Oral Answers to Questions

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Monday 3rd July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

What I would say to the right hon. Gentleman is that we outlined just last week in laying the paper that we want to ensure that, when we announce the system next year, it will be a simple, clear system, probably making use of digital technology, so that the 3 million Europeans who are living and working here, contributing fantastically well to our culture and economy, are able to go through that process as swiftly as possible.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown) has highlighted, it is bizarre that the Prime Minister expects the EU to reciprocate an offer that falls short of the offer that the EU made on 12 June. Can the Minister confirm that the Prime Minister expects the EU to water down its offer? If so, how does he think that will reassure British nationals living abroad, never mind EU nationals living in the UK?

[Brandon Lewis]

I will say two things to the hon. and learned Lady. First, just last week, I met one of the Ministers from the Department for Exiting the European Union and representatives of British citizens living abroad to go through with them the position we have taken. Secondly, the Prime Minister is right to ensure that the people who are living in the UK who gain settled status have the same rights as a UK citizen. I do not think any UK citizen would expect any more or less from the British Government.

[Joanna Cherry]

The point is that the EU offer would give EU nationals living in the UK and British nationals living abroad more rights than the Prime Minister’s offer. One thing the Minister could do to reassure EU nationals living in the UK is to state that access to the national health service will be considered sufficient by the Home Office to fulfil the requirements for comprehensive sickness insurance. That was the cross-party recommendation of the Exiting the European Union Committee in the previous Parliament. What or who is stopping the Home Office from implementing that recommendation now?

[Brandon Lewis]

It is the EU that is stopping that, and if the hon. and learned Lady has a proper read through of our proposals, she will see that that is an issue we are looking forward to dealing with as we leave the European Union. It is right that we as the UK Government are saying that people have the same rights as UK citizens.

Health, Social Care and Security

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Wednesday 28th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

I rise to address matters arising from the Gracious Speech pertaining to security. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) will address health matters later.

I will speak to the Scottish National party’s amendment (h), which urges the Government to exempt Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service from VAT without further delay. In addition, the Scottish National party will support the Labour party’s amendment (i). The SNP has consistently opposed the Conservative party’s austerity agenda, and the manifesto on which we won the general election in Scotland indicated that, in these times, the pay cap is no longer sustainable and that we would look at it very closely. I am very happy to lend our support to the shadow Home Secretary. On police and fire service cuts, I am very happy to say that the Scottish Government have not imposed the cuts seen south of the border. I will come to that later.

I want to look in particular at the proposals for a counter-extremism commission; the proposals to review whether the police and security services have all the powers they need; and concerns that I and my party hold about the scope of the repeal Bill, particularly for justice and home affairs issues.

I also want to address the potential impact of Brexit on our security arrangements. The European Union enables European nations to come together not just for the common economic and social good, but to tackle crime and terrorism in the interests of all citizens across Europe. Last year Rob Wainwright, the current, British director of Europol, said that in the event of Britain leaving the European Union it would be very difficult to negotiate security pacts from outside the Europol bloc. He said that trying to do so would be a “damage limitation exercise”. We have yet to hear any detail about how the Government propose to address that problem. We need to look at it closely.

The Scottish National party has already welcomed the Prime Minister’s recent change in tone and rhetoric following the attack at Finsbury Park. We were very pleased to hear her equate all forms of extremism. We hope that that signals the beginning of a Government approach that will not single out any particular group in our community for counter-extremism or terrorism measures. We believe that measures to counter extremism are very important, but they must not be allowed to create division among our many diverse communities across the UK.

We continue to be very concerned that, despite the Government’s failed attempts to introduce a counter-extremism Bill in the previous Parliament, they have yet to offer any legally sustainable definition of extremism or British values. We are concerned, as I have said previously, that the new plan in the Gracious Speech to establish a commission to look at those matters risks bypassing parliamentary scrutiny and the need for legal certainty on the nebulous terms of “extremism” and “British values”. I was therefore pleased to hear the Home Secretary say in response to a question I asked last week that any commission recommendations will be fully scrutinised by this Parliament.

We have already heard about the Prevent strategy, which has been controversial, and concerns have repeatedly been raised about its implementation. May I respectfully suggest that the UK Government look at how we have implemented the Prevent strategy in Scotland as a model of how things might be improved? Although counter-terrorism is of course a reserved issue, the implementation of policies to counter extremism is the responsibility of the devolved institutions. In Scotland we have worked very hard to recognise that we have diverse communities and that they must all be allies in ensuring that all our citizens are safe. The delivery of Prevent in Scotland has benefited from positive relationships fostered with all communities in Scotland through years of regular engagement. We recognise that the way in which people are becoming radicalised is constantly evolving and changing. We must therefore remain vigilant and refresh our approach accordingly, but we must also continue to work with our communities, rather than against them, in making sure that terrorist messages will not resonate.

I now turn to the question of whether the police and security services have all the powers they need. The SNP believes that they do have sufficient powers at their disposal and that the real issue that the Government should be looking at is whether the police and security services have sufficient resources to fight terrorism. I am fortified in that view by the quote from Max Hill QC, the official reviewer of terrorism, that has already been referred to today:

“My view coming into the scrutiny which we are told the Prime Minister wants to conduct is that we do have the appropriate laws in place, and that essentially the police and security services, and those whose job it is to keep us safe, do have the powers at their disposal.”

It is already a crime to incite violence. People suspected of terrorist activity can be stopped and searched. People who aid terrorists are imprisoned and those convicted of plotting an attack can be locked up for life—so we have the powers.

During the passage of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 in the last Parliament the Scottish National party repeatedly urged the Government to concentrate resources on robust, targeted surveillance of suspects rather than subjecting the whole population to blanket, suspicionless surveillance. During the election campaign, and after the terrible terrorist atrocities in London and Manchester, the Prime Minister rightly faced difficult questions about the resources she is putting into targeted surveillance. She was Home Secretary for seven years and it is clear that her influence still holds sway at the Home Office—for example, in relation to the unrealistic and unobtainable immigration targets that continue to be set. The Prime Minister must face up to her responsibility for cuts to police budgets and police numbers in England, which have been dictated by her party’s narrow austerity agenda. That is why I am happy that the SNP will support Labour’s amendment.

