Fishing Industry: Visas for Non-EEA Citizens

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Wednesday 11th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I am delighted to see you in your place, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the Minister in her place. I have no doubt that there are other places Members may wish to be for the next half hour, but this is an important issue that matters enormously to my constituents and those of other Members and is deserving of our attention.

I should thank the Minister for her previous engagement in meetings and debates about this issue. I understand the political difficulties she finds herself in, but it has been apparent in recent weeks and months that interest in this issue is much wider than just those who represent fishing communities. It is certainly a cross-party issue. I have been notified by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), a Scottish nationalist, that he wished to be here this evening, but is not able to be so. I see in the Chamber from the Conservative party, the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) and for Moray (Douglas Ross), and other Members who have an interest in this issue. There is a broad sense of agreement underpinning this matter, because the issues are highly distinctive to our fishing communities.

The root cause of the issues we are considering have as much to do with the recent history of the management of the fishing industry as with the skills shortages with which we currently have to deal. Historically, fishing boats have recruited labour—the deck hands—from their own home ports, such as coastal and island communities, but rarely from much further beyond. In recent years, although that situation has changed, the labour market has become much more competitive. Young men considering a career in fishing these days may also consider and find a very well paid career in the oil and gas industry, for example, in Shetland or in the north-east of Scotland. Renewable energy is now a source of employment, and there is also of course the merchant navy.

It has to be said that the industry is not always seen as a particularly attractive option for young people entering the jobs market these days. Those advising them, as careers advisers or teachers at school, do not see it in the round, and often as hard work in very dangerous circumstances. Sadly, the mortality figures for those working in the industry bear that out. It also has to be said that it has not been seen as an industry with a future. If we think back to the time when I first entered the House in 2001, we were just about to undertake a programme of decommissioning boats, and there was a second round of decommissioning in 2003. All these things have come together to present us with the skills shortage we have today.

This is not an unrecoverable position. I think the things that need to be put in place can be and are being put in place as a consequence of co-operation between the different Departments, as well as by the industry itself. However, it is pretty clear that unpicking some of the damage that has been done will not be quick or easy; it will take time. In the meantime, the need for labour in the fishing industry is acute, and it is becoming more serious with every day that passes. As a consequence, many European economic area and non-EEA nationals are now recruited into the fishing industry.

The catching sector probably employs in the region of 4,000 people in the UK. We reckon that about 400 of them come from within the European Union, and a further 800 are non-EEA nationals. As a percentage of the total fleet, that is a quite remarkable set of figures, although as a proportion of the overall number of people working in the industry, it shows that we are dealing with something fairly modest in size.

Currently, the only visas available for boats wanting to take non-EEA nationals are so-called transit visas. They are normally for those joining a ship, for whatever purpose, from a port in the United Kingdom. The requirements of a transit visa state that those involved should be engaged wholly or mainly outside UK territorial waters, which for these purposes is the 12-mile limit, and they are not allowed to work within that limit. I have to say that this is a highly unsatisfactory, hand-to-mouth solution for a number of reasons. First, the requirement forces fishermen to fish where the visa regulations allow them to fish, rather than where they know they will find the fish. That has a range of consequences, some commercial and some safety-based. I can put it no better than one of my fishing constituents did in an email this morning. He said:

“The whole 12 mile thing adds stress to an already very stressful job, especially so in the winter months.”

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Does that mean that people who come from outside the EEA do not get paid until they are outside the 12-mile limit? What happens when they get on board?

[Mr Carmichael]

They are paid for the hours that they work—or are engaged in employment—but they cannot actually fish until they are outside the 12-mile limit.

My second objection to the use of transit visas is that that does not work for the whole industry. It works better for some sectors such as the bigger boats, albeit imperfectly, but for the smaller boats, working in the inshore sectors, it has very little to offer. Again, the fishing White Paper last week said that growth would be encouraged in the smaller boat sector, but it simply does not work for them. It is certainly no good for the prawn trawlers that have to work in shallower inshore waters, or for those who fish langoustines off the west coast in the Minch or the Little Minch. Those waters are fertile territories for those boats but are entirely within the 12-mile limit, so non-EEA crew are totally excluded.

The third concern is that those employed under the visas are left without many of the protections that the House has said over the years they should have. A few years ago, there were a few well documented and reported cases of serious welfare issues involving the crews employed under this system—paid well below the minimum wage and not given the basic employment protections that they would have if they were part of the normal land-based workforce. I hope that that is no longer the case, and I do not believe that it was ever widespread. I hope that it does not still happen, but I cannot escape the fact that it did happen and has been reported. That can be the consequence of leaving fishing crew in this strange, unsatisfactory, twilight world of the transit visas. It highlights the need for a scheme to allow proper engagement of deckhands legally and responsibly under a visa scheme.

The situation led to the creation earlier this year of the Fishermen’s Welfare Alliance, a coalition of industry bodies and other associated organisations, including the Fishermen’s Mission and the Apostleship of the Sea. I hope that the Minister has received and is considering the alliance’s submission about a new scheme. It is not in essence a new scheme: we seek the resurrection—or re-creation—of a limited concession that operated successfully between 2010 and 2012. Other such concessions exist, and the Minister will be aware of the recently renewed one for boats working in support of offshore renewable energy developments. Such schemes can be, and often are, drawn carefully for a specific purpose.

The outline of the concession scheme that is sought is one that guarantees conditions, safety and crew welfare that are compliant with UK legal standards. It would place limits on the duration of contracts of nine months and introduce cooling-off periods to prevent long-term continuous engagements. It would include the facility to transfer employment to another operator to encourage high standards and transparency, with regular contact with the maritime charities, such as the Mission and the Apostleship, to ensure the wellbeing and fair treatment of the crews that are employed. It would seek suitable assessments to ensure that only qualified and experienced crew from outside the EEA were engaged. There would be criminal records checks, reporting obligations on arrival and departure within service events. Such a scheme would require operators to sign up to an agreed code of practice governed by an organisation, possibly like the Fishermen’s Welfare Alliance, in which the Home Office could have trust. Incorporated into that code of practice, there would be—

--- Later in debate ---

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Craig Whittaker.)

[Mr Carmichael]

As I was saying, it would require the incorporation into the code of practice a commitment to invest in training, upskilling and engagement with the resident labour market, so that we could deal with and address properly the long-term structural problems in the industry that are bringing us to this point.

I suggest to the Minister that these are sensible, pragmatic and very workable solutions. I hope that when she comes to respond—I know the Secretary of State for Scotland will be meeting the Home Secretary next week, I believe to make a similar case—she will understand that this is an indication of the willingness of industry to work with the Government in a way that will be constructive and which will allow the industry to get the level of labour engagement that it needs.

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing a debate on a very important issue that affects the fishing industry, particularly around Scotland and Northern Ireland. I thank him for doing so. Does he agree with the assessment of the Scottish White Fish Producers Association that despite a continuing increase of professionalisation and innovation in the industry, coupled with the opportunities for leaving the EU and the common fisheries policy, it could take at least 10 years for the industry, at least in Scotland, to become fully reliant once again on local labour?

[Mr Carmichael]

If anybody should know it would be the Scottish White Fish Producers Association, as its members are the people who are completely immersed in and engaged with the industry. They know what they talk about, so when they say 10 years, it is pretty clear that that will be a reasonable estimate. I would have to say that 10 years is too long to wait. Another 10 weeks or 10 months might be manageable, but if it is 10 years, these boats will no longer be there. There will no longer be the need in 10 years, one way or another.

