Oral Answers to Questions

Douglas Ross Excerpts

Monday 8th February 2021 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

What proportion of applications for indefinite leave to remain have been successful in the last 12 months.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)]

The UK offers a wide range of routes for people to settle in the UK, including those in need of protection and those who settle through marriage or work routes. There were 80,710 decisions on applications for settlement in the UK from non-European economic area nationals in the year ending September 2020, of which 97% resulted in a grant.

[Douglas Ross [V]]

Since I was elected in 2017, I have been supporting Matt Jun Fei Freeman in his efforts to secure indefinite leave to remain. Matt has been in the UK for 17 years, and for the last nine he has made Lossiemouth and the wider Moray community his home. Will the Home Secretary agree to meet me to look at the considerable case for Matt to remain in Moray, so that he can continue to benefit from the friendship and support he gets here and so that Moray can continue to gain from Matt choosing this part of the world to be his home?

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend raises a very important case. He spelt out the duration for which Matthew has lived in the UK and in his constituency. I would be delighted to meet him to discuss the detailed nature of the case, and I am happy to follow up on the concerns he has.

Windrush Lessons Learned Review

Douglas Ross Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend will know that there are a vast number of recommendations. Wendy emphasised the need to ensure that we did not just fulfil them all immediately, but that we had the time and space to give all the recommendations the right consideration. That is why we are taking this phased approach right now.

I am focusing on two particular elements. One is the compensation; it is right that we go through case by case and look at the complexities behind individual cases. The second significant area is the culture and the Department. That is the focus and, as I have said repeatedly, I will continue to share updates on the recommendations with the House. I have also spoken about the Department now being open to more scrutiny. That will play into the review that Wendy will undertake next year with regards to the Department.

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

We have heard Members across the House express their gratitude for the Home Secretary’s commitment to dealing with this issue and her ongoing progress to address the failings identified in the report. Towards the end of her statement, she said that Wendy Williams will come back to the Home Office in September 2021 to reassess things. What will happen in the interim period? How will Ministers and officials look at progress or any potential lack of progress between now and September 2021?

[Priti Patel]

First, I assure my hon. Friend that I will continue to work with Wendy Williams throughout the implementation of recommendations. It is important that I and the Department do that. We cannot just carry on without taking that external counsel and support and advice. I think it is right that next year, in 2021—over a year in—Wendy looks at the progress of the Department, but this will be ongoing. We have to take both a measured and a responsive approach, in terms of fulfilling the recommendations.

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

Douglas Ross Excerpts

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

[Andrew Bowie]

What the Prime Minister sought to do during the election was to reassure anybody who was here and had come here under freedom of movement from the continent of Europe that they would always be welcome here. All hon. Members in this place should urge anyone they know who has not applied thus far for the settled status scheme to do so immediately, because they are welcome here and contribute hugely to our national debates and national life.

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. On his point about encouraging people to apply for settled status, does he agree that it is absolutely wrong for senior elected SNP politicians in Scotland to be urging people not to apply for settled status?

[Andrew Bowie]

If that is indeed the case, it is shameful. They should be doing everything in their power, from the position of responsibility they hold, to help and support those in this country who may be unsure about their future status here. They should urge them to apply for settled status, so that they can remain, and contribute to our country as we move forward.

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

Douglas Ross Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 16th June 2020 Public Bill Committees

The Scottish Government’s expert advisory group on migration has produced a series of papers on this subject with a whole host of possible options. These are not made up on the back of an envelope. The group’s members include experts in the field. Other experts have prepared similar papers independently. Last week, the Committee heard oral evidence from Ian Robinson of Fragomen, a leading international legal practice specialising in immigration law. As I said then, Mr Robinson had previously worked at a senior level developing Home Office policy. My colleagues and I asked him and his firm to look at international experience and to assess what options might be open to the UK to provide a degree of flexibility to Scotland. He prepared a report learning from Canada, Australia, Switzerland and New Zealand. Again, a whole host of options was put forward based on international experience. That report is publicly available.

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

Another report that is publicly available is the SNP’s White Paper ahead of the 2014 independence referendum in Scotland. Will the hon. Gentleman outline the proposals for immigration in that policy?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I have no problem in outlining the paper. This point was got up on Twitter, as if it was a gotcha for the SNP. In that White Paper we advocated a points-based immigration system for those coming from outside the EEA, but we also advocated for the free movement of people. [Interruption.] The Minister looks as if I have been caught in some sort of trap. I am perfectly happy to support a points-based system for Scotland for people coming from outside the EEA. That is not a problem at all. But there are points-based systems and there are points-based systems. [Interruption.] People are chuckling away as if I am talking nonsense, but the Canadian points-based system is significantly different from the points-based system in Australia. The system proposed by the UK Government is barely a points system, and if hon. Members speak to anyone who knows the first thing about immigration law policy, they will say that there is barely a resemblance. Despite all the rhetoric, there is a tiny resemblance between what the UK Government are proposing and what the Australian points-based system is proposing.

On the issue of flexibility and regionality, the Australian points system includes some variation to take account of the different needs of different provinces. If the Australian points-based system is so wonderful, why has it not been replicated in any meaningful sense by the UK Government, including in respect of regional flexibility? Yes, the 2014 White Paper did refer to a points-based system for people from outside the EU—one that would be tailored for Scotland’s circumstances, not one that is completely inappropriate for it.

Ian Robinson and Fragomen, leading international practitioners, looked at the example of Canada, Australia, Switzerland and New Zealand and put forward a whole host of possible options. As they said last week, one of those options would be simply to allow the free movement rules to continue to apply in Scotland. If a hotel in the highlands of Perthshire is recruiting, it can continue to recruit from the EEA just as it does now.

However, there is a huge range of possibilities, from more radical suggestions, such as retaining free movement, all the way down to tailoring the points-based system to suit Scotland’s needs. That brings me to a very modest suggestion that I am bound to bring up; it is a suggestion from my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) that I think he may have raised directly with the Minister. It is simply to ensure that points are awarded in this system for Gaelic language skills as well as for English.

This is not just about Scotland, however. The challenges in Northern Ireland will also be unbelievably acute and perhaps even more so, given the land border that it shares with a country not only where businesses benefit from free movement of people, but that runs a completely independent immigration system, tailored to meet its own needs, while still being part of the common travel area. Business in Northern Ireland may face thousands of pounds in immigration fees just to try to attract the very same people who, a few miles down the road, could take up the position totally free of cost and bureaucracy. Merely saying that this system will work for all of the UK does nothing to address that problem.

Even if the Government do not want to properly engage in debate and discussion with SNP MPs or Ministers in the Scottish Government, I urge the Minister to listen to and engage with other voices who are speaking out on this issue. Businesses, business groups, think-tanks, civic society, universities and public sector organisations are all hugely concerned about it. The Minister just needs to do a Google search for commentary in Scotland and Northern Ireland in particular on their response to the Government’s most recent proposals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Edward. Although the United Kingdom’s population is projected to rise by about 15%, it is reckoned that the population of our rural areas, including my own constituency of Argyll and Bute, will fall by as much as 8%. The situation is absolutely unsustainable because, despite Argyll and Bute being an exceptionally beautiful part of the world, we have an ageing and non-economically active population and our young people leave to spend their economically productive years outside Argyll and Bute.

