Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Debate between Diana Johnson and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 15th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. It will be obvious to the House that we have just over an hour left for the remainder of this debate. I hope that we do not have to have a time limit, but if speeches are about seven minutes or so, everyone will have an opportunity to make their points. Speeches so far have not been too long—they have been perfectly reasonable—but I would like to keep to around seven minutes each, please.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

We are now on the final stages of the legislative journey of the Rwanda scheme announced two years ago, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) said from the Front Bench. What we do know is that £370 million is already committed to the Rwanda scheme, no individuals have yet been sent to Rwanda, and the Rwandan Government reportedly want to pause the scheme after the first tranche of removals. The question of how this policy will meet the Government’s objective of deterring small boat crossings remains pertinent, especially because, as we have heard, a record number of individuals have made the dangerous channel crossing in the first three months of this year.

I will turn to each of the Lords amendments, but I also say to the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who is not in his place, that when I went along to the other place to hear the debate on the Bill, I was impressed by the debate and the points being raised. To say that the House of Lords needs to calm down a bit and that these are ridiculous amendments is doing a huge disservice to what the revising Chamber can provide for this part of Parliament. When the House of Lords thinks we have made mistakes and that things need to be looked at again, it gives us the opportunity to do that.

Lords amendment 1B is a modified version of the original Lords amendment 1. The original would have added a requirement to maintain full compliance with domestic and international law. Lords amendment 1B, which the other place has proposed in lieu, sets out a requirement to have

“due regard for domestic and international law.”

In moving Lords amendment 1B on 20 March, Lord Coaker said:

“We have put this forward because the Bill that your Lordships are discussing now explicitly disapplies aspects of domestic law and disapplies aspects of international law.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 March 2024; Vol. 837, c. 213.]

As I made plain in the previous debate on Lords amendments, if the Government are so confident that the Rwanda scheme will be fully compliant with domestic and international law, they should have no objection to this amendment.

Lords amendments 3B and 3C, which relate to treaty implementation and monitoring committees, are modified versions of the original Lords amendments 2 and 3 respectively. Lords amendment 3B, like the original Lords amendment 2, states that Rwanda

“will be a safe country when, and so long as, the arrangements provided for in the Rwanda Treaty have been fully implemented and for so long as they continue to be so.”

The wording has changed slightly. There is no longer a reference to the arrangements in the treaty being “adhered to in practice”, but the effect is the same. Lords amendment 3C, like the original Lords amendment 3, sets out what full implementation should look like and would give the independent monitoring committee a significant role. Unlike the original Lords amendment, there is no requirement on the Secretary of State to consult the monitoring committee every three months. Instead, Lords amendment 3C states that the treaty

“will cease to be treated as fully implemented if Parliament decides, on the advice of the Monitoring Committee, that the provisions of the treaty are no longer being adhered to in practice.”

In moving Lords amendment 3C, Lord Hope of Craighead said that it was an attempt to respond to a point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) in the Commons debate on 18 March. He said that

“my Amendment 3C in lieu does my best to make it clear that the authority lies with Parliament and not with the committee.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 March 2024; Vol. 837, c. 227.]

The Home Affairs Committee has argued that the House of Commons should be given an opportunity to debate the treaty prior to ratification, in the light of how critical its implementation is to the Rwanda policy. Given that this opportunity to scrutinise the treaty was denied, Lords amendment 3B would at least provide some reassurance to Members that its provisions will be implemented and applicable to anyone relocated to Rwanda. Lords amendment 3C would enable Parliament to review the treaty’s implementation and respond to facts on the ground if they change.

These Lords amendments speak to the practicalities of implementing the Rwanda policy and how, sadly, too often the Government have sought to skate over them. Take the airline issue. In order for this policy to function, the Government must be able to transport people to Rwanda, yet Ministers have still not confirmed that they have secured an airline, with Rwanda’s state-owned airline reportedly declining a request to use its planes. Then there is the issue of where migrants will live if they are sent to Rwanda. Recent reports suggest that the majority of homes on a new Rwandan housing estate initially earmarked for migrants relocated from the UK have been sold to local buyers. Those are not moot points; they are the kinds of practical details that will determine whether the scheme works, and works safely. In the absence of prior scrutiny of the treaty, the House of Commons must be allowed to assess its implementation and act on the findings.

Lords amendment 6B relates to legal challenge. It is a modified version of the original Lords amendment 6 and, like the original, it would delete clause 4 of the Bill, allowing much wider grounds for legal challenge. Like the original amendment, it states that a court or tribunal may prevent or delay the removal of a person to Rwanda, but unlike the original, it adds

“providing such prevention or delay is for no longer than strictly necessary for the fair and expeditious determination of the case.”