I understand that the Minister feels that she is caught between a rock and a hard place in respect of her party’s manifesto commitments at the last general election, particularly in relation to the cap on immigration numbers—for net migration, that is. We have discussed this previously, so I understand her position, although I personally doubt whether a scheme of this sort would actually make any difference to that cap. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s view about that.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

Is it not the case that the industry finds itself in a real bind in that fishing is a skilled occupation? As the Scottish Affairs Committee heard in its immigration inquiry, it requires considerable amounts of training, but the Migration Advisory Committee rejected the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation request to place fishing on the shortage occupation list in 2010, apparently because the workers did not have the paper qualifications to show that they were skilled.

[Mr Carmichael]

Yes, that does come to the heart of it. It is the question of regarding deck hands as unskilled labour. When I last met the Minister, I reminded her of Mike Tyson’s great expression that everyone has a plan until they are punched in the face. It is a bit like that for deck hands and their skill level. Everybody is seen as being unskilled until they are out in a force 10 gale with the trawl doors open having to fish. That is when we understand the real skill we are talking about here.

Perhaps I can help the Minister out, because I have become much more interested in last year’s Conservative party manifesto than I had previously been, and I found a little piece that might assist her. It states:

“Decades of profound economic change have left their mark on coastal communities around Britain. We will continue to ensure these communities enjoy the vitality and opportunity they deserve.”

If that commitment is anything more than warm words, we really do need urgent action from the Minister.

I want the Minister to understand why this matters so much to communities such as that which I represent. The economy in Shetland is one third fishing-dependent, so the numbers of people who work on the boats are not massive, but for every job on a boat, several jobs onshore are supported. If the boats cannot be crewed safely, they do not go to sea and they do not catch the fish. That means that people do not need to buy the fuel, to get the nets mended, and to have the engineering and electrical support that they need, and as no fish are caught, there are no jobs for the processers who deal with the fish after they are landed. That is why this matters. It is the money that keeps businesses going. It is the money that goes into shops, that supports lawyers, doctors and accountants, that keeps children going to the school, and that keeps people living in places such as this. That is why this matters to us today.

I quote again the fishing constituent who emailed me to whom I referred. He said:

“We land 100% of our catch in Scottish ports, we source 100% of our food stores, nets and rope, wires, trawl doors, chandlery, fuel, shore engineers and electrical support plus many other sundries locally in Shetland and other Scottish ports so why are we expelled from the 12 mile limit?”

I would like to hear the Minister answer to that question this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

I am heartened to hear that this process of engagement is under way, but may I just say that there is now a real need for urgency? A decision that will be made after consideration of a report in the autumn could leave it too late.

[Caroline Nokes]

I do not like to pull the right hon. Gentleman up on something he said earlier, but he mentioned waiting 10 weeks or 10 months. I am certainly very conscious of the urgency—he has made that point very well, as have other Members—but it is important that we have the opportunity to reflect on the MAC’s report, and that we consider very carefully the needs of this particular industry and reflect on his comments about coastal communities.

Secondly, migration cannot be the primary—and certainly not the only—solution to skills and labour shortages in any part of the economy. As free movement from the EU ends, the Government will need to consider carefully what role migration schemes should play in meeting labour needs at all skill levels and across all sectors. I have no doubt that this will involve a fresh look at how immigration policy operates to meet labour needs at lower skill levels, but the Government’s underlying objective will be an immigration policy that is sustainable. Reducing dependence on migrant labour is part of that, and decisions about immigration policy will properly take account of what else can be done, both by government, including the devolved Administrations, and by employers to ensure that businesses can access the skills and labour that they need.

I am very aware that these are issues for the future and that the Scottish and Northern Ireland fishing industries are pressing for a more immediate response to their labour needs now. It is not the only industry that is doing so, and the Government must act even-handedly, but, as I have said, I will be reflecting carefully on the case put forward and the practicalities involved in delivering a workable solution.

I am also aware that, as the right hon. Gentleman outlined, there are some very particular issues around how the immigration system interacts with the fishing industry and the UK’s island geography, with a distinction between the controls that operate inshore and the system that applies to vessels operating beyond the 12-mile zone. I take on board the point that some see these arrangements as being unfair and arbitrary, and as presenting challenges to vessel owners in terms of compliance, but there is an obligation on the Home Office to ensure that its policies and requirements are clear.

At the same time, there is an obligation on vessel owners to ensure that work conditions in the industry are to the standard that we would all expect and that existing immigration employer law requirements are observed. It is of clear concern that there has been evidence of exploitation of migrant workers in the fishing industry. The point has been made that a work permit scheme for the fishing industry would help with this, and I will be reflecting carefully on that.

[Mr Carmichael]

The Minister is being enormously generous in giving way, and I promise that I will not try the patience of the House any further.

This needs to be looked at by the Government as a whole, because it is not just the question of visas. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is now demanding that those who are employed on transit visas should be taxed as if they were working onshore, and surely that is wrong as well.

[Caroline Nokes]

There are some important issues on which we must work as a joined-up Government. I vividly recall that one of the first meetings that I had as Immigration Minister was with a Member who brought along a representative from the fishing industry on the day that the Taylor report was published. I was looking at the requirement for payslips and decent hours, and at the same time discussing the work permits and requirements of crew members working in very difficult conditions.

The Government are determined to stamp out modern slavery in the UK, and the Home Office wants to ensure that the powers we have taken under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 are used to address any residual underlying problems in the sector. We will also seek to ensure that wider work to implement the International Labour Organisation’s convention on work in the fishing sector is reflected in the checks that we apply to migrant fishermen at our borders.

I welcome the debate. I hope that I have reassured the House that the Government are listening to the case that is being made to us.

Question put and agreed to.

Saddleworth Moor and Tameside: Ongoing Fire

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Monday 2nd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

The whole House would agree with the abhorrence that my hon. Friend expresses about arson, which is the most terrible crime. He may be aware that one arrest has been made in the context of these fires. Of course, the criminal justice process must reach its conclusion on that, but I expect the full weight of the law to be applied.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

May I associate myself and my party with all those who have made expressions of support and encouragement to those who are currently engaged in fighting this fire? The countryside that we currently see ablaze is very special, but it is not unique. We see that sort of area the length and breadth of the country and it supports communities involved in hill farming and crofting. [Interruption.] I am pleased that the House is so keen to express its support for hill farmers and crofters. These people make a marginal living at best, so can the Minister tell us what work is being done in Government to ensure that, God forbid, should this becomes a pattern this summer, support will be given to protect the livelihoods of the people in those areas?

[Mr Hurd]

I wholly endorse what the right hon. Gentleman said about the value of hill farming communities and the beauty of the particular locations of these terrible incidents. I come back to what I said before to my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) about the need, once this situation is under control, to work closely with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and others to think about how these risks are managed more effectively in the future.

Refugee Family Reunion

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 21st June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Neil O'Brien]

The hon. Gentleman might say he makes a minor point, but it is an entirely fair one. I have been to some of the pubs in his constituency where other languages are spoken, and I certainly did not feel isolated or lonely—in fact, they were extremely sociable and very pleasant places to visit.

