Unaccompanied Minors Seeking Asylum

Angela Crawley Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

If Angela Crawley is ready to go, it is a delight to call her to move the motion. I will then call the Minister to respond. Just to remind Members, there is not an opportunity in a 30-minute debate for the Member in charge to wind up. That is our convention.

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered unaccompanied minors seeking asylum.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary, and I am grateful for the opportunity to lead today’s debate on an urgent and sadly all too familiar issue. Last month, 30 miles out at sea, at 3 am, in freezing conditions, four migrants died after a small boat capsized in the English channel. That is not a new story, sadly—it happens too often—but one of the dead was just a teenager. That news never gets any easier to hear or digest.

In that same tragedy, eight children were among those who were successfully rescued by the coastguard. The Mirror reported that one 12-year-old survivor was escaping Afghanistan after his whole family had been killed by the Taliban. None of us can imagine the horrors that drive people to get on boats or take perilous journeys to cross the channel, yet those horrors are experienced by innocent children every day.

Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children arrive alone, afraid, and have no idea where to start. Unfortunately, this Government are fixated on criminalising and discrediting desperate people who have come to the UK to seek a new life. Vulnerable children and young people are having their rights and protections stripped, and that is the wrong approach. Our duty must be to give them a warm welcome, a fresh start and the protection and hope that they so desperately need when they arrive to seek refuge in the UK.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing forward this debate. It is an absolutely super subject, but a very worrying one as well. Does she agree that all young people, no matter their backgrounds, deserve a healthy, stable upbringing that gives them the same chance to succeed in later life? Most of these minors will be helpless. Does the hon. Lady feel like we could do better to fulfil our duty of care by not only providing food and clothing, but ensuring that they have a chance of a future life with an education and a stable home?

[Angela Crawley]

I absolutely agree. I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, as always. He is correct. We have a duty not only as a country and a nation, but as humans, to acknowledge that these children are not the criminal gangs or the ones facilitating the process of getting to the UK. They are simply the innocent bystanders of a process that they themselves may not have chosen.

Far too often, children have been incorrectly declared as adults. An immigration officer will make an age judgment based on demeanour or appearance. If they are judged to be an adult, they are not sent for an age assessment. Rather, they are given a date of birth and sent to live in shared rooms with adults. In 2021, a specialist programme run by the Refugee Council worked with 233 young people over 12 months. The Home Office had initially determined them to be “certainly” adults, when in fact, only 14 of them were adults. That means that 219 of those children were denied the rights and protections of a child, and were exposed to further exploitation, trafficking and violence as a result of that determination. Those 219 children were counting on us to take care of them.

The Home Office refuses to document how often that happens, how many children are judged incorrectly to be adults or what happens to them. There is no process to track such a decision. If there is any dubiety in that decision, there is no pathway to ensure that those individuals are protected and safeguarded until a definitive determination can be made. It is fair to say that even the determinations that are made are questionable at times. I therefore ask the Minister to be more transparent about frontline decision making. Will he commit to publishing statistics on age-disputed children who are initially treated as adults? Will he outline a pathway for those individuals to ensure that they are protected and safeguarded within the system, as they should be?

The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 gives the Home Office powers to conduct medical age assessments. However, the British Association of Social Workers has stated that there is no known scientific method that can precisely determine age. Pushing scientific methods upon age-disputed young people is incredibly insensitive. It ignores the trauma they have been through and the atrocities they have seen.

Those who are wrongly declared as adults will not be able to avoid deportation to Rwanda under this Government’s cruel plans. That is a terrifying prospect for children and young people. I am disappointed in the UK Government. A place that was supposed to be their second chance and a place of safety is only adding to their stress and anxiety. I therefore ask the Minister: when will the report from the Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee on specific scientific methods for age assessment be made available? Will learning from the national age assessment board pilots be shared, given their frontline role in rectifying the Home Office’s mistakes? We need to ensure that these processes are transparent and that we can scrutinise them appropriately.

Unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are being abandoned by the Home Office and placed in hotels that are desperately unfit for anyone to live in, but particularly children, who are forced to live alongside adults, further exposing them to potential harms. The Home Office has set out its intentions to speed up the process by which unaccompanied children are transferred from temporary hotels to long-term care, but it is simply not enough. Again, that process is not transparent. It only normalises the use of hotels that are unfit accommodation for anyone, but particularly for children who should be nowhere near them.

Every Child Protected Against Trafficking says that housing children in hotels is unlawful, dangerous and contrary to the UK’s child welfare legislation. In October last year, more than 220 unaccompanied children went missing from hotels. Had those children been in the care of authorities, they would have been protected. I ask the Minister again, what is the pathway and how do we ensure that no child who is placed in any form of accommodation can go missing without someone being directly accountable and responsible?

Unaccompanied children are alone, scared and vulnerable. Many have left behind their families not knowing how they are; they deserve to have their families join them in safety. The Home Office’s position on altering family reunification rights for children is nothing short of ridiculous. This Government believe that allowing children and young people to sponsor their families would incentivise parents to send their children on dangerous journeys to the UK. Whether that is the case or not, I do not believe it is a decision any parent would make outside of the most desperate of circumstances.

Turning briefly to the point on family reunification, the Home Office’s minimum income requirement means that UK citizens and settled persons currently have to earn £18,600 before they can sponsor a spouse or partner to join them—more, if children are involved. That means that a substantial percentage of the population who do not earn that sum cannot live with their family and have to leave the country. Many thousands of families have been split apart since its introduction almost a decade ago, and many more have been affected by the rules that will also apply to European economic area family members.

Rather than reduce the level of income, or abandon the policy altogether as I have argued for repeatedly, reports have emerged over Christmas that the Home Office is thinking of increasing it further, splitting more families apart. The fact is that many families in the UK right now may struggle to meet those requirements in the current circumstances. To place that requirement arbitrarily on families only serves to ensure that further families will not receive reunification. It is not a reason to keep families apart. That they make those perilous journeys only highlights the grave circumstances that children flee from.

The Nationality and Borders Act 2022 brought in a ham-fisted policy with deferential treatment for refugees seeking family reunion based on the way they entered the UK. Those who arrived outside of one of the ever-dwindling safe and legal routes need to meet higher tests and additional requirements before being able to reunite with their family members. Organisations such as Families Together are calling for this discriminatory policy to be scrapped.

I close my contribution by apologising to the unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, who come to this country seeking safe harbour—because it is simply not the case. I apologise to the thousands of children who have come here and potentially been lost in a system with no traceability, because this Government refuse to acknowledge that they are in fact children. I am sorry that I could not cover more in this debate, but their voices and stories should not be ignored just because of where they came from. The fact is that they are children, and they should be treated as such. The harm and neglect that they are facing after seeking refuge in the UK can only be blamed on this Government, and the heartless Home Office polices that they exhibit.

