Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Joanna Cherry

Monday 8th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Jamie Stone—not here.

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

19. If he will make an assessment of the potential impact of the ineligibility of certain Afghan armed forces personnel for the Afghan relocations and assistance policy on the wellbeing of serving and retired military personnel.

Bill of Rights

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Joanna Cherry

Wednesday 22nd June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee, Joanna Cherry.

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

As acting Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I wish to remind the Secretary of State that we have completed two in-depth, unanimous cross-party reports, which concluded that the Human Rights Act is working well and does not need to be repealed or replaced. Indeed, that was the conclusion of the independent review, which the Secretary of State commissioned and then ignored.

When we visited Strasbourg last week, we were told that UK Government Ministers have given repeated assurances that the UK will remain in the ECHR, and I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State reiterate that assurance this morning. However, the Prime Minister did make some veiled threats in the opposite direction last week. If we are to stay in the ECHR, it needs to be done with integrity. We cannot pick and choose which convention rights we want to observe or for whom we want to observe them. Does the Secretary of State appreciate that the United Kingdom’s disengagement from the ECHR—make no mistake, Mr Speaker, that is what this Bill is about—risks giving encouragement to populist Governments in eastern Europe who have scant regard for human rights or, indeed, the rule of law?

Food Price Inflation

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Joanna Cherry

Thursday 19th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Maybe the Minister will be the next Chancellor after a reshuffle, given these questions.

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

Recently, I caught up with staff and volunteers at the community one-stop shop in Broomhouse in my constituency. They are doing a great job, but their food bank and their community pantry is hugely oversubscribed. It has become a bit fashionable in here to laud food banks. These sorts of schemes help to feed families and give dignity to users, but they really should not be necessary in a society where so many companies are enjoying the benefits of huge windfall profits caused by the same factors that have led to some of the increases in food prices. I hear what the Secretary of State says about not being the Chancellor, but will he use his position in Cabinet to urge that those windfall profits are taxed so that the money can be used to help people like my constituents, many of whom are working hard—employment is not the answer; this is about in-work poverty—and many of whom have received cuts to their benefits?

Prime Minister’s Visit to India

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Joanna Cherry

Tuesday 26th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Subject to being on the Order Paper and being taken, I must admit, because otherwise everybody will think they have an entitlement.

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

While the Prime Minister was away in India, the London School of Economics published research showing that our trading relationships with the EU have plummeted by one third since the Prime Minister signed that trade deal and it came into effect. Will the Minister tell the Prime Minister when she sees him after this UQ that no free trade deal he could ever achieve with India will replace the damage done to Britain’s international trade by Brexit?

Executions in Saudi Arabia

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Joanna Cherry

Monday 14th March 2022 Commons Chamber

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

I am puzzled as to why the Minister is so shifty about the existence of this memorandum of understanding on judicial co-operation—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Can I just say I am not comfortable with the use of the word “shifty” in the House, especially when it is a straight accusation to the Minister? Whatever we might think, I am sure that the hon. and learned Lady, with her good language from her court days, can come up with a nicer way of putting it.

[Joanna Cherry]

I am happy to put it more politely, Mr Speaker. I am puzzled as to why the Minister is so evasive in respect of the persistent questioning about the existence of this memorandum of understanding on judicial co-operation. If it does not exist, why does she not just say that it does not exist? If it exists, why can we not see a copy? Why can she not tell us whether there is a human rights risk assessment and publish that?

Covid-19 Update

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Joanna Cherry

Wednesday 5th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I think I need to help a bit. Prime Minister, I am here in the Chair, not over that way—that will help us all. The other thing I would say is that I do not want to keep you here forever, Prime Minister, but a lot of people are standing to be called and we do want to hear from them, so it might be easier for you if you could shorten some of the answers.

