Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Dehenna Davison Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 30th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I will not—I am conscious of time. The Government have a responsibility through this Bill to ensure that they build a system that can build consensus and cross-party support; that supports our economy and public services and does not undermine that; that recognises and rewards the huge contribution that people have made to this country, including and especially during the covid-19 crisis; that is fair and respects people; and that continues to support those who are most vulnerable, and particularly children and child refugees. The amendments that I and others have put forward are in that spirit of building a system that can provide consensus across the country. I urge the Minister to accept them.

[Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)]

Having served on the Public Bill Committee and knowing how much my constituents across Bishop Auckland care about this important Bill, it is my pleasure to speak in support of it in this debate.

We must never lose sight of why we are having this debate and why it is so important: this Bill symbolises the trust that voters put in our nation to decide our own immigration rules and, in turn, the trust that they put in this place to get those rules right. The Bill marks the start of a journey that will provide the framework to allow doctors, scientists and engineers to come to this country, contribute and make it their home, whether they are from Austria or Australia, Italy or India. There are some who mourn the end of free movement and indeed some—mainly on the Opposition side of the House—who would keep it indefinitely, but rather than seeing the changes to free movement as the end of a chapter of our migration story, we should view this as the start of the story in which Britain opens its arms to the rest of the world.

Turning to the amendments from my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis)—he is no longer in his place, but I have great respect for him and he has long been a proud champion of liberty—it is important that we look in detail at immigration detention and remember the reason why it is used. In moving into this new immigration system, we must remain robust and firm. We must have a level and fair immigration system, but one where those who fall foul and offend are dealt with and face sufficiently serious consequences.

Let us be clear: immigration detention is only ever used as a last resort. It is only used as an immediate precursor to removal from the country or where there is a serious risk of someone absconding or causing harm to the public. As with any system, there will be those who slip between the nets, and I would be grateful for the Minister’s reassurances that these people are being fully considered in this legislation. However, looking at the current immigration detention figures, we see that 97% of people currently in detention are foreign national offenders, who have committed some of the most serious, heinous, disgraceful crimes—crimes such as murder, rape and child abuse.

By implementing an arbitrary time limit on immigration detention, we could make it much more difficult for those offenders to be removed from our country. That is not good enough and it is not something my constituents in Bishop Auckland would accept.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I am enjoying listening to a number of the arguments I have heard being put forward. On this issue of foreign offenders, is not the right answer to deal with their immigration status while they are in prison serving their term, rather than throwing them into a detention system because we have not worked out how to do that in the first place?

[Dehenna Davison]

One could certainly argue that; I would argue the opposite, but I thank my hon. Friend for his point. Let me give a tangible example. Had a 28-day limit been in place in December, it would have resulted in the immediate release of some foreign nationals who were awaiting deportation, including 29 rapists, 27 child sex offenders and 52 violent offenders, including a number of murderers, and more.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The hon. Lady is doing a good job of regurgitating what the Government put out this morning—

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Well, it is, almost literally. All of these points can be rebutted. This series of amendments provides for a six-month process in which the Government could transition, so it is not an overnight thing. There would be six months for the Government to deal with foreign national offenders and to have them removed.

[Dehenna Davison]

The point I make is that these are some of the most serious offenders, and, as I said, my constituents would not accept something along those lines. Furthermore, when we look at statistics on current detention times, we see that for the majority those are very short, with 74% detained for less than 29 days. For those held for substantial time periods, there must be a compelling reason, such as public safety. For example, we have the example of a man who gang-raped a 16-year-old, has a history of absconding and has delayed his own removal with five unsuccessful judicial reviews. Lawful immigration detention is needed to keep the public safe, so I cannot support these amendments. My constituents want a fair immigration system but they also rightly expect that system to keep them safe.

Turning to new clause 2—

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dehenna Davison]

I will not give way any further.

I praise my hon. Friends for their commitment to protecting children in care, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who has long been a champion for children. Vulnerable children should always be in our minds when we make policy, and I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson) on ensuring that nobody is left behind. However, I know that the Minister shares my concern that this proposal may inadvertently create a two-tier system. So rather than legislating in this manner, we should be strongly doing all we can to encourage local authorities to identify those vulnerable children and make sure that their EU settlement scheme applications are processed so that they have full and proper proof of their status and access to the documents for the rest of their lives, because we must never allow another situation such as Windrush to happen again.

