Windrush Compensation Scheme

Douglas Ross Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

It was important to get the scheme right, so we wanted to ensure that we consulted as many people as possible, which is why we had the call for evidence first. Indeed, Martin Forde, the independent assessor of the scheme, asked for extra time to meet more community leaders and more people who were affected. I believe that we have got it right now, and I am committed to ensuring that those who are eligible receive their compensation as quickly as possible.

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement and the work that his Department has done on the scheme. When he responded to the Home Affairs Committee report on 24 July last year, noting the end of the consultation on 11 October, he said he wanted this scheme to be implemented

“quickly and carefully after that.”

Will he explain the length of time between the consultation closing and this announcement, because some are concerned that it has taken six months? Was it correct to take that time to get things right?

[Sajid Javid]

We received some 1,400 responses to the consultation, which is high for any consultation, and we wanted to ensure that they were all considered carefully. We worked closely with Martin Forde and others and wanted to ensure that the systems were in place from day one when the compensation scheme went live. Now that it is live, we will be able to process claims quickly.

Macpherson Report: 20th Anniversary

Douglas Ross Excerpts

Monday 25th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), and I was delighted to sponsor the debate, along with him, coming to the Chamber tonight. It is important that the Backbench Business Committee found the time for it to take place here on the day after the anniversary of the Macpherson report. This will be a useful examination of where we are as a Parliament, both looking back and looking forward. A number of the things I will say this evening are things that I said in the Select Committee when we held our first evidence session on this issue. I think that they are worth repeating in the Chamber tonight.

When we questioned Baroness Lawrence, I said that I had still been at school when Stephen Lawrence was murdered. I cannot for the life of me remember his actual murder, and I do not remember seeing the news in the days and weeks after it, but I almost feel as though I have grown up with the Stephen Lawrence murder and the different investigations and trials—failed and successful—that have taken place. Sadly, this has been a part of British life, and it was part of my childhood as I grew up. This shows the importance of one man’s tragic death and what it meant to his family, and why, decades later, we are still speaking about Stephen Lawrence’s death and also his legacy, which I shall come on to in a moment.

In the Select Committee, I also mentioned a fascinating documentary that many people have seen, “The Murder that Changed a Nation”. It was compelling viewing for many reasons. It showed how, had it not been for a number of critical interventions, we might not have been standing here in Parliament tonight talking about a crime that had been solved or about the positive aspects of Stephen Lawrence’s legacy. We may still have been discussing much of the tragedy.

What would have happened had it not been for a very determined family? Baroness Lawrence and Neville Lawrence fought day in, day out to get justice for their son, but they should not have had to. They should have been grieving like any other parents would have been in those tragic circumstances, but they were not given the opportunity to grieve, because they had to fight for justice for their son. They did not just have to fight for a few days or weeks; they have fought for decades and continue to fight. That is simply not good enough.

Another aspect that occurred just by chance was the discussion, meeting and publicity with Nelson Mandela. Had that not happened—had Nelson Mandela not met the family and said what he did—perhaps the case would not have got the publicity it clearly deserved. I am glad the Policing Minister is here to respond to tonight’s debate, because although we must never forget that there is rightly much criticism of policing in the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, were it not for the dedicated service of Clive Driscoll, a police officer, we may never have got the justice that Stephen rightly deserved. This police officer was told, “Take these files about the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. Your job is to shred them, to destroy them, to get rid of them.” As he was going to go about his duty, he looked at these files and his suspicions grew stronger and stronger. That officer was very alarmed at what he saw and read, and he knew that it was possible to get from these files justice and ultimately the convictions we have seen of the two men found guilty of Stephen Lawrence’s murder. But for that police officer, and others who were determined that the previous failings of the police, which are well-known, would be overcome at some stage, we may not have been in that place.

I have spoken for a few minutes about coincidences, but for which we may not have got to the stage we are at now. The final one is Neville Lawrence’s relationship with the editor of the Daily Mail and, thus, its headline in February 1997. How can it be that a country such as the United Kingdom, even in the late 1990s, relied on a frank and startling front page of a newspaper that only really came about because the editor—had it been anyone else at the newspaper this would not have happened—knew Neville Lawrence, had listened to him and had been shocked at what he heard? This editor decided that despite the legal representations made to the newspaper saying, “You cannot print a front page like that”, he would go ahead and do it.

As I was preparing for this debate, I thought again about how they are just four examples of things that could have easily gone the other way. We may have had a family who were so steeped in mourning that they could not have pursued this with as much vigour as the Lawrence family did. We may have had a police officer who did shred those files. We may never had the meeting between Nelson Mandela and the family. And we may never had that front-page article. Where would we have been as a country if those four incidents had not happened? I shudder to think where we would have been.

Let us now look at where we are. I was privileged to serve on the Select Committee with other Members who are here this evening and to hear evidence from Baroness Lawrence. Right at the beginning of her evidence session, she said that it seems as though

“nothing seems to have moved.”

We looked at the 70 recommendations from the Macpherson inquiry and judged whether they had been met, partially met or not met, and whether they had been met within any specific timescale. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to this, because Baroness Lawrence was very critical and very clear in her view that they had not been met; this has fallen by the wayside.

I then looked back at the previous Home Affairs Committee report on this, “The Macpherson Report—Ten Years On”, which was published on 14 July 2009. It said that

“67 of Macpherson’s 70 recommendations have been implemented fully or in part.”

How could one Committee think that, whereas at the very start of our inquiry, looking at the same report 20 years on, we are finding confusion and uncertainty on how to judge whether these recommendations have been enacted, followed and met, fully or in part? We as a Parliament and the public need to know how we assess the progress of these reports. It is right that the Macpherson inquiry went into great detail, took a considerable amount of evidence and came up with a stark report with recommendations that were going to root out the problems seen in the Stephen Lawrence murder and thereafter. How can parliamentarians and our constituents have faith that these reports do not just sit on a shelf, and do not get produced to great fanfare and nothing further? It would seem that 10 years on from the inquiry the Home Affairs Committee thought things were good, so I am worried that a further 10 years on we are getting clear evidence from one of the people most involved in this incident that things have not moved on. Baroness Lawrence is saying that it seems that nothing has moved on.

[Tim Loughton]

My hon. Friend is making a fascinating speech and I congratulate him on that. Is a measure of whether things have been moving on, be it over 10 years, 20 years or whatever, not the confidence that certain communities have in their police force? One particularly depressing factor is that although confidence in the local police has risen among most communities, those from the black Caribbean community remain stubbornly at the bottom in terms of those who have least confidence in their police; the comparable numbers over the past 10 years have moved very little. If we cannot convince those members of our community that things have improved, clearly we need to listen to the reasons why they do not think they have improved and do something rather more about it than we have.

[Douglas Ross]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, who serves diligently on the Home Affairs Committee and has heard the evidence that agrees with the point he is making. As well as hearing from Baroness Lawrence, we heard from a number of black, Asian and minority ethnic officers about the problems they face. His point about how people in the BAME communities respond to the police was reflected in some of that evidence, in that the police force they look to for support does not reflect them. That is a problem.

I want briefly to turn to recruitment and retention, which the hon. Member for Nottingham North and my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) mentioned. Although we are rightly focusing on the 41 forces in England and Wales this evening, I represent a Scottish constituency, and if I may I would like to look at Police Scotland, because it is interesting to see how things work in the round. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; my wife is a serving police officer. I welcome the increase of over 10% in Scotland’s police recruits from minority ethnic backgrounds in 2017, but if we look at recruitment on its own, we will not understand the full picture. Equally important is the retention of police officers and staff, as well as promotion.

