Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Pete Wishart Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 12th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

There have been some absurd and ridiculous Bills presented to this Parliament in the course of the past few centuries that it has been in existence, but it would be hard to find a Bill that is more absurd and ridiculous than this one. It is a Bill that wills something to be just because it wants it to be, and asks us to ignore reality and experience because it decrees it. That is just about as absurd and ridiculous as you can get. It takes some imagination to concoct something as comedically callous as this Bill. It would take a particularly warped mind to think that this type of rendition is a solution to anything, far less a sensitive and complex immigration problem.

It has been totally dispiriting to listen to some of the contributions from hon. Gentlemen and Ladies on the Conservative Benches—the dehumanising language, the talk of invasions and culture wars, treating people as commodities to be dealt with, and as scourges to be legalled away. I will single out two speeches that I think were utterly appalling: the disgraceful speech from the hon. Member for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher); followed closely by the speech from the former Immigration Minister, the right hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick).

But have the Rwandans not played an absolute blinder? They must have seen this Government coming from thousands of miles away. They have solicited hundreds of millions of pounds from them, and apparently they will get another £100 million more. They have done all that without taking one single deportee. I say, “Go Rwanda! You have made utter mugs of this chaotic Government.”

Nobody has won from this Bill other than Rwanda—certainly not the wretched people who will be subject to this ongoing problem and will be getting on the boats, at the mercy of all the dreadful people who smuggle them across the channel. This Bill will do nothing to disincentivise them. If they are prepared to risk their life to come across the channel, why would they concern themselves with the infinitesimal chance that they might be rendered to Rwanda? It just does not make sense.

This Bill certainly has not helped the Government, has it? I do not know whether they will win this vote tonight—apparently it is still in the balance, if that is news for colleagues on the Conservative Benches. I think the Government might just about have got it, but apparently it is still in the balance. Look at the list of all the different groups we have. We have the One Nation Conservatives, the European Research Group, the New Conservatives, the Common Sense Group—I would love to go to one of their meetings—the Northern Research Group, the No Turning Back group and the Conservative Growth Group. That is a group of factions that would make the People’s Front of Judea look like a model of unity and political consensus. This might be the very Bill that brings down this Conservative Government, and what a hill to die on—an obsession with immigration and with stopping the small boats. By God, they deserve to be brought down, if this is the Bill that will determine that.

Here is a novel idea: why do we not start to consider immigration as some sort of opportunity, a potential boost to our society and communities? Why do we not design safe and secure means to harness international talent as they seek to flee conflict and carnage in their own countries? We live in a world where the movement of people has never been so far-reaching and profound. One thing the right hon. Member for Newark got right is that that is going to be an ongoing feature of the international community. It will be something that we will have to deal with not just this decade, but for the rest of the century. Can we not be imaginative about solutions? Can we not look to see whether there are benefits to having people who were the cream of their countries coming to this nation? Instead, we are all about closing borders, stopping people coming here and making life as miserable as possible for the poor souls who manage to end up on our shores.

I am just pleased that this Bill is not in my name. It is not in the name of the people of Scotland. If we ever were in control of our immigration policy, everything that the Conservatives are proposing and presenting is the exact opposite of what we would do. Scotland rejects this Bill. My constituents want nothing to do with it. I will proudly and defiantly be voting against it this evening in the name of the people I represent, and I know that I will be joined by my colleagues. What a disgraceful Bill. What an appalling piece of legislation. It deserves to be shoved right in the furthest bin in the furthest corner of this country.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I advise colleagues that the winding-up speeches will begin at 6.30 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Illegal Migration (Michael Tomlinson)]

I first want to join the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), in sending my sincere condolences to the friends and family of the person who died on the Bibby Stockholm. May I also thank the hon. Gentleman for his warm welcome to me? I have received warm messages of congratulation from many colleagues on both sides of the House on taking on this role, and I am sure that at least some of them were genuine and that they meant it.

I also pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), for his work in this role and personally. I should like to say, within the privacy of this Chamber, how sorry I was to see him resign, how I welcomed and respected the work that he has done in this role, and how I look forward to working constructively with him in the future. I agree with him that there is a disagreement between us, but it is a good faith disagreement. I also agree with his point about the need for legal certainty and I commit to working with him on that very point.

