Home Affairs

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Tuesday 10th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right. She knows that many of the strongest advocates of fighting extremism or preventing extremism—for example, preventing Islamist extremism—are those in the Muslim communities themselves, such as Muslim community leaders who have done excellent work on preventing extremism. The Government should do more to support those communities in the work that such communities are often better at leading.

A lot is missing from this Queen’s Speech. There is no serious action to tackle domestic violence or rape, of which reported cases are going up, but prosecutions and convictions are going down on the Home Secretary’s watch. There are no national standards, and no commissioner on violence against women to make sure that such standards are enforced. I still fail to understand why the Government will not do more to prevent violent relationships among young people. Where is the proposal for the compulsory sex and relationship education that all our children should get to ensure that they are taught zero tolerance of violence in relationships from the start?

What about immigration? The Home Secretary’s approach is failing. She set a net migration target, and the Prime Minister promised—no ifs, no buts—that he would get immigration down to the tens of thousands. The Home Secretary said that she would meet the target by the end of the Parliament. Yet net migration is now at 212,000, which is hardly less than the 222,000 at the time of the last election. Despite all her rhetoric and four years’ worth of legislation, the public are more worried about immigration now than when she started as Home Secretary. However, universities and businesses are concerned that they cannot attract the best international talent, which they need. In the past year alone, the number of people saying that immigration is their biggest concern has doubled. It is the worst of all worlds, so why does she not stop pretending about meeting her failed target and act to address some of the practical concerns that people have about the impact of immigration on wages and jobs?

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Will the right hon. Lady tell me what the Labour party is going to do? It seems to me that there are only two ways to deal with UKIP’s agenda: either to accommodate and pander to it, or to challenge the very assumptions on which it is based. Labour cannot look two ways on this matter—will it challenge or pander?

[Yvette Cooper]

UKIP is exploiting people’s fears and concerns, and it needs to be challenged every step of the way. We need to set out the practical reforms that would address people’s concerns about the impact of immigration on their wages and jobs when employers exploit immigration to undercut local wages and jobs. I do not understand why the Home Secretary will not take such measures—we could support them—in a new immigration Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

I have a declared interest that relates to higher education, which might crop up in my speech.

I thank the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) for his reference to the work of my late friend, Paul Goggins, who was referred to by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition on the day of the Queen’s Speech. I appreciate that reference, because Paul would have been proud that his work, like that of so many in this House, has borne fruit in the form of legislation.

Before I turn to the substance of the Queen’s Speech and the related issues that my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary has deliberated on very effectively, may I reflect on the nature of last week’s events? Having been the Home Secretary at the time of the 11 September attack and the subsequent dangers, I am mindful of the need for security. However, I am becoming increasingly concerned about the way in which we operate the closures in central London around the Queen’s Speech. To close substantial portions of the area around Westminster from Monday to Friday is, in my view, unnecessary. We should protect the Queen—the royal personage—in any way we can, but there has been an extension in what happens over recent years. I mention that only because it is damaging to the London economy and extremely frustrating for the populace, and it does not necessarily do Parliament any good.

Secondly, as we have seen in the debate over the past few days and way beyond, a fixed-term, five-year Parliament can be seen to run out of steam. If we are to continue with fixed-term Parliaments, I think that it is time to re-examine whether they should last for four years, rather than five. Irrespective of whether a coalition is still required, which I sincerely hope it is not, it is clear from history that Governments need to refresh themselves. That is part of our democracy and considering such a change would be a positive move in responding to the changing needs of the population and the political debate. Four-year Parliaments might allow us to have two Queen’s Speeches: one at the beginning of a Parliament and one two years in, which would allow time for substantive debate and measures that have been carefully planned and thought through. I commend the idea of returning to those issues to Front Benchers on both sides of the House.

We face a moment of rapid change that is unprecedented in our history. There is economic, social and cultural change, some of which we touched on yesterday afternoon during the urgent question and the statement. We face an explosion in communications that brings globalisation and issues on a moment-by-moment basis not just into people’s front rooms, which we used to say in relation to television, but into their hands as they use mobile technology. The immediacy of such issues has changed how people see the rapid change in the world around them.

When we were in a position of economic success, with continuing growth, continuing substantial falls in unemployment and rises in wages, and it was possible to invest in improved public services, globalisation appeared to be benign, if not somewhat bewildering, to the populace. The same is not true at a time of deep austerity, with the results of the global banking meltdown—and it was a global banking meltdown; the previous Labour Government were not responsible for the collapse of the sub-prime market in the United States or the recession across Europe. It is risible that people still repeat that calumny over and again, particularly members of the junior partner in the coalition, who were enthusiastically in favour of the public spending that we were engaged in before 2010 and suddenly changed their mind. Indeed, so was the Conservative party, because until autumn 2008 and a change of mind at the Tory party conference, the main thrust of public expenditure was supported by the Conservative Opposition.

I mention that because the confusion, bewilderment and sense of powerlessness that affects so many of our constituents has a knock-on effect on the way they see the political environment around them, and on whether they trust or believe that traditional politics can meet their needs—hence the rise of the UK Independence party and its temporary, God willing, success in the European Union elections and some local government contests.

Old certainties have gone and people are unclear who they should blame for what is happening around them. Is it a change in the world situation and the insecurities that drive asylum seekers and movements of people across the world? Ten and a half million people have been moved outside their homeland either compulsorily or through fear of the danger of death and torture. People are desperately looking for a better life, and hearing about it in the way I have just described and in a fashion that was not present years ago. Bewilderment and a subliminal fear come from those uncertainties, and people are looking to someone to find answers.

We have the chance to debate these issues today, but that rarely happens any more on television or radio, and certainly not in the print media or through the inanity of many bloggers. We are not reaching, talking to or having a dialogue with—never mind listening to—the fears of people, but there is nothing new about that.

One great advantage of being a Back Bencher is that one has the chance to read. I have been reading the biography of Roy Jenkins that came out a few months ago. He was not a favourite politician of mine, not least because he was paraded as one of the most liberal and radical Home Secretaries in history, whereas most of the legislation he took credit for was promoted by Back Benchers. My irritation at that has been overwhelmed by going back and reading extracts of speeches and articles that he wrote. Fifty-five years ago, he was talking about the challenge of whether we should enter what was then the European Economic Community. He talked about a bigger issue of people living in an atmosphere of illusion or reality, and the unwillingness to address Britain’s position in the world. He spoke about a challenge of living in a sullen and incomprehensible environment in which people looked only to the past.

I fear that we are in that moment once again. People hanker for a past that did not really exist, and they look for certainties that are no longer there. They fear that politicians do not have answers to their questions, and they lash out at anyone near them. I think we must try in our own way across all three major political parties to provide answers that are credible. Nobody can underestimate the bewilderment, and no one should belittle the cry for help from our constituents, above all in a constituency such as mine.

People will be aware of the considerable tensions that have arisen after a large influx of people from Slovakia of a Roma background. They are fleeing unbelievable persecution and standards of living that are third world, to say the least. Incidentally, Slovakia managed a turnout of only 13% in the European Union election—I do not think that is a functioning democracy. People come to the UK from that background and those norms of living, and as part of the debate about British values and a society that can address those challenges, we need to invest in and help people through those difficulties. That applies to both the host community, which suddenly finds its way of life affected dramatically, and incomers who need to learn quickly how best to adapt to and adopt the standards of behaviour and norms that we take for granted.

Those big issues require us not to provide simplistic soundbites but to address the underlying complexities. This afternoon I appeal for us all to come together to address those things that are practical and can be addressed. In essence, we are dealing with the transitions of life—transitions that are brought about by economic, social and cultural change globally, and those that affect people in their daily lives as the language and the vista and nature of the community around them changes. We must consider how best the Government, and therefore politics, can assist in that endeavour.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) mentioned immigration, and the importance of getting a grip on things that are possible within the current powers of the Westminster Parliament. There are many pressures outside and many changes we all want, and people can collaborate and work together at local level. There are also global changes that need to be dealt with by a proper debate in a reformed European Union and on the transnational scene. As my right hon. Friend rightly said, many things that could be dealt with at a local as well as national level would assist. I want to touch on some of those today and suggest that in doing so, we might politically give people hope that not only will they be listened to, they will be talked to realistically, be respected, and be told the truth about what we can and cannot do.

For instance, it was never going to be feasible to get net migration below 100,000 unless, as has been pointed out, we rapidly changed the passport system and encouraged our own people to leave the country. We could achieve it that way but that is nonsense. We could never achieve net migration of under 100,000 unless we remove from the statistics those who come here to study as graduate and postgraduate students. The commonsense of doing that has been pressed on the Government over the past four years, and I think it would have got all-party support and told people the truth. If we do not tell people the truth, and if we pretend that we can achieve targets that are frankly unachievable, when we do not achieve those targets we undermine confidence in all the other measures that have been taken.

We have a tendency at the moment to rewrite history—I imagine there is nothing new about that. We all like to paint what we are doing as day zero, and that what came before as either inadequate or totally deniable.

[Pete Wishart]

I am one of the people who think that Labour got it just about right on immigration when they were in government. Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in not being bullied by the Tories and UKIP who want Labour to apologise? Labour should stand up for what it did because it did the right thing. Will it say to the Tories and UKIP, “We got it right on immigration and we will not be bullied out of our former position”?