To give credit to the council and to the Scottish Government, they are doing what they can to make Argyll and Bute a place that young people do not feel that they have to leave before coming back to retire—many of them do—but before that long-term goal reaches fruition, a cornerstone of Argyll and Bute Council’s plan for economic regeneration was predicated on continuing access to EU nationals and attracting them into the area. Regrettably, and through no fault of our own, that option has been taken from them; and the UK Government, having taken that option from them, now have a responsibility to provide a solution that will help those areas suffering from depopulation to recover. It is becoming increasingly clear that a major part of that would be the introduction of a regional immigration policy similar to that which works in Canada, Australia, Switzerland and other countries, and one that reflects the different needs of different parts of the country. There is no reason, other than political will, why that cannot happen here.

[Douglas Ross]

Does the hon. Gentleman therefore suggest that if we had an independent Scotland, with its own immigration system, there would be a regional variation between Argyll and Bute and Edinburgh?

[Brendan O’Hara]

Ultimately, that would be a decision for any incoming Scottish Government to make.

[Douglas Ross]

What does the hon. Gentleman think?

[Brendan O'Hara]

Personally, I think that the greater devolution of power, as widely as possible across any nation state, is an exceptionally good thing. Anything that can attract people to come, live, work, invest and raise families in our rural communities must be looked at and broadly welcomed. It was broadly welcomed in the recent Migration Advisory Committee report, which said:

“The current migration system is not very effective in dealing with the particular problems remote communities experience. If these problems are to be addressed something more bespoke for these areas is needed…The only way to address this question in the UK context would be to pilot a scheme that facilitated migration to these areas, then monitor what happens over several years and evaluate the outcomes.”

As my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East said, that idea was welcomed by the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove in a ministerial answer on 23 July 2019, where he accepted the need for the development of a pilot scheme. To date, there has been very little movement and we fear that there has been backtracking by the UK Government about what they plan to do next about setting it up.

The Minister knows that the Scottish Government stand ready to work with him to design and develop a solution that is tailored to meet Scotland’s needs. I can tell him that if the MAC is willing to provide the advice, and the Scottish Government is minded to follow that advice, then Argyll and Bute is prepared to put it itself forward as a pilot area for such a scheme. I spoke yesterday to the chief executive of Argyll and Bute Council, Pippa Milne, who confirmed that the council would be happy to work with the UK Government and the MAC to see how a bespoke regional immigration system would work in practice. Will the Minister act on the MAC recommendation, which was supported by the former Home Secretary, and help Scotland to fight the curse of depopulation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

We made it clear in the policy statement that we put out in February that we were not planning a remote areas pilot. Again, the thing that we must focus on is that many of the pull factors exist. It is within the competence of the Scottish Government to deal with those issues, and to create something and tackle them.

I have seen how Members of Parliament in the north-east of Scotland, including my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), are pushing for the creation of those economic opportunities that they want in parts of rural Scotland. Perhaps the one hope that we have on this point is that there is a Scottish Parliament election coming next year. I hope that there will be a more business-focused, opportunity-based Administration in Edinburgh, which will be focused on developing Scotland, not separating it.

[Douglas Ross]

I agree wholeheartedly with the Minister’s point about the number of factors that are within the remit of the Scottish Parliament and on which the Scottish National party Government of Scotland have failed.

We have heard from SNP Members that they want their own immigration system. Indeed, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute said that they would design and tailor one. Does the Minister share my concern that we heard similar reassurances from the SNP Scottish Government about social security—yet they had to tell the UK Government that they could not take those powers because they could not implement the changes quickly enough in Scotland?

[Kevin Foster]

My hon. Friend, as always, hits the nail straight on the head with his arguments. Yes, we had many demands for devolution of policy, but then the Scottish Government did not want to take them up. Suddenly there was a new group of Unionists wanting the United Kingdom Government to deal with something in Scotland.

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

Douglas Ross Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 11th June 2020 Public Bill Committees

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I beg to move amendment 16, in clause 4, page 3, line 28, at end insert—

“(11) Subject to subsection (13), regulations made under subsection (1) must make provision for ensuring that all qualifying persons have within the United Kingdom the rights set out in Title II of Part 2 of the Withdrawal Agreement, the EEA EFTA separation agreement and the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement and implementing the following provisions—

(a) Article 18(4) of the Withdrawal Agreement (Issuance of residence documents);

(b) Article 17(4) of the EEA EFTA separation agreement (Issuance of residence documents); and

(c) Article 16(4) of the Swiss citizens’ rights agreement (Issuance of residence documents).

(12) In this section, “qualifying persons” means—

(a) those persons falling within the scope of the agreements referred to; and

(b) those eligible under the residence scheme immigration rules, as defined by section 17(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.

(13) Notwithstanding subsection (11), regulations must confer a right of permanent, rather than temporary, residence on all qualifying persons residing in the UK prior to 5 March 2020.”.

This amendment would mean that EEA and Swiss citizens residing in the UK would automatically have rights under Article 18(4) of the Withdrawal Agreement (and equivalent provisions in the EEA EFTA and Swiss citizens rights agreements) rather than having to apply for them, and ensure that for the overwhelming majority, that status is permanent.

I feel a little like somebody who has been banging his head against a brick wall, and I am sure other hon. Members feel the same. This is a return to the debate about whether the European Union settlement scheme should be a constitutive or a declaratory scheme. That sounds quite technical, but it is not really. The Government say, “We’ll give you a right to remain, and you can retain your rights, if you apply.” That will inevitably mean a—hopefully small—percentage missing out and losing their rights in this country. Scottish National party Members say we should put it into the Bill that EU and EEA nationals automatically have these rights. Doing so would fulfil a promise made by the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and, indeed, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster during the referendum campaign, when they said quite expressly that everybody would retain their right to be in this country, and that there would be no need for any application at all.

Before we go too far into the debate, I want to say that Ministers quite often stand up and tell us about the success, and fairly so, of the settlement scheme so far. Opposition MPs obviously asked questions, such as about why it was not working on the Apple iPhone or whatever else, how the numbers were progressing or why so many people were given pre-settled status. However, I am happy to say, as I have many times before, that it has exceeded my expectations. The Home Office has reached more EU and EEA nationals than I anticipated. It does not have a wonderful record with IT over the last 10, 15 or 20 years, but on this occasion it has done a decent job.

However, the fact remains that—with the best will in the world, even if the Home Office gets to 95% of its target crowd—that still leaves hundreds of thousands of people who will fail to apply in time. I have asked repeatedly what estimate the Home Office has made of how close to 100% it will get, and what the implications of that are, in terms of dealing with the 100,000 folk who will overnight be without rights this time next year. We really need to get to the nub of this.

Other amendments offer alternatives, exploring different cut-off points and different solutions as to how to treat applicants who come to the Home Office after the cut-off date, but we still insist that the much simpler solution would be to say, in this or another Bill, that if someone meets the criteria, they retain their rights, even if they do not apply.