It is unfortunate that none of Police Scotland’s executive team come from a black and ethnic minority background. We have had Police Scotland for almost five years, and it would be good to see promotion throughout the ranks. I am not saying that that will not happen—this is not a criticism, just an observation that it would be good to see that—but we had witnesses coming along to our Select Committee who had put themselves forward as candidates to be sergeants or inspectors and who said that they felt that on paper they were as good as anyone else, but who were not promoted. It is all well and good saying that we have x number of people from BAME backgrounds in a police force, but if they believe that their future progression in that force will not be as bright, fast or positive as that of others, then we have a problem. If our sergeants and inspectors leading policing teams are not reflective of the communities that they are serving, then we have a problem.

In a written submission to the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Sub-Committee on Policing, the Coalition for Racial Equality and Rights raises the problem of retention not just of officers, but of BAME staff once recruited, stating:

“There is no point in bettering recruitment if…officers and staff continue to leave Police Scotland in high proportions.”

We need more information, whether from exit interviews or better data, to understand why people leave the force. It is all well and good recruiting people to become police officers, whether in the Met, across England and Wales or in Police Scotland, but if, once they get there, they decide for whatever reason that they have to leave and do not feel at home in any of these police forces, we need to know why.

This may or may not be a controversial point, but we also need to do more than simply training officers.

[Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making some moving points about bias and discrimination. Does he agree that unconscious bias can be something that people have not thought of, that it needs stamping on, in addition to the policies that he mentions, and that more training is needed at all levels of the police?

[Douglas Ross]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s points. I say this to her gently, but she might be even more impressed when she hears some of my speech, now that she has entered the Chamber.

I agree with the point about unconscious bias, but the point I was coming to was about training. Whether training is for unconscious bias or to improve officers’ interactions or responses to racial incidents, it cannot simply be a tick-box exercise. We cannot simply say, “Go online, enter this portal, and at the end of it”—maybe five or 10 minutes later—“click the ‘submit’ button and suddenly you are racially trained,” or, “You are trained to deal with racial incidents,” or, “You are trained to deal with communities from BAME backgrounds.” I have a serious concern that those at the top of the police in all parts of the United Kingdom think that they are achieving what we want them to because they can say, “100% of our officers are trained in x,” or, “We have ensured that this is done at the policing training college,” in Tulliallan in Scotland or elsewhere.

If that training does not having a lasting impact among new recruits or officers, it is quite simply a waste of time, because we are not getting to the root of the problem and ensuring that we can enhance opinions. We have to look at the training element of all this, rather than trying to tick a box and saying, “It’s done. Move on and concentrate on the rest.” Again, we heard in evidence to our Select Committee that some tutors at those colleges were basically saying, “Do this bit and then we can get on to the exciting part of policing.” That is basically saying: “You don’t have to worry about it. You just have to do this to pass and then you move on to the rest.”

[Sandy Martin (Ipswich) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a really good training process will have enough leeway to ensure that people who do not make the grade do not end up as police officers and that in order to do that we need the resources to recruit slightly more police officers than we actually need?

[Douglas Ross]

That takes us to another level. In order to say to someone that they are not allowed to be a police officer because, in our interpretation, they have failed a test, we need to have a far more rigorous test. It cannot simply be this multiple choice exercise, which is completed online and submitted, and if a person gets above or below 50%, they are accepted or otherwise. If someone failed, and the tutors did not believe that they had met the racial training, we would have to look at why. Why would someone want to be a police officer and, when they get into a position of great power, use that power against the communities that we should all be there to support? I worry about that, but we do have to consider seriously how we train and recruit officers.

I know that Members representing English and Welsh constituencies discuss police numbers, but it is not an issue for them alone; we have the same in Scotland. Although I am grateful that the SNP Scottish Government agreed with the Scottish Conservatives in 2007 to increase the number of police officers in Scotland by 1,000, it was an agreement that the two parties had to make to get the budget through at a time of a minority Scottish Government. That was a very important policy for the Scottish Conservatives to get enacted. We are always looking for more police officers, especially in my area, which is not in the central belt of Scotland. Moray, which was formerly policed by Grampian police, could always do with more officers to ensure that we can see more on the beat.

[Janet Daby]

I am really interested in what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the types of training that police officers should have. I very much believe that training needs to happen in every tier within the police force. I am interested to hear about other forms of training, about how he thinks that training should and could be delivered and about how it would be resourced. In Lewisham, an organisation called Second Wave engages with young men and women within the community. It is a drama group, but it delivers training for police officers and it pairs up training with new recruits. The organisation has been flagged up as providing excellent training and, clearly, it is something that we should consider further.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. That was a little long for an intervention.

[Douglas Ross]

The intervention may have been a little long, but it made a very valuable point. I thought that I might be seen as a little controversial tonight, but clearly I am not, as there seems to be agreement across the House that there are issues with the training. That is not to dismiss what is currently being done, but we could go further, and I think that that was the hon. Lady’s point. Whether we are talking about her local group in Lewisham or others elsewhere, we must look at every way in which to educate. It should not be just a one off. We cannot say that an officer’s racial equality training is done once they start their career. That person could be in post for 30 or 40 years, and, by the end of their career, they could be in a very senior position within the force. We should ensure that they undergo continuous development, not just a one-off training course, then saying, “That’s it, done. Move on now to the next stage in your training.”

I also want to look at the percentage of police officers both in Scotland and across the rest of the country from a black, Asian and minority ethnic background. Clearly, that is something that the Macpherson inquiry looked at with great interest, and something with which we are still trying to grapple. We have not achieved the successes in that area that we should have done. Again, going back to evidence in Scotland, the Coalition for Racial Equality and Rights states that 1% of police officers, police staff and special constables come from BAME background. That has remained pretty much unchanged for six years. Therefore, 1% of all levels within the police—whether it be police officers, police staff or special constables—come from BAME backgrounds. That compares with the fact that minority ethnic groups in Scotland now represent 4% of the population, which has doubled from 2% in 2001. These figures vary wildly in many parts of the country, but there are underlying issues that we need to consider. I mentioned figures elsewhere in the country, and figures for England differ in various parts. The Metropolitan police has 13% of officers from ethnic minority backgrounds, but 43% of the population in the Met area is from an ethnic minority background, so we really do need to look at that for the future. We need a modern police force to reflect the diversity of a modern Scotland and a modern United Kingdom, and that requires an altogether different approach to recruiting officers and, crucially, retaining them.

I turn to other evidence that the Committee has received in our ongoing inquiry into the 20th anniversary of the Macpherson report. Although we have had only one oral evidence session, I have been looking at the written evidence submitted by groups including Liberty, which submitted a detailed response to our call for evidence. However, one response stood out for me and it was from someone called Mr Chris Hobbs, who wrote at the very top of his submission to the Home Affairs Committee:

“I have my doubts as to whether submissions from retired police officers such as myself, will be given due consideration or play any part in the HASC final report.”

That is a sad reflection. Mr Hobbs attached an article that he wrote for an online newspaper some years ago, but his view was, “I’m not even going to bother submitting this because the Home Affairs Committee won’t be interested.” He felt that we would not be interested in his views because he was not from a BAME background. The message has to get out very clearly that we want the Macpherson inquiry to improve policing for everyone, not simply those from BME groups. They are crucial in this, but unless we listen to everyone in the police force, more anger will build up among officers who do not come from BME backgrounds as well as those who do. That piece of evidence shows that it is important for us to look at the whole policing sector.