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

At Prime Minister’s questions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) movingly raised the plight of care home residents, especially those with dementia, who have been left without visits from their loved ones during the pandemic. We on the Joint Committee on Human Rights have repeatedly raised our concerns about care homes implementing highly restrictive visiting rules, potentially contrary to the Government’s guidance and in contravention of the human rights of residents and loved ones. We have recommended that proper individualised risk assessments be carried out in all cases. I noted the Prime Minister’s sympathy for the plight of my right hon. Friend and her mother, but what specific steps will his Government take to make sure that visiting restrictions are proportionate across the board?

[The Prime Minister]

I repeat my expression of sympathy for all those who need to visit people in care homes and for the loved ones in care homes who are desperate to be visited. As I said, we have in place a system that allows for unlimited-duration visits for three nominated persons, which is an improvement on where we were—the hon. and learned Lady might remember—at earlier stages in this pandemic. We want to continue with a balanced and proportionate approach that does not allow the disease to get back into care homes in the way that it did. The faster we can get through omicron, the quicker we will be back to normal.

Serious Criminal Cases Backlog

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Joanna Cherry

Wednesday 20th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Joanna Cherry, who has one minute.

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

Criminal justice is devolved in Scotland, and here the focus has been on ensuring that jury trials continue in the most serious cases where accused persons are in custody and where the nature of the alleged offence demands that priority be given, which includes sexual offences. The report we are talking about today deals with England and Wales only. It has found numerous examples of serious cases being cancelled at short notice, and it has warned that delays could result in crime victims being unable to support prosecutions.

What new steps is the Minister taking to ensure that, as already happens in Scotland, the United Kingdom Government are complying with their duty under article 3 of the European convention on human rights to ensure that there are effective remedies for the victims of sexual offences and, in particular, that we avoid—or that he avoids—undue delay in getting cases of sexual offences to trial? I know what has been done in Scotland. I am keen to know what the Minister is going to do in England and Wales, given the finding of this report.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Joanna Cherry

Thursday 24th September 2020 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Does it relate to this session?

[Joanna Cherry]

It does. In her response to me a few moments ago, the Attorney General said that I intervened in the case of Miller v. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. I did not intervene in that case, and perhaps if the Attorney General had read the case more closely, particularly paragraph 55, which I referred her to, she would know that I was not a party or an intervener in that case. I think she is getting it mixed up with the case of Cherry v. Advocate General for Scotland, in which a year ago today, the United Kingdom Supreme Court ruled that her Government’s action in proroguing Parliament was unlawful. I was not an intervener in that case; I was the lead litigant, and it is great to get an opportunity to mention it on the Floor of the House today and to celebrate that great victory for the rule of law, made in Scotland.

[Mr Speaker]

In fairness, I wanted to give the hon. and learned Lady the opportunity to make her point of order. That has been corrected, and I am sure that the Attorney General will accept what she has said. It is not a point of order for me, but the correction has now been made.

In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.

Point of Order

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Joanna Cherry

Monday 10th February 2020 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will be brief. Before the 2017 general election, Amnesty International carried out research into abuse against female MPs. The results showed that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) was the most abused female MP in the United Kingdom, by a country mile. I was the second most abused female MP in the UK, although very far behind my right hon. Friend, who has had a lot to put up with. That was the perspective from which I made my comments, in exasperation, during the last exchange. I simply want to put on the record that that was the context in which I made my comments, and to say that the level of abuse that I have continued to receive has taken its toll on me, my girlfriend, my family and my friends. I really do hope that the Government are going to tackle it in this Session.