The Home Affairs Committee has always recognised that the opportunity for appropriate legal challenge is a necessary part of an effective and fair asylum system. That is why the amendment has significant merit.

Lords amendment 7B is a modified version of the original Lords amendment 7. The original amendment would have disapplied section 57 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 in its entirety, meaning that people claiming to be children could appeal against a decision that they are over 18. Lords amendment 7B instead would insert a new subsection into section 57 of the Illegal Migration Act. In moving Lords amendment 7B, Baroness Lister explained:

“This amendment in lieu is much more modest and in effect meets the Commons’ formal objection to the original amendment. It would permit an age-disputed child to be removed to Rwanda with a pending challenge on a limited basis, but only if a proper age assessment has first been carried out by a local authority.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 March 2024; Vol. 837, c. 252.]

During its channel crossings inquiry, the Home Affairs Committee heard examples of safeguarding processes failing across various parts of the asylum system, including cases of children being mistaken for adults. That is why I believe the Government must look again at this amendment.

Lords amendment 9 on modern slavery would add a new clause to the Bill to create an exception relating to the removal of victims of modern slavery and human trafficking. The new clause states:

“A person with a positive reasonable grounds decision from the National Referral Mechanism…must not be removed from the United Kingdom on the basis of the Rwanda Treaty until a conclusive grounds decision has been made.”

It also states:

“A person with a positive conclusive grounds decision…must not be removed…without a decision-maker considering whether such removal would negatively affect the physical health, mental health or safety of that person”.

The Government have proposed amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment 9. It requires the Secretary of State to publish an annual report about the operation of the Act

“as it relates to the modern slavery and human trafficking provisions in Article 13 of the Rwanda Treaty”.

The Home Affairs Committee’s recent report on human trafficking expresses our concern that the Government are prioritising irregular migration issues at the expense of tackling human trafficking. Human trafficking is not an immigration offence; it is an exploitation offence, and the two must not be conflated. Lords amendment 9 would provide a vital safeguard for victims of human trafficking, and I hope the Government will look at that.

Finally, Lords amendment 10B is a modified version of Lords amendment 10. Like the original amendment, it would provide an exemption for people who supported our armed forces overseas or who have otherwise been agents or allies of the UK overseas. Lords amendment 10B includes a new subsection, which states:

“A person seeking to rely upon the exemption…must give the Secretary of State notice as soon as reasonably practicable to allow prompt verification of available records”.

In moving Lords amendment 10B, Lord Browne of Ladyton said:

“we are told that men who braved death, courted injury and are forced into exile as a result of assisting our Armed Forces in fighting the Taliban are to be punished for arriving here by irregular routes—even where, owing to wrongful refusals on our part or possible malfeasance on the part of the Special Forces, they have been compelled to take these routes in the first place.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 March 2024; Vol. 837, c. 254.]

We know that families from Afghanistan who helped our armed forces and subsequently fled to Pakistan are at imminent risk of deportation back to Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. That is despite ministerial reassurances that a route for eligible separated Afghan families to come to the UK would be established.

Asylum and Migration

Debate between Diana Johnson and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Thursday 14th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson]

This has been an excellent debate at which members of the Home Affairs Committee have been well represented, including the deputy Chair, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), and the spokesperson for the SNP, the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), who is a very valued member of the Committee. The former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), has spoken, as has the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry).

The key theme that I want the Minister to take away, which almost every speaker referred to, is the lack of transparency from the Home Office. That is the issue that I want the Minister and his colleagues to address. Parliament is not a rubber stamp for whatever the Home Office wishes to do; it has to be accountable to the Home Affairs Committee and to Parliament more generally. I look forward to future meetings of the Committee where Ministers come equipped with all the information that is necessary for our Committee to carry out effective scrutiny on behalf of the House.

Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54).

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I am now required to put the Questions necessary—[Interruption.] The Clerks are wondering if it is 5 o’clock yet. It is not quite 5 o’clock, but by the time I say this it will be. I am now required to put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the estimates set down for consideration this day.

Angiolini Inquiry Report

Debate between Diana Johnson and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Thursday 29th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

I welcome today’s statement. I hope that we will get a full response to the report from the Home Secretary very quickly. May I also associate myself with the comments of the Home Secretary and other right hon. and hon. Members today? Our thoughts are with the family and friends of Sarah Everard.