The Home Office seems to suggest that folk will not apply. In fact, during an evidence session on Tuesday, the Minister asked a question on how looked-after children would prove that they had rights. It is simple: they would apply to the EU settlement scheme. We are not saying, “Just ditch all the work that has gone on for the past 18 months to two years.” We are saying, “Keep that work, but make it so that it is not the digital whatever you get that gives you the rights, but that the rights come from the legislation, and you get that document”—if we have our way—“or a digital code to prove your rights.”

Probably the best way to explain this would be with reference to British citizenship, which is the most obvious example I can call to mind of another declaratory system. No one in this room gets their rights as a British citizen from their passport or from any other document; we have our rights to British citizenship declared in law, in the British Nationality Act 1981. It does not cause us difficulties if for the first few years of our lives we do not have proof of that; indeed, if we do not go abroad on holiday, we can actually go through until we are perhaps 14, 15 or even 18 years old without having to access that proof. That is not a problem.

That works perfectly well for British citizenship—it becomes convenient for lots of people, at a certain time, to get a passport or wherever else to prove that they can exercise their rights—and it would be exactly the same with the EU settlement scheme. All these people will want to work or to access social security or housing, if they are subject to the right-to-rent scheme, so they will still have every incentive to apply to the EU settlement scheme. The amendment would just mean that if, for whatever reason, they did not apply, their rights were protected.

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

Would the hon. Gentleman consider whether perhaps one reason some people, particularly in Scotland, would not apply for the scheme is because, despite his having praised it today and said it has exceeded his expectations, SNP politicians in Scotland have encouraged people not to apply? I raised this issue when he and I were members of the Home Affairs Committee. The messaging that comes out should be far clearer. Does he accept that, whether or not he agrees with the scheme, the advice not to apply that some SNP politicians are giving is unhelpful?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I have had that intervention before, and I think I answered it. There is one individual who would be expected to apply to the scheme but at some point in the past—I am not sure what his current position is—he said that as a point of principle he does not want to apply. I have said previously that I do not agree with him, but the hon. Gentleman cannot possibly accuse the Scottish Government or the SNP of not being clear about the messaging—they have invested considerable sums of their own money in outreach and in attempting to get as many folk as possible to sign up to the scheme. For that reason, I do not accept the premise. I disagree with that one colleague, but I absolutely reject the premise that we have been anything other than clear in encouraging people to sign up.

The reasons folk will not sign up are not related to the position of an individual politician. Folk will not sign up because they are vulnerable, as we have spoken about—care leavers; children; elderly people who perhaps were settled and had permanent residence under the old EU scheme; and people who quite simply just do not understand that they have to do it.

There are really complicated questions involved. For example, lots of folk will think, “Well, I was born in the United Kingdom, so I am British,” but in actual fact whether or not they are British depends on a million different things. It depends on the marital status of their parents, depending on when they were born. It depends on their date of birth. It might even depend on when a particular country joined the EU, as that can have an impact on the conferring of nationality. There are millions of different issues.

It is beyond doubt that on 1 July next year we are going to wake up in a United Kingdom that has 100,000 people who do not have the right to be in this country. We have to be constructive and come up with a solution, but we do not yet have enough from the Government on what they want to do. We get told, “We’ll be reasonable,” but that really does not cut. We need to do better than that, which is why we have tabled other amendments to push the Government to be much more explicit about how they are going to treat folk who apply after the deadline, for whatever reason.

The simple point, which is consistent with all the work that has gone before and does not undermine it in any way, is to turn around now and say, “Right, we are doing well, but we are just going to say that everybody has these rights. Continue to apply so that you can go about living your lives without being refused renting or a job or whatever else, but you have these rights.” It is a simple matter and would avoid a tremendous headache that would make Windrush look almost insignificant. That was cataclysmic; this situation risks being considerably worse.

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

Douglas Ross Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 9th June 2020 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

May I just check that Mr McTague is there? Apparently, he is not. We will try to get him back.

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

Q Just while we are waiting to reconnect, I notice that the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry sometimes speaks on behalf of other chambers—in your answers you have said a number of times, “And my colleagues in other chambers.” What dialogue have you had with, for example, the Scottish chambers of commerce and others around the country to speak on their behalf?

Richard Burge: Just quickly, there is a thing called the British Chamber of Commerce, which is a hub body.

[Douglas Ross]

Q The Scottish chambers of commerce are not part of that.

Richard Burge: No, but individual chambers—the 53 member chambers across the UK—are members.

[Douglas Ross]

Q So only eight in Scotland.

Richard Burge: That is right. There are 53 accredited chambers.

[Douglas Ross]

Q So just to check for the record, a large proportion of the chambers that you are speaking about are not the Scottish chambers.

Richard Burge: No.

[The Chair]

Do we have Mr McTague?

Martin McTague: Yes, I am here. Sorry, the line dropped.

Immigration

Douglas Ross Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I agree wholeheartedly. I will come shortly to the issue of the 3 million EU citizens in the UK and how we risk repeating some of the mistakes that were made when the Windrush scandal broke. I just want to finish the list of those who have already been affected by the hostile environment, which includes the people who the Home Office agrees have been victims of trafficking, but who it does not think even merit a short period of leave to remain. The list of people impacted by the hostile environment goes on and on.

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman said he would come back to the point made by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone). Will he also use this opportunity to clarify for anyone watching this debate that cases of constituents needing to travel 500 miles will happen only during the initial trial phase, and that when the full scheme is rolled out people will be able to complete the process through the post office or—[Interruption.] SNP Members are shouting, but we have to put both sides of the story so that we do not unnecessarily raise alarms when there are other methods that people can use to apply for the scheme.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman makes a fair enough point, but the Home Office still has to do more to make the EU settlement scheme as accessible as possible. I will return to these points in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I commend the work that his Committee has done in this area. It would be useful if the Home Office paid close heed to it.

I have discussed what we need to do to avoid repeating the mistakes of the Windrush generation.

[Douglas Ross]

The hon. Gentleman is outlining some concerns about the implications of people not applying for settled status. Does he therefore take exception to his SNP colleague, an MEP for Scotland, publicly saying that he will not apply for settled status and in that way encourage others to follow suit, which may see them fall through the gaps?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Every individual must make their own call about whether they want to apply. I, for one, would certainly encourage all my constituents and all the EU nationals watching this to sign up for the scheme, but that does not take away from my essential point that they should not be asked to apply to stay in their own home in the first place. These rights should be enshrined in law right now.

It is not just in terms of the 3 million that we need radical change. All across the field of immigration, there is a massive job of work to do to help to fix the lives that have already been messed up by migration policies and to ensure that we avoid messing up so many more—to build a system that actually benefits our economy and society instead of undermining them and sowing division. Everyone in this House will have had many cases, as we have already heard, where we think that the rules are unfair.

