Unaccompanied Children

Angela Crawley Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2016 Westminster Hall

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) for securing this important debate. Given the dramatic rise in the number of children travelling through Europe in recent years, it is impossible to remove emotion from the debate. Too often, too many children are left unaccounted for and unrecognised in a system that focuses on bureaucracy, timing and filling in forms, and fails to remember that these are children and they are our responsibility. As a result of the ongoing crisis in Syria—sadly, in no way unique or the first of its kind—too many children are facing perilous journeys. Last month, while I was in Calais, I spoke to volunteers from Help Refugees. Both Annie and Maddie spoke of the utterly horrifying fact that too many children aged as young as nine are climbing into trucks, trying to get to the border and being sent back. One child, Hasan, had taken 15 perilous journeys. He had attempted to cross the border and been sent back. However, today he will reach the UK and he will be reunited with his family. That is a good story, but that is only one good story in the face of so many stories of children who may or may not make it.

I spoke to a mother who had put her two young children aged two and seven on the back of a truck in the hope that they would make it to the UK. I do not know whether they did. She will never know where those children are. This is the emotion of the debate and the reality. We do not know where those children are and that is the reality that we must face.

Save the Children, living up to its name, has put pressure on the Government to resettle the 3,000 unaccompanied children already in Europe. That is a responsibility that we in the UK must take seriously, and we must step up to the plate. However, as the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill) said, in order to protect children we need to know where they are. That is vital. If I drive one point home in this debate, it is that there are too many children whose whereabouts we do not know; we do not know where they are going and we do not know where they will end up. That is not good enough.

The standard of care that we know they will receive when they get to the UK will be exceptional. It will be top class and delivered by some of the best local authorities across the UK in Scotland, England, Wales and elsewhere. Funding local government to deliver the services is absolutely vital. The stark reality is that three times more teenagers are deported than the Home Office previously admitted, which highlights that this bureaucratic process is still penalising people and creating an arbitrary line in the sand between what is a child and what is not a child. This is not good enough.

I will leave this point with the Government. I echo the sentiments of timeliness and the need to protect. The Government are failing children. We can always do more, so let us step up to the plate and do that.

Policing and Crime Bill

Angela Crawley Excerpts

Monday 7th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

I welcome the opportunity to speak in today’s debate and share the sentiments of the Secretary of State in recognising the 10-year anniversary of the events in Dunblane.

In Scotland, we have seen a record reduction in the number of crimes committed in the past 40 years, and violent crime is down by almost 50%. Crime risk is lower in Scotland than in the rest of the UK and the police budget will be protected in real terms, despite a 9% cut to Scotland’s budget. That has allowed additional support for a wide range of services, including community policing, specialist support for forensics services, tackling serious and organised crime, drug enforcement and counter-terrorism work. I will not be able to vote on much of what is contained in the Bill, yet it will have some impact on my constituents. In those parts that affect Scotland, the Government must do all they can to provide assurances and clarity.

Specifically, concerns have been raised about the immigration powers in the Bill. Article 33 of the refugee convention states:

“No Contracting State shall expel or return…a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened”.

That fundamental duty is one of the central pillars, if not the central pillar, of the refugee convention and the Government are bound by that duty as a matter of domestic and international law. It is therefore concerning that clauses 62 and 66 appear to give the Secretary of State power to require ships intercepted in UK water to be detained and sent to a port outside the UK. The charity Liberty is worried that that purports to give the Secretary of State powers to refoule refugees on any such boats by returning them to foreign ports.

Nothing in the proposals requires the Secretary of State or her enforcement officers to use those powers in a way that is compatible with the refugee convention and the work of the European Court of Human Rights. They must lawfully process and assess those people’s claims to asylum and determine whether they can be lawfully removed according to the Dublin regime. Nor can the Government use their enforcement powers to identify alleged breaches of the UK’s immigration law to impose penalties or bar refugees from making asylum claims on that basis. I therefore ask the Minister to say unambiguously today that he intends to comply with the refugee convention and the European Court of Human Rights.

