Campaign reply: Afghan refugees - October 2021
Constituents have written to me regarding their concerns over the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme, the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP), and the Nationality and Borders Bill.
I am proud of our history of welcoming those fleeing persecution or oppression. Many of Aghans, particularly women, are now in urgent need of our help, and that is why the Government is establishing a new route for Afghan citizens - prioritising women and girls - who have been forced to flee their home or face threats of persecution from the Taliban to set up home in the UK permanently.
This is in addition to existing programmes and routes already established and in operation – including 5,000 Afghans we expect to relocate to the UK this year under the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy. The new Afghanistan Citizens’ Resettlement Scheme will resettle thousands of Afghan women and children under one of the most generous resettlement schemes in our country’s history.
This new route is modelled on the successful Syrian Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme, which resettled 20,000 Syrian refugees over a seven-year period from 2014 to 2021.
The Afghanistan Citizens’ Resettlement Scheme will prioritise women and girls, and religious and other minorities, who are most at risk of human rights abuses and dehumanising treatment by the Taliban.
The Government’s ambition is to welcome up to 5,000 Afghans to the UK under the new Afghanistan Citizens’ Resettlement Scheme in its first year, with up to a total of 20,000 in the long-term.
The complexity of the picture on the ground in Afghanistan means there remains significant obstacles in allowing us to begin delivering the scheme, but the Government is working at speed to address these, and we can expect to see the publication of further details such as the opening date of the scheme and how to apply over the coming weeks.
I fully understand the desire that constituents have expressed in wanting to see this scheme being rolled out and scaled up as soon as possible, and I know that work is well underway across Government to ensure that the scheme opens as soon as possible. But it is equally important that any refugee resettlement scheme is carefully put together and this process cannot be rushed – refugee resettlement isn’t simply about evacuation, it is also about providing refugees with the welcome they deserve when they get here, and it is important that we have a fully drawn up plan to welcome and resettle Afghan refugees before we are able to bring them here.
With regards to the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (ARAP): Our country owe a huge debt of gratitude to all the Afghan people who worked alongside the British Government and risked their lives in Afghanistan alongside our Armed Forces. Standing side by side with us, these people have shared and endured extreme hardship, and their contribution to the UK's and our allies' work in Afghanistan has been exceptional.
I believe we have a moral obligation to recognise the risks that these individuals and their families have faced, through offering them the safety and sanctuary of a home here.
Under ARAP, over 2,000 eligible local staff who supported the UK Government in Afghanistan, and their families, have been relocated to the UK since April this year. Over 3,000 locally employed civilians and their families have been relocated since 2014, demonstrating the UK’s commitment to ensuring the safety of those who supported the government.
Under the policy, any locally staff formally employed by the British Government who are assessed to be under serious threat to life are offered priority relocation to the UK regardless of their employment status, rank or role, or length of time served.
The ARAP scheme remains open to eligible applicants. It is also possible to make an application outside of Afghanistan. Current or former staff who believe they qualify should apply by using the online application form: https://homeofficemedia.blog.gov.uk/2021/09/13/arcs-other-routes/
If you are aware of any former staff in Afghanistan in need of further assistance with relocating to the UK please encourage them to get in touch with me via this email address: steve.double.mp@parliament.uk
Finally, in relation to the provisions proposed by the Nationality and Borders Bill: Entering the UK illegally – Crossing the Channel in dinghies, for instance – can be a highly dangerous undertaking. Often, human trafficking gangs abuse victims for their own profit by making them pay for these crossing and either confiscating or destroying their passports. Families and young children have lost their lives at sea, in lorries and in shipping containers, having put their trust in the hands of criminals.
The Government is right to be doing all it can to tackle this problem and prevent further illegal entries from happening in the first place by bringing in measures that will break the business model of the criminal trafficking networks.
It is right that we seek to do more to prevent the peoples’ lives from being exploited and put at risk at the hands of human traffickers. To this end, the Bill has 3 main objectives:
1. To increase the fairness and efficiency of our system so that we can better protect and support those in genuine need of asylum;
2. To deter and prevent illegal entry into the UK, thereby breaking the business model of the criminal trafficking networks and protecting the lives of those that they endanger; and
3. To remove those with no right to remain in the UK more easily.
At the heart of this Bill is the principle of fairness. Access to the UK’s asylum system should be based on need, not on the ability to pay people smugglers.
To deter illegal entry into the UK and tackle the issue at its roots, the Nationality and Borders Bill will introduce a host of measures which includes life sentences for people smugglers and raising the penalty for illegal entry from 6 months’ to 4 years’ imprisonment.
Entering the UK illegally is not only wrong but a highly dangerous endeavour to which we must put a stop . It is right that we are bringing in safe and legal routes which will allow many Afghans, such as the ones outlined above, to come to the UK and build a new home here. But we would be doing them, the British public, and the international community a disservice if we were to allow the illegal movement of people to continue.
Campaign response: Please oppose Rupa Huq's abortion clinic censorship zone amendment to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill - August 2021
Recently constituents have been in touch with me regarding Rupa Huq’s amendment to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill which sought to allow for the introduction of censorship zones outside abortion clinics and jail sentences for demonstrations outside abortion clinics if passed.
In the run up to the Bill’s Second Reading on 5 July I received a great number of emails from constituents expressing their very serious concerns over amendments such as the above. As a pro-life, pro-free speech MP I took careful note of the views expressed and found myself in agreement with many of constituents’ concerns.
Constituents may be pleased to learn that like Diana Johnson’s amendment which would have paved the way for abortion up to birth, Rupa Huq’s amendment was also withdrawn by the Member.
Had the amendment been moved to a vote I would have voted against it and urged colleagues in the strongest terms to do the same.
Constituents are absolutely right to point out that Rupa Huq’s proposals would have presented major difficulties to a democratic society founded on the freedom of speech and association. I am also intrigued to find out that only a fifth of the population supports Rupa Huq’s proposals as per polling conducted by Savanta ComRe. This goes to show that regardless of where we stand on the issue of abortion, the vast majority of us respect people’s right to free speech and understand that these proposals do not serve the public’s interest.
I continue to work closely with organisations such as Right to Life and the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) to ensure that pro-life voices are heard in Parliament. I am also a member of the cross-party pro-life group of MPs and together we work to raise awareness around the health and ethical implications of abortion.
Rest assured that I will continue to vote against any future proposals to introduce censorship zones outside abortion clinics.
Campaign response: Nationality & Borders Bill - July 2021
I am grateful to constituents who have written in concerning my vote at the Second Reading of the Nationality & Borders Bill on 20 July.
First may I assure them that I fully understand the need for us to deliver a fairer and more compassionate immigration system.
I have always been clear that Brexit gives us a great opportunity to build a new and more effective immigration system that is fair and robust while being compassionate on those who most need our help and protection.
That is why as Vice Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Migration I continue to work hard with colleagues across the political spectrum to a seek a consensus on how we can legislate to build and implement such a system, and why I have taken time to engage and meet with NGOs and charities representing the rights of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees. I was glad to see that Government ministers are in agreement with my position at the Second Reading of the Nationality and Borders Bill.
I welcome all those who legally migrate to the UK for economic reasons and seek sanctuary here through safe and legal routes. I am proud that many people from around the world have decided to come and live in the UK and make a contribution to our economy and society – from the Windrush Generation of the 1940s to Hong Kongers of the 2020s. We have a strong track record of welcoming those most in need and offering them sanctuary and a safe place to rebuild their lives here and contribute to our national effort in the UK – whether rebuilding after the war or now rebuilding after the COVID pandemic.