Whether people agree or disagree with Mr Hobbs’s submission—I am not saying what I think because I have not read the full article—he should at least be content to know that it has been received and will be considered. We may ultimately disagree with everything that he says in his submission and how it relates to the Macpherson inquiry, but we cannot and will not just completely ignore it.

Mr Hobbs makes one point in his submission that is outwith the article, saying that he does not know of any officer

“who does not wish to see more BAME officers recruited”.

That is a positive element of his submission, but he also says that efforts to increase recruitment of every sector into policing is hampered by consistent negativity from politicians of all sides. I hope that we do not lower tonight’s debate to that level.

I want to discuss the legacy of Stephen Lawrence and his death, which was mentioned by the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee in her intervention on the hon. Member for Nottingham North. When the Committee was hearing evidence, I asked Baroness Lawrence what we should consider and have in our minds every year when we recognise Stephen Lawrence Day, and Baroness Lawrence said, “Positives.” She said that we should think about positives on Stephen Lawrence Day, and she continued:

“Stephen’s name has helped to change society in a way that I do not think anything has done in a long time…Stephen was somebody who loved being at school. That is part of his life that was all positive. That is what we want to see young people trying to embrace—all the positive stuff… law has been changed because of his name, but if we as a family had not pushed, none of that would have happened. As young people grow up, they need to see what you can do, and what difference you can make within society.”

That was the compelling evidence of a family who have been grieving for decades and continue to grieve the tragic loss of their son, but who still want to see positivity at the end of that experience.

I looked for the family’s reaction to the announcement that there would be a Stephen Lawrence Day, and Neville Lawrence—Stephen’s father—said that the annual commemoration of Stephen’s life is

“a mark of what we have been trying to do for years—our son’s memory is going to be enshrined in history”.

The English philosopher Francis Bacon said:

“In order for the light to shine…the darkness must be present.”

The darkness of Stephen Lawrence’s death will always be with his family and his friends, and with this country, but his legacy will continue to burn very brightly because of what he did in his all-too-short life and what his family have continued to do since his death.

Serious Violence

Douglas Ross Excerpts

Monday 18th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

Few aspects of crime frighten our constituents more than violent crime. The sad truth is that, under this Government, violent crime continues to spiral.

I begin by declaring a personal interest and concern. I have been an MP in the heart of the east end for 30 years. I am immensely proud of being a Hackney MP. It is an amazing community, and we lead the way in tech, fashion, fine art, music and all types of culture, but a person cannot live and work in Hackney for the number of years I have and not be aware of the harsh reality of violent crime. For my constituents and me, violent crime is not just a newspaper story but the cause of tragic incidents that haunt friends and neighbours and regularly scar our community.

Let me remind the House of the parameters of the violent crime wave we face. The latest data from the Office for National Statistics reveal that violent crime soared 19% to 1.5 million offences in the year to last September. Consider that for a moment: it equates to an average of more than 4,000 offences a day. The ONS also reports that it includes a 14% rise in homicides and an 8% rise in knife crime, which equates to 110 knife offences daily. Murder and manslaughter are at their highest levels for more than a decade.

The Home Secretary sometimes tries to hide behind the fact that the rising figures are the result of better reporting and recording. That may be a factor for some types of crime, but the ONS says:

“We have also seen increases in some types of ‘lower-volume, high-harm’ violence including offences involving knives or sharp instruments.”

To look at the issue of violent crime from another perspective, there has been a 15% increase in the number of hospital admissions in England for assaults involving a sharp instrument. That is not better police recording; it is our A&E units across the country being swamped by the effects of serious violence. In fact, a report published by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary in 2014 found that violent offences had actually been substantially under-recorded by 33% nationally. We are in the middle of a crisis.

Behind the statistics are a thousand personal tragedies: the victims of violence; the people who have been robbed or attacked on the street; the innocent young men and women caught up in the crossfire in a club or on the street where they live; the vulnerable young people caught up in the drugs trade, and possibly the county lines phenomenon; the mothers who lie awake most nights until their son or daughter returns home; the parents who dread the phone call from the police or the hospital to tell them that a family member has come to harm; and the young men who will never come home again.

As the Home Secretary reminds us, almost a year ago his predecessor launched the new Home Office serious violence strategy. The strategy has many theoretical elements that the Opposition would support, but we contend whether the money made available for it actually offsets all the cuts in local government funding that have contributed to the crime wave we now see. I will return to that subject.

Ministers’ responses to violent crime have included calling for more stop-and-search, knife crime prevention orders and asking the internet companies to stop videos that glorify violence. All those ideas have their merits, but I stress to the House that random, non-evidence-based stop-and-search has never worked. Properly targeted stop-and-search can play its part in reducing crime but, in New York, Mayor Bill de Blasio got rid of what they call “stop and frisk” altogether and crime went down.

When she was Home Secretary, the current Prime Minister came to the realisation that random stop-and-search does not work, because that is what the Home Office’s own research reveals. The Opposition can only speculate on how long it will take the current Home Secretary to come to that understanding.

There were also concerns about knife crime prevention orders. We have to contemplate that, on the grounds purely of suspicion, people as young as 12 will be targeted, put on a curfew and prevented from accessing the internet. There are already laws against the carrying of knives, threatening to use them and actually using them, but there is a problem with enforcing those laws. That issue relates to police numbers and person power, and I will return to that point.

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

The shadow Home Secretary is mentioning powers against knife crime and enforcing them. Does she believe it was wrong for the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor to oppose the change in legislation in 2014 that means anyone caught carrying a knife twice would face a custodial sentence?

[Ms Abbott]

The idea that the answer to knife crime is a simplistic multiplication of the sentence mistakes the drivers behind knife crime, which I will come to later in my remarks.

The new orders stopping young people from accessing the internet appear reasonable at first sight, but have Ministers never heard of young people creating multiple online identities? Labour Members have grave concerns about how these orders will be used, with the possibility that they will target poor communities, and black and minority ethnic boys and girls. We have yet to be given the reassurances that care will be taken to ensure that particular communities and groups of young people will not be unfairly targeted.

I agree with the Home Secretary that the internet giants have a role to play here in the type of material they allow, but, as he will know, that is true in respect of all sorts of crimes, from online fraud to child pornography and terrorism. All of that is too easy online, and the Government must do more than have a cosy chat with the companies that allow it. So I was glad to hear him say that he is actually prepared to act. It is long overdue for the Government to use their powers against companies that fail to act on these issues.

However, the underlying problem with violent crime is that there is also a crisis in policing. It is all very well for the Home Secretary to say that the police are having the biggest increase in grant since 2010, but this Government and their predecessors since 2010 have imposed austerity policies on the police, as they have done in every other area of our public services.

The result is there for all to see: since 2010, 21,000 policemen and women have been axed by Tory-led Governments of one kind or another. That has undermined the entire capacity of the police services in this country to tackle crime of all types, including violent crime. Community policing has been decimated. Every MP in this debate, on either side of the House, will know of the negative consequences that the fall in police numbers has had in their area: the lower police presence; the decimation of community policing; tardiness in responding to 999 calls, with them sometimes not getting replied to until the next day; and the resultant fall in public confidence.

