Calais

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

The only reassurance that I can give my hon. Friend is the reassurance that I have been given by the French. We have particularly asked them to ensure that the children are kept in a secure area, and our request was that it should be, potentially, outside the camp. They chose to keep the children inside the camp, reassuring us that they could keep them secure there. We are in close contact: we now have a large number of Home Office representatives in the camp, as well as the hundreds of Border Force staff who are in the area. We are hopeful that we will be able to work closely with them to keep the children safe. Ultimately, however, this is a French responsibility, although we are giving the French all the support that we can.

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

I very much welcome what the Home Secretary has said today about children, but we should remind ourselves that it is not only children who require international protection. When I visited Calais with colleagues at Easter, we met Afghans who had interpreted for members of our armed forces and Kurds who had previously been granted asylum in the United Kingdom before returning home, who had had to flee for a second time and ended up at Calais. Will the Home Office look at cases such as theirs when considering who it is appropriate for the UK to take responsibility for?

[Amber Rudd]

In this case, while the camps are being demolished, we have made a commitment to take the most vulnerable children, and within that cohort of children, the ones who are youngest and those who are vulnerable to sexual exploitation. On the question of other people who might be vulnerable, there might be one or two who qualify under the Dublin amendment, but otherwise people will need to apply for asylum in the normal way in France. We must stick to the generally accepted principle, which the UK supports, of applying for asylum in the first country of safety.

Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

My right hon. Friend raises a personal case, and it is important for us all to bear such cases in mind when we think about the scale of this inquiry and people bringing forward criticisms. There are always these independent stories that remind us how important it is to get truth and justice for these people, and to learn from those stories so that we can ensure that institutions make improvements. Of course I will look at what she has suggested.

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

Every MP in the Chamber is anxious for the inquiry to succeed, but before we can draw a line under recent difficult problems and move on, we need honesty and transparency from the Home Office. When the Home Secretary appeared before the Home Affairs Committee in September alongside the permanent secretary, she left Members with the impression that Justice Goddard resigned because, in short, she was “lonely”. There was no mention of concerns about conduct then or, indeed, in her subsequent letter to the acting Chair of the Committee. For clarity’s sake, did she know before giving evidence that day, or before writing the letter, about the concerns that had been raised? Will she confirm that only she could remove the inquiry chair from office and that the limited grounds for doing so included misconduct? Is that not why all these questions about the state of her knowledge are so important?

Will the Home Secretary confirm that the secretary to the inquiry, to whom she has already referred, is a lifelong Home Office staffer and that that secretary regularly meets the permanent secretary to provide progress updates? Is she categorically stating that these issues were not raised before July? If they were not raised before July, why on earth were they not raised before then? When did the permanent secretary or the special advisers first make either the current or previous Home Secretary aware?

When the Home Secretary gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, was she being economical about what she knew, or had she been badly briefed by the permanent secretary—it has to be one or the other? Finally, does she accept that, by sticking its head in the sand, the Home Office hierarchy allowed the inquiry to descend into a state of paralysis, which we must never see again?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I fear it is rather discourteous for the hon. Gentleman to suggest or imply that the Home Secretary might be “economical” with what she knew. That comes fairly close to crossing the line. Given that he has a prepared text, and therefore had full knowledge of what he was going to say, may I suggest that, for the future, he ought to phrase things rather differently?

Scamming: Vulnerable Individuals

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) and the hon. Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) on securing this debate on a subject I must confess I did not know nearly enough about. But I do know now that my own constituency is affected by scams in the same way as are many other hon. Members’. One of the local police divisions informs me that the main scam taking place there is one that has been referred to in this debate. Crooks pretend to be from the bank and state that unusual activity is happening on the victim’s account. Information is requested, and then a so-called safe account is set up, and the victim is asked to transfer the money to that new account, which, of course, is almost the opposite of safe.

A local officer there, PC Blades, informs me that

“we are talking about large sums of money being taken”,

with an equally large impact on the victim. He also confirms that it seems that

“a lot of fraud activity goes unreported as persons feel ashamed at being caught out with such scams.”

Tragically, as we have heard, this is the picture all across the country, with the average victim being 74, and the average loss £1,000, but with many losing much more, yet only 5% of victims report being scammed to the authorities. I have been astonished to learn about the scale of the problem—the number of people losing out, the financial losses resulting, the range of industries affected, the different types of scam, and the techniques and technologies employed, from vishing to phishing and cold calling to copycat websites.

The only thing that is less of a surprise is the personal distress and misery caused, which Members have eloquently described. I, too, was horrified to read that victims of mass marketing-type fraud in particular are often placed on so-called suckers lists and their details are then sold on to other fraudsters, increasing their risk of becoming a repeat victim. So anything that can be done to clamp down on that practice must be done.

This is all rather depressing reading, so how do we set about that task of preventing scams and bringing perpetrators to justice? We all have a responsibility in raising awareness by highlighting ScamSmart or Know Fraud, by supporting Scorpion or Pension Wise, and by backing campaigns such as scam awareness month and the excellent “Avoiding scams” information leaflet from Age UK. I confess that Action Fraud had barely entered my consciousness until a few months ago. By introducing this debate, hon. Members have made me determined to ensure that as many of my constituents know about it as possible.

The messages that we have to promote are not particularly difficult ones, but they are easy to forget under pressure, particularly for vulnerable people. The first message, which other hon. Members have mentioned, is that if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is—certainly if a cold call is involved. I know that we will be returning to that issue next week. Another message is that people should take expert advice, and the local citizens advice bureau will be happy to help. Also, people should not be afraid to doubt someone’s honesty when they are being asked to part with cash. Unfortunately, a lot of people find that difficult.