I want to take the central thrust of the Bill and tackle head-on the point that the hon. Member for Aberavon has made. The point of this Bill is to address the concerns that the Supreme Court set out on 15 November. It is right to say that I respect the judgment of the Supreme Court. Members would expect me to say nothing less as a former Law Officer. It is because we respect that judgment that we have looked at it so carefully and that we have responded not just with this Bill but with the internationally binding treaty that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary secured in Kigali last week. That seems to have escaped the notice of many Opposition Members. This Bill was subsequently tabled and we are debating it here on Second Reading. This builds on the memorandum of understanding that my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) secured all those years ago. I will come back to her speech later; I was very grateful for her contribution.

I will now pick up some of the threads of the debate. We heard in some of the contributions what I would phrase as the moral case, or the compassionate case, for stopping the boats. We heard that it is a moral imperative to stop these modern-day slavers and smash these criminal gangs that are trying to push vulnerable people across the busiest shipping lane in the world, where people have lost their lives. On this side of the House, we are determined to take action. We are determined to smash the gangs and the modern-day slavery.

And some have raised the monetary cost, asking, “How much is this costing us?” I ask, what about the human cost? What about the human misery to which the slavers are driving people? There is nothing compassionate about an open-borders policy, and we have heard too much of that today and in previous weeks and months.

On the strength of the Bill and the legitimate concern, which many Conservative Members have raised, that spurious claims may be made—

[Pete Wishart]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Tomlinson]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, specifically on the point about spurious claims.

[Pete Wishart]

Can the Minister tell the House how many people will be deported to Rwanda next year?

[Michael Tomlinson]

It will start off in the hundreds and scale up into the thousands. I enjoyed the hon. Gentleman’s speech. Whenever he speaks, I always think he has a smile behind the grimace and the stare. I always enjoy his speeches, and I always enjoy hearing him being heckled from this side of the House.

Conservative Members are anxious about spurious claims; about people asserting that they are unwell and unfit to fly, when the contrary is the case. Those who are making the crossing in small boats are not unwell; they are fit, young men. Some 84% of those making the crossings are male, and 77% of those are aged between 18 and 39. I agree with my right hon. and hon. Friends when they say they want to make this work and make it legally tight. That is absolutely right, and I want to join them in that endeavour.

Refugees from Ukraine

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). I do not know why he is surprised about the reasonableness of the Scottish National party Members—I believe we are the epitome of reasonableness. One could not pay a higher tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), who stands on the shoulders of those who are reasonable in the House. Perhaps the hon. Member for Wellingborough should have listened to my speech before coming to that conclusion, but we shall leave him to determine that.

I think the one thing that unites the whole of the UK just now is that we all stand by Ukraine. We all want to do everything possible to assist the efforts to find safe places for the millions of refugees who are now fleeing Russian aggression. We stand in awe of their passionate defence of their country in the face of what must be terrifying situations and we want to do everything possible to ensure that those who attempt to flee will be met with all the hospitality this nation can summon.

Like every Member, my mailbox has been flooded with constituents willing to offer accommodation as part of the scheme set up by the Government; and if not accommodation, they want to help with resources, materials and cash donations. As every Member also finds, my whole constituency seems to be engaged in making collections for Ukraine. I pay particular tribute to the Polish community in my constituency—the largest Polish community in Scotland, owing to the world war two fighter pilots it hosted and who settled in the city of Perth. The effort has been simply magnificent: 10,000 people per hour signing up to the accommodation scheme, with 89,000 people signing up on the first day, leading the portal to crash. If Putin counted on the people of these islands being indifferent to a conflict at the other end of Europe, he will have been very quickly disabused of that notion. I am sure he will have observed the sheer compassion our constituents have demonstrated for the victims of his aggression.

What our constituents want—it is quite a simple request, really—is for the Government to match their passion to do something about the current situation. They want the Government to be fully engaged and to act to match the energy we are seeing across the whole of the UK. Our constituents have helped to ensure that there has at least been some sort of movement by the Government, by applying pressure and writing to their Members of Parliament. I hope that effort continues over the next critical weeks. They should not have to shame the Government into action. We should expect the Government to lead that effort without any cajoling from our constituents.

