National Security Bill

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 16th November 2022 Commons Chamber

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

I was here to speak to new clause 7 and amendments 17 to 28 and 30 to 39, but there is not enough time for me to do so. That is most regrettable, given the importance of the Bill.

I am here not in my personal capacity but as Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Our duty is to scrutinise legislation to check its human rights compliance, and we have done that. I remind Members that the Joint Committee is a cross-party Committee with half its members from the House of Commons and half from the House of Lords. That is just as well, because it will be in the House of Lords that our amendments get the attention that I believe they deserve. Although I am not really a fan of the House of Lords as an unelected Chamber, I am very much a fan of second Chambers. Nevertheless, it is regrettable that such a small amount of time has been afforded to us today to debate this important Bill, which we believe has significant human rights implications. Given the short time available to me, I shall make some general comments; as I say, I hope that our detailed amendments will get the attention they deserve in the House of Lords.

We broadly welcome the attempt to modernise espionage offences, but we have some concerns about the Bill’s provisions. The Bill is a step forward and many of its provisions are broadly in line with the recommendations of the Law Commission’s recent review, but there are risks that some of the provisions are drawn far too widely and could criminalise behaviour that does not constitute a threat to national security. We think that other provisions would interfere unnecessarily and disproportionately with rights to freedom of expression and association and the right to protest, and that they may regrettably have a disproportionate impact on certain communities in the United Kingdom, particularly if new police powers are not exercised with restraint.

The provisions on prevention and investigation measures, which were not included in the Law Commission’s review, also engage the right to a fair trial, the right to liberty and security and the right to a private and family life in a way that gives the Joint Committee cause for concern. We are also very concerned about the restrictions on the grant of legal aid and on the awarding of damages to those who have been involved in terrorism. They risk impeding access to basic rights and legal protections, as other Members have elaborated on. We have therefore suggested that the Bill be amended in a number of ways but, as I say, there is not sufficient time for me to address any of the amendments in any meaningful way.

Let me say one other thing before I sit down. The Bill does not address issues relating to the unauthorised disclosure of information—sometimes known as leaks—despite it being a significant part of the Law Commission’s review. The commission set out clearly the ways in which the existing law engages and potentially breaches the UK’s human rights commitments under the European convention on human rights, and suggested ways in which law might be changed to overcome such issues. Although the Joint Committee appreciates that this is in many ways a complex and controversial area of law, we hope that that is not going to result in inaction, and encourage the Government to consult on legislative provisions as soon as possible.

We believe that reform of the Official Secrets Act 1989 is needed to ensure adequate respect for free speech. That is why I added my name to new clause 8, tabled by the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), which I very much regret we are not able to debate today. Put shortly, we need a public interest defence in this country.

[Tom Tugendhat]

This has been a very full discussion involving many people. Although I sympathise with those who have quite rightly made the point that we could always have more time for these debates, the truth is that we had a lot of time in the Bill Committee and we are going to have to do much more work on this subject as its various elements evolve with the technology and the challenge. The truth is that if we had had this debate five, 10 or 15 years ago, we would have been debating different subjects, different nations and different elements of technology that have evolved into the threat that we sadly face today. Although I recognise that many hon. Members have understandably raised the number of hours and days that we have had today and in the past few weeks, the Government have listened and adapted the Bill to many aspects that have been raised in different ways.

Western Jet Foil and Manston Asylum Processing Centres

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2022 Commons Chamber

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

May I gently remind the Home Secretary that it is not illegal to seek asylum? What is illegal is to detain people without a proper basis in law. Will she confirm that she has ignored legal advice that keeping asylum seekers at Manston for more than 24 hours could be illegal detention? Has she been advised that what is happening at Manston may amount to unlawful deprivation of liberty in terms of article 5 of the European convention on human rights, and inhuman and degrading treatment in terms of article 3? Despite her best efforts, we are still bound to comply with the convention by virtue of domestic law. What will she do about all of this? Even if she does not care about the human rights of the people detained at Manston, does she understand that her failure to obey the law may end up costing taxpayers vast amount of money in court fees and damages?

[Suella Braverman]

I confirm that I have not ever ignored legal advice. The Law Officers’ convention, which I still take seriously, means that I will not comment on the contents of legal advice that I may have seen. What I will say is this: I am not prepared to release migrants prematurely into the local community in Kent to no fixed abode. That, to me, is an unacceptable option.

Public Order Bill

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 18th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We need national legislation; we do not want a piecemeal approach or to push the problem to a different area or from one clinic where a public space protection order has been put in place to a clinic where protest may still be legal. It is imperative that we have a coherent national approach and that we protect women from that sort of harassment.

I hope the Minister will confirm what further action the Home Office will take in the event that this new clause falls today. I hope it will be successful; I hope this House can come together and recognise the benefit that the new clause will provide, and that we can make some progress on the issue.

I will speak briefly about the finances. I referred to the cost to a local authority and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) indicated that in his constituency it will have been expensive for the council to bring a PSPO forward. Too often, councils face legal challenges from campaign groups with very deep pockets, which are potentially not even funded from this country.

I vividly remember going to a sixth form college just outside my constituency at the start of the summer and talking to the female students there, girls aged between 16 and 18. They talked to me specifically about abortion, because they were scared that they would see their right to access healthcare being eroded. They asked whether I thought the overturning of Roe v. Wade would travel across the Atlantic and impact us here.

At the time I said, “No, I don’t”, but since then I have watched the deep pockets of largely American-funded campaigns opposing our local councils when they seek to bring legal orders to protect women from harassment. How can I now look at those teenagers and say, “Of course the overturning of Roe v. Wade won’t come here. Of course the American influence will not impact your right to access healthcare in this country”? It is about time that this country and this Government were prepared to step up where the United States has stepped back. That is why I will be supporting new clause 11, tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow. It is imperative that we send a message to women—I was going to say young women, but it is actually to all women in this country—that we are on their side.

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

I rise to speak to the amendments in my name and the name of the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), which arise from the legislative scrutiny of the Bill by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. They are amendments 28 to 31, 33, 34 to 36, 37 to 40 and 41 to 49, and also amendments 12 to 15, which appear first in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin), and 1 and 2.

I remind hon. Members that the Joint Committee is a cross-party Committee with half its members from the House of Commons and half from the House of Lords, and we undertake scrutiny of the human rights implications of all Bills. I speak here in my capacity as the Chair of the Committee rather than in my personal capacity. I have great sympathy for new clause 11—similar measures are being taken in the Scottish jurisdiction—but, as my Committee did not have the chance to consider it, I will not be speaking about that new clause.

The Public Order Bill contains further significant changes to the law on public order in England and Wales, following on from those introduced in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. It is obvious from my accent that I am a Scottish MP. Despite the fact that this law only applies in England and Wales, it is of interest to a lot of Scots, because they come to London to protest—I see the Minister laughing, but it is the truth, and many of us have been doing it for years, since before we were elected to this House.

[Jeremy Quin]

I welcome that. I am a firm believer that we are stronger together and a firm believer in the Union. I always welcome hearing the views of Scots people in London, and indeed of English people who wish to protest in Edinburgh.

[Joanna Cherry]

I suspect the Minister will still hear our views after we become independent, so I would not get too upset about that.