[Julian Knight]

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the information from the local citizens advice bureau—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. A load of time has been used already and we have an oversubscribed debate next, so it is unfair to use more time making interventions. Does the hon. Gentleman really need to intervene? I think that he was hoping to speak for two minutes at the end anyway.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The point I was making is that we should encourage vulnerable people not to be scared about doubting someone’s honesty when they are being asked to part with cash. The fact that they are scared to do that is exactly what makes them vulnerable. We must encourage them to see that there is no downside to challenging someone in that way, because honest people will not be upset by such action. We must also encourage people to report any scams. That could help them to see justice being done and perhaps even to gain some redress. It will also help to prevent other people from falling victim to such crimes.

All this awareness raising can take us only so far, however, when the range and sophistication of scamming activity is increasing all the time. It cannot be relied on to protect significant numbers of people in those crucial moments when they are being hounded for their cash. Going beyond awareness raising, the proposals from the organisations to which the Minister referred, including Bournemouth University and the Chartered Trading Standards Institute, along with those that we have heard from hon. Members today, all provide powerful pointers for Governments at all levels about what further steps could be taken.

The opt-in procedure that my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran mentioned is an attractive proposition. It could involve placing a 24-hour stop on any significant transaction or group of transactions relating to a vulnerable person’s bank account, during which time a nominated representative could be contacted to provide an opportunity to challenge the transaction. In short, it should be as close to impossible as it can be for a vulnerable person to transfer the entire contents of their account to somewhere else without major questions being asked.

We also need to think about considerably increasing the resources that we invest in tackling this problem, using not only public money but the time and money invested by companies to protect their most vulnerable customers and clients. For my own part, I shall happily sign up to be a “scambassador” and I know that many other hon. Members will do so if they have not already. The fight back against these wicked and callous fraudsters deserves all the support it can get.

EU Nationals in the UK

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2016 Commons Chamber

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

The day after the referendum, Scotland’s First Minister directly addressed nationals of other EU states, telling them,

“you remain welcome here, this is your home and your contribution is valued.”

It was a simple but powerful statement, and one that was warmly welcomed. Indeed, it was echoed today by the shadow Home Secretary. Like that statement, this motion has our full support.

In contrast, the Home Secretary’s comments were gravely misjudged, causing apprehension where there did not have to be any, and creating uncertainty when she has the power to provide clarity. What makes the situation all the more frustrating and ridiculous, for reasons I will come to, is that it seems blindingly obvious that EU nationals will be able to remain here as and when—and indeed if—Brexit occurs. But people need to hear that loud and clear from the Home Secretary. She must put that beyond any doubt.

On Monday, Members on both sides of the House united to tell the Home Secretary to do just that, and I have no doubt that the same will happen today. The same arguments, based on both simple common decency and plain common sense, remain overwhelming and unanswerable.

We have heard already, as we will hear again today, about the friends and family, the colleagues and the constituents from other member states who are now uncertain about their future. We have also heard, as we will hear again today, about the valued staff, the key personnel and the vital public service workers from other EU countries whose future now seems uncertain. It is utterly unacceptable to expect people to live their lives with such uncertainty. It is a disgraceful way to treat our EU citizens.

On Monday the Minister expressed genuine sympathy with many of those arguments, and it is abundantly clear from what he has said that he wants to get us to a position whereby EU citizens can and will remain in the country. Sympathy and expressions of hope, however, are not enough. Clarity and reassurance now are essential, and they can and should be delivered.

The reasons offered by the Government for refusing to provide that clarity are absurd and bizarre. On Monday the Minister was unhappy—he is unhappy again today—at the use of terms such as “bargaining chip”, but he himself said that securing the status of EU migrants in the UK, alongside that of UK citizens in the EU,

“needs to be part of the negotiations.”—[Official Report, 4 July 2016; Vol. 612, c. 616.]

That sounds exactly like a bargaining chip, because that is what it is, as his own hon. Friends have said. It is because the rights of EU citizens are being used as bargaining chips that the Government are not guaranteeing them.

That is as absurd as it is wrong and unethical, because it is a rubbish bargaining chip. How credible is it for the next Prime Minister to tell EU states, “If you don’t give us what we want, we’ll cut off our nose to spite our face, and if we don’t get the deal we are demanding, we’ll attempt to destroy ourselves by withdrawing rights from friends and loved ones, colleagues and neighbours”? The shadow Home Secretary and, indeed, the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee have already skewered the logic of that tit-for-tat approach.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to protect the rights of British citizens living in other parts of the EU is to give a simple reassurance that EU nationals living here will have their rights protected?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is not a complicated matter. If we cannot persuade the Home Secretary on the grounds of common decency or common sense—that sometimes happens in immigration debates, unfortunately—perhaps we can appeal to her self-interest by gently pointing out to her that she is, unusually, making a fool of herself by taking this approach.

