Minors Entering the UK: 1948 to 1971

Steve Double Excerpts

Monday 30th April 2018 Westminster Hall

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 216539 relating to people who entered the UK as minors between 1948 and 1971.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Austin. It is also a great honour to open the debate on this important and pressing issue. To make it clear, I do so as a member of the Petitions Committee, which agreed to schedule the debate today.

I thank the petitioner, Mr Patrick Vernon, whom I had the pleasure of meeting just before the debate, and the more than 178,000 people who have signed the e-petition in just a few days. It calls for an amnesty for any minor who arrived in Britain between 1948 and 1971. Its goes into further detail and includes a link to a story published by The Guardian on 30 March about Elwaldo Romeo, a man who moved from Antigua to the UK nearly 60 years ago as a child and who has lived and worked in this country ever since. Mr Romeo received a letter from the Home Office stating that he was liable to detention as he was classified as a “person without leave.”

After Mr Romeo experienced difficulty in producing documentation to prove his identity and right to remain in the UK, he was asked to report to the Home Office every fortnight and offered help and support to return home voluntarily, according to The Guardian. He is understandably anxious that the Home Office will pay a visit to his doorstep and forcibly detain him.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

During the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, the BBC interviewed a Caribbean Prime Minister who stated that this was “more cock-up than conspiracy”. Does that not influence our decision? It was an administrative mistake that must be put right as quickly as possible.

[Steve Double]

My hon. Friend is right. This is a mistake, not a conspiracy, with a well-meaning policy having been wrongly applied to people to whom it should never have been applied. I will go on to develop that point, as I am sure other right hon. and hon. Members will do.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

I am staggered by what the hon. Gentleman said about a “well-meaning policy”. How can the creation of a hostile environment, and putting a hostile environment into a policy, be well meaning? It is time for an apology, not thin, sanctimonious explanation.

[Steve Double]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. [Interruption.] If she can wait to hear what I will go on to say, all will become clear. I hope that we can keep the tone of the debate constructive and positive and put right what has gone wrong for the benefit of those who have been affected. Those who want to score political points may feel free to do so, but I will not seek to do that. I will seek to address the concerns of the people who have signed the petition.

[Leo Docherty (Aldershot) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the calm tone he has struck in initiating the debate. Given the previous intervention, does he agree that it is important to remember that a Labour Government first coined the term “hostile environment”? [Interruption.]

[Steve Double]

My hon. Friend makes a good point.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) said from a sedentary position that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Leo Docherty) was wrong in how he had intervened.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

The hon. Lady keeps saying an awful lot of stuff from a sedentary position. Does my hon. Friend accept that the rewriting of history on such a sensitive issue is unhelpful to both sides of the debate and to moving this thing forward? For perfectly legitimate reasons at the time, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) referred not only to having a hostile environment but to seeking to flush out illegal migration. “Illegal” is the key word.

[Steve Double]

My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. We must be clear in differentiating between illegal immigration and people who clearly have a right to remain in this country but, for all sorts of reasons, are having trouble proving that right. That is the difference. Governments of different parties over many years have taken various steps in robust action against illegal immigration, and rightly so, but when we conflate those two issues in the current situation we do a disservice to those of the Windrush generation who have a legal right to stay.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

rose—

[Steve Double]

I will take interventions again in a while, but I need to make some progress.

Mr Romeo’s story was one of many that drew widespread public concern about the status of the Windrush generation and their children, who have spent most if not the entirety of their lives in this country. Other awful examples of treatment faced by members of the Windrush generation have come to light in recent weeks, which has rightly led to many people being concerned, as evidenced by the number of people who have signed the petition in just a few days. While the situation is devastating for all those affected and should never have happened, it provides all of us with a timely reminder to learn from a significant period in time for our nation.

[Mr Cunningham]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Steve Double]

I will make a bit more progress.

It is almost 50 years since the Empire Windrush docked at the port of Tilbury on 22 June 1948. It brought with it the hopes and dreams of more than 500 passengers from the British West Indies who had just been given citizenship of the United Kingdom and colonies under the British Nationality Act 1948. Advertisements appeared in local newspapers in Jamaica offering cheap transport for anyone who wanted to make a living in the UK. Among that group of British subjects, nearly half were former servicemen who wanted to return to the nation they were enlisted to fight for during the war, while others were simply attracted to the better opportunities offered by what they affectionately and proudly called the mother country.

The arrival of the Windrush passengers marked the beginning of a multicultural, modern Britain. In the following decades, thousands from the Caribbean and other Commonwealth countries followed in their footsteps. Together, they became known as the Windrush generation. Most intended to stay for a few years, save some money and return to the West Indies. However, as time passed, the majority decided to remain and make this country their home. They married, raised families and built their lives here.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Simply put, if we have a proper inquiry, we can establish who did what, who introduced what, who gave certain instructions and what happened in the Home Office. Targets were part of it and a hostile environment was a part of it. Let us have a proper inquiry to clear it up and find out what actually happened so we do not have this Tweedledee and Tweedledum. Furthermore, it does not stop with the West Indies; I suspect other groups were affected by the same Home Office methods. We should have an inquiry and sort it out.

