Rural Depopulation

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Westminster Hall

[Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered depopulation in rural areas.

Tapadh leibh, Ms Vaz; thank you. It is an honour to have you in the Chair. I thank all colleagues for their attendance and support in what I am sure will be an illuminating 90-minute debate. Staging your first Westminster Hall debate is a bit like throwing a birthday party and wondering whether anyone will turn up—at least we know there is not a depopulation crisis in Westminster. I also thank the Minister for taking this debate. It may not seem obvious at first what the demographics of the Western Isles have to do with the Home Office, but if she bears with me, I will explain and expand on why this issue, which now affects the periphery of the UK, influences the entire economy and should inform the decisions that we make at national level on immigration.

First, let me give some context. In Na h-Eileanan an Iar, the Western Isles, we are in the middle of a depopulation crisis, and I am here to sound that alarm. We are painfully aware of what is a rapidly changing population. An older, strongly Gaelic-speaking demographic is passing on, and we see the rapid out-migration of younger, economically active families. They sometimes face insurmountable challenges: being priced out of housing and facing failing transport connections, stuttering health provision and childcare and a host of other issues, which weigh heavily in the scales of deciding whether to stay or go. And while we sound the warnings at home, the lights should be flashing on the dashboard in this place, too, and in offices across Whitehall. That is why I am staging this debate—to highlight the fact that we are simply running out of people to take up key public sector and private sector posts to keep our islands going. That affects the viability of vital services and it ill serves the local economy and the national one, too.

Just to give some further context, the estimated population of the Western Isles is 26,200. That represents a 5.5% decrease since the 2011 census and the highest percentage decrease in Scotland. According to estimates from the Western Isles health board, which has an obvious interest in this issue from a staffing and care point of view, the working-age population of the islands is set to decrease by 6% by 2028, while the over-75 population with the highest levels of comorbidity—people who have more than one illness—is set to rise by 25%. The situation is frightening. According to the board, these population changes will result in a year-on-year reduction in the available workforce—nurses and care staff—to attend the most important, most vulnerable people, and ultimately undermine the ability to sustain services.

I say we have to address this with local responses, Scottish responses and action at UK level to prevent the situation from entering that downward spiral. We know that an ageing-population pattern is part of a Europe-wide trend, and somehow we kid ourselves that this is an over-the-horizon event that we will deal with later, but for us in the islands, it is an urgent reality, and our breakfast will become everyone else’s lunch; if we do not address these issues on the edge of Europe, they will become structural problems for the rest of the country and the rest of the continent.

More than worrying about an ageing population, I worry about the exodus of a working population, particularly the female population. Since 2007, the number of women aged between 25 and 44 on the islands has dropped by 15%, from 3,289 down to 2,787. There are many reasons for that rapid decline but, for most parents, they can be encapsulated in one word—childcare. Of course that is a challenge for parents everywhere, but the lack of a working-age population, as well as the burdensome regulation, has strangled childcare in the islands. I am sure that is the experience of colleagues across the board. Working parents and primarily working mothers, of course, find it hard to return to work—to balance childcare and careers—and despite the many strong family connections and networks they have on the islands, ultimately they give up in frustration, and ultimately they speak to me, as they spoke to me during the election campaign, about giving up and moving to the mainland. And when we lose families, we lose the working-age population.

During the successful election campaign, I was joined by the then shadow Business Secretary, now the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, on a visit around some of the key ports in Stornoway. We went to a shellfish export company that was successful, with a £4 million turnover and rising, which was a great investment by the port and the parent company in the local fishing fleet. But the actual processing of the product in the chill of the packing room could not operate were it not for the Ukraine war. Most of the staff that packed the products were refugees from that conflict. They are a welcome and valuable addition to the workforce and the islands, but we cannot have our economic growth dependent on a conflict on the other side of Europe.

At a seafood processor on another island, a £3 million business at the end of a single-track road, there were sustainable stocks and work for perhaps 30 employees, but only 15 workers were available because there are simply no workers to be found locally. This was an operation that, pre-Brexit, had a large and well-integrated European workforce. Now it cannot find a local workforce, and the regulatory and bureaucratic challenge of sourcing staff is almost overwhelming.

In the fishing industry offshore, the present immigration requirements as I understand them require staff employed under the sponsored visa scheme to pass stage 4 English language tests. That is quite a high academic bar for an industry that seeks crewmen who are primarily experienced in working in noisy and challenging conditions where hand signals are often as useful as linguistic ones.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

The hon. Member will be aware that this is a matter on which a number of us have campaigned over the years. Essentially, the problem is that the definition of what constitutes a skilled migrant worker is narrow and brings in skills, as with the English language test, that are not central to the jobs that those people are going to do. We have safely had migrant workers in the catching sector for years without that level of English language. Will the hon. Member and others join me in encouraging the new Home Office team to have yet another look, and this time take the issues seriously?

[Torcuil Crichton]

I agree entirely with the right hon. Member. The language requirement is just one aspect of the present visa system that is unsuitable for our fishing industry, the islands, and rural economies, and which we have until now been unable to navigate around. Hopefully it will undergo a fresh review under a new Home Office team.

The new Home Office team and immigration policy are rightly the reserve of the UK Government. I do not seek to break up control of the system. I stood on a platform of a properly managed, points-based immigration system that links up the needs of the workforce, the economy and the country. But I counter the narrative, which this summer was in danger of becoming the prevailing one, that the country is somehow “full up”. There are parts of the UK and Scotland where we are crying out for skilled workers to come and be part of our workforce, and to then stay and become part of our communities.