It does not have to be this way. In Scotland, the Scottish Government have increased police numbers and in particular invested in increasing the number of trained police armed responders, while still balancing our budget. We have been able to do that despite the UK Government’s repeated refusal to remove the burden of VAT from Police Scotland. Police Scotland is the only territorial police authority in the UK unable to recover VAT. My Scottish Government colleagues and I have repeatedly raised this issue with the UK Government. I wrote to the Minister about the issue earlier this year. The SNP has tabled an amendment to the Loyal Address calling on the Government to rectify that anomaly, and today we again call on them to do so. They have recently rectified the anomaly for several other national bodies: it is now time to do it for Police Scotland.

Notwithstanding the Tory Government’s failure to rectify that anomaly, the contrast between Scotland and the UK in policing terms could not be starker: 20,000 police officers have been lost in England, but in Scotland we have maintained 1,000 more than the number we inherited when the SNP came into government in 2007. We have also taken steps to increase the number of police officers who are trained to carry firearms. In the days following the Manchester attack, Police Scotland was able to provide the heightened level of police cover, including armed policing, without having to call on the resources of the military.

We have also protected the police resource budget in Scotland, but in England the Home Office has cut the amount it spends on policing by 20% since 2011. It is time for the Conservatives to stop diverting attention from their under-resourcing of the police and emergency services and to follow the Scottish Government’s lead in giving them the resources they need.

I have already said that international co-operation is essential to keep Scotland and the rest of the UK safe from the threats of organised crime, cybercrime and terrorism. In this Parliament, SNP Members will call for continued co-operation across Europe and we will oppose any moves that would seek to use security co-operation as a bargaining chip in Brexit or trade negotiations with our European friends and neighbours. It is too important for that.

The Gracious Speech promised a new law on the protection of personal data, but we will not be able to continue to co-operate with our EU colleagues unless we abide by EU data protection and privacy protection law. In practice, there will be limits to how closely the UK and the EU27 can work together if the UK is no longer accountable or subject to the oversight and adjudication of supranational institutions, such as—most importantly—the European Court of Justice. We saw at the end of last year that the Court took a dim view of the provisions for data collection and retention in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, as many of us warned would happen when we considered the Act. If the UK does not comply with EU law on data sharing and privacy protection, our former partners will not be able to share information with us under the laws by which they are bound. That would be a disaster for security co-operation and for business, universities and research.

I am concerned that the Gracious Speech does not mention any specific legislation on the many changes to justice and home affairs, even though the Government have confirmed that the repeal Bill will include powers to allow for changes resulting from the negotiations to leave the EU. It is vital that Ministers and civil servants are not handed vast powers to change our legal landscape without proper parliamentary scrutiny, particularly in relation to security matters. Legislative consent motions must also be sought for justice and home affairs matters, and I am delighted that the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union and the Secretary of State for Scotland have all acknowledged that legislative consent will be sought for the repeal Bill.

Finally I turn briefly to the issue of human rights protections. During the election campaign, the Prime Minister spoke of ripping up human rights to fight terrorism. I suspect the attack on human rights was an attempt to distract from her own security failings and the impact of policing cuts in England. So I renew my request to the Home Secretary to confirm that nothing in the Human Rights Act or the European convention on human rights would prevent a robust approach to terrorism. Will she therefore confirm that there are no plans to “tear up” human rights to tackle terrorism? I would remind her that the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has said:

“Effective counter-terrorism measures and the protection of human rights are complementary and mutually reinforcing objectives which must be pursued together as part of States’ duty to protect individuals within their jurisdiction.”

Terrorism is a fundamental attack on our way of life and of course we must respond robustly and appropriately but it is at such times that human rights must be protected and cherished, not attacked and undermined. With the announcement by the CPS today on Hillsborough, we see the prospect of justice being achieved after many years as a result of the Human Rights Act guaranteeing a proper inquiry into that disaster. If we ripped up human rights, we would undermine the traditions that we all share across the House and play into the terrorists’ plans to undermine our democracy and the rule of law.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is good to follow the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), who always makes a thought-provoking speech. I join the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary in paying tribute to our police force and emergency services, who have dealt with so many difficult incidents in the past few weeks, and in expressing sympathy with the victims of both the terror attacks and the Grenfell fire.

The Queen’s Speech suggests that the Government are carrying on as if, in the words of the Prime Minister, “nothing has changed, nothing has changed.” In fact, very much has changed. The Prime Minister called the election wanting a landslide. Instead, she has a hung Parliament. That means that this hung Parliament has to work differently, and that the Queen’s Speech has to respond differently too. Many Members wish to speak in the debate today, so I will keep my remarks short and concentrate on two areas where the Government need to change course as a result of the hung Parliament delivered to us by the electorate: public services and the approach to the Brexit negotiations.

This week, the Government recognised the importance of investing more in public services in Northern Ireland. They have rightly supported additional investment in schools and hospitals in Belfast, but what about those in Birmingham, Bristol and many other parts of the country? I support the Democratic Unionist party’s request for more investment to stop school cuts in Portadown, but I want to stop the school cuts in Pontefract as well. The DUP is right to request more support for jobs in County Down but what about in Castleford and in other places across the rest of the country?

The Government cannot say to parents, patients and people who need the support of police officers right across the country that, as a result of this hung Parliament, they cannot have more support for their public services—that they will have to face further cuts to their public services, with teachers lost from our schools and services squeezed from our national health service—but those in Northern Ireland can have additional funding. They cannot say to Mark Rowley, Cressida Dick and the other police chiefs doing such a magnificent job in difficult circumstances despite being overstretched that the Government can somehow find £1 billion to support Northern Ireland and to support those in the Government keeping their own jobs, but they cannot provide the additional resources the police and emergency services need to support their jobs at this difficult time.

That is why the Government have to rethink. It would be easy to rethink the police cuts and to decide not to go ahead with the cuts to capital gains tax that the Chancellor has pledged. It would be easy to cancel those cuts and put the investment into additional police officers on our streets. It would be easy for the Government to recognise that if we care about recruitment and retention in our public services—in particular in our national health service, which in many parts of the country is struggling to recruit the nurses and doctors it needs—then continuing with the public sector pay cap will make it harder and harder for our NHS and all our public services to get the talented staff they need. In the end, that will cost all of us, including the Government, more in the long run.

The second area in which the Government need to change course is their approach to the Brexit negotiations. Britain voted for Brexit in the referendum and Parliament has voted to trigger article 50, but the Prime Minister did not win the free hand that she wanted for the Brexit negotiations. She asked for it, but voters said no. That means that the Government need to change their approach to the Brexit negotiations. If we are to get a deal that is not only the best for our country but is also sustainable—one that does not unravel in a year or two years’ time and does not end up undermined because there is so much disagreement, not just in this House but across the country—then there must be an effort to build a consensus around that deal as well, not just to get agreement in Europe but to build that consensus across Britain.