[Steve Double]

An inquiry may or may not be appropriate, but my focus is on getting things right for the people who have been affected by the current situation. There are lessons for the Home Office and the Government to learn for the future, and those lessons will be learned, but our focus now needs to be on righting a wrong that has happened and ensuring that the people affected get all the help and support they need at this time.

[John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

rose—

[Emma Reynolds]

rose—

[Steve Double]

I will make a bit more progress, then take another intervention.

Life for the Windrush generation was often tough, but this was the generation that worked hard to overcome the many social, economic and cultural challenges of post-war Britain. I want to be clear: the Windrush generation are people who responded to our invitation to come to this country as British subjects, to help us rebuild our country in the years after the war. They are not economic migrants or asylum seekers. Theirs was the generation that helped us build the NHS. They were the people who contributed to Britain’s re-emergence as one of the most prosperous nations in post-war Europe. Indeed, they also played a role in shaping modern Britain, by making us one of the most vibrant and multicultural nations in the world.

It is therefore totally shocking to hear about the treatment of some of the Windrush generation. It is appalling that some of them have been refused access to NHS services, have lost their job, or have even been threatened with deportation. I want to draw attention to the language of the petition that we are debating today. It asks for amnesty for the Windrush generation children. Amnesty is granted to someone who has been found guilty of breaking the law. In the context of the issue before us today, that would imply that the people in question are illegal immigrants. I recognise the intention of the petition but I want to make the important point that those people do not require amnesty: they already have the right to remain here.

[Emma Reynolds]

The hon. Gentleman is right that we must learn the lessons of what happened. However, my constituent, Paulette Wilson, was detained in October. She has been here for 50 years; she worked in the UK. She worked in Parliament, serving MPs. What she, her family and I want to know is why it took her detention, and the appalling treatment of others, for the scandal to come to light.

[Steve Double]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point and I shall go on to address it. I will just say that on this occasion the Home Office has been too slow to respond. There were warning signs about it and more should have been done sooner. I do not think anyone is arguing anything other than that mistakes have been made that have been deeply damaging to some people’s lives, that it should not have happened, and that we must put it right and make sure it never happens again.

[John Spellar]

This relates to the core not just of the policy but of the practice. What is wrong with the Home Office? When it is quite clear that things are going wrong, why is there no overriding corrective mechanism? When senior officials are approached by Members of Parliament why do they not look at the matter again in the light of what has been raised with them? Why do Ministers not intervene to resolve it? Why has it taken so long, when it was crystal clear, in the press and in correspondence, that something was going seriously wrong? There is a deep structural problem in the Home Office immigration department that needs to be addressed.

[Steve Double]

I would respectfully say to the right hon. Gentleman that I suspect that question is more for the Minister than for me. I think it is above my pay grade to answer for the Government on those issues. I recognise that there are such issues, but perhaps the Minister will respond or the right hon. Gentleman will raise the issue later.

We have a duty to ensure that the Windrush generation and their children know that they are welcome here and belong here. We do not want any Commonwealth citizens who came to this country between 1948 and 1971, and who made their life in the UK as law-abiding citizens, to feel unwelcome or to be in any doubt about their future in this country. It should be stated that the response from the Home Office to the situation has been too slow. Not only should the situation never have occurred, but once it was known about the Government should have spotted what was happening and reacted much more quickly. However, although they are late, I commend the actions that the Government are now taking to help the Windrush generation and their children to obtain their right to remain here. The clear apologies from the Prime Minister and other members of the Government have been welcome, but we need more than words. We need action to correct what has gone wrong.

The then Home Secretary first announced on Monday 16 April that she was establishing a new dedicated team to help the Windrush generation to evidence their right to be here and to access the public services that they need. The team aims to resolve cases within two weeks of evidence being produced. She also stated that the Home Office does not intend to ask the group to pay for their documentation. Last Monday she expanded on her initial statement by committing to waive citizenship fees for Windrush generation members who are applying for citizenship, to waive the language and life in the UK tests for them, and to waive the administrative costs for the return to the UK of Windrush retirees currently residing in their country of origin.

The former Home Secretary also announced other measures, which are of particular interest to the petition’s signatories. First, the petition called for Windrush minors to be given the right to remain in the UK; indeed, most Windrush generation children in the UK are already British citizens. However, should they have to apply for naturalisation, the Government will waive the associated fees. Secondly, the petition states that

“the government should also provide compensation for loss and hurt”.

The Government have said that a new compensation scheme will be set up for those who have suffered loss as a result of this issue. That is clearly the right thing to do, but I want to ask the Minister whether the Government have considered providing, as part of the compensation package, support and counselling for those who have suffered distress, stress and upheaval that has affected their day-to-day lives. It should not just be about recompensing them for costs they have incurred; it should also be about the support they need to get over, and move on from, their traumatic experience.

[Leo Docherty]

My hon. Friend is laying out in useful terms the series of actions that the Government are taking. Does he feel, as I do, that the leadership provided by the new Home Secretary this morning will prove decisive? I have just come from the Chamber, where he said he will do whatever it takes to deal with the matter in a timely and decisive fashion. Does my hon. Friend share the confidence I have in the new Home Secretary?

[Steve Double]

Indeed I do. I would add that I think the previous Home Secretary was completely committed and was taking action to address the issue. However, I also have tremendous faith in the newly appointed Home Secretary and that he will get to the heart of the issue and make sure that things are put right and that the lessons that need to be learned are learned, and I shall come on to that point now.