Scotland has specific needs for our skills base, and the islands and rural areas of Scotland and the UK have some very specific asks of their own. The lesson of policy in almost every area—not just immigration—be it administered from here or Holyrood, is that one size does not fit all. What works at a UK level may need more flexibility at a Scottish level, and again at a rural and island level.

In the past, the UK Government in other guises have worked with the Scottish Government to show flexibility. The former First Minister Jack McConnell, now Baron McConnell of Glenscorrodale, promoted the fresh talent initiative for post-study work visas for overseas students at Scottish universities, enabling them to stay on for a period. There is, and should be, interest in reviving that plan, and the idea of rural visa projects, which was advanced by the Scottish Government with the Migration Advisory Committee before the previous UK Government stamped on the idea.

There are many levers of Government that are not at the hand of the Minister, but that bear mentioning because they are part of local and Scottish solutions to rural depopulation. In the islands, we are lucky to have a system of crofting tenure, a uniquely Scottish system which has kept generations in their home community, but crofting has been hollowed out by political forces that neither understand nor value its work. Crofting tenure, properly regulated, should be a defence against the property market, but instead it has become an enabler. The sale of croft tenancies at inflated rates has become a critical factor in the housing shortage.

Crofting needs urgent reform. I commend the Shucksmith report, “The Future of Crofting”, now more than a decade old but an excellent piece of work, which sought to rebalance—or restore the balance—between crofters’ right to security of tenure and their responsibilities to keep the market at bay. It should be dusted down and re-enacted, but that is probably a subject for another debate and another place.

The lack of affordable housing, however, is an issue that many other Members here and elsewhere will recognise. I hope that it will be taken up by other speakers in the debate. In many of our areas, it is impossible for anyone with modest means to secure a house, which is a pretty basic precondition for retaining a working-age population and keeping the economy spinning.

We therefore need action on housing and on crofting regulation; we need access to land; and we need access and action on depopulation. As I said, the dashboard lights are flashing. More than anything we need focus. We need economic focus on the peripheries of the north and west of Scotland, those areas of continued depopulation. We need economic incentives, state aid, perhaps a reduction in VAT on construction, and enhanced capital allowances. I do not want the Minister to worry too much about those issues, because they are for the Treasury and other Departments, and I will take them up with them.

My time is running out, and I do not want to end on a note of despondency. There is hope. There is hope in community ownership of the many crofting estates in the Western Isles, a quiet revolution that has injected not just a new wave of development, but a growing sense of confidence and assurance that, given the tools, we can tackle the issues for ourselves. There is the vast opportunity of community ownership of, and a community share in, the wealth of wind in onshore and offshore developments, which are due offers. That change is so tantalisingly close and could be so transformative in terms of finance and confidence that it cannot be ignored as part of the UK Government’s GB Energy strategy.

There is also hope in individuals, families and communities and their resilience, which make the islands not just a great place to visit, but a precious place to stay. There are examples of local initiatives like the Uist repopulation zone, which has provided training opportunities and much-hallowed childcare provision to parents. It is led by Comhairle nan Eilean Siar and has received £60,000 from the Scottish Government. I commend the work of that project and of many other individuals and communities who focus themselves on the issue of depopulation at a local level.

As I said, we have a sense of urgency about this in the islands: we are experiencing a depopulation crisis. I hope now that that can find an echo not just in the contributions to this debate, but in the UK Government’s awareness and response to the issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) on securing this debate. The issue is as important to me and my communities as it is to him and his.

The yardstick by which I have for many years now measured any proposal for anything to happen in the Northern Isles is to ask a simple question: will this make it more or less likely for people to want to live here? Without a healthy and growing population, we risk losing the critical mass and, within that critical mass, we do not have the mix. Every population—every community—needs to have a mix of the professional, the technical, the skilled and semi-skilled, and the unskilled. In a city, where there is mobility within the different districts, we can take that sort of thing for granted; when we live in an island community it is a different story.

In some ways, I am the living, breathing example of how depopulation happens. I was born and brought up on Islay; I left as a 17-year-old to go to university and I eventually qualified as a solicitor. Islay has a population of between 3,000 and 3,500 people. It would not have been possible for me to return to Islay to go into legal practice with a population of that sort. I have lived most of my adult life in Orkney, where we have a population of about 22,000, which is big enough to sustain that professional community. The legal and accountancy firms, the wide range of doctors and the bigger hospital are things that allow us to maintain that mix so that we can keep our community functioning properly.

The history of Orkney and Shetland is slightly different from that of the Western Isles. Our population in Shetland was down to about 16,000 in the mid-1970s, at which point the oil industry came. Since then, the population grew quite rapidly, and it rests at around 22,000 or 23,000. That tells us that the critical thing to grow a population is the availability of a good mix of well-paid and varied jobs in the local economy.

Fifty years later, as we enter a period of decline in oil and gas as part of our economy, the just transition matters to us more than anywhere else. We see opportunities for our community in the development of, for example, marine renewables, tidal power and tidal stream generation, but if we push oil and gas off a cliff before the technologies are mature enough to come on stream, people will not hang around in places such as Orkney or Shetland, waiting for something else to happen. They have a history and a legitimate expectation of working in good, well-paid jobs, and they will take their skills elsewhere.