And this is a record we have continued to build on: For instance, in response to the humanitarian crisis in Syria, in 2015 the Government established the Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme (VPRS), through which we have worked with local authorities and community groups to resettle over 20,000 Syrian refugees in the UK. In June 2019, the Government reaffirmed the UK’s commitment to refugee resettlement by announcing a new, global UK Resettlement Scheme, which after the pandemic will allow us to show welcome to the most in need of help and a new home beyond Syria and the MENA region.
Furthermore, we have granted protection and other forms of leave to more than 44,000 children seeking protection since 2010. The UK continues to be one of the highest recipients of asylum claims from unaccompanied children across Europe, receiving more claims than any EU member state in 2019 and 20% of all claims made in the EU.
Prior to the pandemic in January 2020 my team and I met with representatives of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in the UK to discuss these policies and other issues related to asylum and refugees. As we look to come out of lockdown, I look forward to continue working with them and other agencies to ensure that the UK’s policy on refugees and family reunion is fit for purpose.
But I am also committed to supporting the Government in its efforts to deter and tackle illegal immigration, which undermines both the system of immigration control and public confidence in it.
The number of people attempting to enter the UK illegally has risen significantly in the past 12 months and I know that this is a concern to a lot of people in our constituency. I share their concerns over the scale and severity of the situation and have been able to make their feelings known to the Home Office over the past year. UK asylum claims has increased by 21% to almost 36,000 – the highest number since the 2015/16 European migration crisis. Small boat arrivals to the UK reached record levels with 8,500 illegal arrivals last year.
In view of this, the Bill aims to introduce a set of reforms aimed at strengthening our asylum and immigration system, and you can read more about these measures here: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/the-nationality-and-borders-bill
The introduction of the bill was preceded by an open online consultation, which the government has carefully considered, and I hope you and other concerned constituents were able to engage with.
Entering the UK illegally – Crossing the Channel in dinghies, for instance – can be a highly dangerous undertaking. Often, human trafficking gangs abuse victims for their own profit by making them pay for these crossing and either confiscating or destroying their passports. Families and young children have lost their lives at sea, in lorries and in shipping containers, having put their trust in the hands of criminals. The Government is right to be doing all it can to tackle this problem and prevent further illegal entries from happening in the first place by bringing in measures that will break the business model of the criminal trafficking networks.
It is right that we seek to do more to prevent the peoples’ lives from being exploited and put at risk at the hands of human traffickers. To this end, the Bill has 3 main objectives:
1. To increase the fairness and efficiency of our system so that we can better protect and support those in genuine need of asylum;
2. To deter and prevent illegal entry into the UK, thereby breaking the business model of the criminal trafficking networks and protecting the lives of those that they endanger; and
3. To remove those with no right to remain in the UK more easily.
At the heart of this Bill is the principle of fairness. Access to the UK’s asylum system should be based on need, not on the ability to pay people smugglers.
We will discourage asylum claims via illegal routes, as other countries such as Denmark have recently succeeded in doing. For the first time, how someone enters the UK will impact on how their claim progresses and on their status in the UK if that claim is successful.
Those who enter illegally will receive a new temporary protection status rather than an automatic right to settle, will be regularly reassessed for removal, have limited family reunion rights and limited access to benefits. They will also be subject to a more robust age assessment to safeguard against adults claiming to be children.
As we clamp down on illegal immigration and abuse of the system, we will also streamline the asylum framework to prevent repeat claims which frustrate removal, including of dangerous Foreign National Offenders.
We will also increase prison sentences for those illegally entering the UK, introduce life sentences for facilitation of illegal entry, give Border Force additional powers, strengthen age assessments and introduce a more robust statutory definition of “well-founded fear of persecution” for asylum purposes.
At the same time, we will enhance our reputation as Global Britain, strengthening our safe and legal routes for refugees and fixing historic anomalies in British Nationality law.
Concerns have been raised over the legality of these reforms. The proposals which have been set out are fully compliant with our international obligations, including the European Convention on Human Rights, the Refugee Convention and the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings.
Some have also brought up the issues surrounding asylum accommodation: The UK will continue to have a statutory obligation to provide asylum seekers with support while their asylum case is being considered – this is something the Government fully recognises and intends to uphold.
As part of this package of support, asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute are provided with free accommodation. In addition to providing the accommodation itself to asylum seekers, their utility bills and council tax are paid for and free healthcare on the NHS is available. Free education is available for those with children, and there is a cash allowance to cover other essential living needs, which recently increased by 5%, considerably more than inflation.
In fact, during the coronavirus pandemic, the Home Office have stepped up the help available to go beyond statutory requirements. The usual practice of asking asylum seekers to move on from supported accommodation when their asylum claim is decided has been paused so that they can remain in supported asylum accommodation. As a consequence of that decision, which was implemented in March 2020, thousands more people are now n supported accommodation than was the case before the pandemic.
Where additional hotels have been procured during the course of the pandemic for the purposes of asylum support, full-board accommodation, including laundry services, personal hygiene products and feminine hygiene products, are provided to asylum seekers. Wrap-around services are also provided, including welfare support, healthcare and access to mental health services. Asylum seekers also have 24-hour-a-day access to assistance via Migrant Help through a freephone number.
All of the above measures support will continue to be available to the asylum seekers who are most in need as we emerge from the pandemic.
Campaign response: Windrush Scandal - July 2021
Thank you to constituents for emailing regarding the backbench business debate on the Windrush Scandal on Thursday 1 July.
I am very sorry that due to longstanding commitments in my diary I was unable to attend.
The fallout from the Windrush Scandal is one that I take an active interest in and the appalling treatment of the Windrush Generation at the hands of successive governments is one that I deeply regret.
Indeed when the issue first came to light in 2018 I had the privilege of securing and leading a parliamentary debate on the experience of the Windrush Generation, in which I strongly urged Home Office ministers to make fundamental changes about the Home Office’s practices as well as culture when handling with immigration cases.
Since then I have continued to speak up for the Windrush Generation and their children in the Commons and elsewhere and I am pleased to see that the many constructive steps that this Government has taken in allowing the Windrush Generation and their children to seek redress and compensation, including the establishment of a Windrush Compensation Scheme as well as a comprehensive review into what went wrong at the home of Whitehall and what more needs to be done to prevent a second Windrush situation –We owe it to our British Caribbean community.
In December 2020 there was an overhaul of Windrush compensation scheme to pay people more money more quickly: it now takes an average of three weeks from receipt of an acceptance to payment. The Government have now paid six times more than the total amount paid previously. This means almost £30 million in compensation have been offered, of which £20.4 million has been paid to approximately 687 claimants.
I think the Prime Minister struck the right tone on this matter when he described the HMS Windrush as the “Mayflower of our country” in an answer to a Prime Minister’s Question recently:
“I accept the injustice that was done to the Windrush generation and renew the apologies on behalf of the Government for our share of responsibility. Yes, I do want to make sure that the compensation scheme is accelerated; I spoke to the people responsible for distributing it just the other night. I also said—I hope the House would agree—that I hope that in due time the name Windrush will be associated not just with that injustice, though it was appalling, but with the amazing contribution, sacrifice and effort of the Windrush generation to this country, that Windrush is a positive name for the people of this country, and that, indeed, Windrush is regarded as the Mayflower of our country.”
Rest assured that I will continue to monitor the programme to compensate victims of the Windrush scandal closely and ensure that anybody in our constituency caught up in it is adequately recompensed.