Going forward, officials working at all levels of the Home Office must learn important lessons from the failures that have beleaguered the Windrush generation and their children. Those mistakes should never have happened, and there were warning signs, with Members coming forward in recent weeks to say that they were receiving casework relating to the issue.

[Siobhain McDonagh (Mitcham and Morden) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Spellar]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Steve Double]

I shall make a bit more progress and then allow an intervention.

Ministers and Home Office officials must now focus on establishing the status of the Windrush generation and their descendents with all possible speed, and ensure that the administrative issue of missing documentation for our citizens is not a barrier. Windrush cases must be prioritised. The Home Office must also take a far more proactive approach; it cannot wait until a particular case has gone into the public domain before deciding to take action to resolve it. The Windrush generation are British—they belong here—and the task now is to provide them with a legal status that reflects that. I applaud the new team’s intent to resolve cases within two weeks after evidence has been produced. It is vital to keep to such commitments to restore public trust in the Home Office.

In the past week, since I agreed to lead the debate, I have been engaging with lawyers and volunteers assisting members of the Windrush generation to secure their legal status, as well as with church and community leaders who represent the group. Many of those people are descendents of the Windrush generation or have a personal connection to them. They have expressed concerns about the capacity and effectiveness of the dedicated helpline that was set up to deal with inquiries. They have also asked whether there will be a deadline beyond which the Home Office might not be able to give further help to those seeking it. Will the Minister clarify what her Department will do to ensure that the helpline can give help effectively to everyone who seeks advice and whether there will be a deadline or cut-off point after which people might not get the help they seek from the new helpline?

I am glad the former Home Secretary acknowledged that the burden of proof to produce evidence of their legal right has been too much for some and suggested that the Department will deal with those individuals in a more personal manner. They came as British subjects and were not subject to any condition or restriction when they entered the UK. As we now know, many have found the task of producing evidence of their continuous residency here difficult. We need to prevent the Windrush generation and their children from facing further uncertainty over their status in the future and to allow them to be treated with the dignity and respect they deserve.

On 22 June this year, we will mark the 70th anniversary of the arrival of HMS Windrush. That is a great opportunity to inform the British public about the positive legacy of that generation of pioneers and to help younger generations to appreciate the sacrifices that they have made for this country. I ask the Minister whether there are any plans for the Government to commemorate that monumental occasion and to celebrate the contributions that the Windrush generation has made to British society.

With Brexit fast approaching, the Government must get things right for EU citizens. The Home Office must work now to ensure that the EU citizens who decide to stay here legally after Brexit know that they are welcome and that they will not face similar treatment.

[John Spellar]

A couple of times the hon. Gentleman has referred to these issues as though they have blown up only in the last few weeks. There may have been massive press coverage in the last few weeks, but the issues have been going on for months and indeed years. There has been an almost complete failure to recognise that and to put the corrective mechanisms in, which is precisely why a full restructuring of the immigration directorate in the Home Office is required.

[Steve Double]

I think I did say that there had been warning signs and cases for some time now that should have highlighted the problem. I do not know whether it is years or months; I have certainly been aware of it for months, but if the right hon. Gentleman says it is years, I am not going to argue with him. Whatever the period of time is, I think we all agree that action should have been taken sooner to address the issue, before it reached the state that it did in recent weeks. On that, we can absolutely agree.

To go back to the question of EU citizens, I commend the Home Office for preparing for a new form of identification that will be simple and straightforward, so that the 3.7 million EU citizens will have clear and secure documentation of their legal status. That is vital to avoiding similar mistakes. I hope the Home Office will be able to publish further details about the identification scheme in the near future.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a chance that people will not be able to use iPhones to register their EU registration? That seems to be of concern to EU citizens. Could he confirm that one way or the other?

[Steve Double]

The hon. Lady raises a point I am not aware of, and it is not really for me to answer it. She might like to address it to the Minister, who might respond to it later. I was not aware of that point, but I am sure it is a valid and important one.

We need an immigration system that is effective and fair. Many of my parliamentary colleagues and I are of the belief that we need a robust and competent immigration system that is also fair and humane to people seeking to legally enter and settle in this country. We have to send clear messages to discourage illegal immigration, and this and previous Governments have taken steps to be tough in tackling it. I believe the British public want the Government to be tough on illegal immigration. However, we also need to be clear that this issue is not about illegal immigration, and to make it about the way the Government handle illegal migrants is missing the heart of the point. The Windrush generation are not here illegally and never have been. In this case, well-meaning policies have been applied to the wrong people, with devastating consequences for the lives of our citizens. There are clearly lessons to be learned from that, but if our reaction is to weaken our stance on illegal immigration, we will be doing the British people a disservice.

A change of culture is needed at the heart of the Home Office, because the focus has been on policy and process and not on people. We must never lose sight of the fact that at the heart of these polices are people—individuals and families who deserve to be treated fairly and with dignity and respect. It is right that immigration needs to be managed—it cannot be uncontrolled—but managing immigration can be just and compassionate. That can be challenging, but it is essential. We must have a just and fair immigration system that works for the British people, that is open to people with the skills and talents to fill much-needed roles in our economy, and that is compassionate to the most vulnerable, the persecuted and the displaced.