Perhaps I am being a little unfair. I actually want to congratulate the Government on their efforts so far. We are impressed by some of the measures we have seen brought forward, which seem to be making a practical difference. The Minister rolled off the impact that the measures are having on the Russian economy and the oligarchs. They are being felt across the whole of Russia. They are not enough, however. The Minister— I think I heard him correctly, but he can correct me if I have got it wrong—said that there are currently 5,500 refugees in the UK. I think that was the figure he gave, but the number of refugees is about to reach the 3 million mark, so 5,500 seems to me—I do not know about you, Madam Deputy Speaker—a very small figure to be proud of, particularly when 1.8 million have gone to Poland, 263,000 to Hungary, 230,000 to Slovakia, 453,000 to Romania, and 337,000 to Moldova, doubling its population. Fair enough, those nations border Ukraine, but Germany has taken in 147,000 and Ireland, which has a tenth of the population of the UK, has taken in some 6,646. The Minister tells us there are no problems or issues with Home Office procedures and there is no difficulty with bureaucracy, but why are we still at 5,500 people? I look to him to tell us that there will be a rush or a surge of people who are going to get here. We are waiting to see that surge happen, and we have to see it in the next day or two to be convinced that the Government are doing everything possible to act as if this is some sort of emergency.

We hear all the stuff about security concerns and the latest security advice. I am sure that to the Minister it sounds very convincing and I am pretty sure that is the sort of advice he is getting, but the questions that have been put to him are legitimate. Surely all our European allies and friends are getting the same advice, so are the Government unique in acting responsibly while the rest of the European nations are acting irresponsibly on the advice they are receiving from their security services? How on earth are they able to do more and get the numbers in that, for instance, Germany has, while the UK can get only 5,500? The suspicion remains—I hope it will be quelled—that the smokescreen of security advice is just another UK effort to slow, to deter, to frustrate and to do everything possible to make sure that people do not attempt to come to the UK. The Minister has to convince us in his summing up that that is not the case and that the Government will be doing everything they can.

I know this is difficult for the Conservatives. I get it. I know what it is like for some Conservatives. I have been observing them for the past 20 years and I shadowed home affairs for five years. I know their profound ideological beliefs when it comes to issues around immigration and people coming to the UK. I acknowledge the fact that they are deeply conflicted just now. I almost feel sorry for them, because they are obviously seeing all the images that we are seeing and I believe that they really want to do something for the refugees they observe in such difficulty. They want to make sure they are doing everything possible, but that conflicts with their inherent obsession of seeing the UK’s doors remain all but closed. I know they want to offer refuge to people in crisis, but that is weighed down by practically everything that informs them about immigration, refugees and anybody seeking to come to our shores. For years, they have fomented a deep, deep antipathy to everything to do with immigration and entry to the UK. Wanting to do the right thing, they cannot help being pulled back and constrained by their very essence and political nature.

We can almost see that tension play out before our eyes in real time. There is the usual do-nothing, indifferent initial approach. Then there are inflammatory comments from the Minister about letting people pick fruit. That is the bad side, but then there is talk of 100,000 or 200,000 refugee places being available. Then there are another couple of weeks of the Government doing nothing, to see whether they have got away with it. Then there are U-turns and offers of accommodation schemes, but they are always counterbalanced by failing to meet Europe in offering visa-free access. It is a wee bit like watching the very point at which Dr Jekyll is fighting Mr Hyde for control of the body.

Part of me thinks that we should be grateful that the Government are even doing any schemes whatever, given their inherent disposition. Let us remember that this is a Government whose major political programme of the past few years has been delivering a Brexit that had immigration, taking control and stopping people coming to the UK as its cold, beating heart. This is a Government who designed the hostile environment with the most careful attention to detail—a Government who sent hate vans to the streets of London that showed handcuffs and told illegal immigrants:

“Go home or face arrest”.