On new clause 29, we have a proud history in this country of providing safe refuge, whether to the Kindertransport children or to Ugandan Asians fleeing Idi Amin. These are human stories and they should always be in our minds when we look at our policies today. The UK’s resettlement schemes have offered a safe route to the most vulnerable and given them a safe home on our shores. Unaccompanied children who are seeking international protection in an EU member state and have specified that family members are here in the UK should continue to be reunited with them, and I am glad that the Prime Minister has stressed the importance of that. The Government have approached the EU to offer a future reciprocal arrangement for the family reunion of unaccompanied asylum seeking children, and we know that a legal text was published in May to contribute to those negotiations. Getting a reciprocal arrangement is in the best interests of those vulnerable children and those families. We must not act unilaterally, as this amendment would have us do, as that would have a negative impact on the number of children who receive our help. Instead, we must work with the EU to form a joint agreement, and we in Parliament must allow time for these negotiations to play out, without binding the hands of our negotiators. We have seen what happens when Parliament tries to do that in past negotiations and we do not want to see a repeat of that.

This is an important Bill. It delivers on the referendum result and helps those of us on the Government Benches in particular, to repay the trust that the British people put in us in December. I vowed in December that I would do my utmost to represent the views of my constituents, whether in Bishop Auckland, Shildon, Barnard Castle or Spennymore, and that means backing this Bill and supporting a fair, robust immigration system that opens our arms to people across the world who have the talents and skills that our country needs to prosper.

[Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)]

This Bill defines the type of country that Britain will be for decades to come and, more importantly, it reflects the type of country we want to be. My constituents and I care deeply about fixing our broken immigration system and replacing it with a regime that puts the United Kingdom first.

I wish to make it clear that the Bill has the support of my constituents. Rother Valley demanded an end to free movement: the Bill ends free movement. Rother Valley urged the Government to introduce a fairer points-based system for immigrants: the Bill does that. Rother Valley called for a transition to a high-wage, high-skill and high-productive economy: the Bill delivers that change while protecting our businesses and essential public services. We voted overwhelmingly for Brexit in Rother Valley. For too long, our voices were ignored on issues such as immigration. We watched our area decline from chronic underinvestment, which caused business closures, soaring unemployment and a lack of skills, training and education.

Meanwhile, Britain experienced an unlimited and uncontrolled influx of cheap labour from Europe. Thanks to the tyranny of the European Union, there was nothing we could do to manage our borders. A fundamental aspect of sovereignty was stripped from us and left us without a voice, but we have now found our voice. We took back control in 2016 and we are taking back control today with this very Bill, unamended.

In the wake of the coronavirus, we shall have a new immigration system in place that attracts the best and brightest from around the world, no matter where they come from—from Europe and beyond.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Eighth sitting)

Dehenna Davison Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 8th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 18th June 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Kevin Foster]

I have outlined the work that we are doing with local authorities to identify who is eligible. As the hon. Lady said, it is a moving feast, and we particularly want to make sure that those responsible for making these applications are aware of how to apply and who qualifies, and that they then proceed to do so.

I understand the concerns expressed by hon. Members about looked-after children and care leavers, and we must ensure that their corporate parents secure the best possible outcomes for them.

[Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that the best way that we can support looked-after children is by ensuring that they can take full advantage of the EU settlement scheme through local authorities, rather than having a two-tier system?

[Kevin Foster]

Absolutely. Once someone has their status under the European settlement scheme, they join another—why, we have had over 3 million decisions taken on granting status. That will be part of how our border system will operate in future. One of the lessons learned from the past is this—status was granted under an Act of Parliament, but then in several decades’ time it has to be explained to someone how their status was under a different approach from how status is granted to those who are in the same cohort, in terms of nationality and citizenship. That is not helpful to anyone. That is one of the lessons learned, of course, from the experience of the Windrush generation. That Act of Parliament was in 1971. The status was granted on 1 January 1973 and the issues then started to be encountered 30 years later, and not just since 2010— the first case mentioned on the front of Windrush lessons learned review is from 2009. Again, it is about how those issues are created.