The hon. Gentleman referred to the importance of housing, which is probably the single biggest constraint on economic growth in the Northern Isles. I had an interesting conversation recently with the chief executive of Hjaltland housing association in Shetland. He was talking about a proposal he had put to a significant contractor, which was going to employ a significant number of people for a good number of years. He said, essentially, “If they pay the rent for us in advance”—this was a big corporate so it was rich enough to do it—“we will build the houses. Then, at the end of the time, the housing stock will revert to us and be available for other use in our community.” That was a brilliant idea—absolutely fantastic, not least in its simplicity. I think that the corporate would be up for that, but it was not seen with favour by the Government in Edinburgh and has subsequently been discouraged. That sort of creativity—coming up with solutions to problems that are appropriate to the community—is critical if we are to halt the reverse in numbers.

The infrastructure available for people in island communities is also essential, including digital infrastructure such as modern broadband and the availability of mobile phone coverage, given the problems that could be faced by communities such as mine when the copper wire switch-off happens for landline technologies. Other infrastructure is essential as well, such as the physical infrastructure of a ferry service. The hon. Gentleman does not need me to tell him about the problems that come from the lack of a reliable ferry service, because his constituents have endured that. But even within Shetland, and increasingly in Orkney as well, the internal ferry services have been problematic, as fleets get older and need to be replaced. Again, we need to listen to the communities. Those in Unst, Yell, Whalsay and Bressay are all keen to say, “Actually, for the next generation, we don’t want to rely on ferries. We want the construction of fixed links and tunnels, which would offer us opportunities to build and grow businesses.”

I spoke to one woman in Yell recently who told me that she would love to go back and have her home in Yell—she was born and brought up in Unst originally—but she has two children with medical conditions, which means that she does not want to take the risk of having to rely on a ferry journey, possibly in the middle of the night, should her children need medical attention at the hospital. Therefore, somebody who would like to live in Yell or Unst is forced to live on the Shetland mainland.

The problems of population decline for Shetland as a whole—if we look at the headline figures—may not be as acute, but the smaller island communities in Shetland continue to see that decline. This is about giving every community the empowerment to come up with solutions that are appropriate to them in their communities. I know that others want to speak, but I could say a lot more about this, and I hope that we will return to it at some point in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that serious point, one that I will draw on in my remarks. I will continue to work with him and others on how we tackle that serious issue.

Migration has been an important part of the history of our nation, as was raised by the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire. He will know, as I do, that for generations people have travelled here from all over the world, contributing to our economy, studying in our universities, working in our public services and being part of our communities and the way we have built our nation together. All of us here are alive to the demographic challenges that remote communities particularly are facing. We are also committed to ensuring that the immigration system works in the interests of the whole of the UK.

We have seen net migration treble in five years, driven largely by a big increase in overseas recruitment. We are clear that net migration must come down, and that the immigration system needs to be properly controlled and managed. I make that point because it is for that reason we are setting out a new approach, which is integral to tackling some of the challenges outlined today. We will link migration policy and visa controls to skills and labour market policy so that immigration is not used as an alternative to training or tackling workforce problems in the UK.

[Mr Carmichael]

Will the Minister give way?

[Seema Malhotra]

I have to make my remarks, and the right hon. Member has spoken. I will come back if I have time.

On the vision of developing more sustainable alternatives to labour market issues, I am sure that we are all keen to work together. There is no other way. That is why I have asked my officials to work closely with Seafish, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and across Government to address the issues facing the sector and our rural communities, and to make sure we are building together a more sustainable workforce and community.

[Seema Malhotra]

I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman, who is a long-standing campaigner on these issues. I make the point that it is important that we work closely across Westminster and with our devolved Administrations. This is part of an important reset, and it is important that we look at how we tackle these challenges together. Many of the issues that have been raised are matters for the Scottish Government and for local authorities in Scotland, but it is important that we look at how we work together across Westminster and with the Scottish Government to ensure that we have shared projects that are a success.

[Mr Carmichael]

I have said often enough that the medium to long-term structural problems in the catching sector for deckhands have to be solved by a better training programme, to make sure that we recruit from our own fishing and coastal communities. In the meantime, working together with the Scottish Government, where the responsibility lies, to bridge the gap with the availability of visas for incoming crew seems to me the perfect way in which the Governments here and in Edinburgh can work together to provide the industry with what it needs.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention. I shall be coming on to some of these issues in my remarks, but let me first talk briefly about the regional visa schemes that have been alluded to. I am aware that the devolved Government in Scotland retain a key interest in this, and in 2022 the Migration Advisory Committee suggested that the Government could explore the issue further. It is important to say that the MAC must hear the voices of our devolved Administrations across the country.

Proposals have included measures to restrict migrants to certain areas, but there is currently no legal basis to do so, even if we wanted to. Fundamentally, overseas recruits are likely to be affected by the same factors as anyone else when making decisions about whether to move into or remain in remote parts of the country. That means that jobs must be available that offer sustainable salaries and attractive working conditions, but we must also ensure affordable housing, transport links, suitable local infrastructure such as broadband, and childcare. So many of those issues affect where people choose to settle and to make communities their home.

Addressing such concerns, and thereby making challenging careers more attractive, has to be the focus of the work to tackle depopulation. Otherwise, even migrants drawn to the UK to perform these roles can leave their jobs and the area as soon as a more favourable opportunity becomes available. In some of the analysis of the Fresh Talent experience, that has been part of the story. It is important to learn lessons—

Violent Disorder

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Monday 2nd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of her statement. I associate myself and my party with her comments of praise for the bravery and professionalism of the police and the other emergency services, which we saw throughout these disgraceful episodes.