That is why I urge the Government not to keep pursuing the negotiations through a narrow cabal but instead to open up the process—to set up a cross-party commission to hold the Brexit negotiations or to find other ways to include more voices and more transparency, and to strengthen the powers of the Select Committee on Exiting the European Union, so that this House can properly have its say as well. I know that that means difficult ways of working and will be a challenge to those on both Front Benches, but they, and the whole House and the whole country, will benefit if we find a different way to do this.

[Joanna Cherry]

The right hon. Lady is making a powerful and persuasive speech as usual. I agree with what she has just said. Would she extend that to giving the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government a place and a say in the negotiations to leave the EU?

[Yvette Cooper]

I certainly think that the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government, and Northern Ireland too, need to be involved in this commission and this process, because it has got to work for the whole of the United Kingdom. I think that is possible, but only if all parts of the House and those on both Front Benches behave in a different way and recognise the responsibility that has been placed on us by the hung Parliament that we have been given. That means, too, that the great repeal Bill that the Government want to put forward can no longer be a Bill that simply accrues powers to the Government through Henry VIII powers, because in a hung Parliament the legislature simply cannot hand over huge power to the Executive. The legislature itself must be involved in those decisions, step by step along the way.

The right hon. Member for Mid Sussex was right when he said that the course before us is more complex than anything he or I can remember at any time. With a hung Parliament we will have to work differently, but that has to start with the Government. I urge them to start today by changing course on public services and, as the amendment before us asks, on public sector pay and supporting our public sector workers, but also by changing course in the approach to Brexit, in a way that can build consensus, not division. That ought to be the spirit of what the Prime Minister has said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Whitford]

That may come down to a matter of definition. Last year, this House had a Government who were trying to get rid of child poverty by simply putting a line through it with a pen and removing the title from the Social Mobility and Children Poverty Commission. They wanted to abandon the Child Poverty Act 2010 and the commitment to end child poverty, and to stop measuring income because—oh, let’s face it—the money within a family does not contribute to poverty.

[Joanna Cherry]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Dr Whitford]

I am sorry, but I am running out of time. We all have a responsibility to the children across the United Kingdom to invest in their future and not to allow them to be cast aside, or we will pay the price later. This needs to change now. That is how to change health and to protect NHS services.

Terror Attacks

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Thursday 22nd June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his comments. He is very experienced in the matter, having been Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee. He makes a good point and I will follow up his suggestion that we establish that Committee as soon as possible so that we can give the House the confidence of knowing that Members from both Chambers will look at the matter and provide assurance.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

I add the voice of the Scottish National party to those who condemn the terrible attacks, and extend our sincere condolences to the families and friends of the dead and our best wishes for a full recovery to those injured.

I welcome the Home Secretary back to her place and look forward to working with her on this and other important issues.

The Finsbury Park attack reminds us that terrorism is a threat to all communities in the United Kingdom and it is therefore important that measures to counter extremism never segregate or stigmatise communities.

I have three questions for the Home Secretary. First, I am concerned that, while commendable, the Government’s plans to establish a commission risk, without legislation, bypassing parliamentary scrutiny and the need for legal certainty about the definition of terms such as “extremism” and “British values”. How will she ensure that Parliament gets to scrutinise those matters?

Secondly, we in the SNP believe that to fight terrorism effectively we can use existing legislation, and that what really matters is that the police and security services have the necessary resources to act effectively under that legislation. Will the Home Secretary confirm that such resources will be made available in the future?

Thirdly, during the election campaign, the Prime Minister spoke of ripping up human rights to fight terrorism. Will the Home Secretary confirm that there is nothing in the Human Rights Act or the European convention on human rights to prevent us from taking a robust approach to terrorism? Will she therefore confirm that there are no plans to tear up human rights and that we can tackle terrorism and uphold the standards of this society without doing so?

[Amber Rudd]

I thank the hon. and learned Lady for her question and her kind welcome.

The recommendations that the commission on extremism makes will need to be brought before Parliament. I therefore expect full scrutiny of the recommendations when they are brought to Parliament to be taken forward.

I can confirm that we will always provide the resources necessary to keep our citizens safe. We have already announced substantial uplifts to the security services. There will be 1,900 new people joining the security services up until 2020, and an increased number of armed officers are being made available in the country.

I can also tell the hon. and learned Lady that later this year we will conduct a full-scale counter-terrorism exercise involving Police Scotland and forces from the north of England. We will always work with the Scottish Government and police to ensure that we keep all parts of the United Kingdom safe.

Criminal Finances Bill

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Wednesday 26th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Dumfries and Galloway (Richard Arkless) and for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) on contributing to putting some real teeth into this Bill. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway agree that the Government’s compromise amendment 34 on sharing beneficial ownership information is not really a compromise at all, and instead just a restatement of existing Government policy, with no mention of transparency or of developing countries? Does he also agree that this is a lost opportunity, in light of the Panama papers, to grasp the issue of corruption and work a bit harder to ensure real transparency in the OTs, so that we can stop the sucking away of money from developing countries?

[Richard Arkless]

I agree with my hon. and learned Friend, but the jurisdictional issue still comes into play. Although of course I agree completely with the thrust of her substantive argument that it would be sensible to compel the OTs to publish these registers, unless I can satisfy myself that this place has locus to do so, I would find it very difficult to support that suggestion. My view is that we will never fully rid the financial sector of financial criminality until we have a uniform publication of registers of beneficial ownership, and we must strive to achieve that.

Despite the cross-party co-operation, I was somewhat perturbed by the Labour Front-Bench Member saying that its position is clear on this matter. I do not agree; it has not been clear. In particular, an amendment was put before the House when the Bill was previously before it that would have compelled the Crown dependencies to publish their registers, but with nothing against the OTs. That should have been the other way around. Therefore, we could not support that amendment, but we would have been willing to support an amendment in relation to the OTs. That might well have been a missed opportunity.

Throughout the passage of this Bill we have sought to co-operate, and, more importantly, we have sought to widen the debate beyond the technicalities and the manifestations of financial criminality contained in the Bill. We think that the banking culture in the UK is a significant facilitator and indeed the root cause of financial criminality, and that we will never have the tools to eradicate it fully until we tackle that root cause. I do not think that that is a particularly controversial point. I can understand why the Minister was keen not to include the provision for a banking culture review in the Bill, although we would have done so, but I urge the Conservative Front-Bench team—or whoever is in government after the next election—to pursue this point. The banking culture that has developed over the last generation is the real facilitator of financial criminality and it must be reviewed and brought to task.