During the passage of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, the Joint Committee looked very carefully at a large volume of responses and heard from two panels of witnesses about the issue of the public order provisions. The Minister has said the stated intention of the Bill is to strengthen police powers to tackle dangerous and highly disruptive protest, but we think the measures go beyond that, to the extent that we believe they pose an unacceptable threat to the fundamental right to engage in peaceful protest. That was the conclusion of the Committee’s report dated 17 June, in which we proposed the amendments that I am speaking to today.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I wanted to reflect on the point that it is not just about our constituents in Scotland being concerned about the provisions in the Bill. One of the fundamental parts of policing in the UK is mutual aid, so there will be considerations for Police Scotland in relation to the Bill, if it is passed, when we have police officers from Scotland attending protests in other parts of the UK.

[Joanna Cherry]

That is a very good point and I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making it.

It is a matter of regret that when the Government responded to our cross-party report they said:

“Any chilling effect on the right to protest, damage to the UK’s reputation, or encouragement of other nations seeking to crack down on peaceful protest is more likely to arise from the misleading commentary on the PCSC Act and this Bill”

than anything else. No, Minister. That is not the case. The Committee’s conclusions are not misleading commentary. They are the conclusions of a cross-party Committee of this House, informed by evidence from many different sources and advice from our own legal experts on the European convention on human rights, to which, thank God, the UK is still a signatory and which is still enforceable under the Human Rights Act 1998, which seems, thankfully, safe for the time being.

Before I turn to the amendments, I want to quickly make the point that the criminal law and the powers of the police already allow for action to be taken against violent protest and disruptive non-violent protest. That is addressed in detail in paragraph 18 of our report, where we list all the existing provisions under the criminal law of England and Wales that cover the situations about which the Minister says he is concerned. So not only do we think that the Bill is an attack on the fundamental rights of freedom of speech and freedom of assembly, but we believe that it is unnecessary and simply replicating existing law.

Our first tranche of amendments deal with the new offences set out in clauses 1 and 2—the proposed offences of “locking on” and

“being equipped to lock on”.

The purpose of those amendments is to try to water down what we consider to be far too stringent positions. We are particularly concerned about the reversal of the burden proof, putting it on the accused. The purpose of our amendments is to reverse that and put that burden on the prosecution, as is consistent with the presumption of innocence and therefore with article 6 of the ECHR. So amendments 28 to 33 would narrow the scope of clauses 1 and 2 and improve safeguards against violation of convention rights.

We believe that the offence of obstructing major transport works in clause 6 is so widely drafted that it could easily criminalise the peaceful exercise of rights under articles 10 and 11, so our amendments 34 to 36 would narrow its scope, including by introducing a requirement of intent and removing the unnecessary reversal of the burden of proof.

We think the proposed offence of interfering with “key national infrastructure” is too widely drawn and thus risks criminalising, without justification, behaviour that would fall within the provisions of articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR. Amendments 37 to 49 would narrow its scope and remove the unnecessary reversal of the burden of proof.

The proposal to extend stop-and-search powers to cover searches for articles connected with protest-related offences risks exposing peaceful protesters and other members of the public to intrusive encounters with the police without sufficient justification. We would like the utilisation of these new powers to be carefully monitored. In that respect, I note with approval the terms of new clauses 9 and 10 in the name of the hon. Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova).

Oral Answers to Questions

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Monday 20th June 2022 Commons Chamber

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

When the Joint Committee on Human Rights visited Strasbourg last week, we were told that the United Kingdom sends fewer cases to the European Court of Human Rights per capita than any other signatory state. We were also told that UK Government Ministers have repeatedly given the Council of Europe assurances that Britain will not withdraw from the convention. Will the Home Secretary withdraw the rather intemperate remarks that she made as reported at the weekend because she was displeased by the Court’s decision to temporarily halt the flights to Rwanda last week?

[Priti Patel]

In light of the hon. and learned Lady’s comments, it is important to put it on record that Britain upholds international standards and all aspects of the law. Our policies are proving that is the case when it comes to illegal migration, as demonstrated by the domestic courts. As I said have repeatedly, I will not comment on ongoing legal cases.

National Security Bill

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 6th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

I will answer the right hon. Gentleman’s question very specifically. He is right about the public interest defence, on which the Law Commission has recently opined. We are not bringing forward reform of the OSA 1989, mainly because we recognise that the issue is complicated, not straightforward. If it were straightforward, we would be able to deal with it in the form of a clause. However, there are various sensitivities. For example, in situations where there may have been wrongdoing or where we think there is a public interest in disclosure, it is about finding the right balance; a public interest defence is not always the safest or most appropriate way to bring that matter forward.

We are not shy of the issue and are certainly not ignoring it, but it is important that we focus on ensuring that individuals can make disclosures safely, which means protecting them through safeguards and proper routes. That work is still under way, and we need to go through it in the right way.

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

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for taking a further intervention on this point. Three of our four Five Eyes partners—New Zealand, Australia and Canada—have some form of public interest defence. The example of those jurisdictions has shown that a public interest defence works and does not lead to a flood of unauthorised, damaging disclosures or an excessive risk to national security. I am quite sure that an amendment will be tabled at some point to introduce a public interest defence; the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland)—the former Lord Chancellor—is thinking about it. Will the Secretary of State give such an amendment serious consideration?

[Priti Patel]

Let me say for the assurance of all colleagues in the House: absolutely, we need to find the right balance. The hon. and learned Lady has touched on our Five Eyes partners, which have introduced many other aspects that I will mention later in my speech, but they are seeing unintended consequences. We want to work through much of the detail, and we will work with all colleagues in this ongoing process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

Yes, I strongly do, because some of the examples of such leaks that we have seen put agents’ lives at risk, put vital parts of our national security and intelligence infrastructure at risk and are highly irresponsible. We need safeguards to protect against that kind of damaging impact on our national security.

[Joanna Cherry]

Notwithstanding what the right hon. Lady just said, would she and her party support a narrowly and carefully drawn public interest defence, such as those that our Five Eyes allies New Zealand, Australia and Canada have, to protect civilians and journalists who make disclosures that are properly in the public interest?

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. and learned Lady makes a really important point. In its consideration of these issues, the Law Commission made proposals on not only strengthening some of the measures in the Official Secrets Act 1989 but how to have proper safeguards to protect whistleblowers and the public interest. I recognise that there are complex issues in respect of how to draw up the legislation and shall make further points about that.

We have just spent the past four days celebrating our Queen’s historic platinum jubilee and celebrating our shared values and traditions, which are what we defend when we defend our national security. At a time when we have seen an illegal invasion of a fellow European democracy by Russia—an act that threatens and that has attacked and undermined the national security of a fellow European nation—there could be no greater reminder to us all of the need to be resilient and vigilant in the face of threats.

The threats to our national security, democratic values and way of life have inevitably evolved over the decades. The ending of the cold war in the 1990s and the major international terror attacks, particularly by Islamist extremists from al-Qaeda and then from ISIS, alongside growing domestic far-right terror threats, have meant that the national security focus—the top priority of our intelligence and security agencies—has for several decades been on terrorist threats to our way of life but, as the Government’s integrated review made clear, the threats from hostile states have not gone away and in recent years we have seen them grow and become more complex.

As the Government concluded in 2018, the attempt on the lives of Sergei Skripal and his daughter was, in the words of the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May),

“almost certainly…approved”

both by the GRU and

“at a senior level of the Russian state.”—[Official Report, 5 September 2018; Vol. 646, c. 168.]