A declaratory scheme as proposed in new clauses 41 and 58, under which those covered automatically acquire UK immigration status, would cause confusion and potential difficulties for these vulnerable young people in future years, with their having no solid evidence of their lawful status here. They will need evidence of their status when they come to seek employment, or access to benefits and services to which they are entitled. A declaratory system would leave them without that evidence, struggling to prove their rights and entitlements over decades to come.

I listened carefully to the comments made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North, in which she outlined the process local authorities could go through to list the children and send those lists to the Home Office. I thought, “If local authorities are going to go through all this, then the logical thing for them to do is make the applications that are required under the EU settlement scheme, and ensure the children they are listing have the status they need.” It is hard to see what the benefit to councils would be if we introduced a different process that did not produce a better outcome. If that is what we are going to ask people to do—arrange a working identifier—the next stage is to ask them to make quite a simple application to the European settlement scheme to get the status that child deserves.

Public Order

Dehenna Davison Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

The important point is that this is not down to one individual. We all have a responsibility—[Interruption.] Yes, and we all have a responsibility—across Government, across this House and across society—to understand the inequalities and the extent of the injustices. From a Government perspective, that means coming together and finding the right policy solutions, which this Government are committed to doing.

[Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking County Durham residents for maintaining both peace and social distancing at the protests in Durham this weekend? Will she also join me in calling for all those who acted lawlessly and violently against our police to face the full weight of the law as quickly as possible?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I congratulate her constabulary for the work that it has done, and the chief constable, who I have spoken to recently. Those acts of violence are not acceptable and it is right that those people face the full force of the law.

Covid-19: UK Border Health Measures

Dehenna Davison Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Barracking is not a good look. We need to get through this quickly.

[Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)]

Everyone in this House, including my right hon. Friend, will know the very stark dangers that a second wave could present to not only our economy, but our society. Does she agree that by introducing these new health measures at the border, we will be limiting the possibility of a second wave and keeping our citizens safe?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She has just emphasised the need to protect the British public from a second wave, and that is the purpose of all the measures—the public health measures—that the Government have been bringing forward, because at the end of the day, we do not want to lose the gains that we have made in recent weeks. We are past the peak of this virus and that is something that we still need to continue to double down on and make great progress on.

Windrush Compensation Scheme (Expenditure) Bill

Dehenna Davison Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Money resolution & Programme motion
Monday 10th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)]

It is right that we have this discussion about the much needed compensation scheme. A number of constituents have been in touch with me, including from Barnard Castle and Hamsterley to name but a couple of areas. I rise to support to the Bill, to add my apology that this was allowed to happen, and to play my small part in, I hope, righting this wrong.

The Windrush generation have built their lives here in our nation and have contributed enormously, not only to our economy but to the very foundations of our society. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, we would not be the nation we are today without their incredible contribution. The Windrush generation have not received the treatment they deserve from successive Governments, and this Bill seeks to put that right —not for the sake of statistics, but for the real people whose lives were shaken by what was allowed to happen to them.

When people came to the UK from the Commonwealth prior to 1973, they were deemed under our legislation at the time to be settled in the UK. That meant that some did not receive, or were told they did not need, documentation to prove their right to be here. Although the majority of people who arrived before 1973 have since acquired the necessary documentation, there have recently been too many cases where people have not obtained it and have subsequently struggled to access public services. This issue has come to light because of measures introduced in recent years to make sure that only those with a legal right to live in the UK can access services such as NHS treatment and rented accommodation, which has resulted in some people now needing to evidence their immigration status. It is right that we introduced measures to tackle illegal immigration, but it is not right that some good people have suffered wrongly as a result.

Let us also be in no doubt about the rights of the Windrush generation to remain in this country, which is their home as much as it is mine or yours. That is why I welcome the Windrush compensation scheme and the funding provided for it in this Bill.

The Bill is a vital part of rectifying the mistakes made and the losses faced by individuals. In order to understand those losses, it is right that the Government launched their consultation to gather detailed feedback from those most affected. Almost 1,500 people and organisations shared their views, and it is reassuring that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said that their opinions have been vital in shaping the design of the new scheme.