We have sought to widen the debate in relation to whistleblowing. Whistleblowers need genuine, material and proper protection. It is not easy for people working in large financial services organisations who see things to report to their boss that things are not as they ought to be. People who find themselves in that position should have the maximum protection from this place, to feel able to bring that information forward so that the regulators, the Government and all of us can react accordingly. That will be crucial in the future.

Therefore, while we accept and agree with what is in the Bill, I do not want the conversation to stop here. It should continue beyond this Bill, to examining how we can tighten things up further and deal with some of the underlying root causes of financial criminality, not just the manifestations and the vehicles to tackle it.

I conclude by saying that I am delighted that I will be fighting the general election in Dumfries and Galloway for the SNP. We will be giving it everything we have got, and hopefully sending this Prime Minister homewards to think again.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to.

Lords amendments 2 to 147 agreed to, with Commons financial privilege waived in respect of Lords amendments 11 and 33.

Oral Answers to Questions

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Monday 6th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

Which is why I would refer to this as a reciprocal arrangement, which we hope to complete in parallel with the EU.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

The Home Secretary talks about reciprocal arrangements, but when she gets round to reading the report from the Exiting the European Union Committee, she will see that representatives of UK citizens living abroad, to a man and woman, gave evidence to the Committee that they want the British Government to give a unilateral guarantee to EU citizens living here because they think that it will benefit British citizens abroad. Will she listen to the voices of UK citizens living abroad and give that unilateral guarantee?

[Amber Rudd]

There are more than 1 million UK citizens living in the European Union, and they are not all represented by the groups that gave evidence to the Brexit Committee. I care about every one of those UK citizens, and I repeat that it is incumbent on the Government to ensure that we protect their position as much as we protect that of EU citizens.

[Joanna Cherry]

Last week, the chief executive of the Scottish Chambers of Commerce pointed out that Scotland relies heavily on EU residents for the supply of labour. She said that business in Scotland wants a separate deal for immigration in Scotland. The Exiting the European Union Committee has said that the UK Government should respond fully and speedily to the Scottish Government’s proposals for a differential immigration policy for Scotland. Will the Home Secretary listen to the voice of business in Scotland and give a guarantee that that full and speedy response will be given without further delay?

[Amber Rudd]

The Scottish Government already play a full role in the negotiations and planning for the EU exit, and I am sure that that will continue over the next few months.

Unaccompanied Child Refugees

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

My hon. Friend has substantial experience in this area having worked so hard on the issue of human trafficking. I note his point about this being a dilemma. It is not always clear what the right strategy is, but I ask Opposition Members to recognise that we are a taking a different approach. It is honest and compassionate—they do not have a monopoly on that—and we can deliver the best. I urge them to support us in that aim.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

I am struggling to understand exactly what the Home Secretary is telling us. She says that the scheme is not closed, but she seems to have specified a number of 350, so that must mean that the scheme is closing once the 350 children get here. Will she clarify that? If that is the case, does she appreciate that that goes completely against the spirit of what was discussed in this House? I understand the “pull” argument, but thousands of children are already in Europe and many of them are unaccompanied and vulnerable.

Lord Alfred Dubs described what was done yesterday as “shabby” and deceitful. It seems that the Government tried to sneak out what they knew would be an unpopular announcement when they were busy avoiding scrutiny of the Brexit deal in this House. Is that the shape of things to come? Is that what comes from cosying up to President Trump?

[Amber Rudd]

I expected better from the hon. and learned Lady. Clearly, she did not listen to my point that taking this view is in the interests of the children we are helping. Instead, she is casting aspersions. There has been no attempt to hide anything. If there had been, today might have been the day to put out the written ministerial statement, not yesterday, because here I am to answer the urgent question—I am delighted to do so—and to provide clarity on any misunderstanding.

As for the hon. and learned Lady’s first comment about the number, the scheme is still open because we expect to transfer another 150 children. We have Home Office representatives in Greece and Italy to ensure that we can do that. In accordance with what the regulations set out, we had to put a number on it after consulting local authorities, and that is what we have done.

Oral Answers to Questions

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

May I remind the Home Secretary that it was the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) who said during the EU referendum campaign that migration should be devolved to Scotland? A starting point might be to allow EU nationals residing in Scotland to stay. Last week, the Select Committee on Exiting the European Union heard evidence from witnesses representing EU nationals living in the UK and witnesses representing British citizens living elsewhere in the European Union. Every single one of them said that it is their desire for the British Government to make a unilateral declaration of the continued rights of EU citizens in the UK. Will the Home Secretary now persuade the Prime Minister to do that?

[Amber Rudd]

I remind the hon. and learned Lady that nothing has changed: we are still in the European Union, and those citizens still have the same rights. In terms of their ongoing rights, the Prime Minister was very clear last week when she made her speech: she said it was going to be an early priority to give them the security they seek. I would urge all colleagues here to reassure their constituents that that is our intention, and we need to make sure that it is reciprocal for UK citizens as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend highlights a really important point. Following the Policing and Crime Bill, emergency services will have the opportunity—in fact, a duty—to collaborate. Bringing together police and fire services provides huge opportunities for rewards in terms of savings by working together more collaboratively to deliver for the frontline. He is right that Northamptonshire has been a leading light in this over the past few years.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

The Scottish Police Authority is the only territorial police authority in the United Kingdom that is unable to recover the VAT it pays. That has cost the Scottish public purse £75 million since 2013, and it has consequences for investment and resourcing. The First Minister and the Finance Secretary raised that with the Chancellor earlier this month. What discussions has the Minister had with the Chancellor about this very important issue?

[Brandon Lewis]

In terms of the work we are doing around police funding, I have regular conversations with the Chief Secretary and the Treasury more generally. I am happy to feed back to the hon. and learned Lady more detail on this issue once we have had our next round of conversations.

Leaving the EU: Security, Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

rose—

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lyn Brown]

I have confidence that the European arrest warrant is far more powerful than any other extradition process anywhere in the world, and we would be stupid if we let it go.

Since the European arrest warrant was introduced in 2004, the UK has used it to bring 2,500 individuals from outside the UK to face justice. Let us not forget that it was the mechanism that ensured that Hussain Osman was brought to justice after he fled to Italy after a failed suicide bombing in London in 2005. The problem that we face is that the European arrest warrant is available exclusively to EU members. We will have to overcome considerable hurdles if we are to maintain the current arrangements and we are not in the European Union. In fact, as a recent briefing from the Centre for European Reform think-tank states, if, having left the EU, the UK wanted to get a similar deal,

“it would need to convince its partners to change their constitutions. In some cases, this would trigger a referendum.”