I do not wish to hammer home the point any more than I already have, but it is simply unimaginable to me that we have, just recently, 219 children who we cannot account for, and many more who we have incorrectly administered as adults. What will the Minister do to correct that? It simply cannot continue.

[Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)]

rose—

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

This is a half-hour debate; do you have the permission of the mover of the motion to speak?

[Angela Crawley]

He does now.

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Mr Watling, you have five minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) for securing the debate, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) for his contribution. This is clearly an important subject, and I hope that in the time available I can respond to the points raised by both hon. Members.

It is important to underline that the UK has a proud record of providing protection and sanctuary to people who need it in accordance with our international obligations. Between 2015 and September of last year, we offered a place to almost 450,000 men, women and children who sought safety via safe and legal entry routes. They include people from Hong Kong, Syria, Afghanistan and Ukraine, as well as the family members of refugees. Last year, we offered more entry route opportunities than in any single year since the end of the second world war. Over the same period, the UK offered protection in the form of refugee status, humanitarian protection and alternative forms of leave via asylum applications to over 90,000 people, including dependants.

It is important to recognise the wider background to these matters. The Home Secretary and I have been very clear, repeatedly, about the challenges that we face as a country, some of which have been referenced by my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton. We should be under no illusion about the fact that the UK’s asylum system has been under immense strain and mounting pressure for several years, owing to the very large numbers of people crossing the channel illegally—principally, but not solely, in small boats. Last year, over 45,000 people arrived in clandestine boats. The journeys are facilitated by ruthless criminal gangs who are interested only in profiting from human misery. The tragic loss of life in the channel last month, to which the hon. Member for Lanark and Hamilton East referred, was the worst possible reminder of the dangers of the crossings, and underlines once more why it is so critical that we destroy the business model of the people smugglers.

That is why deterrence will be suffused through everything that we do as a Government, and why I disagree with the hon. Lady’s characterisation of our policy with regard to Rwanda. There is nothing compassionate about perpetuating a trade in people that risks the lives of thousands of individuals, including children, every year. That evil trade must be stopped, and we are taking concerted action to do so on a number of fronts, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out at the end of last year. That action includes deeper co-operation with our key partners, such as the French, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton set out.

[Angela Crawley]

If just one child is incorrectly defined as an adult because of this Government’s abhorrent policy—the Minister calls it a deterrence policy—on preventing criminal gangs, is that not one child too many who will fall through the cracks and be in further danger?

[Robert Jenrick]

I will come on in a moment to answer the hon. Lady’s questions about age verification, but I disagree that sending individuals to Rwanda, which has now been declared a safe country by the courts, is a policy that is uncompassionate or cruel. Quite the opposite is true.

We live in an age of mass migration. Millions of people wish to come to the United Kingdom. If we do nothing to deter people from coming to the UK, which I think is the position that the hon. Lady and her party suggest taking, we will find not 45,000 people crossing the channel, but hundreds of thousands of people doing so in the years and decades ahead. We have to respond to this issue as a country, as many other countries around the world are doing.

From the conversations that the Home Secretary, the Prime Minister and I have had with our European and international partners, it is clear that every developed country in the world is thinking carefully about how they can put in place procedures and policies that will prevent mass migration and deter individuals from making dangerous crossings or damaging their national sovereignty. Other European countries are looking to the work we are doing on Rwanda. We may see other European countries copy that policy and make agreements with third parties in the years ahead.

[Robert Jenrick]

We are looking at all models; I hope that hon. Members can see from the plans set out by the Prime Minister that this will be a campaign on several fronts. We are looking at every viable route in order to deter people from coming to the UK, to process applications as swiftly as possible, and to find better forms of accommodation when they are here. I know that my hon. Friend’s constituency has been on the sharp end of the situation regarding accommodation. Of course, we are talking to our international partners around the world, who are all grappling with the same challenge.

We are not an international outlier. The policies that we are enacting are those that are being enacted or considered by most other developed countries. The Prime Minister, through his recent conversations with President Macron, and the Home Secretary, through the Calais Group of northern European states, are working intensively and constructively with our partners to find common ways forward. The treaties that we are bound by, such as the refugee convention, were created for a different era, in the immediate aftermath of the second world war, prior to this period in which tens if not hundreds of millions of individuals are looking to travel around the world. It is in that context that we need to sharpen the deterrent we have as a country to make sure that we are not providing an easier route than our European neighbours, and are not a more compelling destination than our nearest neighbours, for those shopping for asylum or, particularly, for economic migrants.

I will answer the questions the hon. Lady has brought to my attention. The first point is about how we house individuals. It is important to say—I mean no disrespect to the hon. Lady, but this point needs to be made—that Scotland is bearing a lighter burden than other parts of the United Kingdom when it comes to refugees generally, and to those who are crossing the channel in small boats in particular. The same appears to be true with respect to children.

[Angela Crawley]

Will the Minister give way?

[Robert Jenrick]

I will in a moment. I know the hon. Lady feels passionately about ensuring that individuals are housed decently and compassionately, so the best thing that she and her colleagues could do is go to Scotland and speak to the Scottish Government and Scottish local authorities, and encourage them to adopt better policies, so that Scotland takes a fair and equitable number of those crossing the channel.

Before I give way, I want to give the statistics. The Scottish Government have nine hotels supporting asylum seekers, and five hotels supporting the Afghan cohort in the UK, which represents just 1.6% of the combined asylum and Afghan hotel population across the whole of the United Kingdom. There are small cities in England, such as Stoke-on-Trent, that have more hotels housing asylum seekers than the whole of Scotland. That is not fair and equitable. If the Scottish Government and members of the SNP want to play a full part in these debates and discussions, the best thing they could do is ensure that they played a greater part in this.

[Angela Crawley]

The Minister should be mindful when quoting statistics. It is somewhat misleading to suggest that, because Scotland is using fewer hotels, it is not adequately playing its part. Most local authorities in Scotland have more than stepped up to the plate. The use of selective statistics is very misleading and not great practice. Let us be honest: are not most hotels not suitable accommodation, temporary or otherwise, for individuals? It is therefore misleading to suggest that Scotland is not playing its part. There are many other ways in which we accommodate asylum seekers. [Interruption.]

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Order. There is a Division in the House. Can the Minister finish in 30 seconds? I suspect not. If not, we will have to come back.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Angela Crawley Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 20th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Joanna Cherry]

When I said that the Bill addresses a problem that does not exist, one of the previous speakers talked of the country being overrun by immigrants. That is simply not the case. As I said in an intervention earlier, yes, I do think—to use the hon. Member’s words—“innocent” and “vulnerable” people crossing the channel with people smugglers is a problem, but I do not think that the solution to that problem is to criminalise those innocent and vulnerable people. That is one of the central problems of this Bill. In fact, to criminalise those innocent and vulnerable people is potentially in breach of our international legal obligations.

