Police, Crime, Sentencing and Court Bill

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 5th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones). I will return to one of her points in a moment, but I shall start by focusing on the amendments tabled in my name—amendments 118 to 121.

In 2017, we reformed pre-charge bail—that is police bail in the jargon—to introduce time limits on how long suspects can be held on bail before being charged, and we introduced a general presumption against the use of pre-charge bail. These changes came after the terrible treatment—I reiterate, the terrible treatment—of some people, the most famous of whom, I guess, was Paul Gambaccini, in the spin-off from the Savile affair. Gambaccini’s career was destroyed by the effective presumption of guilt in the treatment of him.

Even with those 2017 reforms, we still see a large number of people on pre-charge bail today and, indeed, for excessive lengths of time. In 2019, the number on pre-charge bail was 84,000. In 2020, it was nearly 154,000. The effect of the 2017 legislation, therefore, was not to suppress pre-charge bail, so the logic behind the changes in the current Bill are flawed to start off with. Worse than that, the number of people held on pre-charge bail for more than 12 months is 2,344, which is itself an increase on the previous year. These are people for whom there is not enough evidence to charge—not to convict, but to charge, which is a much, much lower threshold.

Currently, I have a case where the National Crime Agency has kept an individual on bail for almost six years. That is six years of being unable to live anywhere but her home address; six years of being unable to see her family because her passport has been withheld; six years of being without a bank account; six years of being without a job or career; and six years of being unable to lead a normal life. When I took it up with the National Crime Agency, I got a letter in response, which, frankly, would have done justice to an episode of “Yes Minister.” The most interesting point in it was a comment making the point that investigations took a long time. It said: “Investigations of this length are not uncommon when dealing with complex cases.” Six years is not uncommon in a justice system where the presumption of innocence is paramount. That is the problem that I am addressing with my amendments. For someone who has not even been charged, the NCA’s actions in this case make a complete mockery of the principle of presumed innocent until proven guilty. By the way, as an aside—separate from the Bill—we cannot find out how many people the NCA has under these circumstances. It is not subject to freedom of information requests and we know nothing about its operations, yet it still does these things.

The Bill seeks to undo the 2017 reforms, eliminating the general presumption against pre-charge bail and amending time limits. Although reform is clearly needed, this is not the correct way to do it. As the Law Society has said, changes to pre-charge bail may lead to people being kept “in limbo” for long periods of time, impacting their civil liberties. I entirely agree. The Government, of course, argue that their proposed reforms have public backing, but the consultation responses were starkly skewed. Police and law enforcement agencies accounted for 65% of the responses, compared to the legal professions at a mere 3%. Nobody should take at face value the Government’s claim that that backing reflects the consultation; it reflects the interests of the agencies involved.

My amendments 118 and 119 would introduce a two-year absolute limit on the use of pre-charge bail, ensuring that agencies had time to investigate properly but promptly. We should remember that the test is the ability to charge, not the ability to convict. That is how far it has to get in two years; that is the primary aim.

Amendments 120 and 121 would prevent the Government from reversing the presumption against the use of pre-charge bail. That would prevent a return to the practice of bailing suspects for lengthy periods with strict and unacceptable curbs to their civil liberties.

I would like to pick up the point made by the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), because clearly she got some pushback from the Government Benches. As it stands, the Bill actually does pose a grave threat to the fundamental right to protest that this country has had enshrined in our national fabric for, I think, some 800 years. The Bill does address real issues, but the Government want to have the power to arrest people who cause “serious annoyance” or “serious inconvenience”. These are incredibly vague terms, frankly. It is clearly a breach of the normal reasoning behind a demonstration when somebody glues themselves to a train with the direct intention of inconveniencing everybody else, but demonstrations do lead to inconvenience.

It is not just the leftie, liberal, legal fraternity that has been worried about the proposed power; there was a letter to the Home Secretary, elements of which were published in today’s edition of The Times, from a number of police chiefs, who are concerned that the effect of the provision is twofold. First, it puts the police in the position of making judgments that they should not be making; that should be specified by this House, not by the police chiefs themselves. Secondly, that puts them in a politicised position, and that is really problematic. We have an apolitical police and every law we write must be written on the presumption that it will be a Government very unlike ours who oversee us at some point in the future. What if, in 20 years’ time, we have an extreme right-wing or extreme left-wing Government, and this sort of vague provision is in place? I ask the Government to pay attention to the precision of this measure, so that we get it exactly right.

