Children and Social Work Bill [Lords]

Debate between Simon Hoare and Stuart C McDonald

3rd reading: House of Commons & Legislative Grand Committee: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 7th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I rise to speak in warm support of new clause 15 and to congratulate the Government. The Minister will remember that I served on the Public Bill Committee and spoke in support of the then new clause, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). I very much welcome the two safeguards in the new clause—on age-appropriateness and parental rights to withdraw—which I think address the points that have been raised.

This is a new clause—a 21st-century clause—for a 21st-century education system and for the world in which we live, and it reflects the deep need to provide our young people with the education and skills they require to meet challenges that many of us on the Conservative Benches did not face when we were their age.

Many people rail against the rates of divorce, abortion, teenage pregnancy and the like, and I am absolutely convinced that there must be a causal link between those statistics and the very patchy and relatively poor levels of sex and relationship education we have had in this country hitherto.

The new clause appears to have garnered the support of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, of which I am a member, as well as of Barnardo’s, the Terrence Higgins Trust and others. I would therefore suggest to right hon. and hon. Members that the Government are clearly on to something and are approaching it in the right way.

We do nothing that could be described as moral if we leave our young people unprepared to meet the challenges of relationships and modern life. I certainly support the fact—I raised this in the Adjournment debate brought by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller)—that the clause covers academies and free schools. Given the direction of travel in the education environment, that seems entirely appropriate, and I support the new clause.

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

I wish to speak to the amendments in my name to new clauses 13 and 14. Let me say in passing that new clauses 12 and 11, on universal credit and local housing allowance, both have our full support. On new clause 4, while we sympathise with the sentiment behind it, the method of progression is not the correct one, and we could not give the new clause our support.

Let me turn to new clauses 12 to 14 and to my two amendments. New clause 13 would put the strategy for the safeguarding of unaccompanied refugee children on a statutory footing, and that has our support. Given that many of the laws and services that will be involved are devolved, I have suggested that the new clause be amended to require consultation with the devolved Administrations before the strategy is published.

New clauses 12 and 14 require assessment of the capacity to provide safeguarding and welfare services, including to unaccompanied child refugees. I welcome the cross-party support new clause 14 has attracted, and the Scottish National party fully intends to give it our support. My small amendment to it simply borrows the wording of new clause 12 in relation to the devolved Administrations. It is appropriate to include the devolved Administrations, because, as we have heard, the key driver behind new clause 14 is to force the Government to rethink their move to wind the Dubs scheme down. This was a UK-wide scheme, and Scotland was and is absolutely willing to play its part in it.

With the rationale for closing Dubs falling to pieces, the Government have belatedly come to the Dispatch Box to make a concession. However, in making that concession, they have actually made the case for new clause 14, rather than giving an explanation of why we should reject it, so I see no reason why we should not proceed with it. If it comes to a vote, the SNP will absolutely support new clause 14, whether amended or not.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Simon Hoare and Stuart C McDonald

Tuesday 1st December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I am unashamedly moving lots of amendments, and there are several others that we on these Benches support too, which I will come to in due course. The large number of changes that we want reflects our hostility to this Bill, which we oppose outright and will vote against this evening as ill-conceived and regressive, and which will do little to move the country towards the Government’s increasingly ludicrous-looking net migration target. If the Bill passes, perhaps one or two of these amendments might provide a little comfort in an otherwise bleak piece of legislation.

New clauses 16 and 17 seek to rectify two provisions that exemplify for us where fundamental problems lie with this Bill. New clause 16 would put in place some restriction on one of the many significant, inappropriate and untrammelled powers that the Bill passes to immigration officers and other officials. A large part of the Bill seems to be a wish list of powers from UK immigration staff, which the Government unquestioningly want to hand over to them.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

If I heard the hon. Gentleman correctly he does not like the Bill, and his amendments and new clauses might make it a little more likeable. If they were all passed, would he be in the Aye Lobby this evening?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

We have done our best to make the Bill slightly more palatable, but even with all our amendments I regret to say that we would still find the damage that the Bill will cause unacceptable. Regardless of what happens today, therefore, we will be voting against Third Reading.

New clause 17, would repeal the right-to-rent provisions introduced by the Immigration Act 2014, provisions which, like their successor provisions in this Bill, will have limited effect on the Government’s pretend net migration target, but are none the less deemed necessary to make the Government look tough on immigration. As I said on Second Reading, it is in reality immigration theatre—acting out the part of immigration enforcer. But while there is little evidence that it will achieve much in terms of immigration control, its consequences on cohesion could be significant.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hoare]

I have fallen into my usual trap, Madam Deputy Speaker. I always like to set a backdrop to my remarks, and I am trying to explain the kernel of the Bill, why it has come about, and why the amendments and new clauses are, in my judgment, fundamentally wrong.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North East has taken me neatly on to my second point—the amendments in her name and the names of her hon. Friends. The position of the separatists is entirely disingenuous on this issue. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) told us that they would be unable to support the Bill not only if new clause 16 were not passed, but if the whole raft of other SNP amendments were not passed as well. We should not be unduly surprised by that, because in Committee we were able to tease out from their questioning of our witnesses that Members representing Scottish seats in the SNP interest believe in uncontrolled and unfettered immigration—an open-door policy. Moreover, they seek, on behalf of their friends in the Scottish Parliament, to assume to themselves powers and privileges reserved to this House with regard to the control of immigration, and suddenly, via the back door, to see it as a new devolved power. Anybody with a strand of Unionism and common sense in their body should seek to resist that, and that is why I will vote against the amendments.