This debate provides an opportunity to make the case for reform as we look ahead to the next chapter in immigration law form. I want to mention four areas very briefly, but there are a million more that I could flag up. First, I turn to the issue of families, which has already been raised. In pursuit of the net migration target, this country has adopted almost the most restrictive family rules in the world, with an extraordinary income requirement and ludicrously complicated rules and restrictions on how that requirement can be met. Over 40% of the UK population would not be entitled to live in this country with a non-EU spouse. The figures are even worse for women, for ethnic minorities, and for different parts of the UK. The Children’s Commissioner previously wrote a damning report about the 15,000 Skype children—there must now be many, many more—who get to see their mum or dad only via the internet, thanks to these rules, which force too many to pick between their country and their loved ones. It is appalling that the Home Office seems determined to extend these rules to EU spouses so that many more thousands of families will be split apart. We should be ditching these awful rules, not making more families suffer.

Secondly, there is citizenship. I have met with the Minister representatives of the Project for Registration of Children as British Citizens, and I know that last week she met the organisation, Let Us Learn. The Home Secretary has acknowledged in evidence to the Home Affairs Committee that over £1,000 is an incredible amount to charge children simply to process a citizenship application when they are entitled to that citizenship. The administrative cost is about £400, so over £600 is a subsidy for other Home Office activities. There is no excuse for funding the Home Office by overcharging kids for their citizenship. At the very least, the fee must be reduced to no more than the administrative charge. More broadly, we need to reduce the ridiculous fees that are being charged across the immigration system, especially to children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

It is sometimes a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr), but I am not so sure today. I was struck by his description of the arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) as “tedious”, by his use of the term “snake oil” and by his talking, as ever, at the end of his speech about the obsession with the constitution. It dawned on me that I have heard this speech before: it is his single, transferable British nationalist rant. It then dawned on me—this is something I thought I would never say—that my length of service in this House is almost twice the combined service of all the Tory Back Benchers here, including the Parliamentary Private Secretary. We will have to have another debate about immigration when the grown-up, experienced MPs from the Tory party can be bothered to do their jobs.

[Douglas Ross]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stewart Hosie]

No, I will not on that point.

I am delighted to be called in this debate. I am pleased that it does not simply focus on the Prime Minister’s toxic legacy on immigration and the hostile environment that she and her hapless Government created, but recognises the positive contribution that immigrants and immigration bring to the country. In this debate, in this Chamber and in the country, I am sure that there will be positive discussion about how we improve the system to make it far more humane and—this is where I agree with the hon. Member for Stirling—far less arbitrary than it is at present. I am also pleased that the motion specifically references Scottish needs on immigration, both for demographic and different economic sectoral reasons. This is important, particularly for Scotland’s growth sectors, which I will say more about in a moment, along with making a small number of other specific points.

I note the value and benefit that migrants, and EU migrants in particular, bring to the economy and I will cite four of Scotland’s growth sectors to demonstrate that. In Scotland alone, in the food, drink and agriculture sector, 10,000 EU migrants are employed. That is 12% of total employment in the sector. One in eight people working in that entire sector is an EU or EEA worker. In tourism in Scotland, there are 17,000 EU workers, which is 9.5% of the total employment in that sector. In the creative sector, there are 10,000. Even in finance and business services, 9,000 workers—or 4% of the total employment in that growth sector—are from the European Union. That is before there is any mention of the contribution that migrants and migrant workers make to health and other vital public services. It is clear from those few examples that any attempt to constrain or restrict the flow of EU labour in any way would be profoundly damaging for businesses in Scotland. Their costs would undoubtedly rise—that is, if alternatives could be found at all—and output, particularly in agriculture, would most certainly suffer.

My second point is that inward migration delivers almost all the net population growth expected for Scotland. Without it, over the medium term, the population would remain static, but have a higher proportion of older people. Migration is therefore vital to ensuring that the proportion of working-age people is maintained, so that there are people to do the jobs that need to be done, and to pay the taxes to fund the public services on which we rely.

The Government’s argument is that there is still a mechanism in place for people to come, and the Minister spoke about the number of people coming to the EU in various capacities, but all sorts of skilled labour—not just highly paid skilled labour—is mobile; that is how it can come to Scotland, and to the UK. If we put up barriers, be they real, hard, financial, or even soft, perceived barriers, we limit the number of people who want to and can come to Scotland, because it might simply be easier for them to go elsewhere.

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate. I want to pick up on—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) is scuttling away, but I am going to mention him in the next 30 seconds, so I ask him not to scuttle out too quickly. I would like to start, however, by praising the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) for the way he introduced this debate and the measured and reasoned arguments he put forward. I may not always agree with what he says but, as a colleague on the Home Affairs Committee, I think he always raises extremely valid points and puts them across in a sensible manner and I appreciate the way he did that today. That may not have won him much praise from his colleagues, but it was worth saying.

The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) mentioned how many people had contacted her over the immigration issue and many other matters. I remember that she even had to take to Twitter once because she could not do her shopping in Waitrose or M&S, I think, because of the volume of people who had been contacting her about the issue, but I gently say that at least some of the constituents she represents take a different view from her, so when their views are portrayed from this side of the Chamber I do not think they should be shouted down in the way they have been today by Members of the SNP.

[Joanna Cherry]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but perhaps he would care to remember that 72% of people in Edinburgh South West voted to remain in the single market and the customs union. That is what informs the weight of emails I get about the importance of freedom of movement. I get hardly any—one in a blue moon—that oppose freedom of movement and hundreds in favour of it.

[Douglas Ross]

I am grateful for that intervention, but according to the hon. and learned Lady’s own figures 28% of her constituents take a different view, and I think that should sometimes be heard in this Chamber, and of course we all remember that her constituents also voted to remain in the United Kingdom when we had the Scottish independence referendum in 2014.

I am grateful that the hon. Member for Dundee East did not leave the Chamber as I started speaking. He decided that Scottish Conservative Members did not have enough experience to speak in this debate—that we were too young, too silly, too short of experience to contribute to this debate. Then when I tried to intervene on him he was too feart to take the intervention. [Interruption.] And he is now too feart to even listen to this; he cannot even stay in the Chamber. Well, I have more to say about him: he was too feart to listen to Scottish Conservative Members then, and he is too feart now because he has walked out of the Chamber. Sometimes some people say that, with experience and longevity in this Chamber, you also become boring and irrelevant, and I have to say, having looked at the faces of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues as he was speaking, I think he has now reached that point in his career. That is perhaps why he has left—he has no love on those Benches and he has none from these Benches, given the despicable way that he spoke in the debate. [Interruption.] We are very excited today, aren’t we? [Interruption.] SNP Members are asking where other Conservative Members are. The SNP parliamentary membership is 35, and I think we have less than a third of them here today for their own debate. For their own debate, they cannot even get more than a third of their Members to turn up. Perhaps the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West will get a few more back into the Chamber today.

We have also heard much in this debate from SNP Members about the “hostile environment” and we have heard lots of quotes from SNP Members about what the Conservative Government have done and what the Labour Government did. I am surprised, however, that not a single SNP Member has quoted their own party leader, because we all remember that Nicola Sturgeon said in July 2014, when she was Deputy First Minister and a key figure in the SNP independence campaign of that year:

“We have set down a robust and common sense position”

on the issue of immigration and migration. She went on to say:

“If Scotland was outside Europe”

EU nationals would

“lose the right to stay here.”