The main purpose of the scheme is to provide a form of redress to those who have suffered financial losses or other negative impacts as a result of being unable to demonstrate their lawful immigration status. The scheme provides payments to eligible individuals who, through no fault of their own, did not have the right documentation to prove their status in the UK and whose lives suffered adverse effects as a result. Those effects range from loss of employment, access to housing, education or NHS healthcare, to emotional distress and, in some cases, a deterioration in mental and physical health.

The scheme is open to anyone, from any nationality, who has the right to live or work in the UK without any restrictions, or who is now a British citizen, and arrived in the UK before 31 December 1988. It is also open to anyone from a Commonwealth country who arrived and settled in the UK before 1973. Certain children and grandchildren, and some close family members, of those arriving before 1973 may also be eligible to apply. People who were wrongfully detained or removed from the UK could also be eligible to make an application. I know that the Home Office will be doing all it can to ensure that claims are processed as quickly and easily as possible, and this Bill will help in that process.

I also welcome the fact that the Windrush generation, who are British in all but legal status, are able to officially acquire the British citizenship they deserve, and to do so quickly and at no cost. Similarly, the children of the Windrush generation who are in the UK will, in most cases, already be British citizens. Where that is not the case, they can apply to naturalise, at no further cost, which is exactly the right approach.

The Government have also said that they will ensure that those who made their lives here but have now retired to their country of origin will rightly be able to come back to the UK and that the cost of any fees associated with the process will be waived. The Government are working with our embassies and high commissions to make sure that people can easily access that offer.

Concerns have been raised today about the wide range of possible costings outlined in the impact assessment, largely because it is not known precisely how many individuals have been affected and are likely to seek compensation. However, there are matters for which the moral implication should always be a greater consideration than any financial cost. As my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts) rightly said, it is right that each claim is assessed individually and that full consideration is given to the unique consequences faced by each affected person. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) was correct in saying that the process needs less bureaucracy and more humanity.

Both this and previous Governments have made mistakes which led to the Windrush scandal. This Bill gives us a chance to apologise, right some of those wrongs, ensure that lessons have been learned, and move forward to create a United Kingdom that fully demonstrates how much it values the contributions and talents of people from all over the globe who have helped to build our great nation.

Policing and Crime

Dehenna Davison Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)]

I praise the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans) for his maiden speech, which gave a positive and full description of his constituency. As a committed Unionist, I look forward to some very lively debate on that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger) gave an incredibly thoughtful and powerful speech, which spoke to the heart. He made a point about a sense of place and identity, which we can all relate to in our constituencies and our lives, and he will be a very valued addition to the Government Benches.

This debate is about policing and crime. Our police are heroes. I have already spoken in this place of the incredible support that my family received from Karen Cocker of South Yorkshire police. I also pay tribute to Angus Hopper and Jamie Riley of Durham constabulary for their personal support over the past few months.

Across my constituency, whether it is in Bishop Auckland, Spennymoor, Barnard Castle or Shildon, local residents overwhelmingly tell me that they want us to take tough action to tackle crime, particularly on things like anti- social behaviour, which has such a sustained impact on people’s day-to-day lives. Several times in Spennymoor, a bus in transit has had its windows shattered, with air rifles the suspected weapon. In the last incident, the projectile narrowly missed hitting a passenger. That cannot be allowed to continue. For people out there, cracking down on crime is not rocket science, but a common-sense policy, and that has been championed by the Blue Collar Conservative group, which I am proud to be a part of.

We tackle crime in a variety of ways and a large part of that is through empowering our incredible police. Increasing police numbers is so important and I am delighted that County Durham will receive an additional 68 officers in the first tranche of recruitment. I will, of course, be lobbying for a group of those officers to come to crime hotspots in areas such as Spennymoor to help keep my constituency’s streets safe. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) is right to highlight the plight of rural crime. The additional officers are also welcome to help to support our incredible, award-winning local farm watch in Teesdale to help to crack down on farm theft and other rural crime.