[Dr Whitford]

My hon. Friend is giving praise for the fact there has been movement. I am sure that all of us who have repeatedly been in this Chamber for statements and urgent questions to try to get movement and get people here feel the same, but the problem is that it has been so slow that my constituent who is trying to get her mother from Mariupol missed the window of opportunity to get her here. She has had no contact with her mother for almost a week. There will be people trapped in eastern Ukraine who have no chance of getting here because they did not set off, because they did not have somewhere to go. That slowness will have had a direct impact on people’s outcomes and on people who die in eastern Ukraine.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that case. We have heard all week about such cases, in which the inaction and initial slowness to respond have led to real and profound difficulties for our constituents. She is absolutely right to highlight that case.

Given their background, maybe it is too much to expect a Government who can dream up all the horrors from hate vans to hostile environments to be a friend to refugees all of a sudden. I know that they want to do the right thing, but everything they know—everything that informs the deep-seated ideology that runs through the whole party of government—is getting in the way.

It will be up to the British people to resolve the tension and the balance, and to fortify the Dr Jekyll part of the Government’s split personality. It is as if every time the Government reach for the apple of righteousness, they feel the creaking branch below, breaking their fall as they descend back into their pit of bedevilment around immigration. The people of these islands will have to keep the Government focused on doing the right thing and not let them give in to the temptations of their dark side.

Let me give the Minister an example of where he can start. The failure to get the Dnipro orphans out of Poland and home is now simply a disgrace, and it must be fixed right now. The orphans are still in Poland waiting for the UK to resolve its almost idiotic bureaucracy and get them to Scotland, where accommodation and support await them.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

I see the Minister getting to his feet. I hope he will tell me that it is now resolved and that they will be on that flight on Friday. He is smiling, so I am waiting in anticipation—I am actually quite excited. I am sure he is not going to let us down.

[Kevin Foster]

I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene briefly from the Dispatch Box. We were approached earlier this week. For a child who is Ukrainian to be removed from Poland unaccompanied requires the consent of the Polish and Ukrainian authorities. That has not been given. However, we have indicated that if it were, we would facilitate their travel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I am happy to accept that challenge; I heard the Deputy Prime Minister raise it at Prime Minister’s questions, too. All the necessary safeguarding has been done and put in place.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Eddie Hughes)]

No, it hasn’t. It clearly hasn’t.

[Pete Wishart]

It has been done and put in place. Here is my challenge to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster): if everything comes through to him this afternoon—I believe it has already been sent—will he be satisfied? Will he allow those children to get on that plane to the accommodation waiting for them, the support in place, and those ready to look after them?

[Kevin Foster]

As I pointed out, these Ukrainian children are in Poland. For them to be moved unaccompanied requires the consent of the Ukrainian Government and the Polish authorities. If that is given, we would look to facilitate it; it has not.

[Pete Wishart]

Right. We will make sure that, once again, the information is given to the Minister. I hear him say that there is going to be movement—

[Eddie Hughes]

Once again? He has not been given it.

[Pete Wishart]

We will make sure that it is given. I think that the Minister is reasonably genuine about wanting to resolve it and get it fixed. Let us remember that these are children who have left without passports and have no information to support them. If that is what is required, that is what will be given, and we will make sure that they get on the plane.

I pay tribute to the Dnipro Kids appeal. A bunch of Hibs fans went to Dnipro 17 years ago for a UEFA cup tie against the team there—I cannot remember its name, but I am sure it has one of these fancy names like the Dynamos or whatever—and have kept the association and relationship for all that time. They have worked selflessly to make sure that orphans in Ukraine, even at times of peace, are looked after. Here they are, sitting in Poland, wanting to get these kids home. [Interruption.] I hear the Minister. Let us now work together, and we will get that fixed. A plane is going from Heathrow to Poland on Thursday with medical supplies, resources and facilities. That plane should be taking these children right back to Heathrow, where there is a train waiting for them to get to Scotland, where they will meet up with all their colleagues at the Hibernian football club on Easter Road and the children will be placed in accommodation across Scotland.

[Kevin Foster]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

I am sure that the Minister will tell me the same thing, but we are working together and we will ensure that we get the information through. I see him holding a letter; if he wants to intervene again, I give way.