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

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is an incongruence in the Government saying they want to defend free speech in universities while effectively attacking the right of freedom of expression on our streets by criminalising activities that will cause serious unease?

[Mr Davis]

The hon. and learned Lady has a point.

Windrush Day 2021

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Thursday 1st July 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing this important debate.

It is a rich irony that as we hold this debate to mark Windrush Day, another immigration scandal similar to that which affected the Windrush generation is potentially in the making. On Wednesday this week, the deadline for EU nationals to apply for settled status in the UK passed amidst worries that thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, had missed the deadline. It is important for their sake, as well as for the sake of the wider black, Asian and minority ethnic community, that we do not miss the opportunity of this debate to address the reasons why so many of the Windrush generation and their descendants were wrongly detained, deported and denied legal rights.

It is important to be clear about what Wendy Williams identified in her “Windrush Lessons Learned Review”, in which she said:

“While the Windrush scandal began to become public in late 2017, its roots lie much deeper. Successive rounds of legislation and policy effectively set traps for the Windrush generation…Over decades, legislation progressively eroded the rights of the Windrush generation… The hostile environment was another step on the long road towards a more restrictive immigration regime, but it was also a departure in terms of the scale and seriousness of the effects which would be directly felt by individuals.

The department”—

by which she means the Home Office—

“developed immigration policy at speed, impelled by ministerial pressure, with too little consideration of the possible impact of the measures”.

That is reflected in the evidence monitoring the impact of the right to rent scheme, one of the key measures of the hostile environment that the Windrush generation came up against. The evidence monitoring that scheme shows that it discriminates on nationality and racial grounds.

Many of the hostile environment policies operate by outsourcing immigration enforcement to people in the community such as health workers, bank workers and employers. That process carries the same risk as that identified in the right to rent scheme. Yet in the “Windrush Lessons Learned Review”, Wendy Williams found that the Home Office did not consider the risks to ethnic minorities appropriately as it developed the right to rent policy, and that it continued to implement the scheme after others had pointed out the risks and after evidence had arisen that the risks had materialised. Wendy Williams has said that the right to rent policy exemplifies the Home Office’s unwillingness to listen to other people’s perspective or take on board external scrutiny, and that that stems from

“an absolute conviction, rather than evidence”.

As a parliamentarian and a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, in 2018 I was involved in a detailed case study of two of the Windrush cases. When we looked at the files of these people, we saw the way in which those acting on behalf of the Home Office had repeatedly ignored extensive documentary evidence that they had every right to live in the United Kingdom. These people were detained and were on the verge of being deported from the United Kingdom. Given that treatment, it is perfectly understandable that there is serious concern about what might become of those EU nationals living in the United Kingdom who have not met the deadline for the settlement scheme and may therefore find themselves, like the Windrush generation, without the paperwork to evidence their right to be here.

As ever, it is the most vulnerable who will suffer most. During the Windrush scandal, it was old people who were hit hardest. We have heard other hon. Members talk about that. Turning again to the EU settlement scheme, on Twitter last night a consultant anaesthetist set out the story of his 83-year-old German-born mother, who came to the United Kingdom in 1962. She has given a lifetime of dedicated service to the United Kingdom and now, sadly, like so many people of her generation, she has dementia. She has no understanding of the process to gain the settled status, and without her son’s assistance she would not have been able to follow it. What of the elderly and vulnerable people with no loving family to help them navigate our complicated immigration system? Just like the Windrush generation, they will be at risk of losing bank accounts, tenancies, access to the NHS and welfare benefits.

We need to use this debate to make sure that we learn lessons from what happened during the Windrush scandal. Its effects were felt far and wide. One of my constituents, a man in his 70s, returned from holiday a few years ago to be told by Border Force officials that he was an illegal immigrant. He had been born in Canada to a Scottish mother and had come to the United Kingdom as a baby and known nowhere else. He never though that he would be the kind of person who would be caught up in the Windrush scandal, but he was and he was extremely upset and had a genuine fear that he was going to be deported, until my office was able to sort out his status and paperwork.

Another constituent of mine, a British national from the Commonwealth who came here before 1988, has been unable to get work as a professional bus driver for the past few years because he was wrongly accused of hijacking someone else’s identity. Although his Department for Work and Pensions file was eventually cleared and his right to benefits was reinstated, the Home Office did not regularise his identity, he cannot get a new passport and he cannot get a driving licence. He came to see me as he was desperate to get his driving licence so that he could work. He was unaware of the Windrush scheme remedy, and the team in my office are now working with him to complete a Windrush application. I hope the Minister is listening and will ask his officials to look at this case specifically, to learn lessons of the devastation that can be caused by failing to properly resolve these types of situation.

