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

Drew Hendry Excerpts

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

[Sajid Javid]

No one is profiteering from charges that come through the immigration system. In fact, those charges currently do not even cover the full cost. The rest of the cost is covered by general taxes.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

I wonder how the Secretary of State will align things for the economy of the highlands, where a full 20% of the economy is based on tourism and unemployment is traditionally low. How can that be reconciled with the threshold he is introducing for workers’ wages? What does he say to people who are running businesses in the tourism industry across the highlands and islands?

[Sajid Javid]

The hon. Gentleman will know that immigration is a reserved matter, but it is very important that we engage with all nations, regions and communities. As we develop the new immigration system set out in the White Paper, I will ensure that that engagement happens and that we set up a system that represents the needs of the entire UK.

Fourthly, in addition to immigration measures, the Bill will allow us to adapt our benefits system as we leave the EU. It will enable the UK to change the retained social security arrangements for EEA and Swiss nationals. British people living abroad will also benefit. The social security powers in the Bill will allow amendments to the retained EU social security co-ordination regime. That will help us to deliver effective support for UK nationals abroad, including pensioners living in the EU. The rights of EU nationals already resident in the UK will be protected, but the powers will allow us to rapidly respond to the outcome of negotiations and to provide reassurance to those who are affected. Any future changes using those powers will be subject to normal parliamentary procedures.

This Bill is just the beginning of our future border and immigration system. We plan to phase in that system, to give individuals and businesses time to adapt. Of course, if we leave the EU without a deal, there will be no implementation period, but we will continue to deliver on the referendum result and end free movement. The automatic right to come to the UK will stop once the Bill is commenced. We will not hesitate to take back control of our borders.

As set out in our no-deal policy paper, which I will publish later today, we will also introduce transitional arrangements to minimise any disruption. Copies of the policy paper will be placed in the Library of the House. This will ensure that we take a practical approach and that the UK stays open for business. Under the arrangements, EEA and Swiss nationals will be able to come here for up to three months without a visa. They will continue to use e-gates, as they do now, and they will not face additional checks at the border. They will be allowed to work temporarily but will need to apply for leave and pay an application fee if they want to stay longer.

We plan to grant them three years’ leave, subject to identity, security and criminality checks. That will give us the time needed to run our EU settlement scheme for EEA and Swiss nationals who are already living here and ensure that there is no sudden shock to UK businesses as the future system is put in place. But the leave will be strictly temporary. It cannot be extended, and those who wish to stay will need to meet our future immigration requirements.

The transitional period will last until 31 December 2020, when our EU settlement scheme closes, and from that point on, businesses will be expected to check that EEA citizens have an immigration status before allowing them to start work. Let me be clear: this policy does not apply to those here before exit day, whose rights to live and work here in the UK will be protected by the EU settlement scheme. We want them to stay, and we value them hugely.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald]

There is absolutely no need for indefinite detention and the fact that we are the only country in Europe that has to have it shows that every other country manages perfectly well without it. Basically, it is an affront to democracy and the rule of law. It is a human rights disgrace and the Bill should be used to scrap it altogether.

We have among the most anti-family immigration rules in the world, splitting up partners, spouses and parents from children if the UK sponsor cannot meet the £18,600 financial threshold.

[Drew Hendry]

My hon. Friend might recall the family who ran the village shop in Laggan in the highlands, the Zielsdorfs. The shop they ran was a vital component of the community and well loved by the community, but they were deported to Canada by this Government under the current rules. Does my hon. Friend also agree that even under the current rules the Government cannot even support our armed services personnel to be put together with their families, as raised by me in Prime Minister’s questions this week in the case of Denis Omondi and Ann in Kenya?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I saw my hon. Friend’s question to the Prime Minister and it gave yet another horrendous example of the types of family these immigration rules are splitting apart.

Some 40% of the total population is not able to meet the financial threshold set out in the immigration rules, but that proportion is significantly higher for women, ethnic minorities and certain communities across the country. Every week we hear stories such as the one referred to by my hon. Friend. These rules are wicked, but this Bill will result in their application to hundreds of thousands more families in future. Some 500,000 UK citizens currently live here with an EU partner or spouse. That gives an idea of how many future relationships will be impacted in the years ahead. Rules for other families are just as outrageous. This Bill does not end these anti-family policies; it will destroy more families.

We put families with children on “no recourse to public funds” visas, increasing the risk of exploitation and cost-shunting on to overstretched local authorities. Again there is nothing in the Bill to fix that, but more people will end up with “no recourse to public funds” visas. The UK immigration system has become ludicrously complicated and is characterised by poor decision-making and massive expense and bureaucracy. Those who seek to challenge decisions so that they can access their rights struggle because appeal rights have been swept away, while legal aid has become a rarity in England and Wales. The Bill will leave even more people subject to poor Home Office decision-making but without the means or procedures to challenge that effectively.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman is spot on, and I shall come on to that point in a minute. It is premature, because it is tying Parliament’s hand on not just the future relationship, but the question of oversight of the future of the immigration system.

Free movement has been fantastic for people in this country and across the continent. As all the research shows, it has been good for our economy and for our public finances. That is true for Scotland and for the UK as a whole, and we will not support a Bill that brings those benefits to an end.

[Drew Hendry]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way yet again. He makes a point about free movement’s benefits to Scotland, and has it not been even more important for the highlands where, decade after decade, we have seen our population decline? Free movement has helped to arrest that situation and to turn it round to a point where we have a healthy population in the highlands, although we actually need more people there as well. Is it not the case that this is a “one size fits no one” policy as far as the highlands are concerned?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

My hon. Friend is spot on, I will come to the particular importance of the free movement of people for Scotland in a little while.

The other advantage that retaining free movement brings is, as the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) said, that it opens up the possibility of different future relationships with the EU. The relationship that my party would prefer is, of course, continued EU membership, but the Prime Minister’s red line means that not only membership but other close relationships are not possible. If Parliament is serious about having a proper say on the future relationship, it should reject this Bill.

It is not only Parliament’s say on our future relationship with the EU that the Bill could diminish, but our say on the future immigration system. The Government launched their White Paper just a day before introducing this Bill. Their consultation has a year to run. Why would Parliament give the Government a blank cheque to introduce any system by subordinate legislation at this stage? We should be moving in the opposite direction; we need a totally different approach to how immigration laws are made. There have been thousands of changes to the immigration rules since 2010, but they are not noticed or understood, never mind debated, in this Chamber. There is no other public policy area in which such important changes attract so little scrutiny. Parliament must start getting involved in how we operate and design our immigration system.

