK that are not of their own making, these will be taken into account.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) asked about measures relating to charities. Amendment 46 would create what we regard as a significant loophole in the right-to-rent provisions. It could lead to endless quibbling about what is meant by “significantly exceed the costs” and indeed about what constitutes “costs”. I responded in Committee to give an assurance on a number of different aspects, and said that many of the shelters would fall outside the provisions. Our concern is that rogue landlords would take advantage of the measures that the hon. Lady outlined, and we would not want to create such a loophole.

In the debate in Committee on the director of labour market enforcement, there was strong support on all sides for the creation of such a director, which has been reflected in today’s debate, too. The director’s role is already set out in the Bill. The director will set out the strategy for our enforcement bodies to stop exploitation and non-compliance across the spectrum, but there is a difference between the role of the director and that of the anti-slavery commissioner. If we look at all the different aspects of the labour market enforcement strategy, we judge that the provision is right, but we will obviously continue to reflect to ensure that it is appropriately framed.

On the issue of resources, we have recently announced that we will increase HMRC’s budget for 2015-16 by £4 million around the issue of the national minimum wage. The director will analyse the available funds across all the different aspects for which he or she would have responsibility.

Some have raised concerns about the offence. The Government would not want to prosecute those who have been forced to travel here and exploited for the profit of others, which goes to the heart of the matter. That is why the offence is not aimed at the victims of modern slavery. The statutory defence in section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 will apply.

On some of the issues raised by SNP Members, we maintain that the heart of the issues that matter here are reserved, so it would not be appropriate to accept the proposed amendments. New clause 16 would amend the compensation arrangements for those experiencing financial detriment as a consequence of an illegal working closure notice, but we believe that these provisions are already covered in paragraph 15 of schedule 3 and related safeguards, which are, in our judgment, sufficient. As for James Ewins’s review of overseas domestic workers, it will shortly be published and will no doubt be subject to further consideration at that stage.

I reiterate to right hon. and hon. Members that we have given careful consideration to the Bill and have reflected on a number of the points raised. I hope that, with the assurances I have given, right hon. and hon. Members will be minded not to press their amendments and new clauses to the vote.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 8

Offence of illegal working

Amendment proposed: 19, page 5, line 2, leave out clause 8.—(Keir Starmer.)

To omit the clause on the new illegal working offence and maintain the status quo.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The issue of prison conditions is relevant, for example, as are prisoner transfer agreements and the bilateral arrangements that we have in place. Work is being done across Government on the return of foreign national offenders, which I know was a particular issue for my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate, not simply in the Home Office, but in the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Justice and elsewhere, to look at these issues in the round and see what measures and mechanisms are available to us to enhance the process. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) was right to frame his point in that way. I assure him and my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate that we are taking a joined-up approach across Government to use the measures that are available to us to enhance our response in respect of returns.

New clause 12 seeks to create a system that requires non-UK nationals, including EU nationals, seeking leave to enter and remain in the UK to obtain legal authority to remain in the UK. I agree with much of the thinking of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), but new clause 12 essentially seeks to curtail the free movement of EU citizens to the UK under existing treaty rights. I am not sure that legislation is the right way to approach that.

The Immigration Act 2014 limits the factors that draw illegal migrants to the UK and introduces tough domestic reforms to ensure that our controls on access to benefits and services, including the NHS and social housing, are among the tightest in Europe. We believe that the way to bring about real change is through effective renegotiation with the European Union. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will be well aware of the letter the Prime Minister sent to Donald Tusk, the President of the European Council, to set out our approach and the broader stance we seek to take.

New clause 14 would require the Secretary of State to amend the minimum income threshold requirement for sponsoring a non-EEA national partner and any non-EEA national dependent children to settle in the UK. That would undermine the impact of the minimum income threshold, which the courts have agreed correctly reflects the public interest in controlling immigration to safeguard the UK’s economic wellbeing by preventing family migrants from becoming a burden on the taxpayer and by promoting their integration. A couple with income equivalent to the national minimum wage can still access income-related benefits and tax credits. A minimum income threshold set at that level would therefore not be sufficient to prevent burdens on the taxpayer once the migrant partner reached settlement and had full access to welfare benefits. It would also provide less support for the migrant partner’s integration in society. That is simply not an adequate basis for sustainable family migration and integration.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Will the Minister clarify his position on the rules that prevent potential income from a non-EEA spouse from being taken into account? That income is not a burden on the UK taxpayer, so why is it still the Government’s position that it should be excluded?

[James Brokenshire]

As I have indicated, it is about creating a long-term stable position on what may be considered a burden. I underline that we continue to look at the specific rules on what is and what is not taken into account. I am happy to reflect further on the point that the hon. Gentleman has highlighted. The Government’s approach has been challenged in the courts and the relevant monetary threshold has been upheld. We will continue to analyse experience and evidence in respect of this matter, but our judgment is that the way in which we assess what is counted is right.