I wish to ask the Home Secretary again about this issue of indecent exposure, which is highlighted in the report and which he has talked about a little. In my constituency, we had the horrific case of Libby Squire, who was raped and murdered by a man who had been stalking women and roaming the streets of Hull for 18 months prior to murdering her. He had been exposing himself and committing acts of voyeurism. People did not report his actions, because they did not think that the police would take them seriously. Libby’s mum, Lisa Squire, has been campaigning on this for the past few years. She has recently given evidence at a hearing of the Home Affairs Committee. I wondered whether the Home Secretary would meet her, because it would be interesting to know his view. What more can be done now to encourage people—women in particular—to come forward when such things happen to them? I would also say that almost every woman I know has had this happen to them at some stage in their life. This problem is endemic.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Diana Johnson and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Monday 27th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

The Home Affairs Committee has taken a particular interest in small-boat crossings. We produced a report last year that I suggest the new Home Secretary might want to look at. We have also visited France and Belgium this year. Owing to our interest and expertise in this area, will the Home Secretary consider giving the Home Affairs Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights the opportunity to carry out pre-legislative scrutiny of any emergency legislation that he plans to bring forward?

Points of Order

Debate between Diana Johnson and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Monday 17th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I say that it is very nice to see you back in the Chair?

On World Haemophilia Day, I am disappointed that there has been no statement from the Government in the light of Sir Brian Langstaff’s second interim report on the infected blood inquiry, which was published during the Easter recess with very clear recommendations for the Government on the urgent action required for compensation. As I know you are aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, 500 people have died since the inquiry was set up. Has Mr Speaker had any indication from the Government that they will make a statement to the House this week to set out their response to this landmark report from a public inquiry that they themselves set up in 2017?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her point of order and for notice of it. The whole House fully appreciates that this is an extremely important and very sad matter. She has raised it very effectively countless times in this Chamber, so I am not surprised by her point of order today. What is surprising is that I am able to give a straight answer to a point of order: I understand that the Government’s intention is to make an oral statement about the matter on Wednesday of this week. That is the information that I have, and I hope that it is accurate. If no such statement is forthcoming, I am sure that the right hon. Lady will waste no time in finding ways to pursue the very reasonable question that she has asked.

Points of Order

Debate between Diana Johnson and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Thursday 3rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On the front page of The Daily Telegraph yesterday, I was surprised but pleased to read that the Government intend to extend or make permanent the current legal approval that allows women to undergo early medical abortions at home. I was pleased because this is a welcome development based on strong clinical evidence and the opinion and experience of women who have needed access to abortion during the pandemic. I was surprised because I have not seen an announcement anywhere in the business of the House, a written ministerial statement or any promise of business in the coming weeks, and I am mindful of what Mr Speaker said about Government announcements being made first to the House. The current approval expires at the end of March, and the Government have had a year since they closed the consultation on the matter to place a decision before the House. Have you received notice of a statement on this topic, or will women have to rely on The Daily Telegraph for information about access to their essential health care?

Secondly, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you will indulge me, in business questions today I referenced the morning-after pill. I made a perfectly, as I understand it, orderly request for a debate on access to contraception. In response, the Leader of the House made a misinformed comment about abortion. The World Health Organisation states:

“Emergency contraceptive pills prevent pregnancy by preventing or delaying ovulation and they do not induce an abortion… Emergency contraception cannot interrupt an established pregnancy or harm a developing embryo.”

How can I ensure that the Leader of the House corrects the record, as I think that what he said is a harmful clinical falsehood that I am sure does not represent the Government’s policy?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the right hon. Lady. She has elided two points of order. Let me take her second point first. What a Minister says at the Dispatch Box is, of course, not a matter for the Chair, and I have no authority to correct the Minister. However, if a Minister has inadvertently given information that is not absolutely correct, the right hon. Lady will be aware of the many ways in which she can ask for that Minister to be required to come back and correct the record. Indeed, it is open to her simply to ask that Minister to correct the record. It appears to me that if there is a factual inaccuracy in the matter to which the right hon. Lady has just referred, it is rather important. It is a matter about which I would judge that anything that is said in this Chamber should be 100% correct, because it is not a matter on which we should allow people who would be affected by it to be misled. The facts ought to be straight and I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for bringing that matter to the House’s attention. I hope that Members on the Treasury Bench have noted what she has said and that the message will be passed on to the Leader of the House.

The right hon. Lady’s first point is much simpler. Mr Speaker has made it clear on many occasions—and I have echoed it many times—that announcements about significant matters of Government policy must be made first to this Chamber, so that the duly elected representatives of the people of this country, not the press, are the people who question the Minister. If the right hon. Lady would like to pursue that matter, I am quite sure that Mr Speaker will look favourably upon her request.