That is a direct quote from Nicola Sturgeon from the SNP. That was their position as they were fighting for separation for Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom. I am glad we have a more measured response in the UK Home Office and the UK Government.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman completely misrepresents the point the First Minister was making at that time. She is well known for being absolutely in favour of free movement, which would have been lost if Scotland was outside the European Union—which it would not have been, by the way. It is completely wrong to mischaracterise her as saying that people would not have been allowed to stay; she was simply stating, as a matter of fact, that free movement rights would have come to an end.

[Douglas Ross]

I am not sure I can do anything different than quote the First Minister’s words back to the hon. Gentleman. Nicola Sturgeon said in July 2014:

“We have set down a robust and common sense position. If Scotland was outside Europe”—

which it would have been if it had separated from the rest of the United Kingdom,

“they”—

EU nationals—

“would lose the right to stay here.”

That is what the First Minister said, verbatim.

I am grateful that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, who led for the SNP, agrees with my next point. We have seen a number of comments in the press by someone who was at the time an SNP councillor and has now become one of its representatives in the European Parliament. I respect Christian Allard’s right to have a personal opinion on whether to apply for settled status but he is also in elected office, and I am concerned that his comments encouraging people not to apply for settled status could lead people into a difficult situation.

On 12 February this year, the Home Affairs Committee held an evidence session on the settled status scheme, and I asked witnesses what advice they would give if professionals or politicians were encouraging people not to apply for settled status. Nicole Masri, the legal officer for Rights of Women, said:

“We would really be encouraging all professionals to relay the message that people have to apply for this scheme”.

Danny Mortimer, the chief executive of NHS Employers, said:

“Our advice is: the system is there; you have to apply.”

The hon. Gentleman said at the start of this debate that he would also be encouraging all his constituents to apply for settled status, and I hope that we will get that consistent message from politicians representing all parts of Scotland in all Parliaments. The advice that Christian Allard is proffering could be dangerous for people who might think it acceptable not to apply for settled status and then fall into significant problems.

I want briefly to mention an issue that I have raised on numerous occasions about non-EEA workers in our fishing industry. It is an issue that has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) for the SNP, by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for the Liberal Democrats and by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for the Democratic Unionist party. I raised this at Home Office questions just a couple of weeks ago, and I certainly will not be objecting to the Minister responding to this debate, in the hope that she can again focus on the point that I and many other hon. and right hon. Members have made. The Minister has cited the Migration Advisory Committee in this regard, although she did quote it directly. It has stated:

“There is no case for schemes for particular sectors within the immigration system other than for agriculture, which has some unique characteristics”.

I worked in agriculture before I was elected, so I have gone from green fields to green Benches, and I know exactly that there are unique characteristics within the agriculture sector. Representing Moray, a coastal community, I also know there are unique characteristics within the fishing industry, and I believe that we have to look again at allowing non-EEA workers to come into our fleet. I mentioned my constituent, Douglas Scott, when I held a Westminster Hall debate on this issue. Douglas is from Lossiemouth and his boat is now being tied up. He cannot run his business because he cannot get staff from outwith the EEA to work with him.

The Minister has previously said that part of the problem with the previous system was down to certain people being exploited. That is a problem, and we have to deal with the exploitation. We have to deal with the crew and the skippers who exploit staff, but we do not have to absolutely rule out a system that has worked in the past. It has had problems, but I believe we must tackle the problems rather than saying that the system as a whole cannot be allowed to continue.

I am considering your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker, on the amount of time we can speak. I appreciate the SNP’s bringing forward this debate today. It is useful to discuss immigration in Scotland and across the United Kingdom. I welcome the publication by the UK Government of the immigration White Paper, and particularly the listening exercise—a year-long consultation to hear the views of communities, organisations and individuals across the country. I am extremely grateful to the Minister, the Home Secretary and the Department for listening to the significant concerns raised by Scottish Conservative MPs about the £30,000 threshold and I welcome the fact that this is now under review.

I also agree that we do not need a differentiated immigration system for Scotland. That point has been well made in this debate by my hon. Friends the Members for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) and for East Renfrewshire (Paul Masterton). The point has been made not just in this Chamber but outwith the Chamber. A report published by the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford has stated that it is

“not clear that significant regional variation would lead to a better match between policy and regional economic needs”.

We have also heard from a number of organisations in Scotland. CBI Scotland has said:

“Let’s get it right for the whole UK. The better the outcome we get, the less need for variation across the UK and the less companies need to worry about doubled up systems and extra red tape.”

The Food and Drink Federation Scotland has referred to:

“Significant variations in approach to integration and reception that may impact on”—

our members’—

“ability to attract workers or relocate them to the required locations whether in Scotland or the rest of the UK”.

The Scottish Chamber of Commerce has said that its

“network does not believe that the devolution of immigration powers to Scotland is necessary to achieve a business solution to migration targets”.

The National Farmers Union Scotland has said that its

“preference is that Scotland’s influence should lead to a UK-wide system that meets our needs”.

I agree with CBI Scotland, the Food and Drink Federation Scotland, the Scottish Chamber of Commerce and NFU Scotland that a separated policy for Scotland would not be good for Scotland’s interests or our constituents’ interests, and I am pleased that the Government are not going to go down that route. I welcome the White Paper that the Government have published, and I look forward to the listening exercise. I hope that the Minister has listened to some of the concerns that I have put forward today on behalf of my constituents in Moray.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joanna Cherry]

Well, that is debatable. The point that they are making is, I suppose, in keeping with their unionism—that they would like to see a UK-wide solution.

The hon. Member for Stirling indicated that he had many problems with the Migration Advisory Committee’s report, but basically says that he wants a UK-wide solution. However, there does not seem to be much sign of a UK-wide solution that will resolve the concerns that have been expressed by the Scottish Conservatives, by business, by the universities, by the trade unions, and by the public in Scotland. I put this question to the Scottish Conservatives: if there is not going to be a UK-wide solution, would they support a Scotland-specific solution?

[Douglas Ross]

The hon. and learned Lady says, “This is the Scottish Conservative position”, but does she accept that it is also the position of CBI Scotland, Scotland Food and Drink and NFU Scotland? They are not Scottish Conservatives. We are articulating the views of these very substantial organisations.

[Joanna Cherry]

No, I do not accept that, because many in business have said that they are prepared to look at Scotland-specific solutions. The Scottish Government are doing a lot of work with business on selected policy areas and directed solutions. My very good friend the Minister, and MSP for Edinburgh Northern and Leith, Ben Macpherson, is working on that with business in Scotland at the moment.

I put the question back to the Scottish Conservatives: if there is not a UK-wide solution that helps Scotland, are they willing to take the hit on Scotland’s population and economy, or will they, like their leader, Ruth Davidson, simply make speeches about how they have quibbles with UK Government immigration policy, but never actually do anything about it? I suspect that most of us know the answer to that question.

Oral Answers to Questions

Douglas Ross Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

As the proud Member of Parliament for one of the most rural constituencies in England, I know only too well the trouble that farmers and landowners can have with antisocial behaviour, including, for example, hare coursing. A range of powers is available to the police, depending on the type of criminality involved. I am very happy to involve my hon. Friend in the discussions we are currently having to see what more we can do to tackle hare coursing in particular.