The Bill is dominated by totally inappropriate Henry VIII clauses. This is about not only the incredible breadth of powers that are sought to change legislation, including primary legislation, simply because Ministers think that that is appropriate, but even the type of statutory instrument procedures. Why are “made affirmative” clauses the order of the day?

It is especially important not to give the Government a blank cheque on future immigration policy, given what their White Paper tells us that they will do with such a blank cheque. There has been a lot of talk about division in the country, but at least the Government have brought a broad coalition together in opposition to many of their White Paper’s proposals. Business organisations, trade unions, universities, charities and non-governmental organisations are all hugely concerned. Extending the bureaucracy and huge expense of tier 2 to EU employees is understandably unpopular, even if some tweaking around the edges is proposed.

The proposed retention of the £30,000 financial threshold has sparked incredulity, as it would mean that 80% of EU workers coming to the UK would no longer qualify. Some 60% of jobs at the so-called intermediate level would not make the grade. Technicians in our universities, medical research charities and the NHS would struggle. Nurses, paramedics, junior doctors and social care workers will be implicated. Hugely significant sectors will find it impossible to adjust, including retail, food and drink, and hospitality. Housing and infrastructure targets will be totally unachievable. Such a financial threshold fails to recognise the need to recruit right up and down supply chains.

The proposals for stop-gap, temporary one-year workers’ visas are, frankly, totally unacceptable. The Government say, “You can come to work, but don’t bring your family. You’ll have no recourse to public funds, and however well you do and however much your employer wants to retain you, you’ll need to leave again for at least another year.” That is an astonishing way to treat people, and such short-term schemes, under which people never develop support structures and have only a short period of employment to pay hefty recruitment and visa fees, are known to significantly increase the chances of exploitation. They are hopeless for integration—so they involve exactly the type of migration that the public are most frustrated about—and they are expensive for employers, who have to start again each year with a brand new recruit.

The White Paper is pretty much silent on the self-employed, which is again a matter of huge significance for certain industries in which self-employed contractors fill key roles. Universities have again criticised the failure to come up with anything approaching a sensible and competitive post-study work offer. If this is even roughly how the Government want to use the blank cheque provided by this immigration Bill, we should not be even remotely considering letting them near it.

Let me try once again to wake the Home Office up to the fact that this Bill, and the White Paper proposals that accompany it, would be a disaster for Scotland, both socially and economically. The White Paper proposals look set to result in an 85% reduction in the number of EEA workers coming to Scotland. Scottish Government modelling estimates that real GDP in Scotland will be around 6.2% lower by 2040 as a result of a Brexit-driven reduction in migration than it would have been otherwise. That is a fall of almost £6.8 billion a year in GDP by 2040, and a fall in Government revenue of £2 billion.

We need people to come, not additional hurdles to stop them coming.

Migrant Crossings

Drew Hendry Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

Of course there is no room for hate in this country, whether of refugees or migrants or for any other reason. That is why it is even more important that we have the protection we offer. That is a very precious thing, and we must make the system as fair as possible and do all we can to discourage people, in this case, from taking these dangerous journeys and working with people smugglers. That is the whole intention of the policy the Government have set in place, and I hope the hon. Gentleman can support it.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

Lang may yer lum reek, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The Home Secretary pointed out earlier that there are diverse reasons why people might be attempting this treacherous journey across the channel, yet he refuses to acknowledge that some of them might be trying to be reunited with their families. What progress has been made in supporting the family reunion Bill brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil)?

[Sajid Javid]

The Dublin regulation takes account of family reunion and the need for it to be considered in successful and pending asylum applications in European member states. We take part in that actively because we can see that need. That is another reason why someone in France who wants to come to the UK for family connections need not take that treacherous journey; there is a system within the Dublin regulation for family reunion.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Drew Hendry Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Marion Fellows]

Cairnryan—I thank the hon. Gentleman. It is only a short hop. That will affect Scotland’s business community in a way that has not even been thought about.

I do not want people in my surgeries, whether they are EU nationals or others, to feel that they are not welcome in my country. I do not want immigrants to be treated differently from how they are treated now. I do not want them to have to pay any more. Thank goodness the Scottish Government are going to pay for the paperwork that may be necessary.

Workers in my constituency will suffer a loss in rights if this Government have anything to do with it. The Government have shown that they would prefer businesses to have rights than the workers who create their profits.

My constituents voted yes in the first independence referendum and remain in the 2016 referendum. I want them to continue to be members of the single market and the customs union, and I want to continue to welcome migrants to Scotland. As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) said, Scotland has seen how the United Kingdom Government treat its Parliament, its people and its industries.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

With contempt.

[Marion Fellows]

With complete contempt. This Scotland will not put up with that much longer. In view of that, I have no faith in this Government, I do not want Scotland to remain part of the UK, and I am confident that my constituents will vote yes in the next independence referendum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

I like to think, Mr Speaker, that you have been employing the Emery effect tonight by keeping me on the bench so that I can come on and make a late impact. Thank you for that.

It is not often that I see one of the Scots Tories speaking and think of an American President, but I did tonight, as I was reminded during the rather tortured contribution by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), who is no longer in his place, of the quote by George Bush, who said:

“I have my opinions, strong opinions, but I don’t always agree with them.”

I think I am justified in saying that it would be right to be greatly concerned by the deal that is on offer. It is a democratic outrage that Scotland is being dragged out of the EU against the people’s vote in Scotland, where 62% of people, in all 32 local authority areas, voted to remain. As we have heard, all the parties in the Scottish Parliament, with the exception of the Tories, voted 92 to 29 tonight to reject the deal on offer.

I am greatly concerned by what my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) described as “economic illiteracy”. He pointed out that this is already costing £600 per person per year. Scottish Government analysis shows that the deal will make Scotland £9 billion worse off by 2030. That is £1,600 per person per year. Even the Chancellor has admitted that that will make our economy smaller.

I am right to be concerned by those things, but the thing that worries me most is what we are becoming and, as we have heard from many Members tonight, the message that is sent out about what we feel about people in other countries. I have had the great honour of performing an unpaid role as honorary consul to Romania since 2011, both unofficially and officially. The Romanians who come to work in the highlands and islands are fantastic people. They have all made a genuine contribution to our communities and have slotted in as friends and neighbours and are part of the fabric of our communities. I can say the same for the Poles, the French, the Germans, and all the EU nationals who have contributed to the highland economy.