I genuinely believe—I certainly hope—that I am not being naïve in saying that I do not for a minute believe that the Government are realistically even contemplating removing rights from millions of EU migrants. I think that all hon. Members know that and I think that the Minister knows it; he did everything he could on Monday to hint at it without saying so explicitly. What is more, the European Commission, other member states and everyone else involved in negotiations know it, too. Sadly, the only people who really matter in all of this—the EU nationals themselves—do not know it, because the Home Secretary is not saying it and the climate that they are living in tells them the opposite. The Home Secretary needs to fix that now.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend has talked about us cutting off our nose to spite our face. I met the principal of Edinburgh Napier University in my constituency last Friday and she has been advised that potential staff members from other EU countries are withdrawing from job offers. Does my hon. Friend agree that if this uncertainty is allowed to continue, it will seriously damage the university sector in Scotland and across the United Kingdom?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

That is a perfect example of the uncertainty we are talking about and it has to be brought to an end. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) has said, this does not require a detailed statement on exactly what form of leave is required or the precise mechanisms for implementing it. It requires a simple statement that all EU nationals in the UK today will continue to enjoy leave to remain in the UK, regardless of Brexit, and, preferably, that they will enjoy such leave on conditions that are at least as favourable as those currently in place. A simple sentence from the Minister or the Home Secretary is all that is required.

As the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee has said, it is also absurd to argue that the UK’s position in Brexit talks would be undermined by such a move. On the contrary, it would show that we are approaching any negotiations in good faith, co-operatively, realistically and with integrity. The Home Secretary’s posturing, on the other hand, would engender nothing but ill-feeling and bad blood.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend has said that EU citizens who live in the UK still feel uncertainty. Does he agree that another group who need to be told in no uncertain terms that those people are welcome are the racists who are carrying out racially motivated attacks on EU and other nationals, and that they need to be given an indisputable message that those EU citizens are welcome here and that they are here to stay for ever if they want to do so?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

My hon. Friend is absolutely spot on. I will come to that issue shortly. As I have said, the Home Secretary’s negotiating position is complete and utter nonsense. Sadly, that is not out of keeping with too much of her immigration policy and indeed with too much of what passes for debate on matters of immigration.

Finally, since the referendum result Members have quite rightly gone out of their way to recognise the hugely positive contribution made by nationals of other countries, including other EU countries, to the UK’s economy, society, communities and families. Members have condemned the xenophobia, racism and hostility that many are encountering.

There can be no shadow of a doubt that political discourse and rhetoric during, and for many years before, the EU referendum have been factors in legitimising and emboldening that very xenophobia. There has been intemperate talk of “swarms”, “waves”, “benefit tourists” and “NHS tourism” and an explicit Government goal of creating a hostile climate. Instead of tackling anti-migrant myths, there has been acquiescence. Instead of taking on the myth peddlers, too many have sought to ape their rhetoric. There has been empty policy after empty policy focused only on numbers, while the other major components of migration policy—integration and planning—are completely and utterly neglected.

Those failures precede the current Government by many years, but there can be no greater example than the net migration target, which is utter baloney. Every quarter we go through the same political pantomime of the Government wildly missing their net migration target, and the official Opposition demanding that something must be done, even though they have no idea what that something is.

Everybody in this Chamber knows that, whether or not we are in the EU, the net migration target is a complete myth. It has allowed the poisonous fiction to grow that the presence of EU nationals and others in this country is some sort of terrible problem that can be solved simply by turning off the migration tap without consequence, and that getting EU nationals to leave will therefore be a good thing.

[Andy Burnham]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I just wanted to see whether his understanding is the same as mine. I think that we had an indication at the end of the Minister’s speech that the Government are planning to abstain on this motion tonight. It is a motion that gives EU nationals a right to remain—that is what it talks of. Does he agree that, if they abstain and there are enough people on the Opposition Benches to carry the motion, that will be the position of the House of Commons? There will be a resolution that people can stay and, in the future, the Government will not be able to take that away.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I certainly hope that that transpires and becomes the case. The message should go out loud and clear from here that it is Parliament’s will that all EU nationals in this country will continue to enjoy the rights that they have just now and on the same terms and conditions.

I am also asking the House to think again about how we approach the debates on immigration. As I was about to say, it is absolutely no coincidence that what was an already desperate and ugly campaign went completely off the rails after 26 May when the latest net migration figures were published. Politicians have turned the net migration target into some sort of Holy Grail, regardless of the fact that it is utterly unobtainable, and we have reaped the disastrous consequences in the weeks since those results.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald]

I am very grateful to the other Stuart McDonald for giving way. I am not suggesting for a minute that this is Scottish National party policy, but something that has been on my mind for a number of years is that, given that we know the economic benefits of immigration, why do we not shift responsibility for it away from the Home Office to the Treasury? Would that not change the terms of the debate?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

My honourable namesake makes a very good point. My point is that it is time to do things very, very differently. A few months ago, I went to Edinburgh university to meet Professor Christina Boswell who had arranged a discussion about the dangerous disconnect between political rhetoric and reality when it comes to immigration. She highlighted the launch by the German Government, back in 2000, of a cross-party commission on immigration. The German Immigration Commission brought together the main political parties, as well as representatives of business, trade unions, religious and migrant groups and immigration experts. It allowed for evidence-based discussion on all aspects of immigration, and sought to build consensus around policy reform. It examined Germany’s demographic and economic needs as well as challenges related to the social impacts of immigration and policies for integration. Perhaps more significantly, it changed the whole tenor of debate in Germany, normalising the idea that Germany was, and would need to remain, a country of immigration, and encouraged a more grounded and factually informed discussion of what that would entail.

We can perhaps learn too from the Government of Canada, who just yesterday launched a national conversation on immigration. Their starting point is:

“Although times and conditions may have changed, 21st-century newcomers to Canada have retained…innovative spirit, enriching the communities where they settle and helping to ensure the Canada of tomorrow remains as dynamic as the country of yesterday.

