Asylum Hotels: Migrant Criminal Activity
Debate between Diana Johnson and Edward Leigh(6 days, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
This is a real national crisis, and there is such an outcry and such outrage in the country that there is a real danger that people will take the law into their own hands, which we all deprecate. We have to solve this, and the only way to do so is to have a reasonable and proper deterrent. We must arrest the people who land on our shores, detain them and send them back to where they came from. The Human Rights Act 1998 was never intended to cover illegal immigrants of this sort. We have to do this for all our sakes; otherwise, people will wrongly take the law into their own hands.
Dame Diana Johnson
As I just said to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, peaceful protest is completely acceptable. We understand that there are different opinions on immigration in this country, and people should be allowed to voice those opinions. When that turns into violent disorder, as we have seen, it is not acceptable. I know that the police behave in a very professional way. They allow protests to take place, but they clearly have to keep the King’s peace as well. The Father of the House is correct to say that we need a functioning system, where applications are dealt with swiftly, people are not waiting for years for applications to be decided, and those who should not be in this country are removed.
Justice and Security Bill [Lords]
Debate between Diana Johnson and Edward Leigh(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Diana Johnson
My right hon. Friend makes that point very clearly. I will return to my argument, because I am conscious that other Members wish to speak about later proposals.
The Opposition are of course sympathetic to attempts to widen accountability and open the ISC as much as possible. In Committee, we supported a number of amendments to do just that. We tabled amendments so that we could consider whether an Opposition Member should always chair the Committee, as with the Public Accounts Committee, and whether there should be a majority of MPs—elected representatives—on the ISC.
Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
I have some experience of that point. I was Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee for nine years. The Chair of that Committee is the sole auditor of the accounts of the security services, so he sees in great detail all the accounts of the security services. He is not vetted by anybody, including the Prime Minister. He is elected by all Members of the House. Nobody has ever suggested that an elected or appointed Chair of the Public Accounts Committee is a threat to national security, so this is a fuss about nothing.
Diana Johnson
The hon. Gentleman speaks with great experience as the former Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. However, the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee deals with far more than just the finances of the security agencies, so it is not quite the same.