We owe the Windrush generation a huge debt of gratitude for a number of things: for coming to help our nation at a time of need, for the contribution they have made to our nation for the past 70 years, for the lessons they have taught us and for the important part they have played in shaping modern Britain as a tolerant, multicultural nation. I suspect that we will soon owe them another thank you. Through this terrible experience, which I know has been painful and caused distress to many, they are again teaching us an important lesson: they are forcing us to look at the type of country we want to be in the future, they are making us look at the consequences, no matter how unintentional, of the way we handle immigration, and they are reminding us of the values that made us into the great nation of the modern post-war world. Those are important lessons, and this is an important time for us to be reminded of them.

In closing, I reiterate the crucial message that we want to send to all Commonwealth citizens who have legally chosen to make Britain their home: you are a vital part of this country, and we are immensely grateful for the contributions you have made to our culture, our economy and our society over many years. You have helped to make us the country we are. You and your children are welcome to stay here. We want you to stay, and we want to do everything we can to make you feel welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Double]

I want first to thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. It has at times been passionate; it has been clear; and there have been excellent contributions from across the House, including many deeply moving personal accounts. I also thank Mr Vernon, and all those who signed the petition that enabled the debate to take place today. We are very grateful and I am delighted that it has been possible to hold the debate, through the Petitions Committee.

There has been great agreement across the House that we owe a huge debt of gratitude to the Windrush generation, and to all those who have come from Commonwealth countries and played such an important role in our nation, and contributed so much, over past decades. There was agreement that wrong has been done to them. I am grateful to the Minister for her clear message that there is no hiding from it—that something has gone dramatically wrong and needs to be put right. There was also agreement that there are lessons that have to be learned to ensure that where things have gone wrong changes will be made, so that what happened can never be allowed to happen again.

I want, as many Members have done in the debate, to give once again the clear message that we are incredibly grateful to those who have come as part of the Windrush generation, and to others since who have contributed so much to our country. We are sorry about the experience that they have had to go through, and the clear message from this House is that we want them to stay. They belong here and are part of our nation. We want to do everything we possibly can to make sure they know that they are welcome here. We will do everything we can to resolve the issue, so that they have the documentation they need to feel secure, and to feel they belong here for the future.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 216539 relating to people who entered the UK as minors between 1948 and 1971.

Windrush Children (Immigration Status)

Steve Double Excerpts

Monday 16th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

It is my firm belief that the individuals who will be able to access this group in the Home Office will not need legal advice, because the process will be simple and one in which my team will try to assist. We will be able to use information across Government, so that we can help prove their national insurance number or their school records without calling on them to send in so much detail. It will be a shared responsibility, which I think will make a big difference.

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

I thank the Home Secretary for her clear message today that the Windrush generation not only have the legal right to stay, but are welcome here and we want them to stay, if that is their desire. Will she reassure us that her Department will provide every sensitive assistance possible to help the affected people produce the documentation that is required?

[Amber Rudd]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to reinforce that point. We value immigrants in this country, and we value the contribution that the Windrush community has made. I will ensure, going forward, that that value is conveyed to them.

Online Hate Speech

Steve Double Excerpts

Thursday 30th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

The hon. Lady makes a very important point, and I thank her for raising it. The Holocaust Educational Trust does incredibly good and important work. I know that because some of the children in my schools in Hastings and Rye have been on such trips, and I have been on one myself. It is a very powerful way of remembering the terrible things that happened, and of learning how by remembering them we can make sure that they do not happen again. I absolutely support her point.

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

Does the Home Secretary share my astonishment at the fact that someone in the position of the President of the United States actually finds the time to trawl through Twitter looking for posts as abhorrent as the ones he has retweeted? Does she share my view that far from making America great again, his actions in retweeting those tweets reflect badly on his office and undermine the very principles on which the United States was founded?

[Amber Rudd]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and that is why the Prime Minister was so swift and so firm in her response to the President’s tweets.

Oral Answers to Questions

Steve Double Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I understand that antisocial behaviour, particularly in town centres, is a blight, not least on the economy. I think three things need to happen: the Government need to make sure local police forces have the resources they need; the local commissioner and the chief have to make sure they have a smart system for allocating resources to demand and local priorities; and the police have to be very smart in how they work in partnership with local agencies and local businesses to work together to confront those issues, which is exactly what I saw recently in Newcastle.

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

The Minister will be aware of proposals to merge Devon and Cornwall police with the Dorset police force. Will he reassure me that if that merger goes ahead, there will be no loss in funding and the funding for the new combined force will be at least equal to that which the two separate forces currently enjoy?

[Mr Hurd]

I understand the point my hon. Friend is making on behalf of Cornwall. I have received representations on this potential merger, but there is no question of our imposing it; it has come out of the system and we will look at it, carefully examining the business case and indications of support from both parts involved in any merger, particularly Cornwall.

Police Grant

Steve Double Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Carolyn Harris]

I am going to make progress. The Government are passing the buck on a monumental scale. More than that, it is unfair because some forces will be unable to raise as much as others.

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

rose—

[Carolyn Harris]

I am going to make progress. The ability of forces to raise funding will depend on local circumstances and the prevailing level of council tax, neither of which necessarily bears any relation to policing needs. In fact, initial results from a current research project at the London School of Economics, which is examining the factors that drive demand for policing, suggest that, in general, crime levels are significantly higher where house prices are lower. If that is correct, it means that shifting towards greater funding through a council tax precept is precisely the opposite of what is required. The communities with the greatest need will have the least ability to meet that need through higher tax rises.

