Tag: Stuart McDonald

  • Stuart McDonald – 2023 Speech on Human Trafficking and Modern Slavery

    Stuart McDonald – 2023 Speech on Human Trafficking and Modern Slavery

    The speech made by Stuart McDonald, the SNP MP for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, in the House of Commons on 29 March 2023.

    I, too, start by congratulating the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) on securing what he quite rightly described as a very timely debate. I hope that he is restored to full health very soon. I also very genuinely thank him for all his work over many years, which I think is recognised across the House; he has been a real champion for victims of trafficking.

    The starting point for this debate—unusually, I agree with the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel)—should be recognition that we have in place across the United Kingdom some genuinely world-leading pieces of legislation that are designed to tackle trafficking and slavery. The problem, as a couple of hon. Members have already said, is that the message coming from those who work with trafficking victims is that we are in danger of going backwards and that these are truly worrying times for people caught up in those appalling crimes.

    That is because—again, as has already been alluded to in this debate—the Government are increasingly conflating trafficking and immigration. That is despite the fact that, as other hon. Members have also already said, since 2018 over 16,000 British nationals have been referred to the national referral mechanism. That is a clear reminder that modern slavery is a crime of exploitation and not immigration. Despite that, however, the Government now seem to be consciously stripping away rights and protections from trafficking victims as a tool of immigration policy. So, the first and most important call that I make today is that we need the Government to recommit to eradicating modern-day slavery, because at the moment the Government’s commitment is increasingly being seen as playing second fiddle to immigration policy. Indeed, I almost think that we are at a point where we have to ask whether we should have trafficking policy being decided by the same Department that is in charge of immigration policy, because I think that one is dominating the other and that is not good for victims.

    I will address three issues today. First, I will briefly consider the impact of the Illegal Migration Bill; secondly, I will take a quick look at some of the so-called “evidence” being used to justify that Bill, which the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) has already spoken about a little; and, thirdly, one issue that has not been touched on already is some of the updates to the modern slavery statutory guidance, which was implemented on 30 January 2023.

    First of all, in relation to the Illegal Migration Bill, it is fair to say and Members will be aware that there were widespread and deep-seated concerns raised right across the House yesterday about the impact of that Bill on victims of trafficking. Members will be aware that I absolutely reject the logic of deterrence. However, even if someone accepts that premise, the logic of deterrence that permeates the Bill just does not apply when it comes to trafficking, because the simple point is that we cannot deter a trafficking victim from coming here; it is not a free choice, as the hon. Member for Wellingborough pointed out. So it makes no sense for the Government to massively undermine the various UK modern slavery laws through the Bill in the way that they propose to do.

    The carveout in the Bill for situations where there is assistance with an investigation is worthless. That is because the result of the Bill will be that trafficking victims simply will not come forward to seek help at all, particularly if they are simply going to be discarded as soon as they have served any useful purpose in the criminal justice system. Consequently, I suspect that the Bill may well deliver a reduction in the number of possible trafficking victims being referred into the NRM, but that will simply be because fewer victims are coming forward and not because there are fewer victims.

    Indeed, the Anti-Trafficking Monitoring Group is clear that the Bill will increase the number of victims and reduce the number of prosecutions against traffickers, driving the modern slavery system underground, meaning that survivors will no longer be able to report trafficking and access the assistance that they genuinely require.

    Secondly, like the hon. Member for Rotherham, I will speak about all these allegations that people are “gaming the system”, to quote the current Home Secretary. I think that that narrative is quite simply not backed up by evidence, so the Home Office and the Home Secretary herself should provide the evidence to back up those claims, if there is any. The Home Office has already been reprimanded by the Office for Statistics Regulation and in December 2022 three UN special rapporteurs also expressed alarm at the UK Government’s increasing use of unsubstantiated and unevidenced claims.

    The simple point made by those working in the field is that abuse of the modern slavery system is barely possible, and that point was made several times yesterday as well in the debate in the main Chamber, because someone cannot just claim to be a modern slave and enter the NRM in that way; someone has to be referred by an approved first responder. The Home Office must trust its own system, which prevents people with fraudulent claims of modern slavery from accessing support. The reasonable grounds decision within the NRM is designed exactly for that purpose.

    So what are the actual statistics that are available to us? Based on Home Office figures, of the 83,000 people who arrived in the UK on small boats between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2022, only 7% were referred as potential victims of modern slavery. In the calendar year 2022, it was only 6% and the percentage subsequently recognised as victims of modern slavery or trafficking was 85%. There is also no evidence of an uptick in those being referred into the NRM and receiving a negative decision. The calendar year 2022 is absolutely consistent with earlier years in showing that 90% or more of those being referred into the NRM received conclusive grounds decisions that are positive.