We face different threats from other countries, too. MI5 recently warned publicly about the activities of an individual knowingly engaged in political interference activities on behalf of the United Front Work Department of the Chinese Communist party. The MI5 director general Ken McCallum has warned that

“the activity MI5 encounters day-by-day predominantly comes, in quite varying ways, from state or state-backed organisations in Russia, China and Iran.”

Alongside persistent hard power methods of attack, the advent of technology has also allowed soft power methods to flourish, with electoral interference, disinformation, propaganda, cyber operations and intellectual property theft used to foster instability and interfere in the strength and resilience of the state. The Home Secretary referred to the SolarWinds attack and the interference with major UK energy companies. As the Law Commission warned in its report, the Official Secrets Acts between 1911 and 1939 were enacted long before the digital age and include references to

“a sketch, plan, model, note”—

the pencil notings that are a far cry from the cyber and online data interventions that modern espionage might involve.

The words of the MI5 director general are perhaps startling, when he said:

“Today, it is not a criminal offence to be an undeclared foreign intelligence agent in the UK. Likewise, it is not currently illegal to be in a key position of influence in the UK and be secretly in the pay of a foreign state. That can’t be right. To tackle modern interference, we need modern powers.”

He is right, and we agree. That is why reforms and legislation are needed to address the new threats from hostile states. That is why many of the measures in the legislation are important, for example making it possible to take action against those who are operating in the pay of a foreign intelligence agency to do Britain harm; to make it possible to defend the trade secrets of British businesses, including taking action against those who may be paid by foreign intelligence agencies or a state to leak intellectual property or trade secrets that are then used to undermine our industry and our economy; to make it possible to have stronger action against incredibly damaging cyber attacks on our critical infrastructure; and to enable early intervention to prevent damaging attacks, not just to prosecute once the damage is done.

We have questions that we want to put, points that we want to probe and amendments that we will draft because we want to work constructively with the Government to get the legislation right. I shall make some of those points now and I look forward to further discussion with the Home Secretary and the security Minister during the passage of the Bill. The first gaping hole that we see is the promised foreign agents registration scheme that the Home Secretary has said she will bring forward. We had understood that this would be the central part and purpose of the Bill, but it is currently missing. I do recognise that drafting in those areas is complex, and we need to learn from what other countries have done, but that also makes it the more important to have proper scrutiny. I urge the Home Secretary to ensure that the scheme is not brought forward at the last minute so that we do not have time to give it proper consideration in Committee or to take evidence on it beforehand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart C. McDonald]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, which we will have to look at. There are other provisions in legislation that provide protection for those involved in the work of agencies, so we do not think that the case for this new carve-out has been made at all.

Part 2 will also need close scrutiny; we turn here to state threats prevention and investigation measures. I do not think that any of us here should ever feel comfortable about curtailing people’s liberties by ministerial fiat rather than as a punishment for a proven crime. In fairness, I think the Home Secretary recognised that in her speech. We have come to accept that such “prevention and investigation measures” are a necessary part of the fight against terrorism. Our position on TPIMs has been to cut their wings, improve oversight and limit their invasiveness, rather than to do away with them altogether. It may be that we end up with STPIMs as well, but we will probe the Minister closely on the case for requiring them at all.

Ministers always promise—the Home Secretary did today—that powers will not be used inappropriately and excessively. That is welcome, but they should not have the power to do things that are inappropriate or excessive in the first place, because those who follow them into office may take a different view of what is inappropriate or excessive. Restrictions have to be in the Bill rather than in ministerial undertakings.

Part 3 is also a mixed bag. We absolutely see the need for freezing and forfeiting damages that could be utilised for terrorism. There could also be an arguable case for powers to reduce damages in certain national security proceedings, but we will examine that closely. On the other hand, there is a real question over whether courts already have sufficient powers and whether there are sufficient safeguards and processes that prevent undeserving cases from winning damages in the first place, so we will again press the Minister on that.

Much less persuasive is the case for restricting legal aid in utterly unconnected proceedings on the grounds of a past conviction for terrorism. That was raised by the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), and I am very sympathetic to that while recognising that this is one of the few “England and Wales only” provisions.

As we heard, we need to scrutinise not just what is in the Bill, but what is not—or not yet—in it, and two issues are particularly important. As has been touched on, the Minister and the Home Secretary have set out that the foreign agent registration scheme will be amended. Various complaints have been made about that not being in the Bill as we debate it today.

I return to my experience during the passage of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022—a slightly more acrimonious piece of legislation. Having really important provisions about citizenship and age tests being introduced at pretty short notice in Committee meant that we did not have the chance to ask witnesses about them or to get briefings about them from important organisations.

Something as important as the foreign agent registration scheme needs more than a couple of days before a Committee sitting if we are going to give it proper scrutiny. I am very sympathetic to the idea of allowing us some time on the Floor of the House to debate the details. In principle, the idea is very welcome and the provision is required. However, as we all have acknowledged so far, there will be very tricky lines to draw in the sand between those who should be required to register and those who do not. We must also guard against having a massive Henry VIII clause that simply leaves it to the Government to set out the scheme at a later date. That would not be acceptable either.

Also missing from the Bill—this is apparently not going to be amended by the Government—are updates to the Official Secrets Act 1989 or any concept of a public interest defence to charges under it. As we heard, that Act is almost as out of date as the other laws that we are updating through the Bill. The Law Commission was clear that a public interest defence was required to ensure that the Government were not able to abuse legislation as a

“cloak to mask serious wrongdoing”.

It suggested a statutory commissioner to investigate allegations of wrongdoing or criminality made by civil servants or members of the public where disclosures of such concerns would be an offence under that Act. We support those ideas on the type of provisions that look under the bonnet, as I referred to earlier.

[Joanna Cherry]

As usual, my hon. Friend is giving a considered speech and I support everything that he has said so far. Notwithstanding the Government’s reluctance to use the Bill as a vehicle to introduce a public interest defence, it is likely that a cross-party amendment would seek to do that at some point. Will he confirm that the Scottish National party—our party—would support that?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Yes, absolutely. The versions of such an amendment that I have seen look very promising and we would like to give our support to that if we can.

In conclusion, we need a Bill, and we certainly support this Bill on Second Reading. However, there is a lot for us to get our teeth into, both in terms of what is in it and what is not. We look forward to engaging critically but constructively on all these issues as the Bill progresses.

Preventing Crime and Delivering Justice

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2022 Commons Chamber

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

What I will say to the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) is that all of us have food banks in our constituency and we do not need to visit his, because we are perfectly well aware of the requirement for them. They are required not because people do not know how to cook, but because we have poverty in this country on a scale that should shame his Government.

Before I address the substance of today’s debate and, in particular, the Government’s plans for a British Bill of Rights, like others I would like to refer to the results of the local elections last week, because in Scotland they were a very important reminder that this British Government have no mandate in Scotland and no mandate for any of the policies they are seeking to impose on my country in their programme for government. It is no surprise that the Conservatives lost so many votes and have been reduced to third place in Scotland. When I was campaigning on the doorsteps of my constituency, I heard over and over again the contempt in which this UK Government are held, not just because of the endemic law breaking, but because of the rank lack of respect for the Scottish electorate’s frequently expressed wish for a different way of doing things, and for a second independence referendum, following the broken promises of the first.

I am particularly proud that in the Pentland Hills ward of my constituency, my colleague and friend Fiona Glasgow displaced a Tory councillor and won yet another seat for the SNP on the City of Edinburgh Council. I congratulate her on the fantastic campaign that she ran. It is always so good to see women of independent mind elected to public office.