All that suggests that the Government’s policy on policing is wrong. My real concern, however, is deeper: I do not think that the Government have any idea whether or not the cuts are jeopardising public safety. There is no analysis behind the proposals that we are being asked to approve today.

In its 2015 report on the financial sustainability of police forces, the National Audit Office concluded that police forces have “insufficient understanding” of the demand for their services and what affects their costs. It said that that made it

“difficult for them to…show how much resource they need, and demonstrate that they are delivering value for money.”

If the National Audit Office finds it hard to work out whether the service is offering value for money, how can the Conservative party reassure us that the cuts are safe? Frankly, this is a mess.

We need to understand how the police force of the future will protect the public in a way that offers value for money for the taxpayer, but the Minister appears to have no idea how to do that. That is no wonder, for when the Government cannot even come up with a formula that funds forces fairly on current need, I can understand how considering how to respond to future needs must be way beyond their capability.

Even worse than that, the Government are ignoring the work that has already been done. In 2014 a group of senior police officers explored how policing should work in an environment of austerity. Their report, “Reshaping policing for the public”, discussed a wide restructuring of the police force to get greater bang for the taxpayers’ buck. However, I fear, as predicted by the police and crime commissioner for Northumbria, that the report just made its way on to a shelf in Whitehall and is collecting dust.

In summary, the Government present themselves as the party of law and order, but their policing policy is a shambles. They do not know what forces need or whether taxpayers’ money is being spent properly. They cannot say at what point efficiency gains become a threat to public safety. They blithely promise Parliament that they will protect the frontline, just as they take away the cash that is needed to do so. They pass the buck to local taxation, even though the areas that need more resources are those with the least ability to raise funds. In the absence of any credible policy, the Government just keep cutting year after year in the hope it will all be okay. But it is not okay. The Government’s incompetence lets down the taxpayer. Their broken promises about further cuts to frontline services let down the public and are insulting to the hard-working and brave police officers right across this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield).

As with all areas of public services, the police service has historically been underfunded in rural areas for too long. This has often been based a false perception about the nature of crime and policing in rural areas when compared with cities and other urban areas. The notion that crime in rural areas is little more than the occasional break-in to a garden shed or something of that nature is false. There is a direct comparison between the types and nature of crime in urban and rural areas. On a population pro rata basis, the number of crimes are also distinctly similar.

In addition, there are many specific challenges in policing rural areas, which often require a great police presence and boots on the ground. For example, Cornwall, in which my constituency is located, is an area that, alongside routine residential police matters, has record numbers of tourists, ever more busy roads and many other issues concerning our rural communities, not least the simple fact that sparsely populated rural areas have to bear additional logistic costs. Cornwall is, after all, one of the longest counties with the longest coast—and that is before we consider the challenges of policing the Isles of Scilly. The cost of policing rural sparsely populated areas, where officers must cover large areas and deal with a wide variety of issues—not just crimes—is significant. Rural areas have more than their fair share of remote and winding roads, where statistically there is a disproportionately high number of road traffic accidents. I understand that 61% of road traffic accidents occur on rural roads, which in turn puts an additional burden on the police and other emergency services.

I am pleased to see that deprivation is a key factor when considering police funding, but again there is a myth, often perpetuated by the Labour party, that deprivation exists only in cities. My constituency contains five neighbourhoods in the 10% most deprived in the country.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The hon. Gentleman must not have read my maiden speech, in which I referred to my constituency as a rural constituency with urban problems. I very much recognise the point he makes.

[Steve Double]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am pleased to report that he is an exception among Labour Members, who continually present the image that deprivation is an exclusively urban issue.

We have previously been told that the trouble with Cornwall is that we have the wrong type of deprivation to attract police funding. The wrong type of deprivation—not even Network Rail come could up with that excuse. Deprivation exists in our rural and coastal towns and villages. It is often the people who live in the most remote parts of our country who are the most vulnerable. It is time to address the unfairness in funding that has affected our police in rural areas. I am very pleased to confirm that I believe we now have a Policing Minister who both understands the issues facing rural areas and is willing to address them. Not only have I found him willing to take on board the points that I and many of my colleagues have put to him, but I am pleased to report that the police and crime commissioner for Devon and Cornwall has asked me to congratulate the Minister on the transparent and constructive way that he has dealt with her and other PCCs.

As we are all aware, the job of fighting crime and making our communities safe is not just the responsibility of the police; it is a partnership between all stakeholders. In my constituency, we have a number of examples where that is happening. The Newquay Safe scheme has attracted national recognition. It is a collaboration between local residents, the council, the business community and the police. They have successfully worked together to reduce crime and antisocial behaviour in the town, repairing the image of Newquay as a world-class family holiday resort. The town centre of St Austell has suffered from a growing problem of antisocial behaviour in recent years. Here again, stakeholders have come together to address the problem. Only recently, the town centre business improvement district funded extra security to help to reduce antisocial behaviour in the town centre.