[Mr Blunkett]

The truth is that we did not get it entirely right because no Government get everything entirely right. That is another part of rebuilding trust in the political system.

I mentioned day zero because the tendency to suggest that nothing that came before was satisfactory, adequate or even addressed the issues undermines fundamentally people’s belief that we know what we are doing, or that what happened in the past can be recorded as at least partially successful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jackson]

They are not bogus, as my hon. Friend said. I think it unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman should denigrate young people who are, in good faith, seeking to improve their life chances and skills by taking worthwhile courses. If he can suggest any alternative, let him do so, but in 13 years the Labour party did very little to tackle the issues. It was happy to leave thousands, if not millions, of young people innumerate and illiterate when they left secondary school, and primary school, too.

We are focusing on infrastructure; we are reforming welfare; and we are reducing the deficit, which is the major imperative for the nation. I pay tribute to the Liberal Democrats for being far-sighted enough to join us in our efforts to do what was right for our country and our constituents, rather than aiming for short-term, partisan party advantage.

Listening to the shadow Home Secretary’s speech was a pitiful experience. Rolling out examples of Passport Office failures does not speak of a party which, in 11 months’ time, will seek to govern this country. It is bandwagon jumping, and it is pitiful that it does not have a more coherent home affairs programme to put before the House, not least because it is the party that told us 15,000 Polish people would come to the UK after 2004, and it was only out by a factor of about 100. It completely underestimated the numbers that were coming to this country. It is the party that is not believed on immigration. Some 77% of people say that it is a very important concern to them, and the only reason the Labour party is interested in it now is because of the election results in places like Doncaster and elsewhere across the country, where its own core blue-collar, working-class vote does not believe it and does not believe that it has the solutions to deal, long term in a sustainable way, with the problem that it created when in government, which was open-door, unrestricted, unfettered immigration. Incidentally, we will not take any lectures from a party that lost both a Minister of State and a Home Secretary because of its cack-handed mismanagement of the immigration system when it was last in government.

I am not wholly critical of the Labour party, however, because we heard a very considered, erudite and typically thoughtful speech from the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett). He touched on an important point. The issue of immigration can be almost directly linked to a feeling of a crisis of authority and to the estrangement of ordinary people—voters who are not that interested in the minutiae of politics—and the lack of faith and trust that they have in the political system. That is a function of the European Union and of how distant and unaccountable it is, but it is also a function of the fact that they do not believe in the institutions of our country to get things done in a timely way that affects their lives for the better. The right hon. Gentleman was right to make that point.

The Government have done a good job in very difficult circumstances. They were right to concentrate on reducing the net migration figure as a policy priority. I hope they achieve that, and at least they are trying. Interestingly, when the shadow Home Secretary was grilled by John Humphrys on the “Today” programme a few weeks ago, she was big on motherhood and apple pie, saying we should reduce immigration, but she was not specific on whether Labour would adhere to any target number. It is incumbent upon a responsible Opposition to offer proper alternatives, and she was somewhat remiss in that respect.

We have clamped down on bogus colleges; we are doing something about health tourism; and we are also looking at access to benefits, English language skills and the income earnings threshold—all policy issues that could have been looked at and acted upon in the previous Parliament.

I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field). He has been largely a lonely voice over a number of years in voicing these issues. Some people came close in the past to as good as calling him and others xenophobic or racist for doing so, but he has been proved right. It is important that we have a proper, balanced and reasonable debate on the level—the unprecedented scale—of migration. Between 2004 and 2011, 34,000 people came to my constituency and were granted national insurance numbers. In two schools in my constituency no children speak English as their first language, and there are over 40 schools where the rate is well over 50%. That is an issue of resources and resource allocation, and it is very important. It is nothing to do with xenophobia or racism. It is about keeping the bargain of trust and faith with our constituents.

That brings me on to my European Union Free Movement Directive 2004 (Disapplication) Bill, a ten-minute rule Bill that I put to the House in October 2012. I think that in many respects I was ahead of my time. I will put my cards on the table: I am a member of Better off Out and I will campaign actively to leave the EU, but I will respect whatever decision the British people take when we have a referendum under a majority Conservative Government in 2017. However, I respectfully say to the Government that they need to look at what I was proposing in that Bill 18 months or so ago, which was not to rip up the free movement directive. It is not a tablet of stone; it is not a holy grail. It is a piece of living European law. The Spanish looked at registration controls—registration when people entered the country, when they changed jobs, when they married, when they had children—as a way of reducing the pull factor, and we should be looking at that, too, complementing and building on the announcements we have already made and the regulations we have laid on matters such as welfare tourism and access to social housing.

I ask the Prime Minister to look at that again and perhaps to introduce further regulations that finesse and nuance the free movement directive, not because we are xenophobic—not because we do not want decent, hard-working Polish citizens, Lithuanians and people from the Czech Republic coming to our country, contributing and adding to the variety and diversity of the country—but because many of the people we represent are concerned about large-scale immigration and the length of time that it has been going on.

[Pete Wishart]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern about inward migration, but does he have any concerns about outward migration? Should there be a limit on the number of UK people who go to Spain for a happy and contented retirement?

[Mr Jackson]

That is a fair question, but many of them are older and are very unlikely to need to go to accident and emergency or their maternity unit. Many of them are unlikely to be putting their grandchildren in primary schools, too. There is a balance to be struck between the use of public services and the resources needed.

I accept that the hon. Gentleman might have touched on an important issue in that there are hot spots in respect of such demands, however. In my constituency we have food processing, agriculture, horticulture, packaging and logistics, and younger people will come over with their partners and have children and there will be a big strain on schools, but I accept that might not be the case in the west country or the south of England. It will only be the case in hot spots. One of the things that the Government need to do is reboot the migration impact forum, specifically to assist local authorities. One issue is the number of children who come into a school but are gone at the end of the academic year, for instance. The Government need to look at this.

The Government also need to ensure that everyone who comes to this country is properly exercising their treaty obligations. That is all we are asking. We need to do some work on contributory pensions with the Germans and other key partners.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Erewash (Jessica Lee), who may have one of the most unusual-sounding constituencies. She must be commended for her work on modern slavery and on children in particular.

I want to address what we now refer to as “the Scotland bit” in the Queen’s Speech. We are always grateful to Her Majesty for acknowledging Scotland in her Gracious Speech; it usually comes about two thirds of the way through, and again this year we were not disappointed. In the Queen’s Speech Her Majesty confirmed that her Government will

“make the case for Scotland to remain a part of the United Kingdom.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 June 2014; Vol. 754, c. 4.]

No surprise there; that is what we would expect her to say. In fact, it would have been quite remarkable had she said something else. Imagine if, for example, she had said, “I look forward to my subjects in Scotland securing the normal powers of an independent nation. I look forward to them enjoying the resources that will make their country one of the most dynamic and prosperous in the world.” Of course, she did not say that. Her Majesty knows, as we all know in Scotland, that the whole range of facilities available to this Government and this House will be pitted against Scotland in the next few months to try to influence the vote.

All the donors and cronies down the corridor will be engaged in trying to make sure that Scotland remains in the United Kingdom. All the resources available to all the Opposition parties will be engaged in ensuring that Scotland remains part of the United Kingdom. All of Whitehall, all Government Committees and all Select Committees will be engaged in trying to ensure that Scotland remains a part of the United Kingdom. I am one of six Scottish National party Members, so I am very much aware of the range of forces pitted against us. Out of 650 Members of the House there are maybe 10 of us calling for Scottish independence, and thank goodness for the hon. Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie), who has now joined the call. If we add the 800 Members from down the corridor, there are 1,400 Westminster parliamentarians who are against Scottish independence versus the six of us. That seems like reasonable odds to me. It is reasonably fair. What we have to do now is recognise, as the Queen did in the Speech, that the entire resources of Westminster—the whole of the House of Commons and the whole House of Lords—will be ranged against Scotland. Last week they even enlisted Lego figures in their fight to stop Scotland becoming independent, to much laughter and ridicule.

In the Scotland bit of her speech, Her Majesty confirmed that the Government

“will continue to implement new financial powers for the Scottish Parliament”.

These are not the new financial powers that the Prime Minister apparently signed up to only last week. These are the remaining consequential issues from the Scotland Act 2012 that need to be tidied up.

More devolution is all the rage in Scotland. We cannot walk around one of our big cities without tripping over some Unionist or UK commission looking into the issue. It is like the proverbial buses all turning up at once. It has got me and all the other people in Scotland wondering why they are doing it now. Is it anything to do with the prospect of a referendum on independence? Surely not. Yet that is almost certainly the case. It is curious because our Unionist friends did everything to keep a “more powers” option off the ballot paper for the referendum in September. They would give us anything else, such as the right to administer the referendum. They even allowed us to frame the question. It is we who were in charge of the franchise. The one thing they did not want was a “more powers” option on the ballot paper. Now we are expected to accept that they are sincere in delivering all these shiny new powers, when they did so much to keep them off the ballot paper. There are two things that we say about that: “Aye. Right. Fool us once and we’ll blame you. Fool us twice and it’s our fault.”