Do we really think that countries would hold such a referendum because we have decided to leave the EU?

Some countries outside the European Union have attempted to negotiate access to the common arrest warrant system. Norway and Iceland, for example, have concluded a surrender agreement with the EU that represents an attempt to get the same benefits, although it has not yet come into force. That agreement is weaker in two ways. First, it requires the alleged offences to be the same in both countries, thus losing the flexibility that comes from the agreement of member states to respect the decisions of each other’s criminal justice systems. Secondly, it allows countries to refuse to surrender their own nationals, which would make things tricky if a national of an EU country were to commit an offence on UK soil, for example.

On top of that—as if that were not bad enough—the agreement took 15 years to negotiate, and that was for countries in both Schengen and the European economic area, but as the Prime Minister made clear yesterday, there are no plans for us to be members of either. The alternative is that we fall back on previous extradition treaties that are far more cumbersome and will, in some cases, require EU countries to change their own laws in respect of the UK.

It is hard to see how any of those options are preferable to the current arrangements. I find it particularly hard to understand how this fits with the Prime Minister’s pledge yesterday to “work together more” in response to threats to our common security. While it is not difficult for an individual who has broken the law in Britain to hop on a cheap flight to another European country, I fear that it will be very hard indeed, without the European arrest warrant, for us to get them back again. For that reason, Labour calls on the Government to ensure that the current arrangements are maintained.

I turn to our second concern. This House approved regulations confirming our opt-in to Europol only a few weeks ago, and we did that because it is vital to our national security. Europol—the European Police Office, to give it its proper title—exists to combat serious international organised crime by means of co-operation between the relevant authorities of member states, including those tasked with customs, immigration services, borders and financial policing. As we know, Europol is not able to mandate national forces to undertake investigations, but it provides information and resources that enable national investigations to take place.

In the words of the British director of Europol, Rob Wainwright, whose previous career was in UK security institutions, our decision to opt into Europol is:

“Good for Britain’s security, great for police cooperation in Europe.”

Indeed, the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service confirmed on 12 December during a debate in a European Committee that Europol provides

“a vital tool in helping UK law enforcement agencies to co-ordinate investigations involving cross-border serious and organised crime”.

He also said:

“About 40% of everything that Europol does is linked to work that is either provided or requested by the United Kingdom.”—[Official Report, European Committee B, 12 December 2016; c. 5-7.]

However, when pushed about whether we can maintain our membership of Europol, the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, speaking in this House last year, was able to say only that the Government will seek to:

“preserve the relationship with the European Union on security matters as best we can.”—[Official Report, 5 September 2016; Vol. 614, c. 45.]

When my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) asked him the same question about Europol yesterday, we got no more information about how that could be done.

[Joanna Cherry]

Is the hon. Lady aware that Rob Wainwright said last year that negotiating security pacts from outside the bloc of Europol, in the event of Britain leaving the EU, would be a “damage-limitation exercise”? Does she agree that what we need to hear from the Government is not a eulogy about how great Europol is—we all know that already—but an indication of how they are going to limit the damage caused by leaving the European Union and agencies such as Europol?

[Lyn Brown]

The hon. and learned Lady is absolutely right. I agree with her that this simply is not good enough.

Although Europol has arrangements for third-party access, they raise serious questions. The Government stated in a policy paper that was published last year:

“There are a number of important differences between what Europol provides to third country operational cooperation partners with which it has agreements, and EU members”.

In particular, they highlighted the inability directly to submit data and conduct searches within the Europol databases, the need to conclude a separate bilateral arrangement to connect to Europol’s secure information exchange network application, and the inability to sit on Europol’s management board, which sets the organisation’s strategy. That tells us that Mr Wainwright is highly unlikely to stay in his post. In summary, to borrow the words of David Armond, deputy director general of the National Crime Agency, any alternative arrangement to full membership would be

“sub-optimal, not as good as what we’ve currently got”.

Frankly, that does not feel comfortable to me.

Our third concern is about access to pan-European databases, which are important for the routine work of our police forces. Let me give some examples. Access to European criminal records data—the European criminal records information system—is limited exclusively to EU member states. The common European asylum system includes a fingerprint database known as Eurodac that prevents individuals from reapplying for asylum once a claim has been rejected. We currently have access to the Schengen information system, despite not being a member of Schengen, and that contains information on lost identity documents and, importantly, wanted persons.

The Minister’s permanent secretary stated in his foreword to the Home Office’s most recent annual report that strengthening data exchanges with our European allies was essential to combating terrorism. I would be grateful to the Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union, if he confirmed whether we will still have access to these databases outside the European Union and, if so, whether that access will come at a financial cost.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure and an honour to follow the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames). I am sure we could find much on which we disagree, but his experience and erudition in these matters shines through. I also compliment the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) on her very fine speech. There was much in it that we agree about.

This debate takes place against the background of the Prime Minister’s speech yesterday, which of course was made not to this House but to an invited audience. Although we had an opportunity to question the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union yesterday, this House has yet to debate the plan for leaving the European Union. It is of the utmost importance that we are debating today the implications of Brexit for security, law enforcement and criminal justice, but it is even more important that we are soon allowed to debate the overall plan for Brexit, which was finally laid before us yesterday.

Scotland did not vote for the direction of travel set out in the Prime Minister’s speech yesterday. We do not believe that that is in our national interest. We believe that decisions in relation to the European Union are being driven not by the rational best interests of the whole of the UK, but by the obsessions of the hard right of the Tory party. We strongly believe that the best way to build a prosperous, equal, safe and secure UK is to be a full member of the EU, or, failing that, to be a member of the single market and to co-operate widely on such matters as security, law enforcement and criminal justice. That is why the Scottish Government put a plan to the whole UK before Christmas suggesting a compromise whereby the whole UK might stay in the single market and continue to co-operate on matters such as those under discussion today. It seems clear from what the Prime Minister said yesterday that she is not interested in that option, so our fall-back position is to ask the British Government to consider allowing Scotland to stay in the single market and to continue to co-operate on those matters.

The UK Government should not try to lull people into a false sense of security in thinking that continued co-operation on these matters will be easy in the event of a hard Brexit. That is not just my opinion; it was the opinion of the House of Lords European Union Committee, which published a report on Brexit and the future of UK-EU security and police co-operation. It noted that the

“UK and the EU-27 share a strong mutual interest in sustaining police and security cooperation after”

Brexit, but warned against that understanding of “mutual self-interest” leading

“to a false sense of optimism about how the negotiations”

in this area might proceed. That raises questions already alluded to about the extent to which the UK could continue to benefit from the same level of co-operation outside the EU. It has already been pointed out in relation to Europol that associate members do not have access to the same data sharing information.