It is good that different parts of the community are working together to address these issues, but that cannot be a substitute for frontline police. We should not expect the business community to fund others to do the job of the police in keeping our streets safe. I am therefore pleased to report that, despite the constraints on budgets and the comments from Labour Members, our PCC recently announced that Devon and Cornwall will be gaining additional frontline police officers. The increase in police numbers is greatly welcome and will take the force’s total back up to over 3,000. Another 80 posts are to be created in key support roles, proving once again that it is the Conservative party, on the Government Benches, that is leading the way in delivering value for money for the taxpayer.

We would all, of course, want more money for our police, but I am happy to support the motion today. I am reassured by the Minister’s acceptance that the formula does need to be reviewed going forward. I trust that we can count on him to ensure that in future the unfairness towards rural areas will be addressed and that our police in places like Devon and Cornwall will receive a better deal in the future.

Rights of EU Nationals

Steve Double Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

Yesterday evening, I found myself experiencing a very strange sensation that I had not experienced before, because when I started to read the motion tabled by the SNP, I found myself largely agreeing with it—that is, up until the last six words:

“should the UK exit the EU.”

Those six words betray the real reason this motion has been brought to this House—not primarily out of a concern for EU nationals living in the UK, but to continue the referendum debate once again.

[Mike Weir]

rose—

[Steve Double]

I am not going to take an intervention yet.

It has become quite clear, as this debate has gone on, that that is what this is actually about. It is tough for SNP Members having been on the wrong side of public opinion three times in a row in referendums. I would have thought that they had learned the lesson by now that they tend to be on the wrong side and that it is time to give up, yet they seem to be keen on even more referendums.

The fact is that we are leaving the EU. The British people have made a decision and given their very clear instruction to this place, and we will be leaving the EU. There is no “should” about it; it is a question of when we leave the EU.

As I have said, I largely agree with the spirit of the motion, apart from that bit and perhaps one other minor point. The 3 million EU nationals who have made their home in this country, and who are largely here contributing positively to our nation by working and paying their taxes, are very welcome and we want them to stay. No Conservative Member has suggested anything other than that we want those EU nationals to be able to remain in this country and to live, work and contribute to our economy for as long as they wish to. No one has suggested otherwise, and it is disingenuous to suggest that Conservatives have any other desire or motivation.

In my constituency, EU migrants make a huge contribution to our economy. They work in tourism, in bars, restaurants and hotels. They work in agriculture, often seasonally, helping to bring in Cornwall’s variety of excellent produce. They also work in the processing of our excellent seafood and dairy products. They play an absolutely crucial role in our society, and we want them to continue to be able to do so. The Government have made it very clear that that is their intention, but I absolutely support their position that we should not give a cast-iron guarantee on the matter until other EU countries reciprocate. We would be doing a disservice to the British citizens who live in other EU countries if we did so.

Let us remember that our first responsibility is to British citizens, and we should be looking out for their future and wellbeing just as much as anyone else’s. It is absolutely right that we continue that approach and seek those assurances because, as other right hon and hon. Members have pointed out, those assurances have not yet been given. I am absolutely confident that once we are given them, we will reciprocate and guarantee the future of EU nationals who live and work here.

Another point about the motion is that it refers to “all” EU citizens. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who is no longer in the Chamber, pointed out earlier, there are some EU nationals whom we probably do not wish to keep. By breaking our laws, convicted criminals have abused the hospitality and the welcome that we have given them. It is absolutely right that once they have served their sentences, we should seek to return them to their country of origin. The world “all” is too open, because we do not necessarily want all EU citizens to remain.

[Dr Philippa Whitford]

May I clarify that the hon. Gentleman wants to guarantee that the various crooks settled on the Costa del Sol will stay there?

[Steve Double]

I suggest that if those people have broken laws, it is for the Spanish Government to decide what to do with them at the end of their stay at the hospitality of the Spanish Government. The position in this country is absolutely right.

Much has been said by the SNP about the rhetoric that is stirring up uncertainty, but I suggest that such motions create uncertainty by raising the issue when the Government have made absolutely clear their intention and desire for EU citizens to be able to remain in this country.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

rose—

[Steve Double]

I will not give way again.

By continuing this debate and continuing to stir up such uncertainty, we are actually creating and perpetuating uncertainty. It is absolutely right for the Government to hold the line that we continue to wait for a similar assurance from other countries and that, once it is given, we will be more than happy to reciprocate and guarantee the future of EU nationals and their right to stay in this country. For those reasons, much as I agree with the spirit of the motion, I will not be able to support it later today.

Hillsborough

Steve Double Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

The Attorney General is present and has heard the hon. Lady’s comments regarding his responsibility in relation to the CPS. We want this to be done in a timely fashion, and to ensure that it is done thoroughly and properly. Having visited the work of Operation Resolve and the IPCC, I know the significant amount of material that it has had to go through. Until now, it has been supporting the coroner in the inquests, and now its focus will be on preparing those files to give to the CPS.

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

Although I have always lived at the other end of the country, I have been a passionate Liverpool fan all my life. I remember vividly watching the start of that game and feeling gutted that I was not able to be there—a feeling that quickly turned to relief. Although nothing can compare with the grief, pain and sense of injustice suffered by families who lost their loved ones, it is also true that on that day Liverpool fans across the country—indeed, all football fans—were smeared by what was said in its aftermath. On behalf of all football fans, I hugely welcome the fact that at last the truth is known: football fans were not responsible for what happened that day. It is, however, an absolute scandal that it has taken 27 years to get to the truth. Does the Home Secretary agree that not only must we never forget the 96 who died that day, but we must never be allowed to forget that those in authority chose to cover up their responsibility for this tragedy, and to smear the name of a great football club, a great city, and football fans everywhere?