On family reunification, this country has a proud record of welcoming persecuted people from all over the world who have come to this country in fear for their lives. I think back to my childhood in Huddersfield: we had Chilean family friends who came to this country because their kind of politics was no longer welcome in Chile. My childhood in Huddersfield was enriched not only because those people had come here and worked hard as social workers but because they brought culturally interesting things to us. Family Christmases in Huddersfield involved empanadas, as well as the traditional turkey roast.

The resettlement schemes in this country have been a success. I have met people who have gone through those schemes, and they have had a much better experience than many people who have gone through the asylum route. We can learn a lot from the success of some of those schemes.

To summarise the current situation, as the hon. Gentleman has approached it, refugees can bring their children here if they are under the age of 18, but adult children are not included. Children under the age of 18 cannot bring their parents here. There are also powers for leave to be granted outside those rules in exceptional circumstances.

I can see the arguments both for and against changing those rules, and it sounds as if Ministers are thinking about it carefully. The question is whether we should go down the route of changing the rules, or whether we should instead use the exceptional circumstances rules in a more generous, more humane way. By way of analogy, I think of the people who are working on the Windrush generation. We need a high-calibre team with enough time to think properly about processing difficult cases. One way or another, the hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. The question is how we solve it.

I am not saying the hon. Gentleman’s idea is necessarily a bad one or the wrong one, but I will rehearse the downsides for a moment because this is a debate. We need to think carefully about whether we would be creating an incentive for young children to be trafficked. He rightly asks: who would use their children as bargaining chips? When people make the argument that the proposed change might lead to more unaccompanied children travelling to the UK irregularly, it is not a criticism of those children’s families, and we do not necessarily know anything about their circumstances. The children might be completely on their own, and it is almost certainly the case that, if they have parents, they will be desperate parents in a warzone who fear for their lives. We need to think about whether the change could lead to children being exploited by unscrupulous people smugglers.

In my own area, I am reminded of the case of Ahmed, a young Afghan boy who, in 2016, saved the lives of some 15 people. He was being smuggled into the UK and he arrived at Leicester Forest East services. He and those 15 people were trapped in an airtight lorry and running out of oxygen, and he had the presence of mind to text a charity, Help Refugees, which had given him a mobile phone. That text saved his life and the lives of those around him. They were much luckier than the 70 people who, just a few months previously, had choked to death at the hands of people smugglers in an airtight lorry in Austria. There are some truly wicked people in the people smuggling racket.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that there is a live debate on these issues, which is why the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) tabled his private Member’s Bill in the first place. We can engage in that debate only if the Bill goes into Committee and is given a money resolution. Will the hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O'Brien) join me in gently encouraging his colleagues on the Treasury Bench to do exactly that?

[Neil O'Brien]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I am sure Ministers will have heard his important argument about the process.

In general, we must stick to the principle that people should claim asylum in the first safe country they come to. Our policy can definitely affect the secondary movements of people who are fleeing conflict. We see from policy decisions such as Angela Merkel’s that one can affect the flow of people. Whether we think her policy is right or wrong, it has certainly changed the flow of people. The decisions we make on the questions raised by both the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar have the potential to affect the movement of people and we have to think about the secondary effects. None the less, I absolutely agree that they are raising an important point about the families of young people who arrive in the UK.

Today’s debate is important. There are many different things we could do to improve the lives of people who come to this country as refugees or as claimers of asylum. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar has raised some ways in which we could do that, although there may be different ways of addressing those issues. Those who come to this country as refugees are often very impressive people. In our history, they have often brought a lot to this country in terms of their achievements, work and cultural contribution. I am proud that people think of this country as a good place that they want to get to. In a sense, we should be flattered by the number of people who want to come here and be part of our community. We should think about how we can welcome them into this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I am grateful to be called to speak in this hugely important debate. I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire) and wish to pick up on several of her remarks later. She said very movingly that how we treat this subject reflects who we are as a people and the kind of culture and civilisation that we represent.

As the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) said in his opening remarks, the debate in Britain has been driven perhaps for too long by sensationalist tabloid headlines. There is of course a huge swell of emotion whenever the issues of immigration and refugees are raised, but we have to distinguish between different types of immigration. We have to distinguish between economic migrants and refugees, and we have to recognise that opportunistic traffickers exist—we cannot turn a blind eye to that. It is a complicated picture.

On refugees, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar’s private Member’s Bill is a remarkable thing for a private Member to bring forth. It commanded the support of many Members from across the House: the hon. Gentleman said that Members from five parties turned up to support his Bill on 16 March. Regrettably, I could not be one of those Members, but it is striking that his Bill has commanded such a wide range of support. The reason it commanded that support is that in Britain, as represented not only by Members in this House but by a wide population—by many, many of our constituents—there is a general feeling that if people are fleeing for their lives or fleeing persecution, Britain will be a welcome home and place of asylum for them.

Britain has a long history of welcoming, in a very generous spirit, people who have fled persecution. We can talk about the Huguenots in the 17th century or Russian Jews fleeing persecution in the 19th century. We can talk about the 20th century, when Jews once again faced a terrible tyranny and sought asylum here in Britain. Over the centuries, many of those people have contributed enormously to British culture, literature, economics and philosophy. All sorts of brilliant ideas have been fostered by extremely talented people who have fled for their lives. There have also been people who have helped in more ordinary situations, such as in the transport sector and the public services. A number of those people have come from families of refugees, or have been refugees themselves. No one denies that.

In the recent past—in the last few years—the British Government have had a good record and a good story to tell. One thing that no one has really talked about so far in this debate is that we are going through an unprecedented period of stress and political turmoil in the world. I have travelled a lot in the middle east and Egypt, and I have seen at first hand the devastation—the complete chaos—to which large areas of that part of the world have been subjected, through war and the lack of stable government. We hailed the Arab spring when it came upon us in 2011, but for many people that spring has turned into a nightmare. We need only look at the situation in Libya. I am one of very few Members of Parliament to have been there, and some of the conditions in which migrants there find themselves is appalling. As I said earlier, we cannot be blind to the fact that there are unscrupulous and wicked people who will exploit the situation.

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right and highlights the importance of having this debate and getting it right. The pressures we face are not going to get any easier. Whether or not the conflicts come and go—I suspect that they always will—we are going to see, not that far down the track, further pressures from the effects of climate change. That will cause massive movements of people. Whether they would currently be seen as economic migrants or refugees, there will be people unable to remain where they currently are.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a crucial point: this phenomenon of migration and the political uncertainty and instability are not just going to go away. In fact, if we look forward, we are probably going to have greater pressures and greater numbers of people coming from sub-Saharan Africa and the middle east.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

That is a legitimate point, but this trafficking has not come from British policy. I do not think that people who are trafficking Nigerians from the western coast of Libya into Italy, as the first port, are doing so because of the policies of the British Government. I do not really see a direct link. All I am trying to suggest is that there is a far a wider range of problems on which this issue touches.

