Migrant Crossings

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I agree very much with my right hon. Friend. It is not always possible to get a definitive answer. Many people are using France as a transit country: in many cases, they have entered through another EU country. The principle is very important. Those who encourage people not to claim asylum in the first safe country are encouraging them to take this dangerous journey and they should reflect on that.

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

I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of the statement. I concur wholeheartedly with what both he and the shadow Home Secretary said in relation to the attack at Manchester’s Victoria station.

Some 500 individuals have been so desperate as to risk an incredibly dangerous journey across the channel last year in what is probably better described as a human tragedy than a major incident. In response to the statement, let me say first that we must of course stop the organised crime gangs that encourage these perilous journeys. The Home Secretary mentioned two arrests, but how many people does he estimate are involved in facilitating these crossings, and does he anticipate further arrests and charges in the days ahead?

Secondly, we must above all protect lives. Will the Home Secretary confirm that that is the clear and unambiguous duty of all the ships being deployed to the channel? I share the shadow Home Secretary’s concerns about the implications of withdrawing two ships from operations in the Mediterranean. Will the Home Secretary say a little more about what that means for what we are able to achieve there?

Thirdly, we must properly, fairly and independently consider each asylum claim made on arrival and treat everyone with dignity and respect. It is here, unfortunately, that the Home Secretary has caused most concern in recent days. Despite the more moderate language in his statement, he reportedly said that “real, genuine” asylum seekers would not make such crossings and spoke of a need

“to send a very strong message that you won’t succeed”

in making it to UK shores. That approach is factually, legally and morally wrong. It is actually pretty insulting to the many refugees who have contributed to this country who, for a whole host of legitimate reasons, made their way here through other safe countries. As he knows, the success rate of asylum applications from Iranians is particularly high.

Will the Home Secretary retract those remarks and confirm that all asylum applications will be considered solely on the basis of the refugee convention and of whether the applicant is a refugee, without any thought of sending messages? Will he take a humane and compassionate approach to possible third-country removals instead of tightening laws? If he does not, he will simply prolong the misery.

Future Immigration

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I thank my right hon. Friend for the points he raises. First, he is absolutely right to emphasise the need for control. That was clearly one of the messages of the referendum result. It is about control. Like any other major developed economy, there is no reason why Britain should not have control while also being fair in its approach to immigration. On access to benefits, the White Paper sets out—I appreciate he has not had the opportunity to look at it in any detail yet—that on the short-term workers route, for example, there will be no right to public benefits and no dependants’ rights. This is a system that many other countries have followed. It is a fair approach both to people who come to our country to work and to the domestic population.

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

I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of his statement and the Immigration Minister for taking the time to speak to me earlier today.

The proposals will make us all poorer economically, socially and in terms of opportunity. They signify not a “global Britain”, but an inward-looking Government and a Prime Minister still obsessed with net migration targets. When the Government talk about taking back control of our borders, what they mean is ripping up mutual rights to live, study, work and enjoy family life across Europe, depriving future generations of the amazing opportunities that our generations have enjoyed. Free movement has been brilliant for our people, and brilliant for Scotland and the UK, too.

When the Government talk about a skills-based system, they mean nothing of the sort. It is, to all intents and purposes, a salary-based system. We are talking about the carers, key NHS workers, lab technicians, researchers, bricklayers, and many other essential workers that this country needs. So why are the Government intent on slashing the family, social security and settlement rights of workers coming here under that income threshold? The proposals are degrading for workers, bad for employers and bad for community cohesion.

Why is the Home Secretary intent on forcing businesses to endure the expense, red tape and dubious reliability of a Home Office immigration system, when free movement has worked perfectly well? This is the opposite of cutting bureaucracy. Will the Home Secretary confirm the revenue that this will cost the Treasury? Will he confirm what the analysis shows about lost growth to the economy?

Finally, these announcements will be utterly disastrous for Scotland—socially and economically. Has the Home Office modelled the effect they will have on Scotland’s population, economy and public finances? Does the Home Secretary seriously think that reducing EU migration to Scotland, possibly by over 80%, is a good thing? If this is the best the Government can do, there is no better illustration of why we need decisions on immigration to be in Scotland’s hands.

[Sajid Javid]

First, the hon. Gentleman claims that having one’s own immigration system and ending freedom of movement will make the country poorer. He should perhaps focus his attention on the number of other large developed countries—Australia, Canada, United States—that have their own independent immigration system. They are not poorer because of that. I do not think his logic follows at all.

The hon. Gentleman argues for continuing freedom of movement. He should cast his mind back to just over two years ago when the people of the United Kingdom voted to end it. Scottish citizens are members of the United Kingdom. They voted to end it. Lastly, he raises the issue of the salary threshold. When determining skill levels, it is perfectly reasonable that one of the factors to be taken into account is salary. It should not be based exclusively on that. If he cares to read the Migration Advisory Committee’s report from September, it will provide him with a lot more evidence for why this is a perfectly reasonable approach.

Public Health Model to Reduce Youth Violence

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 13th December 2018 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

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

[Stuart C. McDonald]

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

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) said. We can all think of similar initiatives in our own constituencies. The Children’s Wood in Glasgow North primarily supports teenagers who start to engage in antisocial behaviour. Instead of just calling the police to get them taken away, local volunteers went out and worked with them. Now those same teenagers, instead of being involved in antisocial behaviour, are active parts of that community. That preventive strategy is seen at all levels.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which highlights another very useful and innovative community response.

