British Nationality (Irish Citizens) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Friday 26th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) on bringing forward this important Bill, which I welcome and am very happy to support.

The Bill highlights the closeness of the relationship between the island of Ireland and the United Kingdom. It addresses the problem that somebody born in the Republic of Ireland, who is free to travel, work and vote across the United Kingdom, is still required to undertake a citizenship test when applying for British citizenship. It is an oversight that can be easily made to assume that an Irish citizen living anywhere in the United Kingdom, but especially in Northern Ireland, would already be entitled to British citizenship, especially given the uniqueness of our relationship and our close social, cultural and historical ties.

I therefore welcome the Bill, which removes a legal technicality and simplifies the process for Irish citizens wishing to officially become British citizens, but I would like to ask the Minister how it might operate in reverse. So, while I welcome the Bill, I would like some clarification from him on how that would work.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)]

On behalf of the Minister for Legal Migration and the Border, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), let me start by thanking all Members, from across the House, particularly those who served on the Bill Committee, who have engaged in debating the Bill’s merits on Second Reading, in Committee and today on Third Reading.

As many have said, this Bill is a huge credit to the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), who has rightly championed people being able to have the right to recognition as he has set out. He has conducted himself in an exemplary manner, not only with my ministerial colleague, who speaks highly of him and has been grateful for the engagement he has had in recent weeks and months, but with Home Office officials. As others have noted, the right hon. Gentleman has been persistent, diligent and challenging where the answers have not always been forthcoming as quickly as he would have liked. He has managed to get the right answers and to get them written down, so it is a huge testament to him that the Bill has secured cross-party support.

On Second Reading, Madam Deputy Speaker noted the “good-natured and constructive debate” that had taken place. I am pleased that that has continued, although I am not surprised; in the Government’s view, this Bill is doing the right thing and will make a real difference to Irish nationals and to those who have made their homes here in the UK and want to take the next step to become British citizens.

As we sit here, I am reminded of the words of our late sovereign, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, when she spoke in 2011 on the occasion of her state visit to the Republic of Ireland:

“no one who looked to the future over the past centuries could have imagined the strength of the bonds that are now in place between the Governments and the people of our two nations”.

What the right hon. Gentleman is doing today is making that recognition a little clearer, fresher and more meaningful.

My hon. Friend the Minister for Legal Migration and the Border also asked me again to reflect on the unique position that Irish nationals hold within the UK. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for straying when I reflect on not an arbitrary group of individuals, but my own family. Like many in the UK, I have family going back to what is now the Republic of Ireland but was then the island of Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. They were from Limerick, and my father exercised his rights and secured an Irish passport a number of years ago. That connection is something that many of us see not just in the living expression of our ancestry, but in the history of freedom that our citizens have secured together. We do not need to look down many of the memorials here in England before we start seeing names that are clearly from the island of Ireland and realise that our shared struggle for freedom is reflected, sadly, in the pain of loss of families across these islands.

Irish nationals already enjoy the right to work, study and vote, alongside having benefits such as access to our health service and social welfare. The common travel area arrangements for Irish nationals are now in statute under 3ZA of the Immigration Act 1971. That protects the ability of Irish nationals to enter and live in the UK without needing a grant of immigration, leave to enter or remain. That relationship is reciprocated by the Irish Government in regard to British citizens entering Ireland and this strengthens the relationship between our two countries. Indeed, the right to hold and to live both identities was also guaranteed in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, and many people have exercised it. Indeed a member of my private office who luxuriates under the joint nationality exercises it to this day.

Irish nationals who are exercising their rights to live and work in the UK must currently undertake the naturalisation process to gain British citizenships. There are many requirements associated with naturalisation. There are many requirements associated with naturalisation, such as a period of residence—usually five years—which is replicated in the Bill. However, many immigration requirements for naturalisation are designed for those who require formal grants of leave. It is not right to fully apply those to Irish nationals seeking to obtain British citizenship. Equally, the need to demonstrate competence of language—usually English, although Welsh and Scots Gaelic are also options—and to pass the life in the United Kingdom test seems at odds with the position of Irish nationals in the United Kingdom. We are glad that they do not feature in this Bill.

This issue has been raised in the House previously by hon. Members, such as the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell). Likewise, it has been discussed by Lord Hay of Ballyore, who sits in the other place—as an aside, a member of my private office has decided quite extraordinarily to go and run a marathon in Donegal this weekend, for which I can only wish him good luck. They have highlighted the strong feeling about the issue, in addition to the cost of naturalisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Corby would like to express his happiness with the Bill and the improvements it makes to our statute book.

Although the Government supported the underlying principles of the Bill, full Government support was dependent on the Bill being amended. Thanks to the right hon. Member for Belfast East and the constructive approach that has characterised the Bill, those amendments were readily included. Following the actions of Committee members who scrutinised and debated the Bill, the amendments have passed and the Government are able to offer their full, unbridled and unconditional support as it completes its way through the House and moves to the other place.

The Bill as introduced to the House allowed for only people born in Ireland after 31 December 1948, having been resident in Northern Ireland for five years, to register as British citizens. The right hon. Member and the whole House will know that before that date, citizens could not have been born in the Republic of Ireland as the Republic had not been declared, so they were automatically eligible for British citizenship.

The right hon. Member will forgive me for expressing that his modest initial proposal did not recognise the idea that he and I both share: the United Kingdom is whole and integral, and therefore citizenship laws that apply in Northern Ireland, as he has suggested, should apply to the rest of the United Kingdom, except when a particular treaty—the Good Friday agreement, for example—changes elements of that. I am glad that he has welcomed—as I knew he would—the expansion of the Bill to the whole United Kingdom.