This a moment for everyone in this House to make it clear which side they are on. It simply is not credible for people to talk about two-tier policing and then, in the next breath, say that they also support the police. The Home Secretary is correct to call out the disorder we have seen for what it is: thuggery, racism and crime. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches support the steps that she has announced, but does she agree that this renders urgent the need to appoint an independent adviser on Islamophobia, a post that has been vacant for the past two years, and to have a formal definition of Islamophobia, in order to underpin and inform Government policy across the board and across all Departments?

Political Violence and Disruption: Walney Report

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Tom Tugendhat]

My hon. Friend will be delighted to know that the noble Lord Walney is still a Member of Parliament, but he has the misfortune to sit in red, not green. The truth is that many police forces are taking effective action already. It is sad that some of those who hold the office of police and crime commissioner do not always feel that it is their role to insist that that leadership is offered; in that case, we are, of course, speaking of London. We may need legislation, but not necessarily. At the moment, we need decisions.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Where there is a threat to democracy and to people giving service in public life, surely the most effective response will always be one that commands the support of all those who are part of that democratic process. We can only do that by building consensus. The Government have tabled late amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill involving the policing of demonstrations, some of which include the removal of defences of lawfulness. We do not have a consensus around those amendments. Will the Minister go back to the Home Office, get the agreement of his Department to pause the amendments and convene talks involving all parties to see if we can build genuine consensus in this House, and beyond? That is surely the best and most effective threat to the extremists.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I am rather enjoying the idea that the former Deputy Chief Whip is now telling me that we need to build consensus; that was certainly not the impression I got when he held that office. [Interruption.] The recovery is going extremely well, if that is the case. In reality, of course we try to work across all parts of the House and try to build consensus, but I am here to serve the British people not the whims of other hon. Members.

Arrests and Prison Capacity

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

I am happy to confirm that the Criminal Justice Board, chaired by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, meets very frequently. Indeed, I attended its most recent meeting just three or four weeks ago—with the Lord Chancellor, other Ministers, police leads, senior members of the judiciary and the Crown Prosecution Service, and many others—so I can categorically confirm that it does exist and it meets regularly.

On my hon. Friend’s question about the police, the police are rightly operationally independent. It is not for Ministers to direct how they discharge their duties; they discharge their duties appropriately with their professional standards and professional judgment, and we support them in doing so. Operational independence for the police is important, as I am sure everyone on both sides of the House respects.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

It is obvious from the Minister’s demeanour that he does not like to be called to account, but he should reflect on the fact that the mere fact such a letter was written, and in the circumstances in which it was written, is a cause for concern, which he should be taking seriously. It is symptomatic of a wider malaise in the English and Welsh criminal justice system. Last year, 215,933 burglaries went unsolved across England and Wales—an average of 592 a day. Is that not something the Minister should be addressing, rather than getting a little bit worked up with the shadow Home Secretary?

[Chris Philp]

I may have got worked up, because the allegations being made were, in my view, unfounded and unsupported by the facts. I was simply trying to put across the facts—both the numbers and also the quotes from the relevant policing lead—which flatly contradicted the dystopian picture that the shadow Home Secretary, characteristically, was seeking to paint. To answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question, we of course take such matters seriously. The Lord Chancellor is working night and day to increase prison capacity, both by building new prisons expeditiously and by pulling every lever at his disposal to build more capacity within the existing estate. The prisons are pretty full because the police have done a good job at identifying, catching and incarcerating dangerous criminals. A thoughtful approach, of the kind called for by the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), has been taken. That is why, with the implementation of the end of custody supervised licence tomorrow, the issues and contingencies provided for in the letter of last week will no longer be required. It was an eight-day period and, thankfully, those contingencies were not in fact required.

Criminal Justice Bill

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 15th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Laura Farris]

That is an excellent suggestion. I confirm that and thank my right hon. Friend once again.

Before I conclude, I would like to address a number of other matters that have been raised by hon. Members and tabled as amendments. I start with the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Dame Tracey Crouch)—

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Before the Minister moves on—I apologise if she has addressed this and I missed it—could I get from her an explanation about Government new clause 102, which seeks to remove the protections of the Human Rights Act by effectively excluding the defence of lawful or reasonable excuses? This is now the fourth piece of legislation that the Government have introduced that will remove the protections of the Human Rights Act. We understand the reasons why they could not proceed with a Bill of rights, but surely if they are to remove human rights protections, that should be done in a proper, considered manner and not through salami slicing such as this.

[Laura Farris]

I will have to double-check that new clause, but I simply say that, with two exceptions, all the convention rights are qualified rights, which can be restricted in reasonable circumstances. I promise that I will check that and come back to the right hon. Gentleman in winding up the debate, if I may.

I was in the process of paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark) for the outstanding representation that they have given to their constituents who were affected by David Fuller’s acts of depravity. That is reflected in new clause 62, which the Government support, on the offence of necrophilia.

It is perhaps a rare thing in 2024 that an offence can be identified that Parliament has not previously considered, but such was the extent of Fuller’s offending that we have had to do so. The Government are pleased to confirm that the Sexual Offences Act 2003 will be amended by the Bill to capture the sexual touching of a corpse with a new maximum sentence of seven years for penetrative offences and five years for non-penetrative acts.

Assisted Dying

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Monday 29th April 2024 Westminster Hall

[Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 653593 relating to assisted dying.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Robert.

It is no secret that I grew up as a Catholic and attended Catholic schools. One of the most engaging lessons was religious education, where topics such as abortion and assisted dying, or euthanasia as some may wish to call it, were hotly debated. I admired my teachers who, with firmly held views, always encouraged debate—that is how I remember it, anyway. I have taken, and still take, the same attitude in my work as a Member of Parliament. For this place to have integrity, we must disagree agreeably and have the skills to debate and amend legislation that we may not agree with. Assisted dying is one such subject.