Both the Minister and the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) mentioned the impact of adverse childhood experiences—ACEs. More recently, and significantly, this has been an increasing focus of Scottish Government policy. There is increasingly convincing evidence about how certain adverse childhood experiences can result in long-term effects on learning, health and behaviour. Remarkable research in Wales found that people who reported experiencing four or more ACEs are 15 times more likely to have committed violence, 14 times more likely to have been victim of violence in the past 12 months, and 20 times more likely to have been in prison at some point in their life. Many other studies show similar links, so working to prevent ACEs at all and to build resilience for those who have already experienced them now underpins policies in all areas. An ACEs hub, co-ordinated by NHS Health Scotland, is progressing national action, and the implications for justice policy are now reflected in the Government’s “Justice in Scotland: Vision and Priorities” for 2017 to 2020.

While detailed policies cannot simply be transplanted from one community to the next, and each has to be tailored to local need, there is no doubt that the principles behind a public health approach to violent crime, and particularly violent youth crime, are absolutely solid and evidence-based. I welcome, for example, what Mayor Sadiq Khan has done in establishing a violence reduction unit in London.

Similarly, the UK Government’s serious violence strategy includes some welcome steps, including the establishment of the new national county lines co-ordination centre, which the Minister mentioned, and a move towards a public health approach, but there are those who have expressed concern about it. Critics have expressed the belief that it is still overly dominated—certainly, as regards youth justice—by a criminal law enforcement response, with insufficient emphasis on some drivers of serious violence, such as poverty, and insufficient recognition of the impact of trauma on children caught up in serious violence. That is what some critics are concerned about. The Minister is a former colleague from the Home Affairs Committee, and I know that she is absolutely committed to this issue, so I hope that she can bring the Government with her in being able to respond to these questions and criticisms in the best way possible by investing in putting public health front and centre of their ambitions to tackle youth crime.

The Minister also mentioned the Offensive Weapons Bill, which was a welcome, if small step, as I said when we debated it. She mentioned a consultation on a statutory duty, which seems fine to me. We will monitor that with interest. However, I think we all absolutely agree that we cannot legislate our way out of these issues any more than we can arrest our way out of them. These challenges require evidence-based strategy and policies, and, as hon. Members have said repeatedly already, they require urgent and significant investment in them. Ultimately, everyone benefits if Government genuinely and urgently commit to that approach. We will support any and all initiatives that reflect that approach.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Monday 3rd December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

As my hon. Friend and other colleagues who work so closely on this will know, county lines are the dissemination of violence and drugs from our major urban centres into rural and coastal areas. Just one of the many pieces of work arising out of the serious violence strategy is the setting up of the national co-ordination centre, where law enforcement agencies work together to share intelligence and advice so that we get to the real criminals behind this practice, and also help to support the children who are being exploited.

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

T7. The Home Secretary has rightly commended those employers planning to reimburse EU employees for the cost of their settled status applications, but has he persuaded the Chancellor that taxing such payments would be counterproductive and utterly unfair?

[The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, which I know he raised at the Home Affairs Committee last week and again with me in Westminster Hall last week. Both the Home Secretary and I have undertaken to raise that with the Chancellor, who is obviously, as the hon. Gentleman will have noticed, on the Front Bench this afternoon.

Offensive Weapons Bill

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 28th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown]

I am grateful for your advice, Mr Deputy Speaker, but it is important, in view of what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) had to say, that I refute some of the facts that have been put about.

The figures for stolen firearms should be put into context, which Mr Rodhouse does not do. There are 2 million firearms in civilian hands. Up to July this year, only 204—I accept that that is 204 too many—had been stolen, and the vast majority were shotguns, not rifles. Only 1% of non-airgun firearms crime is committed with rifles, and none of those has ever been from a .50 calibre legal weapon.

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley might be interested to know that Mr Rodhouse did not give the whole story regarding the case of the stolen .50 calibre weapon. The police dealing with the theft considered it opportunistic and that the .50 calibre was stolen with other firearms and not specifically targeted—[Interruption.] She should just listen for a minute. The .50 calibre was rapidly abandoned, and there is a suggestion that the police were told where to find it. All this points at the criminals finding the .50 calibre unsuitable for their purposes, and one can understand why—a single-shot rifle, requiring hand-loaded ammunition, weighing 30 lb and around 5 feet long, is very difficult to carry, let alone use in a criminal or terrorist incident.

The second case mentioned is the Surdar case. The whole point is that Surdar did not sell his legally held .50 calibre rifle to criminals; they did not want it. In the first case, level 3 security would have prevented a crime, and in the second case, it was a dealer who was not entirely above board.

Mr Rodhouse goes on to talk about the threat of illegal importations. That will not be cured by banning legally held guns. How many .50 calibre weapons have been seized as illegal imports? The answer is none. It is true that most UK firearms law is the product of outrage in the wake of atrocities such as Dunblane or Hungerford. At least legislators in those cases were seeking to improve the law with clear evidence. Mr Rodhouse, on the other hand, is seeking to persuade Parliament to change the law in relation to .50 calibre weapons without any significant evidence whatsoever.

The Government’s original proposal was not supported by the evidence. We in this House have a duty to protect minorities and to ensure that we do not act illiberally by banning things when there is no evidence. I submit that the Government have done the right thing in withdrawing these weapons from the Bill and are right to have a properly evidence-based consultation, to which all experts, including the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley, can give evidence. If, at the end of it, the Government conclude that there is an issue of public safety, we will need to debate that further in the House. I rest my case.