The Home Secretary talks about increasing investment, but the cuts across almost every other area of public spending have helped to fuel the rise in crime, including the rise in violent crime. Those cuts, particularly as they fall on local authorities, have exacerbated the causes of crime. They include the crisis in housing, growing inequality, and the crisis in our schools, including school exclusions. Too many pupil referral units are just academies for crime.

A one-time director general of the Prison Service who went on to head Barnardo’s, Martin Narey, said that on the day when a child is expelled from school, we might as well give them a date and time to turn up at prison. Ministers have to pay more attention to this pipeline from educational failure—school failure—to the world of crime. The other issues that help to promote criminality are the hopeless job prospects for many of our young people, the collapse of the youth service in many areas of the country and the crisis in mental health care.

When we ask senior police officers, as I am sure the Home Secretary has done, they tell us, “You can’t arrest your way out of this”, and of course they are right. Rounding up whole drug gangs, as the police sometimes do, often means simply opening up turf wars as neighbouring gangs move into the vacant territory. Under this Government, the police cannot even make the arrests that they should be making, and arrest and conviction rates have plummeted.

As I said at the beginning of my remarks, all our constituents engage with the question of violent crime with fear and concern. It is one thing to pay lip service to the causes of crime, including violent crime, as the Home Secretary did in his remarks, but the Opposition say that the rise in violent crime since 2010 is connected to the reluctance to give the police the funding they need to fight all types of crime. The violent crime epidemic that we face is at least partly to do with austerity, the policies of this Government and the funding of the police. The Opposition are committed, when the time comes, to taking serious, co-ordinated action to start to push back on this rise in toxic and frightening violent crime.

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas Ross]

The hon. Gentleman mentions future challenges. Does he think it is correct that someone in Scotland could be punched, kicked or even hit with a weapon and it would not be considered a violent crime? If we are going to truly assess this issue, we have to get the criteria correct for what is and what is not a violent crime.

[Gavin Newlands]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am by no means a policing expert, and obviously such crimes are recorded differently across jurisdictions. The fact is, however, that violent crime in Scotland has reduced by 49%, as has been recognised by his colleagues in the Scottish Parliament: Liam Kerr said that we have to recognise that Scotland has turned the corner when it comes to violent crime.

Good policy and effective policing strategy should not be controversial, which is why I am glad that similar initiatives have begun to be rolled out, such as the London violence reduction unit announced by Mayor Sadiq Khan.

In addition, the Scottish Government continue to provide real-terms protection to the resource budget for policing and have committed to protecting that budget for every year of the current Session of the Scottish Parliament. That amounts to a significant increase in investment of £100 million by 2021. As of April last year, the SNP has ensured that the police will also fully benefit from being able to reclaim VAT of around £25 million a year, which for far too long was stolen and kept by the Treasury here in Westminster. [Interruption.] I hear chuntering from the Government Benches that we knew it from the start, but the Scottish Conservatives also knew it from the start, yet it was in their manifesto too.

In England and Wales there are now 21,000 fewer police officers than there were in 2010, which makes it the lowest number since comparable records began. Those figures mean a decrease of nearly 15% from the previous nine years. However, I do not want to be complacent, and I stress that there is still plenty of room for improvement, but Scotland is becoming a much safer country thanks to the public health approach.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the White Ribbon Campaign, I draw particular attention to the importance that domestic violence plays in a public health approach to violence. This is an area where we have much further to go, both north of the border and across the rest of the UK. Gender-based violence is a national shame in every part of the UK. In 2016-17 there were nearly 59,000 reported cases of domestic abuse in Scotland, and in nearly 80% of those cases women were the victims. Although the way the data is collected can differ between countries, it is demonstrably higher than in similar small European nations such as the Republic of Ireland.

Domestic abuse clearly has a serious effect on the mental health and development of future generations. Around 16% of adverse childhood experiences are caused by witnessing domestic violence in the household. The vast majority of this, of course, is perpetrated by men against women. That is the largest contributor to ACEs of any household environmental factors. Compared with someone with no ACEs, someone with four or more is more likely to experience a range of negative outcomes in adulthood. For example, they are 16 times more likely to perpetrate violence, and 20 times more likely to be incarcerated at some point in their lifetime.

The Scottish Government are taking action to reduce domestic violence in households through an increase in health visitor numbers and the roll-out of family nurse partnerships, and through targeted investment in projects and services that support parents and families to cope better, keep children safe and prevent children from going into care. Although that falls outwith the Scottish Government’s policing strategy, it is steps like this that help people participate in society, tackle serious violence at its root cause and stop the cycle of violence perpetuating itself on and on.

In conclusion, the most compelling stories are the ones that are true. Over the past decade we have seen Scotland go from being called the murder capital of Europe to being the safest nation on these islands in which to live. I fear that in many crucial ways the serious violence strategy for England and Wales was a missed opportunity to tackle the problem in a completely objective and holistic manner, as we have done in Scotland. I implore Members across the House to see violence for what it is: a resilient societal disease. Although the symptoms must be appropriately punished, the root causes also deserve to be treated. We can no longer waste time and human energy trying to deal with the symptoms of generational violence.

While Scotland is enjoying lows in recorded crime that have not been seen for decades, violent crime in England and Wales is rising to deeply worrying levels. Thanks to the Scottish Government, and particularly the violence reduction unit, Scotland is becoming a safer country. I urge that a similar approach be tried and tested across the rest of the UK so that we may learn from each other. We need to understand better why violence happens, we need to be as objective as possible in tackling it, and we need to be mindful of the many forms that it comes in. We need an all-encompassing public health approach to violent crime.

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

I shall be mentioning policing in Scotland, so I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. My wife is a serving police officer, although she is actually in her final week of work before taking maternity leave as we prepare for the arrival of our first child in a few weeks’ time.

Much of my remarks, while focusing on some elements that are devolved in Scotland, will be based on my experience as a member of the Home Affairs Committee, because we are currently undertaking an inquiry into serious violence. I have to say that the evidence session we had last October with parents of children who had died as a result of serious violence was one of the most compelling I have sat through. I feel it appropriate to repeat some of the evidence that we heard in the Committee, because it really puts into perspective what we are discussing this evening.

Philippa Addai’s son Marcel was stabbed 14 times by a gang of seven in September 2015. Yvonne Lawson’s son Godwin was stabbed while trying to break up a fight involving some of his friends. Yvonne’s testimony about her reaction on being told what had happened to her son was compelling. She said:

“I remember being at home. There was a knock on the door. Typically, I just thought it was Godwin knocking on the door. There were three police officers who came to tell us that Godwin lost his life. I remember hearing that word that Godwin died. I was in denial… I just kept ringing Godwin’s number. I just could not believe that the police officers were saying that Godwin has taken his last breath on the street alone.”

Caroline Shearer, whose child Jay was also killed, recalled how she put on perfume when she was told by the police to go to the hospital. It was an irrational thing to do, but that is what she remembers. The next thing she remembers is being in the back of the police car and getting out at the hospital, where an officer bent down to tell her that her son had died before she could see him. The next thing she tried to do was steal that officer’s Taser and put it in her mouth. Finally, Darren Laville’s son Kenichi Phillips was shot dead in 2016. Kenichi had a whole life ahead of him and had just that day been given a new job as a personal trainer.

Those four testimonies have stayed with me since our evidence session in October, but there were positive legacies. Each and every family were determined that their child would not die in vain and have started charity work to ensure that more youths are saved from that end, which will hopefully complement the work that the Government and all parties are doing on serious violence.