It was suggested by the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition yesterday that this Queen’s Speech has no guiding principle. He is right, in so far as it abjectly fails to make meaningful proposals to reverse the cost of living crisis, which is hammering my constituents, and constituents across the UK. There is nothing in the Queen’s Speech about cutting VAT on fuel bills; nothing about taxing big companies—not only energy companies, but others with excess profits; nothing to increase benefits; and nothing to reinstate the £20 that was cut from universal credit. I heard on the radio this morning that the Cabinet met yesterday to chuck around ideas to deal with the cost of living crisis but did not come to any conclusions. The lack of urgency and focus of this Government is as insulting to my constituents as it is callous. Nor does this Queen’s Speech contain any measures to compensate my constituents for the serial incompetence of the Home Office in respect of not just the handling of immigration and asylum cases, but the issuing of passports. Lots of working-class families in my constituency have lost out on hard-worked-for holidays and it is a disgrace. Will the Government compensate them?

I might not agree with everything the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition says—we disagree on the right of Scotland to self-determination, and I would like him to do more to stick up for women’s sex-based rights and the rights of same-sex-attracted people—but I consider him to be a man of integrity. I do not want to live in a state where the Government, with the assistance of their little helpers in the right-wing press, are able to influence the police to reopen a closed investigation into their political enemies. It stinks, and most of my constituents can see the difference between what seems to have been a working meal and the endless parade of parties, with suitcases of booze and karaoke, that took place at No. 10 during lockdown. People are not stupid.

Yesterday, we were told in the Queen’s Speech that this Government will ensure that the constitution is upheld. I had to struggle to stop myself laughing out loud. This Prime Minister cannot even uphold the ordinary laws of the land, and in 2019 he rode roughshod over the constitution when he unlawfully prorogued Parliament. That was just the start of it, because in 2020 his Government introduced legislation designed to go back on an agreement they themselves had signed with the European Union, and they are still at it with the Northern Ireland protocol. I think this Queen’s Speech does have a guiding principle: the principle of diminishing the ability of this Parliament and the courts to hold this Government to account. We see that in the Bill of Rights, the Public Order Bill and the Brexit freedoms Bill, which will expand Executive power to amend, appeal or replace EU retained law by way of secondary legislation, so that this House cannot scrutinise it properly. So much for “taking back control”.

On the Bill of Rights, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), the Government’s independent review of the Human Rights Act and the cross-party Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, have found that the case for replacing the HRA with a British Bill of Rights has not been made out. The independent review suggested only very minor changes to the HRA, noting that the vast majority of submissions to that review spoke strongly in support of our Human Rights Act. But this Government did not even bother to address the findings of their own independent review, and instead published their own consultation on the day on which the independent review reported. This is extraordinary.

Yesterday, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who is not in his place and for whom I have great respect, even though I disagree with him on this issue, tried to suggest that the main reason for modifying the Human Rights Act is that it will give the Government the ability to deport foreign criminals who have been released from prison. In the recent thorough report on Human Rights Act reform by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, published on 13 April, we examined that claim in some detail and found it to be unsubstantiated by the data produced by the Government. For anyone who is interested, the arguments are set out at paragraphs 223 to 234.

The Joint Committee also found that the Government’s case that human rights legislation is in serious need of reform is not proven. This is not evidence-based policy making. We concluded that the Government are purporting to solve non-existent problems and offering solutions that will cause only confusion and detriment to those who need their rights to be protected. We said:

“If the Government wanted to strengthen human rights they would improve how they are respected in general, improve education so that everyone knows their rights and improve access to the courts for those needing to enforce them. Improving awareness and understanding of human rights and access to the courts would have a”

far more

“beneficial impact”

than

“the government’s current proposals.”

Our cross-party report was agreed unanimously, so the Government should listen to what it says, as well as to the conclusions of the independent review that they commissioned.

There is of course a particular Scottish angle to the reform of the Human Rights Act, as was highlighted in a previous Joint Committee on Human Rights report, in which we recommended that any proposals to reform the Act should not be pursued without the consent of the Scottish Parliament. Again, that was the recommendation of a cross-party Committee, and it is in tune with the position of the Scottish Government. The Human Rights Act itself is a reserved matter, but human rights per se in Scotland are not reserved. We have our own Scottish Human Rights Commission, which has been A-listed by the United Nations, and it is very concerned about the Government’s plans to replace the Human Rights Act with a Bill of Rights. Indeed, the Joint Committee on Human Rights is to take evidence on that this afternoon.

The Human Rights Act that we have in this country is already a Bill of Rights. Bills of Rights have two characteristics: first, they are universal, so the rights apply to everyone, not just the people to whom the Government find it convenient to give rights; and secondly, they are a higher law, which is why the existing Human Rights Act includes the section 3 interpretative obligation. If those things are taken out, as the Government propose, it will not in fact be a Bill of Rights. Everyone knows that the Tories—or some of them, at least—have wanted to get us out of the European convention on human rights for some years. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] They are cheering now, but the reality is that their leader signed an agreement with the European Union when we left it that means we cannot leave the ECHR. This British Bill of Rights idea is, then, actually just a sneaky way to try to diminish people’s ability to enforce their rights under the ECHR.

So far this afternoon, nobody has mentioned the plans for a ban on LGB conversion therapy. I support such a ban, although I think the evidence for how much it is a contemporary problem is questionable. It was certainly a very serious problem in the past.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Will the hon. and learned Lady give way?

[Joanna Cherry]

I will develop my argument before I give way. I am concerned that Members are coming under pressure to support a ban on what is described as trans conversion therapy that ignores the interim report of the Cass review and the testimonies of Tavistock clinic whistleblowers and detransitioners. There is an exponential rise in the number of girls seeking to transition. Many of those girls will be same-sex attracted; it is important that that possibility, and other explanations for dysphoria, such as autism, be explored in a respectful way with a qualified therapist before young women embark on a road to medicalisation. If someone experiences gender dysphoria in childhood or puberty, it does not necessarily mean that they are trans. Thousands of adult lesbians and gay men will, like me, know that to be true. It is really important that Members understand that “trans inclusive” means assuming that all children who say that they are of the opposite sex are transgender. It also means insisting that they do not need psychotherapy if they say they do not want it.

Hilary Cass, former president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, has been commissioned to report on NHS gender identity services for children. Her interim report, which was published a couple of months ago, has provided worrying information about the lack of normal clinical standards being applied to children with gender distress. More work needs to be done, but the interim results show that a high proportion of cared-for children, those with autism or experience of abuse, and children who would be likely to grow up lesbian or gay are presenting for gender services. I am advocating for evidence-based policy making. Let us wait for the outcome of the Cass report, and let us not be influenced by those who want to criminalise therapists who simply want to do their job and act in their patients’ best interests. We urgently need proper, informed debate, in public and in Parliament, and it must centre on the wellbeing of children and young people.

We can have such proper, informed debates in this place and beyond only if we have free speech. The Tories say that they believe in free speech and want to better protect it as a right, but actions speak louder than words. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which was passed in the previous Session, the Public Order Bill and the Online Safety Bill all contain potential threats to freedom of expression. One of the problems with the Online Safety Bill is the introduction of a “legal but harmful” category for the removal of content. It will create a situation in which people are prevented from saying things that are legal but prohibited. There is a significant danger that, as drafted, the Bill will lead to the censorship of legal speech by online platforms and give the Government unacceptable controls over what we can and cannot say online.