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

It is good to finally get down to further consideration of the Bill, at the third attempt. Let me say at the outset that my party welcomes the Bill. There has been close working between the UK and Scottish Governments in relation to it, and we are largely, but not completely, happy with where it has got to after a pretty thorough Committee stage.

The Bill covers a mixture of reserved and devolved matters, with legislative consent from the Scottish Parliament required for some parts of the Bill. How far the legislation should encroach on devolved issues such as Scots criminal law has been carefully worked through by the Governments to serve specific purposes, and we take the view that that is pretty much as far as the encroachment should go.

There are a number of amendments that I will speak supportively and sympathetically about and will not oppose, but in so far as they are drafted in a way that extends to Scotland, we ultimately take the view they would be better left to the Scottish Parliament to exercise its devolved competence. That includes the three new clauses relating to air weapons. I am sympathetic to what the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) seeks to achieve with those new clauses and the work she is doing, but as she pointed out, the regulation of such weapons was devolved to the Scottish Parliament, which has established a new licensing regime under the Air Weapons and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2015. For those reasons, as far as Scotland is concerned, we wish to leave any further reform of air weapons licensing and regulation to the Scottish Parliament.

There are other amendments, however, that are clearly in reserved territory and that we will consider supporting, including new clauses 3 and 4. For the sake of time, I will not repeat all the arguments made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh). I will simply say that we agree with her analysis.

On high-energy and .50 calibre rifles, having looked at all the evidence in the round, we would have supported the position set out by the Home Secretary and the Minister at every previous stage of the Bill’s passage. We echo much of what the shadow Minister has said today. In Committee, we heard persuasive evidence from the NCA, the National Police Chiefs Council, ballistics experts and counter-terrorism police about the power of these weapons. The evidence we heard was that these rifles are dangerous because of their range and because there is little—perhaps nothing—that the police have in the way of body armour or even protected vehicles that could go up against some of these weapons.

I emphasise that we are not in favour of prohibition for the sake of it. If those same expert witnesses think that an alternative solution to alleviate risk can be found, we will listen. We fully appreciate the impact that this would have on the recreation of a small number of citizens, but it is a small number; we are talking about 18 certificates in Scotland altogether.

The point is that the Home Secretary said he would further consider the proposed prohibition months ago on Second Reading, way back before the summer, yet no amendments were forthcoming before the previously scheduled final stages of the Bill. There has been no adequate explanation of what has changed in the past couple of weeks, and as matters stand, the Bill will leave this place with the prohibition removed but no alternative measures in its place.

The Home Secretary is now going against and ignoring the evidence we received from the NCA, the National Police Chiefs Council, ballistics experts and counter-terrorism police, as well as what I have been told by Police Scotland. I have tried, without success so far, to find out whether any of those witnesses has changed their view. In the absence of any adequate explanation, this reeks of internal party politics trumping important issues of public safety. It is not the right way to make legislation, and it is not the right way to treat the public.

[Mr Baker]

The purpose of my amendments 23 and 24 is to avoid banning lever-release rifles. They are probing amendments; I just wish to explore the Government’s position, and I do not intend to press them to a Division.

I would like to start by thanking Little Chalfont Rifle and Pistol Club and my constituents who are members of it for helping me better to understand lever-release rifles by allowing me to fire several of them. Lever-release rifles are built and designed in the UK. They have a mechanism by which the rifle unloads itself with propellant gas but stops short of reloading. In a sense, they are self-cocking, but not self-loading. A lever is pressed to release the working parts and load the next round. My amendments would allow lever-release rifles but ban so-called MARS—manually activated release system—rifles, which allow the working parts to come forward using a second trigger press.

The lever-release mechanism was produced within current firearms law to be suitably used and owned on a section 1 firearms licence. These rifles are a valuable resource for disabled and elderly shooters in particular, who can struggle with conventional operating actions, and are no more dangerous than any other legally owned firearm of a similar calibre. The mechanism is not a bump stock, which has no place in target shooting; there seems to be unity about that.

The National Rifle Association has provided evidence that lever-release systems do not significantly increase the rate of fire capability of rifles. Lever-release rifles have a comparable rate of fire to bolt-action rifles—that is, one to two rounds per second, against one or less with a bolt-action rifle. Those rates of fire are based on un-aimed shots. In reality, the rate of fire for aimed shots, including the time taken to come back to aim and replace magazines, will yield an aimed shot about every two to four seconds in the hands of an expert marksman, regardless of the system used. I can certainly testify to that, having tried them. They have considerable recoil, and the idea of having a high rate of fire with aimed shots is really for the birds.

The lever-release system can allow an able-bodied shooter to maintain their firing position, assisting accuracy in a sport that is defined by accurate shooting. According to British Shooting, disabled people currently make up 25% of recreational shooters—a number that it is committed to increasing further. The NRA has informed us that 42.5% of its members are aged 60 or older. Lever-release rifles can allow less able people to continue to participate in the sport.

It seems unnecessary to ban lever-release rifles. My amendments would ban so-called MARS firearms, where the trigger is pulled a second time. I would like the Minister to set out exactly why shooters with lever-release rifles should have those weapons taken from them. A cornerstone of democracy is minority rights. I do not think that these weapons represent a significant additional risk for having a lever-release mechanism, and though I am only probing the Government’s position, I would like the Minister to set out in detail why owners will be stripped of those firearms.

Finally, in the original impact assessment, published alongside the consultation document, the Government estimated the total cost of compensation for the owners of these firearms to be between £1 million and £1.1 million in the first year of the policy. Responses to the consultation suggest that this was a considerable underestimate, and I very much hope that the Minister will be able to give us a new and more accurate estimate of the cost of the compensation.