[Kevin Foster]

I will very briefly state that the letter from the Ukrainian ambassador to the UK Government makes it clear that no Ukrainian child can be placed in the care of foreigners without the consent of Ukraine. I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s points, and I note the comments that were made in this House earlier, but the point is that the Ukrainian Government need to consent to their children—their citizens—being moved from Poland. That consent has not been given. This is not a Home Office issue.

[Pete Wishart]

That consent will be communicated to the Minister.

I do not know why I have been blessed by this organisation within my constituency—Steve Carr, who has organised Dnipro Kids, is a Perth resident—but my constituent Gavin Price, who just so happens to be the boss of Elgin City football club and who owns the Schiehallion hotel and the Fountain bar in Aberfeldy, has a database of 20 businesses in highland Perthshire that could offer sponsorship and places of employment to about 100 refugees. Some 40 homes in that wonderful part of Scotland, highland Perthshire—not a place high in density of population—are prepared to play their part and accommodate those refugees if they can be offered those positions and can get across to Scotland.

Gavin has applied to the usual schemes and has not heard a thing. I raised his case in the House two weeks ago and have not even been given the courtesy of a reply to tell me exactly what is going to happen. The initiative would not only find accommodation places for refugees, but help tourism businesses in a fragile rural area that can no longer get their staff because of Brexit—they just cannot get people to work in those places. They are finding employment opportunities for refugees, who could work under the scheme for three years. These are people that those businesses need and require, which would help them out during the crisis created thanks to this Government and their crazy Brexit policy. Maybe the resistance to the idea is something to do with that—I really hope not.

These are community organisations in constituencies getting together and solving a problem on behalf of this Government. They are not asking the Government to do any work or do anything in particular; all they are asking is that the Government say, “Yes, you can come in.” We understand that even the flights are going to be paid for, so that is not even an issue for the Government. Communities around the country are organising, like Gavin and others in Aberfeldy and highland Perthshire—please let them.

I want the Government to get over their Brexit demons—their anti-immigration, “stop people coming through” demons. I want them to do the right thing and match the efforts of our constituents. The parable of Jekyll and Hyde is that they were both finished off by not being able to keep their split personality in balance. It is up to the Government to get us back into balance and do the right thing by these refugees.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)]

You say “seven minutes”, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) has just spoken for 17 minutes. Members have talked of graciousness and reasonableness; perhaps they should also consider the time afforded to everyone else.

What is most important is that we provide a warm welcome, as a country that really wants to help and to stand up for refugees. Our country has a proud record in that regard. Here are two separate schemes that are uncapped, and will allow people to come here for three years and gain access to benefits, education, welfare support and training. This must surely be fair; given that there has been some criticism on the basis that we do not offer the same terms to other refugees, it cannot be that bad.

Let me say to all Members that they should not stand up and denigrate this system, trying to suggest that these desperate people are not welcome here, and then ask why so few are coming. If I were one of those people and had listened to the speech from the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire, I would not want to come here either. The simple fact is that we are a generous country, this is a scheme that will work, and we should be judged by our results.

[Pete Wishart]

Five thousand five hundred!

[Huw Merriman]

The hon. Gentleman yells a number at me. Let me give some more numbers. Between 2015 and 2020, the UK resettled 24,700 refugees—and resettling refugees is what this is all about. The next best country in Europe was Sweden, which resettled 20,900. We should be judged on what we actually do rather than the rhetoric from others about what they think we will do, because it is markedly different.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 8th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will not give way further, so that the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) can have some time. The Back Benchers have debated this Bill already.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Priti Patel]

No I will not, because I want to give the right hon. Lady a chance to speak in the debate and quite frankly, other Members on the Opposition Benches have already delayed the debate.

Illegal immigration is facilitated by serious organised criminals exploiting people and profiting from human misery. Illegal migration is counter to our national interests, because those criminal gangs and networks are also responsible for other illicit activity including those involving drugs, firearms and serious violence. If left unchecked, it is a risk to our country and our national interests. Illegal migration is counter to our moral interests, because it means that people are put into the hands of ruthless criminals, which we want to stop because it endangers lives. By facilitating illegal entry via unsafe means such as boats, lorries and sealed shipping containers—

[Pete Wishart]

Will the Minister give way?