Canada’s strength lies in its diversity. Indeed, the story of Canadian immigration is inseparable from the story of Canada itself.”

The conversation document seeks to engage all Canada’s citizens in a grown-up discussion of all the key questions, from

“How many newcomers should we welcome to Canada in 2017 and beyond?”

to

“Is it important for Canada to continue to show leadership in global migration? If so, how can we best do that?”

[Ms Gisela Stuart]

Do I take it the hon. Gentleman is advocating an Australian-style points-based immigration policy?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I do not know where the hon. Lady gets that idea. I have not mentioned Australia. What I am talking about is the Canadian national conversation.

By asking the questions I quoted and having that grown-up conversation, Canada is already showing leadership. It is time that politicians here followed that example. As well as using today’s debate to praise EU nationals and demand that the Government confirm their status, let us think too about how we can work together across parties to combat xenophobia in all possible ways and to ensure that migration policy and debates are based on evidence and honesty rather than political expediency. Anyone who wants to be Prime Minister should sign up to that approach and start by being absolutely straight about the safe and secure future of our EU nationals in this country.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Karen Bradley)]

My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point. We need to make sure that there is no safe place for paedophiles to operate. I am sure she knows that all 43 forces have signed up to the child abuse image database that this Government introduced and that the Prime Minister instigated. It is really starting to get results in identifying and safeguarding child victims, finding perpetrators and making sure that they can be brought to justice.

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

T8. Yesterday saw even more newspaper revelations about serious problems with COMPASS asylum accommodation contracts in Glasgow, yet emails from senior G4S staff and minutes of Home Office meetings suggest that these contracts are to be extended come hell or high water. Will not the Home Office at least have enough respect to wait for the Select Committee on Home Affairs to complete its inquiry before making any such decisions?

[James Brokenshire]

We are carefully considering the extension of the existing contracts in accordance with their terms. The introduction of the COMPASS contracts has improved the standards of accommodation, but where there are failings we will take action.

Immigration Bill

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Monday 9th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman does not spend enough time in this Chamber for me to give way to him.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham is right that there is already a demand to look after our own children. As I have told the Prime Minister, in my constituency we do not have the capacity to take any more people and I will not give priority to those from overseas, however tragic, when my own constituents are suffering homelessness and vulnerable children cannot be catered for.

I quite understand the difficult position that my right hon. Friend the Minister has been put in, I suspect by some of my hon. Friends who have felt it necessary to parade their compassion. I do not believe the amendment to be a compassionate move. It sends out a very dangerous signal, encouraging parents to dispose of their children and put them at risk on the high seas, which is deeply dangerous.

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

Along with many others, we in the SNP have been arguing for months that the UK should take a fair share of refugees and asylum seekers from Europe in the face of the ongoing humanitarian crisis. We are therefore glad that the Government have now apparently accepted that principle, albeit up to a point. They have finally listened to the arguments from the different parties and from a host of campaign groups and charities, and we cautiously welcome that change of heart.

Indeed, last week, in Westminster Hall, the Minister himself made a persuasive case for a fairer distribution of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. That was in the context of a debate on children already in the UK and was a call for solidarity with the citizens of Kent, where many unaccompanied children have arrived. We on these Benches support that call for responsibility to be shared across the UK, but we want the same logic applied on a European level.

Like others across the House, we will monitor progress carefully to ensure that the new policy is implemented in the spirit of the amendment from Lord Dubs. For example, it is vital, as others have said, that the cut-off date does not rule out protection for the many children who have been in Europe since before that date but who have never been registered, and I welcome the reassurances the Minister has given this evening. Equally, as others have said, the support offered to local authorities must be sufficient to allow them to feel able to become involved in the new programme, so that the numbers taken on represent a genuine attempt to play our part. We will also look for the Scottish Government to be closely involved in overseeing the necessary processes in Scotland and for the Scottish Guardianship Service to have the support it needs to play its part.

However, as the Opposition spokesperson said—this is probably most important of all—it is essential that action is fast. As all hon. Members who have visited camps across Europe will know, the conditions these children are living in are horrendous. We need the Immigration Minister back in the House to update us within weeks, rather than months.

If implemented properly and generously, the Government’s decision will be looked back on warmly and, indeed, even as a matter of pride—people will only wonder, “Why the delay?” However, there is a long way to go before we reach that point.

On the remaining, unresolved issues, the Government have come up short again. On amendment 84, their lordships are absolutely right to insist on a general rule that immigration detention should not last longer than 28 days. This is a modest amendment; as I said when the Bill was last here, it moves us towards a time limit, rather than creating an absolute limit, because of various exceptions. However, their lordships’ reasoning for insisting on the amendment is absolutely right, because the Government’s alternative is even further from being a proper time limit on immigration detention—it simply adds an automatic bail hearing after four months.

Every now and then, we have hints from the Government that they are waking up to the fact that policy and practice on immigration detention in the UK is draconian, unnecessary and expensive. There are occasional suggestions of a change in approach, but proposed reform is simply far too slow. Far from representing a brave new policy dawn, what the Government are asking us to put into legislation barely even reflects what is supposed to already be their policy—a presumption in favour of temporary admission or release and the use, wherever possible, of alternatives to detention.

In short, the right to liberty continues to be badly undermined—all for the administrative convenience of the Home Office. The Government have failed each time to explain why, in contrast to every single other EU country, the UK cannot operate within the confines of a proper time limit. We will continue to support the Lords amendment as a step in the right direction.