I would like to focus on some of the elements that affect Scotland. I am fortunate that my Moray constituency does not have a particularly high crime rate, but, as the Home Secretary said, county lines affect us all. A crime that starts in London can progress right up to Aberdeen and potentially across to Moray, so it is important that Government investment here is matched at a UK level, and I know that work is ongoing in Scotland to deal with county lines.

I agree with the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) about the pioneering violence reduction unit. It is important that we treat violence as a disease that is preventable and not inevitable. However, the Scottish crime and justice survey shows that at least two thirds of crime in Scotland goes unreported. It goes on to say that the result of violence in Scotland is more likely to be seen in A&E departments than police stations, because more people go directly to hospital than report it to the police. While I welcome the figures that the hon. Gentleman quoted about violence reducing in Scotland, we have to realise that a large amount of violence is unreported.

A number of Members want to speak in the debate, so I will make my final plea to the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins). The Home Secretary was clear that he is looking at all options to reduce knife crime and the fatalities caused by it. My constituent Hugh Broadley, who came to my surgery in Buckie on Friday, believes he has designed a knife that can significantly reduce the number of fatalities from knife crime. Will someone from the Department meet me to look at his designs? It is important that we listen to all offers to deal with this issue, and if Hugh Broadley believes that his design could prevent just one death, that is important. I would welcome any opportunity to discuss that important matter with the Minister or the Home Secretary.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)]

I would be happy to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas Ross]

Thank you.

Future Immigration

Douglas Ross Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

First, the hon. Lady is right to raise the importance of the fashion and textile industry and more generally our creative industries, where the UK is a powerhouse, and one of the things we need to do to keep it that way is make sure it can attract top talent from across the world. There is much in this White Paper that will help to achieve that, and it is also an area where in some cases in the past we have looked at having special visas for entry, including for exhibitions and visitors, and we will continue to look at such things.

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

The short-term workers route mentioned in the statement will not address the issue that I and Members across the House have raised about access for non-EEA labour on inshore vessels. I have a constituent, Mr Scott in Lossiemouth, who fears he will have to sell his boat and his business unless the Government address this urgently. What can the Home Secretary do to address this issue for Mr Scott and others in Moray, Scotland and across the UK?

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend has perhaps raised two points: one is the future immigration system, where I think—I am happy to speak to him in detail about this afterwards—the short-term route can help address the issue he raises. I also detect a more immediate issue, however, that is not just for post-2021 and later, but is more immediate, because he mentioned non-EEA and I am also happy to discuss that with him, too.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Douglas Ross Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

It is certainly still my intention to publish it in December. That has not changed.

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

The Home Secretary said at the Home Affairs Committee that

“the meaningful vote is on the 11th. I hope it”—

the immigration White Paper—

“will come before that”.

That was just last week, yet on Monday he said on the radio that it was “very unlikely” that the White Paper would be published before the vote. What happened in those four or five days to change his mind? Does he think it is acceptable for the House to vote on the withdrawal deal without the information in the White Paper?

[Sajid Javid]

I will say two things to my hon. Friend, who makes a fair point. First, he asks what has happened. It is worth reminding him and the House that this is the most significant change in our immigration system in 45 years. Rather than rush the White Paper, it is important that we focus on the detail, get it right and get it out as soon as possible. Secondly, of course we should think of our new immigration system as part of our deal as we exit the European Union, but it is also clear that if we have no deal, there will still be a new immigration system. It is worth keeping that in mind.

Drugs Policy

Douglas Ross Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Moon. I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) on securing the debate. It will soon become apparent that I disagree with large parts of what he has said; in a democracy it is quite correct that we can take two sides of the same argument. However, I agree that the effects of drug use, and the deaths caused by it, have an impact on each and every one of our constituencies.

Drugs and drug addictions are among the worst scourges of our society today. According to the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse, the cost to the UK economy of drug misuse is more than £15 billion a year. Far more importantly, drugs destroy lives and livelihoods, tear apart families and communities, and fuel crime and exploitation. Although the number of drug users is falling, the number of people dying or being admitted to hospital due to drug use is on the increase.

In Scotland, it is nothing short of a crisis. The rate of drug-related deaths in Scotland is considerably higher than in England and Wales. It is estimated to be the highest in Europe, yet every year the number of deaths hits a new record high. The same goes for hospital admissions. In 2016-17, the rate of people being admitted to Scottish hospitals in relation to opioids, cannabinoids, cocaine, and sedatives and hypnotics reached new records.

The crisis can and will get worse. The county lines operations, which the hon. Member for Inverclyde mentioned and which are spreading across the UK, bringing a supply of drugs to rural communities across the country, are particularly concerning for me as a Member of Parliament for a rural constituency. We know from examples abroad, most notably in America, how the supply of drugs to rural areas can bring devastation to those communities.

The challenge facing the Scottish Government, the UK Government, and all of us is not just to stop the problem spiralling out of control, but to turn the tide altogether and tackle the havoc that drugs are wreaking on so many lives. More certainly needs to be done to treat people who have become addicted to drugs.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the cost to society and to the Government of £15 billion a year. How much would it cost if the Government changed their policy, and heroin addicts went to their local NHS clinic to get their fix in the morning and evening and there was no drug crime at all because it was free at the point of need, administered by the national health service? How much would the Government save? The financial arguments might have greater appeal than other arguments.

[Douglas Ross]

To borrow the phrase of the hon. Member for Inverclyde, I did not realise that this was a quiz. I do not have those figures to hand.

Labour Members mentioned past cuts to alcohol and drug partnerships, and received some sympathy from the Scottish National party Member leading today’s debate. Yet the SNP-led Scottish Government have not helped, especially considering their cuts to alcohol and drug partnerships in Scotland. The money spent is being reduced not just here in England, but in Scotland under an SNP-led Government.

Likewise, the forthcoming revision of the Scottish Government’s national drug strategy cannot come a moment too soon. The current strategy is a decade old, but reflects a much older approach, where instead of helping people to defeat their addictions, they are put on, for example, endless methadone programmes. Is it any surprise that the proportion of people dying from drug overdoses who are on methadone has risen from 21% in 2009 to 37% in 2016? The new strategy, which comes out next month, must address that, and focus on beating addiction completely.

[Ronnie Cowan]

I wonder whether at some point the hon. Gentleman will offer some solutions, or is he just going to try to pick apart what we currently have? I have admitted that the current systems are damaging people. We are trying to build solutions—has he got any?

[Douglas Ross]

I am not sure that we heard any solutions from the hon. Gentleman. Normally in such debates we hear about how great things are in Scotland. As a Scottish Member of Parliament, I think it is appropriate, when we are discussing an issue that is of importance to the United Kingdom, that we put it into context.

I invite the hon. Gentleman and the Scottish Government to consider the “National Drug-Related Deaths Database (Scotland) Report”, from June this year, which said that the Scottish Government’s flagship take-home naloxone programme

“has not prevented substantial increases in opioid-related deaths in Scotland.”

That is a quote from a report in June this year. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman would like to question that report, I will give way again.

[Ronnie Cowan]

Absolutely. We are in the process of rolling out a naloxone project in Scotland that has been taken on board. I visited drug consumption rooms in Barcelona during the summer. Quite unsolicited, the staff mentioned to me the good work being done by the Scottish Drugs Forum and the naloxone programme. They have taken it on board in Barcelona, and it has been a terrific success.