As a former sex crimes prosecutor, I completely applaud the desire to protect children online that underlines the Online Safety Bill, but I am worried that the “legal but harmful” category will enable vexatious complainants to exploit the lack of definitional clarity to try to shut down lawful speech on topics of public concern on the grounds that it is “harmful” and should be subject to censorship.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

Will the hon. and learned Member give way?

[Joanna Cherry]

I do not know; the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) wanted to intervene earlier.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

indicated dissent.

[Joanna Cherry]

I give way to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), then.

[Jamie Stone]

It is my lucky day. The hon. and learned Member is making a most interesting speech. When it comes to this Bill, does she agree that the weighting of primary and secondary legislation is worrying? Some of the definitions involved, such as those relating to freedom of speech, are so fundamental that they should be considered by this House, rather than nodded through in some instrument or another, whether under the negative or affirmative procedure.

[Joanna Cherry]

I do share that concern. I do not think it is safe to leave the setting out of definitions that will impact on free speech to a Government Minister— particularly not one in this Government—in secondary legislation. I am most worried about the online platforms, because they cannot be trusted to police speech in a way that is properly cognisant of the law—not just law on freedom of speech, but law on freedom of belief, as well as domestic anti-discrimination law.

I shall draw my remarks to a close shortly, but let me take Twitter as an example, because this is really important. Twitter’s hateful conduct policy does not include the protected characteristic of sex, so Twitter routinely censors perfectly legitimate contributions to the public debate on women’s sex-based rights while routinely ignoring threats of violence and worse to women who participate in the debate.

In October 2019, the Joint Committee on Human Rights published a report on democracy, freedom of expression and freedom of association, in which we noted that Twitter has omitted sex from the list of protected characteristics in its hateful conduct policy. We recommended that Twitter remedy that, and in May 2019 a Twitter executive promised us that she would look at the issue; nearly three years later, nothing has been done. That is a real concern in respect of the Online Safety Bill, because when women have challenged Twitter’s unfair and discriminatory moderation policies, Twitter has responded that it does not consider itself bound by the Equality Act in providing services in the UK. Twitter’s argument is that because the company is established in Ireland as opposed to the UK, it is exempt under paragraph 2 of schedule 25 to the Equality Act. I am not sure that that is right, but it is a loophole that could be closed in the Online Safety Bill. I have already had informal discussions with Ministers about closing it.

To conclude, there is no point in saying that we need a Bill of Rights to protect free speech and then handing over the policing of speech to private companies such as Twitter, whose records show that they cannot be trusted. On free speech, the Government need to put their money where their mouth is.

Global Migration Challenge

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I pay tribute to her work with the Home Office as the Member of Parliament for Dover, which has been at the forefront of receiving people coming to the UK, and to her county council, which has been under significant pressure for many years. The dispersal policy, which was first proposed by the leader of Kent County Council, has taken time to be pushed forward, but it will not only have a significant impact on the people and taxpayers of Kent, but see the principle of fairness applied to people who rightly come to our country through legal routes as opposed to those with no legal basis to be in the UK.

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

This afternoon the Home Secretary has described Rwanda as a safe and secure country, saying that to suggest otherwise is a slur. However, on at least two occasions only last year, the United Kingdom called for an investigation at the United Nations into torture, deaths in custody, extrajudicial killings and forced disappearances in Rwanda. Was that a slur by the UK, or was it a well-founded request? What was the outcome of the request? What legal assurances has she obtained from Rwanda regarding the treatment of any asylum seekers sent there?

[Priti Patel]

Under this agreement, as I have said, Rwanda will process claims in accordance with the UN refugee convention and national and international human rights laws. Importantly, it will ensure that individuals are resettled in the right way. Over 130,000 refugees have been resettled in Rwanda, and it is not just a safe country, but one where both the UNHCR and the EU have resettled individuals. Finally, with all partnerships—[Interruption.] If hon. Members would like to listen, I will answer the question. We have thorough discussions in all partnerships, and in these negotiations, including those on human rights, we have worked closely with the Rwandan Government on the need to protect vulnerable people seeking safety and a new life.

Refugees from Ukraine

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Nobody on these Benches is suggesting that no checks should be required. I will come to that later in my speech. The Irish carry out checks on people coming in, although I do not have the details of how they arrange the accommodation thereafter. Nobody is suggesting that this should be a check-free or security-free process.

Iryna Terlecky of the Association of Ukrainians in Great Britain told the Home Affairs Committee that

“it is quite an indictment of the system and how it is working that everybody needs an immigration lawyer, and this is just for family members coming over”.

That is why we believe that the requirement for a visa should be waived. We simply do not have the infrastructure to process them fast enough. The Ukrainian ambassador, whom we recently welcomed into this Chamber with a well-deserved standing ovation, said to the Home Affairs Committee on lifting visa requirements:

“We will be happy if all the barriers are dropped for some period of time when we can get the maximum of people. Then we will deal with that, and my embassy is here to help: to organise for those people”.

These calls are supported by the Governments of Scotland and Wales, as well as by numerous organisations here including the Refugee Council, the Scottish Refugee Council, the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, the Red Cross and many more. They also have public support, with one recent poll showing 60% in favour of, and just 15% opposed to scrapping the visa requirements.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) pointed out during Monday night’s petition debate on a similar subject, not requiring an advance visa for someone travelling here is far from a novel idea. Many thousands of people arrive in the UK each and every day without having obtained a visa in advance. Around 90 countries operate this system, from Brazil to Botswana and Malaysia to Mexico, as well as the whole European Union. Many people will have biometric passports and many will not, but the border functions smoothly enough. That does not mean there are no security checks. We run checks on advance passenger information provided by the companies bringing people in on ferries, trains and planes, and there are checks at the border. Biometrics can still be taken, by using apps for those who can, by reusing biometrics for people who have been here before, or by doing the biometrics at the border on or after arrival. And as the ambassador said, we will have the assistance of the Ukrainian Government in doing the checks.

Salisbury has been invoked in this Chamber, but while that illustrates what Putin is capable of, it has nothing to do with visas. Neither in that outrageous attack nor in the murder of Alexander Litvinenko was there any requirement for the murderers to use anything other than a Russian passport with a false identity and to seek a visa for the UK directly. The security concerns that we have heard about are hard to pin down. In the reports of the Home Secretary’s embarrassing representations to Ireland, reference was made to briefings about gangs. Here, Minsters have spoken about “false documents”. Other briefings have blamed No. 10 for blocking Home Office proposals to simply waive visa requirements. If that is so, the Home Office was clearly not overly concerned about the security challenges that have repeatedly been referenced. None of these concerns can be ignored, but in the grand scheme of things the Home Office has done nothing to persuade me or my colleagues—or, I suspect, Members right across the House—that security justifies keeping those fleeing persecution at arm’s length, potentially for months on end.

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

As usual, my hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Is he aware of the views of Lord Peter Ricketts, the former national security adviser, who has said that because the majority of refugees coming to this country are women and children, we should take

“a much more humane and open approach…and should not be requiring visas”

and that we should do the security checks after they get here? Is my hon. Friend anxious, as I am, to hear from those on the Government Front Bench why they think Lord Peter Ricketts is wrong?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. I know that she made a similar point in Monday night’s debate, and that she is still waiting for a response to those concerns. We expect to hear that response today.