As has been indicated, responses to parliamentary questions show that the Windrush compensation scheme is a lengthy experience, for some at least, with many waiting for more than a year. Shamefully, as has been said, 21 people have died waiting for a response. So it is time that the scheme was properly resourced and that legal aid was made available to help claimants through the bureaucracy. So my other ask of the Minister today is whether he can give us an undertaking to properly resource this compensation scheme, on which the Home Office has to date drastically underspent its budget, and whether he will afford legal aid for the more complicated cases.

Above and beyond everything else, what we should take from today’s debate is the lessons that should be learned from the Windrush scandal, and the title of Wendy Williams’ report refers to that. We should take them forward to make sure that no other people living in the UK suffer that sort of treatment in the future. If we do not address the hostile environment and its implications—through the right to rent scheme, in the workplace, in the health service and in the benefits system—we are at risk of going back to the days of signs in the window saying, “No blacks, no Irish need apply”, except that the signs will not be there because the system is more insidious and more covert, but it is still there. The Windrush scandal should have marked the end of the hostile environment, but the Home Office is forging ahead with it regardless. Its approach was recently typified by the carrying out of an immigration raid during a religious festival on Glasgow’s south side. The local multicultural community firmly and peaceably showed what they thought of the British Government’s conduct, and the victims of the raid were released. The shameful heavy-handed approach to immigration typified by the Windrush scandal should have no place in the modern United Kingdom. It certainly has no mandate in Scotland and no place in modern Scotland, which is one of the many reasons why the SNP wins election after election in Scotland. The responsibility to realise the means to do something about the hostile environment in Scotland weighs heavily on my party, but ultimately the responsibility for it weighs on the Minister’s party and I want to hear from him today that he has learned the lessons of the Windrush scandal and that steps will be taken to avoid it ever happening again.

Napier Barracks Asylum Accommodation

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Thursday 10th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

I think the public do expect us to reform the system and to control our borders, which is why we are bringing forward a new Bill very shortly to do exactly that. On the question of human rights, which my hon. Friend rightly raises, there is a review going on currently into the operation of the Human Rights Act 1998 that will be reporting, I think, later this year.

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

My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) has reminded the House that quite recently a Home Secretary resigned for inadvertently misleading the Home Affairs Committee. Other hon. Members have asked the Minister whether the current Home Secretary misled the Home Affairs Committee in oral evidence on 24 February this year. In response to those questions, the Minister keeps referring to a Public Health England letter from June this year that talks about full co-operation from the Home Office since spring of this year.

Of course, when the Home Secretary gave evidence on 24 February, she was talking about what had happened before then, not what happened this spring. Evidence presented to the High Court suggests that what she said—that the Department had previously followed public health guidance regarding Napier barracks in “every single way”—was simply not factually correct. The High Court has said that the fact that that public health evidence was ignored meant that the covid outbreak was “inevitable”, so why is the Home Secretary not tendering her resignation, as Amber Rudd had the grace and decency to do?

[Chris Philp]

The hon. and learned Lady refers to the letter of 1 June and says that it post-dates the Home Affairs Committee appearance on 24 February, which it does. However, the paragraph that I quoted says that the positive ongoing dialogue and collaborative working had been ongoing “since spring 2020”.

New Plan for Immigration

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Wednesday 24th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and this is why we have to fix the system. We are currently not able to safeguard and protect those who absolutely need that help and support. The categories that the plan covers include women—women who have been treated abhorrently, quite frankly, in conflict zones, as well as those who have been trafficked and who have had had the most awful crimes undertaken against them. Some of these women are also used in modern-day slavery; how we protect victims of that is also a feature of the new immigration plan. My hon. Friend is absolutely right and we will definitely be looking at all of that.

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

Now that the Home Secretary is planning on deporting even more asylum seekers than previously, will she address the lack of transparency in the content and scope of the UK Government’s existing returns and readmission agreements, as well as those under negotiation? Will she give an undertaking to remedy that lack of clarity and to publish the agreements for scrutiny? Will she also confirm that it is not the Government’s intention to send people back to countries where there is a real risk that they will face torture or inhuman, degrading treatment or punishment?

Policing and Prevention of Violence against Women

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Monday 15th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

That is absolutely right, and I thank my hon. Friend for his point and comments. There is, conveniently, far too much conflation taking place when it comes to examples of protest. This will be subject to debate later today during the passage of the Bill, but he is absolutely correct on that.