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is right, and as he recognised, in the rest of the country and around the globe there are not just football fans, but there are also Liverpool supporters. I cannot reiterate enough how appalling it was that it was not just organs of the state and other agencies that were involved in this. There was a general public feeling that somehow the fans must have been responsible. Question 7 of the verdict yesterday and its supplementary question were clear. The jury was asked whether there was any behaviour on the part of the football supporters which caused or contributed to the dangerous situation at the Leppings Lane turnstiles, or which may have caused or contributed to that situation. The answer was clear: no.

Donald Trump

Steve Double Excerpts

Monday 18th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Tulip Siddiq]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention.

When Megyn Kelly asked Donald Trump on Fox News to explain why he called some women

“‘fat pigs’, ‘dogs’, ‘slobs’ and ‘disgusting animals’”,

he replied,

“What I say is what I say.”

Is that the kind of man we want in our country?

I thoroughly anticipate the rebuttal that we cannot exclude people merely because they offend us or because we do not like them, but as politicians we have to make difficult decisions. We have to decide when freedom of speech compromises public safety. We are worried about our constituents’ safety. The Centre for the Study of Hate and Extremism pointed out that anti-Muslim crime has increased in line with the rhetoric that Donald Trump used in the last three months of 2015. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West mentioned the homeless Hispanic man who was beaten up by two brothers from south Boston. When they beat him up, they broke his nose and urinated on him. The police report said that one of them justified the act by saying:

“Donald Trump was right—all these illegals need to be deported.”

Donald Trump’s words stoke and inflame hate crime.

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

I am interested in the point that the hon. Lady seems to be making. To make sure I have understood her correctly, is she laying all the responsibility for the increase in hate crime against Muslims at Donald Trump’s door? Does she not believe that acts of terrorism, such as those in Paris, contributed to it?

[Tulip Siddiq]

Of course, I do not lay all the blame for the increase in hate crime at Donald Trump’s door, but there is a correlation between the words he uses and the increase in hate crime. The point is that his words lead to real crime and violence. That is where I draw the line on freedom of speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and to participate in the debate. I, too, am a member of the Petitions Committee, and I am delighted that we brought the debate to the House today. That is not because the Committee held a particular view, but because we felt that it was right, given the number of people who signed the petition, to air these important issues.

Like the hundreds of thousands of people who signed the petition, and no doubt millions of others across the country, I condemn wholeheartedly the comments Mr Trump made about not only Muslims, but Mexicans, women, people with disabilities and other minority groups. However, the question whether we should ban him from this country is interesting and important, and we need to address it head on.

This country has a long and strong tradition of free speech. Although, sadly, that principle and some of those freedoms have been eroded recently, we are still a country that welcomes debate and embraces a variety of views. If we were to go down the road of banning Mr Trump because we find his views objectionable or even offensive, where would we draw the line? There are many people with equally intolerant views—some come to this country and some, as we have heard, already live here. Are we to ban them because we do not like the things they say or we disagree with them?

The issue at stake is how our society handles people with different views from us when we find those views strongly objectionable or offensive—the issue of free speech. I believe it is about when someone crosses a line to incite others to acts of violence—to criminal acts. That is the line that I believe must be drawn, and at which we differentiate. I do not believe that Donald Trump has crossed that line. He may do it another time, and then we might need to reconsider, but I do not believe he has done it yet. It is perfectly right that the Home Secretary bans extremist preachers when they tell their followers to commit acts of terrorism and to cause harm and pain to individuals and communities—and, ultimately, to kill. However, I do not believe that Mr Trump has done that.

I wonder how long the list would be if our country began to ban people because they said things we did not like. Ignorant and unpleasant as Donald Trump’s comments are, he is not alone in saying such things. For starters, we would have to ban the Prime Minister of Hungary who has, I believe, said equally offensive things about Muslims. The way we deal with bigotry and prejudice is by confronting it head on, not trying to avoid it. Banning someone like Donald Trump risks making him a martyr. We would only fuel his cause and he would see himself as a martyr. I believe many of his supporters would feel the same.

What would banning Donald Trump achieve? We live in a global village. We will not stop his views reaching our shores purely because we ban him. In fact, I would argue the opposite. The promotion that would come from a ban would mean his views would be heard louder and stronger than they are now. Banning him would only play into his hands. Instead of wanting to ban Mr Trump, I am with those who say, “Let’s invite him to this country. Let’s bring him here and confront his views head on. Let’s take him and show him what a great nation we are, based on those values of tolerance and freedom of speech. Let’s take him to the places that he has spoken about and show him what life in Britain is really like.”

My final point is that I have been surprised at the amount of support Mr Trump has received from the Republican party. In my view, the greatest Republican President that the United States has had in my lifetime was Ronald Reagan, who, far from proposing building walls, was all about tearing them down. He said to President Gorbachev of Russia,

“if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”

Therefore, I am surprised that Donald Trump is getting the support he is. It seems to cut against the heritage and values that I understand the Republican party to be about.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am not surprised at all. The fact is that in America and Britain there is widespread disillusion with mainstream establishment politicians, who do not seem to give an honest answer to people’s concerns about immigration and many issues. Therefore, there is no point in just bad-mouthing this guy. We have to take on these arguments and discuss them in an open way.