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

15. What recent progress he has made in enabling the fishing industry to employ non-EEA workers on inshore fishing boats.

[The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)]

As part of the future borders and immigration system, we have launched a year-long engagement programme to seek the views of stakeholders, including the fishing industry, and I am listening very carefully to what they have to say. I have met representatives of the industry on several occasions, as has my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and we are reflecting on the views expressed.

[Douglas Ross]

The Minister has previously said that:

“there was no case for schemes for particular sectors in the immigration system, other than agriculture, which has some unique characteristics.”—[Official Report, 8 April 2019; Vol. 658, c. 153.]

I am sure the Minister and everyone accepts that the fishing industry has unique characteristics as well. Although we want local labour to do these jobs in future, they are not ready and able to do them now. Will she look again at this with an open mind, because our fishermen are crying out for a solution?

[Caroline Nokes]

I reassure my hon. Friend that I was quoting the Migration Advisory Committee when I said that agriculture is a unique sector with characteristics that justify the sectoral scheme, and the Government have certainly listened to that advice. He will know that we are undertaking a year of engagement as part of the proposals set out in the immigration White Paper, and no final decision will be taken on the future system until that is complete.

Serious Violence

Douglas Ross Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ms Abbott]

Sadly, there are still tensions in many of our communities between young people and the police. Those tensions will be easier to deal with when we have the right levels of police funding and the right number of police officers. I do not doubt that my hon. Friend is correct when she says there are young people who do not necessarily report the injustices they think they have experienced.

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

The shadow Home Secretary talked about the right levels of police funding and police officers. Can she tell me what the right level of funding is, given that she voted against this Government’s increase in funding to the police?

[Ms Abbott]

People should stop using that old Whips Office line. The reason we voted against the Government’s proposal on funding was that we did not think it was enough money. Hopefully, nobody will raise that point again.

Government austerity has contributed to increases in the factors underlying the causes of serious violent crime, undermined prevention and cut police numbers, so there are inevitably fewer arrests and convictions. Ministers and other Members will say that the Government have recently increased spending on the police. In real terms, if we take away the precept, and once the cost of police pensions is taken—[Interruption.] We are talking about central Government funding. The problem with the precept, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) will perhaps explain to Conservative Members, is that it inevitably falls more heavily on poorer areas than on wealthier areas. We are saying that the claims about increased spending are not as impressive as they might seem, once we take away the cost of police pensions, which had to be met, and once we realise that much of that increased spending actually comes from the precept rather than central Government spending. In any event, this is a sticking plaster on a gaping wound—a wound inflicted by the Government’s own cuts.

The National Audit Office, which I hope will not be accused of being party political, has previously shown that central Government funding for the police has been cut in real terms since 2010. Offensive Weapons Bills and knife crime orders are one thing, but communities also need actual police officers in place to make use of those new legislative options.

It should be clear that Ministers are in danger of tying themselves in knots. On the one hand, they have tried to insist in the past that there is no correlation between the cuts they have imposed on the police and rising serious violent crime. On the other hand, the Home Secretary has boasted to us today that the Government are now providing more resources to the police. Which is it? Do police resources and police strength have anything to do with rising crime and falling arrest rates? Or are the recent, relatively modest resources provided to the police purely decorative and designed to get Back-Bench Tory MPs off Ministers’ backs? Are they supposed to stop the crisis in funding and police strength getting worse? If so, is that not a tacit admission of the huge damage that Government cuts have caused?

I have mentioned the overall cuts in central Government funding for the police. However, as was mentioned earlier, the head of the National Crime Agency says that an extra £2.7 billion is needed to tackle organised crime. As it happens, that is close to the amount that has been cut from the police budget since 2010. We also learn that there is now a cost over-run in the emergency services network of £3.1 billion pounds. Ministers have not yet come to the House to explain that and what they intend to do about it—and that at a time when billions have been cut from police budgets.

The effect is clear. In March 2018, there were 122,400 police officers in the police forces of England and Wales. That is a fall of 15% since March 2010, or a decline of 21,300 officers. All the new law, all the new orders, all the committees and all the reviews in the world cannot compensate for losing 21,300 officers. It is also relevant that the rate of those leaving the police force has almost doubled since 2010. Stress and overwork are taking their toll on under-resourced officers. There are now fewer police officers in England and Wales than there were in 1982. Of course, the under-resourcing of individual forces by this Government means that some forces are in an even worse position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Newlands]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I am not surprised, sadly, that the Home Secretary has left. I was surprised, though, that in his very long speech, much of which we can agree with, he made very little mention of the public health model. It took interventions from Opposition Members to try to draw out his opinion on the public health model, and that was a shame.

[Douglas Ross]

The hon. Gentleman is always very keen on parity, so just for reference and for Hansard, could he confirm where the shadow Home Secretary is?

[Gavin Newlands]

I have no knowledge, for the Hansard record, as to the location of the shadow Home Secretary.

[Douglas Ross]

She is not here.

[Gavin Newlands]

She is not here, but as the SNP spokesperson in this debate, I am not here to answer for the Labour Front Bench, to be perfectly honest. I shall move on from the issue of where Ministers and shadow Ministers are.

As I said, the public health model requires multi-sectoral co-operation. Violence is a complex issue that comes in many forms and encompasses, but is not limited to, verbal, physical, sexual and emotional abuse. Only by tackling the causes of violence, not just the symptoms, can we break the cycle of violence and reduce the impact that it has on individuals, their families, and all our communities.

The Scottish crime and justice survey shows, as of 26 March, a 46% fall between 2008-09 and 2017-18 in violent incidents experienced by adults in Scotland. Violent crime is rare, with just 2.3% of adults experiencing it in the latest year—down from 4.1% in 2008-09. Police-recorded non-sexual violent crime remains at one of its lowest levels since 1974. Emergency admissions to hospital due to assault have more than halved since 2006-07—down by 55%. Emergency admissions due to assault with a sharp object have also fallen substantially in that period, and the number of homicides has more than halved.

Those stats clearly highlight some fantastic progress on this hugely important issue, but it is not enough. Too many people, particularly young people, are still being admitted to hospital and still dying. We must do more; we cannot simply rest on our laurels.

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands). It is important that he highlights the success, as others have, of the violence reduction unit in Scotland. As he says, it is a model that has been praised across the country and across the world.

Importantly, we must recognise that it is not the answer to all our problems. I do not think that that is what he was suggesting. When I questioned witnesses at the Home Affairs Committee, it was clear that we can learn from it—there is no doubt about it—but to say that it is the answer to all our problems would be gravely wrong. We look at good practice across the country and across the world, which is important, but we should not just say, “Well, if it works in Glasgow, it can be moved down to London”, because, for example, things that Police Scotland does in Glasgow do not have the same positive impact in my constituency of Moray. We have to remember that there are different solutions for different problems across the country.