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

Much of the debate over the last few days has focused on how we secure women’s safety in the public domain. Does the Home Secretary agree that it is equally important that Government policy secures women’s safety in private settings, including women’s refuges? And does she agree that Government should prioritise upholding single-sex spaces, services, provision and roles for women and girls where single-sex provision is permitted under the Equality Act 2010?

[Priti Patel]

The hon. and learned Lady makes important points about violence that takes place at home and the need to safeguard women. This is exactly what this Government have been doing—particularly over the now soon to be 12 months under coronavirus and this pandemic—through the money that we have been putting in place for refuges and providing support, but also by giving awareness and places where people can go to demonstrate, express themselves or let the police know that they have been a victim of abuse. This work will continue. It is so important, and I should conclude by saying that as we unlock through the road map on coronavirus, we should be prepared for more people to raise some unpleasant experiences that they have had, and they will be supported through policing and by this Government.

Health Measures at UK Borders

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend raises some important points, and he is right. I stood at the Dispatch Box yesterday, speaking about the importance of freight and the work that the Government have done over recent months, and in the run-up to Christmas, to keep freight moving, despite the various border closures that took place. Indeed, that makes my hon. Friend’s point, because we simply cannot have that approach—there are logistical and operational challenges, and the Government are working through many of those.

My hon. Friend makes an important point about changes to guidance and advice across Government, and the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Transport and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office all play an important role in public communications and assurances regarding countries and any changes that take place. Clearly, the Government will publish that information and come to the House to share it. However, current guidance is clear that people should be staying at home unless they have exceptional reasons to travel. Going on holiday is not a justifiable excuse or reason.

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

I thank the Home Secretary for her statement and for advance sight of it. My Scottish Government colleagues are concerned, as she knows, that her proposals do not go far enough; I would be grateful if she would confirm that she will listen to their representations.

It is, of course, the Home Secretary’s Department’s responsibility to control the United Kingdom’s external borders. Her Department holds the passenger data and the UK Border Force reports to her, so it is right that the Home Secretary should be the one to address the risks raised by the transmission of the virus by arrivals from abroad. I am going to repeat the questions that I asked during the exchanges on yesterday’s urgent question on this same topic, which the Home Secretary did not answer. I hope that, having had 24 hours’ notice to think about my questions and discuss them with her colleagues and advisers, she will now answer them.

In April and May of last year, I wrote to the Home Secretary asking for comprehensive health protections at the UK’s external borders, and I referred to the measures that were being introduced in other countries in Europe and around the world. Other Home Affairs Committee members were making similar requests, backed up by evidence. Last week, the Home Secretary admitted that we were right, and said that she thought that the United Kingdom should have closed its borders earlier, so why did she fail to take precautions that she knew were needed at the start of the pandemic? What stopped her from closing the borders? Was it her Cabinet colleagues? If so, why did she not resign and speak out, given the risk of increased transmission from people entering the country?

Finally, have the Government commissioned an assessment of what contribution the failure to close the borders earlier has made to the dreadful death toll across the United Kingdom? Will the Home Secretary put the results in the public domain? These questions concern not just my constituents and those of my SNP colleagues, but people throughout the four nations, so will she please answer them?

[Priti Patel]

First, I very much repeat what I said yesterday about working with all the devolved Administrations —clearly the Government are doing that, and the right hon. and learned Lady will be well aware of that.

With regard to everyone now going retrospective in thinking that they were the first advocates of bringing in health measures at the border, that was clearly not the case, as I recall from the Select Committee last April—I mentioned that yesterday, too. If I may, I shall reacquaint the right hon. and learned Lady with the measures that were brought in from January 2020: from the minute that self-isolation advice was given by the FCO at the time to the SAGE recommendations on self-isolation for those coming from specific countries; the new regulations and statutory instruments that were brought in on 10 February, with new powers for medical professionals and the police to detain individuals suspected of covid symptoms; the guidance to UK airports; and the travel advice put out by the FCDO—all between February and March.

Self-isolation measures were introduced for specific countries; we introduced mandatory quarantine and the passenger locator form back in June last year; we closed the border to Denmark after the first identification of a new strain—which, of course, we were able to deal with because of our genomic sequencing capacity in the UK; we introduced test and release and the ban on flights from South Africa, which clearly is still in place; and we introduced carrier liability for pre-travel testing.