If this Bill becomes law, we risk breaching the 1951 UN refugee convention, the 1961 UN convention on the reduction of statelessness, the UN convention on the law of the sea and the international convention for the safety of life at sea, and we also risk breaching the UN convention on the rights of the child. If this Bill becomes law, we also risk breaching multiple articles of the European convention on human rights, to which this Government assure us they are still committed. In fact, the Lord Chancellor gave evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights last week and was most anxious to assure us that the Government are still committed to the European convention on human rights. But there is not much point in being committed to it in name if they bring legislation to the House that threatens to breach it by its terms, as does the introduction of a two-tier system for refugees, which potentially breaches the right to be free from discrimination and enjoyment of one’s human rights.

The changes proposed by the Bill potentially undermine the right to life for those at sea. Changes to the application and appeals process for asylum seekers and provisions regarding credibility, and the weight to be given to evidence, risk breaching the right to a fair trial. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, has already raised concerns that decision making by the Home Office in immigration matters is not sufficiently independent or rigorous to ensure that human rights are respected, and the Bill will make that worse.

Why would Scotland want to be part of a Union where decisions like this affecting our international standing and the perception of the state on the world stage are forced through by a Government with such scant regard for human rights and the rule of law? It is not just this Bill. This Bill is one in a succession of Bills that have gone through this House recently which many independent commentators have said threaten to breach our international treaty obligations and also threaten to breach our commitment to human rights under the European convention. In one case, the Government were quite brazen about it. A Minister stood up in the House and said that

“this does break international law”

but only

“in a very specific and limited way.”—[Official Report, 8 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 509.]

Would that it were so with this Bill. This Bill will break international law, not in a specific and limited way, but in a number of respects that those with more time have enumerated more eloquently than I can.

This is not the way to do things. It is not right and it is not humane. There are millions of displaced people across the world and millions of refugees. The United Kingdom cannot wash our hands of responsibility for them, particularly when at least some of the reasons for their displacement can be laid at our door and at the door of our foreign policy and our colonial past. The real mischief that the Bill should seek to tackle, but does not, is that there are insufficient lawful routes for claiming asylum in the United Kingdom. Yes, resettlement programmes are laudable, but they are not a solution for those claiming asylum because resettlement programmes deal with those already recognised as having a protection need. Those in need of international protection who reach the shores of the United Kingdom should not be criminalised.

It is time the Home Secretary stopped playing to the gallery and did the hard work necessary to fulfil the United Kingdom’s moral and legal obligations to refugees and asylum seekers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East said so eloquently, there is no point in Conservative Members waxing lyrical about the rights of persecuted Christians and the rights of the Uyghurs to be free from Chinese atrocities if they threaten to criminalise those sorts of people when they make it to our shores.

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

My hon. and learned Friend is making the point very eloquently. So many people who come here through an illegal route, through no fault of their own, are often in a set of circumstances beyond their control. The message that this Government send is, “You are not welcome.” What would she say to those who have made a life here and contributed so much, which they could continue to contribute were it not for this abhorrent policy?

[Joanna Cherry]

What I would say to them, what the Scottish Government have said to them and what my party says to them is that they are very welcome in Scotland, but unfortunately at the moment we do not have control over that aspect of policy. Until we take the steps to ensure that we do have control over that aspect of policy, we are stuck with trying to persuade this British Government that their policies are wrong.

I fear that the chances of this Government amending the Bill in any meaningful way are absolutely zero, but I know that it matters very much to my constituents, other people in Scotland and many organisations—the Trades Union Congress in Edinburgh passed a motion condemning this Bill just in the last few days—that the Scottish National party stands against the Bill. As I say, I do not think that our stand will work, and I continue to look forward to a future where an independent Scotland will be able to set a better example on refugee policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Holden]

I could not agree more. What I keep noticing today is that Opposition Members seem to be pushing the illegal routes more than the legal routes. We have legal routes into this country, and people can take them. I cannot understand why anyone who actually had the interests of people fleeing persecution at heart would promote people travelling in the backs of lorries or fleeing in boats across the channel, sometimes across the Mediterranean sea to get to France or Italy, and then having to travel all the way here. It is deeply irresponsible of Opposition Members to constantly try to promote these routes and to paint Conservative Members as though they are not trying to act in the best interests of those across the world who are facing incredibly difficult circumstances.

Although my constituents are happy to welcome economic migrants who come through the legal channels and want to play their part in our country, especially those who want to settle and permanently make the UK their home, they are fed up of seeing illegal migrants from across the world taking whatever opportunity they can. They are particularly fed up of seeing people being used and abused by illegal gangs, and being forced into this country. That is what really grinds their gears, and I cannot understand why Opposition Members cannot understand my constituents.

My constituency voted Labour ever since its creation. This was an issue that came up time after time on the doorstep, not only at the last general election but at the previous election. The Labour party has totally lost touch with the reality of the communities it has traditionally represented.

[Angela Crawley]

The hon. Member makes a number of points that suggest the view of his constituents is the view of all constituents, and it is simply not the case. In Glasgow, on Kenmure Street, we saw people protect individuals from being deported by the Home Office, and in many instances the message has been loud and clear that we welcome refugees in Glasgow. The message the hon. Member sends is not only toxic; it is not representative of all constituents across the UK.

[Mr Holden]

My constituents are very happy to welcome genuine refugees to the UK. We are taking them now, unlike many constituencies in Scotland where they are not taking asylum seekers, as was pointed out by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp). It is quite astonishing really.

My constituents are very happy to take genuine refugees, but they do not want to see an open-door policy, where anybody can just come into the UK and we cannot remove them if they have come here illegally, overstayed their visa or committed a criminal act while they are here, when they should be deported.

If Opposition Members are really interested in ensuring better and safer legal routes for migration, I cannot understand why they are not arguing for that. Why are they not arguing for safer routes? Why are they instead arguing that we should just allow the boats to continue? It seems crazy to me. Totally mad.

As I was saying, people are fed up of seeing people coming to the UK and being used and abused by illegal gangs. They are fed up of seeing them come here illegally. They are also fed up of seeing some lawyers—some lawyers—milking the system. I remember Opposition Members, when I was a special adviser in the Ministry of Defence, defending Phil Shiner, who was saying that British soldiers out in Iraq were doing all the wrong sorts of things. Spurious allegations were sprayed across honourable members of our armed forces. Today we are seeing exactly the same sorts of lawyers doing exactly the same sorts of things to our immigration and asylum system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anne McLaughlin]

I completely agree, as I always do, with everything that my hon. Friend says.