Following the amendments made in Committee, the Bill’s provisions will apply to all eligible Irish nationals of all ages who live anywhere in the United Kingdom for five years. As noted by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby on Second Reading, the amendments made in Committee have done that, first, by making the route available to Irish nationals—regardless of how they became Irish—and not just those born in Ireland. Those covered by the provisions of the Bill as it was introduced will still be included, but the amended Bill is more expansive in approach. It will give all eligible Irish nationals a more straightforward pathway to becoming a British citizen.

Secondly, it does not have a requirement that an Irish national must have been born after a certain date. Under the amended Bill, people born on or before 31 December 1948 will have the same opportunity to make use of it as people born after that date. Thirdly, qualifying residents can be from any part of the United Kingdom, not just Northern Ireland. That ensures that all eligible Irish nationals resident anywhere in the United Kingdom will be able to make use of this important piece of legislation. That reflects the important point that becoming a British citizen is about a tie to the whole United Kingdom, not just one constituent part, even were we to expect its uptake to be proportionately more in Northern Ireland. I know that the right hon. Member for Belfast East agrees strongly with that.

The Bill will add a new registration route to the British Nationality Act 1981. It seeks to insert a new section 4AA to allow any Irish national who has completed the qualifying residential period in the United Kingdom to be registered as a British citizen if they apply and meet the requirements. The requirements are a period of five years’ lawful residence without excess absences, a specific assessment of the 12 months prior to the application, and being of good character. The Secretary of State would of course retain discretion over the residential requirements, allowing him or her to treat them as having been met even when they have not, where the exceptional circumstances of a particular case merit doing so.

In keeping with other applications for British citizenship, albeit not on the face of the Bill, Irish nationals would also be expected to enrol their biometrics and successful applicants aged 18 or over would be required to attend a citizenship ceremony. It would be remiss of me not to highlight that this Bill, alongside all other residential application routes for British citizenship, is subject to the relevant sections of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 on citizenship applications. I do not need to revisit the Government’s position in this area, as agreed by Parliament in passing that Act.

A question came up from my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sara Britcliffe) about reciprocal requests to the Irish Government. That is a matter for the Irish Government, but I have to say we have an extremely friendly relationship with the Irish Government; indeed, the elevation of the new Taoiseach in recent days was a matter for some celebration to many of us. He has been a friend for a number of years. I am sure he will serve the Irish people extremely well, and I hope that the friendship we have developed over the years may see an evolution in this area—but that is a matter for them, not for us.

My hon. Friend the Member for Corby would like to reiterate his acknowledgement that the right hon. Member for Belfast East is not in agreement with the Government over the aims of the Illegal Migration Act. However, it is necessary to ensure a consistent approach across the statute book, even if it is highly unlikely that an Irish national would ever fall foul of that Act’s provisions.

Furthermore, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby is cognisant of the discussion to be had around fees for this registration route and notes the questions and comments that were raised in Committee on that point. As Members of this House may be aware, the unit costs for border and migration services are reviewed annually, an exercise that is currently under way following the financial year end. The unit costs for the proposed route will form part of that annual review, to ensure consistency in that calculation; once that is completed, my hon. Friend will be able to engage further with the right hon. Member for Belfast East in that space.

I must make clear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Corby also did, that this is intended not to be a profitable scheme for the Government, but merely a way of recognising that there is a cost, and it would be right that that cost fell on those exercising this right and not on every citizen. This Bill has enjoyed varied and cross-party discussion and debate on its journey through the House. That discussion facilitated the amendments passed in Committee, which will expand the number of Irish nationals in the United Kingdom who may make use of the provisions to obtain British citizenship.

From early in the life cycle of this Bill, it was and continues to be the Government’s belief that a dedicated route for Irish citizens will reduce the burden for such applicants and create a more straightforward process to becoming a British citizen for our closest neighbours. The establishment of a dedicated route could potentially also allow for a lower fee to be charged, although I have already highlighted that that must be considered in line with ongoing work surrounding the border and migration services fees.

The Government are unequivocal in our support for the underlying principles of the Bill, which was first introduced by the right hon. Member for Belfast East, and we are pleased to provide our full support for the Bill as amended in Committee. My hon. Friend the Minister for Legal Migration and the Border and I would like once again to concur with and congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his success in the ballot and on helping the Government to find a way to correct the issue in our nationality system. I personally congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and wish his important Bill well as it moves through to the other place. It will make a welcome amendment to our current legislation—one that I hope will be exercised by those who have rightly and in a most welcome fashion made their home among us and are part of our lives today.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With the leave of the House, I call Gavin Robinson.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 24th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We now come to motion 3. The Order Paper notes that the draft order has not yet been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. I have now been informed that the Committee has considered these instruments and has not drawn them to the attention of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Before the Minister sits down, I have to put the Question on the deferred divisions motion.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A(3)),

That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motion in the name of Secretary James Cleverly relating to Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism.—(Aaron Bell.)

Question agreed to.

Debate resumed.

Main Question again proposed.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Minister, you can finish now.

[Tom Tugendhat]

And with that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the order to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I was rather hopeful that you would just get in under the wire, but thank you none the less.

Question put and agreed to.

Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill [Lords]

Nigel Evans Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 19th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

First, I thank all right hon. and hon Members for their contributions. This is a complex issue, and that is clear from the level of scrutiny and debate we have seen thus far. The Bill seeks to find a balance—the shadow Home Secretary referred to that very word, “balance”—between necessary investigatory powers and not having a Big Brother, nanny state.

I thank, as others have done, the security forces and those involved in the intelligence sector for all that they do, their work and their commitment and dedication to the job, which have made all our lives safer. Many in this House—I know a few, anyway—could say that they owe their lives to them, and I would be one of them. I thank them very much for all they have done.