[Priti Patel]

I will not give way, because I want to leave some time for the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford. The hon. Gentleman would have had time to contribute from the Back Benches during the debate on Report.

Families and young children have lost their lives at sea and in lorries and containers because they put their trust in the people traffickers. The challenge is not unique to the United Kingdom, but we as a Government are seeking to address these issues in a responsible way, because they have been neglected for far too long. Let us not forget that the British public are angered by what they see. The British people are fair and generous when it comes to helping those in need—[Interruption.]

If I may, hon. Members have had hours to debate this Bill. They are screaming and using delaying tactics because they lack the solutions to these problems, and we are going to put fundamental reforms into statute.

The reality is that the system is broken. It has been open to gaming and criminal exploitation, and we are compelled to act with the simple principle of fairness. We are the only Government who will bring forward a balanced Bill. We are bringing forward a legislative framework that is firm and fair, prioritising those in genuine need. We will have powers to stop illegal entry and to break the business model of the evil people smugglers, who will face life in prison, which is something all Opposition Members have opposed completely.

We will bring in tough new sentences—maximum life sentences—for people smugglers and facilitators. There will be new rules to stop unscrupulous people posing as children, and there will be stronger enforcement powers for Border Force. Importantly, those who travel through a safe country should claim asylum in that safe country, rather than asylum shopping in the way we see right now.

Prisoners (Disclosure of Information About Victims) Bill

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 3rd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is right to recognise the gravity of the Bill, but he is also right that we cannot let this pass without recognising the absurdity of the EVEL process. It is good to have these reforms, but the only reform required when it comes to English votes for English laws is its abolition, to get rid of this nonsense that we have to subject ourselves to on an ongoing basis. Does he agree that we have to look seriously at what progress we can make on abandoning the idea of having two classes of Members of Parliament in this House?

[Patrick Grady]

Yes; my hon. Friend is right. The point that we have always made is that it should certainly not be for the Government, and it should not have to fall to the Chair either, to decide what matters are or are not important to our constituents. It should be for those of us in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Minister has moved a consent motion, and it will be for the Committee to decide whether to consent, but I hope that we do not have to find ourselves in this situation too often in the future.

Question put and agreed to.

The occupant of the Chair left the Chair to report the decision of the Committee (Standing Order No. 83M(6)).

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair; decision reported.

Third Reading

Dangerous Drugs

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

Like my hon. Friend, I have seen the results of Spice and Mamba directly while out on patrol on the streets of Newcastle. We have had passionate debates in this place about those drugs—particularly with my hon. Friends the Members for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) and for Torbay (Kevin Foster), who are passionate about their impact on town centres. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight) and other colleagues that the draft order is not in any way a relaxation of controls; it is simply a response to representations made by the scientific community about the need to revisit our regulations because of some consequences that were not intended when they were originally drafted.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

It is really good to hear the Government accepting solid evidence when it comes to drugs issues, because they do not have a very good record in that respect. In Scotland, we have had 1,000 drug deaths in the past year. The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is doing an inquiry into the reasons behind that, and one thing that we have found is that the Misuse of Drugs Act gets in the way of treatment and recovery and is an impediment to dealing with the problem, yet the Home Office will not send a Minister to our inquiry. Will the Minister confirm—today, now—that a Home Office Minister will turn up, give evidence and defend the Government’s approach to drug use?

[Mr Hurd]

I am more than happy to speak to the hon. Gentleman offline about this. I am not aware of the underlying issue, but I certainly agree with him about the absolute need to proceed in this complex and extremely sensitive area on the basis of evidence. I am more than happy to have a conversation with him outside the Chamber about the Scottish question and situation, because I am not aware of that problem.

Perhaps it would be helpful if I gave some background to the recent control of these drugs and why the Government are making this amendment. We rely on independent experts, the ACMD, which first published advice in 2014 on the third generation of synthetic cannabinoids—a group of compounds, commonly referred to as Spice and Mamba, that mimic the effects of cannabis. The advice recommended that these compounds be captured by way of a generic definition as class B drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act because of their harms and widespread availability. This followed the control of the first generation of synthetic cannabinoids in 2009 and of the second generation in 2013.