On amendment 85C, we are perhaps getting closer to a result we can live with. My colleagues and I continue to believe that the Government should implement in full Stephen Shaw’s recommendation of an absolute prohibition on the detention of pregnant women. Such a policy would not put immigration control in peril; it would ensure that some pretty barbaric practices in UK detention facilities are brought to an end.

It is frustrating that we are still having this debate without the full facts at our disposal. When will the Minister tell us exactly how many pregnant women are detained, how long they are detained, whether they were released and whether they were removed? What information we do have does not impress. For example, we know that 90 out of 99 pregnant women detained in Yarl’s Wood in 2014 were eventually released back into the community.

Lords amendment 85C does incorporate the 72 hours or one-week limit suggested by the Government, but it also contains alternative protections. Its inclusion of a general principle against the detention of pregnant women mirrors provisions on the detention of children in families set out in the Immigration Act 2014. As well as retaining that overriding principle, it sets standards for accommodation, for providing notice and for shorter journey times. If we have to compromise on our belief that there should be an absolute ban, then we are absolutely determined to see the full range of protections retained within the Bill. We cannot support what the Government propose in terms of amending amendment 85C and thereby watering down many of those protections. We will not support dawn raids on pregnant women, long journeys to detention centres, or inadequate facilities at those centres. If there is not to be the absolute ban recommended by Sir Stephen Shaw, then we must have the safeguards that prioritise antenatal care over Home Office convenience. The Government have their priorities absolutely wrong.

Amid all the gloom of this Bill, at least let us properly safeguard the right to liberty, and at least take action to properly protect pregnant women. That really is not very much to ask.

Asylum Seeker Dispersal Policy

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2016 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) on securing this debate and providing Members with the opportunity to scrutinise Government policy on the dispersal of asylum seekers at this important time in the development of that strand of policy. I am sorry to have missed the aperitif, but I certainly got the main substance of what the hon. Gentleman had to say.

Broadly, dispersal issues can be put into two categories. First, what exactly do we need to do and provide for those who have claimed asylum here? Secondly, where should that happen? To start with the second issue—the “where”, which is the meat of the debate—no one would now quibble with the Government’s stated ambition to expand the number of areas to which asylum seekers are being dispersed, although I certainly have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s argument that that should have happened long before now. More widespread dispersal is entirely the correct thing to do, from a number of different angles: it is fair that responsibility for providing housing and other support is shared around the country, and it is easier for local communities to adjust and for asylum seekers to integrate into those communities when responsibility is shared out in that way.

As we have heard, a number of authorities are shouldering a disproportionate share of the responsibility, including Middlesbrough—where the cluster limit of one asylum seeker for every 200 of the settled population has been exceeded—and Rochdale. As I understand it, the Home Office has written to other local authorities to encourage them to take part in the dispersal process; it would be useful to have information from the Minister on the response to that request. Many authorities are absolutely willing to play their part, but that willingness is conditional: they will play their part if, and only if, full and proper support comes from central Government. That is absolutely the correct approach.

That brings us to the other key issue: what exactly do we want to achieve through the dispersal process? It should not be about paying private companies to seek out the cheapest accommodation they can find in different corners of the country and then simply placing asylum seekers there willy-nilly, while leaving hard-pressed local authorities and other services to get on with it. That is not a sensible way ahead, but as the hon. Member for Rochdale said, sadly it sometimes appears to be all the COMPASS contract was designed to achieve and has achieved. Like the hon. Gentleman, I have made my misgivings about the contracts known in other debates; I will wait for the Home Affairs Committee to look at that issue more forensically in due course.

Dispersal should occur as sensibly and sensitively as possible, ensuring the provision of required support and finding communities where people fit. That means accommodating people and taking account of family circumstances, age, language and other factors. Most importantly, dispersal must occur where asylum seekers will have access to necessary support and services. Previously, COMPASS health assessments—for those dispersed to Glasgow, for example—were very easy to arrange: they took place in the same building in which many asylum seekers were initially accommodated. Sadly, under the current contract, providers are proving significantly less reliable at making support available to ensure that people can get where they need to go, and appointments are being missed. That is an extremely worrying development, particularly as those people often have complex health needs. Some are victims of torture, and many have mental health issues, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, as a result of the traumas that they have been through.

There is a range of other factors to be considered. When I practised as an immigration solicitor, there was—there still is—an experienced and capable group of immigration and asylum law practitioners in Glasgow, because it is a dispersal city and there is significant demand. However, that is not the case in other cities in Scotland and elsewhere, where dispersal has not yet taken place. We need to ensure that those who are dispersed to new towns and cities have access to quality advice, which is essential for their often complicated cases.

Local authorities in different parts of the UK have sought to go above and beyond what is required. The Scottish Government have funded the Scottish Refugee Council’s family keywork service to support newly arrived families with children aged up to eight during their first six months. It covers areas such as advice about the asylum system, education and health, and it co-ordinates the different services.

As the hon. Member for Rochdale said, it is vital to keep communities involved and on side. There can be no sudden appearance of large numbers of asylum seekers without warning, which has happened from time to time with initial dispersal accommodation. That does not work for anyone. Equally, leaving asylum seekers alone and isolated by placing them in ones or twos in different parts of cities is also not helpful.