[Mr Carmichael]

I am in broad agreement with much of what the hon. Gentleman says, but there is another aspect on which he has not touched. He said earlier, I think, that people traffickers lead this trade. I suggest to him gently that, in fact, they are the product of it. One reason why they are a product of it is that they are filling a vacuum because there are no proper safe and legal routes. If we put in safe and legal routes, along with proper action on an international basis, we will be part of the way to excising the cancer of the people traffickers.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The right hon. Gentleman is right that, clearly, criminals are not, in the first instance, driving this issue. There are many social, political and economic reasons for this phenomenon but, certainly in the parts of Libya that I saw and in the migrant camps in Sicily where I talked to a few people who were unlucky enough to be trafficked, a big criminal enterprise underpins it. It is very easy in the Chamber of the House of Commons to focus on the humanitarian aspects and to remind Members of our obligations not only as MPs but as citizens and human beings to very vulnerable people. I completely accept that. It is too easy for people in this Chamber to turn a blind eye to what is actually going on from the economic and criminal point of view, which is, frankly, a scandal. Too little of our political debate focuses on these wicked criminal elements. We must take a much bigger view.

G4S: Immigration Removal Centres

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Tuesday 8th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

That is one of the requirements in the action plan that the Government set G4S after the programme. We are very clear that whistleblowers are essential to ensuring that problems are brought to light effectively and quickly. As part of the action plan, G4S has reinforced its whistleblowing policy. All staff have been issued with cards featuring telephone numbers to enable them to raise concerns confidentially, and following work with the Jill Dando Institute, G4S has trained staff to become “speak out” champions, promoting and embedding the message that whistleblowing is not just desirable, but a clear expectation when unacceptable behaviour is witnessed. In addition, there is also the introduction of body-worn cameras, which serve, I hope, to reassure the House and others that there is transparency and that, if there are allegations, we can very quickly get to the truth of them.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I welcome the fact that this is a time-limited renewal. The Minister will know that many of those who are detained in these centres are there following the refusal of their applications for asylum. She will have seen the report on the BBC website today where one Home Office caseworker describes that system as being “arbitrary” in its outcomes. When it comes to the point that we renew this contract, or whatever follows it after the reviews, will the Minister give us some guarantee that we will look at not just the detention but the whole system that leads people to that point?

[Victoria Atkins]

The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, last week, the Home Secretary set out in two statements before the House his vision for immigration policy and the principles that he expects to be applied to immigration policy. Taking into account the reviews that are being conducted, I am sure that those principles will be very much at the forefront of his mind.

Money Laundering

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Monday 19th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

My hon. Friend asks a very good question. In fact, one of the first things I did when I became the Minister for Security and Economic Crime was to use the Home Affairs Committee report to hold the Department to account and ensure that we put right some of the things that clearly had not happened in the area of asset recovery. On SARs reform, it is worrying that SARs predominantly come from the banks—about 83% of them—and only the rest come from the facilitators. I have been determined, as has the director general of the NCA, to start focusing on the facilitators. It is the lawyers, accountants and people who sell things like boxes at football stadiums and Bentleys around the world who need to do more to report suspicious activity. When they do, we will stop it.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

May I take the Minister back to the question that the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) put to him? Have the Government compiled a list of politically exposed people from Russia, such as First Deputy Prime Minister Igor Shuvalov, who could be the subject of unexplained wealth orders? If they have such a list, will it be published and will the Minister give us a timetable for its implementation?

[Mr Wallace]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that I will not come to the House and publish the names of individuals who may or may not be the subject of an investigation or of operations against them because it could threaten our ability to have an effect on them. Needless to say, we are determined to ensure that we use intelligence-led policing to find money and deal with those individuals, whether they are from here or abroad.

People with Mental Health Problems: Detainment

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered procedures regarding the detention of people with mental health problems.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie, and I am very pleased to have obtained the opportunity to—[Interruption.]

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Mr Carmichael]

Thank you, Mr Hosie; I am grateful for your chairmanship.

I am delighted to have obtained the opportunity to bring this matter before the House. It strikes me that there may be a large cross-over between many of the people whom we are about to discuss and those with whom the House has just concerned itself.

In recent years, as a community and a society, we have made remarkable progress on our attitudes to mental health. To talk about mental illness is no longer the taboo that it was when I was growing up, and as a consequence we have seen remarkable progress in recent years in relation to the treatment of people, especially in our national health service.

Today, I will focus attention on a slightly different aspect of this issue—one that does not get the same attention as the treatment of people with mental health problems in the NHS. I will talk about the experience of people who come into contact with the criminal justice system—initially, of course, with the police, then with the prosecution services and, possibly, the prison authorities. The purpose of this debate is to make it clear to the Minister that within those agencies of the state, we need a change of attitude and culture similar to those we have seen in other aspects of our daily life.

It is surprising that this issue does not get more attention. Many of the people about whom we are speaking often exhibit in public or private what might euphemistically be called “challenging behaviour”, which is a symptom or consequence of their mental illness. It seems to me that at all levels—in the police, the prosecution services, the courts and the prisons—we need a greater level of understanding of their life experience and, as a consequence, better implementation of procedures. In fact, many procedures are pretty good but, as I will come on to explain, they are not followed in a way that is appropriate or that was intended when they were put in place.

I confess that I had rather thought that, within the criminal justice system, we had got beyond that point. Almost a quarter of a century ago, both as a trainee solicitor in Aberdeen and as a prosecutor, I railed against some police officers who, at that stage, still reported people who had attempted suicide, alleging that they had breached the peace. That attitude belonged in the 19th century, not the 20th, and I hope that such things would not happen today. However, it illustrates the underlying attitude that requires exposure.

My interest in this issue was first engaged as a result of a constituent—a lady resident in Orkney—who came to see me because she was concerned about the treatment of her son. This is not an isolated case. From discussions that I have had with people in the police, the criminal justice system and social work, I believe that it illustrates pretty well many of the ways in which the criminal justice system fails to meet the needs of people in our community, especially those who suffer from mental health problems.

I will not name these people; my constituent and her son want to retain their privacy, which is perfectly legitimate. However, the Minister should be acquainted with this case; last week, I forwarded him my correspondence file, which is fairly substantial, so that he would be aware of the background.

My constituent’s son is resident in Romford. He has a history of mental illness problems, but prior to the episode that I will discuss he had taken himself off some of the medication that he had been prescribed, because it had side effects that disagreed with him. He was reported missing by his partner on 27 April 2014. She contacted the police because she was concerned that he might kill himself. Eventually, he was traced by two police constables to a shopping centre in Romford. Questioned by the constables on the street, he told them that he was in possession of two kitchen knives, and at that stage he said that he did not intend to harm others; later in an interview, he said that he was considering harming some of those he loved.

The detaining officers—the two police constables on the street—proceeded, quite rightly in my view, to detain my constituent’s son under section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983. Given the information that his partner had provided the police and what he himself had said to them in the street, that seems to have been an entirely sensible step to take. Afterwards, as a standard procedure, the constables contacted their station sergeant. The sergeant instructed them to take him—let us just call him “M” for the purposes of today—not to a place of safety, that is the hospital, but back to Romford police station, where he would be interviewed under caution. That was done and the interview was conducted. There was no legal representation for M when he was in the police station and there was no appropriate adult present either.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the speech he is making. Does he agree that, at that point in the police station, it should be a requirement of the system for investigating officers to inquire as to whether the individual is already under treatment by a mental health team and, if so, for them to seek information from that team about the individual’s psychological condition?

[Mr Carmichael]

I am almost certain that if the medical condition being experienced by the person in custody was physical rather than mental, that course of action would be routine—simply what was expected. That is what I mean when I talk about a culture change being necessary. We need to treat people with mental illness in exactly the same way as we would treat people with a physical illness.