[Michael Connarty]

Might not the logic be to expose the fact that what has been offered by the Scottish National party was the lunacy of independence, as against staying within the Union where we could negotiate changes, and to expose the paucity of the hon. Gentleman’s argument that independence might be better for the people of Scotland, whereas we know that it would be a disaster for them?

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Gentleman has his own view, but why not offer the option on the ballot paper? There was accommodation with the Scottish Government about that. We were quite happy and relaxed about a third question being put forward. The Scottish people should always get what they want. That is my view and I am sure it is the hon. Gentleman’s view, so the question could have appeared on the ballot paper, but it was rejected. It was the one thing that the Government did not want included.

We have been here before. The hon. Gentleman will remember this. It was in my own constituency—Alec Douglas-Home trooping up to Perth city hall in 1979. What did he say to the Scottish people? “Vote no and we’ll give you something better. We’ll give you a better Parliament” than was on offer in 1979. What did we get? Eighteen years of Thatcherism, the destruction of our industrial base, and Tory obscenities like the poll tax. We will not be fooled by that again.

One of the funny consequences of all this—it is quite ironic—is that the party that so defiantly opposed the Scottish Parliament in any form of Scottish devolution is now the party of more devolution. It has made a more substantial offer than the party of devolution, the Labour party. We might be in the ridiculous situation whereby in the next Parliament, Labour Members oppose a Conservative Government offering many more powers than they ever intended to offer. Incredible, but that may be the case.

There is only one way for the Scottish Parliament to get more powers. There is only one way to ensure we get the powers that Scotland needs, and that is to vote yes in the independence referendum. If we do not, we leave it up to this House. We leave it up to the largesse of predominantly English Members to give us more powers. I know lots of English Members. Some of them are very good friends of mine. I do not detect a mood around the House that if Scotland votes no, they will rush in to give us more powers to reward us. I get the sense that they are much more interested in issues such as the Barnett formula. They believe their own propaganda and are concerned that Scotland gets more than the rest of their English regions. They are more concerned about that than about giving us power over income tax or more powers over welfare.

The other thing that consumes English Members is the West Lothian question about what Scottish Members could do here. Maybe it is just me, but I do not see a groundswell of English Members of Parliament queuing up to reward Scotland for turning down the prospect of independence. They are more likely to be thinking, “Scotland’s had its chance. It’s time for my region for a change.”

Other than the Scotland stuff, there were no other constitutional issues in the Queen’s Speech. That means that we will leave this Parliament with the House of Lords commanding the same position in our democracy as when the great reforming Liberals took part in government. What a disgrace. That unelected, crony-stuffed, donor-inhabited affront to democracy will remain in the same condition as when we came into Parliament.

The Liberals had lots of red lines when it came to the constitutional debate. I am not blaming the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) personally, although he is looking at me as though I am. They could have made much more of reforming the House of Lords. They went for AV—the inconsequential mouse of a reform measure—when they could have done something about that place, so we are left with it. In his parting shot, the Liberals’ Lord Oakeshott hinted that cash for honours is still very much a feature of securing a place next door. It is an absurd place and I hope that the next Queen’s Speech will enable us to do something about that affront to democracy. This Government this time round have done nothing.

Some have described the Queen’s Speech this year as a speech for a zombie Parliament. If it is a zombie Parliament, it must be a phantom Queen’s Speech, because it does not address the political dynamic that exists throughout the United Kingdom, what is going on and what should be debated. A few Members have said that. I think I am the only Member to raise the subject of UKIP. The party won an election a couple of weeks ago and made significant gains. Nobody wants to talk about UKIP here. Nobody will address the issue of what it has done. UKIP is pulling the strings of this Government and they are responding in the only way they know how—pandering to UKIP’s agenda instead of challenging it.

I am much more interested in what Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition are going to do. I challenged the shadow Home Secretary on that today. They are at a defining point. They are at a critical and crucial moment. The Labour party has two choices in relation to the immigration/UKIP agenda. It can challenge the assumptions that it is based on, do something about it, take it on, risk not being the favourite of the right-wing press and maybe alienating a few voters who have bought into this pernicious agenda; or it can pander to it and accommodate it.

I have seen the letters from Labour Members encouraging the party leadership to accommodate the UKIP agenda and saying that it could be addressed. They must reject it, stand tall and do the right thing. I know it is difficult sometimes for the Labour party to do this but it must offer leadership. If the Opposition offer leadership on immigration and challenge UKIP on its agenda, they will get my support. I will help them out. But they must not give in to it. They are in a critical position on the immigration/UKIP question. Don’t blow it, Labour. The nation is watching. Labour cannot face two ways on this—it either takes UKIP on or accommodates it. I very much hope Labour does the right thing.

Labour has let itself be bullied by the Tories and UKIP. It is appalling. Labour has been bullied into apologising for its years of immigration. That is one of the best things the Labour Government did and I cannot believe that the Opposition have been bullied like this. Stand up to them, for goodness sake! They should not be afraid to say that they got it right on immigration. It has been fantastic for the whole of the United Kingdom. It has made the city we are in one of the greatest cities in the world. Only about 30% of the people who live and work in London came from this place; the rest are from overseas. What has immigration done for us, as Monty Python might have asked? Look at this place and see what it has achieved, then try and argue that immigration is not good. Come on, Labour. Get on with it. Stand up to them and do the right thing.

I shall deal quickly with Home Office issues, few of which affect Scotland. We are practically independent when it comes to policing and judiciary arrangements. Thank goodness for that. When the Home Secretary turns up to the Police Federation for their annual meeting, she is booed, jeered and shouted down. Then I see our Cabinet Secretary turning up to the Scottish Police Federation and being cheered to the rafters for what we are doing for police officers in Scotland, compared with what this lot are doing here.

I welcome the Modern Slavery Bill. Even though it is for England and Wales only, I hope it is successful and I pay tribute to the many Members who have spoken in support of the measure. In Scotland we have our own people-trafficking Bill and we will continue to work with the UK on the matter, particularly in areas such as extra-territorial intervention and maritime policing.

Legislative consent motions will be required for some of the measures in the serious crime Bill, and I know that again, my colleagues in the Scottish Government will work closely with the Home Office to ensure a co-ordinated response to serious crime. But Scottish National party Members want more than that. Grateful as we are to Her Majesty, we want more than the Scotland bit. It is great that in every Session of Parliament it is included, and we look forward to it, but we do not want the insignificant wee bits here and there, the bits of Bills that apply to Scotland. We want a legislative programme for Scotland in the interests of the people according to our agenda and our priorities. We do not want to be dictated to by a Government for whom we did not vote. That is what we will get on 18 September. That is what the Scottish people will vote for.

Immigration Bill

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

It may be helpful if I say that the Home Secretary will consider the relevant nationality laws of a person’s country and that person’s circumstances, and she will make a decision based on whether, under those laws, the person is able to acquire another nationality. The test is whether there is a route under the law, but she will have regard to other considerations—for example, about practical or logistical arrangements. Those considerations will obviously vary from case to case, but she will consider them in forming a view. We have reflected that in the concept of the reasonable grounds. The Home Secretary will need to be satisfied about those reasonable grounds in determining whether the proposed power can be utilised.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

What happens if no other nationality is available? Does the Home Secretary simply give up?

[James Brokenshire]

The hon. Gentleman clearly makes the point about what we are seeking to achieve in respect of the concerns highlighted in the House and elsewhere, which is that if the Home Secretary cannot satisfy herself on reasonable grounds that the individual can acquire the citizenship of another state, she will not be able to use the power.

In this context, we are seeking to address the specific issue highlighted by the Supreme Court in the al-Jedda case, with which many right hon. and hon. Members are familiar. The case showed that the existing law was well within our international obligations, but we are seeking to act on the Supreme Court’s statement in that case about how to address the issue appropriately. We judge that the proposed provision is an appropriate mechanism for guarding our national security. It will ensure that what appears to be a loophole identified as a consequence of the al-Jedda case is not open to abuse and, building on the existing deprivation powers, it will therefore ensure that our national security is properly protected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Richard Shepherd]

I am greatly concerned about this measure, and I will just make some observations. The Minister referred to the power that the Home Secretary used to have in relation to something being not conducive to the public good. Its removal created a real difficulty for Governments, but my concern is not the difficulty for Governments; my concern is for the British common law system. This is not about the European Court of Justice—its rulings or anything else. The issue of concern to me is: what is our process?

I believe, and this was fundamental to our legal system, that a person should know the reasons they are to be aggrieved, but that is not possible under the Bill. He or she will not know the reasons they are being deprived of citizenship, so they can make no case that can be held to be valid, because they do not know what they are challenging—or they will claim they do not know what they are being challenged with. We do not know and the public do not know, so this violates one of the first principles of our legal system—our common law system. I want the House always to remember that our common law system in England has been absolutely essential to our liberties, freedoms, standing and our sense of who we are.

I understand the difficulties that Governments face, as there are a lot of wicked, evil people out there, but the answer has always been to prosecute. We are told, “Oh we can’t prosecute because in a prosecution we may have to reveal our sources.” This is the nightmare situation that the world in which we now live is facing: we are not to know, we cannot know and we cannot challenge. The Special Immigration Appeals Commission is one of the most monstrous extrusions on the national scene, as not even the solicitor representing the accused or the person who loses their citizenship knows the reasons their client is there. Gisting? Well, all those rules that have been put in place essentially deny open justice using the argument of national security.