New clause 15 would require the Secretary of State to amend the entry clearance rules for non-EEA national adult dependent relatives to remove the current requirement that the personal care needs of that relative cannot be met in their country of origin. Again, that would represent a significant dilution of the reforms implemented in July 2012. The route for adult dependent relatives was reformed because of the significant NHS and social care costs that can be associated with these cases. The route now provides for those most in need of care, but not for those who would simply prefer to come to live in the UK. The family immigration rules that we reformed in the last Parliament are having the right impact and are helping to restore public confidence in this part of the immigration system. If personal care needs can be met in someone’s country of origin, it is not right to allow them to travel to the UK for that purpose.

--- Later in debate ---

The new clause sends the wrong message. People in my constituency will have been troubled by, or have had some concern about, some of the things that have been said—not necessarily in this debate, but during prior discussion. I absolutely support the Government amendments that I have discussed and I look forward to casting my vote later.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Like the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), we believe that the provisions on support are among the most draconian parts of the Bill; I agree with the Minister to the extent that the disagreement is one of principle.

In our view, provisions that seek to use the further deliberate infliction of destitution, including of children, as a tool of immigration policy must be thoroughly opposed. The provisions fly in the face of evidence, are counterproductive and show a grim lack of compassion. We support all amendments seeking to prevent, or at least limit, the damage. They include amendment 29, which would remove clause 37 and therefore most of the damaging changes, and amendments 30 and 31, which would preserve all rights of appeal against decisions to refuse support. Amendment 40, tabled by Scottish National party Members, would ensure that families with children who are minors received section 95 support until they left the country.

The Minister referred to the pilot carried out by the last Labour Government, and that is still relevant to what is being proposed today. Similar proposals were abandoned because of the results of the pilot. It is interesting to look at the comments about the project made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights:

“The section 9 pilot has caused considerable hardship and does not appear to have encouraged more refused asylum seeking families to leave the UK…We believe that using both the threats and the actuality of destitution and family separation is incompatible with the principles of common humanity and with international human rights law and that it has no place in a humane society. We recommend that section 9 be repealed at the earliest opportunity.”

We believe that the same should happen to the equivalent provisions in this Bill.

Sadly, the Government have in their sights not only children but those who arrived as children and are now young adults. Rather cruelly, young care leavers will be prime targets. That is why we have tabled amendments 42 to 45, which would ensure that young people leaving local authority care were able to access leaving care support under the Children Act 1989 without discrimination. Amendments 42 and 43 would remove the provisions, added by schedule 9, that would prevent local authorities from providing leaving care support under the 1989 Act to young people who were not asylum seekers and did not have leave to remain when they reached age 18.

Amendment 44 would enable local authorities to provide leaving care support under the 1989 Act to young people who did not have leave to remain and were not asylum seekers. Finally in this group, amendment 45 would provide for the Secretary of State to make funding available to local authorities, as the specialist agency responsible for care leavers, to meet the duties, set out in the 1989 Act, to the latter group of care leavers.

Our amendments 39 and 36 bring us back to what I said about the first group of amendments relating to the broad powers, which we seek to rein in, proposed for immigration officers. Despite what the Minister says, those include powers for detainee custody officers, prison officers and prison custody officers to strip search detained persons for anything that could be evidence of their nationality—a very broadly defined power. The Minister points out that Government amendments 3 and 4 propose changing the name of the search from “strip search” to “full search”, but they do not in any essential way change the extent of the powers, which, to all intents and purposes as far as I still understand them, are basically strip search powers. For that reason, provision on the gender of the persons present during the search is made in clause 25(8). Our amendment 36 would remove the proposed power for custody officers to strip search detainees for documents that “might” establish a person’s nationality or indicate

“the place from which the person travelled to the UK or to which a person is proposing to go.”

Going further, we seek to tighten schedule 2(2) of the Immigration Act 1971. This power ostensibly deals with individuals on arrival in the UK for the purposes of determining whether they have or should be given leave to enter or remain. It has been used by the Home Office as justification for conducting speculative, in-country spot-checks involving “consensual interviews”. Amendment 39 would expressly limit this power to examination at the point of entry. The Minister argues that our amendment makes the power too tightly drawn, but in our view it is far better for intrusive powers to be tightly drawn than drawn broadly and arbitrarily.

The other atrocious provisions that amendments in this group seek to attack are those which provide that people should leave the UK even before their appeal against a Home Office decision has been heard. Amendment 27, which has support from Labour as well as SNP Members, would remove the offending clause 34, which extends powers of certification introduced by the Immigration Act 2014 to mean no longer just “deport first, appeal later” for those convicted, but “remove first, appeal later” for all. To us, these provisions are madness. They will mean people having to give up jobs, studies and family life while appeals are ongoing. Families could be separated for lengthy and unknown periods until their appeal is finally determined.

All this comes against a background of constant criticism of Home Office decision making, including in a recent ombudsman’s report. We should bear in mind that in 2014-15 42% of managed migration appeals and 42% of entry clearance appeals were successful. In 2013-14, the figures were 49% and 48%. Thousands of people could have to leave for several months because the Home Office got it wrong. The danger is that appeals will not be pursued or will be pursued inadequately given the costs of pursuing an appeal as a privately paying client from overseas.