I ask Conservative Members: just imagine it was you. I talked about a Belarusian MP, but imagine it was you. Imagine that for some reason—lucky us; we do not have to—you ended up in that situation where you had to flee. Is there anything Conservative Members would not do to keep their families safe? If there is anything they would not do to keep their families safe, maybe they should be thinking about their moral code.

Ireland has been through attempts to reform the system. It argued at the time, as Conservative Members do, that its system was a deterrent. Those at the Ministry of Justice in Ireland wanted to build misery into the accommodation system. It was not a train of thought imagined by critics; it was their actual policy. But they realised it was wrong and there is now cross-party consensus that it must stop. They reached that consensus not just because it did not work, but because they have recognised the inhumanity of that system.

[Angela Crawley]

Will my hon. Friend give away?

[Anne McLaughlin]

I want to come on to my last point, and I do not get an extra minute.

The Home Secretary set the tone for this debate by immediately, in the first paragraph of her speech, talking about people having “had enough”. She used the words “uncontrolled” “failed asylum system”, “illegal”—that was used three times—“foreign”, “crime gangs”, “pretending to be genuine” “pretending to be children”, “criminals”, “murderers” “rapists” and abusers. Yes, I am sure Conservative Members loved it. That was the first paragraph and it set the tone. It was calculated and it was irresponsible. She knew exactly what she was doing. We will be doing everything to make sure that the people know the truth out there .The Home Secretary should be ashamed of that speech yesterday, and all Conservative Members should be ashamed of this Bill.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Angela Crawley Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 19th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Absolutely, as there is in Canada.

Members from all parties in this House, sitting on the Front Benches and the Back Benches, regularly speak up for some of the most oppressed people on the planet. We have seen brave interventions on Uyghurs fleeing atrocities in China. The plight of Syrians fleeing a decade-long conflict has been championed, and Christians around the world, including Christian converts, have numerous ambassadors in this Chamber, but we have hardly come to terms with what this Bill means for them.

This Bill prompts a question: why speak up against persecution abroad only to say, when they come knocking at our door seeking shelter, “You are not our responsibility. Go somewhere else”? France seems to be the popular answer among Conservative Members. What if France and the rest of Europe say the same thing? We would end up with the system of international protection of refugees breaking down, as the UNHCR points out.

If the Bill passes, that is exactly what it means. Prior to the Bill, we would have sheltered people fleeing persecution. The Bill expressly seeks to discourage them from coming here by making life miserable for those who do. Today, if a Uyghur, Syrian or persecuted Christian convert arrives in the UK to seek asylum, life will be far from plain sailing, precisely because of the outrageous waiting times, the dreadful asylum accommodation, the prohibition on work and the dreadful levels of financial support. They get here and, thanks to our amazing non-governmental organisations and charities, they slowly start to rebuild their lives.

But next year, if this Bill passes, for many of those Uyghurs, Syrians or persecuted Christian converts claiming asylum here, things will be infinitely bleaker, and that will be a deliberate policy choice of this Parliament. Arriving next year, the Uyghur, Syrian or persecuted Christian will be much more likely to be criminalised, regardless of arguments about whether they had come here directly or not.

Section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 already punishes illegal entry by those without leave to enter. Sensibly, however, those who claim asylum on arrival are granted immigration bail, which does not count officially as entry. Clause 37 of the Bill changes all that. It would essentially criminalise the very act of arriving to claim asylum, because, as the explanatory notes acknowledge, the majority of asylum seekers will not have the ability to secure entry clearance. Despite the Home Secretary’s protestations last week, as the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) said, this criminal offence will apply to Uyghurs, Syrians, persecuted Christian converts and anybody else, and the penalty is up to four years in prison.

The next problem for the Uyghur, Syrian or persecuted Christian convert is that although they are absolutely obviously in need of international protection, this Government, in their wisdom, are not even going to consider their claim for protection for six months. The Government are trying to pretend that that is some sort of replication of the Dublin regulations that the UK was party to prior to Brexit, but of course it is not, because, as we have heard, there are no returns agreements with any remotely relevant country and little indication at this stage that there will be any time soon. Any such returns agreement would have to be carefully circumscribed so as to be consistent with the convention and to have carefully considered the circumstances of the individual, including any ties to the UK, such as family members here.

By contrast, the powers in the Bill will allow the Home Secretary to remove a Uyghur, persecuted Christian or Syrian to any country at all, even if there is no connection, and with very little by way of restriction. Today, the Uyghur, Syrian or persecuted Christian faces outrageous delays in asylum protection systems, and the Bill simply adds another six months.

Where will the Uyghur, Syrian or persecuted Christian be during that time—during that limbo—while the Home Office goes through the futile motions of seeking to remove them? Just now, for those who seek asylum we have a struggling, privatised, over-concentrated system of dispersed asylum accommodation. Numerous Committees have told the Home Office how it could be improved, only to be ignored. Under this Bill and this plan, that is not where the Home Secretary envisages the Syrian, the Uyghur or the persecuted Christian going. Instead, the grim future for these refugees appears under this Bill and this plan to be the disgraceful, disreputable open prison-like conditions that we have already witnessed at Napier or Penally.

Even worse, as we have heard, they may face being removed to an offshore centre to have their claim resolved. Here is the real asylum shopping: the British Government grubbing around to find a country to palm off their responsibilities on to. Let us think of the outrages and the lack of accountability we have seen in relation to immigration detention and the Napier open prison—the abuses that have been meted out there and the harm done. As we know from the Australian experiment, that will be as nothing compared to the hell that is likely to await at an offshore asylum facility. How on earth have we gone from having a Parliament where there was widespread support for time-limiting and restricting the use of detention, to imposing a form of it that is infinitely worse?

Having endured their limbo period, these three groups of refugees will finally have their case assessed by the Home Office. But instead of working to improve asylum decision making, the Bill seeks to make it harder for them to prove their case. It seeks to alter the long-established test set out in the refugee convention that the standard of proof required is a lower, but far from negligible, standard of real risk. That standard is clearly justified by the possible consequences of getting decisions wrong and the huge challenges of proving circumstances that happened thousands of miles away in a country the person has fled.

The Bill seeks to muddy the waters by applying a higher legal threshold. The claimant now has to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that they do belong to one of the protected convention groups and that they fear persecution based on that characteristic. That not only undermines the cautious approach in the convention, justified by the dangers that exist for asylum seekers, but pays no regard to just how difficult it is to prove events that happened in faraway countries.

In addition, by having two different standards of evidence in the same proceedings, it makes life harder for already struggling caseworkers. The judge or decision maker may be certain that the proselytising Christian convert will face the death penalty or torture on return, but now the “real possibility” that the claimant is such a proselytising Christian convert is not enough. If the judge is only 49% satisfied that the person is a proselytising Christian convert, the claim is going to be rejected, even though the risk of torture or death is absolutely certain if the decision maker has got that assessment wrong. I find that deeply troubling, and it is clearly inconsistent with the refugee convention.