--- Later in debate ---

My new clause seeks to provide a remedy to that problem. The Minister’s rhetoric on moped crime is welcome, but we need to ensure that our legislation actually reflects the unique fears and threats that moped criminals represent to the public. Viral videos will not deter future moped criminals from instilling fear in my constituents, but tougher approaches to the offence may just do that. That is why I commend new clause 26, and hope that Ministers and Tory Members will see fit to support it.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I shall be brief, as lots of hon. Members wish to speak.

The provisions in the Bill in relation to corrosive substances and knives are also largely welcomed on the SNP Benches, but I do not think anyone is arguing that the new provisions will transform or revolutionise the fight against knife crime or acid attacks; they can merely play a part in reducing the number of lives affected.

There has been close working between the UK and Scottish Governments, including on amendment 56, which the Minister highlighted. Many of the other amendments in the group would not extend to Scotland, or do not seem intended to do so, so we would argue that further changes to the criminal law of Scotland should be left to that Parliament and I shall speak only to one or two of the amendments tabled.

I welcome the changes to the defence relating to possession of swords for religious ceremonies. We congratulate all involved in tabling and supporting amendment 22 and we welcome the Government response, which we trust will ensure that the new offence of possessing certain particularly offensive weapons catches only those who it is really aimed at, not those involved in religious ceremonies.

It is important to speak about new clauses 1 and 14. We agree absolutely that they flag up a serious problem that must be addressed, and it is good that it has been highlighted today. In Committee, we heard evidence about the growing problems faced by shop workers and the increasing number of thefts and attacks that they face. As part of the recent Respect for Shopworkers Week and USDAW’s Freedom from Fear campaign—like other Members, I suspect—I visited a local Co-op store to hear about the challenges faced there and the steps needed to help support shop workers. I totally agree that the problem must be tackled.

A private Member’s Bill is being finalised for tabling in the Scottish Parliament in relation to the protection of shop workers, having attracted the requisite cross-party support. The Scottish Government have said that they have an open mind on whether they would support such a Bill. The proposals contained in the Bill consultation for new offences cover not just shop workers selling age-restricted goods, but bar staff, and indeed door staff. I appreciate that those tabling the amendments before us today have been restricted by the scope of the Bill before us, but as the consultation in the Scottish Parliament pointed out, age restrictions on tobacco and alcohol are almost certainly the most common flashpoints, and if we are to take a legislative approach, I would argue that ideally that would need to cover such sales, too, rather than simply corrosive substances and knives. In short, although I sympathise with the arguments that have been made today, I leave it to the Scottish Parliament to decide the issue holistically in respect of that offence in Scotland.

I will not further delay the House by talking about other amendments with which I sympathise but that relate to devolved matters. New clause 6, which would give rise to a reporting requirement, is slightly shoehorned into the Bill. A general report on the causes of youth violence would clearly be better than one restricted to youth violence with offensive weapons only, but it would, of course, be open to the Secretary of State to go further. Although crime is devolved, some of the possible causes that would be reported on under new clause 6 are not; they are reserved. To finish on a happy note, we willingly shoehorn in our support for new clause 6.

[Richard Graham]

I rise to comment on two of the new clauses. First, my hon. Friend the Minister has spoken convincingly on new clause 16 and there is widespread agreement in the House that extending the Bill to cover private places, as well as public places, is important. To add to what I said earlier, several recent knife crimes in Gloucester have been committed in public places, most tragically one at the All Nations club, one outside the Pike and Musket pub and others, but, more recently, some have been committed very much in private places—in flats and properties—and I am delighted that new clause 16 covers those places.

New clause 1 was tabled by the right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson), and everyone in this House wants to see not just shop workers but everyone who engages with the public—including people who work in our railway and bus stations, who are often on the frontline against such antisocial behaviour—fully protected by the law against totally unnecessary behaviour by other members of the public.

It seems to me, and I stand to be corrected, that new clause 1 would apply only to the handling of corrosive substances or bladed instruments. Although that is a good thing, most shop workers want to know that if somebody intentionally obstructs them—in other words, if somebody acts in a threatening manner—that same behaviour would be a crime whether it is a bottle of beer, a bottle of whiskey or a bladed instrument. The new clause perhaps does not suit shop workers as well as it might, but I ask the Minister to consider taking it back to the Home Office for discussion to see what might be done about it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I commend the Minister for steering the Bill through the House of Commons, and I commend the shadow Minister and other Opposition Members for the constructive way in which they have probed and questioned. I thank all the Committee and research staff who have supported our work as helpfully as ever.

The Home Affairs Committee recently launched its new inquiry into serious violence, and it heard powerful and moving evidence from the parents of young people who have lost their lives in stabbings and shootings. It was a timely reminder, if one was needed, of the awful impact that knives, firearms and other offensive weapons are still having on too many.

Obviously, the provisions in this Bill will not stop knife crime and shootings, but they will surely save some lives, as we can see when we can look at the case of Bailey Gwynne, the 16-year-old from Aberdeenshire who was murdered by another young teenager who had arranged online for a knife to be delivered and left at a shed behind his family’s house. That prompted a letter to the Home Office from the Justice Secretary in Scotland seeking a tightening of the rules around online sales and delivery. Delivery like that would, we hope, no longer be possible.