Campaign response: Please help make a change for undocumented migrants in the UK - April 2021
Thank you to constituents for getting in touch recently about undocumented migrants as part of the JCWI campaign on the issue.
I have always been clear that Brexit gives us a great opportunity to build a new and more effective immigration system that is fair and robust while being compassionate on those who most need our help and protection. That is why as Vice Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Migration I continue to work hard with colleagues across the political spectrum to a seek a consensus on how we can legislate to build and implement such a system, and why I have taken time to engage and meet with NGOs and charities representing the rights of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees. Last year my team and I were able to meet with JCWI to discuss issues of common concern and opportunities for further collaboration.
I welcome all those who migrate to the UK through safe and legal routes. I am proud that many people from around the world have decided to come and live in the UK and make a contribution to our economy and society – from the Windrush Generation of the 1940s to Hong Kongers of the 2020s.
But I am also committed to supporting the Government in its efforts to deter and tackle illegal immigration, which undermines both the system of immigration control and public confidence in it. The number of people attempting to enter the UK illegally has risen significantly in the past 12 months and I know that this is a concern to many in our constituency. I share their concerns over the scale and severity of the situation and have been able to make their feelings known to the Home Office over the past year. UK asylum claims has increased by 21% to almost 36,000 – the highest number since the 2015/16 European migration crisis. Small boat arrivals to the UK reached record levels with 8,500 illegal arrivals last year.
In view of this the Government has published a ‘New Plan for Immigration’, a set of reforms aimed at strengthening our asylum and immigration system, and you can read more about the measures that the Government is seeking to introduce and have your say in the public consultation here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/new-plan-for-immigration
Entering the UK illegally – Crossing the Channel in dinghies, for instance – can be a highly dangerous undertaking. Often, human trafficking gangs abuse victims for their own profit by making them pay for these crossing and either confiscating or destroying their passports. Families and young children have lost their lives at sea, in lorries and in shipping containers, having put their trust in the hands of criminals. The Government is right to be doing all it can to tackle this problem and prevent further illegal entries from happening in the first place by bringing in measures that will break the business model of the criminal trafficking networks.
But simply stopping all immigration in to the UK or deporting people from abroad who are already here and have done nothing wrong cannot be the answer. That is why our immigration system will continue to offer a number of routes through which migrants who have lived in the UK for a long period can regularise their stay under the Immigration Rules, providing they meet certain requirements are met.
If a person has been living in the UK unlawfully, they may be able to regularise their status by applying to the Secretary of State to grant a period of discretionary leave outside the Immigration Rules.
Some of the more common applications for discretionary leave are where individuals can show strong connections and family in the UK and where deporting them would have a serious negative impact on their human rights.
For example, it may be possible to remain in the UK lawfully if:
- Your partner has a right to stay in the UK – for example they are a British citizen or an EEA citizen with settled status.
- You have children in the UK, particularly if they are British citizens, have settled status or have been in the UK for 7 years or more.
- Returning to your home country would be dangerous due to persecution.
- It would be extremely difficult for you to live in your home country due to a lack of work, education, family or friends, or if you wouldn’t be accepted back there.
- Your last visa was as a partner and you’ve suffered domestic abuse at the hands of the partner related to your visa.
If constituents are aware of anyone in our constituency requiring support for their application for discretionary leave outside of the rules, they are welcome to refer them to me, and my team and I will do all we can to help. For sensitive cases I am also able to make confidential enquiries with officials or a government minister on the constituent’s behalf.
Thank you again for getting in touch with me.
Campaign response: Asylum/Asylum Seekers - March 2021
I am grateful to constituents for their recent emails regarding the Government’s proposed reforms to our asylum system.
They will be aware that we have already delivered the Conservative manifesto promises of ending free movement and introducing a new points-based immigration system.
However, the number of people attempting to enter the UK illegally has risen significantly in the past 12 months and I know that this is a concern to many in our constituency. I share their concerns over the scale and severity of the situation and have been able to make their feelings known to the Home Office over the past year.
UK asylum claims has increased by 21% to almost 36,000 – the highest number since the 2015/16 European migration crisis. Small boat arrivals to the UK reached record levels with 8,500 illegal arrivals last year.
At the same time, our ability to remove individuals with no right to remain in the UK has been undermined by repeated legal claims designed to impede removal action, often strung out over a period of many years. The vast majority of last-minute claims designed to prevent removal are subsequently found by the courts to have no merit. The huge backlog of asylum cases in the system is taking up scarce resources and wasting valuable judicial capacity, and therefore affecting our ability to help those in genuine need.
Crossing the channel on dinghies is an illegal and highly dangerous undertaking. Often, human trafficking gangs abuse victims for their own profit by making them pay for these crossing and either confiscating or destroying their passports. Families and young children have lost their lives at sea, in lorries and in shipping containers, having put their trust in the hands of criminals. The way to prevent further unnecessary deaths is to stop the trade that causes them.
To this end, the Government’s New Plan for Immigration has 3 main objectives:
- To increase the fairness and efficiency of our system so that we can better protect and support those in genuine need of asylum;
- To deter and prevent illegal entry into the UK, thereby breaking the business model of the criminal trafficking networks and protecting the lives of those that they endanger; and
- To remove those with no right to remain in the UK more easily.
At the heart of this plan is the principle of fairness. Access to the UK’s asylum system should be based on need, not on the ability to pay people smugglers.
We will discourage asylum claims via illegal routes, as other countries such as Denmark have recently succeeded in doing. For the first time, how someone enters the UK will impact on how their claim progresses and on their status in the UK if that claim is successful.
Those who enter illegally will receive a new temporary protection status rather than an automatic right to settle, will be regularly reassessed for removal, have limited family reunion rights and limited access to benefits. They will also be subject to a more robust age assessment to safeguard against adults claiming to be children.
As we clamp down on illegal immigration and abuse of the system, we will also streamline the asylum framework to prevent repeat claims which frustrate removal, including of dangerous Foreign National Offenders.
We will also increase prison sentences for those illegally entering the UK, introduce life sentences for facilitation of illegal entry, give Border Force additional powers, strengthen age assessments and introduce a more robust statutory definition of “well-founded fear of persecution” for asylum purposes.
At the same time, we will enhance our reputation as Global Britain, strengthening our safe and legal routes for refugees and fixing historic anomalies in British Nationality law.
Constituents raised concerns over the legality of these reforms. The proposals which have been set out are fully compliant with our international obligations, including the European Convention on Human Rights, the Refugee Convention and the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings.
Their emails also mentioned asylum support and the adequacy of asylum accommodation: The UK will continue to have a statutory obligation to provide asylum seekers with support while their asylum case is being considered – this is something the Government fully recognises and intends to uphold.
As part of this package of support, asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute are provided with free accommodation.
In addition to providing the accommodation itself to asylum seekers, their utility bills and council tax are paid for and free healthcare on the NHS is available.
Free education is available for those with children, and there is a cash allowance to cover other essential living needs, which recently increased by 5%, considerably more than inflation.
In fact, during the coronavirus pandemic, the Home office have stepped up the help available to go beyond statutory requirements. The usual practice of asking asylum seekers to move on from supported accommodation when their asylum claim is decided has been paused so that they can remain in supported asylum accommodation. As a consequence of that decision, which was implemented in March 2020, thousands more people are now n supported accommodation than was the case before the pandemic.
Where additional hotels have been procured during the course of the pandemic for the purposes of asylum support, full-board accommodation, including laundry services, personal hygiene products and feminine hygiene products, are provided to asylum seekers.