I am keen to see work on international terrorism. I was talking to my friend, the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), about how international terrorism works. The Real IRA has contacts in the middle east and eastern Europe. It has contacts where all evil organisations come together, because their ultimate intention is to create havoc and murder innocent people. This Bill is important, because it can address terrorism in Northern Ireland and its contacts with international terrorism. I hope and pray that the work will be successful. As someone who has lived through years of terrorism, I am well used to curtailed freedoms, with checkpoints and stop and search. I have understood the necessity for that and have been thankful for those protections. Let me be clear: I have no issue whatever with this Bill in principle, but I have some questions for the Minister.

Various constituents have contacted me to express concerns, and I want to put those on record, ever mindful of supporting the Government on this issue as measures come forward. I will take a few moments to seek some clarification. First, a concern has been outlined to me about having a notification requirement to require operators to inform the Secretary of State if they propose to make changes to their products or services, and I am sure that other Members have received that briefing. Open Rights Group states:

“While this objective may appear to be reasonable, it would allow the Home Office to prevent secure services from launching in the UK, even where they are rolled out elsewhere. This provision would allow the Home Office to place itself in a position of power over the provider as soon as it hears about the possibility of data being less accessible than it is currently. This situation would take place without reference to an independent authority to assess the rationale or proportionality. Such a move might not be proportionate, for instance, if the security technology had already been introduced safely and with demonstrable benefits to users in other parts of the world.

Open Rights Group is concerned that these powers could deny people the access to technological developments upon which people’s free expression and right to privacy rely. For example, major tech providers such as Apple have stated that they would pull certain services from the UK rather than compromise their security if this power was used to prevent them from rolling out security updates.”

I gently ask the Minister to be clear about why the presumption should not be made in the manner I outlined and what discussions have taken place to ensure that providers such as Apple can work securely in the UK. The right hon. and learned Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman) referred to the dark web and all the things that can happen in it. It is really important that the dark web is taken care of in this legislation.

Also highlighted to me were end-to-end encryption issues and the inability of service providers to see service users’ content in their apps and systems. I am not a technical whizz kid; I am the very opposite. I am of that old generation who can just about do text messages on their phone and turn on Zoom meetings, but if something goes wrong, I am lost. When it comes to technology, I am not au fait with it, but I do know this. I understand the need for people with no question mark above them whatsoever to know that their messages are private and that the Government are not storing information—that could be accessed by others—on them for no reason. It is important that that never happens.

Data breaches affected staff in my office when my accounts in the House were hacked in the last fortnight. We let the security people know, and I understand that it is not unusual for it to happen, but when it does and people’s content is accessed, it is important that such breaches are taken care of. We have also had the breach of data on police officers in Northern Ireland. Those are both testament to the fact that breaches occur. Therefore, only what is essential should ever be gathered and stored. Reference was made to the need to have robust monitoring and regulation. If that had been in place, the Police Service of Northern Ireland data breaches, which I think disadvantaged more than 3,500 people, would never have happened.

While I cannot browse and shop online—I have no interest in doing so—watch TV programmes online or do any of those other things, I do believe that there is a need for privacy. My concern is that the Bill is encroaching too far on those whom the Government have no reason to hold data on. I ask the Minister again to make it clear why any online search history should be stored. These are gentle questions—they are not meant to be intrusive or aggressive—but it is important that I put these matters on the record on behalf of the constituents who have contacted me.

I highlight the concerns of my constituent that the Bill’s proposed measures are poised to

“profoundly impact political dissidents and opposition figures residing in the UK. Refugees, political exiles and human rights advocates who have sought refuge in the UK deserve the assurance of digital safety and security.”

I seek that assurance for those who have fled offensive and oppressive regimes and sought refuge in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

I would further appreciate an insight into how we can ensure that there is freedom to express opposition, yet not see harmful rhetoric. That balance is clearly difficult to reach. I seek the necessary clarification that we have struck that balance. I very much look forward to hearing from the Minister, because I believe that his response will encapsulate the questions we have asked and give us the answers that we desire.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We come now to the wind-ups.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I note that there is some interest in this debate. It must end by 1.18 pm, so I ask Members to be mindful of the contributions that they make.

Tackling Spiking

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Laura Farris]

I can provide my hon. Friend with that reassurance. The critical part of our response today is that we are working at every single level from the barman to the bouncer to the statute book. We recognise it as critical that people are protected when they are out at night and if they have cause to go to the police the following day. Our objective is to stamp out spiking.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I would like to thank the Minister for her statement and for responding to questions for over 40 minutes. I am now going to seamlessly hand over to Sir Roger Gale.

Bill Presented

General Medical Council (Fitness to Practise) Rules (Amendment) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Daisy Cooper presented a Bill to provide that an allegation concerning a medical practitioner’s fitness to practise may be considered by the General Medical Council irrespective of when the most recent events giving rise to the allegation occurred; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the first time; to be read a second time on Friday 26 April 2024, and to be printed (Bill 142).

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 12th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)]

Public services are on the verge of collapse, the gap between rich and poor has widened, and we are slipping back into the Victorian era. Food bank use is at an all-time high, and workers have not had a decent pay rise in 15 years. But we are not here today to talk about those things—in fact, we are barely ever here to talk about them in any meaningful way. We are here to legislate on the dog-whistle, fantasist policies of the Conservative party, who are electioneering when they should be governing, not offering any real solutions to problems and attempting to divert attention from their own failings as a Government. They are wasting the time of this House and squandering the good will of the people of this country.

We keep going round and round on this matter. Our Supreme Court has ruled on it: it found Rwanda to be unsafe, a ruling that was based on evidence. Legislating the opposite is not going to rid us of the facts. This is not an exercise in parliamentary sovereignty, but an abuse of this Parliament’s functions. It undermines the rule of law and the constitutional separation of powers. Yes, we are lawmakers and we can make and change the law, but the law cannot be used to change the facts.