Data sharing is central to this debate. In practice, there will be limits to how closely the UK and the EU27 can work together if we in the UK are no longer accountable or subject to the oversight and adjudication of the same supranational EU institutions, including—and perhaps most importantly—the EU Court of Justice. We saw just before Christmas that the Court of Justice took rather a dim view of the provisions for data collection and retention in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, as many of us warned would occur when the Act was going through the House. If the UK does not comply with EU law on data sharing and privacy protection, our former partners will not be able to share information with us under the laws by which they are bound.

This is not just about the protection of civil liberties; it is crucial to security and law enforcement. Much is made in the general debate about leaving the EU of the opportunities for the UK beyond Europe. It is sometimes suggested that we should focus more on our security arrangements with, perhaps, the “Five Eyes” countries, including the United States, and it is true that some countries, such as the USA, have set precedents for bilateral agreements on the transfer of data, but those do not offer the quick fix that some suggest. Those agreements have taken many years to negotiate and, in some cases, are not enforced. Why withdraw from a system we have so painstakingly contributed to for years, in order to seek something else that is far from guaranteed? As a matter of security, we cannot afford an operational break in our access to EU cross-border tools, because they are part of the day-to-day work of the police force. We have only to look at the figures and stats produced by the Home Office and the Scottish Government to see how important Europol and the European arrest warrant are.

It is sometimes also suggested that our partnerships with other countries, such as our “Five Eyes” partners, will somehow replace or supersede what we have in place with the EU, but that will not work either, because the “Five Eyes” partnership, important though it is, does not cover all aspects of our security. For example, it does not cover all aspects of day-to-day policing. In fact, the National Crime Agency has said that one concern for it and its “Five Eyes” partners is the impact that the absence of the UK from Europol will have on the other “Five Eyes” countries’ relationships, because they often use the UK as a proxy for getting work done at Europol when the UK is working with it. Such difficulties are the reality of the situation, and it is not just the SNP or the Labour party highlighting them; as we have heard, they have been highlighted by the NCA, Rob Wainwright and the House of Lords Select Committee that has looked into these matters in some detail.

The need to meet EU data protection standards so that we can exchange data for law enforcement purposes means that if the UK leaves the EU, the UK will need to subject itself to data protection laws that it will have no role in shaping. Is that what Government Members really want? I realise that they have concerns about how laws are made in the EU, and it is pretty obvious that they do not like the Court of Justice very much, but if we, as a Union of nations, want to continue to operate with our EU partners on security and law enforcement, data sharing will be key. As I said, we will have to subject ourselves to data sharing rules made by the other 27 member states into which we will have no input. If we insist on going our separate way, as we have done with the Investigatory Powers Act, and going beyond what EU law sanctions, the other 27 member states will not want to share information with us, because, as I said earlier, it would breach their own laws on data sharing and data protection.

Those are very real concerns. As I said in my intervention on the hon. Member for West Ham, we heard a very good speech from the Minister earlier about the advantages to the UK of Europol and other EU institutions, but we did not hear how he proposes to preserve those advantages in the event of the hard Brexit we heard about in some detail for the first time yesterday. We need to hear this afternoon not the UK Government’s wish list but the mechanics of how they intend to continue the level of security protection and law enforcement information sharing that we currently enjoy with the other 27 member states, if they are intent on the task the Prime Minister set out yesterday. We have heard nothing so far, except that they want a bespoke deal. We shall wait with bated breath to hear more about that when the Minister sums up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Neill]

It is certainly clear from the available evidence that the Government will need to take that necessity on board. We will have adhere to European standards of data protection for other member states to be able to share the information with us, according to their law. We may also want to share information with other third-party countries, so both we and they will have to be prepared to adhere to international standards. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) rightly said, that might involve some form of international adjudicative process to deal with disputes between member states. I am not going to tie anyone down on how best to solve that, but there are serious issues that we will have to bear in mind from day one of our negotiations.

Equally, when we talk about involvement with some of the other agencies—we referred to ECRIS, the European criminal records information system, to Prüm and to a number of other valuable tools—we need to recognise that there is a financial cost to the development of the databases. I would certainly encourage the Government not to be afraid to continue to make a financial contribution to the development and maintenance of them. That would be a small price to pay in view of the advantage of protection for the British public. I think there is common ground on the objective of the European arrest warrant. I just wanted to raise some of the practical issues that we will have to grasp if we are to succeed in achieving our continued full access to it as a non-EU member state.

I want to refer to other matters of concern—co-operation between the courts, which involves our continued membership or association with Eurojust. There is a precedent for non-member states continuing to co-operate with Eurojust. Norway has a co-operation agreement and has liaison prosecutors based at Eurojust. If we leave the EU as it stands, we would have to move from being national college members, but we could have a Norwegian-style status. Perhaps we should be bold and try to argue that we should remain as national college members on some sort of basis if the constitution permits it. That would be preferable.

[Joanna Cherry]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about Norway, but is he aware that the Prime Minister, in her former role as Home Secretary, was very disparaging about the abilities of Norway and Switzerland, outside the EU bloc, because they do not have access to all the tools and have to come under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, without having the same input into the law-making process?

[Robert Neill]

Prior to the referendum, neither the hon. and learned Lady, the Prime Minister nor I would have wished to be in the conundrum in which we now find ourselves. However, I accept the verdict of the British people, so we must find a practical means of achieving the objective that we want. It would be better to find something that is beyond Norway. That is why I have suggested starting as a negotiating point with the idea that we should be national college members rather than associates of Eurojust. If we are ambitious, we lose nothing from pressing for that from the beginning.

In April last year, the Prime Minister as Home Secretary referred to the whole of the European criminal record system—financial intelligence units, the prisoner transfer unit, Schengen Information System II, joint investigation teams and Prüm—in the context of seeing them as practical measures that promote effective co-operation between different European law enforcement organisations. If we are not part of them, Britain will be less safe. As Francis FitzGibbon, the chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, told the Select Committee, that would be a pretty good starting point for bringing this whole area to greater prominence, and a pretty good starting point, I would suggest to the Minister, for our negotiation objectives. Witnesses to the Justice Committee repeatedly said that this is part of a mutually reinforcing system of justice co-operation.