Brexit does not only have consequences for business, the economy and communities. It affects each of us as individuals and our very identities. The Scottish Government’s national outcomes state:

“Scotland’s national and cultural identity is defined by our sense of place, sense of history and sense of self. It is defined by what it means to be Scottish; to live in a modern Scotland; to have an affinity to Scotland; and to be able to participate in Scottish society. A flourishing economy and society depend on ambition and self-confidence in Scotland and on Scotland’s effective integration into the European and global economy. Our international reputation will influence the extent to which people see Scotland as a great place in which to live, learn, visit, work, do business and invest. A good quality of life and a strong, fair and inclusive national identity are important if Scotland is to prosper and if we are to achieve sustainable economic growth.”

That is the kind of Scotland I want to live in.

Our European identity and shared EU values are at the heart of this. Despite the overwhelming vote to remain in Scotland, European Scots face not only the economic and social impacts of Brexit, but they face losing their European identity. There was a nice piece in the Sunday Herald in 2016 that said:

“Scotland has been an outward looking European nation since the late middle ages. From the 16th century, Scots merchants, academics and soldiers spread far and wide in the continent establishing communities in countries like Poland, Sweden and the Low Countries.”

Our bond and connection with European nations is deep, strong and long-lasting.

In the highlands, we have long had a problem with emigration, not immigration. Our deepened relationship with the EU has presented an opportunity for us to welcome EU nationals to our region, a great many of whom have settled in the area and contributed to our economy. The UK Government’s obsession with unrealistic and counterproductive one-size-fits-all net migration targets overlooks the incredible value of migrant people to our isles and the different economic needs of the highlands and islands, as well as those of Scotland as a whole. Over the next 10 years, 90% of Scotland’s population growth is projected to come from migration, which is especially vital for the highlands.

I do not have as much time as I would like to explain in depth the importance of EU nationals to the highland economy and of our people who go across to other EU nations to live, work and contribute. It is, quite simply, the fabric of what we do, and this deal or any no-deal scenario that might be proffered by the Prime Minister will do nothing—absolutely nothing—for the people of Scotland, wherever they have come from. I will be absolutely proud to be with my colleagues in voting down such a deal when it comes before this House. I will say, finally, that the actions of this UK Government in, once again, ignoring Scotland, ignoring its people and ignoring its Parliament only make the case for the independence of Scotland much stronger.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hunt]

Because negotiations involve two parties, I cannot say when they will conclude, but it is the clear intention of both sides that they should conclude before the end of the transition period at the end of 2020. In summary, the future security partnership envisaged in the declaration would enable British and EU law enforcement agencies to share essential data, including passenger name records, fingerprints, DNA and vehicle registrations.

The right hon. Lady mentioned the arrest warrants issued for the alleged Salisbury murderers, an issue of close interest to me as Foreign Secretary. I can reassure her that as part of the future security partnership we have agreed to swift and effective arrangements enabling the UK and member states to surrender suspected and convicted persons efficiently and expeditiously.

Many hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), for Streatham (Chuka Umunna) and for Lewisham West and Penge (Ellie Reeves), spoke passionately about the contribution made by Poles and other EU nationals to their constituencies. I entirely share those sentiments, as do my constituents in South West Surrey. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made it clear how this country will treat the millions of EU citizens who live among us with decency and generosity in all circumstances. I hope and believe that our neighbours will act in the same spirit towards Britons who reside in the EU.

[Drew Hendry]

Does the Foreign Secretary believe that it is treating people with fairness, dignity and respect to charge them for maintaining their status here? Does he honestly believe that that is the right kind of signal to send out to the people he says are so valued?

[Mr Hunt]

We make charges to cover administrative costs, just as EU countries make charges for the administrative costs that our citizens incur when in their countries. What is really significant when it comes to generosity is the fact that we have made this offer unconditionally. We made it before any reciprocal offer was made by EU countries in return. That is a sign of how much we value the extraordinarily important contribution that these people make to our national life.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), in a very dignified speech, raised the issue of Galileo. I regret that the EU has unwisely made it impossible for Britain to remain a full partner of the Galileo satellite communication system. Carl Bildt, the former Prime Minister of Sweden, has described the EU’s behaviour on this as

“strategic folly of the first order”.

So we will develop a plan for a sovereign system of our own, because when the EU rejects co-operation, the United Kingdom is perfectly big and confident enough to develop our own alternatives. But if this House rejects the declaration and the withdrawal agreement and we leave the EU without a deal, our security co-operation with our closest neighbours will be put at risk. The reason is that, in a no-deal situation, such co-operation would depend not on any agreement but on good will, and that could well be missing. At a time when threats are evolving and cross-border collaboration has never been more important, our law enforcement agencies would not have the guaranteed channels that they currently have for exchanging essential information with our EU neighbours.

EU Settled Status Scheme

Drew Hendry Excerpts

Tuesday 27th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) on securing an important debate.

Frankly, it is appalling that people still face uncertainty about settled status. Recently, I held Brexit public meetings throughout my constituency and shared with my constituents all the information available from the Government website. They did not feel reassured, and only asked more questions. The continued uncertainty about settled status is costing communities and families who contribute socially and economically. In the public meetings, I met EU nationals who are doctors, nurses, teachers, service workers and many more. They remain terrified by the uncertainty. They still have no answers to the most basic questions about their future.

The uncertainty about settled status has already had a devastating impact on the ability of our local employers to recruit the workforce they need among people from the EU countries. Instead, those people who would be taking up opportunities and jobs in part of the highlands where 20% of our economy is based on tourism, are choosing to go elsewhere in the EU for work. I have heard from countless business owners in my constituency, particularly in tourist towns such as Aviemore, about their staff shortages and the impact of the uncertainty on their businesses.

The uncertainty is particularly frustrating for employers who cannot get a straight answer on the rules. The Home Office has said:

“Employers will not be expected to differentiate between resident EU citizens and those arriving after exit.”

That contradicts comments made by the Immigration Minister, who only days ago told a parliamentary Select Committee that employers would be required to do

“rigorous checks to evidence somebody’s right to work”.

If they cannot agree among themselves, how do they expect employers to know what to do? We are not talking only about those who want to employ EU nationals but about EU nationals who are themselves business owners.