Let us imagine that the persecuted Christian, the Syrian and the Uyghur have survived their limbo period and made it through the asylum system, and the Home Office refusal of their application has been overturned on appeal. Unbelievably, the harms inflicted on them by the Bill have barely started. On the contrary, the repugnant programme of disincentives is ramped up further, even after they navigate that system. Because they have stopped temporarily in a European country, they are to be treated as a second-class refugee. Regardless of what any Minister says, that is absolutely contrary to the refugee convention and, more importantly, it is simply disgraceful. It is not just nasty, but sickening—

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that on many occasions, particularly for those seeking asylum on the basis of their sexuality, those in the LGBT+ community are the most likely to be adversely impacted by this new legislation? Does he agree that more should be done to protect them and ensure that they can come here as a safe haven?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. There are all sorts of problems with provisions in the Bill that penalise late disclosure of information, which can very often be the case in modern slavery or LGBT cases, or even religious conversion cases.

Having established that these people are refugees—and the Government have had to recognise that—the system should allow them to rebuild their lives after the trauma of their persecution, their journeys and their asylum claim, but instead this Government still want to turn the screw. Instead of the stability and permanent residence refugees were once provided with, today they are given five years’ leave, with a review that is fairly light-touch, before settlement. But this Bill and the Government’s plan propose endless 30-month cycles of review and ongoing attempts to remove. Nobody can rebuild their lives in those circumstances—and I do not know how on earth the Home Office is going to cope with having to revisit every single asylum case every 30 months.

These refugees will not be entitled to public funds unless they are destitute. So if, say, the Christian convert finds some part-time, low-paid work—a big ask, given the language and cultural barriers, the enforced years out of work, and the trauma—there will be no universal credit to cover housing or income shortfalls, and if he or she was able to bring a child, there will be no support for that child. Their refugee family reunion rights will be diminished, according to the plan, meaning that they cannot be joined by a spouse or perhaps a child. The detail is not in the Bill, but that is what the plan suggests and the Bill enables.

That inevitably gives the Christian convert a choice: does the family stay apart or do other family members—often the women and children that the Home Secretary professes to be protecting—then have to follow and make their own dangerous journeys? Without the family, without state support and without stability, the Uyghur, the Syrian and the persecuted Christian convert have no hope of rebuilding their lives. That amounts not to a place of sanctuary, but to a place of punishment—and the Home Office has the audacity to claim that it is in their best interests. This is, in short, an outrageous way to treat refugees, and it is why the Bill is rightly being called the anti-refugee Bill.

There is so much that could be said about the undermining of efforts to support trafficking victims, the total absence from the Bill of protection for children, and the undermining of rights of stateless children. We need to know what the placeholder clauses will give rise to. We do not even have the chance to debate them here on Second Reading, and there are six or seven of them. The whole of the dentistry profession is up in arms at the suggestion that the discredited and unethical dental X-rays system could return as an inaccurate method of assessing age.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I welcome you to your role. I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate and to follow several hon. Members who have spoken so eloquently on this Bill—sadly, for the most part, on the Opposition Benches.

My colleagues and I will oppose this abhorrent legislation that rides roughshod over the refugee convention. As we approach the 30th anniversary of the convention, this Bill places some of the most vulnerable people in the world at risk of destitution, exploitation and family separation. The Government’s rhetoric and virtue signalling has failed to comprehend the valuable contributions that those people make to our society, regardless of how they got there. If the Bill is passed, it will, as we have heard, cast the UK adrift from international law, making it more insulated from other countries and staining what is still left of our international reputation on the world stage. It is insensitive, rushed and deeply problematic given its intention to effectively end the right to seek asylum in the UK. By doing so, it contravenes the refugee convention itself and also the European convention on human rights. The Bill proposes a two-tier system and a two-tier approach to asylum, despite there being no legal requirement in international law for an applicant to seek asylum in the first country they reach.

By bringing this Bill forward, the Home Secretary is ignoring both international and UK law with her approach, as well as being blind to the fact that how an applicant arrives in the UK is unrelated to the level of protection that they require. The Home Secretary encourages asylum seekers to use official schemes to make their application, fully aware that in many cases the abhorrent regimes that an asylum seeker is seeking refuge from will place them and their families at greater risk. The risk that many asylum seekers face is not a choice they make freely; it is a choice they make simply because it is the only choice they have left—to turn to criminal gangs for help, leaving them open to exploitation.

The UK simply cannot depart from international law on an issue that requires co-operation with other countries and by doing so refuse to play its part in supporting some of the world’s most vulnerable citizens. The Bill is shoddy, it vandalises the UK’s international reputation and it undermines the devolution settlement itself.

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

Stoke-on-Trent, which I am proud to represent, has the fifth-highest rate of asylum seekers per 10,000 of population, Glasgow being the first. Does the hon. Lady agree that the SNP-led councils outside Glasgow should step up and do their bit, and start being part of the asylum dispersal scheme?

[Angela Crawley]

I thank the hon. Member for that comment. Feel free to fund Glasgow City Council to deal with the situation that, frankly, the Government have caused.

Most importantly, the Bill ignores the reality of why people flee in the first place and seek safety. That wilful ignorance lies within the Bill’s severest risk of harm to refugees seeking protection in the UK. [Interruption.] The Bill would put the continued use of military-style barracks at the heart of the Home Office strategy, flying in the face of court rulings and expert opinion, including the NHS and Public Health England. [Interruption.] Their use has been ruled unlawful and the court has banned it by a decision of the High Court. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) wishes to make a further intervention I will take it, otherwise I will carry on. It is simply astonishing that the Home Office is casually disregarding that ruling and the views of public health experts, and placing this practice at the heart of the Bill.

The Bill is one of the many reasons that Scotland needs her independence and to break away from this insular little Britain that the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister are working to create. These are real people. These are real lives. That someone should arrive here, illegally by this Government’s definition, by exploitation or worse and be penalised for the very notion that they make it successfully here at all is absolutely abhorrent. This place should be regarded as a safe haven. The UK is that opportunity for many, many people. This Government turn their back on so many lives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Gullis]

Stoke-on-Trent, sadly, has the second lowest council tax revenue income of any local authority in England, yet all I am hearing from those opposite is excuses, excuses, excuses. The SNP has money for all these vanity projects, but it does not have any money to look after asylum seekers—I find it baffling. By creating new accommodation centres, removing asylum seekers to a safe third country while an asylum claim is pending, in the same ways as is being done in Denmark, increasing maximum penalties for entering the UK illegally, enabling the quicker and easier removal of foreign criminals convicted of horrific crimes such as rape and murder, creating new safe and legal routes that will be looked on favourably when people apply for asylum, and backing our Border Force to stop and redirect boats out of British waters, returning them to safe countries from which they came, such as France, this Bill is delivering the reforms that we need and that are wanted by the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke.