The ACMD also recommended that the compounds be placed in schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001, because it could not confirm any known medicinal uses at the time. Placing these compounds in schedule 1 reflects the fact that they have little or no known medicinal or therapeutic benefits in the UK, and will mean that they can be legally accessed only with a Home Office licence, which is generally issued for research or industrial purposes.

Following the ACMD’s recommendations, the changes came into effect on 14 December 2016, but shortly after their implementation, the ACMD and the Home Office were informed by representatives of the research community that the breadth of the definition meant that it captured a large number of research compounds, many of which were reported not to be synthetic cannabinoids. As a result of the broad, generic definition, research institutions needed to obtain schedule 1 licences when they may not otherwise have needed them.

The licensing process is in place to ensure a minimised risk of misuse and diversion of, and harm from, controlled drugs. However, as I am sure the House will agree, we would not wish to place substances under control and make them subject to the licensing requirements where there is no need to do so. It is therefore important that we amend the definition, which has created an additional formal regulatory burden for the research industry relating to compounds that were never intended to be controlled. To remedy this, the ACMD made a further recommendation in December 2017 that the scope of the generic definition be reduced.

The order amends the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to reduce the scope of the generic definition of the third generation of synthetic cannabinoids, so that while those compounds that have been found to cause harm are captured by it, fewer compounds are unintentionally captured. Owing to the continued harms posed by the third generation of synthetic cannabinoids, the order does not repeal the generic definition. I repeat for clarity that such compounds as those that go by the street name of Spice and Mamba will continue to be caught by the generic definition.

The order, if accepted and made, will come into force on 15 November. A further statutory instrument will be introduced via the negative procedure to make the necessary parallel amendments to the generic definition under schedule 1 of the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 and in the Misuse of Drugs (Designation) (England, Wales and Scotland) Order 2015, so that those compounds unintentionally captured will no longer require a Home Office licence for the conduct of research, as they will no longer be controlled.

I hope that I have made the case to the House for amending the generic definition of the third generation of synthetic cannabinoids so that it no longer covers a number of compounds that were unintentionally controlled. I commend the order to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

It is a real pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), who is a fellow Select Committee Chair: he chairs the Science and Technology Committee and certainly knows a thing or two about good evidence.

It is actually quite encouraging and unusual, in the case of an issue involving drugs, to see the Government accepting evidence and doing the right thing. This statutory instrument is a really good reform of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Of course synthetic cannabinoids, which could be used in research to try to develop treatments which we know could help countless people in our constituencies, should be taken out of schedule 2.

As I have said, it is unusual to see the Government accepting good evidence. They normally approach drugs issues uninformed by evidence, and are singularly unresponsive to developments and debates relating to such issues and to the environment that is an emerging feature of all our constituencies and communities. They turn their face against the international innovations that are springing up not only in Canada, but in Portugal, Germany and other countries that take a very different approach to dealing with the contagion of drugs-related problems in the community. This Government are immune to the mayhem that their general policy on drugs is currently generating.

The 1971 Act is not just in need of minor tinkering. It is in need of widespread reform, review and updating. We in the Scottish Affairs Committee are conducting an inquiry into problem drug use in Scotland, because in two weeks’ time we expect to find that more than 1,000 people have died as a result of drug use. That means that 1,000 families will have been impacted by deaths that need not have happened. There are things that we could do to try to address and resolve this problem.

Our Committee had a fascinating session yesterday and I want to share it with the Minister. We do not know whether he will come to the Committee, but he will have to answer these questions; the Home Office will have to address the way in which it is currently handling drug issues and policies. I ask him to come to the Committee and tell us what he is going to do, because in one way or another we will get the answers from the Home Office.

As I have said, yesterday’s session was absolutely fascinating. It was attended by senior police officers from across the United Kingdom, and even by a representative of the Government’s own Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. There is overwhelming consensus and agreement that the criminal justice approach to drugs issues is failing. It is failing our communities, it is failing our constituencies, and, in particular, it has ultimately failed the bereaved.

