Retail Crime

David Linden Excerpts

Thursday 11th April 2019 Westminster Hall

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is, as always, a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. We also thank Mr Robertson, who chaired the first part of the debate.

As others have done, I start by thanking the right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson) for securing the debate and opening it with a powerful and passionate speech. I will come back to this, but I pay tribute to the work he did as a Home Office Minister.

We have heard 15 Back-Bench contributions, which is particularly impressive on a Thursday afternoon. This debate is clearly not the highlight of business today and many of our colleagues are in the Chamber, so 15 Back-Bench speeches shows there is clearly an appetite for debate on the topic.

The right hon. Gentleman set the scene by reminding us of some of the stark data from the British Retail Consortium, and he had six asks for the Minister, which I have no difficulty endorsing. He was right to remind us that this is not a victimless crime; we should be reminded of that regularly.

The hon. Member for High Peak (Ruth George) spoke about her 20 years’ experience in USDAW. I pay tribute to her for that. She talked about the police situation in England, as did a number of other Members; as a Scottish MP, I will not wade into that. She was absolutely right to place on the record the point about people working alone. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) reminded us that the loss in his constituency was £214,000, equivalent to a 7% tax, which is passed on to consumers. We need to take note of that.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke about the situation in Northern Ireland, particularly his home town, Newtownards, about which he always speaks passionately. The people of Strangford are very lucky to have such a diligent constituency MP speaking passionately about Northern Ireland. He was right to highlight a problem that seems to arise particularly in Northern Ireland of ATM thefts that cause great damage.

The hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) was rather controversial. In a largely consensual debate, she divided the Chamber by talking about the beauty of her constituency. She was right to remind us that, even in a close-knit community, retail crime remains an issue. She read out some powerful testimonies, which I think Members were quite moved by.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) spoke passionately about shopping outlets in her constituency. She is of course my constituency neighbour, so I will have nothing said about shopping there. Go east! Shop in Glasgow East. But she is absolutely right to speak about small businesses and the impact of lone working. We also learnt of her experience as a retail worker in Next and about some of the issues she was exposed to there. The Chamber is richer for heeding the personal experience of Members.

The hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) spoke about the underfunding of police forces in England. I was interested in what she said about the local Shopwatch scheme pilot. The Pubwatch scheme in my own constituency has been very successful, so I am interested in the Shopwatch pilot and whether we could adopt it.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) spoke about the dangers of working in the evening. He also reminded us of our responsibilities as consumers. Far too often in shopping environments on a Saturday afternoon, people have a bunch of kids with them and they get quite stressed out, but as consumers we have a responsibility to act and behave in a certain way, which some people perhaps forget. Although people have spoken about some of the figures, I was struck by what he said: up to 50 people will have been assaulted by the time this debate concludes. It reminds us of the danger that many people face just by going to work, so he was right to put that on the record.

My other constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney), made a typically thoughtful speech. He was right to talk about the retail tax as well. He spoke about the situation in Bellshill Main Street and some of the costs for his constituency.

In Scotland there were 31,300 recorded offences of shoplifting in 2017-18, which equates to 58 per 10,000 inhabitants. The Scottish Government are acutely aware of how serious shop theft and physical and verbal abuse are in the retail sector. We are working closely with the Scottish Grocers Federation, Police Scotland and the Scottish Business Resilience Centre, and my colleague, Ash Denham, the relevant Minister, is progressing that.

This debate gives us the opportunity to pay tribute to the many retail workers who serve us every single day. We know that their work can be dangerous and often includes antisocial hours. First and foremost, today is an opportunity for us to acknowledge their hard work and place on the record the debt of gratitude that we owe every retail worker.

In my own constituency of Glasgow East we have vibrant retail outlets, including the small shops on Tollcross Road, Baillieston Main Street and Shettleston Road, and the much larger shopping centres such as the Lochs in Easterhouse, Glasgow Fort and the iconic Forge to name but a few. Each of those shopping centres provides significant employment opportunities in my constituency. I pay tribute to all of the staff, particularly the security guards who work tirelessly to ensure that those centres are enjoyable places for us to eat, shop and meet friends.