    This is the issue for the Minister: if the Home Office is going to persist in arguing that the modern slavery system is being abused, it must produce evidence. It would be useful to know what evidence and data the Government have.

    I agree with the hon. Members speaking yesterday that the Illegal Migration Bill, which is now before Parliament, risks pushing victims away from seeking support and back into the arms of traffickers. We should improve the NRM and trafficking assessments. We should improve access to support and not drive people away from it.

    The modern slavery statutory guidance, which was operationalised on 30 January 2023, was designed to remove what the Prime Minister referred to as the “gold plating” in our modern slavery system. Those updates include changes to the decision-making thresholds, which require survivors to provide unreasonably high levels of evidence in unrealistically short timeframes. New exclusions for bad-faith claims have been applied, but without sufficient safeguards built in. Victims and first responders will not be able to gather the necessary evidence in the five-day timeframe, meaning that genuine trafficking victims will be prevented from entering the NRM. There is no data yet available to determine the impact that the new guidance has had, so it would be useful to hear from the Minister what early analysis the Department has done about the impact of the new guidelines.

    In implementing these guidelines, it seems to have been forgotten that the whole premise of the NRM and the two-tier decision-making process is to allow people to get a reasonable grounds decision fairly easily in order to access a recovery and reflection period. At that stage, evidence can be gathered in order to receive a conclusive grounds decision, if that can be reached.

    Upping the reasonable grounds threshold will directly affect first responder organisations. They will have to provide a higher level of and more complex evidence, meaning that the amount of evidence and casework required to get a positive reasonable grounds decision, when compared with the situation previously, will put further extensive pressure on organisations that are already at breaking point. One designated first responder organisation has commented:

    “The update puts additional burden on an already collapsing First Responder system, with capacity for referrals dangerously low.”

    Concerns have been raised by modern slavery and trafficking organisations that the changes are building on previous regressive changes, including when the recovery period was reduced from 45 days to 30 and the multi-agency assurance panel process was removed. There are significant concerns that, together, those changes will make it harder for survivors to be identified and to access support, and that this represents a regression in efforts to increase identification and trauma-informed support for modern slavery victims.

    We could have said a lot in this debate about where we should go with our modern slavery policy. There are calls for more evidence-led policies; for collaborative approaches; for investment to fix the NRM and the huge backlog there; to improve training for first responder organisations; and to recognise more first responder organisations. There are calls for better and longer support for survivors that is tailored to their individual needs. That helps them and it helps us to prosecute criminals. We must improve prosecution rates and, as many hon. Members have said, we must have an independent anti-slavery commissioner in place.

    The problem is, however, that before we can move forward, we must stop moving backwards. Sadly, things appear to be getting worse, rather than better. At the very least, we must take out the modern slavery provisions in the Illegal Migration Bill. We must also reconsider some of the recent changes to modern slavery guidance. We have to consider whether we can continue to have one Department responsible both for looking after trafficking victims and for immigration policy, because it seems to be delivering absolutely the wrong results.

  • Stuart McDonald – 2023 Speech on the Illegal Migration Bill

    Stuart McDonald – 2023 Speech on the Illegal Migration Bill

    The speech made by Stuart McDonald, the SNP spokesperson on Home Affairs, in the House of Commons on 7 March 2023.

    The SNP stands proudly behind the refugee convention and the European convention on human rights. We believe that all who seek asylum and refugee status deserve a fair hearing and we are 100% behind the clear statement from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that there is no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker.

    Despite the dreary dog-whistle rhetoric, the Home Secretary’s Bill will not lay a solitary finger on people smugglers or people traffickers, but it will cause serious and devastating harm to those who have already endured incredible suffering. Afghans let down by the Government’s utterly failed relocation schemes will be locked up and offshored. People who have fled persecution in Syria, Eritrea or Iran will remain blocked from the asylum system. The policies that have seen hundreds of children go missing from hotels will be enshrined in her Bill. The world-leading modern slavery legislation piloted through by one of her predecessors is about to be ripped to pieces without a single shred of justification. That is what this appalling Bill looks set to deliver, and that is why we will oppose it every step of the way.

    If every country followed the Home Secretary’s example, the whole system of refugee protection around the world would fall to pieces. It is not just that system that will be trashed by this Bill, however, but the UK’s reputation as a place of sanctuary. She spoke about an overwhelmed asylum system, but the only thing that has overwhelmed the asylum system is the Conservative party’s incompetence and mismanagement. One of her own ministerial colleagues described the Rwanda plan as

    “ugly, likely to be counterproductive and of dubious legality”,

    and that beautifully encapsulates what is in this Bill.

