Palestinians: Visa Scheme

Debate between Stuart C McDonald and Imran Hussain

Monday 13th May 2024 Westminster Hall

[Imran Hussain]

Surely it is actually worse than that. The rules are so outrageous that even a person who was unfamiliar with them would see instantly that they are not going to work, because people simply cannot get to the place they need to reach to they get the required documents. Does the hon. Member agree that the tragedy is that we first saw this with 1 million Rohingya people in Cox’s Bazar, where similar restrictions were put in place, and we are now seeing the same restrictions on 1.4 million people in Rafah, further exposing the double standard?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I thank the hon. Member for the intervention. I simply repeat the point: the system is not designed for the circumstances that are unfolding, and it is imperative that the Government get their finger out and design a suitable bespoke scheme.

I join other hon. Members in calling on the Minister to rethink his Department’s utterly wrong-headed approach to biometrics in war-torn countries. A few months back, I had an Adjournment debate similar to this one on Sudan, with the Minister’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). In Gaza, as in Sudan, there is no possibility that in-country biometrics can be provided alongside a visa application, so surely the common-sense approach is to consider applications and to defer biometric enrolment, as we are all arguing. If, subject to those biometrics, an application is to be allowed, the applicant can then commence their journey and provide the biometric information either on arrival here or, if the Home Office is not willing to go that far, in a third country such as Egypt.

However, rather than making things easier, the Minister seems to have made the position tougher through new guidance about when exceptions to biometric enrolment would apply. That is why not a single application to defer biometrics has been granted by the Home Office since Israel began its offensive in Gaza, as we have heard. In the circumstances, that is utterly incomprehensible. Given that the general country situation makes it impossible to have biometric enrolment there, people are left with a choice: either they have to take an almighty gamble and make dangerous and often illegal journeys to neighbouring countries to enrol their biometrics, without even knowing whether they will then be allowed onwards to the United Kingdom, or they give up. Making people take that decision is astonishingly cruel.

The Minister subsequently wrote to me to set out reasons justifying that approach in relation to Sudan, and I suspect that we will hear the same today in relation to Gaza. The letter repeatedly made the point that biometric information is vital for security. But nobody is disputing that point. We are just asking for a reasonable approach as to when biometric information needs to be provided; we are not asking for it to be waived altogether. We understand the importance of the checks, but the Minister cannot be oblivious to the horrible problems that his Department’s approach is causing people who want to leave Gaza. Frankly, the absence of any other good reason creates the impression that the Home Office is more bothered about suppressing the number of applications than it is about any real point of principle. That is a depressing thought.

Reuniting people from hellish warzones with family here in the UK is something that we should celebrate. We call on the Government to facilitate that, rather than to obstruct it. A family scheme for Gaza has my full support. It is not a big ask; it is the very least the Government should be doing.

HMRC Closures

Debate between Stuart C McDonald and Imran Hussain

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate on a subject that matters to many people in many of our constituencies. Does he agree that surely it makes sense for HMRC to put high-quality, high-wage jobs into areas where there is a deficiency of those jobs? In my district of Bradford, two thirds of the civil service jobs—more than 2,000 of them—are with HMRC. Putting those jobs at risk surely makes no sense whatsoever.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Indeed. That is the argument that I will come on to make. Centralising those jobs in city centres, which are already in many cases doing very well in terms of employment, makes absolutely no sense at all.

This debate is also important to the public and taxpayers generally. When it was formed in 2005, HMRC had 96,000 full-time equivalent members of staff and 593 offices. Less than a decade later, staff numbers had fallen to below 50,000, in fewer than 190 offices. “Building our Future” sets out to close 137 offices and centralise even fewer staff in 13 large regional hubs, with between 1,200 and 6,000 staff. Some 38,000 staff are either going to have to move or leave HMRC. From any perspective, that is a massive and radical change to how our taxes are collected to pay for the services that we all use and rely on, so it deserves the closest of scrutiny.