[Mr Speaker]

I want to reassure the hon. and learned Lady. Nobody should suffer abuse in the way that we have seen. It has happened to many other MPs as well. I want to make sure that that does not happen and to ensure your safety. Please, if you are getting abuse, we will ensure that the House supports you and we will take people to court. I have done a witness statement on behalf of every MP, which will be used back you up and to take some of the threat away from you.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Joanna Cherry

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 11th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Joanna Cherry]

Is it really in order for this hon. Member to impugn my motives and suggest that I want to make the people of Scotland, or indeed the United Kingdom, unsafe simply by testing an amendment? Is that really in order? It seems to me pretty close to being out of order.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

I know that would not be the case with the hon. and learned Lady, and I am sure that was not the intention of the hon. Gentleman.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Joanna Cherry

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 6th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Joanna Cherry]

I am not going to give way. I am going to—

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I ask the hon. and learned Lady to take her seat. I have been very kind in bringing in the SNP, and I ask that she not take advantage of the time—[Interruption.] Order. I wanted to share the time, so I hope that she is coming to an end, so that we can get one more speaker in, as I promised I would do by allowing her to speak.

[Joanna Cherry]

The purpose of the amendment is to require the Government to do what they said they would do when they introduced the Scotland Act, which was to make the Scottish Parliament the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world, and give it a say in a process that will fundamentally affect the rights of Scottish citizens and Scottish business. [Interruption.] I noted that Government Members were given as much time as they wanted to make their points, and I intend to take as much time, as is my right, to make my points.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think that the hon. and learned Lady’s speech has come to an end. Let us now please hear from the Minister.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Joanna Cherry

Monday 15th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Joanna Cherry]

I beg to move amendment 62, page 11, line 19, leave out

“the decision whether to pass or reject it”

and insert

“the motion that the Bill be passed is debated”.

Amendments 62 to 66 to Clause 10 aim to clarify matters around references to the Supreme Court, in particular where the Scottish Parliament resolve to reconsider the Bill.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 21, page 11, line 27, at end add—

“(aa) the period between general elections specified in section 2(2)”.

Amendment 22, page 11, line 30, at end add—

“(ba) the alteration of boundaries of constituencies, regions, or any equivalent electoral area”.

Amendment 63, page 11, line 39, after “unless”, insert

“it is passed without division, or”.

Amendment 64, page 12, line 18, at end insert—

“(2A) He shall not make a reference by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) if the Parliament resolves that it wishes to reconsider the Bill.

(2B) He shall not make a reference by virtue of paragraph (b) of subsection (2) if—

(a) the Bill was passed without a division, or

(b) the Bill was passed on a division and the number of members voting in favour of it was at least two thirds of the total number of seats for members of the Parliament.”

This amendment establishes that a Bill passed by consensus in the Scottish Parliament (i.e. without a division) automatically meets the super-majority requirement and ensures that a Presiding Officer’s statement is not required if the super-majority requirements are not triggered.

Amendment 65, page 12, line 23, at end insert—

“(3A) Subsection (3B) applies where—

(a) a reference has been made in relation to a Bill under this section, and

(b) the reference has not been decided or otherwise disposed of.

(3B) If the Parliament resolves that it wishes to reconsider the Bill—

(a) the Presiding Officer shall notify the Advocate General, the Lord Advocate and the Attorney General of that fact, and

(b) the person who made the reference in relation to the Bill shall request the withdrawal of the reference.”

Amendment 66, page 12, line 27, leave out subsections (11) and (12) and insert—

“(10A) In subsection (4) after paragraph (a) insert—

“(aa) where section 32A(2)(b) applies—

(i) the Supreme Court decides that the Bill or any provision of the Bill relates to a protected subject matter, or

(ii) a reference has been made in relation to the Bill under section 32A and the Parliament subsequently resolves that it wishes to reconsider the Bill.”

(10B) After that subsection insert—

“(4A) Standing orders shall provide for an opportunity for the reconsideration of a Bill after its rejection if (and only if), where section 32A(2)(a) applies—

(a) the Supreme Court decides that the Bill or any provision of the Bill does not relate to a protected subject matter, or

(b) the Parliament resolves that it wishes to reconsider the Bill.””

Clause 10 stand part.