However, crime is prevalent in retail environments and many shopping centres have to undertake work to prevent shoplifting, which accounts for some 6% of recorded crime in Scotland. In advance of today’s debate, I was in contact with Paul Wishart of Parkhead Forge and Phil Goodman of Glasgow Fort. Both of them told me about the challenges that their centres face in guarding against theft, which can lead to increased overheads. In the case of Glasgow Fort, the year 2018 saw a total of 279 incidents involving retail theft, attempted theft or fraud. That accounts for around 40% of all the incidents that Glasgow Fort’s security team had to deal with.

In preparing for today’s debate I was surprised to learn that security accounts for 25% of the total operating costs at the Fort: a significant overhead that is then passed on to the various retailers that occupy it. Although I am totally supportive of the security industry, I would much prefer to see retailers passing on savings to their hard-working shop staff who are so often, as Members have already said, underpaid. We know that retail is not one of the more handsomely paid roles.

Broadly speaking, retailers in the East End are hugely complimentary towards the local police, but I know from speaking to staff at the Forge that response times to shoplifting can vary. That is significant when there is no longer a community officer based in the centre. Longer response times put additional pressure on both security staff and shop staff. That means that some retailers will not press charges, because they simply cannot afford to have members of staff tied up dealing with incidents.

One other frustration relates to the wider issue of deterrence and punishment. Sadly, in the case of Parkhead Forge, there are a number of repeat offenders who know exactly what kind of punishment they can expect to receive if caught shoplifting. One of the reasonable suggestions that Paul at the Forge made to me was that offenders should be asked to do their community service in the shopping centre where the crime was committed. Perhaps, if they did so, they would realise the impact that their actions had on the shop and, above all, on the staff.

However, I do not want to end on a negative note in what has been an excellent debate. I want to round off where I started, by thanking our hard-working retail staff, who consistently go above and beyond and ensure that the Fort, the Forge, the Lochs and all the small businesses in my constituency are places where we are proud to spend our money and support local jobs.

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

David Linden Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 28th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Kemi Badenoch (Saffron Walden) (Con)]

I mentioned earlier in this debate that I was speaking as a first-generation immigrant. Immigration is an issue that is very close to my heart. My personal experience, especially through my immediate family and relatives, has been not from an EU perspective, but from a non-EU perspective. One good thing about the Bill is that we are no longer focusing on nationality, but, really importantly, on skills and ending this form of discrimination. I know that, in the future, most of the red meat will be coming with the immigration rules, so I shall speak on the substantive points in the Bill.

One of the primary reasons that I supported the withdrawal agreement was because of the reciprocal guarantees on citizens’ rights. As leaving the EU is such a huge fundamental change to this country, it is only right that we have clear rules and that we think very carefully about what the new regime will be like. Quite clearly, this is a country that welcomes migrants; the numbers speak for themselves. For every British citizen who is in the EU, there are four EU citizens in this country, so we know that this is a country that welcomes immigration—that is just EU migration, let alone migration from the rest of the world. One huge challenge has been the language that we use to discuss immigration and, in particular, freedom of movement. I thank the Home Secretary, who is no longer in his place, for taking a lot of the emotion out of this debate, allowing us to focus on the logic, the reason and the substantive issues.

One Opposition Member—I cannot remember their name—talked about negative media rhetoric and about the language that is used to talk about migrants. I think that a lot of that starts from this House. It comes not, as Opposition Members may think, from the language that is used on the Government Benches, but from the whipping up by the Opposition of things that are not necessarily to do with immigration, so that they can get good headlines. I ask to Members to look, for example, at how the shadow Home Secretary conflated illegal and legal migration in her opening statement when she was talking about those “Go home” vans. This is not in any way an endorsement of that sort of technique, but it was quite clear that those things were used to talk about illegal migration. This constant conflation of legal and illegal migration is one of the things that whips up the rhetoric. It starts from here and ends up going out there.

The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who is not in his place, intervened on his colleague to say that Tories do not want to see anyone coming to this country at all. That is completely ridiculous.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

rose—

[Mrs Badenoch]

No, I will not give way. I want to make this point.

The same people who say that we on these Benches do not want anyone to come to this country will also complain that we are letting in more non-EU migrants such as me and my family.

[David Linden]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs Badenoch]

I will take the intervention.