[Angela Crawley]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the picture he paints is not the same as the one we experience in Scotland. In Glasgow, in Kenmure Street, people wrapped themselves around those who were being deported by the Home Office and said, “Refugees are welcome.” The picture he paints is not representative of the whole of the UK—it is inaccurate and false.

[Jonathan Gullis]

I have the greatest respect for the people of Glasgow, their council and their MPs, because they have got involved in the asylum dispersal scheme, and they deserve full recognition and credit for that. That is just like how Stoke-on-Trent has wrapped its arms around the people who have come to this country in need and looked after them. But we have simply said that our NHS, local schools and local council services cannot do this any more and it simply has to come to a point where fairness is applied equally. I say to the hon. Lady again that if all the SNP councils that are not in Glasgow want to, they can meet the Minister and get the asylum dispersal scheme signed up to and we can share the load across our country.

But let us talk about the Labour party, who will listen to the woke mob on Twitter rather than listening to the people in former red wall seats. The Labour party wants to sign back up to free movement, which its leader spent years arguing for when trying to block Brexit. He also believes that immigration controls are racist. I suggest that the Labour party champagne socialists of north Islington, whose Labour-run council had not given accommodation to a single asylum seeker by the end of 2020, and their leftie sponging lawyer friends who soak up taxpayers’ money by preventing foreign criminals from being deported should get out and talk to some real people rather than worrying about their likes on Twitter. The truth is that the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke want to take back control and this Bill delivers that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome you to your elevated position.

Many of my constituents in Stoke-on-Trent South are shocked and angered by the illegal crossings of the English channel. The integrity of our borders is broken, and my constituents are fed up of seeing people continue to enter the UK illegally. We must act to put an end to the profiteering of criminal people traffickers, for whom illegal routes have become an industry, and we must deter those who seek to make these perilous journeys across the busiest shipping lane in the world in no more than a rubber dinghy.

Clearly, there must be safe routes for those in desperate need. The UK and Stoke-on-Trent have a proud record of helping those in the greatest need, but what my constituents cannot understand is why there should be any need to make illegal journeys to do so: European countries are safe, and those attempting to claim asylum should do so in those countries.

We have seen repeated attempts to game the system, using any legal loophole to do so. There were 16,000 illegal immigrants last year yet, because the system is overwhelmed and repeatedly abused, deportations are declining. The increased pressures we have seen on the entire immigration system put enormous weight on the few asylum dispersal areas. Stoke-on-Trent has seen one of the highest proportions of refugees in the entire country.

[Angela Crawley]

Does the hon. Member accept the criticism from his former colleague Anna Soubry, who said the Conservative party is now a “Trumpian”, far-right, “populist” party?

[Jack Brereton]

I do not agree with that. We have absolutely supported those in the most desperate need. It is about making sure we support the genuine ones in those countries and regions. We have supported around 25,000 over the past six years in this country, which is the most in the whole of Europe. We will not take any lectures from the SNP, which talks so much about support for immigrants but does not do a single thing. Glasgow is the only city in Scotland to be a dispersal area. The rest of Scotland does not lift a single finger to help asylum seekers.

[Jack Brereton]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Cities such as Stoke-on-Trent are actually putting in the effort.

[Angela Crawley]

The hon. Member’s statement that Glasgow is the only place in Scotland that accepts refugees is untrue. South Lanarkshire, my local authority, has accepted a number of refugees, particularly after 2014. [Hon. Members: “How many?”] I do not have the numbers, but the fact stated by the hon. Member is untrue.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Angela Crawley Excerpts

Tuesday 13th July 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the reasons for this order. Of course, we fully support the proscription of the US white supremacist group The Base, whose message is abhorrent. We must do everything possible to tackle these far-right groups and their rhetoric. It is fitting that we acknowledge the racism experienced by three exceptionally talented English players this week and right that we call this out at every possible opportunity.

Will the Minister ensure that any and all necessary steps are taken swiftly, and will he outline any plans to strengthen these processes? Will he ensure that Members have the opportunity to scrutinise any new legislation whenever possible? We fully support proscription of this horrendous organisation, and pay tribute to all those who work hard to tackle and contain such groups and keep us all safe.

Misuse of Drugs Act

Angela Crawley Excerpts

Thursday 17th June 2021 Commons Chamber

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

The Misuse of Drugs Act has damaged individuals, families and communities and entrenched social injustice. The war on drugs has been lost. This Government have failed, and there is nowhere with more evidence of the problems of criminalisation than here in Scotland, when we consider the stark number of drug-related deaths. Rather than adopting a public health approach, this Government ignore that possibility. They have failed on an unprecedented scale. In Scotland, this is a public health emergency, and it must be treated as such. This Government have an opportunity, on the 50th anniversary of the legislation, to consider whether the Act is still fit for purpose.

The UK Government wish to take a hard line on this issue, but that simply is not working. The introduction of safe consumption facilities to reduce public harm is one solution, but they have blocked reform at every turn. The Government are entrenching the problem by refusing to amend or repeal this outdated legislation, and the Scottish Government, who wish to fall in with international best practice by decriminalising the use of drugs and introducing safe consumption rooms, are unable to do so. In comparison, Portugal ended the criminalisation of drug use 20 years ago. Since then, drug-related deaths have fallen and remained below the EU average, the number of drug offenders in prison has more than halved and the number of drug-injection-related HIV diagnoses has fallen dramatically.

Does the Minister agree that we should aim for a similar outcome in the UK? If he does, when will he take action to make that happen? The UK Government must now allow the Scottish Government to implement a range of public health-focused responses, including the introduction of supervised drug consumption facilities, or devolve the power to do so to the Scottish Parliament. We are facing a public health emergency. This Act continues to fail too many families, and too many have lost loved ones. We can change this, and we must change this. If this Union is truly strong, surely it can withstand this. It can take a pragmatic approach and it can act. If this Government will not act, they must devolve the power to Scotland to take that action. Inaction is not a solution, and their compliance and ignorance are complicit in the problem. Drug-related deaths are real. These are not just figures; they are real people, real families and real communities, and they need real action.

European Union Settlement Scheme

Angela Crawley Excerpts

Wednesday 16th June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that there have been some changes to normal practice in order to support the new hybrid arrangements— welcome to those on the screen. I also remind Members participating virtually that they must leave their camera on for the duration of the debate, and that they will be visible at all times, both to each other and to us in the Boothroyd Room. If Members attending virtually have any technical problems, they should either throw something at the screen or email the Westminster Hall Clerks at [e-mail]. Members attending physically should clean their spaces before they use them and as they leave the room. I also remind Members that Mr Speaker has stated that masks should be worn in Westminster Hall.