Amendment 67, in clause 11, page 13, line 4, at end insert—

“(1A) In paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 (protection of Scotland Act 1998 from modification), delete ‘(2)(f) the Human Rights Act 1998’”

This amendment would remove the Human Rights Act 1998 from the list of protected provisions in Schedule 4 of the Scotland Act 1998.

Amendment 68, page 13, line 10, paragraph (a)(ii), leave out “(3)” and insert “(2B)”.

Amendments 68 to 88 to Clause 11 would grant the Scottish Parliament powers to make decisions about all matters relating to the arrangements and operations of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government as agreed in the Smith Commission.

Amendment 69, page 13, line 11, paragraph (a)(iii), leave out “11” and insert “12”.

Amendment 70, page 13, line 12, paragraph (a)(iv), leave out from “section” to the end and insert “sections 13 to 27,”.

Amendment 71, page 13, line 13, paragraph (a)(v), leave out from “(v)” to the end and insert “section 28(1) to (6),”.

Amendment 72, page 13, line 14, paragraph (a)(vi), leave out from “(vi)” to the end and insert “sections 29(2)(e)”.

Amendment 73, page 13, line 15, paragraph (a)(vii), leave out “27(1) and (2)” and insert “31”.

Amendment 74, page 13, line 16, paragraph (a)(viii), leave out “28(5)” and insert “32(1) to (3),”.

Amendment 75, page 13, line 17, paragraph (a)(ix), leave out “(1)(a) and (b) and (2) and (3)”.

Amendment 76, page 13, line 18, paragraph (a)(x), leave out “39” and insert “38”.

Amendment 77, page 13, line 21, paragraph (b)(i), leave out “44(1B)(a) and (b), and (2)” and insert “44(1C), (2) and (4),”.

Amendment 78, page 13, line 22, paragraph (b)(ii), leave out “(3) to (7)” and insert “to 50”.

Amendment 79, page 13, line 23, paragraph (b)(iii), leave out “46(1) to (3)” and insert “51(1), (2) and (5) to (8)”.

Amendment 80, page 13, line 24, paragraph (b)(iv), leave out “47(3)(b) to (e)” and insert “52”.

Amendment 81, page 13, line 25, paragraph (b)(v), leave out “48(2) to (4)” and insert “59”.

Amendment 82, page 13, line 26, paragraph (b)(vi), leave out “49(2) and (4)(b) to (e)” and insert “61”.

Amendment 83, page 13, line 27, leave out paragraph (b)(vii).

Amendment 84, page 13, line 28, paragraph (c), leave out “(3)”.

Amendment 85, page 13, line 29, paragraph (d), leave out from “general,” to the end of the paragraph, and insert—

“(i) sections 81 to 85,

(ii) sections 91 to 95, and

(iii) section 97,”.

Amendment 86, page 13, line 31, paragraph (e), leave out from “supplementary,” to the end of the paragraph in line 37, and insert—

“(i) sections 112, 113 and 115, and Schedule 7 (insofar as those sections and that Schedule apply to any power in this Act of the Scottish Ministers to make subordinate legislation),

(ii) sections 118, 120 and 121,

(iii) section 124 (insofar as that section applies to any power in this Act of the Scottish Ministers to make subordinate legislation),

(iv) section 126(1) and (6) to (8), and

(v) section 127,”.

Government amendments 108 to 110.

Amendment 87, page 13, line 39, paragraph (g), leave out “6” and insert “7”.

Amendment 88, page 13, line 41, paragraph (h), leave out

“paragraphs 1 to 6 of”.

Clause stand part.

[Joanna Cherry]

I rise to speak in favour of amendments 62 and 67. Amendment 67 would introduce to clause 11 a subsection that would remove the Human Rights Act from the list of protected provisions in schedule 4 to the Scotland Act 1998.