I have touched on only a tiny number of the basic wrap-around services that need to be considered when dispersing asylum seekers. We could have a whole debate on the right to work; the Scottish National party voted last week in support of the right to work, and we will always do so. Local authorities think twice about getting involved because it requires proper planning, close partnership working and discussions among national, devolved and local governments. That requires not just planning but proper resourcing, and many local authorities feel that the current arrangements provide neither sufficiently. The model of using private contractors to provide accommodation without additional support services is not attractive to them.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) said, Glasgow has benefited over the years from the dispersal of asylum seekers in a number of ways, but when that policy was first introduced the council was contracted directly by the Home Office to provide accommodation and the funding was sufficient to develop a whole host of wrap-around services as well. The existing COMPASS contracts move away from that model. Glasgow can just about cope, because it already has well-developed infrastructure to support asylum seekers, but local authorities with no history of dispersal do not. If the Home Office attempts to expand the programme without adequate funding for developing services, we would be seriously concerned about the impact on public services and community cohesion. It is the same issue with unaccompanied asylum-seeking children: I understand that the Home Office is not paying a daily rate that covers the cost of supporting vulnerable young people.

Local authorities have willingly participated in the resettlement of refugees under the vulnerable persons scheme, and although there will always be differences in schemes’ requirements, the stark contrast in resourcing and planning cannot be justified. Why not learn lessons from the successes of the vulnerable persons scheme? Local authorities will ask why they should agree to take part in the dispersal programme and then have to shoulder the responsibility for funding services such as education.

We support the Government’s ambition to broaden dispersal, but their vision of what dispersal is all about requires much more work to convince us and, more importantly, local authorities. The Government should get down to that work quickly before contemplating using the powers in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 or the new powers in the Immigration Bill, which is currently going through Parliament.

Immigration Bill

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Monday 25th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I am a constituency MP and I represent the people of Rochester and Strood. I have had a lot of representations, over an extended period of time, about what people have seen in my constituency and across the county of Kent. I represent what a large proportion of people in my constituency believe on this matter.

To allow asylum seekers unrestricted access to our labour market after six months would encourage more young men to make their way to the camps and make the perilous journey across the channel. Personally, I do not want to support that or be a party to it.

I am sure my hon. Friends will say I have spoken enough already, but I would just like to say that I believe the Bill, as it stands and as I saw it in Committee, is right. I think it is a great step forward for the Government. It addresses what many people in this country have identified as issues and concerns for them. I will therefore be supporting the Government this evening.

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

In September 2015, Save the Children released a paper called “The extreme vulnerability of unaccompanied child refugees in Europe - a proposal for managing their relocation to the UK”. The paper charted the journey of unaccompanied child refugees to Europe: the war, conflict and violence in their home countries; and the abuse, exploitation, physical and sexual violence experienced during their long journeys to Europe, which often lasted months and years. Even if that was the end of the horror story, surely that would be enough fully to justify Lord Dubs’s amendment. In fact, it provides more than enough justification for us to say that we will take our fair share of responsibility for providing not just immediate aid and protection but the stability, education, support and care that these children require when arriving in Europe, bearing the scars of such dreadful experiences. But tragically the horror story does not end there. The scale of the crisis and the lack of co-ordination and solidarity between European countries mean that the arrival here of these children is barely the beginning of their troubles.

It is important to remind ourselves just how grim the experience in Europe is. The hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) did that powerfully earlier in the debate. In its paper, Save the Children looked at migrants and refugees on the Greek islands, in Calais and in Hungary and Macedonia. In Greece, it reported a lack of basic services and adequate shelter, toilets, clean water, health facilities and safe spaces, which put children and women at high risk of sexual harassment, physical violence and trafficking.

Unaccompanied minors are at particular risk. Save the Children reported

“a lack of adequate sanitation facilities which means that women and children have to share toilets with men or are forced to defecate in the open. . . Unaccompanied minors, once in the hands of the authorities, are sometimes placed in detention with adults, again exposing them to risks of sexual and physical harassment. . . Children interviewed recounted stories of war and death and described the terrifying journey crossing the sea to Greece. Parents reported symptoms like bedwetting, nightmares, fear and extreme attachment. Most of the children had been out of school for years and have a distorted view of what constitutes ‘normality’. Food distributions are limited and erratic … whilst more vulnerable individuals … often end up unserved. . . There is limited primary health care coverage across migrant and refugee sites”.

Finally, as a shocking matter of fact, Save the Children recorded that in Athens, in their attempt to leave Greece, women and children sleep in squares and parks that are frequented by drug dealers, traffickers and prostitution rings. During the period of the assessment, a 10-year-old boy was raped in one of these parks.

The fact that this is happening in Europe is not down to one or two European countries. It is a collective failure by all European states, and it is our collective obligation to fix it. As has been argued:

“Under specific criteria and safeguards, relocation is one of the few viable long-term solutions for the protection of the most vulnerable unaccompanied children”.—[Official Report, 8 December 2015; Vol. 603, c. 864.]

The need for such a scheme is every bit as great now as it was then, as recent reports by Save the Children and so many other organisations—too many to mention—have shown. I know that many hon. Members present tonight have seen these awful places at first hand and will probably share some of those experiences this evening during the debate.

When I read those reports, and having seen at first hand the situation in Calais and Dunkirk, I am furious—furious about what is happening to these children, and furious also that there is any doubt about whether we will stand by Lord Dubs’s amendment this evening, and I am at a loss to understand why that should be in doubt. A strange phrase has been dropped into the argument recently by the Government—that we need to use our heads as well as our hearts. With all respect to the Minister, who I know generally chooses his words carefully, I find that expression a little bit patronising.