We may concentrate on the arrest warrant, but the information exchanges, the ability to enforce court judgments and the ability, for example, to seek a European information order to obtain evidence from abroad are all part of the same process. That is why it is critical for us to set our objectives at the highest possible level when it comes to seeking our continued engagement with these matters.

This is an important debate because it concerns an immensely important topic. Those of us who now want to move on constructively from what, according to any view, has been a bruising experience for this country will want to do so on the basis of an ambition to protect the country, while also recognising that both our judicial system and our police force are immensely highly regarded, not just in Europe but internationally. We have something to bring to the table as well. I hope that the Minister will take those points on board in a bold and ambitious negotiation, and I wish him and his colleagues well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

As the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) observed, one of the disadvantages of taking part so late in a debate is that many of the things that I might have wanted to say have already been covered. The other disadvantage, of course, is that there are fewer people left to hear me.

I principally want to make the case for differential arrangements in Scotland in a post-Brexit world. The areas that we are discussing exemplify why that ought to be the case. Policing and law enforcement in Scotland have long been quite separate from that in England and Wales in their structure, administration, budget and legislative framework. The police’s mandate from the criminal justice system predates devolution. Devolution and the establishment of the Scottish Parliament transferred legislative responsibility to a Parliament elected in Scotland, but that process did not set up a separate arrangement for policing and did not establish a separate criminal justice system. No one has suggested that those matters should change post-Brexit, but I hope the Minister will acknowledge that position, and discuss how the arrangements will be different in Scotland and what processes need to happen to make that a reality.

I also want to talk about the general political context in which this debate takes place, as well as some of the criteria that inform public opinion and political dialogue in Scotland. Members of this House, including those who do not represent Scotland, will know only too well that the politics of Scotland is largely influenced by the legacy of the 2014 independence referendum. I do not want to go into that in any detail, but two aspects of that discussion, which ended in September 2014, are relevant to today’s debate.

The first of those relates to the relationship that people in Scotland were to have with the European Union. We were told during that debate not only that the prospectus for an independent Scotland was a bad one, because Scotland’s position within the EU could not be guaranteed, but that if people in Scotland wished to retain their European passports, the best way to do so was to vote to stay within the United Kingdom. Only that, we were told, would guarantee that people would be able to maintain their existing relationship with other European nations. The second thing that was said was about the concept of respect. We were told that if people voted to renew the Union between Scotland, and England, Wales and Northern Ireland, that would be a matter not of opinions and views being subsumed into a much larger neighbour, but of a partnership in which the views of the people of Scotland would be respected and treated equally, albeit in an asymmetric power relationship.

What has just happened with Brexit severely tests both those propositions and the assurances given in that debate. We have yet to see what type of United Kingdom emerges in a post-Brexit world, but clearly many fear a dystopian future in which this country turns its back on the rest of the world, and becomes insular, isolated and riven by sectarian and ethnic division. That may not come to pass—I very much hope that it does not—but clearly the United Kingdom of the future is going to be manifestly different from the one on the ballot paper on 18 September 2014.

The other thing to say is about respect, which is another notion that will be sorely tested. Public opinion, as expressed on 23 June 2016, on the matter of relationships with other European nations is manifestly and palpably different in Scotland from that in England and Wales. That presents all of us with something of a dilemma. Given the muted tones and more thoughtful nature of today’s debate compared with some of the exchanges in recent weeks’ Brexit debates, I hope that we might be able to confront these paradoxes and decide that together we should try to do something positive about them.

That was what the Scottish Government attempted to do in “Scotland’s Place in Europe”, the paper that they published before Christmas. I commend it to any Member who has not read it as it sets out a prospectus for a differential relationship that Scotland would have in a post-Brexit world. It suggests that Scotland should be given the authority and competence to be an associate member of the European economic area, because attitudes in Scotland are different from those in England and Wales, particularly on the freedom of movement of people across borders.

I want to make it absolutely clear—I encourage people to recognise this—that the Scottish Government’s document and the position that they are now campaigning for are not seeking to say that Scotland should be an independent country, or that any part of the UK should remain part of the EU. In that sense, they respect both the 2014 decision and the 2016 decision. They try to square the circle with regard to how opinion north of the border is manifestly different from that in the south. I therefore commend the document to Members; we should explore it.

[Joanna Cherry]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that polling released this afternoon shows widespread support in Scotland for the Scottish Government’s plan to stay in the single market? Indeed, in the early days after the EU referendum, both the Secretary of State for Scotland and Ruth Davidson, the leader of the Conservative and Unionist party in Scotland, were demanding that Scotland should remain part of the single market.

[Tommy Sheppard]

Indeed. Members will think that we prepared that exchange, but we did not. It is worth quoting the Secretary of State for Scotland, who said in June last year, just after the Brexit vote:

“My role is to ensure Scotland gets the best possible deal and that deal involves clearly being part of the single market.”

Those are not my words, but the words of the Conservative Secretary of State for Scotland. Of course, he might have changed his mind in the months since then.

The Scottish Government’s document suggests that there are three levels of legislation that should be looked at when considering how we manage Brexit within these islands. I hope that no one would suggest that a constitutional decision of such magnitude as to withdraw this country from its main international association can be done without having any effect on the constitutional arrangements within the county—it is obvious that that will be the case. There will have to be, either as part of the great repeal Bill or in a Scottish Bill, some provision to give new powers to the Scottish Parliament.

The Scottish Government believe that those powers fall into three areas. First, there are some areas in which the Scottish Government already have competence that are going to be repatriated straight from Brussels. We should make sure that they go straight to Holyrood without stopping at Westminster on the way. Secondly, there are areas of additional legislative competence that should be given to the Scottish Government when they are devolved from Brussels, particularly in the field of employment legislation and, indeed, some immigration matters. Thirdly, if we can persuade the United Kingdom Government to consent to and support the idea of arrangements in Scotland being different, but still consistent with leaving the EU, we will need a legislative competence Bill that allows the Scottish Government to form future relationships.

The matters we are discussing in this debate very much fall into the first category I described, albeit perhaps with the exception of security. Criminal justice and law enforcement are areas in which the Scottish Government already have competence, so the repatriation of powers should see that competence expanded.