[David Linden]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I just wanted to remind her of some history. It was the Conservative party that, in an election, had huge billboards saying, “Are you thinking what we’re thinking?” That was the kind of rhetoric that was whipped up by this Tory party, so I will take no lectures from her on that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Kerr]

I do not think we should be talking about student numbers at all. The Home Secretary said earlier that there should be no cap on student numbers. It is important that we establish a constitutional process whereby the Governments of Scotland work together and talk and listen to each other.

[David Linden]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He knows how much respect I have for him. The Immigration Minister is on the record as saying that she would not grant the Scottish Government powers that she would not grant to Lincolnshire County Council. Does he support her view on that matter?

[Stephen Kerr]

I have made it clear what I think should be happening in how Scotland’s two Governments work together.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

As this debate approached, I reflected on one of the first experiences I had when I first stood for election in 2017. It was at a hustings—although they seem to be a dying art in election campaigns, they are still a very important aspect—and I remember being challenged by a guy in the audience about what my party’s policy on immigration was. I gave a very full-throated argument in favour of immigration and why we need it. After the hustings was over, he came up to me and said, “Look, before the public meeting tonight I was intending to vote for you, but because you are so pro-immigration, I can’t.”

It was probably that experience that led me to reflect on how we managed to get into a situation where immigration has become such a hotly contested issue. There is an argument that during the Brexit referendum, leadership on this issue was completely absent from the main political parties. I believe that immigration is fundamentally a good thing, and that if politicians talked about it more, we would be less likely to be in this position. There is a degree of hypocrisy when we speak to some of our constituents. When we talk about immigrants, that means people who come here from Europe, but when we talk about people going to live in Spain, we call them expats. People will complain, “They don’t speak our language when they are on the streets of Glasgow,” but when I go on holiday to Gran Canaria or Tenerife, I do not often hear many British people speaking Spanish, so there is a degree of hypocrisy there.

On the issue of hypocrisy, I want to address very directly the absolute mess that the UK Labour party found itself in this afternoon. The shadow Home Secretary opened the debate by saying that Labour would abstain on Second Reading. It took 135 miles for Jesus and Paul to walk the road to Damascus, but today it took an hour and 35 minutes for the Labour party to make a U-turn on its position. That shows the absolutely nonsensical position that the Opposition have found themselves in—and it is the same with Brexit. If someone is trying to ride two horses, eventually those two horses will give way. What we saw today is the very beginning of that for Labour, and its Members should reflect on that.

We have to be very, very upfront about the benefits of immigration, because if we are not, there will be major challenges coming down the track for us, in terms of not just our economy and our public services, but social care. We know that the number of people with dementia will have increased by about 40% in 12 years’ time, and that means more people in care homes. It is a sad thing, but the vast majority of people that I went to school with do not like the idea of going to work in care homes—of wiping people’s bottoms or serving meals. If we do not confront the reality of our ageing population, we are going to have a very serious problem with regard to our current argument on immigration.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point. It is not simply about providing labour; it is also about the taxes that these immigrants will pay, which are needed to fund the social services that so many people rely on.

[David Linden]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend almost anticipates my next point. We have an ageing population, and people are going to have to be looked after. People will live for longer and we will need others to fund the tax base that pays for their pensions, so there is absolutely an economic argument for immigration as well.

As I was preparing for this speech, I reflected on the fact that we begin the sitting day in the House of Commons with a prayer in which the Speaker’s Chaplain says:

“May they never lead the nation wrongly through love of power, desire to please, or unworthy ideals but laying aside all private interests and prejudices keep in mind their responsibility to seek to improve the condition of all mankind”.

We stand here at half-past 2 and pray that to God. We say, “Let us take decisions not just to please people but for the right reasons.” In reality, we find ourselves in a position politically in which we are not leading anymore—we are reacting to public opinion.

I make no apology for the fact that I took a very pro-immigration stance at the hustings that night. Tonight, with a German surname, I will walk through the No Lobby and vote against the Bill because I believe in the free movement of people. The sooner that Members get to grips with the challenges coming down the track and the benefits of free movement, the better, because we have serious challenges, and any vote for this Bill would be a seriously retrograde step.

Public Health Model to Reduce Youth Violence

David Linden Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) and to take part in this debate. A number of hon. Members have been pressing for a debate on this subject for some time, particularly the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft). I pay tribute to her and her fellow commissioners on the Youth Violence Commission, including my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), as well as other hon. Members present today who have a long track record of campaigning on this issue—I am not surprised to see a couple of former colleagues from the Home Affairs Committee.