Another fact is that the treaty with Rwanda, coupled with the Bill, breaches many of our obligations under international law. If that were in doubt in any way, the Government have helpfully outlined that fact throughout the entire Bill. Clause 3, for example, disapplies key sections of the Human Rights Act. It directly prevents the courts from applying the Bill in a way that is compatible with convention rights, it prevents any consideration of previous rulings of the European Court of Human Rights that have found Rwanda to be unsafe, and it removes human rights obligations from public bodies, including courts. The Bill would place an obligation on every single decision maker who has found Rwanda unsafe to simply rule it as safe. It restricts the courts’ ability to protect people who are at risk of harm, and it restricts individual legal protections. Do the Government fully understand what that means? Do they see how far they have sunk? Are they so fanatical about this flawed policy that they would bar courts from considering the very reasons why Rwanda might be unsafe, stripping people of individual legal protections?

From the very outset, this Bill has been ridiculous. Conservative Members would do well to note that there is no more empire. International law is not whatever we say it is; it is comprised of agreements and treaties adopted by Members of this House, and to dismiss them as the rules of foreign courts is as irresponsible as it is untrue. We signed up to those solemn and binding rules, so the Bill risks our international reputation and makes us hypocrites. How dare we condemn other countries that do not uphold international law, and how dare we preach to them, when we would undermine the rule of law ourselves? This Government do not really care about that, though. They care more about the squabbles of the Conservative party than our standing as a country.

If this Government were serious about resolving the issues surrounding small boats, they would do more to target people traffickers, and they would provide safe and legal routes. People do not take those perilous journeys for fun: they are often fleeing some of the worst persecution. They are some of the most vulnerable people in the world, not the Conservative party’s scapegoats. As has already been said, those who seek asylum from countries such as Ukraine and Hong Kong do not have to come by unconventional means because the Government have given them the ability to come by other means. The Government need to stop misleading the public with their use of the word “illegal”, because seeking asylum in this country is not illegal; it is not against any of our laws, domestic or international.

It is the Government who have exacerbated the problems in the asylum system, not the vulnerable people who are seeking asylum. We know this because the vast majority of claims are justified. After lengthy delays, three quarters of applications are accepted. The longer these processes drag on, the longer refugees and asylum seekers are prevented from rebuilding their lives in this country, and from working and contributing to our economy.

This Government have already spent hundreds of millions of pounds on a policy that is as crap as it is unworkable. [Interruption.] There is nothing more telling than the fact that the Secretary of State has been unable to make a section 19 statement. He could not say that this Bill was compatible with the European convention on human rights. The Home Secretary means to take us all for fools. For the second time this year, he cannot say that his plans for removing asylum seekers to Rwanda will not break international law. The Rwandan Government have been very clear. They have said that they will not continue with this deal if it does not meet the highest standards of international law. This Bill does not do that. This Government are wasting our time. This is not going to work, and I am not even sure it was meant to.

I am sick and tired of being dragged to this House to approve legislation that does nothing to improve the lives of my constituents or uphold the values of our society. This Bill should simply not be allowed to go any further.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I am sure that when Members rush to read Hansard tomorrow, they will read the word “crass”.

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

indicated assent.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Thank you, and I am sure that Hansard will have taken note of that.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Daly]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We have heard some blanket statements about immigration, but one of the curious things I found when speaking to people on the beaches was that the people seeking immigration to this country were all males, all single and all of a certain age. There were virtually no females in any of the places we were taken.

We are escaping both from what our constituents want and from the reality that motivates people. When I was in those camps, people told me, “We are told that the United Kingdom’s streets are paved with gold. When we go there, we are going to be provided with a lot of financial support through benefits and other things.” That is what is motivating the vast majority of these people to come to this country. Listening to Opposition Members, we would think that nobody in the world has that motivation to come here; that everyone is fleeing some type of persecution. That is utter nonsense.

Our constituents expect us, as a Government and as a Parliament, to put in place a suite of measures to address the problem happening in the channel. This Bill, as many of my hon. and right hon. Friends have said, is one of a number of measures being taken by this Government, on which they should be congratulated.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness said, although nobody seemed to pick up the point, the French authorities told us that a deterrent effect and policy—the Rwanda policy—is absolutely necessary. We saw, as did the French authorities, that when the policy was first announced, even though people were potentially coming over the channel, there was a drop in cases. The spike came only when it became clear that, through various legal means, the policy would not be taken forward.

Not only do the French authorities think we need a deterrent, and not only are countries such as Germany, the United States, Italy and Austria all saying that they need some type of policy and they need to follow the UK’s lead, but it is what our constituents want. We cannot have a situation where we cannot house people, where people cannot get a doctor’s appointment and where people cannot afford a house. That may be acceptable to Opposition Members, but we cannot have a situation where we have 10,000 foreign national offenders in our prison system. We have to take measures that reflect the will of the people, not the will of middle-class, liberal consciences. I sometimes feel it is more important for some to moralise than actually be concerned about what motivates their constituents and what we should be doing in this place.

I have heard two objections to the Bill, one of which relates to rule 39 injunctions. I wish to ask the Minister about that, because I agree completely with what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Sir Geoffrey Cox) said. May I ask the Minister to comment on the Government’s legal advice? I say that because, technically, the Government can ignore rule 39 injunctions; that is what the Bill states, although he may be able to tell me something different. I think that is an important part of the Bill and I would be grateful if he would comment on it.