The SNP is supportive of the provisions in the Bill on firearms, but a number of elements may extend the competences of the Scottish Parliament and I ask the Minister to assure the House that he will work closely with the Scottish Government to ensure the problems do not arise and that consent motions are sought when required. In particular, I seek assurances from the Government that the provisions about lethal barrelled weapons do not impact on the Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2015. On that note, the provision in the Bill on fees could potentially extend the executive competence of Scottish Ministers and would therefore require a legislative consent motion.

Giving police the power to require arrested persons to state their nationality, applying to arrests for all offences, seems to go beyond the purpose of immigration. It will affect devolved powers on policing and the investigation of crime and therefore the UK Government must continue to engage with the Scottish Government on those powers. In Scotland, our police forces can already ask any person who is detained to provide details of their nationality, and those powers will be replicated in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016.

If passed, the Bill would represent a real change to the law in Scotland on police questioning on arrest and in custody. Currently, those arrested or detained must, when required, provide information about their nationality. Failure to do so constitutes an offence, the maximum penalty for which, as the law stands, is a fine. The Bill, however, would increase the maximum sentence in Scotland for failure to state nationality on arrest to both a 12-month term of imprisonment and a fine. It also introduces, again in Scotland, a power to require such a person to produce a nationality document, with the failure to do so constituted a new offence with the same maximum sentence. Such changes represent an important increase in the significance of such powers to any individual whose nationality is called into question on arrest. They could also implicate the devolution settlement and the Sewel convention since they concern devolved matters. I therefore urge the UK Government to engage with the Scottish Government on these provisions and to ensure that the powers will not undermine the wider police powers to ask questions on nationality.

Finally, it is imperative that any implications for Scotland of this legislation are scrutinised closely. Again, I urge the Minister to work closely with the Scottish Government to monitor any impact the Bill could have on the devolved Parliament.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I call James Morris.

Gangs and Serious Youth Violence

Angela Crawley Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) for securing a debate on such an important subject, one that is rarely debated in this House.

The reality is that this problem is not specifically about gangs or young people. It is about violence and how we deal with that violence. Violence has a devastating impact on families, communities and young people. It does not affect young people exclusively, but it is their futures and their lives that hang in the balance and change absolutely while we debate this subject.

Despite the difficulty that comes with legislating to tackle the problem, it is through legislating and a variety of other measures that we can deal with this issue. Scotland recognised the need to tackle this issue and to take serious measures, in particular in areas of Glasgow where there were incidents of violence that were recurring, serious and in many cases severe.

[Natalie McGarry (Glasgow East) (Ind)]

The east end of Glasgow was once almost a byword for gang violence. Significant work, education and a cohesive approach has reduced violent crime, gang membership and weapons possession. I am sure my hon. Friend will join me in congratulating the Scottish Government and the Violence Reduction Unit, who have done sterling work to reduce gang violence in Glasgow. Does she agree that Members across the House could learn some valuable lessons from the work that has been done in Glasgow over the past decade?

[Angela Crawley]

I thank my hon. Friend for her point. I was intending to come on to Glasgow East later, but the project that took place there in 2008 was a response to the worst instance of gang violence that had ever occurred, which made Scotland, and particularly Glasgow, one of the worst places in western Europe for violence. The more than 600 gang members involved were presented with a choice—to use their experience to educate and train others, or face a zero-tolerance approach and possibly a prison sentence. Through this work and the ongoing commitment and support they received, remarkable results were witnessed. Violence was halved; weapon possession was down by 85%; and this group went on to establish a charity to create employment for other young people. So there are examples of where positive work can be done to reframe and re-approach the problem not just through legislation, but by working with young people to provide the support they require.

[Bob Stewart]

What was actually done to reduce the violence there? What happened on the streets to reduce it?