I have been a Member of Parliament for 36 years, and I look back over the decline of our sense of who we are, what our system is, and our freedoms and liberties, which are concentrated in the concept of the common law. I did not invent it—we did not invent it—it came from the movement of the people of this country over hundreds of years and the development of our legal system. Year after year, in a way that one could never assume would happen, Governments have gone out searching for new measures to conceal the openness of what justice should be. We, as citizens of this country, have a right to know why people are charged. That is why we have an open court system, so that we can judge whether the measures are competent, reasonable or truthful to the purpose of our nation. That is why I cannot support the very notion that so much power should be concentrated in one individual—a Home Secretary—whether good or bad, that they may make decisions of this nature without our being able to challenge whether they are valid, true or right. I want the House to stand up for who we are and what our system of justice is—and it is not secret justice.

[Pete Wishart]

It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd). What a powerful case he has made about the closed process of justice, which has become a feature of the Government as they proceed on issues of national security.

When the Government first came to power, I cheered them on, as they practically went around deconstructing Labour’s anti-civil libertarian state, which we all remember: identity cards; the national database; pre-charge detention. I cheered the Government on when they did that, but they have now constructed a closed process with a lack of justice—all the things that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills powerfully expressed. We have created a new anti-civil libertarian state, helped by the Liberal Democrats. This is not the type of justice, society, country and community that we want. We are better than that. Yes, we need to balance national security and civil liberties, but this is another Government who have got it wrong.

The plans were roundly monstered in the House of Lords, as they deserved to be. If one looks at how many Lords supported the amendment and spoke against the measures, we find one former Director of Public Prosecutions, a former Supreme Court judge and even 23 Liberal Democrat peers. The measure was defeated by 242 to 180 votes in the House of Lords, which demonstrates wide-ranging opposition and great concern about proceeding in this way.

The Lords amendment does not even seek to delete the clause. I wish that it did. I do not have a vocation like Labour spokespeople. I think that this is a bad measure, and I voted against it in principle because it is fundamentally wrong to remove the citizenship of people of this country just because they are suspected of being terrorists. That is absolutely wrong—I make no bones about that—and I wish that the amendment deleted the entire clause. However, it does not do so; all that it seeks to do is to set up a Committee of both Houses to look at the implications of the measure and see whether we are doing the right thing.

We have not had a chance to look at the measure properly in the Commons. It was introduced on Report without our having any opportunity to consider its value or implications and what it meant in the context of the Bill. The Lords had a little more time; we have an hour and a half to consider what the Lords said, to look at the measure again and, I hope, to make the right decision. The amendment does not ask us to reject the measure; it just asks us to look at it again.

Panicked by the Lords defeat, the Government have introduced their own amendments, which would provide a review once the measure had been implemented. That is closing the stable door after the horse has left without its passport, having been deprived of its citizenship. It is too late to do anything then. We have to take a look at how the measure would impact on what we are trying to achieve and secure before we effect any legislation rather than afterwards.

Oral Answers to Questions

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I agree with my right hon. Friend. There has been abuse of the system, with people coming to this country not to study, but to work. We have worked closely with the universities sector, and there has been a successful pilot with one university to encourage universities to see that students do leave at the end of their studies. We will continue to roll that out, as well as working with immigration enforcement to see that those who are not entitled to be here do leave.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Has the Minister seen the comments from Anton Muscatelli, the principal of Glasgow university, who says that this Government are in effect saying to international students, “Don’t come here, we’re closed for business, closed for education”? I know that the Home Office—I hear the Home Secretary saying this—always thinks it knows better than the Scottish academic and university community, but will the Minister at least acknowledge that we have a bit of an issue with this?

[James Brokenshire]

There is no limit on the number of students who can legitimately come to this country to study. When the hon. Gentleman looks at the statistics and the information, he will see that the number of visa applications coming to universities has gone up by 7%. We continue to underline that this country welcomes students to our world-class universities in Scotland and in the rest of the United Kingdom.

Justice and Home Affairs Opt-out

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. We have said that we should argue within Europe for reforms to the way in which the European arrest warrant system works to make sure that it is properly proportionate. We must recognise that this is partly about the people we want to return to this country so that they can stand trial here. It is also about our not harbouring criminals from abroad who have come here and who should go back to their home country to stand trial. He is right that the system needs to work effectively, which means having that debate in Europe with other European countries about the reforms that we hope they will make. There has been considerable interest from many other countries in making such reforms. We need assurances from Ministers that we will have guarantees that we can immediately opt back into the European arrest warrant and important measures on 1 December, when the opt-out is given legal effect, and we want to know whether other member states have agreed to the plan.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

The right hon. Lady gave a useful list of the fluff and nonsense that we are opting out of, but one thing that we are not opting back into is the European judicial network, which is an important body that helps to prosecute European arrest warrant cases. Does the Labour party have any view about what we should do about that to ensure that we can opt back in?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman points to a series of areas where the Government have proposed opting out or where it is not clear why they want to opt out and what the benefits are of doing so. We gather, too, that the Austrians, the Germans, the Spanish and the French have all called for the UK to opt into other measures as part of the negotiations. In addition to the list of 35 measures that the Home Secretary wants to opt back into, they list a further 13. The Home Secretary and the Justice Secretary should tell us whether they support those 13 measures or whether they will make them a red-line issue and call a halt to the negotiations if other countries insist on them so that a deal can be negotiated by 1 December.

The British head of Europol, Rob Wainwright, is worried about Britain opting out of some of the Europol regulations, because the new ones that the Home Secretary is prepared to support are not ready yet. He told the Select Committee on Home Affairs:

“I don’t think it is likely the new regulation will enter into force before December 2014 so there is likely to be a gap and, if there are not sufficient transitional measures in the meantime, then those accompanying eight measures would leave a gap, frankly, in terms of UK capability to carry out its work against international organised crime and terrorism.”

The Home Secretary should tell the House what she is doing about that, because it sounds serious and concerning. Has she put those measures back on her list to opt back into, and has she drawn up transitional measures?

We need to know, too, how much time and diplomatic resources the negotiation has taken up. For the remainder of the negotiating period, Italy will hold the presidency of the Council, and we understand that the Home Secretary is trying to persuade the Italian Government to make this a major priority and allow time for the European Council to negotiate. She should tell us if she really sees that as the top priority for the Council, and how many of her officials have to work on the issue, as opposed to the more substantial matters on which we should argue for reforms, such as changing the rules so that we do not have to pay child benefit and child tax credit for children abroad; or changing the rules on free movement for new accession states; or revisiting the posting of workers directive to strengthen protection for workers; or other things that would be worthwhile reforms in Europe. Instead, they are working on the power to opt out of a guidance document that we already follow. This is one of the most incredible examples of the gap between rhetoric and reality that the Government have come up with.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Cash]

What I am saying is that voting in this House is a test of our democracy. We have already had ample opportunity to consider the ramifications of the block opt-out and we now know the 35 matters in question. Given the importance of those issues to UK citizens, those who represent their individual constituencies in this House should now have the opportunity to vote on them. That is a matter of principle and it is also a matter of democracy. Once the decisions become irrevocable, the reality is that they will be binding, through the European Communities Act 1972, in a way that would not be the case if this were a general debate about home affairs policy. This debate is tied to the role of the European Court of Justice, against which there is no appeal.

Why have the Government set their face against an open, transparent and informed debate and vote on these measures before negotiations are concluded? In the absence of any convincing explanation from the Government—I say with great respect to the Secretaries of State that we have not had one—we are compelled to conclude that the risk of unravelling a carefully crafted coalition deal weighs more heavily than the desire for democratic accountability. Such an approach is inimical to this House’s European scrutiny system, which is based on our Standing Orders and on early analysis and assessment of the legal and policy implications of EU policies and legislation so that Parliament has a genuine opportunity to influence not only the Government’s position in negotiations, but their outcome as well.

In this case, however, the position is reversed. As I said in an intervention, Parliament will simply be asked to rubber stamp the outcome of negotiations that are being held behind closed doors and hidden from the searching gaze of the public and Parliament. Negotiations are being held behind closed doors not only by the Council of Ministers and the European institutions, but by the coalition itself. We do not know the basis on which these decisions have been reached. It is a double whammy.

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Gentleman needs to forget about the Liberals, because there is a big elephant sitting in the room and its name is Nigel. Does the hon. Gentleman think that growing support for the UK Independence party has been a factor in the way in which this process has evolved?

[Mr Cash]

I do not think so. The driving force behind the arguments being made by the Conservative part of the coalition from the Back Benches is based on objective analysis in the interests of democracy, transparency and accountability in Parliament. Mr Farage cannot deliver anything, because he does not have one Member of Parliament. He cannot change one word of legislation—he can do nothing about any of this. I know that the situation is uncomfortable for the Secretaries of State at this moment in time, but I know for a fact that they will agree emphatically that the United Kingdom Independence party can achieve absolutely nothing. They know perfectly well that Conservative Back Benchers can achieve something. As in relation to many other European matters, Conservative Back Benchers can, by doing what we are doing now—working towards, we hope, a listening Government and listening Secretaries of State—achieve the results that we need, in the interests of the country as a whole. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman’s very useful question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

In the House, one always “follows the hon. Gentleman”, which often highlights differing views. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) on this occasion. He and I have almost diametrically opposite views when it comes to issues such as this, but I enjoyed his speech nevertheless.