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the future of the EU Settlement Scheme.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. With the 30 June deadline for applications for the EU settlement scheme fast approaching, I am pleased to have the opportunity to open this debate. I also wish to give my colleagues time to speak, and therefore I will use only some of my time today, not only to remind EU nationals living in the UK to apply for settled status if they have not already done so, but to highlight to the Minister that this scheme is already causing disruption in people’s lives and that this may be the last chance to prevent another Windrush scandal.

The EU settlement scheme was launched in March 2019 as part of the withdrawal agreement. The scheme was trailed by the Department for Exiting the European Union as the method for EU nationals to secure their rights post-Brexit, and to continue to live their lives broadly as they did under freedom of movement. The reality is that being forced to register for rights in the country they call home has caused a great deal of upset and anxiety among many of our European friends, neighbours and constituents. People have been left feeling unwanted, unwelcome, humiliated and angry due to this Government’s heavy-handed approach. For many, it has broken their sense of belonging and eroded their trust in this Government; for others, it has been the final straw, and they have left the UK altogether. This is a sorry state of affairs, considering the benefits that EU nationals bring to the UK: to our economy, our workforce, the NHS, and—most importantly—our culture.

As of the start of this month, there have been 5.6 million applications to the EU settlement scheme. The majority of those applicants, around 4.9 million, have been granted settled or pre-settled status. Settled status guarantees the right to live, work, and remain indefinitely, free of immigration controls, and is available to those who have lived in the UK for more than five years. Pre-settled status offers less definite security, giving permission for five years that will expire, with the expectation that the person will later apply for settled status. The onus for converting pre-settled status to settled status falls on the applicant. There is the potential for people to forget to reapply or to miss that reminder, and in this instance, someone could easily find themselves working illegally and have to go without income while applying to update their status. Will the Minister give consideration to a system of automatic conversion to settled status for those who are pre-settled?

Right now, there is a backlog of more than 300,000 applications still waiting to be cleared by the Home Office. The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants has raised concerns that if these applications are still live after the deadline, that will create a legal ambiguity for applicants. Will they be in the country unlawfully while they are waiting on this decision? Can the Minister offer clear guidance on the rights of the tens of thousands of people waiting for a decision, and give his assurances that those will not be affected after the deadline? Perhaps the Minister could allow applicants to avoid this pitfall altogether by taking the advice of the Scottish Government’s Europe Minister, Jenny Gilruth, to extend the deadline.

As of midnight on 30 June, those who have not applied to the scheme will feel the full effect of this Government’s hostile immigration system. That means that people who have lived and worked in the UK legally for years will be criminalised and potentially face a dramatic change in their rights. They will be unable to work or rent; they will be unable to receive NHS treatment free at the point of need; they will be unable to receive welfare benefits or access to other public services, such as housing; and they will be liable to criminal prosecution, detention and removal from the UK.

The Home Office has confirmed that it is aware of those people who are still due to apply to the scheme and will miss the deadline. According to the Home Office guidance, those groups include children, people with care or support needs, victims of domestic abuse, people in poverty, homeless people and rough sleepers, and, in particular, minority groups such as the Roma community. Could the Minister outline in his answers what steps are being taken to support those vulnerable people who his Department already knows will miss the deadline?

The campaign organisation the3million, which has been at the forefront of being a voice for so many people, has reported that even though the application process is still open, EU nationals are already being asked to prove their settled status in a wide range of contexts, contrary to Government guidance. Those asking them to do so include landlords, estate agents, housing agencies, employers, banks, councils, GPs, hospitals, schools, international airports, prior to their boarding a flight, and UK border staff. Those are just some of the many examples. I mention this because it is clear that the people asking for proof of status are unlikely to be specialists in the immigration field and may be unfamiliar with the settled scheme terminology, creating situations ripe for discrimination. As the Minister will be aware, the Court of Appeal ruled in December that those with pre-settled status must be treated on an equal basis with all other claimants when applying for welfare benefits, so will the Minister put it on the record that that must be the case in relation to employers, landlords and all services?

Successful applicants are not given physical proof of their status. Instead, every time someone needs to prove their status, they will have to go through a complex process, involving at least 14 steps, in order to show an online document. The Government’s implementation of covid certification allows people to show their status simply on their phone or to download and print a PDF document. Alternatively, if someone is not digitally literate, they can request a printed version. Allowing a similar physical status document would make life so much easier for those granted settled or pre-settled status. Can the Minister offer a convincing reason why that has not been built into the EU settlement scheme, and will he consider building physical documentation into the system going forward?

The Minister will be aware of the correspondence on behalf of my constituent Jenny Condie. According to her settled status documentation, she is called by her maiden name, Serraf. This is the case for many married European women whose passports list both their married and their maiden names. I understand that it is due to the Home Office taking details from the machine-readable zone of the passport. However, it may raise suspicions when the status documentation does not match any other form of identification. When I asked the Home Office how many women were issued with documentation in their maiden name, the information was not available. I am concerned that women will discover that their documentation is misleading only when they face awkward questions, delays or discrimination when trying to prove their status.

Initially, Jenny was advised by the Home Office to approach the French authorities to have her passport amended, so I am grateful to the Minister for his letter outlining that a process for changing maiden names to married names has been created at the Home Office since I first contacted him about this case. However, Jenny has been unable to have the change carried out. The Home Office requires her to send her physical passport, but she is reluctant to do so, because she is worried that she may need to travel to France if there is an emergency. Should the document get lost in the post, she would need to travel to London for a passport replacement. Those concerns will be replicated for most EU nationals in the same position. When making the application, Jenny only had to send a picture of the document. Will the Minister review the process and either make the change to married names automatic or streamline the process by accepting photographed documents?

In 2016, as part of the Vote Leave campaign, the current Prime Minister and the current Home Secretary issued a commitment that there would be no change for EU citizens already lawfully resident in the UK; those EU citizens would automatically be granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK and would be treated no less favourably than they were at present. The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary respectively not only have failed to uphold that commitment on all counts, but have caused confusion, upset, anxiety and fear, and allowed the dignity of EU citizens to be trampled, through the faulty EU settlement scheme. It was evident when the scheme opened in 2019 that people would fall through the cracks; and now, two weeks before the deadline, the reality could not be clearer.

The Minister today has the opportunity to extend the deadline and avoid a Windrush-style scandal. I wish to allow time for parliamentary colleagues to speak. Therefore I will conclude here: I urge him to take this consideration very seriously.

Safe Streets for All

Angela Crawley Excerpts

Monday 17th May 2021 Commons Chamber

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

May I take this opportunity to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Anum Qaisar-Javed), congratulate her on her recent by-election win, and wish her predecessor well in the Scottish Parliament?