[Angela Crawley]

There are a number of projects, but this particular one focused on bringing the young people in, engaging them and providing them with opportunities to go on to further education or training. They continued to be supported throughout that process so that they could reach sustainable employment and other routes outwith the confines of the environment in which they had grown up and themselves experienced violence or been party to it.

This Government must recognise that where legislation is proving ineffective, they must consider changing course. Lessons must be learned from where we have been successful. I share the sentiments of the hon. Member for Streatham that young people have been given a bad name in this discussion and that more often than not we tarnish them with this reputation that makes them the perpetrators, without seeking to address the root causes of the problem, which many Members of all parties have addressed in their speeches.

I have listened to Members who have spoken of their constituents’ experience of violence and its impact on their lives, and of heart-breaking accounts from loved ones of lost years and lost lives. The hon. Member for Streatham spoke about the level of violence in London, but as has been repeated in the debate, the problem is not unique to one particular area or one particular city, so we must do more to address the problem as a matter of policy. Factors such as poverty, violence and drugs, and the rising incidence of violence against women in ghettos must be looked at in a far more holistic way to address some of those root problems.

Let me acknowledge that it was only 10 years ago, as I mentioned earlier, that Glasgow was named the murder capital of western Europe—something that the then Scottish Executive could not ignore. Despite the number of convictions, there remained a need to tackle the root of these serious problems. Scotland has been successful in reducing the number of incidents. The campaign “No Knives Better Lives” raises awareness and seeks to educate young people about the consequences of knife crime. This is one example of a measure that has contributed to success in reducing violence.

In my constituency in south Lanarkshire, a local community group established a drama workshop known as “The Street”, which has a real-life setting. It is produced by young people, many of whom have been involved in violence themselves, and it tackles issues of violence, knife crime and drug and alcohol abuse, as well as sexual violence. This message can be delivered by young people to young people in a hard-hitting way with a powerful impact, addressing the serious ramifications and consequences of actions occurring on a daily basis on the streets.

Under the stewardship of the former Scottish Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill, we focused on early intervention, improving life chances and the integration of the police within the community, working with young people. This resulted in a significant reduction of crime and violence. Let me declare that the incidence of violence continues on a daily basis, but we must continue to tackle these issues, which I hope the Government will take into consideration.

Preventing Violence Against Women: Role of Men

Angela Crawley Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2016 Westminster Hall

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I congratulate the Members on bringing forward this important debate, which is the first of its kind, from the Backbench Business Committee. Considering the number of years this place has been dominated by men, it is refreshing that the debate was led by a man. None the less, the fact that domestic violence continues to occur both here and internationally highlights that Governments of all nations must make a strong statement.

The white ribbon campaign is a prime opportunity to give men that voice and allow those such as my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) and the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) to have their say. It will take positive male role models such as Members of Parliament, sportsmen, celebrities and other high-profile figures in public life to condemn violence against women and girls and make a strong statement about what men’s role is in preventing and eradicating violence against women.

This conversation is not new. For years women have been speaking out loudly, and feminists have been condemned as outspoken, radical and extremist simply for saying something that should be common sense to all of us: violence against women and girls should not and cannot be tolerated. Men and boys need to take an active role on their contribution to violence, but we also have to accept that it goes the other way. Many Members have mentioned that there are occasions—they are few—where women are the perpetrators of violence, so it is about educating girls and boys, and men and women about their role and their relationships with one another, because as we have heard this is not a women’s issue; it is a human rights issue. I am glad that this debate is happening today.

The first priority is to ensure that our educators and local figures are making that strong statement condemning violence in all forms. One of the most alarming statistics I have read has been touched on but not covered. The title of the report published by Women’s Aid this year is “Nineteen Child Homicides”, which brings home the wide range and impact that domestic violence can have on women and girls and children. Violence does not happen just to women; it affects fathers, husbands, sons and brothers. In fact, perhaps no member of a family is untouched by violence, and that is why it will take all voices across the community to advocate the removal of violence in all forms.