I respect every contribution made by a Conservative Member, but I cannot believe that anyone thinks—I have certainly not read any legal advice that thinks this—that we should exclude the right of appeal or, in extreme circumstances, the right to challenge whether someone should be taken to a foreign country. There must be such circumstances. Even the star chamber advice says that there must be at least form of allowance in respect of that. The legal test that the Government have put in place, whereby somebody must show “compelling evidence” that they would suffer “serious and irreversible harm”, is a strong one. It will address, both legally and practically, everything that our constituents want us to do.

This is a good policy—one that the Government have worked hard to refine. It is within the bounds of international law and of what this Government have undertaken to the country, which is to tackle illegal migration and stop the boats crossing the channel.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I must now impose a five-minute limit.

UK-Rwanda Partnership

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Cleverly)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a statement about the Government’s plan to stop the boats and tackle the vile trade in people smuggled across the channel.

Three weeks ago, the Supreme Court handed down its judgment on this Government’s migration and economic development agreement with Rwanda. In that judgment their lordships upheld the view of the High Court and the Court of Appeal that it is lawful to relocate illegal migrants, who have no right to be here, to another safe country for asylum processing and resettlement, but upheld the judgment of the Court of Appeal, which means that the Government cannot yet lawfully remove people to Rwanda. That was due to the Court’s concerns that relocated individuals might be “refouled”—removed to a country where they could face persecution or ill treatment. We did not agree with that assessment, but of course we respect the judgment of the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court also acknowledged that its concerns were not immutable and were not an aspersion on Rwanda’s intentions, and that changes may be delivered in the future that could address its concerns. Today I can inform the House that those concerns have been conclusively answered and those changes made, as a result of intensive diplomacy by the Prime Minister, by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, by the Attorney General’s Office and by the Home Office. We have created a situation that addresses the concerns.

Our rule of law partnership with Rwanda sets out in a legally binding international treaty the obligations on both the United Kingdom and Rwanda within international law, and sets out to this House and to the courts why Rwanda is and will remain a safe country for the purposes of asylum and resettlement. This is a partnership to which we and Rwanda are completely committed. Rwanda is a safe and prosperous country. It is a vital partner for the UK. Our treaty puts beyond legal doubt the safety of Rwanda and ends the endless merry-go-round of legal challenges that have thus far frustrated this policy and second-guessed the will of Parliament. I want to put on record my gratitude to President Kagame, Foreign Minister Biruta and the Rwandan Government for working with us at pace to do what it takes to get this deal up and running with flights taking off as soon as possible.

Rwanda will introduce a strengthened end-to-end asylum system, which will include a new specialist asylum appeals tribunal to consider individual appeals against any refused claims. It will have one Rwandan and one other Commonwealth co-president and be made up of judges from a mix of nations selected by those co-presidents. We have been working with Rwanda to build capacity and to make it clear to those relocated to Rwanda that they will not be sent to another third country.

The treaty is binding in international law. It also enhances the role of the independent monitoring committee, which will ensure adherence to obligations under the treaty and have the power to set its own priority areas for monitoring. It will be given unfettered access to complete assessments and reports and to monitor the entire relocation process, from initial screening to relocation and settlement in Rwanda. It will also develop a system to enable relocated individuals and legal representatives to lodge confidential complaints directly with the committee.

But, given the Supreme Court judgment, we cannot be confident that the courts will respect a new treaty on its own, so today the Government have published emergency legislation to make it unambiguously clear that Rwanda is a safe country and to prevent the courts from second-guessing Parliament’s will. We will introduce that legislation tomorrow in the form of the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, to give effect to the judgment of Parliament that Rwanda is a safe country, notwithstanding UK law or any interpretation of international law.

For the purposes of the Bill, a safe country is defined as one to which people may be removed from the United Kingdom in compliance with all the United Kingdom’s obligations under international law that are relevant to the treatment in that country of people who are removed there. This means that someone removed to that country will not be removed or sent to another country in contravention of any international law, and that anyone who is seeking asylum or who has had an asylum determination will have their claim determined and be treated in accordance with that country’s obligations under international law.

Anyone removed to Rwanda under the provisions of the treaty will not be removed from Rwanda, except to the United Kingdom in a very small number of limited and extreme circumstances, and should the UK request the return of any relocated person, Rwanda will make them available. Decision makers, including the Home Secretary, immigration officers and the courts, must all treat Rwanda as a safe country, and they must do so notwithstanding all relevant UK law or any interpretation of international law, including the human rights convention; the refugee convention; the 1966 international covenant on civil and political rights; the 1984 UN convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings, which was signed in Warsaw on 16 May 2005; customary international law; and any other international law, or convention or rule of international law, whatsoever, including any order, judgment, decision or measure of the European Court of Human Rights.

Where the European Court of Human Rights indicates an interim measure relating to the intended removal of someone to Rwanda under, or purportedly under, a provision of immigration Acts, a Minister of the Crown alone, and not a court or tribunal, will decide whether the United Kingdom will comply with the interim measure. To further prevent individual claims to prevent removal, the Bill disapplies the relevant provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998, including sections 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9. The Bill is lawful, it is fair and it is necessary, because people will stop coming here illegally only when they know that they cannot stay here and that they will be detained and quickly removed to a safe third country. It is only by breaking the cycle and delivering a deterrent that we will remove the incentive for people to be smuggled here and stop the boats.

This legislation builds on the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which the House passed this summer, and complements the basket of other measures that the UK Government are employing to end illegal migration—for example, the largest ever small boats deal with France. Tackling the supply of boats and parts, the arrest and conviction of people smugglers, and illegal working raids have all helped to drive down small boat arrivals by more than a third this year, even as the numbers are rising elsewhere in Europe.