It might seem strange for a Scottish Member to be speaking on an issue that is largely devolved, but I am a member of the Home Affairs Committee, and this is an issue that the entire Committee takes very seriously. I look forward to listening to the Chair, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), and other members later.

I did think that it was important to contribute to a debate on this subject. It is important that this debate is being held on the Floor of the House of Commons. I agree with the shadow Home Secretary that it is welcome that the Home Secretary led this debate for the Government and the shadow Home Secretary led for the Opposition. Only when we get the top players in this entire Parliament discussing this issue of grave importance will we give it the respect it is due. The fact is that we have dedicated so much time to it on the Floor of the House of Commons, and there is clearly interest across Parliament and from various different MPs across the country.

We listened to the Home Secretary, and in multiple interventions he was challenged on what the Government are doing. We also listened to what the Opposition are doing. This is a serious issue—it is a matter of importance for the entire country—but I will be honest: I have been disappointed by the contributions so far from those on the Opposition Benches. [Interruption.] I am sorry if that disappoints the shadow Home Secretary and if my disappointment in her is disappointing, but I have to say that all we have heard today is problems, not solutions. She says there is not enough funding for x, y or z—I intervened on the shadow Home Secretary when she was saying we need more police officers and more funding for the police—yet the Opposition vote against such funding because it is not enough. It might not be enough in the eyes of the Opposition, but surely it is better than what they are currently saying is not enough. Any increase should be supported across Parliament. It seems very hollow outside Parliament for them to try to explain that they believe there should be more funding for the police—more resources going into the police, more officers employed, more youth workers, more x, y and z—yet when there are opportunities to support the Government on a cross-party basis with increased funding for these vital resources, Opposition Members vote against that.

I shall speak briefly about the public health approach and the joined-up approach. When, last week, the Minister appeared before the Committee, I put it to her that it is positive that we can get Departments working together on such a crucial issue, but that there is a risk that when a cross-Government approach is adopted there are too many people in charge and no one takes overall responsibility. Is violent crime the most important issue for the Education Department or the Health Department or the Home Office? At times there is a need for leadership, and I worry that by taking too much of a public health approach—by combining all the Departments to say “this is a priority”—we could lose some emphasis and some leadership.

I nevertheless support the Government’s approach. We have joined-up working so we can also have joined-up understanding and joined-up solutions. On balance I think it is the right way to go, but we must always remember the potential pitfalls. I worry that if an issue becomes a priority for all areas, it can become a priority for none.

The Home Secretary and others mentioned drugs. In some parts of the country there has been significant success in tackling drugs. However, as a constituent mentioned to me recently, when there is a big drugs bust and drug dealers are brought to task by the police, sentenced and removed from the community, we should not suppose that demand for drugs has reduced, because it has not—it is simply that the supply of drugs at that point has reduced. Our local papers, certainly in Moray, understandably write very positively about big drugs busts that succeed in getting drug dealers. Such busts are very rare in Moray—we live in a very safe part of the country—but when they occur the local papers praise the police for how much they have done to remove those people from our streets. However, we have not removed the problem. More must be done to enable us to understand the underlying reasons people use drugs and why there is a need to tackle those drug dealers. As I say, a drugs bust does not get rid of the demand; it only reduces supply at that point in time.

County lines took up a large part of the speeches by the Home Secretary, the shadow Home Secretary and others. The problem seems to have increased unbelievably over the past few years. As the Home Secretary mentioned, the current estimate is that in 2019 there are 2,000 county lines in operation across the country. Just four years ago, in 2015, the National Crime Agency was saying that only seven police forces were affected by county lines. By 2017, that had increased to every police force in the country, and it is incredible that there has been such a large increase in county lines in such a short time.

I welcome the approach the Government have taken to tackle that issue, because it affects every single constituency. A crime that begins in London can rapidly end up in Aberdeen, and if it is in Aberdeen it can quickly spread to Moray and other parts of the country. Something that we believe is a crime problem in the south of England can, because of county lines, quickly become a crime problem across the country.

Young people are intrinsically involved in the problems we are experiencing with serious violence and, I believe, in the solutions to serious violence. At the Home Affairs Committee about three or four weeks ago, one of our fellow MPs was appearing before us as a member of the panel of witnesses, and she made it very clear that Members of the Youth Parliament had voted knife crime their top campaign issue. Despite that, we, as members of the Committee—I would be interested to hear the remarks of the Chair of the Committee—have not questioned or listened to young people. We take panels of senior police officers or experts in their fields—the Children’s Commissioner, the Victims’ Commissioner and others—but we do not hear directly from young people.

Yes, it is important that we, as Members, can stand up in Parliament and express young people’s thoughts, and pass on what they have said in the Youth Parliament, and the fact that they have made knife crime their top priority, but surely we should also be listening to them directly—listening to their concerns, listening to what they have to say, and listening to their solutions. It would be very useful to hear from the Youth Parliament in this inquiry and in other inquiries going forward. When some young people gave us a confidential briefing, that was perhaps one of the most enlightening aspects of our evidence session on serious and violent crime.

That brings me to my final point. I often refer to my interest outside Parliament in sport. The young people we heard from, who were involved in the programme and wanted to speak to the Committee anonymously, felt that sport could have done so much to take them away from a life of crime. When they got into a life of crime and serious violence, it was sport that they were able to focus on to ensure they got out of that habit.

[Julian Knight]

My hon. Friend may have caught the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee report on the social impact of sport. It can help young people and it can help reduce reoffending. One issue I have is that there is not enough joined-up thinking in the criminal justice system in relation to participation in sport and its help in reducing reoffending.

[Douglas Ross]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s point. The focus on reoffending is most important. When the Minister gave evidence last week, I think she had recently been speaking to the Premier League about how we use sport as a tool to work with young people. So much sport goes on every day of the week all across the country. There is untapped potential to use sport as a key to improve our relationship with young people.

[Rushanara Ali]

I know the hon. Gentleman is a recent addition to the House of Commons, but in the 2010 Parliament the Government cut school sports funding, a provision that benefited all children up and down the country. It feels like we are back to square one. Conservative Members talk about the merits of school sport and sport generally, but we have actually gone backwards because of those cuts.

[Douglas Ross]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, but we have to be very careful that we do not just rely on the Government to pay for everything. For example, we have extremely rich football clubs in this country. Surely they can put their resources, which they gain from fans week in, week out, back into the communities they serve. One of the most disappointing things we heard from the young people who spoke to us was that they could see the major football stadiums from the communities they lived in and were victims of crime in, but could not find a way into those football stadiums to get any benefit from them. I sometimes think we rely too much on Government intervention, when the private sector—clubs and so on—could do far more to work within communities.

I know that many Members wish to speak in the debate, so I will bring my remarks to a conclusion. I agree with the Home Secretary that this is a national emergency. It is right that the Government have highlighted it as such and are working across Departments to deal with it. It is right that we are debating it on the Floor of the House of Commons today. I hope that communities affected by serious violence—individuals, families or communities at large—take some comfort from the fact that this issue is being debated in the House of Commons and is of such serious importance for Members on both sides of the House that something is being done. Unless we work on this issue within Government, across Government and across Parliament, we will not make an impact.