This is not some hare-brained plan dreamed up by well-intentioned but misguided amateurs on the back of an envelope. It is a carefully thought through proposal based on years of professional experience from experts in the field, incorporating carefully considered criteria. It was a modest calculation of our fair share, based on circumstances at the time. It is not those who support the relocation of 3,000 children from Europe who need to start using their heads. On the contrary, it is the sceptics and cynics who need to start using their eyes and ears so as to understand the full horror, extent and duration of what is going on in our continent.

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

We have a proud tradition going back centuries of taking in refugees. In particular, before and during the war we took large numbers of Jewish children in. Why can we not honour that commitment now?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Absolutely. As we heard earlier, Lord Dubs was one of those who benefited from that very scheme.

I find other arguments against this very modest proposal equally disagreeable. Some have argued that we must not provide an incentive for others to come. Like the shadow Minister, I cannot believe for a second that any hon. Members are really saying that we should not rescue children from abuse and exploitation lest that create an incentive. If that is “using their head”, I have serious concerns for the sanity of those hon. Members. But if they are saying that someone else should rescue those children from abuse and exploitation, not only does the argument about incentives fall to pieces, but the question arises: if not us, then who? If the UK says “Leave it to Greece and Italy”, why should anyone else come to their aid not just in the short term, but in the medium and long term?

Even a child can understand that tens—or almost certainly now hundreds—of thousands of unaccompanied kids shared between 28 members states, although hugely challenging, is infinitely more workable than the same number left as the long-term responsibility of two or three countries. This country should not wash its hands of its responsibilities; it should roll up its sleeves and play its part.

The Government have again tried to win the day with their well-worn trump card—that we should focus on those in the conflict region. In these debates I have always welcomed what deserves to be welcomed. The support provided in the region in the form of aid has been incredibly welcome, as has the resettlement of vulnerable persons scheme and the new proposals for children, but the House of Lords passed this amendment by more than 100 votes, fully aware of all those other Government schemes, including proposals—in principle—to resettle children.

Their lordships were absolutely right to resist the attempt by the Government to set up a false choice. There are refugees in Europe, including children, who are every bit as much in need of our support as those in the conflict region. It is not a question of one or the other. Showing leadership in support of those in the region does not entitle Government to abdicate responsibility for children in Europe.

If we think about what is happening to these children on our doorstep, I shudder to think what it says about this Government and Parliament if we do not support the amendment, but what a positive message if we do. From whatever angle we approach this question, using our head or our heart; from a perspective of faith or of simple human decency; from human rights or common sense, there is only one answer. Lord Dubs’s amendment has the full support of SNP Members.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

We have heard some passionate speeches about unimaginably difficult conditions, but we talk as if the United Kingdom is the only country capable of doing something about the crisis. We forget that the United Kingdom taxpayer has given more than the rest of the European Union together to help Syrian refugees. Does the hon. Gentleman not think that if these circumstances existed in the United Kingdom, our social services would have taken care of those children? Does he not think that other European countries could be doing a rather better job of looking after those children who happen to be within their borders?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I do not disagree with very much that the hon. Gentleman, my colleague on the Home Affairs Committee, says. I agree that other European countries must step up to the plate. The Save the Children proposal is based on a calculation of what our fair share as a European Union member would be: it was 11.5% of the total number of unaccompanied children at that time. It fully comprehends that other EU member states have to take their share.

I shall move on now to amendment 60, which gives us the chance to protect yet another vulnerable group, overseas domestic workers. Such workers frequently come from backgrounds of extreme poverty and are dependent on their employer for both accommodation and wages. They are often women with limited formal education. Significant numbers of them suffer from mental illness resulting from past traumas, and many have learned or have been conditioned to distrust authorities.

Again, the Lords amendment is modest. The Government asked for an independent review by James Ewins QC. All we are asking for is that Mr Ewins’s recommendations be fully implemented. The Government have moved part of the way, which is very welcome, including what the Minister said today, which is encouraging, but they still have to move further. Their insistence on going through the national referral mechanism as a condition of leave beyond the initial six months is, in our view, wrong, and although provision of information is right and welcome, it is not sufficient in itself.

As well as providing a legal right to change employer, we can and must make that right one that can realistically be exercised by all who are at risk, as Mr Ewins suggested. The right should be dependent not on going through the slow and possibly quite intimidating gamble of the national referral mechanism, but simply on notifying the Home Office, as was said earlier in the debate. As no one will employ an overseas domestic worker with a few weeks or months left on their visa, Mr Ewins was clear that extensions had to be available to all, whether they were going through the mechanism or not, for up to two years beyond the original visa. That was what he described as

“the minimum required to give effective protection to those overseas domestic workers who are being abused while in the UK”.

That is the least we should deliver.

The SNP also fully supports amendment 84, which moves us closer to an effective 28-day time limit on immigration detention. The reasons we need such a limit have been set out at length in recent debates, including an excellent Backbench Business debate, in which Members from both sides of the House spoke with one voice in support of the conclusions reached by the all-party parliamentary groups on migration and refugees. Compulsory judicial oversight is also welcome. Often those with the most to gain from a legal challenge are the least likely to understand or to be able to access judicial processes, whether because of language, educational or mental health issues.

With due respect, the Government’s amendment in lieu is a non-starter. A single, guaranteed bail hearing every six months is simply not an acceptable level of judicial oversight for SNP Members. It is not a worthwhile time limit in any sense of the word, and it seeks to shift the burden of proof back on to the detainee. For these reasons, the Government’s amendment in lieu is simply not in the ballpark of what we would consider appropriate.