In fact, M disclosed in the course of his interview under caution, which unfortunately was not tape-recorded, that he was hearing voices and that he had been on medication, but had stopped taking it because of its various side effects. At the conclusion of the interview, he was charged with possession of a bladed article under section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. He was seen by medical professionals at some point in the course of his detention. I eventually had to submit on behalf of my constituent a data subject access request to get the custody records to find out the names of those medical practitioners. I still do not know their qualifications or whether they had, as the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) mentioned, access to the records that would have disclosed his full treatment history.

My constituent’s son eventually appeared the next day, 28 April 2014, at Barkingside magistrates court. He pleaded guilty and was remanded in custody until 12 May for psychiatric reports. Those were not available on 12 May or 14 May—a familiar story for anyone who deals with the summary courts—and he eventually appeared on 21 May, when those medical reports were available. Unfortunately, at that point it was apparent that the probation service reports were not available. It was 11 June before his case was finally disposed of. He was admitted to bail on 21 May and sentenced on 11 June. He was placed on a community order for six months on the condition that he remained under the supervision of the police service. In the meantime, he spent something in excess of three weeks in Pentonville prison, on remand and in custody, and 24 hours in police custody over a case that ultimately resulted in a community disposal.

I have enormous regard for those who staff and manage our prisons, but I do not know of any body of work that suggests that people suffering from a mental health problem are ever helped by being locked up in prison. That is essentially the point here. If my constituent’s son had been taken not to the police station, but to a hospital where he could have been treated and stabilised at the earliest possible stage, an inappropriate use of resource would have been avoided and he would have got the treatment he required.

Following the community order, I became involved with my constituent and a lengthy correspondence ensued. Fast-forwarding to 12 February 2015, I eventually received a letter from a deputy assistant commissioner at the directorate of professionalism within the Metropolitan police—she is a fairly senior officer—that concluded that my constituent’s son’s

“welfare and mental health was correctly managed during his time in police detention and that he was assessed as being of sufficient mental capacity to understand his actions on the day in question.”

She concurred that the officers had “acted correctly.” Unsurprisingly, my constituent was disinclined to let matters rest at that point. There was further correspondence, including with somebody with the glorious title of “professional standards champion”. That was not particularly fruitful, and it led eventually to a complaint to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

On 25 January 2016—this is getting on for two years after the initial incident—the IPCC upheld the complaint. It observed in passing that the constable who had been the original arresting officer had received management action in relation to the Metropolitan police’s mental health policy; I pause here to say in parentheses that the only person in this whole sorry saga who acted correctly was the original arresting officer. At every stage in the process, he seems to be the one who gets the training, the management interventions and the counselling. If this poor constable is sitting somewhere in a police station in London sticking pins into an effigy of me, I would not blame him, but he was never the object of our concern. It was the failure of those above him to implement their own procedures properly that has probably brought us to this point today.

Thereafter, the correspondence between the Metropolitan police and me discloses a culture that requires change. The concept of professionalism, a directorate of professionalism and professionalism champions seem to exist for the purpose of protecting police officers, rather than admitting fault, learning from the experience and moving on. Those things exist for the protection of colleagues, rather than the investigation of complaints. To this day, I still do not know the qualifications of the force medical examiner who saw my constituent’s son in custody. I suspect that having made a data subject access request, I will get that information if I go to the Information Commissioner, but the fact that I have to anticipate that tells us everything we need to know about how such complaints are handled.

In many ways, my constituent’s son is fortunate. The episode was not perhaps as acute as it might have been. He is particularly fortunate to have a mother who is an intelligent, strong-willed, determined and articulate woman. She was never going to be fobbed off with excuses or half-answers. Without the support of his mother in Orkney or the support my office has been able to give him through her being my constituent, I am pretty certain that these questions would have gone unanswered. I am pretty sure that the original arresting officer will be inclined in the future simply to do what he has been told by his superiors. In that way, the culture and the mistakes continue.

The Metropolitan Police Service could probably have dealt with this issue in April, May or June 2014 had they simply accepted that they made a mistake and apologised. They did not do so because of the culture that exists. I suspect and have good reason to believe—I speak often to police officers and others within the criminal justice system in London and other parts of the country—that that culture continues to exist. That requires change if we are to give people who suffer mental health illnesses and who come into contact with the criminal justice system the treatment and respect they deserve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hurd]

I certainly give an undertaking to the hon. Lady that I will look into that. Prisoner rights in custody are pretty clear in terms of the duties on a custody officer—a custody officer is required to determine whether a detainee is, or might be, in need of medical treatment or attention, and to make sure that he or she receives appropriate treatment or attention if he or she appears to be suffering from an illness or injury or a mental disorder—but I give the hon. Lady that undertaking and will write to her.

Having acknowledged the point made by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, I want to place on record some of the genuine improvements that have been made. He raises a real concern, which has weight in the police system because of the amount of time police officers spend, in the modern age, dealing with people on the mental health spectrum.

A considerable effort has been made in recent years to improve local responses. Crisis care concordat partnerships have been successful in pushing people together at a local level to address long-standing issues such as the overuse of police cells as places of safety. As I have gone around the system, I have been very impressed to hear about the various triage schemes in many areas. Those schemes encourage closer working and exchange of real-time information between the police and health professionals. There are different models. Some have health staff embedded in police control centres. Others have health professionals working alongside police on the ground, and sometimes in the custody suites. The common feature of those models is that they enable the police to deal more confidently with people in crisis, informed by professional advice about the best solution.

Many areas are developing community-based voluntary sector or partnership drop-in centres—sometimes called crisis cafes or places of calm—to which those who feel themselves nearing a crisis may be referred, or may self-refer, for support and advice. Such co-operation mechanisms have resulted in a significant and, I hope, welcome reduction in the use of police stations for those who have committed no offence. In 2016-17, a little more than 1,000 such uses were recorded, compared with just under 8,500 in 2012-13, so there is progress on that front.

We are changing the powers available to the police under the Mental Health Act 1983. In particular, the use of police stations as places of safety has been completely banned for under-18s. For adults, regulations now set out very specific criteria on when a police station can be used. Police officers are required, if practicable, to consult a mental health practitioner before detaining a person under section 136, but I will come back to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) with a more refined position on requirements to consult the individual’s own medical practitioner.

The period for which a person may be detained for the purposes of a mental health assessment under section 135 or section 136 is now reduced to 24 hours to ensure such assessments and arrangements for further care are completed as swiftly as possible and that people are not unnecessarily delayed. Police powers to detain a person under section 136 have been extended to any place other than a private dwelling, enabling the police to act promptly in places such as workplaces.

Better community partnership and changes to the 1983 Act have clearly made a difference.

[Mr Carmichael]

The point on which the IPCC upheld the complaint of my constituent’s son was that he should have been detained under section 136 as well as the Criminal Justice Act 1988 provisions, and that did not happen. That was a fairly narrow point, in many ways, but anecdotal evidence suggests that it is fairly widespread. What is the Home Office doing to establish an objective picture and find out what is happening on the ground? I suspect the procedures are not that bad, but the implementation requires some attention.

[Mr Hurd]

I accept the point that the IPCC found that guidance to detain under both section 136 and for any accepted offence had been breached in that case. I am not quite sure how long it took between 2014 and that judgment—probably too long. I accept that, but I come back to my earlier point. The right hon. Gentleman will know from experience that from the specific, we learn and probe general application. That is why our complaints process must work better than it does at the moment, not just for his constituent’s son and others in that position, but for the police officers concerned.