We have seen that just one life lost is one too many. We are seeing too many lives lost as a result of serious violence. I believe the Government’s strategy and their emphasis on getting it right will save lives in the future. That is surely to be welcomed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Louise Haigh]

But at that point, the police and crime commissioner already had a plan to use all available reserves purely to balance the books because of continued central Government cuts since 2010. I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he would rather see frontline officers on the beat, responding to violent crime, or police stations open. That is the invidious position that sustained central Government cuts have put police and crime commissioners in.

The hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) said he was disappointed that we voted against the police funding settlement earlier this year. I am sorry to have disappointed him. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) promised him that I would explain why the precept is a fundamentally unfair way to fund police forces. West Yorkshire has double the population of Surrey and four times the level of violent crime, yet through the Government’s police funding settlement, the two can raise exactly the same amount through the precept. Through the same police funding settlement, South Yorkshire can raise 12% of the money lost since 2010, whereas Dorset can raise 32%. It is unjustifiable to for money to be raised in a way that has no bearing on levels of crime or demand on the police.

[Douglas Ross]

I want to be absolutely clear, because I would not like someone to read the start of the debate in Hansard and then wonder what had happened at the end. It was not me who made that point. I think that the hon. Lady is referring to someone on the Front Bench. It was definitely not the point I was making, because we do not have PCCs in Scotland.

[Louise Haigh]

I think that the hon. Gentleman might have misheard me. I did not say anything about PCCs. He mentioned earlier that he was disappointed that we had voted against the settlement, and I am explaining exactly why: it is a fundamentally unfair way to fund the police and has no bearing on demand.

The right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) built on her admirable campaigning work on county lines and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling, talked about the excellent work of community groups in all our constituencies, but said that they were scraping by from year to year and competing for confusing and small pots of money.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) spoke about the tragic deaths of teenagers in her constituency and the fact that the police are working with at least one hand tied behind their back, lurching from one hotspot to another. The system is not as effective as it could be with sustained neighbourhood policing models in place.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) built on the valuable experience of speaking to frontline officers in his constituency and spoke about them telling him how, from a very young age, they can predict which children are in danger of becoming involved in gangs, which he rightly says is a failure of the criminal justice system and, indeed, society.

My hon. Friend touched on domestic abuse, which has largely been missing from today’s debate. When I visit young offender institutions meet young offenders and, one of the most consistent factors in their backgrounds is coming from a household of domestic abuse. We welcome the draft Domestic Abuse Bill, and I take this opportunity to thank all the Members who have signed my letter today calling for an investigation into domestic abuse and the family courts. If we continue to allow children to grow up in households of domestic abuse, all we are doing is creating the next generation of young offenders.

Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) gave a powerful perspective on behalf of communities that are over-policed, and she spoke about the consequences for those communities of failing to build trust and relationships with the police. She also spoke about looked-after children and care leavers, who are over-represented in our criminal justice system. Those contributions show the breadth of policy areas on which the public health approach undeniably has to focus.

Last month’s crime statistics reveal the extent of the crisis before us today. As we have heard, never since records began have recorded incidents of violent crime been as high as they are today, yet police numbers stand at their lowest level for three decades—per population, the lowest level ever. It is important to reiterate why police numbers are important to tackling violent crime.

First, the fall in police officer numbers inevitably forces the police to refocus their resources on reactive policing. More crucially, local policing increases the legitimacy of the police, which encourages local communities to provide intelligence, report crime and work with the police proactively. That has been a massive failure of the past nine years of austerity. The cut to neighbourhood policing has seriously damaged community relations.

Policing matters—of course it does—but, as we have heard, the Government can hope to bear down on serious violence only if they bear down on the factors that lie behind it. The story of violence, and particularly youth violence, is at its heart a question of vulnerability. Children who fall behind are now denied the speech and language therapy they desperately need. Sure Start, a lifeline for many vulnerable parents, has been cut back, and the support it used to provide has been reduced. As children grow older, they are being routinely denied the talking therapies, cognitive behavioural therapies and other psychological support that we know can reduce aggression and delinquency.

Schools, crushed under the weight of punitive funding pressures, have focused their cost-cutting on exactly the kind of targeted support needed by young people who are falling behind, including teaching assistants and special educational needs. Families are being denied intensive therapies that improve parenting skills, strengthen family cohesion and increase young people’s engagement, and that are known to reduce out-of-home placements and reoffending.

Ministers come to the Dispatch Box and, regrettably, insist that the problem appeared from nowhere. We have never heard any Minister accept that a reduction in support services, a substantial cut in youth services and slashing the police to levels per head never seen before has made the blindest bit of difference. If they cannot accept their responsibility, how can we trust them to put things right?

On early intervention and prevention, what is replacing the £880 million-worth of complex provision and support for young people and the £500 million lost from Sure Start? An early intervention fund of £17 million a year and a youth endowment fund of £20 million a year. Each has been shown to be inadequate in its own way, and they are not even close to meeting the challenges faced by communities.

Some 73% of bids to the early intervention youth fund have been rejected by the Government, communities in the west midlands have been deprived of a vital project to tackle county lines exploitation, and Greater Manchester has been deprived of funding to support families against crime. In Durham, and across the country, it is the same story in violent crime hotspots. How can the Government look at this evidence and say that their efforts to tackle the problem are even close to matching the challenge?

As we have heard, the Government have launched a consultation on a new legal duty to underpin a public health approach to tackling serious violence, but it is far from clear how that will differ from or go beyond the duties already placed on agencies under crime and disorder reduction partnerships or under “Working Together to Safeguard Children” guidance. A true public health approach requires a resourced, co-ordinated, cross-Government strategy led by the Prime Minister, as we have repeatedly called for. The taskforce mentioned by the Home Secretary today, and chaired by him, has met once, and, so far no actions have been announced.

We are in a state of emergency, with the most despicable criminals exploiting the space where well-run and effective early intervention, prevention and diversion strategies once existed. The pursuit of young children by gangs is now a systematic and well-rehearsed business model, according to the Children’s Commissioner. It is a national crisis that demands a sense of urgency, but that is not being felt from this Government. We cannot allow this drift. We need Ministers to step up to the plate, we need leadership from the Prime Minister, we need resources and we need concerted, sustained action from the Government.

UK Fishing Industry: Non-EEA Visas

Douglas Ross Excerpts

Monday 8th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

That is the other reason why I thought I would not bother rehearsing the arguments—I anticipated plenty of people doing so in the Chamber this evening. The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point, and I congratulate him on it. It is one I have made in the past, as have other hon. Members. It is as true today as it was in July, and it all contributes to my and my constituents’ sense of frustration that now, getting into the middle of April, we are still no further forward.

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

When the right hon. Gentleman held a debate last July, England was losing a World cup semi-final. I am pleased to say that the football fortunes are better this time, with Scotland’s women beating Brazil 1-0 tonight, so I congratulate him on any link there.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with me that there is a simple solution? Previously, we had a scheme that allowed non-EEA workers to work within the fishing industry. It was successful, and it did what it was intended to do. There is a simple solution for the Minister, which is to stand up at the Dispatch Box and say we will revert to that scheme.