[Douglas Ross]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is questioning me or the “National Drug-Related Deaths Database (Scotland) Report”. That report, which was issued in Scotland in June, said that the Scottish Government’s policies have not reduced the number of people dying from related illnesses.

[Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

It makes good sense, and is soundly medically based, to give people who may take an overdose a way of correcting that overdose with a lifesaving intervention. That has to be a good thing to do. I understand that there are tensions with the SNP on this issue, but it is considered good medical practice to do exactly as is being recommended in Scotland and in England.

[Douglas Ross]

I know that my hon. Friend and I disagreed in our last debate on UK drugs policy in Westminster Hall. These are not my conclusions, but those of a national report that has looked into the policies of the Scottish Government and said that, however well-meant the policies are, they have

“not prevented substantial increases in opioid-related deaths in Scotland.”

[Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Douglas Ross]

I am sorry—I have given way a few times, and I know that a number of Members wish to speak.

We need an approach to addiction that is more ambitious than methadone and take-home naloxone, and certainly more ambitious than self-injection rooms. We need an approach that puts recovery first, but we need to tackle addiction and the drugs trade together, because there are no victimless crimes in drugs. We cannot simply separate it into matters of public health and criminal justice, because recreational use, addiction, exploitation by gangs and suppliers, and the supply chains of drugs into and across the country are all bound together.

If we want to give people the best chance of recovery from addiction, we have to tackle the supply chains. That means enforcing the law properly, not soft-touch sentencing and back-door decriminalisation. By making it harder to import, produce, supply and possess drugs, we make it easier to get off drugs and overcome addiction. From the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 to the new financial crime unit to seize the assets of drug lords, and to the recently announced review into the link between the drug market and violent crime, the UK Government have demonstrated that they recognise that. I only hope that the Scottish Government recognise it too, and act before the crisis gets any worse.

British Citizenship Fees: Children

Douglas Ross Excerpts

Tuesday 4th September 2018 Westminster Hall

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) on securing this debate, which allows us to contribute to the ongoing dialogue about our immigration system. We both serve on the Home Affairs Committee, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I know that he has pursued this issue with great vigour. He only confirmed what he is asking for in the last few sentences of his speech. The early-day motion that he tabled, which has received cross-party support, speaks about the cost being prohibitive. I think he has now confirmed that his proposal would be for the cost to be roughly £400, rather than £1,000. The early-day motion also mentions that some people are simply

“unaware of the requirement to register”.

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would say more in summing up, but I am not sure what more can be done to improve people’s knowledge, to ensure that they know they have to register for these entitlements, as British citizens. I think that was missing from his remarks. I know why he focused on the financial element, but if awareness is a problem, it is important that we discuss that.

There has been a lot of debate about our immigration system in recent months. For most people coming to make a life for themselves in this country, the immigration system will be their first interaction with our Government. For others, such as children who have been brought here by their parents, it is a gateway to making a life for themselves in a country that we are all proud to call home. It is vital, therefore, that the system is fair and efficient and always has people—not abstract policies—at its heart.

I understand many of the concerns that have been raised. When children are brought to this country, it is often because their parents have decided to move here. For many of them, their life in the UK is the only one they have ever known. We have a long history of welcoming, as children, people who go on to make exceptional contributions to British life, science and culture, and who are as British as you or I. I want that to continue to be the case.

It is right, however, that those who benefit from our immigration system are, where they can, the ones who pay for it. As the hon. Gentleman alluded to, he believes they should pay the cost recovery. Let us not forget that citizenship fees are not something new. They were introduced, not by this Government, but as far back as 2004, to ensure that the cost of running the immigration system is borne by those who stand to gain most from it, not the British taxpayer. This concept is not exceptional, nor is it out of line with international comparisons. Almost every country in the world charges a fee to cover the cost of becoming a citizen.

A big part of this debate has been the level at which those fees are set. I want to make it clear that fees should never be prohibitive and if they have climbed too high, too fast, I hope the Minister will take cognisance of that and look carefully at this issue. However, as the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East said, the Home Office believes that the fees cover much more than the cost of the application, as they contribute towards the running of the wider system and towards the benefits that newly naturalised people stand to receive as citizens. Yet, as I have said, it is important that the fees do not become so high that citizenship becomes an option only available to the wealthy.

It should also be said that applying for citizenship is a choice. This brings us back to the issue of fairness, as people who choose to become British citizens should pay to support that system. If we were to deny non-citizens certain benefits that accompany citizenship, I would better understand some of the concerns that exist around this argument. However, a child with indefinite leave to remain will have access to benefits and entitlements, as does someone with full citizenship. What is more, local authorities have a duty of care for all children in need, regardless of their status.

At the heart of our immigration system, there needs to be a focus on people. Everyone comes to this country with their own unique story to tell and we must ensure that our immigration system can handle people’s different circumstances. That is why it is absolutely right for the Government to waive citizenship fees for children in certain circumstances, as they already do, including for children who are victims of slavery or abuse, who are asylum applicants, or who are being looked after by a local authority. That is exactly the sort of flexible, personal approach that we need throughout our immigration system, to ensure that we do not turn our back on the most vulnerable people who come to this country to seek sanctuary.

I accept, as I think all hon. Members from across the political divide would, that no system is ever perfect, and the arguments that we have heard today have shown that in relation to the fees that children are being charged. I know that the Minister is an extremely capable member of the Government and that she understands the points that have been highlighted today; I also welcome the fact that she embarked on a review of this system over the summer. I look forward to hearing the findings of that review.

I hope that if changes are made, two key features will be recognised, which should be at the core of immigration policy. The first is fairness, both to the taxpayer and to immigrants; and the second is flexibility, so that unique circumstances are recognised and so that nobody who has a right to citizenship is ever deterred by prohibitive costs from seeking it.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Non-EEA Visas: Inshore Fishing

Douglas Ross Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2018 Westminster Hall

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government policy on visas for non-EEA workers on inshore fishing vessels.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. This is an important issue in my constituency and in other parts of Scotland and the UK. Last Wednesday, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) led an Adjournment debate on this very issue, but it is important that Members across the House have another opportunity to express their views and opinions.

I am grateful to the Security Minister for responding; to use a fishing term, this has been landed on him because the Immigration Minister is in Cabinet today. I know he will respond on her behalf and I am sure that she will look closely at the points put forward by right hon. and hon. Members. I thank the Scottish White Fish Producers Association, the Fishermen’s Welfare Alliance and the many others who produced briefings for this debate. Given its importance to the industry, many wanted to engage with Members before the debate.

Let me give some background on my own interest. Although this is a big issue on the west coast, the western isles of Orkney and Shetland, and Northern Ireland, it is also an issue in Moray, although perhaps not on such a large scale as in other parts of Scotland. Back in March, I was approached by three fishermen: Douglas Scott from Lossiemouth, Neil Sutherland from Burghead and John Davidson. They visited me in my Forres constituency office in the same week the Government announced their initial findings with the European Union on a future fisheries policy. I assumed that they, like me, were unhappy with what the Government had come up with in Europe and were pushing to put across those views. But despite everything in the news that week about fishing and our links to the European Union, they came to speak to me specifically about the inability to employ non-European economic area workers on inshore fishing vessels.