The Committee, on which I still sit, recently commenced an inquiry into serious violence, and we started by taking evidence from parents who had lost their children to youth violence. One said to us:

“As a mum, when you have a child the child then becomes your world. When they are taken away from you in this senseless manner, your whole world just rips apart”.

As the shadow Home Secretary powerfully pointed out, such testimonies bring home the disastrous and tragic impact of this type of crime better than any statistics.

The Scottish National party supports the call for a public health approach to be front and centre of efforts to tackle youth violence. Such an approach seeks to improve the health and safety of all individuals by addressing underlying risk factors that increase the likelihood of people becoming a victim or perpetrator of violence. Only by tackling the causes of violence and not just its symptoms, and by using a whole systems approach, can we break the cycle of violence and reduce its impact on individuals, their families and communities.

A public health approach involves collecting evidence on the causes of violence, using that evidence to design interventions, and then testing, improving and upskilling them. By doing that we will achieve so much more than if we simply respond after the event through the justice system. We know it can work, because, as we have heard, it has delivered significant progress in Scotland. It was introduced there because the evidence showed it working elsewhere—in the USA, and in Chicago in particular.

None of that is to say that we still do not have a long, long way to go, but it is hard to overstate just how difficult a starting point Scotland had when it set off on this approach. As recently as 2005, one UN report declared Scotland the most violent country in the developed world, while Worth Health Organisation statistics suggested that Glasgow was the murder capital of Europe—thankfully no more. The shadow Home Secretary mentioned some of the significant progress that has been made: violent crime in Scotland fell by almost half between 2006-07 and 2016-17; the homicide rate halved between 2008 and 2018; offending by young people has halved since 2008; there was a fall of almost 78% in the number of under-18-year-olds being prosecuted in court since 2006-7; the number of children referred to the children’s hearings system on offence grounds fell by 83%; and hospital admissions in Glasgow due to assault with sharp objects are down 62%. By any measure, that is pretty remarkable progress.

A good number of Members, in previous debates as well as in this one, have highlighted the work of the violence reduction unit in Glasgow. I too want to pay tribute to if for the transformational work it has undertaken. I would also like to pay tribute to other organisations, such as Medics against Violence, and those implementing programmes such as “No Knives, Better Lives” and the mentors in violence prevention scheme. Building on the progress that had been made, the Scottish Government’s 2008 “Preventing Offending by Young People: Framework for Action” document reflected a significant policy shift towards prevention and early intervention, and support to manage risk and build community confidence. That has been developed further in the most recent youth justice strategy for 2015 to 2020, “Preventing Offending: Getting it right for children and young people”. That strategy seeks to ensure that all agencies that come into contact with children and young people who offend work together, putting a whole systems approach into practice. It seeks to establish a secure care national adviser post to carry out an independent review of secure care. It will also fund the Centre for Youth and Criminal Justice at the University of Strathclyde to develop, support and understand youth justice practice, policy and research in Scotland.

In practical terms, those combined strategies deliver on the ground, with early and effective intervention; opportunities to divert from prosecution; court support; community alternatives to secure care and custody; and improvements to reintegration back into the community. They are about improving life chances with a focus on school inclusion, strengthening relationships and engagement, mentoring, building life skills, and improving health and wellbeing. There is a huge amount of work still to be done, as I have said, including on employability, especially for those who have ended up in the criminal justice system, but progress is being made.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a testament to the impact of this approach on Glasgow that there are four Glasgow MPs here in the Chamber to support my hon. Friend’s speech. He is right to mention some of the strategies in place at a national and Government level, but will he join me in paying tribute to Urban Fox in Lilybank, one of the organisations in my constituency? Michael McCourt, Debbie and the team do an excellent job, delivering diversionary activities to ensure that young people make positive choices to get into a slightly better pattern of life.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I very much welcome that intervention. This is probably a good moment to pay tribute not just to the organisation my hon. Friend mentions, but to organisations across Scotland and the United Kingdom that do such good work on the ground to try to divert people away from violence.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

David Linden Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Joanna Cherry]

No one is saying we should not have an immigration policy; of course we must have an immigration policy. The point I am making is that the immigration policy should be evidence-based and take account of the needs of the economy and the different regions and nations of these islands, and this Government’s policy does not do that. If the Government have such a great idea about future immigration policy across the UK, why is it taking them so long to publish the White Paper? And if they are so keen to throw their arms open to people from all across the world and have everyone come here on an equal basis, why does the Prime Minister—the Prime Minister of those on the Conservative Benches—persist in her ridiculous net migration target? It is just nonsense that the Conservatives want to throw the doors open; for so long as the Prime Minister is in place and that ridiculous migration target is in place, that simply will not happen.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

The Government will try to ramp up the rhetoric around EU migrants, but the reality is that in order to get some of their trade deals through, they will have to bend the visa rules for India and elsewhere, so what they take with one hand they will give with the other anyway.