Point of Order

Debate between Diana Johnson and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Monday 15th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I speak further to my point of order on Tuesday 9 November, in which I sought assurances that the long-awaited integrated rail plan—the centrepiece of the Government’s so-called levelling-up agenda—would not be leaked to the media while the House was in recess. All or most of the contents of the integrated rail plan have now been reported in the press over the weekend. Yet again, before any statement to this House, there has been selective leaking to the media ahead of the plan’s launch, which Government sources say is not until Thursday. This is despite previous statements from Mr Speaker telling Ministers on numerous occasions—most recently over the recent Budget statement—to end this repeated and systematic abuse of the House.

The Department for Transport now says that it does “not comment on speculation”, but its advance briefings set the speculation running. What further action can Mr Speaker take to address the way in which the House has been treated, and is waiting until Thursday for the House to hear about the rail plan not just a charade now? Will the Secretary of State for Transport now be summoned to this House to make his statement on his wholly, or mostly, leaked rail plan without further delay and before Thursday?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her point of order and for giving Mr Speaker notice that she intended to make it.

I have to say, yet again—to repeat what Mr Speaker has said many, many times, and I venture to say too many times recently in the House—that it is a basic point of good constitutional form that announcements about Government policy should be made here in this Chamber to this House of Commons. When the Government have something of importance to announce, the people who should be asking the questions and holding the Government to account are the elected representatives of the people—you, Members of Parliament—not those in the television studios, the radio studios, Twitter or the newspapers. I have no hesitation in reiterating Mr Speaker’s often and very forcefully made point that Ministers who make announcements other than in this Chamber should consider very carefully whether they are adhering to the ministerial code.

I thank the right hon. Lady for bringing this matter to the House. As to her question about summoning the Secretary of State, she is well experienced in these matters, and I think she will know that if she consults the Clerks there will be ways in which she can endeavour to summon a Secretary of State here to this Chamber. I am sure that Mr Speaker will listen to her plea.

COP26

Debate between Diana Johnson and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Monday 15th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

In order to meet our commitments on net zero, the Humber energy estuary will play a vital role. So I am at a bit of a loss to understand why, in all the briefings over the weekend about the integrated rail review, we in the Humber will get nothing in terms of greener, faster connectivity. There will be no coast-to-coast Northern Powerhouse Rail, despite what the Prime Minister has promised in the past, and no benefit from HS2 to the east of Leeds. So, Prime Minister, I just wondered whether you could comment on the fact that the Humber is not getting much—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The right hon. Lady must not say, “So, Prime Minister”. She must ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can comment.

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I understand and I apologise.

Points of Order

Debate between Diana Johnson and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Thursday 25th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) [V]]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank Mr Speaker for granting me the opportunity to raise this point of order regarding the NHS contaminated blood scandal, the biggest treatment disaster in NHS history. The vast majority of Members of Parliament will have at least one constituent infected—or have had one constituent, because those infected die at an average of one every 96 hours.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that it took many years of cross-party campaigning before the NHS infected blood inquiry was announced in 2017. Alongside the public inquiry, the Government agreed to undertake a review of financial support available to those infected and affected, and to work on a compensation framework if later required by the inquiry’s findings.

Last week, Caroline Wheeler of The Sunday Times reported that Ministers planned to make a statement this week on financial support for infected blood victims. A written ministerial statement appeared this morning, on the last day before the Easter recess and, crucially, after the deadline to secure an urgent question today. This leaves no opportunity for Members’ questioning of a Minister in the House for at least two weeks.

The failure to make an oral ministerial statement in the House today, allowing Members to ask questions, may not be disorderly, but it is grossly insensitive to people who have suffered so much for so long at the hands of the state. I seek your advice on how we can get this issue discussed in the House at the very earliest opportunity.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the right hon. Lady for notice of her point of order. As she well knows, and as Mr Speaker has said many times, it is a matter for the Government whether they make a written or oral ministerial statement; the occupant of the Chair has no say in that matter.

The right hon. Lady asks the question always asked during points of order, but I appreciate that it is a way for her to bring to the attention of the House and those on the Treasury Bench her concerns about how this matter can be brought before the House. There are, of course, many ways in which the right hon. Lady can do that: she can seek an Adjournment debate; ask for an urgent question; go to the Backbench Business Committee; urge a Select Committee to have an inquiry; and write to Ministers. I think she knows about all those. I am quite sure that, given her experience and determination—for which she is renowned in this particular matter—she will find one of those ways of bringing this matter to the Floor of the House.

Remembrance, UK Armed Forces and Society

Debate between Diana Johnson and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Wednesday 11th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and a particular pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis).