This is a profoundly personal situation for many people. Shortly after the referendum, I was approached by constituents who ran an import-export agricultural business. The uncertainty about their future has forced them to close their business, and now they are concerned because they have primary school-age children; they are worried about their status and whether they are able to live and work here at all. Based on the warm words of the UK Government so far about protecting EU citizens, I have tried to reassure them, saying that I imagine that they will be okay in future, but the lack of any evidence to back that up with fact means that the people affected are, and remain, deeply unsettled.

The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness described the situation as profoundly personal. This is a profoundly personal problem for people, but in my constituency and many like it in Scotland, it is also a profoundly personal situation for the communities in which EU citizens reside as our friends and neighbours. We have the pain of trying to work with them through this Brexit mess.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Is it not true that we might also be failing the most vulnerable? Some of the processes are difficult to understand; some of our more vulnerable EU citizens might not understand them all, and legal aid is not available. Should we request that legal aid be made available to our more vulnerable citizens who find the process difficult to understand?

[Drew Hendry]

I completely agree. For public service workers in Scotland, the Scottish Government have stepped in to support EU nationals, but that is something that should simply be done as a matter of course across the nations of the UK, because there is a big problem. The lack of information and clarity from the UK Government has posed a significant problem.

I am grateful to have had the opportunity to speak in this debate, Mr Hollobone. The UK Government need to get a grip on this. People cannot be left in their current state of uncertainty and worry.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) on securing this debate.

My party and I obviously very much regret the need for a settled status scheme at all but, for so long as we are heading down that road, we all have an interest in ensuring that it works as well as it possibly can for the sake of all those caught up in it. I congratulate hon. Members who have raised a number of concerns and issues that still require resolution or clarification, while also commending the scheme’s positive features. I acknowledge that a lot of hard work has gone into the scheme so far, but my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) reflected the overriding and pervading sense still of worry. As an Opposition MP, I will focus on that side of things, rather than on the more positive aspects highlighted by the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness.

First, there is the issue of who qualifies for settled status. The Government did a lot of work to build trust, but every now and again they seem to shoot themselves in the foot. The latest problem has been a discrepancy between what is committed to in the statement of intent and what is delivered by the immigration rules. The intent was clear—that all EU citizens bar serious criminals would be allowed status, and only proof of identity and residence and a criminality check were to be required. However, the immigration rules reserve for the Home Office the right to refuse all who are subject to removal for not exercising treaty rights. That comes across as a breach of trust, which should be remedied. This is not a hypothetical matter—29% of permanent residence applications are refused for non-exercise of treaty rights, so hundreds of thousands of people, if not a million, may be caught by that.

I came here from another interesting meeting of the Home Affairs Committee, at which the permanent secretary and the Home Secretary again went out of their way to reassure us that their intention is simply to stick to the statement of intent, and that all that will be required is ID, residence and a criminality check. I put to the Minister what I put to them: why not ensure that the immigration rules reflect what is in the statement of intent and remove this ambiguity and dubiety altogether?

I have not yet established whether certain classes of people will qualify. I have raised some of these issues before, but I am still not clear whether a number of carers will qualify for settled status, including Zambrano, Teixeira, Chen and Ibrahim carers. I raised that at the Home Affairs Committee and was promised a letter, which never arrived, so it would be useful if the Minister clarified that. The number of people involved is very small, but the consequences are just as important for them as for everybody else.

I turn now to cost. My party has long called for the scheme to be free. I do not expect the Minister to announce that that will happen. We welcome the waivers and reductions that have been introduced, but we continue to call for the Government to go further. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness mentioned some vulnerable citizens for whom it would definitely be appropriate to seek a waiver. After all, we are requiring these people to apply to remain in their own homes and jobs. Charging them for the privilege seems to me to be rubbing salt in the wound. Although £65 does not seem a massive amount, we are talking about a family of five having to pay £230. On top of that, at least 100,000 people will have to apply for renewed passports and so on, and there may be other costs related to the scheme. When all those expenses are taken into account, the cost could add up.

[Drew Hendry]

My hon. Friend mentioned the £65 charge for applications, but there is a £32.50 fee for children. Does he find that unpalatable?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

That is a fair point. I reiterate that our party believes the scheme should be free of charge altogether.

My hon. Friend mentioned the Scottish Government, but there are other employers who want to support their EU employees by paying the fee for them. For example, this morning I met the University of Cambridge, which is among those employers who want to pay for EU employees to achieve settled status. Actually, it will go further and apply for family members, too, so hats off to it. I understand there may be a technical issue with that, but I think employers want to be able to pay the fee as their employees make the application rather than having to reimburse them after the event. I do not know whether that is possible, but it would be useful if the Minister commented on that.

There is a concern that if employers reimburse their employees, they will be charged tax by the Treasury. Obviously, that would be awful from all sorts of perspectives. It will cost the University of Cambridge around £1 million to reimburse its EU national employees. For the Treasury to tax that would be wrong in principle, and it would not be good for the Government to be seen to be taxing settled status applications funded by employers. It may also discourage other employers from doing the same. I think the Home Office is keen for as many employers as possible to support their employees through the scheme, so it would be useful to hear what the Minister has to say about that. Again, I raised it with the Home Secretary a few moments ago in the Select Committee. He said he would be willing to raise it with the Treasury, and it would be good if the Minister was on side with that, too.

On evidence and advice, I have absolutely no reason to doubt that this process should prove simple in straightforward cases. However, like the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), I am worried about cases that are not simple, such as those involving elderly EU citizens who achieved permanent residence many years ago but are long retired and lack documentation. Why exclude any sort of evidence—evidence of family, friends and other sources, for example—from consideration? Why not allow caseworkers to look at all the evidence in the round in cases where the Home Office’s preferred type of evidence is not submitted?

Some people will have very difficult decisions to make. For example, they may be offered pre-settled status by the Home Office and have the choice of either challenging that and continuing to look for settled status or just going with what the Home Office offers them. Advice will be very important. Although the practical advice offered by the Home Office is helpful, I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey that there should be provision for independent legal advice via legal aid for those who need it but cannot afford it. That will be available in Scotland as normal through the advice and assistance process, but it should be available to all throughout the UK.

More generally, we need a concerted and ongoing outreach scheme to ensure that everyone who needs to apply applies. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness mentioned the £9 million that has been spent so far, but I am dearly worried that that will not be enough. I recently read an alarming paper from the British Medical Association, which suggested that 37% of EU doctors were blissfully unaware of the Government’s settled status scheme. Imagine what that figure is among people who are not brilliant at English, elderly or vulnerable people, and people who never use the internet. There will be many who simply do not think they need to apply, including children who think they are British because they were born here but are not.