We have heard a lot about different laws and policies as well as the law of unintended consequences of some of the policies that are affecting women’s lives, which needs some acknowledgment from the Government. While much of the debate has centred around heterosexual relationships, statistics show that there is the exact same level of violence in same-sex relationships. Broken Rainbow has sought to highlight in its campaign that domestic violence is not unique to one relationship. It happens across all relationships and across all genders and sexualities.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North and the hon. Members for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) and for Brigg and Goole for securing the debate and highlighting this truly important issue. I hope that we will go some way towards eradicating violence.

Counter-terrorism

Angela Crawley Excerpts

Tuesday 5th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My right hon. and learned Friend is right about the importance of the exit checks that have been introduced. He asks about notification in relation to when the surrender of a passport is requested. Passports will be surrendered under different powers and in different circumstances so the whole process will be carried out on a case-by-case basis. For example, when a royal prerogative is being exercised a different process will potentially be used from when a police bail decision has been undertaken. In the latter case, it is up to the police to determine the speed with which it is necessary to remove the passport.

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

The contents of this video are utterly abhorrent, and we hope that appropriate measures are taken to clarify the identity of this individual as swiftly and accurately as possible. A reasoned and proportionate response to this threat is essential. The Scottish National party is committed to supporting all efforts to counter terrorism and to working to safeguard the lives of citizens of this country. If someone has a passport removed as a condition of their bail, are additional options open to a judge to prevent that person from fleeing the country? What more could have been done or can be done in similar circumstances?

[Mrs May]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments about the video, echoing the remarks that both I and the shadow Home Secretary made about the appalling and barbaric nature of not only the video, but the organisation of Daesh. She referred to bail that has been ordered by a judge, but of course bail will often be ordered by the police. If someone has not been charged with an offence, the police will determine their bail to return on a particular date and the conditions applied to that bail. As I have indicated, there are a number of processes whereby other measures can be taken. For example, if the police determine at the port, under the new powers that we have introduced, that somebody’s passport should be temporarily removed for further investigation, that can lead to its permanent removal through a royal prerogative being exercised or to other action being taken. The exercise of a terrorism prevention and investigation measure—a TPIM—can also contain measures aimed at preventing an individual from travelling. All of these decisions as to which powers should be exercised are taken on a case-by-case basis.

Female Genital Mutilation

Angela Crawley Excerpts

Tuesday 15th December 2015 General Committees

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. This is the first such Committee that I have sat on, so please bear with me. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rotherham and the hon. Member for Luton North. The hon. Member for Rotherham has worked vociferously for an agreement on tackling FGM, and it was great to hear a male Member passionately making the case against FGM. That is absolutely vital.

In London in 2013 two arrests were reported over the genital mutilation of a five or six-week-old baby girl—the youngest case reported. The two people arrested lived in Britain. The practice is not only abhorrent and immoral, but illegal, yet no one was convicted for the harm done to that child due to a lack of firm evidence. This case exposes how such harmful practice can slip through the nets of justice. FGM has been illegal in the UK for 30 years, and since 2003 anyone taking a child out of the UK to be cut faces 14 years in prison.

However, for both pieces of legislation there is yet to be a single conviction, as we have heard today. We are thus faced with the problem common to gender-based violence: a disconnect between the default political response of creating legislation to correct a problem and the practical steps needed to change the culture surrounding that problem. I therefore welcome the comments that have been made about legislation not being the only way to tackle this problem.

Every year, millions of women and girls worldwide have their quality of life drastically altered by FGM. More than 125 million women and girls are affected today, predominantly in pockets of the middle east, across central Africa and in south Asia. New research by City University London and Equality Now found that cases of FGM are on the rise in the UK. Between July and September last year health professionals uncovered 1,385 new cases of FGM, with 17 of those involving girls under the age of 18. Over half of the new cases recorded were in London, with women of Somali origin found to be the most likely to be affected. This is not a small-scale problem. The FGM programme manager at Equality Now, Mary Wandia, said that the figures shown are

“only the tip of the iceberg”.