Will the Minister tell us what dialogue is taking place between Ministers of the Crown here at Westminster and their Scottish counterparts about how the arrangements I have referred to should be made? They will involve matters of great detail that require great expertise, so it would seem rather ridiculous simply to say that this is all a matter for the Department for Exiting the European Union. We need to explore in some detail criminal justice and law enforcement, and how the relationship for the special aspects of Police Scotland in terms of the security system will work following Brexit. That should not be left to the Brexit Department; it should properly be a matter for the Home Department. When he responds, I hope the Minister will set out not only that the Government intend to have that dialogue, but suggestions about how it might take place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

As my hon. Friend pointed out, there is clearly now a change in the staffing of COREPER so far as the UK is concerned. As we move closer towards Brexit, and particularly after we trigger article 50, it is inevitable that that position will develop and change.

There were a number of points made by hon. Members during the debate and in the short time available to me I would like to comment on as many of them as possible. The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) asked what guarantees can be given that security and law enforcement will not be compromised as a consequence of our departure from the EU. Of course, we have not even started the process of negotiation. We have not yet even triggered article 50. We are leaving the EU, but, as I previously indicated, co-operation on law enforcement and security with our European and global allies will remain a priority for the Government. The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have both spoken with several EU partners who have been clear about their wish to maintain strong co-operation with the United Kingdom. That is a good basis for starting the negotiation, but clearly this is very early days.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) made an excellent speech. He referred approvingly to the Prime Minister’s speech and made it clear that it is important the United Kingdom continues to be a close friend of the continuing EU. That is certainly the spirit in which the Government intend to approach the negotiations.

The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West and a number of other Members raised the issue of data protection in the continuing EU, and the extent to which the continuing EU would wish to, or be able to, share data with the UK. I would point out that on the day of departure, the UK’s data protection arrangements will be in perfect alignment with those of the continuing EU.

[Joanna Cherry]

rose—

[Mr Jones]

Forgive me, but I have very little time.

Again, that will be a good basis for continuing the negotiations.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), the Chairman of the Justice Committee, raised the European arrest warrant. He said that the United Kingdom should seek to remain within the arrangements of the warrant and that we should seek to be pragmatic in the negotiations. That is certainly the case so far as the United Kingdom Government are concerned. We look for similar pragmatism from our continuing EU colleagues.

The hon. Member for West Ham, my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Ben Howlett), the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq), the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the hon. Members for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) and for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) and the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) asked what access we would have to Europol. Again, we are clearly at a very early stage in the negotiations, and they will obviously take time to progress, but the Prime Minister has stated that law enforcement co-operation will continue once the UK has left the EU. We are exploring options for co-operation arrangements with Europol once the UK has left the EU. But I repeat that these are very early days.

Immigration Rules (International Students)

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Mr Goodwill]

I am not aware of any Scottish universities that are not operating within the rules, but the four chosen for the pilot were those with the best performance in terms of their visa refusal rates. Indeed, the whole point of the pilot is to find out the benefits and advantages so that it can be rolled out more generally. I know that a number of Scottish universities, such as the University of Glasgow, which has increased its overseas non-EU student numbers by 32% between 2012 and 2015, are just the sorts of institutions that have shown how successful they can be in attracting overseas students.

As part of this pilot, certain visa eligibility checks have been delegated to the universities, and the documentary requirements for students taking part are reduced. The students also have additional leave at the end of their course to enable them to take advantage of the UK’s current post-study work offer. Monitoring of the pilot is ongoing, and the results of that will be evaluated to inform any decision to roll the pilot out more widely. But, if it is a success, I hope that other high-quality institutions throughout the UK will be able to benefit, including those—I am sure the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East will be glad to hear—in Scotland, and, I hope, also in Yorkshire.

Any change for the best-performing institutions will build upon the excellent offer that the United Kingdom already has for international students, with the intention of allowing the UK to remain the second most popular destination in the world for international higher education students, behind only the United States of America. Our approach to reform continues to strive towards two key goals: first, to ensure that our fantastic institutions can attract the very best and brightest students from around the world, and secondly, to protect the student migration route from abuse. I am sure that hon. Members here today can agree that this is a sound foundation on which to build.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

Before the Minister moves on to his next chapter, I would like to go back to the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) about the possibility of attaching the condition that students could work only in Scotland. Is the Minister aware that Scotland has a distinctive tax code to reflect Holyrood’s tax powers, and that it is therefore very easy to keep track of whether or not somebody is working in Scotland?

[Mr Goodwill]

It is very important, throughout the whole immigration system, that people who have visas that allow limited work can be tracked. Certainly, using the tax system is one way of doing that. Another key point that I would like to draw to hon. Members’ attention, is that there remains no limit on the number of genuine international students who can come to the UK to study. We do not propose to cap or limit the number of overseas students who can come to study in the UK. As the Home Secretary recently announced, we will shortly be seeking views on study migration routes. I encourage all interested parties, which I am sure will include many institutions in the constituencies of hon. Members here today, to participate and ensure that every point of view is heard.

Orgreave

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Brandon Lewis]

My right hon. Friend highlights the very strong feelings on all sides about Orgreave. We totally understand that. The Home Secretary outlined that here yesterday and in the meeting with Orgreave campaigners that I and other MPs also attended. As the Home Secretary outlined yesterday, we appreciate that the campaigners will be disappointed with the decision she has made, but we have to make a decision about what is in the wider public interest, and an inquiry is not.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

I listened very carefully to what the Home Secretary had to say yesterday, but, as has already been indicated, her argument that there were no wrongful convictions does not hold water when one realises that the cases collapsed when a decent lawyer revealed collusion on the part of the police.

The absence of deaths at Orgreave is also a red herring. Is not the real issue here as follows: when the redactions to the June 2015 IPCC report were revealed, they showed striking similarities between the personnel and the alleged practices of South Yorkshire police at Orgreave and Hillsborough? Of course, we all now know what went on to happen at Hillsborough. Did the Home Secretary not feel that the striking similarities between personnel and practices at Orgreave and Hillsborough alone justified an independent inquiry, even as an opportunity to increase public trust in the police?

Moreover, there is a very important issue raised by Orgreave, which is the alleged political interference by the then UK Government in operational policing. If there was political interference from the Government in operational policing, it would be a deeply troubling matter and one of huge constitutional significance. Did the Home Secretary give this grave accusation consideration as part of the process leading to her decision yesterday?

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. and learned Lady addresses issues relating to the investigation. The IPCC has said that, should further evidence emerge of any impropriety by an officer, retired or otherwise, it would look at it. I met the chairman of the IPCC yesterday afternoon. She confirmed again that if new evidence came forward it would look at it. Furthermore, the report published by the IPPC was redacted on legal advice because it contained passages relating to the then ongoing Hillsborough inquiry. I refer back to my comments of a short while ago: investigations are still going on into Hillsborough and criminal proceedings may well come out of them. The IPCC is involved in those investigations.