That leads us to what is probably the pivotal question: what happens to those who fail to register by the cut-off date? That includes both those who do not apply at all during the initial period and vulnerable people who get pre-settled status but fail to apply during the subsequent five years. Again, that will include children and other vulnerable people, such as trafficking victims. I asked in the Select Committee why we need a cut-off date at all. Surely, the end of the implementation period provides all the motivation we need to encourage people to apply. If even 2% or 3% fail to make it—for most Home Office schemes, we would be lucky to get 80% to 90% of people applying—tens or hundreds of thousands of people who should have applied will not have done so. Those people will face all the same consequences the Windrush generation faced, but the numbers involved absolutely dwarf that horrible episode. There is no need for a cut-off point. People should continue to be able to apply afterwards.

There are significant concerns about those who obtain status not being provided with a proper document. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness talked up the positives of the digital document, but there is another side to that. These people, too, fear the hostile environment. The Residential Landlords Association, the3million, the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants and the Exiting the European Union Committee have all warned that if a landlord is approached about a property by one person with a British passport and another with a bit of digital code that requires further investigation, the person with the British passport will get the property. We are already seeing that sort of discrimination, and the big fear is that EU nationals with a bit of code will get it 10 times worse.

Finally, we have the issue of enforcing the deal on citizens’ rights. We need to know what form the independent monitoring authority will take. Obviously, it should be independent of the Government. When will it be established? Is there any prospect of that happening prior to the end of the implementation period, given that most applications will be made during that time?

There are many other things I could mention, and lots of issues will continue to arise. My final ask of the Minister is simply that she makes a statement to Parliament early in the new year to update us—and, most importantly, our constituents—about the progress that has been made so we can continue to push and raise concerns on behalf of EU nationals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. Throughout my time as Immigration Minister, I have always been pleased to meet as many interest groups as possible, so I will be delighted to meet him and some of his constituents. I would like to reassure him that I also have a constituency in the south-east of England and regularly meet my own constituents, who raise their concerns with me, and understandably so. Since the referendum, it has been a time of uncertainty and upheaval for some people, and it is important that the Government make ourselves as accessible as possible, so that we can give a reassuring message to our residents.

[Drew Hendry]

I hear what the Minister says about making the message as encouraging as possible, but does she agree that when language is used, either deliberately or lazily, saying that EU nationals are “jumping the queue”, it sets back that objective quite considerably?

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we are moving forward shortly with a new immigration system. Sometimes it can be very frustrating in the Chamber, because we end up on time limits and with either the Chair of a debate or the Speaker urging us not to take up too much time, but I am always very conscious in the language that I use that we must be welcoming, careful and tolerant. Immigration is an emotive and difficult subject, and I always regret it when my time limit means that I speak in what I refer to as tabloid headlines, which I never welcome. It is important that we set out in due course—hopefully very shortly—our future immigration system, which will certainly be based on skills that people can bring to the UK. That is our position going forward.

As I was saying on the update of the private beta testing phase 1, the average time taken to reach decisions was just under nine calendar days, and the fastest decision was made within three days. All applicants successfully proved their identity and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness said, around 94 per cent of those who provided customer feedback found the application process easy to complete.

The second pilot began on 1 November and will test the online application as an integrated, end-to-end process. It will significantly scale up the testing, with EU citizens working in the higher education, health and social care sectors across the whole UK, who make such a huge contribution, being able to apply. I would like to thank them and their employers for assisting us in this way. This phase will also enable us to consider the support that some vulnerable applicants may need. The Government have already announced grant funding of up to £9 million to enable voluntary and community sector organisations across the UK to provide such support.

We are also using the remaining months before exit to scale up our communications and outreach. Millions of people have already seen Government advertising encouraging them to visit gov.uk for easy-to-understand information, and there will be a comprehensive set of communications materials next year. As I have travelled the country over the past few months and met EU citizens, I have been pleased to hear that they have already received communications, and many are confident about the settlement scheme’s progress.

My hon. Friend raised a series of questions, all of them important ones that he is absolutely right to raise. We continue to work with Apple to deliver the identity verification functionality that is currently available only on Android. He may be aware that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was in America only recently, and I am conscious that this is an issue that he continually raises at the highest level.

The £9 million grant funding to those groups helping vulnerable people is incredibly important, and my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness asked how, specifically, it was to be spent. On 25 October we announced the grant funding to enable voluntary and community organisations across the UK to support EU citizens who need additional help to apply. We have been working really closely with charities and community organisations representing the needs of vulnerable EU citizens. These grants will help them to inform vulnerable individuals about the need for status and to give practical support in enabling them to complete their applications.

I visited the Barbican library some months ago to look at the Assisted Digital service, and I was impressed with the commitment of people there to ensure that individuals were getting the support they needed. We currently have a pilot running with five local authorities, including Kent and Lincolnshire county councils, Sheffield City Council and Waltham Forest and Haringey borough councils. We are also working with seven non-governmental organisations, including the Cardinal Hume Centre, St Vincent de Paul, the East European Resource Centre, Coram, Rights of Women and various other groups. Our aim is to ensure that grants are awarded across the UK to communities where support is most needed and where organisations are able to provide it. The lots are specifically designed so that a diverse range of organisations are able to apply; eligible organisations can be charities, non-profit organisations, community groups or religious organisations.

The second phase of testing will finish on 21 December, which will enable us to have, in technical terms, a fire break between phase 2 and a further phase of testing, which will occur in the new year. Self-employed people can prove their residence via our automatic data matching at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and family members will be able to use a range of evidence not necessarily linked to employment to prove their residence.

My hon. Friend and, I believe, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), who spoke for the Scottish National party, raised the matter of fee waivers and the cost of applying. This matter was raised with me in the House, specifically in relation to victims of human trafficking, by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips). She made, as indeed my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness has made, an important point. I undertook then to look at the specific issue of those who had been victims of human trafficking, and I would like to reassure hon. Members that it is a point well made and something I am looking at very closely.

However, having agreed the level of fees with the European Union, we believe that our approach is reasonable, proportionate and fair to all EU citizens, and application is free of charge for those who hold valid permanent residence documentation or indefinite leave to remain, and for children looked after by local authorities.

[Drew Hendry]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way a second time; she is very generous. She is highlighting the fact that the scheme, or elements of it, has been agreed with the European Union. Can she give a cast-iron guarantee that all the measures she is talking about will be in place, regardless of the outcome of the meaningful vote and what happens after this place has decided on the deal brought forward by the Prime Minister?