I met Douglas Scott again on Friday in Lossiemouth, just as he was about to head up to Shetland to go fishing. He made it clear when he met me in March and again this week that unless the Government do something about this situation, there is a real risk to the people who are going out on those boats: they are not crewed in sufficient numbers to ensure that everyone is safe. Indeed, some boats cannot leave the harbour at all. Douglas was unwell for some time and because he had no crew, his boat lay idle in Lossiemouth harbour, not making an income for him and leaving the waters unfished.

This is a hugely important issue for Douglas Scott and so many others. The solution is quite simple, and I will come on to it. Douglas is now a little better and is able to go out on his boat on his own. When I left him on Friday, he was going to spend 24 hours on his own in his boat, steaming up to Shetland—port to port from Lossiemouth to Lerwick takes 24 hours. When he gets up there, he has to go back out almost immediately and start fishing, to start making some money, all on his own. It is a real safety concern if an individual who has not been well recently has to go out single-crewed because he cannot recruit non-EEA workers—who want to work with him: they are calling him on a weekly basis, pleading him to employ them again—because of visa changes and the problems being experienced with visas in this country.

We all remember the extremely successful concession scheme that operated from 2010 to 2012. That is basically what I am calling for: the Government should reintroduce that successful scheme, which worked successfully from 2010 to 2012, in which non-EEA workers were able to work within the 12-mile limit. We should dwell on the 12-mile limit for a moment: why do we make that division? Fishermen can fish 12.1 miles from the shore for unlimited amounts of time and are able to recruit non-EEA workers, yet at 11.9 miles or 12 miles they cannot. Mr Scott, who is currently fishing for squid off Shetland but fishes for many other species throughout the year, is not able to recruit these workers because he fishes within the 12-mile limit.

This Government rightly have concerns about immigration and have targets to ensure that it does not increase too much, but this is not a sector that would cause significant problems to immigration numbers. The catching sector employs 4,000 people across the country, 800 of whom are non-EEA workers and 400 of whom are from the EEA—we are speaking about a small number of workers. Should the Government introduce the concessions that I am asking for, the numbers would not significantly alter the migration and immigration figures that they rightly look at when they determine their future policy.

The Government were right back in 2010 and 2012 to have concerns about the welfare of these workers; unfortunately, there were some instances where the welfare of workers was not as good as it should have been. A briefing from the Fishermen’s Mission for this debate cited a small number of examples about the conduct of employers towards their Filipino or other non-EEA workers that are not good enough. One received only four hours’ sleep in 96 hours and had been forced to sign what was reported to be a contract of employment that stipulated that they would be paid far less than originally agreed.

Unfortunately, there are some examples of the system letting down the non-EEA workers, but I and other right and hon. Members have received representations that reintroducing the scheme with a strong emphasis on the welfare of the non-EEA workers will improve their terms and conditions, rather than reduce them. We could have a better system—not just for the fishing industry and the skippers, but for the people who come to work here. As I said, people want to work on our boats in Scotland, Northern Ireland and around the coast of the United Kingdom. If we reintroduce the scheme properly, we can meet not only the needs of the industry but the welfare aspirations of those who will work in it.

Let me now look at the skills required for the job. In an ideal world, we would have enough people in the local communities to do all these jobs—people born and bred in the local community who want to go to sea. That happened in the past, but unfortunately, as with many other industries, it has dwindled. It may come back again and we all hope it does. To reference another fishing saying, there is a sea of opportunity from this country’s leaving the European Union and the hated common fisheries policy. We will regain control of our fishing waters and fisheries and will be able to ensure that that sea of opportunity allows us to increase the number of local people employed in the industry.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. On skills, does he agree that the topic he has wisely chosen for debate is a perfect example of what we hear discussed quite often in the immigration debate—that we should decide what type, what quantity and what skills we need to try to help our industries here in the United Kingdom?

[Douglas Ross]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman and I will come on to that point. Skills are important. If a local workforce has those skills, that is great and we want to encourage it. Indeed, the Scottish White Fish Producers Association said in its briefing that this year has been its best year for recruitment, with 30 new people coming from local communities, doing their courses and ready to go out on to fishing boats.

But 30 is not enough to ensure all our boats are properly manned as we get ready to leave the common fisheries policy and the European Union—and, hopefully, to fish far more in our waters with more of our boats. The association believes it will take 10 to 15 years to have enough local employment to be able to fully crew the boats. In that period, we can either decide to do nothing and let the boats lie idle and go out of commission, or we can do something about it. As I said, there was a successful scheme that worked for two years between 2010 and 2012, which we can use in this country.

I want to spend a bit more time talking about skills because fishing has been deemed an unskilled form of occupation. I take great exception to that: I could not leave this place, go immediately on to a boat for several days and successfully deal with catching and processing fish. That is a skill in itself, and we should recognise it as such. As the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) said, it is a skill we need and one we should be looking for.

After Mr Scott, Mr Sutherland and Mr Davidson visited me in March, I wrote to the chief executive of UK Visas and Immigration about what they had raised with me as well as the skill level of our fishermen and those we are trying to encourage into the industry. I said, “I invite you to spend a day on a fishing boat in Moray to see for yourself the skills involved in the profession,” and was disappointed when the reply came with no answer to that point. Interestingly, the chief executive decided to ignore my invitation—I cannot believe anyone would ignore a kind invitation to come to Moray, let alone one that included a trip on a fishing boat. The reply did say, “We do not consider such workers to be unskilled, but they are not sufficiently skilled to meet the skills threshold for authorisation or permission to work under tier 2 of the points-based system, which is reserved for graduate-level employment.”

I say as a member of the Home Affairs Committee that we must look at that skill level and how we determine skills. I will be careful in my use of quotations, because David Goodhart, who I quoted at last week’s meeting of the Committee when we were questioning the Home Secretary, took great exception to my confusing his words. I paraphrased him in saying—these are not his words—that he believed that some industries where there is a local skills shortage and for which we cannot recruit non-EEA individuals should wither and die.

Afterwards, David Goodhart contacted me on Twitter to say that I had totally confused his position. I will now read out his words precisely to get them properly on the record. We had a conversation in which he said that he believes that if we cannot recruit locally in certain parts of the country, we should not use the immigration system to get people in to do the jobs. I asked whether he meant he wanted to give up on fishing. He said:

“Not on fishing in its entirety, no, but in certain parts of the country perhaps, yes.”

Mr Goodhart was quite clear that parts of the sector in parts of the country should be allowed to stop—basically, that is parts of Moray, with Mr Scott and Mr Johnson, as well as in the Western Isles, Orkney and Shetland, parts of north-east Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom where they cannot get a labour force and it may take 10 to 15 years to ensure there are enough local people. I am sure Mr Goodhart will be tweeting me right now to say once again that I have confused his position.

I do not agree with Mr Goodhart. We should not give up on these vital industries, which have been the mainstay of our communities for so many years. Many communities in Moray have far fewer fishing boats than I would like, but those who want to be part of this great industry should be allowed to remain and flourish. If they need crew from non-EEA countries for that, we as a Government and indeed Parliament should ensure that that happens.

I mention Parliament, because this is not just a Scottish Conservative issue or Conservative issue. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, a member of the Liberal Democrats, had a debate on it, as I said; the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) has had meetings with the Minister about it; and Democratic Unionist party Members have also been in meetings with representative bodies and others. There is consensus across Parliament and across the parties.