A lot of police officers are, in their words, being left out to dry for long periods of time, while the processes take too long. We want a swift process of finding the truth; we want accountability—accountability matters—but then we want a culture of learning and thinking, “What have we learned, and what are we doing about it?” We are not there yet, but everyone is talking about it in the right way. Part of my responsibility as Policing Minister is to continue pushing on that.

I am running out of time, but I should mention that if a person who has been detained for an offence is identified as having possible mental health or substance misuse issues, they may be referred to liaison and diversion workers for advice and onward referral to support services. Such schemes now provide support across 80% of police custody suites and courts in England, with the expectation that 100% coverage will be achieved by 2021.

On police use of force, a new memorandum of understanding between police forces and mental health and disability settings was finalised in 2017. At the extreme end of that is the response that we have to make to the report on deaths in custody. Some of the issues that the right hon. Gentleman has picked away at—the human testimonies, and the attitudes of the police when they feel defensive—come through very clearly in that report, and we have to break those down.

As I hope I have made clear, across a range of the avenues available to the Government, we are making some progress. I repeat my undertaking to come back to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston on her question.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Oral Answers to Questions

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Monday 20th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

This year, the Government and police and crime commissioners are investing a record sum in regional organised crime units across the country. That is why, in the year alone, there have been convictions totalling 2,375 years and confiscation orders of more than £25 million, half of which can go back into police forces to catch the next lot of bad guys. Regional organised crime units have seized 300 kg of cocaine and 39 kg of heroin, and have safeguarded 65 vulnerable children in a year alone.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

9. If she will meet representatives from the Scottish fishing industry to discuss visas for crew members from outside the EEA.

[The Minister for Immigration (Brandon Lewis)]

I have already had meetings with some of my hon. Friends from Scotland, and I am meeting a number of Scottish MPs to discuss the issue this very week. I was due to meet representatives of the industry during my recent visit to Edinburgh, but they were sadly unable to attend on the day.

[Mr Carmichael]

I will take that as my invitation to the meeting. I suspect that the Minister has already heard about the problem, which is that the few visas available are transit visas, meaning that boats are pushing for the visas allowed—not where the fish are to be found. This leaves many crew members vulnerable and exposed to exploitation. Will the Minister speak to Border Force about its insistence that crew members should be classified as unskilled labour?

[Brandon Lewis]

It is a cross-party meeting, and I am happy to ensure that the right hon. Gentleman has the details about that meeting later this week. We are obviously looking at all these issues, particularly in the light of leaving the European Union and our future immigration policy, so I look forward to hearing the views of Scottish MPs.

Police Pay and Funding

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Newton]

As a Cornish MP, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that Devon and Cornwall police leaders have decided for themselves to work in partnership with Dorset. That has been a very successful partnership, which is saving back-office expenditure and enabling the force to be more efficient and keep our communities in Devon, Cornwall and Dorset safer. These are independent operational decisions made by the police themselves.

To answer the hon. Gentleman’s question directly, the police in his constabulary area have reserves of more than 6% of their annual budget that they could prudently use—they would have to use only a very small percentage—to reward extremely brave and hard-working frontline officers. I am sure all his constituents would want them to do that.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Just last week, the chief constable of Northumbria said that his force was getting “very, very close” to not being able to deliver a professional service because of budget cuts. Does the Minister think that burdening him with extra expenditure without giving him any extra budget is going to make that situation better or worse?

[Sarah Newton]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, but I do not consider that paying our brave and hard-working frontline officers, who have faced the most extraordinary year, extra pay is a burden. It is absolutely right that their extraordinary public service should be rewarded with this richly deserved extra 1%; that is absolutely the correct thing to do. Police forces will be sitting on reserves, and reserves are there for a reason: they are there, in part, for extraordinary circumstances. The police have faced extraordinary circumstances this year, and they richly deserve this pay rise.

Detention of Vulnerable Persons

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) on setting out the issues so well. May I say at the outset that I would be very pleased to see our Scottish hon. Members remaining as part of the United Kingdom? As I always say, we are better together in relation to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so we do not want to see them go. They make a valuable contribution, and today’s debate is an example. I thank the hon. Lady for that, and I thank also the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), who will shortly make an equally valuable contribution.

I am concerned about this issue. As my party’s spokesperson on human rights, I believe it is right and proper that this issue is raised and that the Department responds by saying how far the recommendations have been implemented. It is clear that change is needed. I was shocked to find that in 2015, the number of suicide attempts in UK detention centres averaged more than one every day, with 393 people trying to take their lives—a record high. If that is a record high, there has to be a change of direction or a change of attitude in how we stop that. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) referred in her intervention to some of the suicide attempts. I am sure it has much to do with the fact that people are not allowed to stay in the UK—it cannot simply be how they are treated in detention centres—and their dread of going back home. It is also clear that the recommendations in the Shaw report need to be implemented, which is why we are here to ensure that treatment does not exacerbate the problems that people already face.

I completely agree with the statement by our Prime Minster—she is our Prime Minster, whether or not we are in government with her—from when, in her former hat, she was Home Secretary. The fact is that we have asylum criteria for a reason. We have to have criteria to work to, and the Minister knows that. How the criteria work and affect people’s lives is the reason we are having this debate. We cannot sustain an influx of people from other nations. No country can do that—or, indeed, does.

We always have examples from people who work for us or from people who call in and regale us with their stories. My parliamentary aide went to South Africa with her entire family—some 20 of them in total—and they decided to spend a few days in Mozambique. The trouble that the family had to go to just to get a visa for three days was extreme and very costly. It was some £1,000 for the family to get the visa and documentation. The process is there for a reason. Although the hoops that the family had to go through to get access to their resort were extreme, they felt that the benefits outweighed the hassle. It is the same for our immigration process. The process is difficult, but it is so for a reason. We must protect our citizens first, and the immigration process does this.

Not everyone who wants to come here has a right to be here. That is a fact that must be accepted. The system and the process are there to ensure that the right people have the opportunity to come here. I support the Government’s ability to make that decision. However, it should also be accepted that people who come here but have to go home must be treated well. The hon. Member for Glasgow North East outlined that well.

The Prime Minister said in a written statement when she was Home Secretary:

“The Government believe that those with no right to be in the UK should return to their home country and we will help those who wish to leave voluntarily. However, when people refuse to do so, we will seek to enforce their removal, which may involve detaining people for a period of time. But the wellbeing of those in our care is always a high priority and we are committed to treating all detainees with dignity and respect.”—[Official Report, 9 February 2015; Vol. 592, c. 29WS.]

However, the suicide figures perhaps do not reflect that. I ask the Minister to take that on board.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

The question of treating people with dignity is particularly important when it comes to the detention of children. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about the closure of the Cedars centre, which was not easy to set up or cheap to run but was about exactly that—treating people with dignity? Is he concerned that, unlike Cedars, the new arrangement has not had the active participation of Barnardo’s?

[Jim Shannon]

I wholeheartedly agree with the right hon. Gentleman, as I think does everyone in the Chamber. What he has described shows the issue we face: changes happen, but are they for the better? In the present case I believe they are not.