[Caroline Nokes]

It is important that we give reassurance to EU citizens living here. As the former Secretary of State for Exiting the EU, my right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab), made very clear, I believe, in one of his Select Committee appearances, this is a solid commitment to EU citizens, who we want to stay. I think one hon. Member might have raised the spectre of this, but we are certainly not going to remove EU citizens.

Moving on to some of the comments that hon. Members have made, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) spoke about employers. That is an important point. I was pleased to be at the launch of the employers’ toolkit that we have been making available to employers since much earlier in the summer, which was designed hand in hand with employers. I am conscious that they play a significant role in communicating to their employees how the scheme will work. We are already working with specific employers, NHS trusts and now universities as part of the testing phase. The toolkit has been welcomed and is useful, and it is designed to enable employers to help their employees through the process.

The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East raised a number of points. I want to focus on a productive meeting that I had yesterday with the Scottish Government Minister for Europe, Migration and International Development, as part of a series of meetings I have undertaken to have specifically with him, but also with representatives of the Welsh Government and local government. It is important that we engage widely both with parts of the United Kingdom and with local authorities where there is a significant impact. We know that when people feel uneasy at times, they are likely to turn to local government or the devolved Administrations for support.

The Scottish Minister raised with me, as indeed he did in the summer, the question of fees and the undertaking by the Scottish Government to pay the fees for those working in certain sectors and perhaps for their own employees. He and I discussed yesterday the issue of taxation, and I undertook to raise that matter with the Treasury. I understand, and I hope I am correct in this, that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made the same undertaking to the Home Affairs Committee this afternoon.

The hon. Gentleman also specifically raised those who exercise rights as carers as Zambrano, Chen, Ibrahim or Teixeira cases. We have indicated that those resident as Zambrano cases are not protected by the draft withdrawal agreement, but we have decided as a matter of domestic policy to protect them. We consider that their current rights do not lead to a right of permanent residence under EU law, but a new UK status will be made available to them, as it will be for Chen, Ibrahim and Teixeira cases.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of landlords. I was very pleased, as Immigration Minister, to reconvene the landlords panel, which I co-chair with Lord Best. We met recently and, with a group of representatives of landlord organisations, went through the digital right-to-work check, which we will mirror for landlords with a digital right-to-rent check. It is a straightforward process, and the landlord representatives present were impressed with the way the right-to-work check already works. We will roll that out for landlords to make their checks as easy as possible.

The test phases majored on by some Members are exactly that—tests. It is very important that we make sure the scheme works as it is rolled out. We started deliberately in a very small and controlled way, and have expanded it significantly in phase 2. As my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness mentioned, it will be expanded much more widely in the second part of phase 2 testing. We expected there to be bugs and to need to make technical fixes. That was part of the reason for testing.

Visit of President Trump: Policing

Drew Hendry Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

I join my right hon. Friend in placing on record my admiration of and thanks to Thames Valley police force for the work it is doing in the context of this visit and the wider work it does to support and protect her constituents. This is an opportunity to again place on record our cross-party admiration of and support for the police and the work they are doing under, admittedly and frankly, very stretching circumstances at this moment in time. She asked about the exceptional grant. We increased the size of that pot significantly this year to support police forces in this type of situation, and as I said, that pot is open for business.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

Let me first echo the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday. Rather than the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland rolling out the red carpet, they should be focusing on challenging President Trump on his abysmal record on human rights, women and minorities.

The Scottish Government’s Cabinet Secretary for Justice has been making commendable efforts since his appointment to prepare for this business, but getting any co-operation from the UK Government has been like pulling teeth. Why did the Justice Minister have to reach out to receive an assurance that, with Trump being a guest of the UK Government, the UK Government will be covering the policing bill for his time in Scotland? Why was that assurance not given from the outset? Similarly, why has the Justice Minister been required to request what one would expect to be basic information from the UK Government, such as where President Trump is expected to be and when? Does the Minister believe that effective planning can take place without that information being known in advance?

[Mr Hurd]

I have not been privy to those conversations, but it is clear that the funding issue has been settled, and I understand that the policing plans for the Scottish leg of the President’s visit are in good order.

Home Office Removal Targets

Drew Hendry Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Single-sentence inquiries without semicolons or subordinate clauses, please.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

I will do my best to delight, Mr Speaker. Many highland families have faced deportation or have been deported because of the highly technical rules, or even because of rule changes during compliance. Does the Secretary of State agree that this aggressive targeting is ripping the heart out of highland communities?

[Amber Rudd]

I have resolved to put in place a more personal system for when applicants go to UKVI, and I think and hope that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents will, in due course, notice a difference.

Gender Pay Gap

Drew Hendry Excerpts

Wednesday 18th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

I would ask for the help of colleagues across the House. If they know of such employers in their constituencies, or indeed constituents who are employed by companies that are not acting in their best interest, then I ask them to please write to me or stop me in the corridor. I will always be happy to hear about it.

This is a matter of compliance for the EHRC. I think that as time goes on, the swell of public opinion will cause the companies in question, which do not have the good will of the public behind them, to really examine their conscience. We know that happened during the reporting period—there were instances where companies’ results came in, they were put on to gov.uk, the EHRC and the Home Office said, “Come on, that doesn’t look right”, and then the companies re-submitted their reports. Public power, I think, has a great deal to play in this.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

I raised the Iceland example with the Government some time ago and was simply told that unequal pay is already against the law, but that does not cut it: women are still losing out. Will the Government look again at Iceland and independent certification for companies above a certain number of employees?

[Victoria Atkins]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being so far-sighted in his question. I am very happy to look at Iceland’s self-certification. I repeat that this is the first year that this has happened. We have conducted a world-leading exercise, led from the top by the Prime Minister and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who both share a great passion about this. We will review the data and then see what more needs to be done.

Police Funding

Drew Hendry Excerpts

Wednesday 28th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

It is appropriate in a debate on police funding that we reflect on the sacrifice made by officers such as PC Keith Palmer, on the bravery of Nick Bailey and on the work of other officers who daily serve to protect our freedoms in Scotland and elsewhere.

I am grateful to be able to take part in this debate on the Tory Government’s cuts to the police budget in England and Wales. As an SNP MP, I am thankful that Scotland has a separate legal system and that, as such, despite the real-terms cuts to the Scottish Government’s block grant, the SNP has chosen a different path since taking office. While police forces in England and Wales have lost over 13% of their officers since 2007 as a result of UK Government cuts, the Scottish force has grown by 1,000 officers in the same period. With recorded crime at a 43-year low, that is a good result. However, we can never be complacent and we will continue to keep identifying areas of concern to make sure that the public are served better.