There is no set definition of assisted dying so let me clarify at the outset that here we are referring to the involvement of healthcare professionals in the provision of lethal drugs intended to end a patient’s life at their voluntary request, subject to eligibility criteria and safeguards. That includes healthcare professionals prescribing lethal drugs for the patient to self-administer, and healthcare professionals administering lethal drugs.

The petition calls for the Government to allocate parliamentary time for assisted dying to be debated in the House of Commons and to give members of this House a vote on the issue. More than 207,000 people have signed the petition so far, 272 of them from my constituency of Gower. The petition remains open, so the numbers are probably ticking up as we speak.

The petition was started by Hanna Geissler, the health editor at the Daily Express, and is supported by Dame Esther Rantzen, who is named in the petition. Hanna and the Daily Express have been campaigning on the issue for about two years, but Dame Esther’s public comments marked a change in the public perception of assisted dying, leading them to launch this petition. I pay tribute to their dedication and tenacity.

As people across the House know, this is not the first time I have opened a debate on this topic on behalf of the Petitions Committee. In July 2022, this House considered e-petition 604383, which asked Parliament to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill, mentally competent adults; that petition had more than 155,000 signatures. The fact that, in less than two years, we have had two petitions debates on this subject clearly indicates to me and to others that this issue is one that our constituents are highly engaged in, and I have no doubt that Dame Esther Rantzen has contributed to the heightened awareness of assisted dying. By her own admission, made in our discussion, she did not realise that speaking out about her personal choice would have had the impact that it has.

Whatever our own views, we must recognise that public opinion on assisted dying has shifted in one direction. Polls by Dignity in Dying have shown overwhelming support for changes to the law, with safeguards in place. Membership of Dignitas held by UK citizens has increased to 1,900, with a 23% rise during 2023.

In preparation for this debate and the previous one, I met a wide range of voices on assisted dying. Before this debate, as well as speaking with Hanna and Dame Esther, I spoke with Dr Matthew Doré, the honorary secretary of the Association for Palliative Medicine of Great Britain and Ireland; Dr Andrew Green, the deputy chair of the British Medical Association’s medical ethics committee; and Jonathan Blay from the Royal College of General Practitioners. Such conversations are always welcome and challenge my stance in this debate. The more evidence and sunlight that we can bring to these debates, the better, and we must never dismiss concerns, but consider them fully.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Is not the truth of the matter that the debate will continue whether we have it here or not? My colleague Liam McArthur has a Bill going through the Scottish Parliament at the moment. Similar legislation is being considered in the Isle of Man and in the Channel Islands. This issue will have to be addressed. Either we do that in our own time, with our own measured, reasoned debate, or we risk having decisions made for us.

[Tonia Antoniazzi]

I fully accept the right hon. Gentleman’s point that the law is changing in other countries and in parts of the UK. It is important to consider that, and to look at what is done well and not so well. It is for us in this place to consider this matter fully when the opportunity arises.

“Choice” is a key word for Dame Esther and for many of those who have signed the petition. This is about having the choice to die under their own conditions, with dignity and without struggle.

Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill [Lords]

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 19th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The first duty of Government is to keep our citizens safe. The United Kingdom faces an enduring threat from terrorists, hostile actors and organised criminal groups, and that threat is evolving and becoming more sophisticated. It is not enough for us to keep pace with those who would do us harm; we must endeavour to get and then stay ahead of them. The investigatory powers are the legal powers available to law enforcement, the intelligence services, MI5, the Secret Intelligence Service, GCHQ and other public authorities where appropriate to obtain communications and data about communications.

The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 provides a clear legal framework for the use of those powers, combining world-leading safeguards and oversight with giving agencies the tools they need to protect us. There is a double lock for the most sensitive IPA powers, meaning that an independent judicial commissioner must approve a decision by the Secretary of State to issue a warrant under the IPA. The use of any of these powers must be assessed as necessary and proportionate, with strong independent oversight by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. The Investigatory Powers Tribunal provides a robust mechanism for providing redress in respect of any unlawful use of those powers.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

The Home Secretary will be as aware as I am that very occasionally those in charge of our intelligence and security services do not act in the best traditions of this country in their offices, and I am thinking of cases such as Belhaj and Boudchar. Where people have been the victim of mistreatment—as a consequence of UK complicity with foreign powers, for example—should there not be a right for those people to have access to the information about that?

[James Cleverly]

I listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman’s point. I am not sure it is directly relevant to this matter, but I take on board the points that he makes. He will forgive me if I do not address them directly at this point; I want to consider them properly.

The IPA is sound legislation, but the nature of these threats has evolved since 2016, and we are confronted by greater global instability and technological advances, and they demand that we act. Terrorists, child abusers, organised criminals and malign actors from hostile states have exploited technological advances. Our job is to ensure that the UK’s investigatory powers framework remains fit for purpose. The changes that this Bill proposes were informed by the independent review of the IPA published by Lord Anderson of Ipswich in June 2023. The Bill received cross-party and Cross-Bench support as it passed through the other place. Every Government amendment was accepted, and I thank the members of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament for the productive way they engaged with and helped to shape the Bill.

In particular, we have agreed to tighten the drafting of clauses 22 and 23 in line with amendments proposed by the Intelligence and Security Committee. Those changes put beyond doubt that the Prime Minister may delegate warrants for the purposes of obtaining communications of parliamentarians in two, and only two, exceptional circumstances: the personal incapacity of the Prime Minister and a lack of access to secure communications. There is also a limit of five Secretaries of State to whom this responsibility could be delegated in those circumstances. Further to that, in respect of new part 7A, parliamentary scrutiny will be enhanced through a statutory requirement for the Secretary of State annually to inform the Intelligence and Security Committee about the new regime for bulk personal datasets.