Wrap-around services are also provided, including welfare support, healthcare and access to mental health services. Asylum seekers also have 24-hour-a-day access to assistance via Migrant Help through a freephone number.
All of the above measures support will continue to be available to the asylum seekers who are most in need.
Read more about the Government’s plan to tackle illegal immigration and have your say via the public consultation (deadline 6 May 2021) on: www.gov.uk/government/consultations/new-plan-for-immigration
Thank you again to constituents for takin the time to get in touch and allowing me the opportunity to provide more clarity on the proposed reforms to our asylum system.
Campaign response: EDM 1696 - March 2021
Thank you to constituents for getting in touch regarding Early Day Motion (EDM) 1696.
As I am sure they can imagine, I get hundreds of requests to sign EDMs on a regular basis.
However, when I was elected in 2015 I pledged that I would not sign any, since they have no legislative power, rarely achieve anything, and cost the taxpayer a substantial amount.
I find that making representations directly to Ministers on these issues far more effective and I will endeavour to do this when I get an opportunity.
Modern slavery and human trafficking are both important issues to tackle and the Government fully recognises this. That is why Parliament took time to deliberate and scrutinise the passage of the Modern Slavery Act in 2014 and 2015, which introduced a number of vital measures to combat slavery and human trafficking. Each year, the Government provides a detailed report on the steps they have taken to prevent modern slavery in their operations and global supply chains, which can be found here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-government-modern-slavery-statement
We have seen the issue of human trafficking play out most poignantly in the Channel crossings over the past year. Sadly far too many seeking to come to the UK have fallen victim to people smugglers and their false promises, instead of taking safe and legal routes. It is important that we tackle this issue at its root and deal with those who profit from it, and so it is encouraging to learn that the principal aim of the latest asylum reforms set out by the Home Secretary is to put an end to the appalling cross-channel human trafficking trade.
I will continue to monitor closely the progress of the Government’s work to tackle modern slavery and human trafficking.
Campaign response: #crimenotcompliment - March 2021
Constituents have been emailing me about the #CrimeNotCompliment campaign led by Plan International and Our Streets Now.
I fully appreciate how strongly many of us feel about the issue of public sexual harassment and the challenge this poses for policymakers.
It is an important matter that has been consistently overlooked by successive governments, until in 2019, with the Conservative party manifesto committing to “protect people from physical attack or harassment whether for their sex, sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion or disability”, and the Home Office pledging to address sexual harassment in public in the National Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy.
Through reforms introduced by this government, relationships and sex education now covers the related issues of sexual harassment and consent.
I am also encouraged to learn that the Government is considering making public sexual harassment a crime as another way to keep people safe on our streets.
Instead of writing to Ministers, I find that making representations directly with them on these issues far more effective, and I will endeavour to raise the criminalisation of public sexual harassment with the Home Secretary when I get an opportunity.
Campaign: Will you help close the barracks? - February 2021
A number of constituents have recently contacted me you regarding the adequacy of asylum accommodation.
I am afraid their email contains a number of inaccuracies which misrepresent the current government policy on asylum seekers and asylum accommodation.
Firstly, the suggestion that “people in the UK who have arrived here fleeing war and persecution and seeking sanctuary have been treated with growing cruelty by the Government” is simply untrue and based not on facts but a popular perception that the UK somewhat does not seek to uphold our international humanitarian obligations and treat asylum seekers and refugees with fairness and humanity.
I have always been clear that Brexit gives us a golden opportunity to build a new and more effective immigration system that is fair and robust while being compassionate on those who most need our help and protection. That is why as Vice Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Migration I continue to work hard with colleagues across the political spectrum to a seek a consensus on how we can legislate to build such a system, and why I have taken time to engage and meet with NGOs and charities representing the rights of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees. Indeed in 2020 I hosted a productive meeting with UK representatives of UNHCR to discuss issues of common concern and opportunities for further collaboration.
The UK has a strong track record on protecting and providing sanctuary to the most vulnerable refugees fleeing war and persecution. And this is a record we have continued to build on: In 2019, the UK made 20,000 grants of protection or asylum, one of the highest numbers of any country in Europe. We have welcomed more than 3,000 unaccompanied asylum seeking children, the highest number of any country in Europe – it made up 20% of Europe’s UASC intake.
We already have a number of safe and legal routes for refugees to resettle or reunite with families here in the UK, which are functioning well and are helping us honour our international humanitarian commitments. So nobody should be making perilous dangerous journeys across the Channel. The safest thing anyone can do is seek asylum in the first safe country they reach. The vast majority of people seeking to come into the UK illegally via this route are coming from French shores, and would also likely have passed through countries such as Germany. These are perfectly safe countries with advanced asylum and resettlement systems. There should be no reason for these individuals to make a further journey to the UK when they can apply for refugee status in these countries instead, or in the case that they have family connections in the UK or other valid reasons to be resettled in the UK, make use of the existing routes open to them.
But for those that do decide to take the risk and cross the channel, the UK still has a statutory obligation to provide asylum seekers with support while their asylum case is being considered – this is something the Government fully recognises.
As part of this package of support, asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute are provided with free accommodation.
In addition to providing the accommodation itself to asylum seekers, their utility bills and council tax are paid for and free healthcare on the NHS is available.
Free education is available for those with children, and there is a cash allowance to cover other essential living needs, which recently increased by 5%, considerably more than inflation.
In fact, during the coronavirus pandemic, the Home office have stepped up the help available to go beyond statutory requirements. The usual practice of asking asylum seekers to move on from supported accommodation when their asylum claim is decided has been paused so that they can remain in supported asylum accommodation. As a consequence of that decision, which was implemented in March 2020, thousands more people are now n supported accommodation than was the case before the pandemic.
Where additional hotels have been procured in the pandemic for the purposes of asylum support, full-board accommodation, including laundry services, personal hygiene products and feminine hygiene products, are provided to asylum seekers.
Wrap-around services are also provided, including welfare support, healthcare and access to mental health services. Asylum seekers also have 24-hour-a-day access to assistance via Migrant Help through a freephone number.
Therefore I strongly disagree with the claim that the current asylum accommodation is wholly inadequate – on the contrary we have put in place a generous package of comprehensive support for asylum seekers while delivering value for the taxpayer, in spite of the limitations of the pandemic.
The Government is committed to ensuring that vulnerable asylum seekers are provided with all the support they require. As our nation has been battling coronavirus, we have continued and will continue to look after asylum seekers. I will continue to support the Government’s compassionate but fair approach in delivering support for those asylum seekers who are in genuine need.
Finally on the use of barracks as temporary accommodation for asylum seekers, I would add that I object to the concept that accommodation that we see as suitable for our dedicated armed forces is in any way unsuitable for asylum seekers.
Indeed, in recent weeks, a number of army veterans in our constituency who have stayed in Napier while serving in the military have taken to writing to me to express their concerns about the disrespect we show to our military personnel when we suggest that the very accommodation that has served them well somehow falls short of required standards for asylum seekers.
I also reject the notion that that these asylum seekers are being detained against their will in these barracks. Ministers have now gone on the record in both Houses of Parliament to refute this erroneous claim. Asylum seekers are not being detained but are being housed and taken care of by the UK Government – a service that they are accessing for free. Healthcare including dental provisions as well as mental health support are being provided to them. In addition, the accommodation is safe and warm, with three meals provided every day.
Stop the charter flight to Jamaica on 2 December 2020
Thank you to constituents for writing to me regarding the removal charter flight due to deport up to 50 people to Jamaica on 2 December 2020.