She also said:

“Cases of FGM are likely to exist in every single local authority in England and Wales”.

I am sure that cases also exist throughout much of Scotland and other parts of the UK.

Even after 30 years of illegality, there is still a lack of medical and psychological support available to survivors. What we see is therefore a culture of woeful ignorance on the part of lawmakers, although I am not sure that is the case when I listen to hon. Members in this room. However, we know that this practice is going on, and we have to acknowledge it with legislation and with action. As the figures continue to increase, however, it is fair to say that further action is needed.

An international day of zero tolerance of FGM was held on 6 February 2014. The Government made it clear that no one in the UK was exempt from UK law. The Home Office was awarded £250,000 of funding from the European Commission to promote the national NSPCC FGM helpline, and to provide training for front-line professionals and support community engagement activity on ending FGM. Those measures go some way towards changing attitudes and beliefs among the relevant communities, towards making practitioners aware that what they are doing is wrong, and towards making sure that women realise that FGM is in fact a crime. The underlying causes of FGM include a mix of cultural, religious and social factors within families and communities—factors that are not wholly contrary to UK law and culture but that amount to a serious violation of human rights.

We recognise that FGM has a drastic impact on a woman’s body. As a deep-rooted social norm, it relates to the social culture of women’s sexuality and is practised in the belief that it is beneficial for a girl and that it preserves cultural identity in the context of migration. What must be addressed first and foremost is that any perceived benefits are massively outweighed by the horror and trauma for the victim, severe pain and bleeding, difficulty in passing urine, infections and death due to haemorrhage or neurogenic shock. The practice often leaves girls with long-term scars, post-traumatic stress disorder, chronic pain, HIV infection, cysts, abscesses and genital ulcers. There are increased risks of complications affecting the menstrual cycle, sometimes resulting in infertility.

Contrary to both the 1985 and 2003 legislation, UK-born girls are being taken abroad for what is culturally known as the “cutting season” of the summer holidays, but girls are being cut here, too. On the elimination of FGM, there is a positive trend towards abandoning the practice in the 28 countries that are most affected. Worldwide, 42 countries have passed laws condemning FGM, most recently Nigeria, which banned FGM in May 2015. Yet, according to the Foundation for Women’s Health Research and Development—FORWARD—in countries such as Sudan, Somalia and Egypt, up to 98% of females have been mutilated.

Research by the Scottish Refugee Council shows that in 2011 there were 23,979 people—men, women and children combined—in Scotland who had been born in one of the 29 countries identified by UNICEF as FGM practising countries. The largest community in Scotland potentially affected by FGM is the Nigerian community; that group amounts to 9,458 people. The number of people now living in Scotland who have been exposed to this culture presents a significantly increased challenge in addressing FGM. Since 2001, Scotland’s African population has doubled from 22,049 to 46,742, and in that time the cost of air travel to Africa has increased. Combined, according to Glasgow-based charity Roshni, those factors have led to an increase in the number of FGM incidents taking place on Scottish soil.

FGM is considered an outside issue, according to Dignity Alert & Research Forum in Edinburgh, but it is not; it is happening here in the UK, and it is very common. The public perception, however, is that it is not. Rather, it is very difficult for women to speak out about their experiences. In Scotland, after recent hospital figures revealed that more than 2,500 FGM victims had given birth in Scottish hospitals, politicians commissioned a Scotland-wide survey into its prevalence. The survey resulted in £222,000 being invested in a range of interventions, with priority areas including community engagement, development projects, awareness raising, training and support services. I raise that point not to preach but simply to share best practice.