Knife and Sword Ban

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Tuesday 6th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House condemns the Government for overseeing a 77 per cent increase in knife crime since 2015; recognises the devastating impact that knife crime has on victims, their families and the wider community; acknowledges that the Government recently announced measures to ban zombie knives and machetes; believes, nonetheless, that this legislation does not go nearly far enough, meaning that a number of dangerous types of knives and swords will remain legal and available on UK streets; therefore calls on the Government to address the shortcomings of the ban by extending it to cover ninja swords and consulting on a further extension; and further calls for the Government to establish an end-to-end review of online knife sales and introduce criminal liability for senior management of websites which indirectly sell illegal knives online.

Ronan Kanda was 16. He went to get a PlayStation controller from his friend, and was yards away from home when he was murdered. He was murdered by two teenagers, who used a ninja sword. They had obtained that sword by buying it online, using someone else’s ID to collect it. They stabbed him in a case of mistaken identity. This is a heartbreaking, tragic story of a young life lost, with a family trapped in the most extraordinary grief, and we are here today because it is time that Parliament acts to tackle knife crime head-on.

Seventy seven per cent. That is how much knife crime has risen since 2015, according to the latest figures released by the Office for National Statistics and the Home Office in recent weeks. That equates to a staggering 48,716 violent and sexual offences committed involving a knife or sharp instrument in the past year. There is a huge human cost to this, with 261 lives lost in the year up to March 2022—the last complete data available to us—and roughly four in 10 murders involving a knife or sharp instrument. For those carrying a knife, almost half of cases led to no further action, with current rules allowing those carrying knives to escape further sanction by writing an apology letter.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because he is describing a situation that is virtually identical to the one we faced in Scotland 15-plus years ago. The initiative taken by the then Strathclyde police force and the Scottish Government since has been a very different approach to tackling it—that of treating it as a public health and social problem, with a violence reduction unit. There is nothing in the hon. Gentleman’s motion that I would disagree with, but it is like playing whack-a-mole with the different sorts of knives available. Does not he agree that this issue requires a much more fundamental and radical approach?

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2024, which was laid before this House on 15 January, be approved.

I am grateful to the House for considering this draft order, which will finally see Hizb ut-Tahrir proscribed. The events of 7 October will be permanently ingrained on our minds. What Hamas did that day was barbaric. It was evil. Who can erase the images that we saw of mothers crying over their blood-soaked beds with their children missing, of teenagers gunned down at a festival of peace, or of women abducted, raped and slaughtered? Who among us could fail to be appalled by such depravity or to still feel the pain of those whose loved ones are hostages? Who could stay silent in the face of the worst pogrom against Jews on any day since the holocaust?

In the aftermath of 7 October, communities across the United Kingdom came together to condemn these vile acts and to stand with British Jews in their hour of grief. Not everyone, however, reacted with sorrow. Instead of horror, Hizb ut-Tahrir responded to the murder of civilians with elation. Instead of condemnation, it lavished Hamas with praise.

I want to make something very clear: I am a champion of freedom of speech, and I have no issue with people saying things that I regard as insensitive, uninformed or wrong, but this is different. Free speech includes neither the promotion of terrorism nor the celebration of terrorist acts. It is not acceptable to describe Hamas as the “heroes” of Palestine or the events of 7 October as a “long-awaited victory”. It is not acceptable to refer to the killing of Jewish tourists by an Egyptian police officer as

“a simple example of what should be done towards the Jews”.

It is not acceptable to call for so-called Muslim armies to rise up and carry out similar acts.

Hizb ut-Tahrir has antisemitism at its very core. It rejects democracy and engages in vile homophobia. As an organisation, it does not just reject British values; it seeks to undermine them. We will not let groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir abuse our freedoms. We will never tolerate the promotion or encouragement of terrorism. We have zero tolerance for antisemitism. Hizb ut-Tahrir must be proscribed.

Before I come to discuss the specifics of the order, I will set out some background on the proscription power. Currently, 79 terrorist organisations are proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000. For an organisation to be proscribed, the Government must believe that it is concerned in terrorism as set out in section 3 of the Act. If the statutory test is met, the Home Secretary must consider the proportionality of proscription and decide whether to exercise their discretion.

Proscription is a powerful tool with severe penalties, criminalising membership and invitations of support for organisations. It also supports other disruptive activity including immigration disruptions and terrorist financing orders. In short, the resources of a proscribed organisation are terrorist property and therefore liable to be seized.

A decision to proscribe is taken only after great care and consideration, given its wide-ranging impact. It must be approved by both Houses. Part 2 of the 2000 Act contains the proscription offences in sections 11 to 13. An organisation is proscribed if it is listed in schedule 2 to the Act. Article 2 of the order will add Hizb ut-Tahrir to the list in schedule 2 as a new entry.

We have carefully considered all the evidence. Hizb ut-Tahrir is concerned in terrorism. With the House’s consent, it will be proscribed, including all regional branches such as Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain.

Although I am unable to comment on specific intelligence, I can provide the House with a summary of the group’s activities. Hizb ut-Tahrir is an international political organisation with a footprint in at least 32 countries, including the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada and Australia. Its long-term goal is to establish an expansionist caliphate ruled under Islamic law, with no fixed borders, seeking new territories to occupy in the name of jihad. That is its stated aim. Hizb ut-Tahrir’s headquarters and central media office are in Beirut, and its ideology and strategy are co-ordinated centrally.