At the end of the day, we are not the ones asking the Government to do anything wild or outlandish. It is the Government who are asking us to go along with a policy that is totally out of kilter with that of our neighbours and with public opinion and that does not meet the urgent humanitarian challenge that we face today. I very much fear that we will regret it if we do not waive these visa requirements, and we should encourage the Government today to take action on that.

As the motion states, we welcome the further extension to the family scheme and the launch of the sponsorship scheme. I know that hon. Members will have a million questions to ask about them, some of which we were helpfully able to put directly to the Minister this morning. I will briefly touch on just a couple. As I argued this morning, I see no reason why many thousands of Ukrainians who are here on time-limited visas should be excluded from bringing relatives in on the family scheme, whether they are students, workers or visitors. There will be particular issues for seasonal agricultural workers in accessing even the sponsorship scheme, given the accommodation that they are generally provided with. I welcome the fact that Lord Harrington told the Committee this morning that he would give that matter his consideration, because we could be talking about 10% to 20% of the Ukrainian diaspora here being in that very situation and still struggling to be joined by any family at all. It is important that we resolve that.

We must also resolve the issues around people’s leave to remain here as early as possible, preferably matching it to the leave to remain that people coming in are being offered, rather than giving them just a few months until the end of the year. There are other questions about the nature of the leave to remain that people are being offered and about what happens at the end of the three years. There are questions about the safeguarding and protection of vulnerable people entering on the sponsored route. What happens if a sponsorship breaks down? What happens at the end of the six months? Colleagues will speak in much more detail about these points, but we offer our questions and criticisms constructively, because we all want to see these schemes work.

As I have said, our fundamental disagreements with the Government are over their stance that visas should still be required at all. Our other fundamental disagreement is about the Nationality and Borders Bill, which will come back to this House next week when we will debate the Lords amendments to it. That legislation is predicated on a totally misguided belief that refugees must always seek asylum in the first safe country, and that those who do not must be criminalised, offshored and stripped of their rights to family life and public funds. This last month illustrates as never before in the starkest terms the importance and relevance of the refugee convention, 70 years on, and also how the anti-refugee Bill is simply not fit for purpose. We will be constructive critics wherever we can, but on those two fundamental points we are absolutely clear: scrap visas for Ukrainians, and scrap the anti-refugee Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Pursglove]

I know that the hon. Gentleman feels passionately about this particular point. In response, I cannot say too much on the Floor of the House, for obvious reasons, but people would rightly expect the Government to act in accordance with the security advice we receive at any given point in time and to do so responsibly. I also make the point, touching again on a point that we have been discussing this afternoon, that there is a safeguarding issue in relation to travel to this country. We will obviously want to know who vulnerable children and adults are travelling with and ensure that they are kept safe, because that is an absolute imperative. That is the position of this Government.

[Joanna Cherry]

On the security issue, the Minister will have heard my intervention earlier, citing the views of Lord Peter Ricketts, a former National Security Adviser, that visa-free access could be safely afforded and that the biometric and security checks could be done largely once women and children Ukrainian refugees arrive here. Why is Lord Ricketts wrong? I tried to get an answer on that from the Minister’s colleague, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), on Monday without success. I need one today, please.

[Tom Pursglove]

I never like to disappoint the hon. and learned Lady in my answers, but clearly, we have to act in accordance with the latest up-to-date advice that we receive, which is precisely what we are doing. Of course we have been looking at, and will continue to look at, how those processes can be expedited as far as possible. We have been consistently clear about the position in relation to visa waivers and the checks. That is the position as it stands at this point.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is tempting to construct my whole speech around correcting inaccuracies in the speech of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) but, because I do not have the time, I will not do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) will put him right on the per capita, or per head, share of refugees taken by countries across Europe. Per capita is what matters.

[Huw Merriman]

Will the hon. and learned Lady give way?

[Joanna Cherry]

The hon. Gentleman has had his turn. Looking at the per capita share across Europe, the United Kingdom falls in the middle of the table rather than at the top, as he would like to suggest.

[Huw Merriman]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The record will be checked, but I related the figures on resettled refugees and listed the numbers. It is on BBC Reality Check, and nothing is incorrect. If there is, BBC Reality Check is incorrect.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

There is clearly a disagreement here, which is why we are having a debate. Debates are about disagreement. This has been a polite debate so far, so let us keep it that way.

This is obviously not a point of order for the Chair, but the hon. Gentleman has put his point of view on the record. The hon. and learned Lady has done so, too, and I have a feeling she will do so again. If there is a disagreement, I hope she might take an intervention because it is not a matter for the Chair.

[Joanna Cherry]

If the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle had taken interventions during his speech, we could have clarified it then. The key words are “per capita,” which mean “per head.” As I said, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East will set out those figures in her speech.

The single biggest thing the UK Government could do to ensure the efficient evacuation and resettlement of Ukrainian refugees would be to permit visa-free access to the United Kingdom, in the same way that our near neighbours such as Ireland and, indeed, all the member states of the European Union are doing. It seems to me that there are two reasons for the refusal to do this, and neither is tenable. The first is alleged concerns about security, and the second is dogma, by which I mean this Government are thrawnly clinging to their anti-refugee and anti-asylum seeker policies despite all the evidence that they are untenable because of the new order in Europe ushered in by Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine.

We debated these matters in Westminster Hall on Monday afternoon, and I put it to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), that the Government’s security concerns are unfounded according to such a distinguished expert as Lord Peter Ricketts. Sadly, the Minister failed to address my point and instead resorted to a cheap and unfounded attack on the record of City of Edinburgh Council, and indeed my constituents, in rehousing people fleeing other war zones, particularly Syria and Afghanistan.

Fortunately, today’s debate will give the Minister the opportunity to set the record straight and, if he is able, to explain why his Government are pleading security risks against free access, despite expert evidence that such risks as might exist are small and can be managed safely without visas.

I pray in aid Lord Peter Ricketts, who is of course a former National Security Adviser. He spoke about these matters in the other place last week, and he was interviewed by Mark D’Arcy for “Today in Parliament.” He said:

“Security is always a matter of risk management—there is never zero risk.”

However, as these refugees are mainly women and children, they do not, in his opinion, pose a security risk. The UK Government therefore should not require visas, and they should do the security checks once the women and children are here. We have heard other speakers, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), explain how that could be done.

Lord Peter Ricketts thinks we can do it, the European Union can do it and Ireland can do it, why cannot the United Kingdom? The Minister did not answer that question in Westminster Hall on Monday. He tried to deflect attention from his failure to answer that crucial question by attacking the record of local authorities in Scotland, including City of Edinburgh Council, which covers my constituency of Edinburgh South West. As so often with him, his attacks were unfounded in fact.

Let me take this opportunity to put the Minister right. The people of Scotland and our capital city of Edinburgh stand ready to welcome refugees from Ukraine, as we have always done. We have already heard about the generous offer from the Scottish Government. Since 2015, City of Edinburgh Council has resettled 585 Syrian refugees, the majority by the council but two households by Refugee Sponsorship Edinburgh, including a number of my constituents with whom I worked to get that sponsorship scheme off the ground. Those refugees have been supported by local partners such as the Welcoming Association in my constituency.

Since the fiasco of the UK’s withdrawal from Afghanistan last August, City of Edinburgh Council has accepted more than 200 Afghan refugees. City of Edinburgh Council has produced a plan to increase the number of refugees it takes each year. In fact, looking again at per capita, which means per head—

[Tom Pursglove]

Will the hon. and learned Lady give way?