Parliament and the public alike support the Rwanda plan. Other countries have since copied our plans with Rwanda, and we know from interviews that the prospect of being relocated out of the UK has already had a deterrent effect. This will be considerably magnified when we get the flights to Rwanda. This treaty and this new Bill will help to make that a reality, and I commend this statement to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The usual rule applies: only those who have been here for the statement should stand to ask a question. I call the shadow Home Secretary.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cleverly]

The calls for more from the right hon. Lady’s own Back Benchers are well placed. I was hoping that she would speak for longer, so that she would eventually get around to giving us some comments about the Bill, or the policy, or giving us some clue about what on earth Labour would do.

It is quite interesting that, once again, we see the mask slip on the Opposition Benches. The right hon. Lady was critical about the financial arrangement that goes hand in hand with the agreement that we have come to with Rwanda. It is interesting that hers is the same party that was very critical of this Government when we were forced by circumstances to reduce our official development assistance expenditure. I just want to understand the Opposition’s thinking. They seem comfortable with the idea that the UK gives away money to countries such as Rwanda to help them develop, but they seem deeply uncomfortable when those countries actually earn the money by bringing forward reform. It is, I think, a rather distasteful state of affairs that they would like to view Rwanda exclusively through the prism of development and aid, but are deeply uncomfortable when a country like Rwanda earns the money.

The simple truth is that Rwanda is making huge progress in professionalising and strengthening its institutions, working alongside the UK and other international partners. I believe that we are duty-bound to support countries such as Rwanda when they play their part in addressing the issues that the world is facing. They are helping to resolve problems, rather than being part of a problem, and they deserve our thanks for doing so.

We will pursue this legislation, which supports a treaty that sees Rwanda strengthening its institutions and addressing some of the world’s most intractable challenges, and we support it as it is supporting us.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Can people please focus on asking a question and not making statements, and please can we hear the questions and the answers in silence? There is a lot of calling out on both sides of the House.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Clearly, he is becoming incredibly familiar with the legal challenges that the Government, the country and the nation face when it comes to migration issues. Can he give us details of the assessments that have been made as to whether the disapplication of the Human Rights Act and other laws is robust, will stand up to the legal challenges and, ultimately, will ensure the delivery and the implementation of this policy to curb illegal migration?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cleverly]

The point is that all legal and judicial processes have an appeal process. By extension of my right hon. Friend’s argument, the point that there is an appeal process in UK criminal law, for example, would mean that no one ever goes to prison, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Justice has just been discussing prison places.

The point is that an appeal process is an important part of any legal process. It will not preclude people from being sent to Rwanda. This is a robust scheme that strengthens our position and ensures that the decisions we make in this House—that he, I and others make in this House—define the UK’s immigration policy, not decisions made by unelected people elsewhere.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I remind the Home Secretary to face forward, so that his voice is picked up more easily and so that people can see him.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The Home Secretary and the Government will be aware that there has been some surprise at the reciprocal agreement to welcome Rwandan refugees to the United Kingdom. How can he demonstrate the safety of Rwanda as a third country while simultaneously accepting the conditions that produce refugees?

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

It is clear to the country that the Government are riven with division and chaos on this issue. Some still think that these plans are batshit, and some think that they do not go far enough, including the Immigration Minister, who has resigned. In an earlier answer today—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Did the hon. Member just swear?

[Alison Thewliss]

No, he quoted the Home Secretary!

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Please use other words.

[Neil Coyle]

Okay. In an earlier answer, the Home Secretary said that the Immigration Minister would be attending the Home Affairs Committee next Wednesday. Given that he has been embarrassed by his own team today, who will now be attending the Committee to take questions on this issue? Will it be him?

[James Cleverly]

It will be the Immigration Minister.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Thank you very much for your statement, Home Secretary, and for answering questions for well over an hour.

[Alison Thewliss]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Accuracy is incredibly important in this House, and I would not want something incorrect to be on the record. The Home Secretary said in his statement:

“Other countries have since copied our plans with Rwanda”.

I can find no evidence that that is accurate. Can you advise on this point of accuracy, Mr Deputy Speaker, because no country is copying the plan with Rwanda?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On a point of accuracy, those who are being moved to Albania will be under Italian law. That is not the case in the Rwanda plan.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

We will now move on.

Town Centre Safety

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 5th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Gullis]

I think the hon. Lady has forgotten the 7% rise in police officer pay that we saw this year. I have spoken to those officers about their living and how they work on the job, and they have of course raised with me the fact that money can be tight, but they understand that the Government have to be sensible with the public purse and cannot be seen to run amok with it, and they understand that any more money going into salaries may lead to less investment in new equipment and the technology that we need to track more crime. It may deprive them of the additional training for which they are desperate, because that is what enables them to patrol our streets. I am proud that our police are doing such a great job in recruiting 333 brand-new officers for Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire, in addition to the record numbers we are seeing across the United Kingdom. It is great news for our communities.

I like the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) a lot; she is a fine Member of Parliament—I know that will not help her on Twitter and I apologise for the grief she will now get—but she talks about Labour running police and crime, and I cannot think of anything worse, personally. The wokery that we saw the former chief constable bring in will trickle into our police force and we will see the police arresting people for thought crimes and nonsense like that, rather than having bobbies on the beat where they need to be, locking up the scumbags, scrotes and savages—that tiny minority who ruin it for the overwhelming law-abiding majority of our great community of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Follow that, Jess Phillips.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Gullis]

I reassure the hon. Lady that I completely concur with her views that our brave police officers should not have to sit with people with severe mental health disorders to keep them safe, when that is the job of the other emergency services. I will happily stand shoulder to shoulder with her and badger Government in any way necessary if there is time for legislation, because supporting our police officers should be an absolute priority of this Government.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am hoping to get on to the wind-ups by about 4.10 pm, for 10 minutes each, and we can then start the next debate shortly after that.