Officials in Edinburgh and at the Home Office have worked closely on this Bill, and we welcome the results, not only the provisions on the online sale of knives, but the new provisions on corrosive substances. We have, however, expressed our concern today about changes that have been made to the Bill in relation to firearms.

As we all know, the Bill is not a game-changer, and I do not think anyone can pretend it will be. Much more important are efforts to stop individuals feeling the need or desire to carry and use knives and other weapons in the first place. Strategies and policies that work require support, such as the successful violence reduction unit based in Glasgow, which has been mentioned earlier in debates. In short, we need proper resourcing of public services by the Chancellor—that would be a genuine game-changer.

EU Settled Status Scheme

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 27th November 2018 Westminster Hall

[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 ---

[Stuart C. McDonald]

The Minister has made a lot of helpful comments in response to some of our questions. Two remain, but I do not know if she can answer them today. First, will she simply clarify why there is a discrepancy between the statement of intent and the immigration rules in relation to the non-exercise of EU rights being a ground for refusal? Secondly, will she revisit why we have to have this severe cut-off point? What will happen to people who do not apply in time before the end of the scheme?

[Caroline Nokes]

We have indicated that there will be a proportionate approach to those who do not apply in time, which I am very conscious could be for very good reason, such as ill health. It is important that we do not penalise people who have every right to be here. We are determined to be as welcoming as possible. We are working to make sure that we articulate that properly, not only through our communications but through the immigration rules.

I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I reassure hon. Members that at no point throughout this process have we underestimated the challenge of granting immigration status to more than 3 million people. However, we have made a strong start, and we have everything in place to make this whole process a success.

Draft Immigration (Health Charge) (Amendment) Order 2018

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 13th November 2018 General Committees

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

It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Gray. I want to put on record why the SNP also opposes the immigration health surcharge and the proposed increases. I absolutely echo what the shadow Minister said about the impact on recruiting doctors and nurses and about the terrible effect this will have on children who are on a long route to settlement, who will have to make four applications at intervals of two and a half years. The proposed increase will take the total cost of fees to £10,000 for every single child on that route.

There are two principal reasons why we oppose the order. First, we regard it as an unjustified form of double taxation, which takes no account of the fact that, like everybody else, migrants pay tax towards public services. They also face extortionate immigration fees that this Government have already put in place. It is a form of poll tax as well, because it takes absolutely no account of the ability of a person or their employer to pay. The only thing that I would expand upon a little bit is just quite how out of kilter UK immigration charges are now, compared with those of international competitors.

[The Chair]

Order. The hon. Gentleman should restrict himself entirely to these fees rather than discuss general immigration costs.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I am happy to do that, Mr Gray. At the end of the day, the increase of £200 a year in the immigration health surcharge means that the overall charge for a researcher with a dependent spouse or partner and three kids will be above £11,000. That is between double and 10 times as much as in comparative countries such as the USA, Australia, Ireland, Norway, Canada, France, Sweden and the Netherlands, where a family in exactly the same position would be paying £800, not £11,000. The Home Office speaks of competitiveness, but the figures show how far removed from reality that is. For reasons that the shadow Immigration Minister has given, the order is also far from fair. We oppose the order; it is irrational, unfair and counterproductive.

[Caroline Nokes]

I am grateful for hon. Members’ contributions to the debate and should like to address some of the points raised. The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton commented on the concerns about the combined cost of the charge and visa fees, and I am conscious of those, but the charge is set at a competitive level and will remain low compared with the potential benefits—free access to the NHS, including GP care and accident and emergency care, as well as routine scheduled healthcare. It offers far better value than private medical insurance, where premiums are much more expensive. If we consider the international comparison, in Australia, for example, the annual price of an insurance policy would be in the region of £302 per year for a student, but if it was for a student and a partner, that might increase to somewhere in the region of the equivalent of £1,700.

As I said, the Department of Health and Social Care studied very closely the average cost of treatment to migrants and that transpired to be in the region of £470 each per year. The Government are clear that migrants must pay the charge when they make an application and should plan their finances accordingly. Both the cost of the health charge and the application fee are available online and are very clear. Those in a vulnerable situation are protected. Immigration application fee waivers are available on specified human rights routes, where a migrant is exercising the right to remain in the UK based on family but is destitute or would be rendered destitute by payment of the immigration application fee.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

When I speak to people practising immigration law who are dealing with clients in this position, they say that it is virtually impossible to get a fee waiver. In fact, as I understand it, fewer than 8% of children are successful in obtaining one. That leaves them, as I said earlier, facing a charge of more than £10,000 as they go on the long route to settlement. Surely the Minister cannot be comfortable with that.

[Caroline Nokes]

As the shadow Minister highlighted earlier, we keep our fees and charges under review, but at £400 per year, the fee is less than the average amount that the NHS spends on treating migrants. That is why the Government regard it as being fair. We know that children are higher users of national health services than their parents.

I am aware that there have been calls for NHS professionals to be exempt from the charge. The Government fully recognise the important contribution that international healthcare professionals make to the UK, but it is only right that they also make a proportionate contribution to the long-term sustainability of the NHS. In that regard, NHS professionals are in the same position as other providers of essential public services, including teachers.

I recognise that there are some concerns about the financial impact on nurses. However, the answer is not to exempt nurses from the charge but to increase their pay, and that is happening. All NHS nurses will benefit from a pay increase as set out in the Agenda for Change framework.