I would like to know how, in the Government’s view, dignity and respect have been upheld since the Prime Minister’s statement was made just over two years ago. I understand that the recommendations in part 4 of the Shaw report, which addressed the concept of vulnerability, have largely been accepted by the Government. However, there are examples, including the one outlined by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), that do not show that acceptance in action. There was a recommendation that the presumption against detention be extended to include victims of rape and other sexual or gender-based violence, including female genital mutilation, as well as people with a diagnosis of PTSD or with mental health issues and, as other hon. Members have mentioned, transsexual people and people with learning disabilities. Those are clear and specific categories where there are issues that need to be addressed. The presumptive exclusion of pregnant women should be replaced by an absolute exclusion, and the phrase

“which cannot be satisfactorily managed in detention”

should be removed from the section of the guidance covering those suffering from serious mental illness.

It is always good to read the newspapers, although whether we believe them or not is another thing. However, a reputable newspaper that I read contained an article stating:

“In June last year, the Home Office published new guidance that says women on suicide watch in detention should never be watched by male guards. In July, it introduced a 72-hour time limit on the detention of pregnant women—a measure which I particularly welcomed as it was clear that detention was often harmful for pregnant women. And in September, the Home Office also published guidance which states that survivors of sexual and other-gender based violence should not be detained.”

If the Government are pressing ahead with such measures and protection for pregnant women, that is good news; if they are not providing them with protection, they should be. I tabled some questions on this matter some time ago, and I am keen to hear how the Minister responds to the debate. It is good that the Government action described in the newspaper report is happening, but more needs to be done. What more is scheduled to happen? I should like to hear the Minister’s thoughts on the protection of pregnant women in detention and whether the change to a 72-hour time limit has been effective. Is it working, and is it enough?

I have read reports suggesting other ways of dealing with asylum seekers, which we could explore, in countries such as Sweden. Sweden sets examples to the world of how to do many things. We can learn from each other. While we have the current system, we must ensure that procedures are followed and the Government send those who have no right to be here back home; but while they are here, their needs should be catered to in the most humane way. I know that that is the intention of the Minister and the Government but perhaps we need to see it more in action than in words. I offer support, but I ask that our procedures be carried out in a humane, compassionate and effective way.

Torture and the Treatment of Asylum Claims

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 2nd March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Dr Tania Mathias (Twickenham) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered UK policy on torture and the treatment of asylum claims.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bailey. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for making time for this important debate. I also thank the co-sponsors of this debate, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) and the hon. Members for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) and for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron). I am appreciative of the cross-party support for this debate. This debate on the UK’s policy on torture and the treatment of asylum claims is particularly important and critical right now.

Only last weekend we heard from the Home Secretary and from Max Hill, QC, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, that the current terror threat is severe. As we are all aware, that will probably continue for some time. My concern about our current level of terror is that there may be a concomitant rise in the idea that torture has a place and a use in our society. That came about, as people know, in January when the President of the United States was heard to comment on what is a deliberate near-drowning technique, also known as waterboarding. He declared his personal views, but used the phrase “fight fire with fire” and entertained the idea that torture can work.

I was therefore grateful that the Prime Minister very shortly and quickly afterwards stated that

“we do not sanction torture and do not get involved in it.”—[Official Report, 25 January 2017; Vol. 620, c. 291.]

That is a clear statement from this country and its Government. The next day, the Leader of the House also made a clear statement about the Government’s position, when he said the Government were “resolutely opposed to torture”. Again, it is important right now that the Government are clear and frequently reiterate that. I hope the Minister will take the opportunity today to reiterate our very clear position.

We are leading the way on standards against torture, but our standards can be higher. That means being against torture and all cruel, inhuman or degrading treatments and punishments.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I agree absolutely with what the hon. Lady says. Does she agree with me, however, that there have been occasions in the not-so-distant past when we have allowed our standards to slip? The Government could demonstrate their bona fides for future intentions by taking a more open and transparent approach in settling cases such as the Belhaj and Boudchar case.

[Dr Mathias]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman very much for that intervention. I am aware of Supreme Court cases, but I do not want to mention specific cases today because I want to find as much common ground as possible with the Government, and I do not want to presume judgment of any particular cases, but I absolutely agree that the present statements by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House do not match our historical cases. That is why it is important today to be absolutely sure of where our standard is. I absolutely agree that in the past we have not lived up to our standards.

In view of the current global situation, I still believe we are the leaders, whether we choose to be or not. We absolutely need transparency about the past. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I am looking closely at the court cases. However, we must recognise that today we are not only the place to be against torture, but the place that can diagnose torture. People can get the best treatment for torture and can be rehabilitated to return to the community as fully participant members of society. That is the ultimate aim, and I do believe we lead on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I, too, express my gratitude to the members of the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us the time to debate this subject. I commend the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr Mathias) for her leadership in securing the debate. I note that, in a minor way, the pronunciation of the constituency of the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) risks becoming, for some people, an instrument of torture in itself.

The hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Thomas) posed some very relevant and pointed questions to the Minister regarding the training of caseworkers in the Home Office. I will not repeat them, but they were pertinent and ones with which I would very much wish to associate myself.

Like others, I place on the record my appreciation for the many non-governmental and campaign organisations that work in this field. Freedom from Torture was mentioned, and I was present in November at the launch of its most recent piece of work, “Proving Torture”. I have been associated with Reprieve for many years and have campaigned with Amnesty International in different parts of the world over the years, principally on the abolition of the death penalty but also on human rights concerns more widely.

Whenever I have been in other parts of the world, it has struck me that however much we may beat ourselves up about our past misdeeds, foreign policy failings and other things, we are still seen, by and large, as a force for good in the world. That goes to the point that the hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) made about the counterproductive nature of torture. It also touches on the point made by the hon. Member for Twickenham that we are a world leader in this area, and it is more important now than ever that we maintain that position.

At Foreign Office questions some time ago, I asked the Foreign Secretary whether he had raised the possibility of sharing intelligence with the Trump Administration in the event that they reverted to the use of torture, such as waterboarding or, as the President said during the campaign, something

“a hell of a lot worse”.

In the House, the Foreign Secretary said that that was an operational matter that he would not comment on —I think it is more a matter of policy myself—but in later correspondence he returned to the quote that the hon. Member for Twickenham offered us from the Prime Minister, who said that

“we do not sanction torture and do not get involved in it. That will continue to be our position.”—[Official Report, 25 January 2017; Vol. 620, c. 291.]

Those sentences should be on the desk of every Home Office and Foreign Office Minister. I would like to hear a more express statement about the possibility of sharing intelligence with any country in the world that uses torture, both because of our leadership position and because we must atone for some of our quite recent failings in this area.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The right hon. Gentleman heard me speak, I hope very clearly, about my views. I merely caution that we should use slightly more modified language than, “We share no intelligence with anyone who uses torture.” That would exclude so many people with whom we need a relationship built on trust. In many ways, our intelligence services, rather than NGOs or diplomats, are some of the best people to preach the message of freedom from torture.

[Mr Carmichael]

That is a fair point. I put it in those terms—I know the hon. Gentleman’s background—because we have some damage to repair.