[Joanna Cherry]

Not at this moment.

On the resettlement of refugees, Scotland has taken more per head of population for 14 of the last 16 quarters since 2017. On average, Scotland has taken 5.4% above its population share, which is more than Wales and Northern Ireland have. Meanwhile, England has taken 12.8% below its population share, for which the Home Office has full responsibility. On section 95 asylum support, we know that Glasgow City Council has located in Scotland a percentage higher than Scotland’s per population share and higher than that of any council in the UK. As the Minister was reminded in Monday’s debate, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has said that it would be willing to take more asylum seekers if the British Government give it the support it needs to do so. Rather than trying to score petty and ill-informed points against the people of Edinburgh, my constituents, their council and the people of Scotland, the Minister should be getting the Home Secretary to ensure that asylum support is properly funded.

We could do with a little more humility from the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Torbay after his Twitter gaff on fruit picking, but unfortunately his attitude continues to exemplify a callous and hubristic approach in his Department. Just yesterday, in The Times, the chief executive of the Red Cross argued that the Government must make the

“Nationality and Borders Bill more humane”

They could do that when it comes back to this House next week; they would have a chance to change course. The other place has removed some of the most egregious parts of the Bill, including the criminalisation of asylum seekers and plans for offshore processing. The Lords have also lifted the ban on asylum seekers working, which is a huge victory for campaigners from the Scottish charity the Maryhill Integration Network, which my colleagues and I have been proud to support. At the very least, the Government should preserve those changes to the Bill when it comes back to the House on Tuesday, because it would surely be horrifying if, in the midst of the current crisis, this House was to pass legislation that would criminalise Ukrainians who arrive at our borders seeking asylum outside the limited schemes announced so far. Let us hear from the Minister that there will be a change of tack on that Bill. Let us hear from him why Lord Peter Ricketts, the former national security adviser, is wrong about security and why the British Government, alone of our neighbours in Europe, cannot manage security without visas. Let us also hear a fact-based acknowledgement of the contribution made by my constituents, the City of Edinburgh Council, local authorities in Scotland and the Scottish Government to welcoming refugees, which, as I have explained, based on the data, is the most generous in the UK.

Ukrainian Refugees

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2022 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, and to address the petition—although it is really quite disgraceful that, several weeks on from the start of the war, we should find ourselves still in a position whereby the United Kingdom Government, for reasons that escape me, are unable to emulate the generosity of our European Union neighbours.

Hundreds of my constituents in Edinburgh South West have signed the petition, and rarely have I received as many emails on a topic as I have on the issue of what the UK Government should be doing to help Ukrainians refugees. Like other hon. Members, many of my constituents have made practical suggestions. The sponsorship scheme update was announced in the main Chamber this afternoon—I managed to be there for the statement—but it seems to me that it does nothing to address the urgency of the situation.

What my constituents know but the UK Government do not seem to realise is that we have a moral obligation to help these people. We also have legal obligations under the refugee convention, but the Government are in the midst of passing a Bill that breaches those obligations. Surely, this huge crisis on our doorstep in Europe—the biggest crisis in Europe since the second world war—should be a signal that the UK Government need to revisit their policy on refugees and asylum seekers.

Last week, when I spoke in the main Chamber in the International Women’s Day debate, I emphasised the plight of women in Ukraine and their children. Of course, women are particularly vulnerable in wartime because of the risk of sex-based violence. Sadly, we know that at least some of the Russian forces on the ground are committing war crimes in Ukraine as we speak. The imperative to send a signal that there is a safe route for these women and their children to come to the United Kingdom is very strong. We know from the United Nations that the majority of the now millions of refugees fleeing the country are women and children. Put bluntly, what these people need to know now is that they can have visa-free access to the United Kingdom with their children. We must match the European Union on that—no ifs, no buts. We really just need to get on with it.

The very helpful House of Commons Library briefing for this debate tells us that it would be perfectly possible, if Ukrainians had the same visa-free access as they have elsewhere in Europe, for security and biometric checks to be undertaken after they had got here. As I have said already, our European allies can afford visa-free refuge safely and securely, so why can the Home Office not?

On TV, we have seen queues of upset and exhausted people—including old people and small children, as hon. Members have said—waiting in freezing conditions outside British visa application centres. I have heard from Scots trying to assist people that desperate families have been thrown out of visa centres after waiting for hours, so that staff could close for lunch. If it was not so tragic, it would be almost comic. It is ludicrous. The Home Office needs to get its act together. This is not rocket science; other countries—considerably less wealthy countries than the United Kingdom’s Union of nations—are managing to do a better job than us. The Government really need to up their game.

As other hon. Members have said, the other European countries have been able to offer visa-free access by adopting a decision to implement the European Union’s temporary protection directive with immediate effect. That directive establishes minimum EU-wide standards of protection for people displaced by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, including rights of access to suitable accommodation, medical care, social welfare payments, and employment. The temporary protection can be granted for one year, up to a maximum of three years. As we know, the directive allows member states to provide more generous protection if they want to. If we had remained in the European Union, as my country voted to do, we would have been part of that scheme. However, there is no reason why we cannot emulate it.

The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association has said that lifting the visa requirement would be

“the single most effective step that the government can and should take to ensure the efficient evacuation and resettlement of refugees fleeing the invasion of Ukraine.”

ILPA has also emphasised that removing the visa requirement would not prevent security checks from being made. It stated:

“Biometric enrolment can occur at the border as it happens for non-visa nationals arriving as visitors. Border checks can identify persons of legitimate concern without forcing ordinary civilians to take risks under gunfire to lodge visa applications.”

I know that the current Government might find it hard to admit that the European Union has got things right and they have got them wrong, but it might help them to listen to the advice of Lord Peter Ricketts, our former National Security Adviser. Last week, in a debate in the other place, he said that

“the wholly inadequate arrangements that have been made”

by the UK Government “in and around Calais” for receiving Ukrainian refugees are actually threatening our safety in the United Kingdom, rather than assisting it, because they are undermining the

“close co-operation we need with our”

EU

“neighbours to keep our own citizens safe”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 March 2022; Vol. 819, c. 1663.]

Lord Ricketts elaborated on those thoughts in an interview with Mark D’Arcy for the Friday night broadcast of BBC Radio 4’s “Today in Parliament”. Drawing on his expertise, he said:

“Security is always a matter of risk management—there is never zero risk”.

However, because the refugees are largely women and children, they do not, in his opinion, pose a security risk. That is the opinion of a highly respected former national security adviser, who has widely reported on these matters in the past. He went on to say that the United Kingdom Government need to take a

“a much more humane and open approach…and should not be requiring visas”

and security checks until people are here.

I ask the Minister why, if Lord Peter Ricketts thinks that we can do that safely, the European Union can do it safely and our near neighbours the Republic of Ireland can do it safely, the United Kingdom cannot get its act together and do away with visas to get these refugees into the country safely and quickly? I suggest that it is a matter of political will, and of a degree of hubris on the Government’s part, because they would have to abandon the political dogma of the Nationality and Borders Bill on refugees and asylum seekers. It is not just this crisis that has shown the deep-seated flaws in the Nationality and Borders Bill. Following the fiasco in Afghanistan last summer, many of the people who were supposedly warmly welcomed to our country are still in substandard hotels. Crises across the world show that the British Government’s approach on these matters is completely wrong.