I welcome the opportunity to speak in today’s debate on the Queen’s Speech, on the topic of ensuring that our streets are a safe place for all. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans), that is a fitting subject, as the debate follows the tragic murder of Sarah Everard, a woman who was simply walking home following a night out with friends. If we are to ensure that the streets are a safe place for all, women must feel secure walking them. We did not then, and we do not now.

At the time of Sarah’s murder, I called on the UK Government to use deeds, not words, to tackle gender-based violence and finally ratify the Istanbul convention, yet despite signalling their intent to do so on several occasions, the Government have failed to stick to their word. The rights of women enshrined in the convention are fundamental and would prevent violence against women, protect victims and enable the prosecution of offenders. However, as a result of the UK’s failure to ratify the convention, it is not legally bound by its provisions, letting down women, girls and domestic abuse survivors in Scotland and across the UK. I therefore urge the Minister to use this Queen’s Speech to take us one step closer to safe streets for all by ratifying the Istanbul convention as a matter of urgency.

The debate also follows the religious celebration of Eid. At a time when many across the country marked the end of Ramadan, this Government and their Home Office took the decision to send enforcement officers into Pollokshields in Glasgow to take part in a despicable raid to deport two of its residents. The people of Glasgow, however, had a different idea and gathered in numbers successfully to stop that inhumane practice continuing. Raids of that type are a clear infringement of basic human rights and must be condemned in the strongest possible manner. The SNP and the people of Scotland have repeatedly condemned the practice due to its inhumane approach.

In Glasgow, we welcome refugees and we celebrate the diversity of our wonderful city, turning out in numbers to prevent those men from being deported during a global pandemic, but if we are to make the streets safe for all, that must mean everyone, including refugees and asylum seekers. The Home Office must act immediately to halt its hostile home raids and work to develop an immigration system based on dignity and respect.

A Queen’s Speech is the hallmark of a Government and how they take care of the most vulnerable citizens in society. As we approach the 70th anniversary of the refugee convention, we witness this Government ripping apart the basic, fundamental rights of refugees and asylum seekers; and as we witness 50 years of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, it is completely absent from the debate on the Queen’s Speech, with not even a mention of its failure to tackle the war on drugs. My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) has already alluded to many of these points, but the threats to the legal profession, the attacks on the justice system, the overhaul of the judicial review process, the clamping down on protest, and voter suppression are just some examples of this Government’s priorities.

I have only a few seconds left, so let me say that this Queen’s Speech is a measure of this Government, and if they will not act, they should give Scotland the power to do so. On immigration, asylum, refugees and drugs, we do not have the powers in Scotland; this Government do, and they must act.

Policing and Prevention of Violence against Women

Angela Crawley Excerpts

Monday 15th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for her work and leadership around domestic abuse and violence against women and girls. She is absolutely right that the Domestic Abuse Bill is a landmark piece of legislation that all Members of the House should feel proud of, in terms of the work that has come together across the House. She is also right about the cultural and behavioural aspects that must be changed. All of us have to be conscious of that. As a mother bringing up a young son, I think that respecting women and girls, treating everyone fairly with equality and understanding that there are no barriers in demonstrating that respect to one another and, importantly, tolerance of one another is absolutely vital.

There is so much more work to do. Legislation can only go so far. We can never, ever be complacent. The Government and both Houses share the determination and desire to do so much more when it comes to protecting girls and women, and we must be united in our strategies. This is not about just saying, “There’s a survey taking place.” We must all contribute to that. In fact, now that the survey has been reopened, I very much hope that Labour Members will contribute to it, to help us have a united and coherent approach—a one voice approach—to how we can support women and girls and prevent violence against women and girls.

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

The murder of Sarah Everard has truly shocked and saddened us all, and I join others in sending our heartfelt condolences to Sarah’s family and friends at this time. “She was walking home”—a sentence that resonates with all women. This tragedy serves as a stark reminder to women, who assess every aspect of their daily lives in fear of sexual violence, assault or abhorrent crimes at the hands of men. I once more take this opportunity to urge the Prime Minister to ratify the Istanbul convention without further delay.

Across the UK this weekend, women reclaimed the streets in protest and to pay tribute to the life of Sarah Everard. Police responding have received widespread criticism, and questions must be answered about whether the actions were necessary and proportionate to protect people and prevent public harm. The public health crisis has made restrictions necessary and public gatherings inadvisable. While the police face difficult decisions every day, it is impossible to watch the footage of the events at Clapham common without shock and concern that the policing appeared heavy-handed and disproportionate. It is therefore right that the chief inspector of constabulary has been asked to conduct a review. In Scotland, this incident would have been examined by the Independent Advisory Group—experts with a specific remit to ensure that the use of powers is consistent with human rights principles and legislation.

In terms of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, the right to protest must remain a fundamental human right. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the chief inspector’s review will focus on human rights as well as policing matters?

[Priti Patel]

I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks and for her sentiment on the tragic death of Sarah Everard. If I may, I will come back on a number of points. The hon. Lady is absolutely right on the role of the inspectorate, and we will wait for that review and, obviously, I will report back. It is worth reflecting, once again, that this has been a difficult and demanding period for the police, with the impact of coronavirus restrictions—we know why they are in place. On the point about protest, I am very conscious that we will have the debate later this afternoon as well. This Government absolutely support freedom of expression and, clearly, the whole issue of the right to protest is fundamental to our democratic freedoms. Without wanting to pre-judge the debate or the future discussions on the Bill, let me say that the legislation will, of course, speak about the police using powers in terms of how they would manage protest, but it is also worth reflecting that this will be updating legislation—the Public Order Act 1986—that was enacted more than 30 years ago. So this will be very much part of the discussion we will be having in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Angela Crawley Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2020 Commons Chamber

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

What recent assessment she has made of the potential effect of the end of the transition period on national security.

[The Minister for Security (James Brokenshire)]

The safety and security of our citizens remains our priority. We are working closely with operational partners to ensure we are ready for a range of scenarios at the end of the transition period. We will continue to co-operate with European and international partners to tackle shared security threats.

[Angela Crawley [V]]

The deputy assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan police has pointed out that losing access to EU databases such as the Schengen information system will move the average time for securing a criminal conviction from six days to 60 days, describing this as a “capability gap” and as having a “massive impact”. In the event of a no-deal Brexit, what emergency contingency plans does the Department have in place until—possibly—replacements for the existing cross-border arrangements are agreed?

[James Brokenshire]

National security remains our absolute priority. This country is a safe country and will remain so after the end of the transition period. The hon. Lady asks what alternative arrangements are in place. Obviously, we continue the negotiations and await their outcome, but we are prepared for a range of scenarios. In the event that it is not possible to reach an agreement, the UK has well developed and well rehearsed plans in place. They involve transitioning co-operation with EU member states to alternative, non-EU arrangements by the end of the transition period. These are tried and tested mechanisms, which the UK already uses with so many other countries.