[Jess Phillips]

I welcome that intervention. Very noisy people from the midlands are my favourite. I actually think Stoke-on-Trent is in the north, but we are splitting hairs now.

I just think the gall to suggest that everything is all right looks really crass to the public. If hon. Members want to electioneer, as many of them seemed to want to do today, I suggest that they change that patter and do the things that they can do centrally, rather than blaming everybody else.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

If the remaining three speakers would speak for about seven minutes, we could keep to time—and Mr Brereton is going to show us how to do it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. That was a very long seven minutes, but I am sure that Kim Leadbeater will do better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Could those who took part in the debate make their way to the Chamber now for the wind-ups, which will start seven minutes after Mr Hunt starts speaking?

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

The town centre has become one of the dominant issues in Ipswich. When I talk to constituents, it comes up perhaps more than any other issue, particularly over the past year or two. In the time that I have been the MP, there have been a few tragic cases. A few months after I was elected, my constituent Richard Day was killed on St Matthew’s Street. Early this year, a teenager was killed in a knife attack in broad daylight on Westgate Street. That had a chilling effect throughout the town. Just a few days ago, at the Clapgate Lane Conservative Club, an attacker held a knife to the throat of one of my constituents. I have written to those at the club and will be visiting it soon to discuss how they are recovering from that incident, which was very chilling.

The thing about the town centre is that some of the most inspiring people I have met in Ipswich have been in town centre businesses. Just this Monday, before travelling to Parliament, I visited Miss Quirky Kicks, which has relocated in Ipswich and has a new café-bar—if anybody in Ipswich is listening and wants to go, I suggest that they do. There is also Geek Retreat Ipswich, which of course is part of a national franchise but is actually pretty decentralised. Geek Retreat Ipswich does fantastic work. It had its two-year anniversary recently. Its work to support neurodiverse individuals in particular should be commended.

As the Member of Parliament for an area that has a great history and a town centre with inspirational businesses, but which faces challenges, it is sometimes difficult to get the balance right between representing the concerns of my constituents and not talking the town down. That is a difficult balancing act, and although I do my best to get it right, some people might think that I do not always get it right. I cannot pretend that things are a bed of roses, because I think my constituents would look at me and wonder if I was on something, so I have to speak frankly and directly about the challenges as I see them.

When I knock on doors at the moment, I hear the reality that a lot of Ipswich residents who have lived in the town their whole lives are shunning their own town centre; they are going to Bury St Edmunds, Woodbridge and other areas. That is a problem, and there are many reasons for it. Some of the things that affect our town centre affect town and city centres up and down the country, and they are not easy to tackle: the growth of online retail; empty units; business rates, which need further reform; and, of course, the Labour council’s car-parking charge, which, according to my recent survey, 76% of people think are too high—I am just dropping that one in there.

Safety and crime is probably the No. 1 issue. The reality is that large numbers of my constituents do not go into the town centre because they do not feel safe and secure doing so. On that point, we have had shared prosperity funding to increase the number of PCSOs in the town centre during daylight hours, we have had safer streets funding and, of course, we have had our share of the 20,000 police officer uplift, so we have more bobbies on the beat in the town centre. In the Suffolk constabulary, I deal perhaps the most with Superintendent Martin. I have a huge amount of time and respect for what the constabulary does—it will always have my backing.

What people are saying in their responses to my survey is clear. I personally enter all the survey responses myself. So far, I have entered almost 1,000 responses. It is a bit of a weird thing, but I like to feel the responses, and I can only do so if I enter them myself—it is very strange and is making my flat look a bit of a bomb site at the moment, with envelopes and surveys everywhere. But anyway, the nuts and bolts of the issue are that, when asked, “Do you support a zero-tolerance approach to antisocial behaviour?”, 91% of responding constituents agreed. When it comes to the groups of large men we see—the groups of large men congregating and acting in a very antisocial way in the town centre, who are not dispersed by or engaged with by the police as directly as I would like—some 88% of those who responded to my survey said that they think those groups should be dispersed. Shoplifting is also a problem in the town, and 91% of respondents agreed that there should be tougher punishments for shoplifting, while only 3% disagreed.

The survey asked people which two of seven things would make the biggest difference towards getting them back into the town centre, and No. 1 of the seven was the police adopting a tougher, zero-tolerance approach to antisocial behaviour, so although I have a huge amount of respect for our police, we need more of them in the town centre. In addition, we need them to adopt a more robust attitude to dealing with the individuals in the town centre who are blighting the experience for the majority of my constituents and undermining a beautiful town and its historic centre. If people are not going into the town centre because of the behaviour of a small minority, that is a real problem.

On the shoplifting point, we do need to have the deterrent there. There is a challenge here, however, because some of those engaging in shoplifting are younger. One of the businesses I spoke to earlier this week said that those engaged in shoplifting are 16 and 17-year-olds, so it can be more challenging to deal with them.

In conclusion, based on my survey responses, when it comes to town centre safety, we need to boost the police presence in the town centre, adopt a zero-tolerance attitude and crack down incredibly hard on the rogue minority who are blighting the experience of the majority. We need to disperse the groups of large men who are hanging around and put in place much tougher punishments for those who engage in shoplifting. We have a great town in Ipswich—I am very proud to represent it—but the reality of the situation is that thousands of my constituents are shunning their own town centre because they do not feel safe. That is not me talking down the town; it is me seeking to represent my constituents. I am not going to stand here and pretend that everything is wonderful. Yes, I welcome the uplift and the shared prosperity funding, but we need action. We need to turn the situation around, and I will continue to work with the Minister—for whom I have quite a lot of time—to try to get robust action for my constituents.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the shadow Minister to start the wind-ups.