In essence, at the heart of these amendments, SNP Members are seeking to encourage further devolution—further separation—and to have a greater tension between the regions and the countries of the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow North East says, with her customary self-deprecatory humour, “Us?” Yes, I do mean the SNP. Government Members will seek to resist the devolution of power over the control of immigration into, let us be frank, a small island with incredibly porous borders, given our coastal and island nature. It would be folly to open a Pandora’s box of devolution with regard to immigration issues. This affects the whole of the United Kingdom.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Simon Hoare]

With the most enormous pleasure, as always.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I rather think the hon. Gentleman is missing the point about the amendments and new clauses. The Bill has very detailed provisions for England and Wales, and in some cases for Northern Ireland, but it just provides the Secretary of State with a broad, sweeping power to do the same for Scotland, without any scrutiny in Parliament or in the Scottish Parliament. Even if the hon. Gentleman does not agree with us about getting approval from the Scottish Parliament, he should at least agree about getting rid of the regulatory powers so that this would have to be done in primary legislation, with full scrutiny in this House, rather than by a Henry VIII clause.

[Simon Hoare]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. All I would say to him in reply is that the Bill has been brought forward in the United Kingdom Parliament and has had full and forensic discussion both on Second Reading and in Committee, as it will today on Report and, doubtless, on Third Reading. I suggest he should say to his friends holding ministerial office and other positions of power in Scotland and the Scottish Parliament that, when they are in effect carrying out duties passed to them under a devolved settlement, they should ensure that how they deliver such policies and put them in place on the ground always reflects the national law of the land.

When I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, I was simply concluding that if the new clauses and amendments, which would in effect devolve immigration to Holyrood, were agreed to, the United Kingdom Government would by definition need to find ways of controlling the movement of people from Scotland south into England, and very possibly people going from the south to the north as well. As I have said, we teased out in Committee—both in the evidence sessions and the other sittings—the SNP’s firm commitment to have an open-door policy and no fetters on immigration. My constituents in the south of England will be grossly alarmed by that.

Humanitarian Crisis in the Mediterranean and Europe

Debate between Simon Hoare and Stuart C McDonald

Wednesday 9th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

I apologise to the House for the fact that, although I was in the Chamber for the opening speeches, I have not been present for the whole debate.

Let me say at the outset that I am no Tory Mr Gradgrind, gnashing my teeth and moaning and groaning about things—not, I must add, with universal support in North Dorset. I am a huge supporter of the 0.7% of GDP, and I hope that economic growth can continue so that that figure can rise. It is testimony to our history, our heritage and our humanitarian outlook, and we as a nation should be proud of it.

I think the fact that the House has discussed this issue, both as a result of the Prime Minister’s statement on Monday and in the debates that have taken place yesterday and this afternoon, illustrates the huge amount of interest, concern and support in the House.

An earlier speaker suggested that this was probably the first occasion on which public policy, both here and elsewhere, was being shaped or formed by a photograph. I am not entirely sure that that is correct. Quite a lot of people will think back to the photograph of that little girl during the Vietnam war, and how it helped shape and change public opinion. The photographs of figures in holocaust camps, consisting of skin and bone held up by rags, changed the view as well. However, I have to say, without becoming too maudlin about the matter, that as the father of three daughters—one of whom happens also to be a three-year-old—I was very struck by that photograph. As I flipped through recent pictures on my phone of her splashing in the waves during a family holiday in north Pembrokeshire, I tried to put myself in that father’s position. He had lost everything, and was wondering who or what was there to help and support him—and, indeed, whether the world understood what on earth was going on.

I think what is happening in the UK is desperately important, and it is indicative of our DNA when it comes to these issues. Whenever there is an international crisis with a humanitarian aspect, our country and its citizens, charities and voluntary sector always rise to the occasion and do so magnificently, often through small people doing small things that they hope will make a big difference.

In the three sessions of debate on this issue, a number of Members have referenced what their councils are doing. I am pleased to say that even in rural, somewhat sleepy Dorset, which does not have a very racially mixed demographic, the chief executive of North Dorset district council, Matt Prosser, is convening discussions with other council officers to see what Dorset can do to help.

If this motion is pressed to a Division, I will oppose it, however, because it asks us to help those who are already in Europe. It is a fundamental principle that we must stand first against that. There are several reasons why. The kernel of my concerns is the issue I raised with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Monday—security. There is a downside to having 20,000 people over a five-year period rather than immediately. If I was an ISIS recruiter wishing this country ill, I would be trying to find ways to infiltrate and get my people in on those transports bringing people to the United Kingdom. We know because that is how they work. We know because we have seen it in other refugee camps where political or religious intimidation is rife. It would be wholly negligent of Her Majesty’s Government to adopt a policy that brought such people into this country. The sole purpose is the relief of suffering, but that would bring in people who wish to cause harm and discord.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Our policy on asylum seekers and those seeking refuge has been driven by ISIL. ISIL has already won.

[Simon Hoare]

I have to say that I think that, unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman is in some respects right. Part of the downside of what has been an instinctive humanitarian response is that we are doing President Assad’s job for him by clearing away the results of his devastating policy on his country, and some could construe that as waving a white flag to ISIL, too—saying, “We cannot defeat you; we haven’t the resolve or the resource and therefore we are going to absorb those people who have been displaced by your actions.” I therefore agree with the hon. Gentleman in that I could see that being a very easy interpretation of some of our actions and some of these proposals.