    I have two questions for the Home Secretary. First, what happens if an Afghan arrival cannot be removed to Afghanistan, France, Rwanda or anywhere else? Will he or she eventually be admitted to the asylum system? If so, after how long? Secondly, when the Prime Minister meets President Macron, will he be telling him that the UK is prepared to leave the European convention on human rights?

    Suella Braverman

    A lot of passion and fury and fire—I only wish the Scottish Government would bring so much passion to their approach to accommodating asylum seekers, when Scotland currently takes one of the lowest numbers of asylum seekers in our United Kingdom. Our measures set out a comprehensive and coherent plan, combining fairness and compassion.

  • Stuart McDonald – 2023 Speech on the National Police Response to the Hillsborough Families Report

    Stuart McDonald – 2023 Speech on the National Police Response to the Hillsborough Families Report

    The speech made by Stuart McDonald, the SNP MP for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and the party’s spokesperson on Home Affairs, in the House of Commons on 1 February 2023.

    May I also start by commending the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) and his colleagues not just on securing the urgent question, but on all their campaigning work on behalf of survivors and families affected by Hillsborough? The persistence, bravery and decency of the people of Liverpool over these 34 years has been utterly extraordinary in the face of cover-up and smear, but they need more than warm words—they need a comprehensive response. The long overdue police report, while a start, does not provide a complete response. That needs the Government, and we should have had a Government response before now.

    As Bishop Jones has said, the wait has been “intolerable”, and the families are speaking about the bishop’s report gathering dust. I appreciate that questions are being raised that will not be answered today, in the light of the announcement of a spring publication, but can the Minister at least assure us that when that long overdue response from the Government is published, we can have a full debate on the Floor of the House on its findings?

    Secondly, the Minister referred to engagement with the families. There has been some good engagement, but there have been some ropy times as well, so can he say a little more about what form that engagement will take going forward?

    Chris Philp

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for the sentiments he expressed, which I completely understand. In relation to a full debate, scheduling business in the House is not my responsibility, but it would seem to me like a reasonable request to make, and I will certainly pass it on to my colleagues who are responsible for scheduling parliamentary business. Families have been fully engaged. One reason why the independent pathology review, which had been commenced, has been temporarily paused is to allow for more engagement to take place, because families rightly felt that they wanted to be more involved. That engagement is continuing. Critically, before the Government response is published, there will be more such engagement, for the obvious reasons that the hon. Gentleman rightly points to.

  • Stuart McDonald – 2023 Parliamentary Question on Legislative Competence of the Scottish Parliament

    Stuart McDonald – 2023 Parliamentary Question on Legislative Competence of the Scottish Parliament

    The parliamentary question on Stuart McDonald, the SNP MP for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, in the House of Commons on 1 February 2023.

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

    What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential implications of an order under section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998 for the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.

    The Attorney General (Victoria Prentis)

    As I said earlier, by convention, information on whether the Law Officers have been asked to provide advice and the content of such advice are not disclosed outside Government. That convention enables candid legal advice to be given.

    Stuart C. McDonald

    Why was the prospect of a section 35 order not raised at any time before the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill was overwhelmingly passed by the Scottish Parliament? What alternatives did the Attorney General look at? When will she set out the changes to the Bill that she wants to see before the Government would revoke the section 35 order? Those are simple questions. If she cannot answer them, all we can conclude is that the Government have lost their last shred of respect for the Scottish Parliament.

    The Attorney General

    That would be absolutely the wrong conclusion to draw. The Attorney General’s convention is clear: the UK Government respect the Scottish Parliament’s ability to legislate within its competence on devolved areas. The Government are committed to working with the devolved Administrations and strengthening the Union of the UK.

  • Stuart McDonald – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Stuart McDonald – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stuart McDonald on 2015-11-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, if he will take steps to ensure that funding is available to maintain work opportunities for researchers in the early stages of their careers.

    Joseph Johnson

    The Government recognises the importance of sustaining a vibrant research community across the UK. A key criterion for allocating the £4.6billion per year of research funding is “maintaining a substantial flow of new researchers and high level skills”. Research Councils support 10,000 researchers many of whom are in early research careers, as well as Doctoral Training Centres. National Academies also support early-career researchers with the potential to become leaders in their chosen fields.

  • Stuart McDonald – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Stuart McDonald – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stuart McDonald on 2015-11-05.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many Syrian refugees selected for resettlement from UN camps to the UK had previously been selected for resettlement in the US.