[Joanna Cherry]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is crystal clear that if we ever get to the stage of being able to enter into third-party trade deals, which looks pretty unlikely at the moment, in return for access to the markets of countries outside the EU, those countries are going to want access to the UK for people who want to migrate from their country to here.

Police Employer Pension Contributions

David Linden Excerpts

Wednesday 14th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

That is not a matter for me, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. I am sure if somebody wishes to come forward, they can do so, but the Minister did give a very honest, open statement. I have no more to add other than what has been said. I suggest that the Minister continues with the debate unless he has an answer to the question.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Let the Minister at least answer the point of order first.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister is of course correct that there will be no press conference, but there is still a microphone outside No. 10 Downing Street and it is being briefed that the Prime Minister will come to that microphone and give a statement. Why is she not coming to the microphone at the Dispatch Box?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

That is not a matter for me, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, but at least, if nothing else, Members have put a lot on the record tonight.

Asylum Seekers: Right to Work

David Linden Excerpts

Wednesday 24th October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Nokes]

Thank you. That at least clears that up. I very much appreciate the words of wisdom I have heard on many occasions from the hon. Lady and my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman), who secured the debate. I absolutely recognise that the rights of asylum seekers and refugees are an important issue to them. It is a subject on which they have spoken many times in this House, with much knowledge and erudition.

This debate on access to work for those claiming asylum is important. We can see that, for a 30-minute debate, it has provoked a lot of interest from the House. Members may well want to intervene, and I will certainly be happy to take interventions, but I particularly want to thank the Lift the Ban coalition for its recent report, which was sent to me. It raised a number of important points.

Members will know that the UK has a proud history of providing protection to those who need it. This Government are committed to delivering a fair and humane asylum system. We are tackling the delays in decision making to ensure that most asylum seekers receive a decision within six months. In the year ending June 2018, we granted protection or other forms of leave to more than 14,000 people, and we are increasing integration support for all refugees to help them rebuild their lives here and realise their potential.

I am sure Members share my appreciation for the excellent work that all agencies do to help and protect these very vulnerable people, but our protection does not end there. All those claiming asylum are provided with accommodation and support to meet their essential living needs if they would otherwise be destitute. The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) raised that issue. They are entitled to full access to healthcare and, for those under 18, access to full-time education. Those recognised as refugees, including those resettled here, have immediate and unrestricted access to work and other services that can support their integration.

As might be expected from a former Minister at the Department for Work and Pensions, I certainly recognise the importance of work when it comes to physical and mental wellbeing, building a wider sense of contribution to our society and community integration.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

The Minister knows that I have a lot of respect for her, but given that the Government rightly put a lot of emphasis on tackling loneliness—there are all sorts of strategies about that—surely she can understand that one way of tackling loneliness for asylum seekers would be allowing them to work.

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting and important point. When I was at the DWP, I was often to be found saying that work was good not only for people’s financial wellbeing, but for their emotional and physical wellbeing. We know that children will have better outcomes if their parents are in work.

I am oft to be heard talking about finding better routes into work for our refugee populations. I absolutely recognise that we have a great deal of work to do in that respect, because the employment outcomes for refugees are way below the general population, and way below where we would want them to be, notwithstanding the fact that we know that many people who come here, particularly under the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme, have specific challenges, which may be about long-term sickness or having large families or children with disabilities. We in this place and in this Chamber will all know that we have established many of our networks, relationships and friendships through our colleagues and through being at work. It is important that we find successful routes in.

I am referencing refugee communities in particular, but it is not lost on me that I receive many representations from right hon. and hon. Members, from the non-governmental organisation community and from individual asylum seekers whom I have had the opportunity and privilege to meet. They, too, would like the opportunity to be able to make a contribution and establish the same levels of networks and friendships that we all do through work.