When there is a Scottish debate in this Chamber or on the Floor of the House it can often be rather fraught, with much to-ing and fro-ing and disagreement across the Benches. There may be some disagreement today, but ultimately we all want the same thing: a relatively simple solution to a problem causing significant issues in our industry. Whether on the current problem of skills shortages or many others, it is important that the Minister notes that Members on both sides of the House and from all political parties are all saying, “Let’s get this sorted. Let’s do something about it.”

I also want to focus on my party’s manifesto from 2017. Much has changed since that election, but the points made in our manifesto have not. We said:

“Decades of profound economic change have left their mark on coastal communities around Britain”

and that we want to ensure that that situation changes going forward. We can stand by our manifesto commitment and ensure that we have the right people in the right numbers working on our fishing boats. Without them, we risk losing these inshore fishing vessels and a major part of our fishing industry.

I also want to focus on the arbitrary 12-mile limit, which annoys many fishermen. As I said, they can recruit non-EEA workers to fish at 12.1 miles, but not at 11.9 miles or 12 miles. That means we are fishing based on visa regulations, not on where the fish are or where they should be caught. That is nonsensical. How can it be right that our skippers must determine where they fish based on visa rules for recruiting staff rather than where the fish are and where they should be caught? That is not right, and it must change.

Several right hon. and hon. Members from across the House want to speak in the debate. I am grateful for that and for the cross-party support I had to secure the debate. I also make reference to the Backbench Business Committee, which was gracious in allowing us to have the debate today, which is important.

In response to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, the Immigration Minister said she was considering the report of the Migration Advisory Committee, which will not report until September. However, as I have said—I hope the Minister has heard this—we are not looking for a new solution or to consider the points of that committee, because it will surely come up with the same answers we have. This is an immediate problem, so we do not need to wait until September to find out what will happen and whether it will get worse. This problem exists now, and it also has a solution now. We do not need to wait for that committee to tell us the answer, because it is simple: reintroduce the system we had in 2010 to 2012, with caveats ensuring proper welfare standards for non-EEA workers, and allow our fishermen that sea of opportunity they want to use.

The Fishermen’s Welfare Alliance said in its briefing that the new policy would provide for “controlled and limited immigration.” The Western Isles Fishermen’s Association and the Orkney Fisheries Association both say that just 60 experienced fishermen from outside the EEA would be required to crew the inshore fleet to the necessary levels and provide the volume of landings needed for the onshore factories to operate at a sustainable level. We need just 60 experienced non-EEA workers to ensure sufficient people in Orkney and Shetland and in the Western Isles—just one is all Douglas Scott is looking for. When we spoke on the harbour at Lossiemouth on Friday all he wanted was one non-EEA worker to take the strain away from him, to relieve the pressure and to ensure that his fishing boat can operate to the best of its ability.

We are not looking for a huge influx or to change targets. We are looking for the Government to be considerate and to listen to the views of the industry. The industry is crying out for that. It is a small problem in terms of the number of people involved, but it is huge for the communities involved—stretching north to south and east to west. It is a huge problem given the issues resulting from not being able to recruit non-EEA workers: boats tied up and left idle and fishermen going out on their own in dangerous conditions without the necessary support.

The solution to that huge problem is for a small fraction of our immigration policy to be changed. The reintroduction of the policy from 2010 to 2012 could have a huge benefit to our industry, to the Mr Scotts and to fishermen across the country. That is why I was so keen to ensure that this debate went ahead, and why I am interested to hear the response from the Minister for Security. Although the Immigration Minister cannot be with us today, I know she took on board the points raised by all right hon. and hon. Members during last week’s Adjournment debate. We need a solution to this issue—and quickly.

The Immigration Minister has agreed to come to Scotland during the summer recess—she did not agree to get on a fishing boat in Moray, but if the Security Minister would like to take up that offer, he would be most welcome. We need as many people as possible to go to those communities, listen to the Mr Scotts and others, and hear about the problems caused by the policy and the benefits that this small change could make to people’s communities, boats and industry.

As I said, leaving the CFP and the European Union brings great opportunities for Scotland and across the UK. Let us not be brought down by the stubborn refusal of the Government to consider a sensible solution that is staring us in the face. I hope that the Minister and Government will review this policy and come up with a solution that meets the needs of fishermen in Moray, and across Scotland, Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas Ross]

It has been a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, and I am grateful for the way you have chaired the debate. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed.

The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) made a good speech, in which he described his local constituency issues and the issue that he has raised many times. In intervening on the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan), he mentioned some messages that he had received during the debate. I also received a message asking, “How many times will Angus Brendan MacNeil mention his pre-prepared press release?” It was a big part of his speech. I hope that he will be able to send that press release one day, and we are all able to see it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Bill Grant) was right to highlight the skills of young people who want a career in the industry. We have to ensure that there are opportunities for young people in our communities to join the industry if they want, but there are not enough of them at the moment.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke passionately about the issue, which he has great experience of and has been dealing with for so long, as a council member, an Assembly member and now a Member of Parliament. It was useful to hear his experience of all those areas.

My hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair) made a call for mitigation sooner rather than later, which was echoed by hon. Members across the Chamber. My hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) mentioned his considerable experience in the area, and rightly talked about the irony of taking back control of our waters, only to leave them unfished if we do not have enough people to work in them.

I am grateful that the Security Minister is present, and I understand why the Immigration Minister could not make it, because of a conflict with Cabinet. Like him, I served in the Scottish Parliament before I came down here so he has experience of the industry, having represented the north-east of Scotland. I was grateful to hear him say that he would press for a temporary solution and take back what has been said in the debate by hon. Members of all parties to the Immigration Minister and the Government. That is all we can ask for. An immediate solution would be great, but a temporary solution is one we would like. I am grateful for everyone’s contributions.

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Douglas Ross Excerpts

Monday 16th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wallace]

In 2017, less than 1% of passports were reported stolen, but to tackle the threat and the abuse of stolen passports overseas, we have based immigration enforcement officials at international locations—embassies, high commissions and key transit points—to work not only with law enforcement to try to catch the people committing the fraud, but with airlines and border points so that they can spot what a false passport looks like.

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

The Home Office has confirmed that it takes on average 73 days for people to report lost and stolen passports and that many countries do not regularly use Interpol’s stolen and lost travel documents database to check lost and stolen passports. What are the Government doing to encourage the true utilisation of both methods to stop the illegal trade of those documents?

[Mr Wallace]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, which is why in 2014 the Passport Office introduced an online tool for reporting. Since then, the number of passports lost has increased annually by 33%, so it is much easier to ensure they are reported and then picked up when being used.

Visit of President Trump: Policing

Douglas Ross Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

First, I congratulate South Yorkshire police force on the fantastic progress it is making, and it is important that we should recognise that. I am very aware that this is a very significant policing operation, which has significant short-term costs but also has implications for the force management of local forces for some time. We do have a mechanism to help with the short-term costs. As I said to the Chairman of the Select Committee, we are doing serious work on the funding requirements for local police forces, and we will bring that back to the House for debate in late November or December.

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

I welcome the earlier announcement by the UK Government that they will support the policing of this visit in Scotland to the tune of £5 million. Will the Policing Minister confirm that, despite what the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) said, there has been full co-operation with Police Scotland in preparing for the visit to ensure the safety of those on the visit, the protesters and, importantly, the policemen and women who will be at the forefront of the operation in Scotland?

[Mr Hurd]

I certainly am satisfied of that. I suspect that is the usual scaremongering from the SNP, because as far as I understand it, the funding is settled and the police plan is robust.