Each of the measures we have introduced has added another layer of protection against transmission of the virus, and that reduces the risk of dangerous new strains being imported into the UK. The right hon. and learned Lady should reflect on the fact that there is not one single measure that mitigates risk entirely. Every measure that has been brought in helps to reduce risk, protect the vaccine and, importantly, protect the British public and public health.

UK Border: Covid Protections

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Tuesday 26th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I thank him, as a Kent MP, for the work he has been doing, particularly on flow and hauliers. We absolutely have throughout the last 12 months—through difficulties as well, if we recall back in December—protected the flow of freight and critical supplies. That will continue.

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

It is simply not accurate to say that there has been a comprehensive strategy in place since January 2020, and it is really quite extraordinary that a Home Secretary previously so obsessed with stopping people from entering the country and deporting those already here should have taken so long to properly address covid protections at the UK border.

As the Home Secretary knows, in April and May last year I wrote to her asking for comprehensive health protections at the border, and I referred to the measures that had been introduced in other countries in Europe and across the world. Last week, the Home Secretary admitted that we should have closed our borders earlier, so why did she fail to take precautions that she knew were needed? What stopped her? Was it her Cabinet colleagues? If so, why did she not resign and speak out, given the risk of increased transmission from people entering the country?

Finally, it is good that four-nations discussions are now taking place, but it is the Home Office that collects and holds passenger data, and the UK Border Force, as the Home Secretary explained, reports to the Home Office, a UK Government Department. Can she confirm that all proper co-operation will be afforded to the devolved Governments going forward?

[Priti Patel]

I think it is fair to say that the hon. and learned Lady and I will disagree on a number of things, including her opening remarks on the Government’s strategy. I have already outlined them, so I do not need to run through the range of measures that have been undertaken, but I would just like to reflect on a point she made about co-operation across the four nations. She will be very well aware that co-operation has taken place from the outset through the introduction of travel corridors and through the work of the UK Border Force across the United Kingdom. If I may say so, it does that incredibly well at our ports and airports across the UK. In fact, earlier last year I visited many of our Border Force officers in Scotland, both at Edinburgh and Glasgow. The co-operation is incredibly strong. The dialogue always continues and does exist. That will continue as, potentially, measures may change, as they have done throughout the coronavirus pandemic.

Serious Criminal Cases Backlog

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Wednesday 20th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Joanna Cherry, who has one minute.

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

Criminal justice is devolved in Scotland, and here the focus has been on ensuring that jury trials continue in the most serious cases where accused persons are in custody and where the nature of the alleged offence demands that priority be given, which includes sexual offences. The report we are talking about today deals with England and Wales only. It has found numerous examples of serious cases being cancelled at short notice, and it has warned that delays could result in crime victims being unable to support prosecutions.

What new steps is the Minister taking to ensure that, as already happens in Scotland, the United Kingdom Government are complying with their duty under article 3 of the European convention on human rights to ensure that there are effective remedies for the victims of sexual offences and, in particular, that we avoid—or that he avoids—undue delay in getting cases of sexual offences to trial? I know what has been done in Scotland. I am keen to know what the Minister is going to do in England and Wales, given the finding of this report.

[Chris Philp]

We are as keen as the hon. and learned Member is and everyone is to make sure that these very sensitive cases involving rape or similar offences get heard quickly, but of course it is a matter for the judiciary to decide when they are listed and sometimes there are reasons to do with case management why a case may get adjourned while things are dealt with. But we have, for example, now rolled out the section 28 evidence provisions that I mentioned, so sensitive evidence can be given by recorded video, which can be taken well in advance of a trial—designed to help exactly what she is describing—and we have made large amounts of money available, with the extra £25 million next year and £32 million this year, to support and help witnesses and victims.

I was slightly concerned to read a remark by the Lord President in Scotland saying that during lockdown criminal cases in Scotland would be down by 75%. I am sure the hon. and learned Member shares my concern about that, and anything we can do to exchange ideas in our mutual interests I am sure we will be very happy to do.

Police National Computer

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Monday 18th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that the initial assessment was some optimism about the ability to recover this data, not least because it is held in a number of areas. We will not have the full picture until we get to the end of this week, once we have analysed the report and, of course, looked at the data that we should have deleted but have not because of this error. However, he is quite right that we should be optimistic about that and recognise that all is not lost. There are other ways that this data can be cross-checked, in particular as part of a police investigation. We are working with our policing partners to ensure that they make full use of that, so that they can proceed as usual with their investigations.