I am listening carefully to the complex arguments about permitting asylum seekers to work, and I will of course consider further evidence that comes forward. As many Members will know, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden rehearsed, the Government’s current policy is to grant those seeking asylum in the UK permission to work where their claim, through no fault of their own, has not been decided after 12 months. Those allowed to work are limited to jobs on the shortage occupation list, which is based on expert advice from the Migration Advisory Committee. My right hon. Friend made her point absolutely perfectly by referring to ballet dancers.

The policy aims to protect the resident labour market and ensure that any employment meets our needs for skilled labour. Members will know that the shortage occupation list is currently under review. All asylum seekers can make a valuable contribution to their local communities by undertaking volunteering activities. My right hon. Friend referenced the event she hosted recently alongside Refugee Action. We heard about the experiences of a number of people who had been through the VPRS and the asylum system more generally. The point about language was made repeatedly.

I was most struck by a young lady who had come here on the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme. She had been in the country for only six months and she used what I regarded as a terrible term, which I utterly reject, when she said, “When I came here, I was useless.” That really struck home because in no way was that young woman useless. Within six months she had got herself to such a level of English that she gave a word-perfect speech to a packed room at the Conservative party conference. That will not win many accolades from some Members here today, but conference is a tough gig. It is not always the easiest audience to speak to, but she did it beautifully. She said, “Six months ago I was useless, but now I am sitting here, working, and able to give a speech to you all.” It was hugely impressive. We also heard from a gentleman called Godfrey—the same gentleman my right hon. Friend referenced in her speech—who spoke at length about how volunteering had enabled him to feel that he was making an important contribution and given him back a sense of self-worth.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke about how his community had wrapped its arms around Syrian families who had been resettled under VPRS. The work that we have done on community sponsorship, learnt from other countries such as Canada, has absolutely shown us that communities are willing to accept and welcome refugees into their midst. They are often best placed to help and are incredibly supportive, providing a network that enables refugees to make friends they can turn to for support in times of crisis. I might sound like a stuck record, but also provided are those all-important routes into work, which we all recognise are important.

British Citizenship Fees: Children

David Linden Excerpts

Tuesday 4th September 2018 Westminster Hall

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I welcome everyone back; I hope all Members have had a restful recess. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) for securing today’s debate under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee. I pay tribute to his work as immigration spokesperson for our party. It is difficult to sum up this debate, because normally he would be doing it. I would have said much of what he said. I also want to take a moment to congratulate the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton) on joining the Government. He is moving up to be a Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister, and I wish him well in that.

During the course of the debate, we have had no fewer than 11 Back-Bench contributions, including interventions from the hon. Members for Stirling (Stephen Kerr), for Henley (John Howell) and for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock), and the hon. Members for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) and for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). They all made valid contributions. The point that the former Children’s Minister, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, made about people who have been in the care system was spot on, and I hope the Minister will take it away and look at it.

The hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) spoke about the importance of fairness, and I hope the Minister will take that on board. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin) made a passionate speech about the dangers of having another Windrush scandal by continuing the hostile environment. He was absolutely right to raise that issue. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke with his typical compassion, which we have heard so often in this Chamber. In particular, he spoke about the racketeering that the Government are pursuing.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) spoke eloquently about her casework experience and the people she sees at her surgeries week in, week out. She also spoke of the chaos we see unfolding from the Home Office week in, week out. She was absolutely right to put that on record. She also voiced concerns about what happens when we take back control of our borders and when EU nationals are also subject to the fees. Finally, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) spoke about not learning lessons from the Windrush scandal. If we do not get a grip on the issue, we may well see a repeat of that.

The SNP has a fairly strong track record of consistently calling on the British Government to end their self-styled hostile environment policy. We have been consistent in calling on them to scrap their nonsensical immigration targets and abolish the prohibitive fees. The bottom line is that the Home Office should not be profiteering from children who are simply exercising their legal rights. Only last week, I had the pleasure of visiting Eastbank Primary School in Shettleston, where some of the children were showing me their wall display about their campaign for children’s rights. It is a very topical issue for the Scottish Youth Parliament as well.