I have always been clear that with Brexit, we have an opportunity to build a new and more effective immigration system that is fair and robust while being compassionate on those who most need our help and protection. That is why as Vice Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Migration I continue to work hard with colleagues across the political spectrum to a seek a consensus on how we can legislate to build such a system, and why I have taken time to engage and meet with NGOs and charities representing the rights of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees.
At the same time, immigration cannot be uncontrolled and we have to send clear messages to discourage illegal migration. Indeed this and previous governments have taken steps to be tough in tackling illegal immigrants. The British public want the government to be tough on illegal immigration. There are clearly lessons that have to be learnt from the Home Office’s treatment of the Windrush Generation, but I believe we will be doing a disservice to the British people if the reaction to this is that we weaken our stance on illegal immigration.
Deportation of immigrants who are deemed by the courts and following due process to have committed a serious criminal offense forms part of that balanced immigration system. It is a well-established practice in the UK and many other liberal democracies for many years, and communicates a clear message while we will treat everyone with fairness and in accordance with the legal and human rights that are conferred to them, it is right that we do not turn a blind eye to those who abuse the system or have overstayed their welcome.
Deportation is different to administrative removals – where the Home Office enforces the departure of people who whose permission to be in the UK has run out or never had that permission to begin with. Currently under the Covid-19 pandemic there are different guidelines for officials enforcing administrative removals to reflect the severity of and risks associated with the virus.
It is important and right that the Government is held accountable to all its immigration enforcement decisions and I have worked cross-party with other colleagues to ensure that the restoration of trust, accountability and transparency are at the forefront of the minds of Home Office ministers and officials. Therefore I was pleased to see Chris Philp MP, the Home Office Minister for Immigration Compliance and the Courts, answer an Urgent Question on this particular case of deportation on 30 November in the Commons. He provided the following assurance and clarification to MPs:
“This charter flight to Jamaica is specifically to remove foreign criminals. The offences committed by the individuals on this flight include sexual assault against children, murder, rape, drug dealing and violent crime. Those are serious offences, which have a real and lasting impact on the victims and on our communities. This flight is about criminality, not nationality. Let me emphasise: it has nothing to do with the terrible wrongs faced by the Windrush generation. Despite the extensive lobbying by some, who claim that the flight is about the Windrush generation, it is not. Not a single individual on the flight is eligible for the Windrush scheme. They are all Jamaican citizens and no one on the flight was born in the United Kingdom. They are all foreign national offenders who between them have served 228 years plus a life sentence in prison.”
Furthermore, in response to the accusation that the Home Office is somehow specifically targeting those from Caribbean nations or Afro-Caribbean backgrounds:
“Let me put this flight in context. In the year ending June 2020, there were 5,208 enforced returns, of which 2,630, or over half, were to European Union countries, and only 33 out of over 5,000 were to Jamaica—less than 1%. During the pandemic, we have continued with returns and deportations on scheduled flights and on over 30 charter flights to countries including Albania, France, Germany, Ghana, Lithuania, Nigeria, Poland and Spain, none of which, I notice, provoked an urgent question. The clear majority of the charter flights this year have been to European countries.”
I trust constituents will find the minister’s answers helpful. So while I understand the importance of ensuring that due process is carried out and every case carefully considered prior to any deportation, in this specific case, I support the Government’s decision to go ahead with the scheduled flight on 2 December. Because to do otherwise and halt the flight would be to send the wrong message, especially to those seeking to abuse and undermine our immigration system, in the hope that if they commit a serious crime in the UK they may be able to avoid punishment. This I fear would only serve to further undermine trust in our immigration system.
Campaign response: Save refugee family reunion: Vote for Lords Amendment 4 to the Immigration Bill
Thank you to constituents for their recent emails regarding Lords Amendment 4 to the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination Bill, relating to family reunion and unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, which was rejected by the House of Commons on Monday 19 October.
I have always been clear that with Brexit, we have an opportunity to build a new and more effective immigration system that is fair and robust while being compassionate on those who most need our help and protection. That is why as Vice Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Migration I continue to work hard with colleagues across the political spectrum to a seek a consensus on how we can legislate to build such a system, and why I have taken time to engage and meet with NGOs and charities representing the rights of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees.
I am glad to see that Government ministers are in agreement with my position. The Home Secretary recently announced at the Conservative party conference our intention to reform our broken asylum system to make it firm but fair, and the Government will be bringing forward legislation next year to deliver on that commitment. This reformed system will be fair and compassionate towards those who need our help by welcoming people through safe and legal routes, but it will also be firm in stopping the abuse of the system by those who misuse it— especially serious or persistent criminals—simply to prevent their removal from this country.
The UK has a strong track record in protecting and reuniting vulnerable children with their families in the UK. For instance I am immensely proud of us giving sanctuary to thousands of Jewish children and families fleeing from the Holocaust during the War.
And this is a record we have continued to build on: In 2019, the UK received 3,651 asylum applications from unaccompanied children, a rise of 19% on the previous year and the highest intake of unaccompanied children since 2008. Additionally, under the Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme, the Government is now close to hitting its target of resettling 20,000 vulnerable refugees affected by the Syrian civil war, with 19,768 vulnerable refugees – many of whom are children – resettled since September 2015.
We have granted protection and other forms of leave to more than 44,000 children seeking protection since 2010. The UK continues to be one of the highest recipients of asylum claims from unaccompanied children across Europe, receiving more claims than any EU member state in 2019 and 20% of all claims made in the EU.
In January of this year my team and I met with representatives of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to discuss these policies and other issues related to asylum and refugees, I look forward to continue working with them and other agencies to ensure that the UK’s policy on refugees and family reunion is fit for purpose.
However, while I fully agree with the importance of ensuring that our new immigration system allows for the most vulnerable of refugees to be reunited with family here in the UK, I believe this particular amendment was fundamentally flawed in a number of ways.
Most worryingly, the amendment would have created a different set of rules for individuals arriving from EU and EEA countries versus those in the rest of the world. We need to see an immigration system that does not discriminate people based on where they come from or what nationality they hold – we want to treat all individuals, children and families, fairly and regardless of whether they have come from the EU or not.
Now that we have left the EU, it also does not make sense in the long term to have a different set of provisions for those in fundamentally safe and democratic countries than for those in the rest of the world, unless those provisions are based on effective reciprocal agreements relating to returns and family reunification.
The UK has made a credible and serious offer to the EU on new arrangements for the family reunion of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, and it remains the goal of this Government to negotiate such an arrangement. If it had been passed, Amendment 4 would risk pre-empting our prospects of securing a negotiated agreement with the EU. We want to see a successful and consensus-based agreement between the two sides, instead of relying on domestic rules set solely by the UK, because this approach would better guarantee the support of sending states, and therefore ensure that the system is more effective overall.
Therefore, after careful consideration of this amendment, I was unable to vote for it. That does not mean I disagree with the principle or importance of allowing families torn apart by warfare and strife to be reunited; I simply disagree with the approach of this particular amendment. I will continue to support sensible and pragmatic reforms to bring about compassion and fairness in our immigration system.
Campaign response: Will you back refugee resettlement and reopen safe routes to safety?
In recent weeks a number of a constituents have written to me concerning the future of refugee resettlement in the UK and the importance of protecting it so that we can fulfil our international humanitarian obligations.
I have always been clear that with Brexit, we have an opportunity to build a new and more effective immigration system that is fair and robust while being compassionate on those who most need our help and protection. That is why as Vice Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Migration I continue to work hard with colleagues across the political spectrum to a seek a consensus on how we can legislate to build such a system, and why I have taken time to engage and meet with NGOs and charities representing the rights of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees.