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

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Two weeks ago, the Home Secretary was boasting that the United Kingdom is now a safer place because of Brexit. However, before it was disbanded by the Government, the Select Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union heard detailed expert evidence explaining why the United Kingdom is not a safer place as a result of the law enforcement part of the Brexit deal. One of the key reasons is that we have lost real-time access to Europe-wide databases on criminal records, DNA, fingerprints and, indeed, intelligence. That is not just my view but the expert view of Lord Ian Blair, the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner, and Lord Peter Ricketts, the former National Security Adviser. Now that situation has been further exacerbated by this loss of important fingerprint, DNA and arrest history records, which the police use for real-time checks on our own UK-wide databases.

Mr Speaker, you really couldn’t make it up, yet curiously the Home Secretary is nowhere to be seen. Instead, she has sent her junior Minister to take the flak. I have two areas of questions for him. First, was this data cleaning operation in any way connected to the removal of records from the police national computer following the end of the transition period? Does the 400,000 figure include the 40,000 records that were removed from the police national computer post Brexit, or is it on top of that? Secondly, given the UK-wide nature of the database, what discussions have taken place with police forces in the devolved nations? Will the Minister commit to full co-operation with Police Scotland and other devolved forces until this issue is resolved?

[Kit Malthouse]

On the hon. and learned Lady’s two substantive questions, this had absolutely nothing to do with SIS II—the Schengen information system. These were, as I said earlier, deletions in line with our legal obligations not to hold data for people who are not of continuing interest to the police, under legislation that was enacted by this House some years ago. On the conversations with police forces, obviously the National Police Chiefs Council lead has cascaded throughout policing the information required to put in place mitigations. We will also, of course, co-operate as closely as possible, and I will be keeping my opposite number in the Scottish Government informed.

As to the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) and the hon. and learned Lady about the Home Secretary, I can only apologise that they are facing someone who is an inferior to their own status, but they will understand that the Home Secretary has an enormous draw upon her duties. She takes her duties in this House extremely seriously—there is no doubt about it—but I have been much more, I guess, embedded with this over the last few months, as one would expect for a Minister of State who is standing by his Home Secretary, doing her bidding.

Oral Answers to Questions

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

From the tone of the hon. Gentleman’s question, I can only conclude that he missed my appearance before the Scottish Parliament’s Culture, Tourism, Europe and External Affairs Committee on Thursday. Perhaps he might find the video online. During the session I outlined several meetings I would be delighted to have with Scottish Cabinet Secretaries and the kettle is on if they want to take me up on the offer.

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

I find that a fascinating reply, Mr Speaker, because it does not really accord with my understanding of what happened at the meeting to which the Minister refers. The UK Government’s immigration policies threaten to plunge Scotland’s working-age population into decline, to cause serious staffing shortages in key industries such as the farming industry, and to inflict lasting damage on our public services. The Minister has appeared to dismiss these serious concerns and has point blank refused to meet the Scottish Government Minister with responsibility for migration since he came into office under this Prime Minister. Did I correctly understand his previous comment as saying that that position has changed? If so, when is he planning to meet the Scottish Government’s migration Minister?

[Kevin Foster]

It is unfortunate that the hon. and learned Member appears also to have missed the session, but again, I believe there is a video online—she might find it fascinating—with me giving examples of Scottish Ministers I was prepared to meet to discuss a range of issues. I also gave MSPs examples of how Scotland’s needs are directly shaping the future immigration system for the whole of our UK, including the change to the permit-free festival system directly driven by the needs of Edinburgh international festival. But I suspect the actual focus of this question is, as always from the SNP, pushing separatism, not success for Scotland.

[Joanna Cherry]

The Minister would do well to appreciate that the SNP represents the majority of voters in Scotland. At the meeting last week that he is referring to, my understanding, from speaking to colleagues, is that he said he would not be meeting what he described as the SNP’s “migration spokesperson”, so can he now put this on the record? Will he meet my colleague and friend, the democratically elected SNP Government’s spokesperson for migration? Will he meet him, as he has refused to do since last summer—yes or no? It is a very simple question; I want a clear yes or no answer.

[Kevin Foster]

I regularly meet the SNP spokesperson in this place on migration matters for constructive discussions. This Government are going to focus on building a future migration system focused on ensuring that the world’s talent sees Scotland at the heart of our United Kingdom as its natural home. The SNP sees it as an opportunity to ensure that the Scottish Government can always seek to recruit care workers at the legal minimum wage and as a chance to fulfil their ambition to rebuild Hadrian’s Wall and get England to pay for it.