The situation facing forces in England and Wales is reaching a critical point. The Tory Government’s failure to support the police adequately has forced local authorities in England to ask local taxpayers to pay more in council tax to fill the funding gap. This financial pressure has led to the Metropolitan police issuing a serious warning to the UK Government that officer numbers could fall by 27,500 by 2021, hindering their ability to tackle local crime and to engage in counter-terrorism measures.

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

The hon. Gentleman talks about the need to protect against Tory austerity and the cuts that that entails, but does he agree that today’s announcement by the Scottish Police Authority in its draft budget that 100 officers might be cut to save £2.7 million is an unfortunate and regrettable action?

[Drew Hendry]

There certainly should be more funding supplied to Scotland. It would have been good if the hon. Gentleman had got behind the call for Scotland to get the VAT that was paid backdated in order to support that, so that some £140 million could have gone into making sure that we could do an even better job.

As I said, this financial pressure has caused problems for the Metropolitan police. Indeed, former Met Detective Chief Inspector Colin Sutton has said:

“The Met has little choice but to re-organise. It has to do something to meet increased demand with a reduced workforce and fewer buildings after successive cuts to its budget.”

That is an important point. At a time when violent crime is rising in England, the UK Government’s response is to enforce cuts, reducing local police numbers and adding to officers’ already stretched workload.

[Paula Sherriff (Dewsbury) (Lab)]

West Yorkshire police have in excess of 1,000 fewer officers now than in 2010, which is obviously having an impact on response times—if people are responded to at all. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is difficult for the Conservatives to call themselves the party of law and order in this context?

[Drew Hendry]

Indeed. We have seen that where there are fewer officers, there is more crime. Where we have additional officers—for example, in Scotland, as I have said—the impact on crime has been the exact opposite.

The funding pressures facing the Met should concern us all, particularly considering the counter-terrorism work that they engage in to keep us all safe. According to Sophie Linden, London’s deputy Mayor for policing:

“The terrorist attacks put big demands on counter-terrorism policing, but also on the Met police. For every pound spent by counter-terrorism policing, £2 is spent out of the Met budget to respond.”

The UK Government simply cannot jeopardise counter-terrorism work. I encourage them to engage with the London authorities to ensure that they have all the necessary resources to continue their excellent work to keep Londoners, and all who work in or visit the city, safe from the evils of terrorism.

I am not likely to be chatting on many doorsteps in England and Wales, but when I am out speaking to my constituents in Inverness, Badenoch and Strathspey, one of the priorities they want for their communities is to see our local police officers walking our streets—in our city, our towns and our villages. I am sure that voters in England and Wales would like to see the same level of policing in their communities. The anger felt by people across England and Wales towards this Government’s unwillingness to support the police properly is therefore completely understandable.

I can also appreciate the anger regarding the UK Government’s spin about their cuts to police budgets. This was wrong not only for the public but for those who keep us safe. It must have been embarrassing for the Prime Minister when she was rebuked about her claims that the Government were providing additional funding to local police forces. The chair of the UK Statistics Authority, Sir David Norgrove, released a statement on this point, saying that the Prime Minister’s claim could have led the public to conclude “incorrectly” that the Government were providing an extra £450 million for police spending over the next financial year. I am sure that the funding outlined by the Minister today will come under the same kind of scrutiny. The Government cannot hide behind political spin. They need to respect the police and the public and provide the genuine funding that will help keep communities safe.

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman speaks about political spin on decisions. Does he regret the SNP Government’s decision to centralise our eight police forces into one national force—Police Scotland? When he is knocking on doors in Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, do his constituents tell him that our service is poorer as a result of that?

[Drew Hendry]

Everything that the hon. Gentleman says is belied by the statistics and the reports that have come out. Crime is at a 43-year low. It is down nearly 40%. People feel safer on their streets in Scotland, which I will come to later.

If this Government can find £1 billion for the Democratic Unionist party down the back of the sofa, they can support their police properly. They only need to find and show the political will to do so. The Scottish Government have set an example of how to support our police forces. One reason why the SNP continues to be popular is that we recognise how important a well-funded police service is to local—[Interruption.] Scottish Tory Members shout from a sedentary position, but they obviously have not looked at the recent polls, which underline what is going on.

[Douglas Ross]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Drew Hendry]

I will make some progress, but I may come back to the hon. Gentleman later.

We recognise how important a well-funded police service is to local people. One of our most popular and effective policies was, as I said, recruiting 1,000 additional police officers. When I knock on doors in Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, people say they are grateful that there are more police visible in their communities these days.

That is in stark contrast with the Tory Government’s shameful record, which has seen police numbers fall by over 13% from 2007 to 2017. In reality, that means there are 32 officers per 10,000 people in Scotland, compared with only 21 officers per 10,000 in England and Wales. That is over 50% more police officers in Scotland.

The Scottish Government understand that our police authorities have to be equipped for the demands of the 21st century. However, meeting those demands does not mean abandoning the principle of local policing. I am delighted that the Scottish Government’s “Policing 2026” strategy sets out a commitment to retaining police numbers and to the value of local policing. It is because of that that the public continue to have confidence in our police forces.

The Scottish crime and justice survey shows that public confidence in policing is strong, with the majority of people responding to the survey saying that local police are doing an excellent job. Indeed, the survey said that people in Scotland feel safer than ever before, with 77% saying they feel safe or very safe in their neighbourhoods after dark—the highest score ever recorded by the survey. It also estimated that overall crime had fallen by a third since 2008-09.

[Douglas Ross]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has twice mentioned crime falling. Does he accept the criticism that the SNP has received in Scotland for underestimating violent crime? In Scotland, if someone is punched, kicked or even hit with a weapon, that is classed as an offence and not a violent crime. The official victim toll of just under 7,000 rockets to under 70,000 when we include all assaults.

--- Later in debate ---

[Drew Hendry]

The hon. Gentleman tries bravely but daftly to contradict the experiences of the Scottish people. I have just given the statistics from the survey conducted, which showed that people felt safer than ever before in Scotland. That is a fairly desperate attempt.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Many of my constituents feel that rural police forces have added challenges, as the population is spread across a large area. Does he agree that in reviewing the central grant and how it is allocated, the Government should strengthen the criteria used to determine the specific needs of rural areas?