On extra officers, Labour Members say often, “It’s not enough”. If they were cast in “The Greatest Showman”, their favourite song would inevitably be “Never Enough”, because whatever the Government propose, it is never enough. Labour always pledges more, with no transparency over how that will be funded.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Lady not accept that the Government that she represents as a Back Bencher have cut police since 2010 by more than 20,000? Does she not want to say that they should take some responsibility for that savage, deliberate and unnecessary cut to policing?

[Dehenna Davison]

Labour Members seemingly forget that the reason that the purse strings had to be tightened at all was the mess in our public finances that we were left with. We have brought those public finances under control and strengthened our economy, meaning that we can now invest properly but sustainably in our public services, and that is exactly what we are doing.

There will be 68 new officers for County Durham, but let me emphasise that this is only the first tranche of recruitment and there is more to come. This is about not just the number of officers, but making sure that our existing officers feel valued. I am delighted to support the police covenant and the moves to allow special constables to access the full benefits of being members of the Police Federation. Those are all positive steps to support our incredible police.

Something that I reckon I will not say too often in this place is that I agree with the shadow Home Secretary about the need for serious policy on law and order, but I reject strongly her view that her party is the one that will deliver that serious policy. Labour’s talk on sentencing is weak and feeble, while we are planning a new sentencing Bill to review sentencing right across the board. As an early part of that, the House debated a new statutory instrument yesterday on ending the automatic halfway release point for serious offenders. I admit that I was a bit disappointed to see so few Labour Members in that debate, although I welcomed the really strong and moving contribution from the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), as her contribution also was today.

Getting sentencing right is so crucial. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton is right to speak about the importance of protecting our prison officers. Following the recent incident at HMP Deerbolt, I raised this with the Justice Secretary and met the prisons Minister—the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer)—to discuss the need to roll out additional protective equipment to keep our prison officers safe.

As someone whose father was killed through violence, as I have mentioned in this place several times, I spoke yesterday about the need for victims to be represented in the legislative process on crime and justice. On that note, how does the shadow Home Secretary dare to sit opposite and accuse Government Members of having disdain for victims of crime? It is a shameful accusation and totally trivialises a debate of such crucial national importance, for the sake of a snappy 10-second social media clip. The victims of violent crime do not want rhetoric; they want action and results. That is why the Government are listening and taking steps to extend stop-and-search powers.

We plan to extend emergency stop-and-search powers only to help to get weapons off our streets and protect our citizens. In 2017-18, stop and search resulted in over 48,000 arrests, with almost 8,000 of those for weapons and firearms. Our proposed changes have been welcomed by many, including the National Police Chiefs Council lead for stop and search and Caroline Shearer, who founded Only Cowards Carry after her 17-year-old son, Jay Whiston, was fatally stabbed in 2012.

The victims and families of the victims who have been affected by violent crime know that it is common sense that stop and search can save injuries and save lives. After all, the job of any Government is to keep their citizens safe, which we as a party recognise and are further acting upon. With 20,000 new police officers, funding for the roll-out of protection through tasers, enhanced but targeted stop-and-search powers, tougher sentences and more, I am proud to support the Government’s amendment.

Prevent Programme

Dehenna Davison Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

As I said earlier, that document has been withdrawn. The police are reviewing it, but I am not going to interfere with the independence of our police. This is a document drafted by the police for the police and we respect their independence, but they have outlined that they regret this happening and have explained why it happened so I do not expect to see this kind of mistake again in future.

[Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)]

County Durham police do excellent work in protecting people right across Bishop Auckland, Spennymoor, Shildon and Barnard Castle. Given the threatening tones I heard yesterday, unfortunately, I will be contacting them to talk about the safety of my team at the Durham miners’ gala in July. Does my right hon. Friend agree that preserving the operational independence of the police, including the counter-terror policing unit, is of the utmost importance in keeping our streets safe?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. All of us in society sometimes see things, as she has rightly outlined, and I did see the comments yesterday, which are very concerning. She is absolutely right to raise that issue with the relevant authorities, and I am happy to discuss that with her as well to make sure that it is properly taken forward. It is right that we continue to defend the independence of our police and make sure that they know that we are there to support them in the brilliant work they do in keeping us safe.