The UK has a strong track record on protecting and providing sanctuary to the most vulnerable refugees fleeing war and persecution. And this is a record we have continued to build on: In 2019, the UK received 3,651 asylum applications from unaccompanied children, a rise of 19% on the previous year and the highest intake of unaccompanied children since 2008. Additionally, under the Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme (VPRS), the Government is now close to hitting its target of resettling 20,000 vulnerable refugees affected by the Syrian civil war, with 19,768 vulnerable refugees resettled since September 2015. I am proud of this and will continue to support a compassionate approach in refugee resettlement.
I understand the natural concerns around the future of the funding of VPRS and other refugee resettlement routes. With Covid-19 the Government has had to take a range of measures to protect the UK’s economy – without which we cannot fund refugee resettlement in the first place. There are no doubt going to be difficult spending decisions ahead. The Government needs to be fiscally responsible in order that the state of public finances can be strong enough for us to embark on important initiatives like refugee resettlement in the long term. However given the strength of feeling that constituents have expressed on the issue, I will be seeking to speak to ministers responsible for refugee resettlement directly in the Home Office to ask for an update on the future outlook of refugee resettlement and to seek an assurance that they will continue to prioritise the most vulnerable refugees going forward.
Campaign response: Deportation of Anugwom Goodluck
My thanks to constituents who have recently emailed me concerning the case of Anugwom Goodluck.
Health and care workers continue to play a vital role in this global pandemic and I am pleased that the Government has announced a number of measures that will allow carers from abroad to apply for or renew their work visas in the UK more easily. In addition, the Home Office has exceptionally granted individuals who cannot return home due to coronavirus leave to remain until July 31.
I am sure Mr Goodluck has worked very hard to keep care home residents safe and that those who have received his care owe him a debt of gratitude for keeping them safe and well during the Covid-19 pandemic.
However, there may well be perfectly valid and legal reasons for his visa application to be rejected. Without knowing the specific circumstances of Mr Goodluck and his application, it is difficult for me to comment further on his case.
This is because all non-UK nationals who are in the UK must follow our immigration rules, and this includes not continuing to work in the UK after applications for individuals whose visas have been refused. We would be setting the wrong precedent if we were to allow anyone who has overstayed their visa to work in the UK.
Campaign response: ‘DIY’ Abortions; Two women have died after using ‘DIY’ abortion services; Action alert
I am very grateful for constituents for emailing me regarding their concerns over the use of the so-called DIY home abortion services.
I am especially concerned to read recent reports of deaths of both mothers and newborns as a result of taking these abortion pills.
As a well-known pro-life MP, I am as keen as they are to see that the temporary measures for abortion that were put in place at the start of the pandemic do not become the norm.
On one level, I understand why the decision was allowed, given the extraordinary pressures on the NHS. I also note that the Government has re-iterated on a number of occasions that these are time-limited measures that will be lifted as soon as the current situation is over.
But prior to the lockdown, there was a strong indication from the Health Secretary at the Despatch Box that our abortion policy is not changing, so when this decision was announced I was surprised to say the least.
I have the privilege of serving the Health Secretary Matt Hancock as his Parliamentary Private Secretary, and I have spoken to him about the contentious matter of abortion as it is a conscience issue and MPs are free to vote based on their beliefs and personal views.
I know he is very much aware of this latest situation with DIY abortions and is consulting with the care minister and medical professionals urgently to look into the issues that have come to light.
The concern now is that abortion 'on demand' should become a norm. Constituents will no doubt be aware of efforts by pro-abortion MPs to push through an amendment to the Domestic Abuse bill that would have allowed both medical and surgical ‘DIY’ home abortions to take place on a permanent basis in any location if a woman is in an abusive relationship.
While I was pleased that this amendment was ultimately withdrawn by Diana Johnson, the MP who tabled the amendment, this came after government ministers made a commitment to a public consultation on the issue of home abortion.
I would urge all constituents who have written to me to express concerns over the safety and ethics behind DIY abortions to engage with this public consultation and make their views known to the government directly. More details on this consultation would be published in due course and I will of course keep all constituents up to date with the latest developments.
I will continue to do my best to make the case for in Parliament and elsewhere that we should see no further erosion of the restrictions of abortion. I work closely with a number of pro-life organisations and I am regularly briefed by them on the latest parliamentary movement of bills and regulations that relate to abortion.
Campaign response: Conversion therapy ban
A number of constituents have recently contacted me to express their concerns over plans to ban gay conversion therapy.
As a fellow Christian and a former church leader I fully understand the natural concerns that many Christians have over the potential implications this ban could have on the freedom of speech and religion.
The proposed ban is a response to the deeply-troubling accounts of conversion therapies expressed in the recent National LGBT survey.
‘Conversion’ or ‘reparative’ therapies range from pseudo-psychological treatments to surgical interventions, and is known to include practices such as electroshock therapy and the administering of nausea-inducing drugs.
While I welcome the government’s intention to eradicate these appalling and abusive practices through outlawing gay conversion therapies, it is vitally important that the freedom of Christian churches and other faith organisations to express and exercise their beliefs is not stifled by this proposed ban.
I am also concerned that people who may be struggling with their sexuality and seek help, support and advice, are able to do so, including from churches and other Christian organisations.
The Government will be presenting more details for the proposed ban in the UK in due course. I will be following developments closely and will be speaking out in Parliament to ensure that this proposal does not undermine the work of faith groups that are seeking offer genuine and legitimate support to LGBT people, and their rights to express and exercise their beliefs.
Campaign response: People seeking asylum should have the right to work
Thank you to constituents for their emails regarding the right to work for asylum seekers.
My view on this is that asylum seekers who have been waiting on their asylum decisions for a significant period of time (many are having wait for more than 6 months) should be given the right to work because it will enable them to achieve the quality of life they aspire to, to contribute to and integrate with their local communities, and would enable the UK to benefit from the skills and abilities that they bring with them. In addition this would allow them to no longer pose an unnecessary burden on our welfare system and boost our economy through tax revenues generated.
This is an issue which I have previously raised with ministers, who have assured me that the Government is listening on the issue and will be doing work to review its position on asylum seekers to take up employment in the UK where they are unable to receive a prompt decision. I am aware that that the Home Office has had the ‘Right to Work’ policy under review since December 2018 and I do hope that they will be announcing the outcome of their review very soon, although I note that as a result of the global pandemic many of the key government decisions and announcements have had to be postponed.
It may also be of interest to constituents that in the past two years I have also been working with a cross-party group of MPs including Tim Farron (Liberal Democrats) and Kate Green (Labour) on various immigration, asylum and refugees issues, and through my participation on the All Party Parliamentary Group on Migration and on the RAMP Project I have been a supporter of the Lift the Ban campaign.
I will continue to monitor developments on this issue closely and speak up for constituents where possible.
Campaign response: Help protect people seeking asylum during the Covid 19 pandemic
In recent weeks some constituents have written to me about their concerns over the way that our asylum system is functioning and how asylum seekers are treated under the current pandemic.
I have always been clear we need not only a controlled and robust immigration system, but also one that demonstrates compassionate to those who most need our help.
In terms of our asylum system, I believe this translates into an effective border enforcement system that is complemented by an efficient asylum decision system, one that does not leave individuals and their families out in the dark about their immigration status for too long.