In her opening speech, the Home Secretary produced a list of countries, some of which were of great interest to me, for it is always fascinating to hear about our bilateral relationships with some of our friends in Europe; but she did not refer to one nation that is a bit closer to home. My nation, Scotland, did not receive a single mention. Indeed, not one of the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies was considered important enough for the Secretary of State to mention. It should never be forgotten that we have our own judicial system in Scotland, and that we are responsible for the delivery of justice and home affairs there.

I think it reasonable to say—and I will say it to the Home Secretary, who is still present—that this opt-out is not particularly popular in Scotland. What it has in fact managed to do is unite the Scottish Government, the whole of Scotland’s legal community, all the police enforcement agencies and all the civil rights institutions in opposition. There is probably no issue that has managed to unite all those different and divergent sectors in Scotland ever before. That is how unpopular this opt-out is in Scotland. The bottom line is that we overwhelmingly do not want this opt-out in Scotland and we remain very concerned for the security and safety of our citizens in Scotland if this opt-out is pursued. We are very much concerned about the cavalier attitude of this Government in opting out of this chapter and their hope that they can selectively just opt back into the important measures that help keep people in our respective nations safe. We do not share the Government’s Eurosceptic agenda that informs this political decision and we despair at the self-defeating nonsense of all of this.

Even though we do not want this, however, and even though it is overwhelmingly opposed, Scotland will get it. That is just the way it works. The UK Government decide what they will do on behalf of the rest of the nations and Assemblies in the UK and that is what will happen.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The hon. Gentleman does not seem to want any of these opt-outs, but is not the great argument for independence in the referendum in Scotland that it means Scotland will leave the EU and opt out of everything?

[Pete Wishart]

This is the difference between me and the hon. Gentleman: he wants to opt out of Europe and be a little Englander, all self-enclosed in a joyous new future he would propose for his nation, whereas we want to reach out—we want to share with the rest of our fellow citizens across Europe all the wonderful benefits of EU membership and EU entry. That is what we will secure in Scotland and thank goodness we will not be part of the rest of the United Kingdom, pulling in one direction under the UKIP-informed political orthodoxy that is starting to emerge here. We will do it in our own way and we will reflect our own particular political values when it comes to EU membership. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that topic.

We are going to get this measure in Scotland even though we feel it is not in the best interests of the communities we represent, but, as the hon. Gentleman alluded to, this will end soon when we have the referendum in September. No longer will we have our devolved responsibilities dictated by this Government. The Secretary of State will have seen the correspondence from the Scottish Ministers—the screeds of concerns, the evidence from the Scottish Parliament’s Justice Committee—but she will of course ignore them. That is what happens; we put forward our concerns and they are first ignored and then binned. This is what this Government still laughingly call the respect agenda.

Colleagues in the Scottish Government have stated repeatedly to UK Ministers the value we place on EU police and justice co-operation measures. We have pointed out that we have our own distinct legal system that needs to be dealt with differently, and we have our own processes of bringing serious criminals to justice and our own particular European partnerships for tackling growing levels of cross-border crime.

For us, the measures in the home affairs and justice chapter are extremely important. They are not something to barter in a game of Eurosceptic or Russian roulette with UKIP. They are measures that ensure that people accused of serious crimes are brought to justice quickly and efficiently. Unlike this Government, we very much support the sharing of information between police forces. We want to see improved joint investigations of cross-border crimes. We think it is a good thing to have better identification of people using false documents and the efficient transfer of criminals back to their own countries.

This has been done with no or little consultation. Scottish Ministers have repeatedly written to explain the possible implications of this decision on Scotland’s devolved justice system and to state clearly their very strong preference to remain fully opted into these measures, but the Government simply brought forward their intention to proceed with this opt-out without even a cursory discussion with the devolved institutions. That just is not good enough any more.

The lack of real discussion and the failure to listen to the devolved Administrations demonstrate this Government’s Eurosceptic arrogance at its worst. We all know why they are doing this. It is all because of the threat of UKIP at the polls, so they have got to be seen to be doing something—anything—about the big Brussels bogeyman.

It would be as well just to have Nigel Farage on the Front Bench trying to get this through. Of course UKIP has not got a Member in the House, but it pulls the strings in the House all the time, and this Government just respond by taking that agenda up. I do not know who will win the battle of the Eurosceptics, but it looks as though UKIP is going to win the battle of the European election polls in May. The point is that you cannot out-UKIP UKIP; they are the masters of Euroscepticism. This Government will never beat them in their race to the bottom to try and be harder on Europe and try to scare people out of Europe more and more. We do not do UKIP in Scotland—we barely do Tory; we have only one Tory Member of Parliament—yet we are going to be dragged into this Euro race to the bottom as the parties attempt to win Eurosceptic votes in the May elections.

The Government say that they are going to opt out of the home affairs chapter, only to opt back into the important stuff. The stuff that they will not opt back into is mostly dead and never used, as the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said, but we could be put into a dangerous period of limbo—a gap during which the important stuff will not apply—that could diminish our security and safety. We have been forced to opt out of everything, including important measures for investigating cross-border crimes and bringing serious, organised criminals to justice.

Those measures include the European arrest warrant, which has been the focus of most of the debate today. Yes, the Government say that they will opt back into the European arrest warrant, but there will almost certainly be a lag period, and that is what concerns us the most. We know that there are those on the Tory Back Benches who do not like the European arrest warrant; we have heard from them today, and they remain disappointed that the Government will seek to opt back into the measure. For them, the warrant is a totem of EU badness—something that sums up Brussels, and must go—whereas to us, it is central to European justice and security, and to the safety of our communities. It has done a great deal to bring dangerous criminals to justice.

I suspect that opposition to the European arrest warrant is based on Euroscepticism, but our experience of it in Scotland is totally different. We have heard today of the example of Moira Jones. The European arrest warrant was instrumental in securing the conviction of her murderer, in that it allowed clothing and other property to be seized before it could be destroyed. That helped to lead to a successful prosecution. The speed with which extraditions take place is important, and long-drawn-out processes can be avoided only by using the warrant. We have none of the issues with the warrant that have been mentioned by other hon. Members. It has been particularly successful in Scotland, and it is something that all our law enforcement agencies welcome.

I shall give the House another example of how the European arrest warrant is working for us in Scotland. In January 2012, Grzegorz Gamla committed a violent attack and murder in Edinburgh. He was arrested within five hours of the issuing of the arrest warrant. That was achieved through the European arrest warrant system, but it was also facilitated by direct contact between Scottish prosecutors and the authorities in Poland under the European judicial network, which the Government say that they will not opt back into. Those two cases show how the ability to act incredibly swiftly using the arrest warrant allowed the criminal process to proceed much more quickly than it would otherwise have done.

There are other important Europe-wide security and policing arrangements from which we might find ourselves excluded for an unspecified period. We have heard about membership of Europol and Eurojust, for example, as well as practical police and judicial co-operation measures and joint investigative teams. The Government have said that they will opt back into most of the important stuff, but they are not seeking to opt back into the European judicial network, which underpins much of the good work of the European arrest warrant. We have been told by Scotland’s police and legal community that that network is invaluable to Scotland, but once again, the concerns expressed by our legal community have been overlooked.

This is all so unnecessary, and it represents a real threat to security and safety in Scotland. We do not share the ingrained Euroscepticism that now infects this Government at the highest level, and we refuse to have our political agenda determined by the threat of UKIP in the polls. The bottom line is that any gap between opt-out and rejoining has to be kept to a minimum. The longer the gaps and transition periods that have to be dealt with, the greater the likelihood of the problems that we have been discussing occurring.

Our preference would have been not to have the opt-out in the first place, but we are part of a UK that barely listens to us and that is pursuing an almost opposite set of political values and a different political agenda from ours. This will be resolved in September when we vote yes overwhelmingly in the independence referendum and Scotland gets what it wants on these issues, at which point we will secure our membership of the European Union on our terms.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Reckless]

I think the Liberal Democrats will ultimately find that as we act to others, so they will act to us.

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Gentleman is becoming awfully exercised about the Liberal Democrats, but the party about which he should be most concerned is UKIP, because it will probably trounce the Conservatives in the European elections. What will the Conservatives do in that event?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We do not want to speculate on what will happen in the European elections. We do not want to speculate on whether they will be won by the Liberals or by UKIP. I think that we want to hear about the point of the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Grayling]

We will discuss the detail of that motion in due course, but of course we will give the House the opportunity to express a very clear view on the conclusion of the negotiations that we have reached. That is what we said at the start and it is what we will deliver.

We have been through detailed discussions both with the Select Committees and within the Government. We are now going through detailed discussions with the Commission and we will return with the conclusions in due course.