I am not a big fan of the other place, and that is not because I do not think it is good to have a revising Chamber—it is important, and I very much hope that, when Scotland becomes an independent country, we will have a revising Chamber as part of the checks and balances on Executive power—but the problem with the one here is that it is not elected. Having said that, it has some pretty sharp operators and people who know their stuff, including Lord Peter Ricketts, and they have realised that big changes are needed to the Nationality and Borders Bill. Over the last fortnight, in a string of defeats for the Government, the Lords removed some of the most egregious parts of the Bill, including the criminalisation of asylum seekers and the plans for offshore processing. It is particularly shocking that if the UK Government got their way, any Ukrainians who, having made it to our border with France and across the channel, tried to claim asylum here would be criminalised. How can that be right?

It is disappointing that no Tory Back Benchers are here to speak in this petitions debate. I am sure that they, like us, have constituents who are upset and concerned about the situation. This is not a party political matter but a concern shared across the nations of these islands and across political parties. Part of the reason for that is that in the past a moral panic has been created about the number of asylum seekers crossing the channel to come to the United Kingdom. I suggest to Tory Back Benchers that they, as well as their Government, have a responsibility to quell that moral panic by basing their policy making on evidence rather than scaremongering.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am deputy Chair, heard evidence about people crossing the channel last year. Greece, Italy and Spain have all received many more arrivals in recent years than the United Kingdom. The United Nations reports, for example, that in 2020 Italy received around 34,000 sea arrivals, Spain around 40,000 and Greece 10,000, compared with the United Kingdom’s 8,500. Putting the law to one side, whether we are Christian—as I am—Muslim, Jewish, Sikh or another faith, this is a moral problem.

We are one of the richest countries in western Europe, and the Government keep telling us how fast our economy is growing, although there is a bit of a question mark over the figures they pray in aid of that. If we are one of the richest countries in western Europe and have a fast-growing economy, why can we not afford to help more of these people?

This the biggest humanitarian crisis in Europe since the second world war. It should challenge all of our thinking about our policy towards our fellow men and women, particularly people right on our doorsteps in continental Europe. There has never been a better time for the Government to revisit their policy toward refugees and asylum seekers. Let us start with visa-free access for Ukrainian refugees. Then let us follow up with some humble pie by accepting the Lords amendments to the Nationality and Borders Bill. That is what my constituents and millions of people across the nations of the United Kingdom want.

The European Union can do it. One of our most senior former security advisers says we can do it without compromising national security. Indeed, he says that to continue to operate in such a shambolic fashion will actually compromise our national security, because it will undermine the chances of good co-operation with our European neighbours. Minister, let us hear this afternoon why we cannot do it when the EU can, why we cannot do it when the Republic of Ireland can, and what is wrong with Lord Ricketts’s analysis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

What I find interesting is that I regularly hear how it is about moral duties and that people should be taking part, but I have to contrast that with the situation that the hon. Lady has alluded to in Scotland, where 31 out of 32 local authorities are not dispersal areas, including the city of Edinburgh. The only place in Scotland that is a dispersal area is the city of Glasgow.

[Joanna Cherry]

On Edinburgh—

[James Gray (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Kevin Foster]

I will take an intervention in a moment. The only dispersal area in Scotland is Glasgow—I am certainly happy to confirm that to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). However, we have taken on board representations from local government, and we are engaging with local councils about how we alter the funding system. Still, it is a fair point that there are plenty of communities across the country that have made huge efforts to support the current dispersal system and there are others that have refused. With that, I give way to the Member for Edinburgh.

[Joanna Cherry]

I am not the Member for Edinburgh; I am the Member for Edinburgh South West. It is quite a big city with several MPs. The Home Office’s own figures on section 95 asylum support show that, thanks to the efforts of Glasgow City Council, the percentage located in Scotland under that scheme is more than Scotland’s population share and higher than any council in the United Kingdom. We are taking more per capita in Scotland than our population share.

In relation to Edinburgh, would the Minister care to apologise to Edinburgh City Council, which has made one of the most successful and generous contributions towards the resettlement of refugees? I have worked very closely with the council on that. He has made his point about asylum; would he like to acknowledge Edinburgh’s world-renowned contribution to the resettlement of refugees?

[Kevin Foster]

Again, the hon. and learned Lady has highlighted how well Glasgow is doing. Earlier in my speech, I cited how Glasgow steps up every time, but the fact is still absolutely the same: Edinburgh is not a dispersal area. Thirty-one of Scotland’s 32 local authority areas are not dispersal areas—that is a straight fact.

[Joanna Cherry]

rose—

[Kevin Foster]

I will happily give way, but a fact is a fact.

[Joanna Cherry]

I did not ask the Minister about asylum; I asked him about resettlement of refugees. I am sure he must understand that there is a difference. He has had his wee go at Edinburgh about asylum. Now I am asking him, in fairness, to recognise Edinburgh City Council’s sterling contribution towards the resettlement of refugees. As he knows, Scotland has taken more Syrian refugees per capita than anywhere else in the United Kingdom, and that is largely due to Edinburgh. Will he have the generosity to acknowledge that?

[Kevin Foster]

I am happy to acknowledge all the generosity that there has been across Scotland in terms of the resettlement schemes, but the point still stands. It is rather odd to say, “There’s a lot being done on dispersal accommodation in Scotland because of one council down the road, yet the place I represent doesn’t need to take part in that.” As I say, we will be looking to reform the scheme, but it is perfectly fair to point out that plenty of communities across the United Kingdom step up for refugees and are part of our dispersal accommodation system, no matter how people try to argue it.

Refugees from Ukraine

Joanna Cherry Excerpts

Thursday 10th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The opening hours are because of labour laws in Poland. There have been extensive discussions with the Government, the Foreign Office and the Home Office on extensions. We would love the centres to work much longer hours, including at weekends. Believe me, we have been pursuing this. As I said, every country in the region has a different response and different laws that we have to respect and work with. We are doing everything we possibly can to get those extensions.

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

I do not think I have ever seen my Edinburgh South West constituents more angry than they are this week about what the Government have done, or not done, so far.

The fictional Prime Minister Jim Hacker once said:

“It doesn’t do the Government any good to look heartless and feeble simultaneously”.

Well, I am afraid this Government have for the past week. I welcome this U-turn, but will the Home Secretary take the opportunity to apologise to the Ukrainian refugees whose suffering has been needlessly exacerbated by the Home Office’s ineptitude? And will she apologise to my many constituents who have Ukrainian relatives whose suffering has been exacerbated by her Department’s ineptitude?

[Priti Patel]

To correct the hon. and learned Lady, since I became Home Secretary we have welcomed 20,000 Afghan refugees and 97,000 Hong Kongers to the United Kingdom over the last two years. These numbers are unprecedented, and I will take no lectures from her about heartlessness, particularly in light of the lack of take-up of the dispersal scheme for people coming to the United Kingdom who need housing. On those fleeing persecution, she and her Government need to look at themselves.

The hon. and learned Lady has heard me tell the House a few times about the work we are doing directly with the Ukrainian community and diaspora to help their family members come over. It would be good to recognise that we achieve the right outcomes not just by working together but by supporting them through the application process.

[Joanna Cherry]

You have not done that to date.

[Priti Patel]

Actually, we have. I am sorry if the hon. and learned Lady has not been able to use the many facilities we have made available to her constituents and her to make these cases come through.