We are in the process of negotiating reciprocal healthcare arrangements with the European Union. We have reached an agreement with the EU on citizens’ rights that will protect those EU citizens and their family members who are resident in the UK by the end of the planned implementation period on 31 December 2020. That will provide the same entitlement to access public services and benefits, according to the same rules as now. In the unlikely event of no deal, the Prime Minister has already confirmed that all EU citizens resident here by 29 March 2019 will be welcome to stay.

The Government believe that it is right that migrants make a fair contribution to the extensive and high-quality range of NHS services available to them during their stay, in line with their temporary immigration status. On that basis, I commend the order to the Committee.

Question put.

Leaving the EU: Rights of EU Citizens

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Monday 5th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

My hon. Friend will have heard the Prime Minister’s very clear statements on this. As part of Brexit we will end free movement, giving us back control of our borders, which is what I believe people voted for in 2016 and which I know my hon. Friend wants.

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

Citizens need clarity, and many are here in Parliament today precisely because they have not had it—and, I regret to say, still do not have it. Unilateral guarantees are welcome, but do not provide a complete answer. Do the Government support a ring-fencing of the citizens’ rights provisions in the withdrawal agreement, so that they can be enforced under international law even after a no deal? Is that not the most obvious and best solution to pursue? Has that been discussed at all in negotiations so far? If not, would those unilateral rights be totally unprotected from unilateral change via the immigration rules, and how would pension rights be protected, and rights to access healthcare, or mutual recognition of professional qualifications? Finally, if there is a no-deal Brexit, will the scope and the rights set out for the settled status scheme be just as they are now, or would there be changes—for example, will those short of five years still be able to obtain pre-settled status, and how will people be able to challenge Home Office decisions?

Drugs Policy

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2018 Westminster Hall

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

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) for introducing this debate and illustrating yet again the expertise he has developed by getting involved in policy discussions not just here but in other jurisdictions, where he has obviously learned a lot.

As my hon. Friend and others have said, our starting point must be the dreadful impact that drug misuse has on too many people, directly and indirectly. We have heard about the statistics for Scotland: 934 drug-related deaths were registered in 2017, up by 66 from 2016. The hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) fairly pointed out that those numbers are particularly awful, but the causes are complex and some of them date back decades. There are economic costs associated with the problem—drug misuse costs £3.5 billion a year in Scotland, and alcohol misuse costs a further £3.6 billion—but they are nothing compared with the personal tragedies of each life affected. This debate has allowed hon. Members to focus on how we should respond to this huge challenge. I thank everyone for their contributions.

It is fair to say that the majority view is that the criminal justice approach is not working, as the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter) said. Some hon. Members argued eloquently that the way we regulate drug use through criminal law needs not just reform but fundamental reform. We should be open-minded about that, and I agree that our response should be evidence-led.

Regardless of how we respond, we should first and foremost see this as a public health issue—almost everybody who spoke in the debate said that, and I agree—albeit one that requires input from many Departments, including on housing, mental health, employability, education and justice. In Edinburgh, the drugs policy unit has been moved out of the justice directorate and into the health directorate. Like the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), I think that is exactly where it belongs. The 2008 drugs strategy, which has been referred to, received cross-party support, but it is being updated.

That first strategy, “The Road to Recovery”, helped to shift cultural attitudes and challenge stigma. It established a broad recovery network, delivered locally through 30 alcohol and drug partnerships. It brought together health boards, local authorities, policy and voluntary agencies in each part of the country. National leadership was provided by the Scottish Recovery Network, the Scottish Drugs Forum and Scottish Families Affected by Alcohol and Drugs. It led to a new focus on harm reduction. For example, the pioneering naloxone programme was designed to reverse the effects of opioid overdoses. We have heard a bit of criticism of that programme, but a recent NHS Health Scotland literature review demonstrated that take-home naloxone programmes increase the odds of recovery from overdoses, and improve knowledge of overdose recognition and management in the community. We have also heard criticism of the substitution treatment that accompanied the strategy, but the NHS Health Scotland evidence review suggests that, overall, the health of opioid-dependent individuals is safeguarded while they are in substitution treatment.

The new strategy is set to be finalised imminently. We have not seen the final draft, but we know something of the direction of travel. We also know that it will be funded by an additional £20 million a year in each of the remaining three years of the Scottish parliamentary Session. It will contain policies that reflect a better understanding of the causes of addiction and substance abuse, including some that have been referred to today, such as deprivation, poverty and adverse childhood experiences. As has been highlighted, there will be a more holistic focus on the person, rather than simply on the addiction. Recovery remains the goal, but there will be a greater focus on tying that goal to work on homelessness, employability, mental health and family support. That is simply in recognition of the fact that, too often, the most vulnerable find it hardest to access the sustained support they need for those key issues.

The new focus will be on “seek, keep and treat”. It is acknowledged that the most vulnerable are sometimes the least likely to access the services that could support them. There will therefore be more proactive outreach and advocacy, and broader and more sustained attempts to keep people in treatment by responding to their broader needs. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) rightly highlighted that keeping people in treatment is problematic and that we need to do better on it. Treatment must be tailored carefully to the person. We must recognise that some will not be ready yet to start on the road to recovery or abstinence, while others will start on that road but relapse. Support must continue and be sustained throughout the process.

A measure that would fit with that approach, which a number of hon. Members have referred to, is the establishment of a drug consumption room. My party is keen on that, and there is almost, but not quite, unanimous support for it in the Scottish Parliament. Work on piloting a safe drug consumption room would be hugely welcome. It has been driven by the Glasgow City health and social care partnership. It could serve an estimated 400 to 500 people who would otherwise be injecting unsafely and publicly, and who would experience high levels of harm. Such a facility could significantly reduce the risk of further outbreaks of blood-borne viruses.