Criminal Justice Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 28th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Tracey Crouch]

I completely agree with the hon. Lady. People who find themselves sleeping rough on the streets are in a desperate situation, and the provisions in the Bill will do nothing to help them. Our local authorities, which often get a bad rap for the consequences of rough sleeping, have many officers doing brilliant work in trying to support rough sleepers. We need a holistic approach to tackling that issue. We do not need to criminalise them through these provisions, some of which, by the way, are laughable, respectfully. We have the idea that a prevention notice can be served to a rough sleeper at their last known address in writing. I am not entirely sure why that provision is even in there.

The point is that we need to be supporting people who are rough sleeping. I get that there is an issue with aggressive begging. In fact, various mayors across our metropolitan cities have said that, but rough sleeping does not need to be criminalised. We got rid of that as part of the Vagrancy Act repeal, which was supported by the Government. All we are doing is bringing that criminalisation in by the back door.

I will support the Bill on Second Reading because of the other measures, but I strongly urge the Government to remove the clauses on nuisance rough sleeping from the Bill. If not, I will certainly lend my name to amendments to remove those clauses from the Bill, on which I hope I would get cross-party support as a consequence. There are other ways of dealing with rough sleeping, rather than criminalising people.

The Bill also contains welcome measures to improve public confidence in policing after significant failings within forces to identify and investigate criminal behaviours. Those are welcome, given the shocking high-profile cases of recent years, but I suggest we reflect on how we protect good officers who do their job in challenging and fast-moving situations from prosecution. The Times on Saturday reported on the prosecution of PC Paul Fisher, who crashed en route to south London, where Sudesh Amman, a convicted terrorist, had stabbed two members of the public. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Mark Rowley said that it

“undermines the confidence of all officers using their powers to keep the public safe.”

He is spot on.

A constituent of mine—a frontline Metropolitan police dog handler—was sentenced today having been found guilty of actual bodily harm after apprehending a dangerous criminal, who was subsequently sentenced to 14 months in prison. At the time, he was hailed “brave” and a “hero”. A complaint made from prison was dismissed by every level of the internal standards process, and it was only when the prisoner appealed again that it ended up in court, with the shocking guilty verdict. My constituent’s 21 years of exemplary service are in tatters due to a system that actively works against frontline officers and instead advocates for passive policing. We do need to improve standards of policing across our forces, but, at the same time, we need to protect those officers who are doing their jobs.

I turn to issues that would be helpful inclusions in the Bill. This morning, the first part of the inquiry into the depraved acts of David Fuller in the mortuaries of the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust was published. The families of the victims of Fuller are always at the front of our minds when we, the MPs whose constituencies are covered by the trust and where many of them live, are informed about the inquiry. We collectively agree that the Government, the NHS and the trust should accept and act on the recommendations of Sir Jonathan’s report without delay.

Fuller will rightly serve the rest of his life in prison for the heinous crimes he committed, but there are two additional aspects of his crimes that the Government must also act on. First, the woefully short maximum sentence of two years for anyone found guilty of the sexual assault of a dead body needs to be substantially increased to at least 10 years, as per Baroness Noakes’s amendment to the previous Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. Secondly, the current legislation applies only to the sexual assault of a dead body that involves penetration. Given the sensitivity of this matter, and on this day when coincidently the inquiry published its report and we are debating the Bill, I do not want to go into further details, but, in short, non-penetrative sexual assault of a dead body is not included under existing legislation, and that needs to be changed. I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), who is currently abroad on Government business, will table an amendment to the Bill to that end. I truly hope that we will never see such depravity again, but in memory of those who were victims of Fuller’s crimes, we must ensure that the offence covers all acts of assault and that sentences are increased significantly.

I turn to an entirely different point. I am surprised not to see in the Bill a specific offence of tailgating at football matches. The House will have seen Baroness Casey’s report following the violence at the Euro 2020 finals. Tailgating causes significant operational, safety and security problems for major events at Wembley stadium as well as other football matches across the country—I witnessed that as I experienced the surge of those illegally attempting entry to Wembley as I queued to get into the final. I understand that the Home Office agrees with the recommendation for a specific offence and that King’s counsel has recommended to the FA that that can be done through either an update to the Football (Offences) Act 1991 via statutory instrument, or adding it to the Bill. Given that the Bill is in front of us, it feels like a missed opportunity not to include that offence in it, so I will happily table an amendment to ensure that it is in place long before we host Euro 2028.

Finally, there is one other point that I was surprised not to see in the Bill. There are many reasons for us to be disappointed that the Government dropped the kept animals Bill, but one particular reason, which is relevant to this Bill, is that it would have introduced a specific pet abduction offence. Given that there is no debate about the harm and impact of pet theft, I was surprised not to see the offence included in this already wide-ranging bill. There has been an increase in pet theft, and the Government’s pet theft taskforce believes that pet owners should not live in fear of this cruel crime. Since this was in our manifesto, I hope the Government will either table an amendment or support a Back Benchers’ amendment that creates a stand-alone offence and bring reassurance to the millions of pet owners across the country.

I appreciate that I have raised a varied list of points, and that others wish to speak and I am running out of time. In summary, this is an important Bill—our last Criminal Justice Bill before the election. There are things in it that we need to do. There are things in it that we do not need to do. There are still things that we need to put into it. Fortunately, we have an excellent ministerial team responsible for the Bill. I look forward to working with them as it progresses through Parliament.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

Dangerous Drugs

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Before I call Alison Thewliss, I point out that, as Members can see, there is a bit of interest in the debate. I will not impose a time limit, but I intend to call the Minister no later than 6.30 pm. If there are to be Divisions, they will come when the Minister sits down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

As I said, I will be calling the Minister at 6.30 pm, if not before. Three Members wish to speak. If you could all help one another so that everybody gets in, that would be really useful. I call Ronnie Cowan.