    Richard Harrington

    The Government has committed to resettling 20,000 Syrian refugees in the lifetime of this Parliament. The Prime Minister has said that we want to see 1,000 Syrian refugees brought to the UK by Christmas. We use the established UNHCR process for identifying and resettling refugees and have been working closely with them to achieve a significant uplift in the scheme.

    The UK collaborates closely with the major countries involved in resettlement, notably the US, Australia and Canada. In the expansion of the UK Syrian Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme we have worked with the US Government to take 500 people from the UNHCR’s pool of registered refugees that might otherwise have been passed to the US for consideration. No refugee actually selected for resettlement in the US has been passed to the UK; and all refugees being resettled in the UK have opted for this route.

  • Stuart McDonald – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Stuart McDonald – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stuart McDonald on 2015-11-05.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many Syrian refugees from each UN camp she expects to be resettled in the UK in 2015.

    Richard Harrington

    The Prime Minister has said that we want to see 1,000 Syrian refugees brought to the UK by Christmas. The Government is working closely with local authorities, international delivery partners and the voluntary sector, putting in place the plans and structures to deliver this and ensuring the system is scaled up in a way that protects the interests of all concerned. Details on numbers will be published in the regular quarterly immigration statistics.

    The UNHCR identifies and proposes Syrian refugees for the VPR scheme from among the whole of the registered refugee population in the region, over 4 million people. This includes people in formal refugee camps, informal settlements and host communities. Therefore, not all of those coming to the UK for resettlement will be coming from UN camps.

  • Stuart McDonald – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    Stuart McDonald – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Energy and Climate Change

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stuart McDonald on 2015-11-16.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, whether her Department has considered the potential contribution that sustainable fuels can make to supporting the decarbonisation of the UK economy.

    Andrea Leadsom

    Sustainable fuels already form an important part of our energy mix and are contributing to the decarbonisation of the UK economy.

    During 2014 just under a fifth of renewable electricity generation came from bioenergy; bioenergy also forms about 94% of our total renewable heat generation; and in transport the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation (RTFO) ensures that just under 5% of transport fuel comes from sustainable biofuels.

    The 2011 Carbon Plan set out a range of scenarios for how the UK could reduce emissions. This considered the role of renewable technologies under the different scenarios. The Government is due to set out next year the level of the fifth carbon budget, covering the years 2028-2032, and following this, a new emissions reduction plan will be published.

  • Stuart McDonald – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Women and Equalities

    Stuart McDonald – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Women and Equalities

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Stuart McDonald on 2015-11-13.

    To ask the Minister for Women and Equalities, what discussions she has had with civil society organisations on the findings of the research study into pregnancy and maternity discrimination in the workplace, Pregnancy and Maternity-Related Discrimination and Disadvantage – First Findings: Surveys of Employers and Mothers, published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission in partnership with the Department for Business, Innovations and Skills on 24 July 2015.

    Caroline Dinenage

    Pregnancy and maternity discrimination is unlawful and completely unacceptable. The government and the Equalities and Human Rights Commission are working together on the largest independent research project of its kind in Great Britain to better understand the problem.

    Figures from the interim report show the vast majority of employers believe it is important to support pregnant women and women on maternity leave. The final report will be published in due course, and will inform the next steps this government will take to ensure employers and mothers are aware of, and act on, their legal obligations and rights.

  • Stuart McDonald – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Ukrainian Troops Visiting UK and on Supporting Ukrainian Nationals

    Stuart McDonald – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Ukrainian Troops Visiting UK and on Supporting Ukrainian Nationals

    The parliamentary question asked by Stuart McDonald, the SNP MP for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, in the House of Commons on 19 December 2022.

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

    What steps she is taking to help improve (a) access to visas and (b) support for Ukrainian nationals.

    The Minister for Immigration (Robert Jenrick)

    Applications for the UK’s three bespoke Ukraine schemes are online, have no fee and no salary or language requirements. Nearly 150,000 visas have been issued to Ukrainians since the start of Vladimir Putin’s illegal invasion. The UK Visas and Immigration service aims to decide those applications within five days, unless there are exceptional circumstances. Generally, we are now meeting that standard.

    Stuart C. McDonald

    Ukrainian MPs who have met colleagues here have repeatedly asked for improvements to UK visit visa processes. Visitors from Ukraine must either go to Poland twice—first for biometrics and then to collect the visa—or wait there for several weeks. Will the Minister look at what can be done to make it simpler for those brave politicians and other Ukrainian citizens visiting their families here to access the necessary visa?

    Robert Jenrick

    I am in contact with a number of Ukrainian politicians who have raised exactly that point with me and, indeed, the issue of those serving in the Ukrainian armed forces who might wish to visit relatives here while on a short period of leave. I am giving that further consideration.