Evidence from elsewhere shows that drug consumption rooms can make a significant difference in reducing drug-related deaths. A Sydney study linked such facilities to fewer emergency service call-outs, an increased uptake of detoxification and drug-dependence treatments, a decrease in public injecting, and a reduction in the number of syringes discarded in the vicinity. Similar studies from Barcelona have found similar positive results.

The question is: why on earth does the Home Office not want to pilot a drug consumption room? The evidence shows that it is likely to achieve significant benefits. In the unlikely event that it does not work, the fall-back will not be on the Home Office; we will accept full responsibility. There is no justification for such intransigence. The Home Office’s failure to act is endangering lives. I echo calls from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) for the Minister to meet the Public Health Minister in Scotland. She should visit Glasgow to hear from practitioners who are pursuing this cause.

Tackling drug addiction must be supported across portfolio areas. Ideally, we need education to try to help young people to become resilient to offers of drugs or pressure to take them in the first place. Where the criminal law is breached, diverting people—especially young people—from the criminal justice system can be effective if alternative interventions mean addressing the underlying causes of offending, including for drugs, with hugely beneficial lifetime implications. If drug users are in prison, a dedicated improvement fund is being used in Scotland to ensure that programmes there properly address health-related causes of offending, such as drug and alcohol misuse. Each of those drugs policies could be the subject of a separate debate in their own right.

Drug addiction is first and foremost a public health issue. Our key ask is for the Minister to look again at piloting a drug consumption room in Glasgow. She has absolutely nothing to lose with such a policy, and lots of people have lots to gain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

One or two police and crime commissioners may say that—I know, because they write to me regularly—but the majority of them do not share that view. That is not to say that we cannot have a debate about this, but let us please not pretend that that is the view of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners.

Recovery is a vital element of our approach. We are taking forward action to enhance treatment quality and outcomes. Here is perhaps where some colleagues have—inadvertently I am sure—fallen into error when talking about drug consumption rooms and heroin-assisted treatment. Sometimes, people may not understand the differences between the two programmes. We have run pilot heroin-assisted treatment programmes, where heroin users are put into an intensive support programme through their GPs or other medical professionals. They are prescribed diamorphine as part of an intensive programme of action. That is very different from drug consumption rooms, which support the illicit drug market.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Will the Minister give way?

[Victoria Atkins]

I will not, as I am conscious of time. People wander into drug consumption rooms, having bought their fixes on the street. We have no guarantees on the safety of those substances. The Government simply cannot condone that sort of behaviour, not least because it falls foul of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, but also because it would not be responsible to support the illegal market.

Asylum Accommodation Contracts

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 10th October 2018 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) for securing this debate. We are at a hugely significant moment for our asylum accommodation system, and this debate could not have been more timely. It is great to see such a significant turnout.

Members have, quite rightly, used this opportunity to highlight the many problems that have beset COMPASS asylum accommodation contracts almost from the beginning. Those problems included poor—sometimes absolutely shocking—standards of accommodation and furnishings, and we heard a particular horror story from the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel). We heard about inappropriate accommodation allocation and the forced sharing of bedrooms, about totally ineffective complaints and inspection regimes, and about disregard for the needs and vulnerabilities of torture survivors—my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) gave an appalling example of that.

We heard about the outrageous conduct of certain providers, including in Glasgow, as several Glasgow MPs have described, and about the linked issues of asylum support levels and transition periods, which were highlighted by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). The right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) spoke about the design of the contracts, and how that makes it impossible for local authorities to compete. Indeed, Glasgow City Council expressed an interest in taking on one of these contracts, but the design made it impossible for that idea to be taken forward.

The sad fact is that none of this is remotely surprising—we have heard the same criticisms over and over again from asylum seekers, from organisations that do such fantastic work on their behalf, and from the Home Affairs Committee, the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. The fundamental problem behind all this is that local authorities are not being given an appropriate oversight role and powers to determine provision in their areas, and nor are they, or other partner organisations, given the necessary resources to support all the work and services required in dispersal areas. That has to stop.

This debate is slightly different, however, because the Home Office has now pushed the whole system of asylum accommodation to breaking point. Some key local authorities that have been involved in the scheme for decades are now saying enough is enough, and they are seriously looking at withdrawal from it. Responsibility for that lies squarely with the Home Office, which has repeatedly failed to address those concerns, which have been expressed again today, instead playing them down and tinkering around the edges. Our local authorities have been pushed too far.

As hon. Members have said, the expiry of the COMPASS contracts provides the perfect opportunity to deliver fundamental reform and to safeguard and improve asylum accommodation provision. Instead, the Home Office has decided to press on with a new set of contracts that repeat so many of the flaws in the existing model, including a lack of proper accountability, a lack of oversight for local authorities and a lack of proper resources to allow them to fulfil their duties. As the hon. Member for Stockton North said, having contracts for 10 years is reckless and wrong.

The Home Office must think again urgently and listen to the requests and calls made by participating authorities and organisations that work with asylum seekers. Those bodies are calling for equal partner status for local authorities involved in the new contracts, and for full disclosure of terms and conditions. They call for full transparency and accountability from contractors when sharing information requested by local authorities to support the work they do on dispersal. They are calling for local authorities to have full authority over dispersal levels and cluster limits at a council and ward level, and for the Home Office’s power to overrule councils on procurement decisions to be brought to an end. The Home Office should directly and adequately fund local authorities to undertake all the work they do in supporting asylum seekers effectively. That includes those destitute families that the Home Office prevents from accessing public funds.