Young people are aware of their rights, but an estimated 120,000 children living in the UK have neither British citizenship nor immigration permissions to be here. Equally, more than half those children were born in the UK and are perfectly entitled to register as British citizens under the provisions of the British Nationality Act 1981. Many of these children would simply be exercising their rights by applying for British citizenship, but they are being actively prohibited from doing so because of blatant profiteering on the part of the British Government. The fee for children to apply for registration stands at more than £1,000, making the Government a healthy profit of £672 on every application, given the stated processing cost of just £386. Why is there such a large fee? More to the point, why has there been such a significant increase—some 148%—since 2014? When the Prime Minister took office in Downing Street, she spoke about helping the “just about managing”. When the Government are asking people to pay these exorbitant fees, it seems they have forgotten about the “just about managing”.

Quite rightly, the British Government have been hauled over the coals following the shocking revelations about what happened to the Windrush generation. It is clear that the Minister and the Home Secretary are trying their best to get a grip on that situation, but the harsh reality is that, as other hon. Members have said today, we face the prospect of a second Windrush generation if the British Government do not immediately commit to reviewing and changing what has become, frankly, a Whitehall racket when it comes to child citizenship fees.

The ideology of the hostile environment is certainly not something that I support. It has no place in Scotland. We want instead to be a welcoming, outward-looking nation, with a diverse and growing population fit to meet the changes and challenges of the 21st century. However, Home Office policies and dogma are actively hindering that, so if the British Government will not enact a reasonable, fair and pragmatic immigration system, Scotland stands ready to take on immigration powers by way of devolution. That is not just something that I and the SNP are calling for; it is backed by the Scottish Trades Union Congress and countless others across civic Scotland.

[Douglas Ross]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is not backed by the vast majority of people in Scotland, who have been polled time and again and agree that Scotland should have the same immigration systems as the rest of the UK?

[David Linden]

In short, no. We have to look at the challenges that Scotland faces. Over the summer recess I undertook a process called In Your Shoes and I worked in care homes. I spoke to the people who run the homes and they are absolutely terrified of what will happen in future with the workforce. If the Westminster Government continue to pursue the one-size-fits-all policy, pursued through an entirely London-centric lens, we will end up with a situation in which people in care homes say, “People will not come to work here because the UK Government have such a hostile immigration policy.” From a practical point of view, Scotland needs control over immigration.

I welcomed the comments made by the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) when he came to Scotland on one of his recent trips. He was sympathetic to the devolution to Scotland of aspects of immigration policy, and I hope that the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) might be able to offer a little more clarity on UK Labour’s position on the devolution of immigration powers when he sums up in a few moments.

In conclusion, we want the British Government to remove the profit element from applications that children make to the Home Office. We want an immediate commitment to not increase application fees for limited leave to remain beyond the current level for children and young people. Above all—this is my final message to the Minister—we want an immigration system that is fair and compassionate and puts people first, not profit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

In my experience, I have not found school trips to be that spontaneous, particularly when they are abroad. Where Members find particular instances of young people who are seeking the ability to participate in school trips—I know many Members make representations on their behalf—I urge them to use the MP account management units, which can help. Of course, in extremis—we have seen Members use the technique very effectively—questions in the House and summoning me to account in Westminster Hall can work incredibly well.

The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), acting as spokesman for the Scottish National party, which is, as he said, a pretty brave shout with his hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East sat behind him, referred to immigration policy as one size fits all. Of course, we have a separate shortage occupation list for Scotland and, importantly, the Migration Advisory Committee has over the course of the last year or so been working on the impact of Brexit and labour movement, both on a sectoral basis and regionally. That is very important work and I look forward to the report coming forward very shortly.

[David Linden]

The Government have a one-size-fits-all approach. When the Minister gave evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee, she said she would not grant to Scotland the powers she would not grant to Lincolnshire County Council, so it is quite clear that the Home Office does have a one-size-fits-all policy when it comes to UK immigration.

[Caroline Nokes]

I refute that. The Government very clearly have a separate shortage occupation list for Scotland, which I would have made clear at the Scottish Affairs Committee and am doing again today. The Migration Advisory Committee has specifically looked both at sectors and at regions. We absolutely believe that immigration policy should be reserved and I will continue to hold that view. However, I used the opportunity of the parliamentary recess to travel widely—to Scotland, Northern Ireland and, just last week, to Wales—to hold roundtables with business people and to talk to them about the impact of Brexit on labour mobility and their expectations. All of that work is important to me and feeds into the forthcoming policy on immigration post- Brexit.