I represent a seat in the city of Hull, which has a strong, proud and long association with our armed forces. We were also among the hardest hit during the blitz. But today I want to speak as a commissioner of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. I am very pleased indeed that the Minister, in his opening remarks, talked about the commission, which commemorates 1.7 million Commonwealth servicemen and women from the United Kingdom and all over the Commonwealth who died during the two world wars.

As hon. Members will know, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission was founded as the Imperial War Graves Commission by royal charter on 21 May 1917, and was renamed the Commonwealth War Graves Commission in March 1960. In March this year, the Duke of Kent celebrated 50 years of unstinting service as the commission’s president. I also pay tribute to our last director general, Victoria Wallace, who left the commission in the summer.

The commission cares for the graves and memorials at 23,000 locations in more than 150 countries and territories—on every continent except Antarctica. The commission also commemorates more than 68,000 civilians who died during the second world war, by maintaining and restoring sites such as the Tower Hill memorial. Funded by six partner Governments—the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and India—the Commonwealth War Graves Commission is the largest gardening organisation in the world, with a total workforce of 1,300. The vast majority—more than 850—are gardeners, who between them look after the equivalent of almost 1,000 football pitches.

Our war dead deserve the highest standards, and hon. Members will know the quality of the Portland stone graves and the monuments that the commission oversees, as well as the beautifully tended cemeteries, such as the largest commission cemetery in the world at Tyne Cot in Belgium, with almost 12,000 graves, 8,300 of which are classed as “unknown”. I encourage all hon. Members, in their own constituencies and when travelling around the country or the world, to take the opportunity to visit commission sites. Encouraging the public to visit these graves also supplements the efforts of the excellent commission staff and the trained volunteers from the commission’s Eyes On, Hands On project, helping to report on and countering the effects of weather, wear and tear and, sadly, sometimes vandalism.

One restoration project I want to mention is at Runnymede. It is the Air Forces memorial, where the commission’s new charitable arm, the Commonwealth War Graves Foundation, marked International Women’s Day by launching a new interactive way to explore the story of the remarkable Noor Inayat Khan, a British woman spy whose code name was “Madeleine”. She was the first female wireless operator to be sent to occupied France in the second world war to aid the French resistance.

The commission also maintains an extensive and accessible archive of all the Commonwealth war dead on its website, and in recent years the commission has opened a new award-winning visitor centre as its French HQ near Arras. However, for this 11 November—an Armistice Day like no other, as many have said—the commission is urging the public to join with it in paying tribute to the 1.7 million Commonwealth war dead through a unique act of remembrance. We encourage everyone to take a moment at 7 pm tonight to step outside, look at the stars and remember the fallen. In a few key locations, such as Plymouth, Cardiff and Edinburgh, searchlights will beam light into the night sky.

I want to salute the work of many other organisations, including the Royal British Legion and Help for Heroes, in remembering our war dead and supporting veterans from many conflicts. Can I take a moment to express eternal gratitude to the veterans of all our allies across the Commonwealth and beyond, who ensured that we did not stand alone for long, particularly in 1940? They sacrificed so much, as together we liberated Europe and the world from what Prime Minister Churchill described as sinking

“into the abyss of a new dark age”.—[Official Report, 18 June 1940; Vol. 362, c. 60.]

The United States, too, was shoulder to shoulder with us on those Normandy beaches and through the decades since—the years of the cold war and the more recent challenges of terrorism, especially since 9/11—and leading by the “power of our example”, as President-elect Biden said just this week.

To conclude, remembrance is both deeply embedded in our national consciousness and personal to all of us who had parents or grandparents in the greatest generation. We remember those who did not come back. We also remember those who did come back and helped to win the peace. I remember my dad, Eric Johnson, who joined the Navy, and my mum, Ruth, who worked in a munitions factory during world war two. In my experience, they rarely talked about what they did and what they went through as young men and women, and in enjoying peace, freedom and progress, we will always owe them everything.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

After the next speaker, the limit will be reduced to five minutes, but with six minutes, I call Colonel Bob Stewart.

Streatham Incident

Debate between Diana Johnson and Baroness Laing of Elderslie

Monday 3rd February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We have to have much shorter questions and answers. I appreciate that the Lord Chancellor is explaining complicated and important matters, but he has explained a lot of them, so we need short questions and short answers, otherwise most people will not have a chance at all. I call Dame Diana Johnson.

[Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)]

With No. 10 briefing on some of the terrible decisions that have been made in the past 15 years on counter-terrorism policy, does the Lord Chancellor believe that the introduction of the regime of terrorism prevention and investigation measures, which weakened the control order regime that had been in place, was one of those terrible decisions?