Other sensible proposals were presented by the hon. Member for Stockton North, so will the Minister listen to those perfectly reasonable asks and engage with dispersal authorities about them during her imminent four nations meeting? If the Government will not listen to those asks and engage with the authorities, the Minister must explain the consequences of their alternative approach. For example, do they accept that they are required to re-engage with existing dispersal authorities to seek their participation in the new contracts, or is it the Government’s position that having endured COMPASS 1, those authorities have no option but to continue on to COMPASS 2? In the latter case, what is the legal basis for that assertion, and what will happen if councils take a different approach?

Will the Minister clarify her Department’s plan B if key local authorities withdraw from the scheme? Would the Department seriously consider attempting to procure private accommodation and place asylum seekers in cities without engaging dispersal-area councils? Does she believe that the legislation gives her those powers? If she is seriously stating that funding for local authorities is already sufficient, will she provide accountability by setting out the funding formula used for that in an easily comprehensible published document?

In conclusion, the ball is very much in the court of the Home Office. There is a chance to reform the system in a positive way, benefiting communities and asylum seekers alike. Equally, however, there is a genuine risk of an escalating crisis if the Home Office gets this wrong. This time, it must listen and act on all the concerns raised today.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) on having secured the debate, and I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have contributed. I will do my best in the time allowed to answer all the questions asked of me. Members did incredibly well in their four allocated minutes to convey their key points. It is always a huge frustration when time runs out. I will undoubtedly drive my officials, who are sat behind me, slightly potty, because I am about to divert completely from my script and respond to some of the important points that have been made, for which I apologise.

In no particular order, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) made a point about dispersal engagement. No doubt I will at some point return to my script and find the actual points that I am supposed to make on this issue, which will no doubt detail precisely the engagement that has already taken place. Suffice it to say that I am conscious of the debt we owe those local authorities that are part of the dispersal areas and which work incredibly hard to make available services and facilities to enable those seeking asylum to integrate into local communities.

We have already started a dialogue about how we can increase the number of dispersal areas. We all know that the more that we are able to disperse asylum seekers among different local authorities, the easier it is for those authorities to manage. Indeed, it is better for our communities for there to be a wide range of people living within them and contributing to the better integration of asylum seekers.

I have engaged in discussions over the past few months with some metropolitan mayors, local authorities, the Local Government Association, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and other groups of local authorities that come together—it would be wrong of me to try to remember all of the local authorities that I have engaged with. Serious conversations are ongoing about how we can increase the number of dispersal areas, whether I have the power to mandate that and whether that is the right way forward. In my view, it is better to engage with local authorities and to encourage them to take part in dispersal schemes. My gut instinct is that that has to be the right way.

I have learned from engagement with local authorities—hon. Members might expect to hear this from someone who spent a happy 12 years on a local authority—that they sometimes come up with the best solutions and ideas. I know that the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Sir Edward Davey) will undoubtedly pick me up on this, but it is true that no local authorities have come forward as part of this bidding process. It may well be that the procurement process that we are bound to take part in, as current members of the European Union, is too prohibitive and difficult for local authorities, which would be a matter of profound regret.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

City councils have provided asylum accommodation while the United Kingdom has been a member of the European Union, so it is not the European Union that is at fault here but the design of the contract. Glasgow City Council previously provided such accommodation, but it cannot, for example, provide asylum accommodation for the whole of Scotland. It has to be broken down into much smaller units.

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Glasgow City Council will of course not seek to provide accommodation for the whole of Scotland, and perhaps there is a very good case for breaking contracts down further, which might increase engagement from local authorities. I have to say that I am never averse to the greater engagement and involvement of local authorities. We all know that, first, local authorities are very good at providing services and, secondly, people in a crisis often turn to the local authority first.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am conscious that I only have a couple of minutes left and I was hoping to move on to the bits of my prepared speech that actually include those points.

Alongside the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, we continue to explore how central and local government can work better together to enable us to meet our international commitments and to let service providers, local partners and civil society play their part. We are currently working with a number of local authorities to develop a place-based approach to asylum and resettlement, and considering how closer working and greater collaboration could work in practice.

As I have said, I have met many local authorities and the devolved Governments, but we are determined to improve standards and will stipulate more standardisation in the initial accommodation estate. That will ensure that there are dedicated areas for women and families, and more adapted rooms for those with specific needs, including pregnant women.

The new contracts will improve service-user orientation, to help service users to live in their communities and access local services. There will be better data-sharing with relevant agencies, to better join people to those services. The new contracts will also focus on safeguarding and improvements to support—

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Will the Minister give way?

[Caroline Nokes]

I am sorry; I have got one minute left.

The new contracts will also focus on safeguarding and improvements to support vulnerable service users, which will build on the enhancements to safeguarding that have been put in place across the immigration system over recent years. Standardised health checks will be introduced to identify those with specific physical and mental health needs, and we will provide more uniform training for providers’ staff on safeguarding.

I also want the new contracts to improve advice services. We will introduce a national contract to provide advice to and assist destitute asylum seekers in making support applications.

The new contracts will further improve engagement with other agencies, and the accommodation provider will be required, during the normal course of its operations, to liaise and co-operate with other organisations, including local authorities, the voluntary sector, the NHS and the police, which will ensure that the interests of the service users are best served.

I am clear that I want the new contracts to build on the groundwork for a constructive relationship between central Government, local government, the private sector and civil society, for the benefit of communities and those seeking asylum.