[Steve Double]

I agree with my hon. Friend that the response we are seeing is far more about people’s frustrations and concerns than about an individual man.

It would be ironic if we were to take the regressive stance of banning Donald Trump because he has called for a ban on Muslims entering the United States. We would surely be guilty of the thing we criticise him for. It would send a signal to the world that we are scared.

[Anne McLaughlin]

Does the hon. Gentleman understand the difference between what Donald Trump has said and what we are saying? Members on the Opposition side are calling for Donald Trump to be banned because of something dangerous that he said. He is calling for Muslims to be registered and tracked for no reason, because they have done nothing wrong. There is a huge difference.

[Steve Double]

I respect the hon. Lady’s view, but personally I take a different view. To ban him would simply play into the same fears that he promotes.

It has often been said that two wrongs do not make a right. I want to say that two bans do not make a right.

Paris Terrorist Attacks

Steve Double Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

It is clear that as a country we face a growing tension between our desire to be compassionate and welcome those who are genuinely fleeing the violence in Syria and our own safety and security. Since the events on Friday, I have been contacted by a number of constituents who are very concerned about this issue. Please will the Home Secretary reassure my constituents and the country that the safety and security of our own people remain this Government’s No. 1 priority and that they will not be compromised by our desire to welcome refugees?

[Mrs May]

I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that the safety and security of people here in the UK is our No. 1 priority, but that is not in conflict with our desire to ensure that we can welcome into the UK a number of those who have been displaced and affected by the conflict in Syria. We have security arrangements in place to provide proper security checks for those refugees coming from Syria into the UK. It is absolutely right that we do so, and in doing so we can both work to keep people here safe and secure and provide that protection to a number of people who have fled from the conflict in Syria.

Devolution and Growth across Britain

Steve Double Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)]

May I add my congratulations to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on your re-election to your position? I am most grateful to you for allowing me to make my first contribution in the House. It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to follow the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden).

It is the greatest honour of my life to stand in the House, representing the people of St Austell and Newquay—a place that is not only where I was born and raised but where I have lived and worked my whole life and where I have raised my family. The constituency of St Austell and Newquay was a new one in 2010, and it was thought for a while that my predecessor, Stephen Gilbert, would be the only Member of Parliament for St Austell and Newquay, as our constituency would have been lost if the boundary changes had gone through. I suspect that I am probably one of only very few Conservative Members who was actually quite grateful that the changes did not go through because I would not have had a seat to contest at the election if they had.

I wish to pay tribute to Stephen Gilbert for the work that he did for our constituency during his five years in office. Many people have told me of the excellent work he did and help he gave to them personally on a wide range of issues. I wish to acknowledge his work in securing the previous Government’s support for the public sector obligation funding that secured our daily air link from Newquay Cornwall airport to Gatwick, which is absolutely essential to our local Cornish economy.

St Austell and Newquay is a wonderfully unique, diverse and special part of Cornwall. We are one of only three constituencies that have two separate coasts: from the rugged beauty of the Atlantic coast to the north, which draws thousands of tourists to Cornwall’s premier resort, Newquay, every summer and creates the best surfing opportunities in Europe, to the picturesque south coast and the historic harbours of Fowey, where we still export the finest quality china clay in the world, and to Mevagissey, which is now Cornwall’s second-busiest fishing port—not forgetting, of course, the ancient world heritage port of Charlestown, near my home town of St Austell, which has now become renowned as the backdrop to many scenes in the BBC’s recent “Poldark” series. There is no doubt that “Poldark” has been a huge boost to the local Cornish tourism industry, but it has also produced a revival of a much-loved Cornish tradition, that of cakey tea. I am told today by our local newspaper, the St Austell Voice, that cakey tea wars have broken out between Fowey and Mevagissey. Of course, as the newly elected Member of Parliament, I feel that it is only my duty to go and sample both and decide for myself which is the best.

We are debating devolution and growth across Britain. I particularly want to speak about growth across Britain. There has been a widely held view in Cornwall that we have often been overlooked, ignored and neglected by successive Governments. Dating back as far as 500 years, Cornishmen have marched on this place in protest because we have felt neglected. It is a sad fact that the issues that face Cornwall today have not changed or been addressed for many years. In fact, I looked up the maiden speech of one of my predecessors, the late and considered by many great David Penhaligon. He made his maiden speech in 1974, and its content is striking. In his speech, he raised issues of low pay in Cornwall and the fact that we are one of the poorest areas of the United Kingdom. He referred to our over-reliance on tourism and the need for us to create different types of better-paid jobs. He raised the issue of creaking infrastructure and the lack of investment in our roads, schools and health services. They are still the big issues that face Cornwall today, but times are changing.

The last Government started to address some of those issues and invested in our roads and increased the funding for our schools and health services. Clearly, we now have a new opportunity to create a better, more positive and more constructive relationship with the Westminster Government. For the first time in our history, we have six Conservative MPs in a Conservative-majority Government. I am delighted that both my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have made it clear that this Government will not neglect Cornwall and that we will deliver the investment that Cornwall needs.