[Pete Wishart]

There is one group the Justice Secretary has not had any discussions with: the devolved Parliaments and Assemblies. Given that this has such a significant impact on our delivery of devolved services, why has he not listened to the Government in Scotland and the devolved Assemblies in Wales and Northern Ireland?

[Chris Grayling]

With respect, what the hon. Gentleman says is simply not right. We have had extensive discussions with the devolved Assemblies. The Minister for Security and Immigration has had detailed discussions with the devolved Assemblies, I have been involved in detailed discussions with the devolved Administrations and I believe the Home Secretary has had discussions. We have had extensive discussions and will no doubt continue to do so. We discuss issues with our counterparts in Edinburgh and in Northern Ireland all the time, and we will continue to do so.

Let me deal with the specific issues raised in this debate. The shadow Home Secretary began for the Opposition, and I am still at a loss to know whether Labour supports the list of 35 measures: whether Labour supports what we are putting forward or wants to see a different list. It is absolutely unclear what the Labour party’s view is; we heard a long diatribe from her and a long list of accusations, but no clear policies from the other side. We heard much the same from the shadow Justice Secretary, but I give him credit for picking out one or two measures on the Justice side that he did support, although he did not say whether he supported the minimum standards measures decision we had taken. One way or another, at the end of this debate we have little idea what the Opposition stand for.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) made a typically knowledgeable contribution. He talked about the importance of the issue of European Court of Justice jurisdiction and about the charter of fundamental rights, which is doubtless an issue he and I will return to and discuss extensively. We share the aspiration, aim and absolute clear goal that the charter will not become part of national law in this country. We heard from the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, who is no longer in his place. He talked about the timetable as we work towards 1 December. We need to be very clear that a timetable is already set out for us, as envisaged in the treaty signed by the previous Government, and we are working towards that date of 1 December. We need time to complete the negotiations and, on the back of those, formally apply to the Commission to rejoin the measures. That is precisely where we stand; that is the approach we are taking and it is the approach envisaged in the agreement reached by the previous Government.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) does not want to opt in to any of these measures. I would simply remind him that we secured agreement to exercise the opt-out in the first place. Were we not in that position, we would now face the situation of opting in to all these measures or remaining in all of them. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) set out his concerns about the issue of discussions with the devolved Assemblies, mentioning them again a few moments ago. He made a strong statement, which I suspect had a little more to do with certain campaigning taking place in Scotland than with this debate. The bit I did not understand was that he was talking about the risks he alleged this Government were taking with our relationships within the European Union, yet he and his party are going down a route whereby it is far from clear that if they are successful—heaven forbid—in September, they will even be a part of the European Union. I do not understand how he possibly squares that circle.

We heard a thoughtful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), who has done valuable work in the Fresh Start group. I understand her concern about the ability of international courts to extend their jurisprudence. She also made the point about the charter of fundamental rights, and it is very important that we keep a close watch on that issue and resist any attempts to extend its remit. We know that there is a divide in opinions between the Government and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), and he made an impassioned speech about the need for more and more integration. He set out clear differences between us and him, although he could not tell the difference between Spain and Brazil in his comments. It was a typically robust contribution that highlighted to us why there remain some significant divisions across the Floor of the House on Britain’s future in the European Union.

The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) expressed fears about a gap between the discussion taking place now, what happens after 1 December and the continued provision in areas such as the European arrest warrant. I would simply remind him of what Professor Steven Peers said about the issue of the time frame for the next few months in evidence to the Home Affairs Committee on 10 September:

“There certainly ought to be enough time. I would say it would not be the Government’s fault if there is no decision in time by December next year. It would be some kind of political difficulty that the Council and the Commission have dreamed up.”

I am confident, as is the Home Secretary and those involved in the negotiating team, that there is time, will and a desire on the part of other member states to ensure that there is a smooth transition and we can get this done without the gap that the hon. Gentleman is afraid of.

My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) rightly again highlighted the issue of the ECJ at the centre of the debate, and I suspect that we will have further lively discussions about it as the months go by. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) had examined the issue of justice measures and talked about probation, as did the shadow Justice Secretary. There are genuine issues relating to the drafting of the probation directive which make it difficult for us to consider at this moment the concept that we would release this to the jurisdiction of the European Court. I have no intention of going forward with an opt-in under the current wording, as that could cause all kinds of complications for our rules on deportations, in respect of somebody deported to another country who then had to be repatriated because their probation conditions were breached. At the moment we believe the measure is flawed and we have therefore decided it cannot be in the list of things to opt back in to.

My hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton gave a thoughtful contribution in which he talked about the “cold, hard lens” of national interest. That is certainly what has guided us, particularly in respect of the discussions the Home Secretary has had with law enforcement bodies about the need to say that there are things they believe need to be in place in order for us to ensure we can provide proper protection for our citizens. Some strong recommendations have been made by those organisations, which she articulated clearly in her remarks this afternoon. Lastly, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) was clear about his views about opting in to these measures. I simply remind him that we have opted out already and the decision to exercise the opt-out is a major step forward for the country; otherwise we would have had no option but to end up with 133 different measures.

So, for reasons of policy, principle and pragmatism, the Government have exercised the opt-out in the national interest. We have decided that it is in our national interest to co-operate in measures that help combat cross-border crime and keep our country safe. That is what we are negotiating for in Brussels and it is what we aim to deliver. It is a coherent package that we aim to bring back to Parliament for a vote before the UK formally makes any application to rejoin later this year. It is very much in that national interest that my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton talked about. It has guided us in these discussions and in discussions across the coalition.

Oral Answers to Questions

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Keeping our clear focus on Scotland, I call Mr Pete Wishart.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Of course the Minister knows the rises he pointed out in his answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) are all down to the reciprocal arrangement with China. That figure is down 25% from Pakistan, and down 14% from Nigeria. This Government’s United Kingdom Independence party-based immigration policies are hurting our universities and our ability to attract students to Scotland. Why should our universities suffer because of the appalling race to the bottom between the Minister’s Government and UKIP?

[James Brokenshire]

It is important to welcome the fact that we have seen an increase from China of 6%. The figure is also up 3% from Malaysia and 15% from Hong Kong. That shows there is nothing intrinsic in our policies that is putting off high quality students. That is why we are focused on ensuring that we continue to attract the brightest and the best to the whole of the UK and Scotland, and there is nothing to suggest that our policies are having any negative impact on that.

Immigration Bill

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving me the opportunity to clarify this issue. We will retain that ability, in certain emergency circumstances, to reduce that period for people with an urgent need to marry. It could be in the circumstances he highlights or, for example, where someone is on their deathbed. That is another emergency circumstance we want to cover.

It is important that we can deal fully and properly with sham marriages, and I believe that the Bill will enhance our ability to do that.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

The right hon. Lady will know that marriages and civil partnerships are covered by Scots law and are matters for the Scottish Government. Why, therefore, is there not a legislative consent motion for this or any other part of the Bill? Surely, there should be an LCM in the Scottish Parliament so that these things can be discussed and passed properly.

[Mrs May]

If the hon. Gentleman will have a little patience—I know he might find it difficult—I will explain how the Bill will enable us to discuss such matters with the Scottish Government.

The basic design of the scheme is straightforward, but the statutory framework into which it has to be introduced is complex—marriage law in England and Wales dates back to 1949—which is why we are bringing forward further technical changes. The changes need to be reflected in the law governing civil partnership, thereby doubling the number of amendments that are required. I have said before on a number of occasions that I think it is preferable for the Government not to table too many amendments at this stage, but these are minor and technical. I hope that people will appreciate the importance, when dealing with a part of the law that is so complex, of ensuring that we are able to make amendments to ensure we get it right and that the operation of the law is appropriate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr David Ward (Bradford East) (LD)]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

rose—

[Mrs May]

I will give way to my hon. Friend and then to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart).

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

The measure would apply to somebody who was abroad. One of the points that I have tried to make is that the measure is not just about people in the United Kingdom, but people outside it.

[Pete Wishart]

Will the Home Secretary give way?

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Will the Home Secretary give way?

[Mrs May]

I must tell my hon. Friend that I have a list: I said that I would give way to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire.

[Pete Wishart]

I am very grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way. Is it not the case that she has not got a clue? She has brought forward the measure to prevent proceedings on what Conservative Members want to discuss and vote on. To say that this was concocted on the back of a fag packet would do a massive disservice to fag-packet speeches.

[Mrs May]

It is a bit rich of the Scottish National party to talk about not having a clue. I must say to the hon. Gentleman—I have said it before and I will say it again as many times as necessary—that we are giving effect to our declaration under the United Nations convention. That position applied in the United Kingdom until the previous Government changed the law in 2006, and we will return to that position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

Despite the protestations and mock indignation of Labour Members—

[Pete Wishart]

And us.

[Michael Ellis]

And of course of the Scottish nationalists, who are adopting their usual posture. Is it not correct that this law was effectively on the statute book previously, so it cannot be all that exceptionable and that it was repealed by the Labour party because, in 1997, it wanted to sign us up to another European convention?

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

I call Pete Wishart.

[Pete Wishart]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was not expecting that, but I am delighted to be called so early in the debate.