Constituents have asked me to raise three particular areas of action with the Home Secretary. The first relates to the need for asylum seekers to physically travel to regional centres around the UK physically to file their claim. I fully understand the difficulty and risks around travelling under these circumstances, but I can also see why the Home Office would require asylum seekers to be physically present at these centres in order for them to verify their identity and to prevent any risk of fraud or abuse in the system. As such I will be bearing this in mind when I next speak to ministerial colleagues at the Home Office to seek clarification on this area.
Secondly, on the point of increasing asylum support by £20 per week for 12 months, I have reservations that this would create perverse incentives for more to try to come to the UK to claim asylum, at a time when international travel of all forms are fraught with risks. As we look to embark on what could well be a very long road to full recovery from the impact of Covid-19, last thing that our NHS and our public infrastructure need right now is additional demand.
What I would instead suggest is that we need to be looking at ways to further expedite the decision-making within our asylum system, so that those who arrive here with often limited resources can get a quick decision on whether they are given the sanctuary (and with it, the right to work) in this country, instead of having to rely on government support for weeks and months on end. This is something that I have stressed with ministers before and I will continue to make this point.
On their third area of action relating to the adequacy of accommodation for asylum seekers, while I understand that constituents are concerned about the welfare of asylum seekers in shared accommodation, I note that many other citizens and residents in the UK such as are also living in shared spaces too without encountering any issues with social-distancing. It is obviously important that steps are taken to ensure that those who have contracted the virus are self-isolating and not putting others at risk. I am not aware of any particular issues with this, or with the supply of cleaning and hygiene products in asylum accommodation. But I will try to seek confirmation from the relevant ministers that the right steps are being taken whenever possible.
Campaign response: The Government's response to recent Channel crossings
My thanks to constituents for emailing me about their concerns over the Government’s policy to curb the illegal movement of people in the English Channel.
With Brexit we have an opportunity to build a new and more effective immigration system that is fair and robust while being compassionate on those who most need our help and protection. That is why as Vice Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group on Migration I continue to work hard with colleagues across the political spectrum to a seek a consensus on how we can legislate to build such a system, and why I have taken time to engage and meet with NGOs and charities representing the rights of migrants, asylum seekers and refugees, such as JCWI (Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants) – the organiser of this email campaign.
The UK has a strong track record on protecting and providing sanctuary to the most vulnerable refugees fleeing war and persecution. And this is a record we have continued to build on: In 2019, the UK received 3,651 asylum applications from unaccompanied children, a rise of 19% on the previous year and the highest intake of unaccompanied children since 2008. Additionally, under the Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme (VPRS), the Government is now close to hitting its target of resettling 20,000 vulnerable refugees affected by the Syrian civil war, with 19,768 vulnerable refugees resettled since September 2015.
However, a distinction has to be made between refugees who abide by the rules and seek sanctuary in the UK via the legal resettlement routes, and those who seek to come here illegally through opportunistic means.
The recent spike in the number of illegal crossings in the English Channel into UK borders has caused a significant amount of concern across the country. The vast majority of constituents who get in touch with me regarding this issue have expressed a concern that the Government’s approach has been thus far ineffective in ensuring security of our borders. Many of them also expressed concerns for the safety and wellbeing individual asylum seekers and their families who embark on these perilous journeys. They have told me that under the current pandemic these journey are even more risky and I agree with them. The UK Government is rightly determined to put a stop to these illegal and dangerous crossings, and all attempts to reach the UK clandestinely.
The bottom line is we already have a number of safe and legal routes for refugees to resettle or reunite with families here in the UK, which are functioning well and are helping us honour our international humanitarian commitments and remain as a world leader on refugee resettlement – Since 2016, Britain has resettled more refugees from outside Europe than any other EU state. It is vital that we continue offering our assistance in the safest possible way.
Therefore, nobody should be making these dangerous journeys across the Channel and relaxing our border patrols and security cannot be the answer. The safest thing anyone can do is seek asylum in the first safe country they reach. The vast majority of people seeking to come into the UK illegally via this route are coming from French shores and would also likely have passed through countries such as Germany. These are perfectly safe countries with advanced asylum and resettlement systems. There should be no reason for these individuals to make a further journey to the UK when they can apply for refugee status in these countries instead.
It is right then that we make a distinction between refugees who have legitimate reasons to resettle in the UK – such as family reunion or qualification under VPRS, and economic migrants, who prefer to the come to the UK for better prospects rather than genuine humanitarian reasons.
I welcome the contribution of many who have migrated to the UK for economic reasons, but this movement across borders must be done legally and follow our immigration laws and rules. The Home Secretary and the Home Office is working in collaboration with the French Government and the relevant international law enforcement agencies to tackle this dangerous and illegal activity. It is bearing down on the facilitators and organised crime groups behind this illegal activity and taking all possible measures to return those who arrive here back to France.
This is the approach that would lead to the safest and best outcome for asylum seekers and refugees, and one that I will continue to support.
Campaign response: Take racial injustice seriously - 13 July 2020
Recently some constituents have written to me regarding structural racism and inequality facing people of BAME background.
Clearly the situation in the US and allegations of US police officers applying excessive force in response to protests have been concerning to many. Where there is an opportunity for Parliamentarians to debate the matter of racial equality, I will be of course be happy to do my best to speak up on behalf of constituents.
Let me be very clear: Black lives matter. There is no if’s or but’s to this statement. I am assured that the Prime Minister has made this very clear at the Despatch Box in June when the crisis in the US first came to light.
Whenever black people in our constituency have stepped forward to raise their concerns about how they are being mistreated as a result of their race or ethnicity, I have always gone out of my way to listen to them and take action on their behalf where possible, and I intend to continue to do this as long as I have the privilege of serving as your MP. If any constituent has any specific concerns regarding cases of racial injustice or inequality of any form, I would ask them to not hesitate in getting in touch with me to bring them to my attention.
I would go even further in saying that all lives matter. Racism anywhere of any form must be condemned. I will always seek to help and support all constituents whatever their race, colour, gender, religion or sexuality.
The right to peaceful protest is a key tenet of any democracy and I have spoken in favour of this essential right to be respected in places where there is clear state suppression of protest and dissent, such as Hong Kong. I do not condone the use of force against unarmed, peaceful protestors.
Some of these demonstrations in the US are by and large peaceful and lawful. But where protests turn violent and out of hand as a direct result of the actions of protestors, there are reasonable steps that I believe any democratic and law-abiding society need to take in order to prevent damage to property or people.
What is also clear is that unlike places such as Hong Kong, the US has a criminal justice system that allows for police officers to be held accountable and even prosecuted for their actions taken against civilians.
I also note that the Secretary of State for International Trade has now stated the following on this issue:
“UK takes its export control responsibilities very seriously and operates one of the most robust and transparent export control regimes in the world. We rigorously examine each export licence application on a case-by-case basis against the Consolidated EU and National Arms Export Licensing Criteria.
The Consolidated Criteria provide a thorough risk assessment framework and require us to think hard about the impact of providing equipment and its capabilities. These are not decisions we take lightly, and we will not licence the export of items where to do so would be inconsistent with the Consolidated Criteria
We publish information of all export licences issued, refused and revoked on a quarterly and annual basis as official statistics on GOV.UK. The most recent publication was in April, on licences issued until the end of December 2019.”
Therefore, I disagree with constituents that we need to suspend the above export licences to the US. But I can assure them that I continue to monitor the situation in the US closely and ensure that my position on this matter is informed by latest developments.
I fully respect the right of black people or people of any colour to protest here in the UK.