[Joanna Cherry]

My hon. Friend will be aware that Home Office statistics state that only 24% of appellants removed under the current “deport first, appeal later” provisions go through with their appeals. Does he agree that this suggests that extending those provisions will make it much harder—in fact, probably impossible—for the majority of these appeals to go ahead? Is it not inherently unfair to hold appeals with the appellants unable to make their own case in person?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I am grateful for that intervention and entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend.

The Government seem to be attempting to cut net migration not just by limiting the class of people who can come under the rules but by making it nearly impossible for people to exercise their legitimate rights to stay. This is scraping the barrel of immigration control measures, and I will want to test the House’s opinion on that.

We regard as utterly unnecessary the part 7 provisions on the English language. Our amendment 34 would ensure that part 7 will not come into force in Scotland without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. We have faith that our public authorities, whether reserved or devolved, can determine that a worker has the necessary skills for the job, including speaking fluent English, and that normal complaints procedures would deal with any problems, as with any other complaint about competence. Part 7 creates unnecessary bureaucracy and is a clear example of immigration theatre and tokenism.

A number of other Members have made brave attempts to bring a silver lining to the cloud provided by this grim Bill. New clauses 11 and 1 seek to expand the range of people qualifying for refugee family reunion. I have asked questions, written letters and spoken in this Chamber on this point on several occasions, so I am very happy to provide my backing for such attempts. In the face of the most dreadful refugee crisis since the second world war, surely this is a sensible option that we can all support. Broader family reunion means that people we know should logically be sheltered in the United Kingdom do get to come here. This is the logical place for them because they have family support here and so will have help with accommodation and integration, for example. They will often even pay for their own flight. With little trouble for the Government or the taxpayer, we can extend a hand of friendship to more of those fleeing dreadful war and persecution.

Three amendments in the name of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) similarly seek to bring some light from the darkness. Amendment 2 would introduce permission to work for those seeking asylum who have been waiting six months for a decision. My colleagues and I recognise that this is a positive step forward, and it has our backing. We also thoroughly welcome new clause 14 as a step forward in overcoming the unduly onerous financial thresholds attached to family visas, which the Children’s Commissioner for England recently reported had created thousands of what she called “Skype families”—British children able to communicate with a parent only over the internet. New clause 15 would improve rules relating to adult dependent relatives by removing unnecessary criteria, and it again has our full support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I, too, place on record my thanks to all the organisations that have supported and advised MPs during the passage of this Bill. We have had a passionate and thoughtful debate and we have one final, brief chance to debate further, so I intend to take it.

Some would wish to criticise the Immigration Minister in the light of the latest abject failure to make any progress on the net migration target, but not us: we are critical of the net migration target itself, which long precedes the Minister. On Second Reading, I described the net migration target as unhelpful and unachievable. Last week’s announcement suggests that my description was far too understated. The immigration target is, frankly, total bunkum, complete baloney, and utterly bogus. There is no research or plan that explains why tens of thousands is the right target or an achievable target. Indeed, we learned today that the Chancellor’s spending plans appear to depend entirely on the net migration target being spectacularly missed. Without forecast inward migration, we will not be able to see through the spending plans that he set out last week. It is time for an honest debate on immigration about what is desirable and what is achievable.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Week after week at my constituency surgeries, I am left speechless as I try to explain to people coming from the most difficult of circumstances and wanting to seek a fresh home, make a fresh start and contribute to our society and economy, why this Government refuse to let them in. Does my hon. Friend agree that the net migration target is completely ideological and has nothing to do with what is actually good for the country?

[Mr Speaker]

I could never imagine the adjective “speechless” being applied to the hon. Gentleman.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I agree with my hon. Friend.

Such an honest debate must include discussion of how we assist communities that face challenges because of significant levels of migration. It must be about how we incentivise migrants to live in the parts of the United Kingdom that most need them and can most easily accommodate them. It should be about whether and how we can properly count those coming in and out, and how we can enforce the rules we already have, rather than create endless new rules. The debate must no longer proceed on the basis of the vicious climate of hostility policy that the Government pursue, and which affects all of us. We need a better approach to migration than the ludicrous one-size-fits-all target, which actually incentivises—my hon. Friend alluded to this—the exclusion of husbands and wives, the persecuted and the bright young students who will be the leaders of tomorrow.

We should reject this flawed Bill, which is designed to pursue a flawed target. Indeed, saying that it seeks to pursue that flawed target is in itself almost certainly being too kind, because it has zero chance of getting us anywhere near the target. This is not pursuit, but pretence. The Bill has been well described as “immigration theatre”. That is the fundamental flaw at the heart of the Bill, but there are so many problems with its pernicious clauses that it is not possible to do them all justice in the time available.

The Government may feel compelled to be seen to do something about net migration, but in reality the Bill will do nothing to resolve the challenges of migration, nor to maximise its benefits, and it will not certainly achieve the bogus target. However we look at it—from the perspective of the rule of law, human rights, the best interests of children, or just simple common decency—the Bill is pretty desperate stuff. I encourage Members to vote against it on Third Reading.