The British branch, Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain, was established in 1986. It is afforded autonomy to operate in its local environment, but it is important to emphasise that it is part of a coherent international movement, and recognises the leadership of Hizb ut-Tahrir. The decision to proscribe therefore relates to Hizb ut-Tahrir, including all its regional branches. Any distinction between them is artificial.

There is evidence that Hizb ut-Tahrir is concerned in terrorism. Its central media office and several of its middle eastern branches have celebrated and praised the barbaric terrorist attacks on Israel and other nations’ citizens carried out by Hamas, which, as Members will be aware, are already a proscribed organisation.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Is the Minister aware that Zeyno Baran of the Hudson Institute has observed that the British chapter of Hizb ut-Tahrir is the “nerve centre” of the international movement? As is so often the case when dealing with terror organisations, the responsibility to protect our own citizens extends to citizens in other countries as well.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The right hon. Member is absolutely right that the unity of this organisation means that one branch cannot be separated from another. The UK branch is important when taking down the network around the world. That is why, as I will come to, this action is supported not just here but around the world.

As I mentioned earlier, recent activity includes an article attributed to Hizb ut-Tahrir’s Egyptian branch, which referred to the killing of Jewish tourists by an Egyptian police officer as

“a simple example of what should be done towards the Jews”.

The British branch is supportive of—and indeed, subservient to—its global leadership and policy positions. It demonstrates a hatred not just of Israel but of all Jews. Its promotion and encouragement of terrorism is inspired by an abhorrent antisemitic ideology.

Hizb ut-Tahrir has frequently referred to Hamas as the heroes of Palestine. Hamas are not heroes. Those who perpetrated the attacks on 7 October are monsters. Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain published an article on its website that described the 7 October attacks as a long-awaited victory that

“ignited a wave of joy and elation amongst Muslims globally”.

It is the Government’s view that the content included in that article and others like it betrays Hizb ut-Tahrir and Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain’s true ideology and beliefs. Hizb ut-Tahrir has regularly engaged in homophobic and antisemitic discourse. It rejects democracy, and its aims bear similarities to those of terrorist groups, including Daesh, which is already proscribed. Internationally, Hizb ut-Tahrir plays the mood music to which other terrorists dance.

This proscription will serve as a reminder that the United Kingdom does not and will never tolerate the promotion or encouragement of terrorism. It will send the message that promoting or encouraging Hamas’s sickening attack on 7 October is utterly unacceptable and at odds with the values of this country. By proscribing, we will reassert our unwavering commitment to fighting antisemitism, which has increased unacceptably in the United Kingdom and globally in recent months.

To the Jewish community in the United Kingdom, I say this: “We will always protect British citizens. We will do whatever it takes to protect you.” To British Muslim parents and to many mosques across the country, I say this: “We will remove this menace that claims to act in your name. Hizb ut-Tahrir does not represent Islam or Muslims. You are a crucial part of our nation and your Government is on your side.”

Before I conclude, I will make a couple of further points. First, the decision to proscribe is supported by our international partners. Hizb ut-Tahrir is banned in many countries around the world, including in Germany, and restrictions are placed on its activities in Austria. This is an organisation that does not believe in borders or the nation state, and that calls for the overthrow of every Government in the Islamic world. It has declared the custodian of the two holy places in Saudi Arabia, the Khadim al-Haramayn, an apostate, and has been banned in Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Following coup attempts in Jordan and Egypt, it has been banned in those countries as well. Its call for the caliphate is a colonial imperialist ambition from another age and gives legitimacy to others, including ISIS and al-Qaeda. When al-Nabhani split from the Muslim Brotherhood to found this organisation in 1953, it was to a great extent because he did not believe in its incrementalist policy of using democracy, but instead turned to violence and radicalising Muslim militaries to establish a single expansionist Islamist empire. This is an organisation calling for the conquest of India, Greece, Spain and France—anywhere, in fact, where Muslim armies once trod, even if that was over 1,000 years ago.

Let us not forget the impact of Hizb ut-Tahrir in the United Kingdom. One of its original leaders subsequently went on to set up al-Muhajiroun, a pernicious organisation, now also proscribed, with links to many of the perpetrators of Islamist-inspired attacks in recent years. We are taking this action to stop the pain and loss caused to countless families across our country who have lost loved ones to this cult. This proscription is important to protecting all communities across our country, and to standing with our allies and partners in nations from Indonesia to Morocco.

Proscription is a powerful tool. It will significantly hamper Hizb ut-Tahrir’s operations in the United Kingdom, and damage its activities and support for branches in other parts of the world. The United Kingdom must not be a hub for global terrorism: not today, not tomorrow, not ever. It will now be a criminal offence for a person to: belong to Hizb ut-Tahrir; invite or express support for Hizb ut-Tahrir; arrange a meeting in support of Hizb ut-Tahrir; and wear clothing, carry or display articles in public in such a way as to arouse reasonable suspicion that the individual is a member of, or a supporter of, Hizb ut-Tahrir. The penalties for conviction of proscription offences can be a maximum of 14 years in prison and/or an unlimited fine.