I am mindful of your strictures about the sub judice rule, Mr Bailey. We now have the final Supreme Court judgment in respect of the Government’s preliminary points in the Belhaj and Boudchar case, which I referred to earlier. I will not talk about the substance of that case, because that would clearly be inappropriate and I would be ruled out of order, but it is a matter of public record that the Government so far have spent £750,000 pursuing those unsuccessful preliminary points. The case will presumably go through the courts to whatever conclusion is reached, but it is worth reflecting that we have got this far at the cost of £750,000 but we are just back at the starting line, and a lot more could still be spent on that case. The plaintiffs have offered to settle for £3—£1 each from the Government, the former Foreign Secretary and Sir Mark Allen, whose involvement in the case is fairly well documented.

The al-Saadi case, which was very similar, was settled out of court without any requirement for the case to be taken. More significantly, Belhaj and Boudchar want an apology as well as their £3. No apology was made in the al-Saadi case, but it cost the British taxpayer some £2.2 million. That is why it is important that as we enter a new phase of international relations with a new Administration in the White House, rightly or wrongly, we should have concerns about their approach to torture and put out there the highest possible standards. We should not forget—the Crown Prosecution Service has already said this—that Sir Mark Allen sought political authority for his actions in the al-Saadi and Belhaj cases, so it is difficult for us as a country to deny any knowledge or complicity in them.

Freedom from Torture’s “Proving Torture” report contains several highly concerning statistics from the sample of cases that it examined, and I will remind the House of some of those. Some 76% of the cases that Freedom from Torture studied in preparing that report eventually resulted in successful appeals. I take the Minister’s point that new information is sometimes provided on appeal that was not there in the first instance. Appeals may succeed for any number of reasons, but the fact that 76% of cases resulted in asylum being granted on appeal should concern Home Office Ministers. I suspect that if a judge sitting in a sheriff court in Scotland or perhaps a Crown court in England had 76% of his or her cases overturned on appeal, the Lord Chancellor would look carefully at the way that judge went about his or her business.

There is more context in that report to support my contention that the 76% figure is concerning. In 74% of the cases examined by Freedom from Torture, asylum caseworkers substituted their own opinion for that of clinicians, and in 30% of cases, asylum caseworkers disputed or queried clinicians’ qualifications or expertise. Those things should cause concern. They give context for the 76% of successful appeals that I referred to and relate to the points raised by the hon. Member for Harrow West.

The hon. Member for Twickenham was absolutely right to say that the Home Office has a duty of care towards people who do such enormously difficult and taxing work, from which significant political pressure is never far away and which is done in the professional context of an occasionally toxic debate. I worked as a public prosecutor for some years a long time ago. No one was supposed to work for more than six to 12 months at the very most on cases involving the sexual abuse of children, because they were such difficult and taxing cases, and the people who were involved in that sort of work ended up being burnt out. For that reason, I suspect that rotation among caseworkers who do asylum work should be taken a bit more seriously than it appears to be.

I am mindful of your strictures about time, Mr Bailey, so although I could probably say a great deal more about this subject, I shall conclude my remarks and allow others to take part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

I absolutely agree that it is important that staff get the relevant training. It is also important that staff with the most experience are directed to the cases where their experience can be most brought to bear. I will continue to engage with officials to ensure we are doing that as well as we can. I take this very seriously indeed.

When considering asylum claims made in the UK, it is absolutely right that we offer protection to those who face torture on return to their country. However, that does not mean that all survivors of past torture will automatically qualify for protection. An individual needs to show there is a real risk of serious harm or persecution on return to their country. In some cases, the situation in a country can become normalised and change. We welcome it when conflict finishes or particular situations are resolved in countries around the world.

I appreciate concerns about decision quality and how we consider medical evidence in practice, which was highlighted in the Freedom from Torture report published last year. However, I would point out that the sample of cases in that report represents less than 1% of all asylum decisions made last year, and some of the cases used are nearly three years old. That does not mean that I do not take those individual cases very seriously. I must stress that Home Office officials are committed to approaching cases involving allegations of torture with the utmost sensitivity.

My officials have also recently met Freedom from Torture representatives. While we believe the findings in the report are not representative of the wider asylum system, we are nevertheless taking steps to further improve the decision-making process. That will include forming a specialised team who will review and sign off all cases where a medical report is provided. We are also reviewing the training programme delivered to new decision makers. I can assure Members that we are committed to getting decisions right the first time and to working with expert organisations such as Freedom from Torture to ensure that survivors of torture get the support they need.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael]

I am pleased to hear about the engagement with Freedom from Torture, and I encourage the Minister to consider that. I think that Freedom from Torture acknowledged when it launched the report that it was a small sample of cases. Its finding that 76% of asylum cases involving torture were granted on appeal is something that the Minister’s Department should be able to confirm or contradict. Is he able to do so?

[Mr Goodwill]

I will see what stats we have on that. I am aware that where there are judicial reviews against us in such cases, we win virtually every one—I think the last figures I saw showed that we have lost 45 cases out of 18,000. It is not always the case that cases brought to us are successful.

The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) mentioned medical reports from specialists. We do not restrict who can provide a medical report for the purposes of submitting evidence in support of an asylum claim. There are accepted international legal standards, as set out in the Istanbul protocol, “Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment”, which applies to the documentation of torture. We believe it is appropriate that, as a minimum, those guidelines are followed in preparing reports.

All asylum decision makers receive extensive training on how to consider asylum claims. That includes vicarious trauma training for caseworkers, to guard against hardening. We are well aware of how people can become—dare I say—used to hearing stories such as these, which is really worrying. As previously highlighted, we are committed to continuous improvement.

Let me be clear: torture has no place anywhere in the world, and we must do all we can to stamp it out. The UK Government consistently raise concerns about the use of torture, enforced disappearances and alleged police abuses, and will continue to do so. I am sure Members will be aware that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), regularly raises human rights concerns in his dealings with overseas Governments and officials.

My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham raised the position of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister’s position is clear: the UK stands firmly against the use of torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and so-called enhanced interrogation techniques. In no circumstances would we consider approving a request from a foreign Government to conduct an extraordinary rendition through the UK or one of our overseas territories.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Goodwill]

Interestingly, I have asked the same question myself, and the answer is not quite as simple as it may seem, because in some cases multiple reasons are given for an asylum claim, and in other cases in which asylum has been refused on one ground, a new ground has then been put forward. Sometimes the figures are not quite as easily come to as perhaps we would like. I will certainly see what I can do, but I have been asking the same question myself and have been told, “It isn’t as simple, Minister, as you would like to think.” There are often quite complex cases involving a number of different reasons that may have been submitted at different times during the legal process.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael]

I sense that the Minister is perhaps trying to get to his peroration, but if I may, I shall take advantage of the time remaining. In the course of my remarks, I referred to the Belhaj case. I am mindful of all the strictures on that, but does the Minister agree that it is in the national interest now, given the judgment of the Supreme Court, that we have an early resolution of it?

[Mr Goodwill]

I am always very cautious about commenting on specific cases. The right hon. Gentleman is smiling, probably because he is getting the answer that he expected, but he has certainly raised the issue, and it is particularly important that we ensure that all the legal processes that we are involved in are conducted in the best interests of the taxpayer and the best interests of those who are vulnerable and need our support.

We are clear, as we make these informed decisions, that those who would face torture if returned will be granted protection here in the UK. I believe that our current policy delivers on these important goals: it supports those genuinely in need of protection in the UK because they are at risk of torture if returned, and it is absolutely consistent with our international obligations.