I hope that I have reassured the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton that we have got round to looking at this. He asked specific questions about safeguarding children and the impact assessment for immigration and nationality fees. The Home Office takes its responsibility for the welfare of children very seriously. We make sure that we treat children with care and compassion and that is an absolute priority. I want to make it clear to him that citizenship, unlike leave to remain, is not a necessary prerequisite to enable a person to remain in the UK and enjoy any of their convention rights. As such, the Home Office’s view is that there is no breach of the European convention on human rights in requiring a person to pay a fee for citizenship applications.

Immigration Detention: Shaw Review

David Linden Excerpts

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend and thank him for the attention that he has given to this issue over several years. I join him in commending the work of the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and the focus that she has provided on this very important issue.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of his statement. However, I think you would agree, Mr Speaker, that it is totally unacceptable, even if entirely predictable, that the Government waited until the final few hours of the parliamentary term to release the new Shaw report and their response to it. I want to welcome some of what the Secretary of State has laid out in the report and in his statement, but I think we would all agree that immigration detention is a fundamental question of human rights, liberty and the rule of law, and it is outrageous that the Government are running away from scrutiny on this issue. Will the Secretary of State ensure that a full debate on the issue is scheduled for the first week back after recess?

As Scottish National party MPs have said in this Chamber time and again, the large-scale and routine detention of tens of thousands of people in large-scale private prisons, simply for the Home Office’s administrative convenience, is an affront to the rule of law and a stain on this democracy. In the light of the second Shaw report, will the Secretary of State accept that the time for tinkering is over and that we need radical reform of detention policy? Will he commit to a programme of closure of large-scale detention facilities and to ensuring that detention is a matter of last resort, rather than routine, with a goal of drastically cutting the numbers held in such facilities? I hear what he has said today, but I urge him to implement a time limit on detention similar to what we see in other EU countries. If he will not, will he allow the House to vote on the issue?

[Sajid Javid]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, but say gently that he was a little ungenerous to start by suggesting that the Government have waited until the last day before the recess. We have not been in possession of the report for long and it takes a few days for us to respond to it properly and to come forward with progress on it, so I ask him to reflect on that and approach this issue in a more constructive spirit if he really does want to help, rather than trying to score cheap political points.

The hon. Gentleman asked about an opportunity to debate the issue; I think that would be good and will raise it with the Leader of the House. The work of Select Committees and others will be very welcome scrutiny. He mentioned the size of the detention estate; I hope he welcomes the fact that the total number of available places, rather than of individual detention centres, is falling. As I said, the number of places has fallen by a quarter in the past year, which shows the direction of travel. I do want to see fewer people being detained. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that detention is a last resort. The default for immigration enforcement policy is not to detain. If someone is detained, it must be a last resort.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Linden Excerpts

Monday 16th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

UKVI issues 2.7 million visas every single year and, as I said, the vast majority are done within our service standards. I am happy to look into my right hon. Friend’s point, because in a Britain that is outward-looking, global and open for business, it is important that visas are issued efficiently.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

The Home Affairs Committee report on Home Office delivery of Brexit found that a lack of experience among staff resulted in life-changing consequences. What is the Department doing to improve the recruitment and retention of staff to make sure that, while targets are met, the quality of decision making is still ensured?

[Caroline Nokes]

The quality of decision making is of course important. We work closely with our caseworkers to make sure that they have the right level of training. In many instances, we sit senior caseworkers with those who are more junior, until such time as they can be confident in the decisions that they make.

Windrush Children (Immigration Status)

David Linden Excerpts

Monday 16th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

That is exactly what I want this country to look like—the sort of country where the hon. Lady’s constituents can have confidence here. I point out to her that it was of course Labour who, in 2008, introduced the labour market test so that people had to evidence their status, so this has not started entirely with us. But if we want to live in a country where there is a difference between legal and illegal residence, then it is absolutely right to have a system that addresses that.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

If the Secretary of State is saying that there is no way of checking whether someone has been wrongly deported, does that mean that it is the same for asylum seekers as well?

[Amber Rudd]

I only heard part of the hon. Gentleman’s question, but I can tell him that I do not know of any cases where people have been removed. However, I have said to Members here, as I have said to the high commissioners, that if they know of any cases, they should bring them to us.