Police Scotland officers based in Scottish airports have provided information on FGM to passengers, airline staff and airport workers since July 2015. As mentioned earlier, the school holidays are a prevalent time for FGM. The campaign’s timing was important, and it also included advertising against FGM in airport buildings. Last year, 19 incidents of FGM were reported to Police Scotland, up from 16 the previous year, which is evidence that this form of advertising is working.

The legal consequences of involvement in FGM are heavy. Long sentences act as a deterrent in both pieces of legislation. However, legislation alone does not work as a be-all and end-all solution. We must continue to spread awareness of FGM and not lose sight of the fact that it is a massive breach of women’s human rights. The advertising and educational initiatives of the Home Office and the Scottish Government have gone some way towards halting the spread of FGM. We must now break down the taboos of FGM in the most affected communities, if we are to eradicate this horrible practice in the UK. I welcome a co-ordinated response; together we will go some way towards stopping FGM globally.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Crawley Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

7. What steps she plans to take to reduce the level of violent crime.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)]

According to the crime survey for England and Wales, violent crime is 27% lower than in June 2010. We are taking effective action, including our ongoing action to tackle gang and youth violence, and our work to end violence against women and girls.

[Angela Crawley]

The Minister will be aware that the violence reduction unit in Scotland has taken an innovative approach to tackling violence by working with dentists, hairdressers, vets and others to identify domestic abuse. It has also successfully carried out work among gangs on promoting positive alternatives. What lessons can her Department learn from the success of Scotland’s violence reduction unit in its first 10 years of existence to reduce the level of crime?

[Karen Bradley]

We of course look at what is happening across the whole United Kingdom and work with the devolved authorities and others to ensure that we are using the very best practice.

Immigration Bill

Angela Crawley Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

I rise to urge Members across the Chamber to reject giving the Immigration Bill a Second Reading. The reason for that is simple: this is one of the most draconian Bills proposed by this Government to date. If this Bill is allowed to pass, it will close off support currently available to failed asylum seekers. If this Bill is brought into law, it will place additional costs on local authorities at a time when they are already spending billions of pounds on children in need of care. It will push those suffering the brunt of the cuts dictated by this Government’s failing austerity agenda further into poverty. The proposal will undoubtedly increase poverty among asylum seekers and their children, which to any reasonable person is already unacceptably high.

According to The Children’s Society, support for children seeking protection in the UK can be as little as half that received through the mainstream benefits system. In some cases, children and families would need nearly three times more than they currently receive in order to be pulled out of poverty. Many families are not even able to pay for the basics, including clothing, powdered milk and nappies for their babies. Rates of support for asylum seekers mean that children are living in severe poverty on less than 40% of average incomes. This is an abhorrent situation to place any family in. Are the Government really trying to make the situation worse?

The proposals put forward by the Secretary of State will compel more asylum seekers into unregulated employment to survive, fuelling exploitation and the undercutting of their rights. The Migrants Rights Network said that these changes will

“encourage discrimination against minorities whether British Citizens or migrants…This can only increase social ills, wage theft and abuse, and divide communities.”

The SNP believes that asylum seekers should be allowed to work so that they are able to provide for themselves and their families adequately. We believe they should be able to work so that they are able to make a contribution to the country they call home.

Only last week I and the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies) attended a Women and Equalities Committee visit to Oldham, Manchester and Birmingham. There we listened to the experiences of a mother whose daughter, now 21, has spent 13 years in the asylum system. Her daughter, now a masters graduate, is unable to gain employment; her mother has for over 20 years been unable to support her family.

This is the reality for many families across this country. These proposals will create a criminal offence which could lead to a 12-month prison sentence with an unlimited fine for anyone found working without the right papers. That is unacceptable. It is grossly disproportionate to harm any migrants in vulnerable situations who may be considered to have been at the mercy of a system that does not work for them. The threat of loss of earnings and incarceration is likely to make them even more unwilling to come forward. In effect, the proposed legislation means greater security for exploitative bosses, leaving migrants feeling powerless to raise a complaint.

I urge the House to vote against the Bill.