This is a rotten Bill made all the more rotten by some of these appalling amendments. We are in this position because the Government are in an appalling race to the bottom with the UK Independence party—this is all about seeing who can be toughest on immigration. I have to say to the Home Secretary, “You’re not gonnae win that one—forget about it. You cannot out-UKIP UKIP. They are the masters of nasty, pernicious populism, and you’ll never beat them.” It is a credit to the Government that they will not be able to beat UKIP on such issues but, by God, with this Bill and their amendments, they are having a good stab at it. I expect the right hon. Lady to lose that particular battle.

The Government’s stated aim through the Bill is to make the UK a more hostile environment for illegal immigrants. Well done Home Secretary; you have certainly achieved that with fantastic aplomb. The job of these right-wing immigration Bills is to do two simple, straightforward things: stop people coming in; and kick out as many people we do not like as we can at the same time. The Bill manages to achieve both those objectives, and the addition of the Government’s amendments and new clauses means that it will be done even more thoroughly.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

Is the hon. Gentleman happy about how long it can take to remove someone who has broken the law and is not legally entitled to be here, despite the risk of their committing further crime in this country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I will address that point directly because it is at the heart of what we are debating and something that my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) mentioned. I am happy to ensure that people who have been found guilty of crime after going through the core judicial process are deported, but I am very unhappy about suspects being deported and facing the full force of the law. This is part of a trend. It was a theme of new Labour that a person needed to be only a suspect for things to be flung at them. Labour created a fantastic anti-civil libertarian state that the Conservatives, to their credit, dismantled quite effectively, but we will now have an anti-civil libertarian state—created by new Labour and continued by the Conservatives—that has the basic premise that it is all right to throw suspects out of this country and to treat them appallingly.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that if someone is deported but allowed to conduct an appeal in this country, it is almost impossible for them to do that? A deportation therefore effectively involves no real right of appeal nor any real access to justice, so it is a pernicious decision.

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Gentleman is spot on, and he gets to the heart of what we are debating. What is happening in this country—the fact that we are prepared to legislate in such a way—makes me feel ashamed. It is appalling that my country of Scotland is being dragged into this nasty, pernicious, appalling race to the bottom on immigration. It is such a shame that we are not independent yet to allow us to get out of this absolute nonsense.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

So you are against the Bill.

[Pete Wishart]

I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that I probably am.

[Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

Surely it is within the scope of the hon. Gentleman’s Parliament and Executive in Scotland to change the law and make the situation in Scotland narrower.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s intervention because it takes me on to new clause 11, which the Home Secretary tabled at the last possible moment. The new clause deals with sham marriage and civil partnership, which is a responsibility of the Scottish Government and a competence of the devolved Parliament in Edinburgh. As you well know, Madam Deputy Speaker, marriage is subject to Scots law. The hon. Gentleman has been in the House longer than me, so we have both been here through the devolution experience, and I think this is the first time that we have seen a Bill that impacts on matters for which we have legislative responsibility without having a legislative consent motion to allow the House to legislate on behalf of the Scottish Parliament.

As far as I am aware, the Scottish Government have called again and again for an LCM so that the Scottish Parliament can decide whether to allow this Parliament to legislate on its behalf. No LCM has been forthcoming at all, even though we are responsible—

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

indicated dissent.

[Pete Wishart]

The Minister indicates that an LCM is not necessary, but does he agree that we are responsible for marriage and civil partnerships? We are responsible for the health service and housing in Scotland, but there has been no LCM to ask the Scottish Government if they agree to allow Westminster to legislate. We are totally unsatisfied with the Minister’s responses on this—

[Mr Harper]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

We should have an LCM, but the Minister can explain why we are not getting one.

[Mr Harper]

With the greatest respect, I have had conversations with the First Minister and engaged in correspondence with Scottish Ministers. Our clear view is that the Bill deals with reserved matters for a reserved purpose, so we do not believe that an LCM is needed. The tone of the responses that I have received from Scottish Ministers—Scottish National party members of the Scottish Government—does not accord with what the hon. Gentleman says.

[Pete Wishart]

That is not my view of the correspondence that I have seen. I am surprised that the Minister says such a thing because the Bill is foreign to how we want to run our NHS. It has nothing to do with how we want to deliver our devolved services. We are not privatising the NHS like they are down here; we want to invest in it and ensure that it sticks to the ’45 principles of “from cradle to grave”. We fundamentally disagree with the Government about the need for such measures, and we want an LCM so that we can say clearly to them, “Stay out of our devolved services. Keep your race with UKIP out of our delivery of the NHS and other devolved services.” I still hope, although it is probably too late, that we will have an LCM.

A number of the measures in the group are pretty chilling, one of which is new clause 18, on which the Home Secretary spent such a good part of her hour and a half speech. What an appalling measure. This is about removing citizenship from people. Watching the Home Secretary’s attempts to respond to the many searching “what happens if” questions would almost have been comical were it not so sad. She could not start to answer the simple question—some of my hon. colleagues on this side of the House might want to revisit this during the winding-up speeches—of what happens to someone who is stripped of their UK citizenship but is not taken by any other country. I think I heard something along the lines of, “We might give them their citizenship back,” but if that is the case, what is the point of doing it in the first place? Who is going to take these people? Are we going to launch them into orbit and leave them circling round the Earth as stateless people without any sort of citizenship? Is France going to take them, or Germany? [Interruption.] What about an independent Scotland, I am asked. Where will those people go? This is the big question that the Home Secretary has been unable to answer: what will happen to those people once they have been deprived of their citizenship? What will happen to their children, or the people who depend on them? We really need to hear from her on that.

The Home Secretary is effectively asking us to agree to allow her to rip up the passports of people who live in this country. As I have said, these measures have been introduced so late in order to prevent Back Benchers from having the opportunity to speak about the most important parts of the Bill and so that they cannot be voted on, which is absolutely appalling. In fact, to say that the Government’s amendments look like they had been written on the back of a fag packet is to do a disservice to some fantastic speeches that I have heard delivered from the back of a fag packet. Little thought seems to have gone into them.

The plans for the revocation of citizenship have been made by the Home Secretary behind closed doors and without any sort of due process or transparency. Hon. Members might have seen the reports in The Independent today about how some people have subsequently been killed in US drone strikes or rendered to secret locations to be interrogated by the FBI. Perhaps that is what will happen to all these people. They are being betrayed by their own Government, whose duty is to protect them, not throw them under a bus in order to help powerful allies, which looks like what we will be doing. She said that we are simply returning to the situation that existed before 2003, but the UK has signed and ratified the 1961 convention on the reduction of statelessness, to which more than 50 states are signatories. We will now be breaking that.

I will speak briefly about new clause 15, tabled by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab). We know, as has been said again and again, that Conservative Members do not much care for article 8 of the European convention on human rights. They would have us believe that there are all sorts of foreign criminals marauding across our communities, living the life of Riley on benefits and then going home to phone their expensive lawyers, saying, “Get me off on article 8.” That is the type of image they present. They continue to attack some of the great protections that we have secured over many decades on the back of the European convention on human rights. We are now seeing yet another attack on our human rights. It is no surprise that it comes from the Conservative Back Benches. I very much hope that we will resist it.

[Charlie Elphicke]

On a point of clarification, and in relation to the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), if Scotland were to become independent, does the hon. Gentleman believe that it would not only petition to join the European Union as a new accession state, but seek to join the Council of Europe?

[Pete Wishart]

Yes, and I will tell the hon. Gentleman something else: an independent Scotland will sign up fully to the European convention on human rights and take our responsibility in that regard very seriously. We will not be cavalier, as this Government seem to be in their approach to some of these very important human rights. I look forward to the day when Scotland, as an independent nation, will take very seriously its responsibilities to protect our citizens and ensure that they are properly protected by international laws and regulations.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman does not have the courage to claim that Scotland would be the successor state and would therefore inherit membership of all those bodies, leaving England, Wales and Northern Ireland free from the European Union?

[Pete Wishart]

I invite the hon. Gentleman, who I know takes a great interest in these matters—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I am going to give the hon. Gentleman the protection of the Chair on that question, which he does not have to answer, because we are beginning to stray a little—not far—from the point in question.

[Pete Wishart]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, although I do not need your protection when it comes to these issues. All I will say to the hon. Gentleman is that he should turn up to next week’s debate on Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom so that can discuss them further.

I will bring my remarks to a close. What we are seeing today is a dreadful Bill being made even worse. We will vote against it on Third Reading, although I do not think that we will get much of a debate on Third Reading. It is a terrible Bill, and this has been an awful process. It makes me ashamed that we are still part of all this. I just long for the day when we will have a Government in Scotland who do not spend all this time exercising themselves, as this Government do, over immigration, EU exit and all the nasty and pernicious things they are doing because of UKIP. It might as well be Nigel Farage standing at the Dispatch Box. Why do we not just get him in, because he has the whole House dancing to a UKIP jig? That is what we will see right up to the end of this Parliament: Nigel Farage pulling all the strings of Conservative Front Benchers. They might as well have him at the Dispatch Box, because this is nothing other than a UKIP Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

I, too, thank those who sat on the Committee and all those who have contributed throughout the Bill’s passage. I thank Opposition Members who have been involved, including my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) and especially my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), who has worked tirelessly in responding to the Government’s proposals at the various stages.