In the debate on the Gracious Speech, the Home Secretary confirmed that a Bill will be brought forward during this Parliament to introduce a Bill of Rights and to repeal the Human Rights Act. The Scottish National party has consistently opposed repeal of the Human Rights Act. We won the election in Scotland and therefore there is no mandate from the Scottish people for repeal of the Act. None the less, the Secretary of State for Scotland has confirmed, albeit on Radio Scotland, that repeal of the Human Rights Act will apply equally in Scotland as in England. At present, the Human Rights Act is listed as a protected provision in schedule 4 to the Scotland Act, which means that the Scottish Parliament cannot modify the Human Rights Act. Amendment 67 would change that.

The UK Government have not been clear on how potential changes to the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European convention on human rights and the abolition of the Human Rights Act could impact on the place of the ECHR in Scotland’s constitutional settlement. That is important because the ECHR is entrenched in the Scotland Act. For example, section 29(2)(d) provides that a provision that is incompatible with the ECHR is outwith the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, and section 57(2) provides that a member of the Scottish Government has no power to make any subordinate legislation or to do any act in so far as that would be incompatible with the ECHR.

Neither of those sections would be changed by simple repeal of the Human Rights Act alone. It is clear, therefore, that human rights are not specifically a reserved matter; they are partially devolved. Scottish National party Members therefore argue that any repeal of the Human Rights Act without first consulting the Scottish Parliament would violate the Sewel convention, whereby the Westminster Government will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.

Matters are further complicated by the fact that the Smith commission and the draft clauses proposed putting the Sewel convention on a legislative footing. There is therefore the prospect of a very real clash between the United Kingdom Government commitment to revise and reduce the role of the ECHR in United Kingdom law and their commitment to the Scottish electorate to implement the vow. There is a real possibility of a clash between the Scottish and Westminster Parliaments.

It is worth pausing to look at the realities of human rights in the United Kingdom and why they matter. As I said in my maiden speech, the United Kingdom in fact loses very few of the cases brought against it in Strasbourg. The United Kingdom once had a proud tradition of leading in Europe on human rights. It was elected to membership of the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2014 on a prospectus claiming that it was

“a passionate, committed and effective defender of human rights”.

Repealing the Human Rights Act would not really live up to that claim and would send out all the wrong signals. The right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) said in 2014 that the proposal to repeal the Human Rights Act represented a

“failure of ambition…on the global promotion of human rights”.

Human rights matter to ordinary people in this country. Those who have benefited from the Human Rights Act include victims of domestic violence, who have been able to get better protection, and victims of rape, who have used the Act to ensure that the police properly investigate offences. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex people have used human rights to overcome discrimination in this country. The families of military personnel killed on active service because the Ministry of Defence supplied them with outdated equipment have also benefited under the Human Rights Act. These rights are very real for ordinary United Kingdom citizens.

In Scotland, we have a national action plan for human rights, which has been co-produced in partnership with wider civil society. We have a United Nations- accredited Scottish Human Rights Commission, which is internationally acknowledged as one of the world’s best. As I said in my maiden speech, our commitment to human rights in Scotland extends not just to the ECHR, but beyond that to social and economic rights. Through our work on social justice and challenges such as that on fair work, we are intent on ensuring that people in Scotland can enjoy their economic, social and cultural human rights. Scotland is also a world leader in its work to give full effect to the rights of children. We are very proud of that record in Scotland and we wish to protect it—hence amendment 67.

As I have said, the amendment would have the effect of removing the Human Rights Act from the list of enactments that cannot be modified by the Scottish Parliament. If the Scottish Parliament was able to modify the Human Rights Act, that would allow the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament to establish a human rights regime in Scotland regardless of whether the Act was repealed by the UK Parliament.

I hasten to add that, as our First Minister has said, the SNP is committed to opposing the repeal of the Human Rights Act for the whole of the UK, not just for Scotland. However, in the unfortunate event that it is repealed for the whole of the UK, amendment 67 would enable us to do something about it, at least in Scotland. That position has the overwhelming support of the Scottish electorate, as evidenced by the 56 out of 59 MPs sitting beside and behind me.