I also care about their health and wellbeing just as much, and so I was alarmed to learn from a recent PHE report that confirmed BAME people are indeed statistically at greater risk of contracting the virus.
Therefore, while I fully appreciate the strength of feeling on this matter and the desire that many have to show solidarity with African Americans in the US, for the sake of their health and wellbeing, I would strongly urge anyone thinking of breaking lockdown and taking to the streets here in the UK to consider the current dangers brought on by Covid-19 and the potential public risks involved in mass rallies. We do not want to see any more people, particularly members of the BAME community, falling ill or dying from Covid-19 as a result of being exposed to the virus during these protests.
The situation in the US is radically different to that of the UK and I am pleased that we have not seen anywhere near the same degree of accusations of brutality and excess force being lodged against our police officers. British police officers are not themselves complicit in the murder of George Floyd and I am concerned to read recent reports that a number of them were attacked by supposedly peaceful protestors. Our police are our valued key workers, who are doing their very best to keep us all safe under the present circumstances.
Thank you again to constituents for writing to me about this important matter.
Campaign response – Abortion laws; Domestic Abuse Bill; Domestic Abuse Bill amendments - 8 July 2020
In the run up to the Report Stage and the Third Reading of the Domestic Abuse Bill in the Commons on Monday, a number of constituents have written to me regarding New Clauses 28 and 29 – attempts by members of the opposition to make sweeping changes to abortion laws. NC29 would repeal 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act, removing almost all current legal safeguards on abortion, up until when a child is capable of being born alive, with a ceiling of 28 weeks. NC 28 sought to allow both medical and surgical ‘DIY’ home abortions to take place on a permanent basis in any location if a woman is in an abusive relationship.
I was very pleased to hear the vast majority of my parliamentary colleagues speaking out against these amendments during the debate at Report Stage. In particular I would highlight the below contribution from my colleague and fellow pro-life campaigner Fiona Bruce MP, whom I believe has summed up very well the importance of the bill and the dangerous approach that the pro-abortion lobby is taking:
“This is a domestic abuse Bill; it should not be hijacked by those continuously campaigning on another issue and constantly looking for opportunities in this place to add badly worded amendments to Bills with unforeseen implications and complications.
We have already seen the outcome of such an approach with the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2019. This House should, I hope, be very wary of repeating that. I support the Government’s endeavours to tackle domestic abuse: let us ensure that that is the focus of this Bill.”
In the end, NC29 was rightly deemed out of scope by the Speaker while NC28 was withdrawn by Diana Johnson, the MP who tabled the amendment, after government ministers made a commitment to a public consultation on the issue of home abortion.
I would urge constituents who have written to me about NC 28 and 29 to engage with this public consultation and make their views known to the government directly. More details on the consultation would be published in due course and I will of course keep constituents up to date with the latest developments on this.
We know that the provisions of NC 28 and 29 are completely out of line with where women stand on the issue of abortion.
Recent polling, conducted by Savanta ComRes, on whether time limits for abortion should be increased showed that only 1% of women wanted the time limit to be extended. In contrast 70% of women favoured a reduction in time limits.
Furthermore, a poll from March 2014, showed that 94% of women agreed that a woman requesting an abortion should always be seen in person by a qualified doctor. This current requirement in law would be removed under the abortion lobby’s plans.
I will continue to speak up for greater protection to be offered to the unborn child and their mother, instead of rolling back on existing safeguards.
Campaign response – Please oppose amending the Domestic Abuse Bill to make extreme changes to abortion legislation - 1 July 2020
Thank you to constituents for writing to me about the Domestic Abuse Bill and bringing my attention to attempts by certain MPs to introduce an amendment to bill which would alter our existing abortion legislations very significantly by repealing sections 58 & 59 of the Offences Against Persons Act.
I share constituents’ concerns and completely agree with them that the focus of this important bill should be on protecting those who suffer from domestic abuse. How anyone could argue that the issue of abortion is related to a bill aiming to tackle domestic abuse is simply beyond me. Even if an amendment is tabled to the bill, I trust that the Speaker will be able to exercise his judgement and deem it to be out of scope.
Abortion on demand for any reason beyond the current 28-week ceiling must be resisted and as a pro-life MP I will continue to speak up for greater protection to be offered to the unborn child and their mother, instead of rolling back on existing safeguards. In the unlikely scenario that such an amendment to the Domestic Abuse bill is selected to be voted on by MPs, constituents can have my full assurance that I will be voting against it.
Campaign response – Please support Amendment NC29 and save child refugees - 1 July
Thank you to constituents for writing to me about child refugees and New Clause 29 to the Immigration and Social Security Bill.
This is a matter I have written extensively on – I have been always been clear that we need a new immigration system that is both robust and effective, while being compassionate to those who most need our help.
The UK has a strong track record in protecting and reuniting vulnerable children with their families in the UK. For instance I am immensely proud of us giving sanctuary to thousands of Jewish children and families fleeing from the Holocaust during the War.
And this is a record we have continued to build on: In 2019, the UK received 3,651 asylum applications from unaccompanied children, a rise of 19% on the previous year and the highest intake of unaccompanied children since 2008. Additionally, under the Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme, the Government is now close to hitting its target of resettling 20,000 vulnerable refugees affected by the Syrian civil war, with 19,768 vulnerable refugees – many of whom are children – resettled since September 2015. And lastly, we have almost delivered on our commitments in section 67 of the Immigration Act 216, with 478 children relocated to the UK, with the final two arriving once Covid-19 restrictions in Italy have lifted.
At the same time, I have been conveying a view that many in our constituency share to ministers, which is that we must deter those seeking to illegally enter the UK via the Channel from coming here in the first place and apply the full force of the law on human traffickers who are exploiting the situation. Illegal migration of any form must not be encouraged and this is a point I will continue to make.
However, unaccompanied child refugees and other vulnerable refugees are not illegal migrants – these people have not tried to cross borders illegally but have played by the rules and remained in refugee camps and other settings away from the UK. These have to go through a rigorous assessment and often time-consuming process involving multiple interviews with UK Home Office officials in order to ascertain their background and verify their status as refugees.
In January I met with representatives of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to discuss these issues and I look forward to working with them and other agencies to ensure that the UK’s policy on child refugees is fit for purpose.
During the current Brexit transition or ‘implementation’ period, the UK is continuing to reunite unaccompanied children with family members in the UK under the Dublin Regulation, and we are continuing to accept transfers in spite of Covid-19. On 11 May, we accepted the arrival of 50 children and other family members coming from Greece to unite with family here. Furthermore, children in Europe with immediate family members who have been granted refugee status or humanitarian protection in the UK will continue to be able to apply to join them under the refugee family reunion rules, Part 8 and Appendix FM of the Immigration Rules, which are routes unaffected by our exit from the EU.
At the end of the transition period, we will no longer be bound by the Dublin Regulation. However, the Government is committed to the principle of family reunion and to supporting vulnerable children.
The UK has now presented a genuine and sincere offer to the EU on a future reciprocal arrangement for the family reunion of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children where it is in the child’s best interests.
A legal text was published on 19 May as a constructive contribution to the negotiations.
Getting a reciprocal arrangement between the EU and UK is in the best interests of the children because it will maximise the number of children reunited with their families.
For the UK to act unilaterally now, as the amendment seeks to do, would restrict and undermine the negotiation now underway with the EU and make it less likely that we secure a reciprocal arrangement.
As such, I will not be supporting NC29 which will only do more harm than good in our negotiations with the EU on the issue of child refugees.
I hope constituents can be assured of the Government’s proven track record on this issue and that they have found my response helpful.