The first duty of Government is to keep our people safe, to guard the homes of our friends and fellow citizens, and to discourage any from going down the path of radicalisation that destroys lives. Nothing matters more. It is a tremendous responsibility and one that we approach with the utmost seriousness. The fight against terrorism demands constant vigilance. When there is a clear need for action to support that vital mission, we will not hesitate. I therefore urge the House to support this proscription order. It is a proportionate response to the promotion and encouragement of terrorism. It is a justified response to calls for violence and disorder, and it is necessary to defend our values and to protect all the communities of our great country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I place on the record my support, and that of my party, for today’s measure. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) gave a lot of important international context, particularly in relation to recent events in the Red sea and in Yemen. I will spare the House a repetition of what he said. I simply place on the record the fact that I very much endorse his analysis of what is going on there, not least because it brings into sharp relief the role of the IRGC. As others have said, it seems as if the focus of our attention must now turn in the direction of the IRGC. If it is any consolation to the Minister, I think it has emerged from today’s debate that a consensus to proscribe the IRGC would be easily constructed.

Whether to proscribe Hizb ut-Tahrir is not a new debate; it has been going on for a considerable time. I think it was back in 2011 that David Anderson, the Government reviewer of terror legislation, advised against proscription on the basis that the group was not advocating violence. Clearly, we are in a different situation today, but I mention that because I feel slightly conflicted about the speed with which we have moved. We should be slow to ban any organisation because, as a society, it is not something we should do lightly. However, once the evidence is there, as it clearly has been for some time and as it has been in relation to the IRGC, then, as the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) said, that raises questions about whether our processes for making such decisions are adequate.

Obviously, it is important to take this step as part of our domestic legislation at the moment, because not to do so would send the worst possible signal to those in the Jewish communities who have felt so embattled since the events of 7 October. I hope they will take some comfort from the fact that action of this sort has been taken against those who have preached, and done more than preach, antisemitism.

However, there is a wider legislative context. As important as it is to proscribe organisations like Hizb ut-Tahrir, that is only part of a bigger plan. It seems that many of the other tools in that fight, such as the Prevent strategy, are not achieving the goals we need them to achieve. They are overdue for a proper root-and-branch review. Let us not forget that a spiral emerges here: we see the growth in antisemitism and antisemitic hate crime, but that in turn produces a growth in Islamophobia. So we do not proscribe Hizb ut-Tahrir in the interest only of Jewish communities, but in the interest of Muslim communities as well.

The tackling of extremism, of which that is just part, has to be at the heart of finding a long-term and sustainable way of approaching the issue. I encourage the Minister to speak again to his colleagues in the Home Office, in particular about the Prevent strategy. We know what we want it to achieve but, as we view it today, I have serious concerns about its ability to deliver what we need it to do.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 12th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I say sincerely that it is a genuine pleasure to follow the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland). He gave a characteristically thoughtful speech for Second Reading and, more interestingly, laid down several markers for future stages, should we get to that point. This is a most interesting and unusual Second Reading debate; we are seeing played out in front of us a tripartite discussion between one side of the Government, another side of the Government and the Treasury Bench. It is a remarkable spectacle to observe, albeit not a particularly seemly one.

I was struck by the reliance that the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) placed on the references made by the right hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox) to proceedings in relation to the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc. ) Act 2004. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman observed, that was where the concept of safe countries was introduced. The list of safe countries included all the EU countries except Croatia, plus Norway, Iceland and later Switzerland. It was another piece of legislation that restricted the access of rights to appeal for those whose asylum claims had been unsuccessful. There are perhaps lessons to be learned for us all in how that line of legislation has developed ever since.

The enduring lesson I take is not that that Act was introduced by a Labour Government—a Government that had David Blunkett as Home Secretary—but that the Bill was opposed, with some controversy at the time, by the then Conservative Opposition. They described it as “clumsy and draconian”. They were absolutely right about that and, many years later, we can see exactly where that sort of legislation has taken us. What is it about the Conservative party of 2023 that now finds that sort of legislation so attractive?

Let us not forget that we are dealing with the consequence of the refusal of this Government to prosecute the case for safe and legal routes. Why do we not find people from Ukraine or Hong Kong trying to cross the channel in small boats? It is because we offer them safe and legal routes. The Rwanda scheme is unworkable—we know that because it has never been made to work—and the barriers are well rehearsed, but every time they are thwarted, the response of this Government is to throw a foot-stamping tantrum. Anyone who ever had any doubt about the depth and scale of Tory self-entitlement can see it laid bare here today. The Bill is not about making the system work or providing an effective deterrent; it is simply about trying to bring together a disparate range of forces within their own party.

How many will Rwanda take over the five years of the agreement? The only reliable information about that comes from the Rwandans themselves: it will be a few hundred. What sort of deterrent effect will that have? Everything that we know about the Bill and the cost of the scheme comes not from the Home Office, but from the Rwandan Government. It is because of the information that they put into the public domain that we learned about the extra £100 million that the Government have submitted; they were never going to tell us.

The problems facing this policy are manifest and they are not going to be wished away. We should not forget, however, that even with those issues wiped away at a stroke, the Bill and the scheme would still represent a moral vacuum where our asylum system should be. It is wrong in the practicalities, but it is also wrong on the principle. It is a liberal value to take personal responsibility and to live up to one’s obligations. Passing on our asylum responsibilities to another country is the opposite of that value. It is a step back from the world and a move towards isolationism. It suggests that we have no responsibilities to the wider world.

Much like this Bill’s rewriting of reality to impose a judgment of safety to Rwanda, these plans would reverse decades of the UK’s leading the way on the international rule of law and rules-based order, of which we should be so proud. Many across the House, having boasted about global Britain, must now ask themselves whether they really want to turn us into fortress Britain. The Bill suggests a grim and illiberal mentality that is a far cry from the confidence that our country used to project, and that, Mr Deputy Speaker, is why we should reject it this evening.