[Drew Hendry]

That is an excellent suggestion for the communities the hon. Gentleman represents.

As I have said, it is because of the value of local policing that the public continue to have confidence in our police forces in Scotland. However, sustaining healthy police numbers is not an end goal in itself, as we want more police on the beat to create safer communities. It is no coincidence that, as has been mentioned, recorded crime in Scotland has fallen by about 40% in the past decade. It is important to stress that that is down to the hard work of police officers across Scotland in doing their job. Although I am not for one minute saying that everything is perfect in Scotland, the UK Government could follow in the footsteps of the Scottish Government and work with our police forces, instead of against them.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that an excellent example of where Scotland has led on policing and reducing violent crime is the work of the violence reduction unit in Glasgow? It has had a huge impact with a reduction in knife crime and violent crime, particularly among young people, in the city.

[Drew Hendry]

That is an excellent example of an initiative that is delivering real results for people and, in this instance, improving safety for people, and lessons from it are being rolled out across Scotland to improve policing.

As we look to future challenges, it is worth noting that Brexit may pose serious problems about how to tackle crime, terrorism and security threats. Membership of the EU has been massively helpful in the fight against crime and terrorism, due to agencies such as Europol. This allows our countries to work together against criminals and crimes that do not respect national borders—hard or soft. We should all be concerned that the Home Affairs Committee has concluded that it will be incredibly difficult to replicate similar arrangements after Brexit. The UK Government and the Brexiteers have got us into a mess, and they must find a way to ensure that we are able to combat international terrorism and organised crime after Brexit.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

Was the hon. Gentleman as surprised as I was—I am a member of the Home Affairs Committee—to hear this morning from the Home Secretary that for these two years her Department will have been granted nearly £500 million to deal with the cost of Brexit? That will be spent on computer systems, customs officers, border officials and so on, instead of the 9,000 police officers it could have paid for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Drew Hendry]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point about the priorities for investment, and about policies being pursued that will actually put those priorities at serious risk, if not rule them out of being implemented at all. This is one area where the narrative should not be about a hard Brexit at all costs.

The challenges facing police budgets and counter-terrorism activities should concern us all. Our police officers protect us each and every day that they are on the beat. As many of us have experienced right here in Parliament, when trouble arises and we are told to run away from it, police officers run towards it, helping to keep us safe. The UK Government should finally do the right thing, and give the police the same level of support that those officers show us.

[Mr Sweeney]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice regarding the amendment and correction of the record. In the previous speech, the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) claimed that Labour had not supported VAT refunds to the Scottish police service. In reality, Labour’s stated position at the autumn statement was that we called for a VAT exemption of £140 million to be refunded, with the money to be ring-fenced and earmarked for the emergency services in Scotland. Will you advise me on how the record might be amended?

Women’s Suffrage Centenary

Drew Hendry Excerpts

Tuesday 6th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

Yes, I am delighted to join the hon. Lady in adding my congratulations to the Co-operative Women’s Guild.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

One hundred years on from gaining the vote, too many girls and women still have to struggle too hard to reach their potential and for equality. What the change showed 100 years ago is that sometimes the law is required for real equality. Will the Minister follow the example of Iceland and make it illegal to pay men more than women?

EU Nationals

Drew Hendry Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2017 Commons Chamber

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

My constituency of Banff and Buchan voted to leave the EU—

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

indicated dissent.

[David Duguid]

That is according to University of East Anglia analysis; look it up. The constituency voted to leave, but it was not because the local people are hostile to immigrants. Indeed, immigrants from inside and outside the European Union are welcome and valued contributors to our community. There is no doubt that EU citizens make a great contribution to the economy of Banff and Buchan. One of our key local industries, food manufacturing and processing, has the highest proportion of workers from the EU of any UK sector, with 33% of its labour consisting of EU nationals. Throughout the UK, the industry employs 120,000 people.

Although many EU nationals choose to make their permanent home in Banff and Buchan, many choose to stay for a time to work and then move on. That creates a constant demand for more workers, especially when factors such as poor infrastructure, particularly poor broadband infrastructure, sadly drive many local young people out of the area.

I am sure that it will come as no surprise to the House that one of the chief reasons why my constituents decided to vote leave was the impact of the EU common fisheries policy on our local fishing industry. Leaving the European Union and the common fisheries policy will mean leaving the single market and putting an end to the free movement of labour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

Living with uncertainty in our life brings a lot of stress, and we have seen a stunning lack of empathy, exemplified by the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman), about what people are going through.

As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Stephen Gethins) pointed out, we have all been helped by, treated by, served by and supported by EU nationals, and we all probably have good reasons to be grateful to them. To us in the highlands, they are our friends, our neighbours and our colleagues. They happen to come from other parts of Europe. This uncertainty visited upon them is no way to treat our friends, without whom businesses in the highlands face the danger of scaling down and even having difficulties functioning. From cradle to grave, they make a positive impact on Scotland, especially in the highlands, where population growth is essential.

Without inward migration, there will be more older people—incidentally, Mr Deputy Speaker, there is nothing wrong with older people; I have harboured a lifelong ambition to become one and I am making good progress—and a greater need for pensions and healthcare than can be met by their own contributions. We must not forget that older people did their bit when they were younger.

Free of Brexit, it was projected that 90% of Scotland’s population growth over the next 10 years would come from migration, especially in the highlands. It is a cold fact that without migrants, we have more deaths than births. Some 30% of the highlands and islands population live in very remote areas. We need people to help them. The fact that young people are leaving means that we need EU nationals and their families in the highlands.

EU nationals support our health service. Six per cent. of NHS clinicians in Scotland are EU citizens and the figure is higher in the rest of the UK. We have already estimated that we cannot recruit all the regulated staff—doctors and nurses—for hospitals and surgeries to fulfil our future need. As was pointed out earlier, the Royal College of Nursing has seen applications from EU nationals collapse by 96%. Coping with an ageing population is looking incredibly difficult. In the care sector, a survey of Camphill communities pointed out that 170 out of their 251 staff working with people with learning difficulties were EU nationals, with only five UK citizens.

The same is true of the food and drink, tourism and construction industries. As we heard just this morning, an unprecedented alliance of seven of the construction industry’s major bodies has come together to talk about the industry facing a cliff edge over EU workers and an inability to deliver infrastructure. The National Federation of Builders and others have said that this is a disaster.

We need EU nationals across the UK, but especially in Scotland and absolutely desperately in the highlands.