Unaccompanied Children

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2016 Westminster Hall

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) on securing this debate, on his commitment to the issue and on opening with an excellent speech. The debate has continued in that fashion, with a series of powerful, thought-provoking and wide-ranging speeches setting out the huge scale of the humanitarian challenge that the crisis poses and the action that is necessary to support unaccompanied children who have fled their home countries as a result.

What has underpinned the speeches is a belief that those children should be treated as children. We should provide for them as we would want and reasonably expect our own children to be provided for were they to be in the same situation, arriving alone in a strange new country. It is hardly a radical idea, yet in so many respects Governments across the EU have failed to take that approach. Looking from the outside, too often it seems it is not the best interests of the child that informs policy but perceived national interests in closed borders and fencing, and Government targets and party politics.

It would be impossible for me to cover in the short time available the full range of the debate in any detail, so I will make a few short, sharp points in a handful of different policy areas, echoing some of the arguments and concerns that Members have raised. The main focus of the debate has of course been on providing durable solutions. I agree with hon. Members who have said that it is time for the Government to think again about the nature of the leave that is provided to unaccompanied children, particularly in the form of UASC leave.

We could argue all day about how safe it is to return an 18-year-old lad to Afghanistan, for example. For the record, I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) that such a practice is reprehensible. Even putting that to one side, what we say will happen to someone when they turn 18 has an immediate impact on a child facing up to that threat in the here and now. Dangling what amounts to a sword of Damocles over an unaccompanied child is plain cruel, creating uncertainty and anxiety and stoking fear. It is not in any child’s best interests and not what we would hope or expect for our own children. It is far short of the long-term plan of support that various Members highlighted.

Ultimately, those who are granted UASC leave are granted it on the basis that there are inadequate reception arrangements in their country of origin—in other words, they would face destitution, discrimination, homelessness and lack of access to medical treatment if returned home. Although that does not mean they will get protection under the refugee convention, it surely merits something of an equivalent nature. There is a strong case for saying that no child should have to leave immediately on reaching adulthood. Furthermore, there is a powerful argument that in many cases we should be prepared to say that these kids, whose rights under the conventions would be breached if they were immediately removed, should be offered permanent settlement immediately.

I ask the Government to think again about the effect of the Immigration Bill, which we will be considering again next Monday. They should think particularly about the proposals to remove the ability of local authority social work departments to provide support to unaccompanied kids up to the age of 21. The Bill would remove that support at the age of 18, a change that is opposed by a host of Members, the British Association of Social Workers and others.

I support Members’ calls for the roll-out of guardianship and advocate schemes throughout England and Wales. In Scotland, a successful pilot showed that guardianship schemes can be crucial in helping unaccompanied children and young people to be heard and to realise their individual potential. Northern Ireland and several other countries throughout Europe have similar schemes. I urge the Government to roll out the scheme to unaccompanied children in England and Wales.

I back what the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) said about family reunion. It is plain wrong that unaccompanied children cannot apply as sponsors for their parents or carers. Such a failure to provide for reunion is a clear breach of children’s best interests.

Members touched briefly on legal aid in their speeches. Will the Government revisit some of the previous Justice Secretary’s reforms so that more than 2,500 unaccompanied children will no longer have to try to act as their own solicitors? Legal aid should be available for non-asylum immigration and family reunion cases. Such matters are not straightforward. As a solicitor in Scotland I was able to assist with such applications, with recompense from the Scottish Legal Aid Board in the form of advice and assistance funding. I know that was welcome, and it was clearly justified.

I echo the comments that my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) made about Calais, where a significant number of unaccompanied children are living in what are essentially shanty towns. A significant number of those children have strong connections to the United Kingdom. Charities have estimated that there are more than 150 unaccompanied children at Calais who they believe would be able to come to the United Kingdom using take charge requests. As the right hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) said, the tribunal judgment was that the system in France is working at barely a snail’s pace.

As I understand it, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has made an offer to the Home Office to provide support, including through the distribution of an information leaflet; technical comments and suggestions on the implementation of the Dublin regulations; assisting persons of concern, particularly unaccompanied minors, with the identification of relatives in France; supporting the family links evidence gathering process; and a referral or signposting mechanism for individual cases. For the life of me I cannot understand why the Government would not accept that offer. I hope we hear from the Minister that they are going to do so.

We could have a whole separate debate on the situation across Europe, but I shall leave that for another day as time is running short. In all the policy areas I have mentioned, we need to rethink our approach as a country. I hope that the Government will listen to what Members have said.

Brussels Terrorist Attacks

Stuart C McDonald Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

Arrangements are in place for military assistance to the civil power, which can be operated in certain circumstances. Following the attacks in Paris of January last year, we looked at enhancing the capability of the military to support the police, if a multiple attack were to take place. Those arrangements are in place so that there is greater ability for the police to call on the military at an earlier stage if necessary.

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

The Secretary of State has provided some welcome reassurance about the work under way to track and disrupt the movement of terrorists. Will she tell us specifically about any work under way, both here and across Europe, to disrupt the flow of weapons and explosives? That work is also crucial to our safety.

[Mrs May]

Yes. We have been very clear that we need to see more being done within the European environment and across Europe on firearms. I am pleased to say that, following representations, the European Commission has produced a new draft directive on firearms. I am very clear that we should ban dangerous semi-automatic weapons. That discussion is taking place, but we are clearly pushing for greater ability across the EU to deal with the movement of firearms.