The Immigration Bill has been a complete car crash for the Home Secretary. She and the Prime Minister launched it as their flagship Bill. It was the pride and joy of their legislative programme, and yet they have been hiding it away for months. It has been nowhere to be seen. They would not bring it back because they were so scared of their own Back Benchers.

[Pete Wishart]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Yvette Cooper]

I am going to make some progress, because time is very tight.

The Home Secretary has become terrified of her own legislation. Even though Parliament has had hardly any business, she has kept the Bill away from the House and has then tried to rush it through in four hours today. We have had just four hours to debate a series of important amendments. On our proposals to tackle the impact of immigration on jobs and growth, and to take stronger action on the minimum wage and agencies that exploit immigration, there has been no debate today. On the proposals of Tory Back Benchers on Bulgaria and Romania, there has been no debate today. On the workability of the housing proposals, there has been no debate today. On the fairness of the appeal proposals, there has been no debate today. A series of amendments has been tabled by Members from all parts of the House, but none of them has been debated today.

What have we had instead? The Home Secretary pulled out of her hat, at the last minute, a new power on citizenship, with no consultation and no scrutiny, in a desperate attempt to distract her own party, but it failed. She then stood up for an hour and a half—I have to admire her resilience—to kill time, without even knowing what her position was on the key new clause, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab).

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

The concern for us is that the weakening of the terror powers has led to additional costs. We simply do not know what additional costs there might be now as a result of ending control orders for up to six people this month.

The Prime Minister told the House earlier this month that TPIMs “are working”, but the verdict on TPIMs, two years on, is very different. According to the independent reviewer, there have been no successful prosecutions, despite all the Home Secretary’s promises. The removal of relocation powers has badly backfired. No one relocated as part of their control order ever absconded, yet the Home Secretary removed relocation powers and lost two out of 10 suspects in 12 months. Ibrahim Magag ran off in a black cab; Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed ran off in a burqa. They have not been seen since, and the Home Secretary and Prime Minister have no idea where they are. The Prime Minister calls this a successful policy, yet 20% of the terror suspects on TPIMs have disappeared within a year.

We want to concentrate on the six men expected to be released from TPIMs this month. The House warned the Home Secretary of the risks that she was taking by restricting TPIMs to two years regardless of the security assessment unless fresh terrorist activity had occurred. Here is what Mr Justice Collins said about her legislation:

“if a TPIM has achieved its purpose and the Home Secretary has no reason to believe that any terrorist related activity has occurred, there will be no power to impose a fresh TPIM whether or not…the Secretary of State has reason to believe the subject will involve himself in terrorist related activity.”

In other words, if the TPIM works to prevent terrorist activity, there is no possibility of the Home Secretary extending it, even if she has good reason to believe that that terror suspect remains a serious risk and will return to terrorist activity straight away.

If that is the case, Parliament needs to know the extent of the risk that these men pose now, and the Home Secretary needs to give us this simple piece of information: does she believe that these six men are still likely to pursue terror-related activity: yes or no? The courts said they were likely to do that 12 months ago. Does she believe they are now? Are these men still a risk: yes or no? She cannot claim that she does not comment on individual cases, because she has already done so. Public statements have been made about these men and the risks they pose.

Let us take the person known as CD—one of the men whose TPIM expires this month. The Security Service said he was trying to procure firearms for a terrorist attack in the UK. Just over a year ago, the judge agreed he was too dangerous to remove the TPIM controls. The judge said at that point that

“the evidence that CD has been involved in terrorist activity is overall stronger now than it was”.

He also said that the

“control order and now TPIM are having something of their intended effect, but that is very different from saying that the TPIM should be ended…there remains a network, his views and determination are unchanged, he has training”.

What has changed since then? Have CD’s views and determination changed? Has his network changed? Or is there still a significant risk that he will try to get firearms or other weapons again to pursue a UK attack? The Security Service and the judge told us a year ago that this man was a serious risk; now the Home Secretary is removing all his restrictions. We have a right to know whether she still thinks he is a risk or whether that risk has gone. I will give way to the Home Secretary if she will tell us now whether CD is still a risk. [Interruption.] The Home Secretary has chosen not to intervene to answer the specific question about whether CD remains a risk.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Is the right hon. Lady really telling us that she is going to take us back to the bad old days of Labour’s anti-civil-libertarian state, with its control orders, ID cards, national database and 90-day detention? Is that where new Labour is going to take us once again?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman, too, should want this information and these answers from the Home Secretary. Whatever his views about the legislation, he ought to want answers from the Home Secretary about whether CD still presents a risk. Our view is that it is right to have exceptional legislation, but that strong safeguards should also be in place. Sometimes there is a need for clear powers, but clear safeguards must also be in place. There should be provision to review TPIMs or control orders to make sure that they are used only where it is proportionate and justified. However, the Home Secretary should provide answers about whether she is needlessly putting people at risk as a result of the decisions she has taken.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs May]

As my hon. Friends are saying from a sedentary position, there is a basic difference between the individuals: one set of individuals has been prosecuted, convicted and put in prison. The suggestion that somebody who has at some stage been involved in terrorism activity is never allowed to be released on to the streets is not correct, yet that is the impression that the Opposition sometimes give. In their comments on control orders, they fail to concentrate on the fact that 43 people who were on control orders came off their restrictions. That may have been because the orders were allowed to expire or they were revoked or quashed by the courts, or people may have absconded. As I have said, even before TPIMs were introduced, the courts would simply not allow people to be parked permanently on control orders. When the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police was asked whether he had concerns about time limits, he said, “I do not think so.”

[Pete Wishart]

It has come to something when the Tories are having to lecture Labour on civil liberties. Why does the right hon. Lady not just test the evidence? Why does she not make sure that those who are on TPIM orders are taken to the courts so that the courts can decide? Surely that is what we do in a democratic society.

[Mrs May]

We take individuals to court where it is possible and where there is evidence on individuals to prosecute them for crimes under the Terrorism Acts. The court is then able to make those decisions. The issue is what does society do with the individuals we are not able to deport or to prosecute. The Government took the decision at an early stage that we introduce TPIMs and give them a two-year time limit. That matter was debated and discussed in this House.

UN Syrian Refugees Programme

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for drawing attention to the work of that excellent organisation in her constituency. We are working with various organisations, including partner organisations, but the Secretary of State for International Development is present and will have heard the details about this charity. I am sure that she will discuss with my right hon. Friend whether we can do more to support its work in helping people in the region.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Like most people in Scotland, I am appalled that this Government, unlike Governments in other small European nations, will not take refugee children. I know that they are terrified of UKIP, but even Nigel Farage recognises that there is a difference between a refugee and an immigrant. Why can the Minister not recognise that as well?

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman seems to be obsessed in a way that we are not. [Laughter.] I have made very clear what our policy is when it comes to assisting the largest possible number of people in the region, and I think that that is the right approach. It enables us to help hundreds of thousands of people by providing water, medical resources and food. We are supporting the neighbouring countries and helping them to do the right thing, and I think that we can be very proud of that support.

Oral Answers to Questions

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Grant]

I am very fond of my own local pub, the Unicorn in Marden, and I do step in there now and again. I reassure my hon. Friend that we are doing a great deal to assist the business sector, and that includes helping pubs by reducing fuel and beer duties. We are also trying to simplify planning, and are continuing to cut red tape, regulation and bureaucracy.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

The Minister will, of course, have noticed that Scotland has been named the third best place to visit in 2014 by the “Lonely Planet” travel guide. The guide cites a

“jam-packed schedule of world class events”,

including the Ryder cup and the Commonwealth games, as well as our

“buzzing cities and stunning scenery”,

much of which is in my constituency. It also notes that the referendum gives Scotland an opportunity to

“shine on the world stage”.

Does the Minister agree that, without even a vote being cast, Scotland has already won?

[Mrs Grant]

Scotland is a wonderful place in which to live and work, and I am sure that it will put on an absolutely fantastic Commonwealth games event next year. I look forward to my next trip up there. I grew up in the borders and spent many a time in Dumfriesshire and Gretna Green, so I know what a beautiful place it is.

Eurojust and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the support he offers for the Government position. We have clearly set out genuine and real issues in relation to both these measures challenging some of the fundamental principles and aspects of our criminal justice system.

We also have concerns about the risks of reducing member states’ influence under the proposal’s revised governance arrangements. For example, the Commission has proposed the creation of an executive board with a very narrow composition, including the Commission itself, that would, among other things,

“prepare the decisions to be adopted by the College”—

the college being the body on which all member state national members of Eurojust sit. Moreover, the Commission has not proposed the creation of a management board along the lines of that which oversees Europol, which we think is better suited to effective governance of such agencies. In short, the proposal’s governance arrangements are unsound.

Fundamentally, we do not consider that the new Eurojust proposal is even needed at this time. The current legislation is still undergoing a peer evaluation which will not complete until next year, and the Commission has not put forward a convincing case as to why the new proposal is needed. There is not even a specific impact assessment from the Commission for its Eurojust proposal.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

The Minister mentioned the Lord Advocate of Scotland. What discussions has the Minister had with the Scottish Government and other devolved Administrations? What did they say to him about the Eurojust proposals?