We heard not just about this useful statutory instrument, in which a reclassification is liberalising policy, but about the constant ratcheting up—as a senior chief police officer put it—of drugs classification. Let us take the example of cannabis. Cannabis was classified as a B drug. The classification went down to C and then back up to B. We are hearing that there is overwhelming consensus that something different is required: we must start treating drugs as a health issue and not a criminal justice issue. I know that my colleagues in the Health and Social Care Committee are also looking into whether the general policy and its consequences could be changed and I am grateful to them for that.

[Norman Lamb]

I meant to mention the following case when I spoke earlier: a family in Norwich have just had to spend well over £1,000 on a private prescription for their young son who has epilepsy. They will not as a family be able to afford more than a few weeks’-worth of paying for this privately. It is ludicrous that that family, desperately in need of help for their young boy, cannot get it through the NHS; I think there have been only three prescriptions so far under the NHS.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I have allowed the debate to drift a little away from the scope of the debate, but I do not want it to drift too far. I ask Members to bear that in mind.

[Pete Wishart]

That is the point. It is all about this statutory instrument because it will help people like the family the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. It will supply the evidence and research so that that could happen. It is unacceptable that people, because they do not have this in place, are having to go abroad and are still being arrested when they come back to the United Kingdom. That was mentioned in the report from the Health and Social Care Committee today, so progress has been made, but we are looking forward to looking at the whole issue of cannabis when we go Portugal to see how decriminalisation has worked there. Portugal had drug deaths on a par with what Scotland is currently experiencing, but the number has been cut to a manageable level because of its approach to cannabis and decriminalisation.

As I say, yesterday’s session of the Scottish Affairs Committee was fascinating. Let me tell the Minister something that the assistant chief constable of Scotland said because it is important for this particular measure. He said:

“There are 61,500 problematic users in Scotland just now. It is growing in number. For the vast majority, the end for them is death. And the criminal justice process is actually pushing people into a place where there is more harm.”

That is from an assistant chief constable responsible for keeping people safe.

Someone on the Minister’s own advisory council said:

“We are seeing police creating ways to reduce the harm done by the Misuse of Drugs Act. If we fully implemented the law of possession, we would be creating harm.”

That is what we are hearing from everybody, but we are hearing nothing from the Government because they will not come to our Committee to tell us what they actually feel about this; they are not prepared to come to defend this, which is totally unacceptable. We now need to hear that they are prepared to come in front of us.

When the Government do talk about drugs issues, the policy is, “We don’t want to send the wrong signal.” A fat lot of good that does to people six feet under the ground as a result of failed drug policies, part of the ever-increasing drug deaths.

The Home Secretary is happy to dispense with all the compelling evidence—everything he hears, all the international examples about drug consumption rooms— because, as he said, of his own childhood experience in his own personal neighbourhood. The Government know the evidence about drug consumption rooms. The Government have even accepted the evidence about drug consumption rooms. The only thing the Government have not done is do anything about it. People are dying. Do something about it. This works: all international evidence shows that drug consumption rooms make a difference. They stop people dying and allow them to get the treatment and recovery services that they should be entitled to.

It is appalling that the Government have one message on this: the belief that a drugs war can be prosecuted and won. All we need is the kids from “Grange Hill” and Nancy Reagan singing “Just say no.” It is time that this Government grew up and accepted the real range of issues on this matter.

We know that a health approach to drugs issues is required. We know that problematic drug use is a result of a complex cocktail of deprivation, poor mental health, trauma, stigma and addiction disorders, but the Government’s policy does nothing about this.

We want the Government to attend our Committee to defend their current drugs policy. I say to the Minister again: for his summing up, he can get his notes from his civil servants and get them to say that somebody will be coming to our Committee who will give us evidence and is prepared to defend the Government’s policy, because right now this is unacceptable.

Immigration

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald]

My hon. Friend makes a very valid point. The Government have shown such a tin ear to calls from across the House to implement a new seasonal agricultural workers scheme. Our answer to that problem is, of course, continued free movement plus a seasonal agricultural workers scheme, and we look forward to the Government actually listening to all those calls—not just from political parties here, but from the industry itself.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I want to take the opportunity of the Minister being here to intervene, because the Scottish Affairs Committee has been looking at the very issue of seasonal workers. We have found that the hostile environment is having an impact on a Government pilot by making it as difficult as possible for visas to be secured. The Government are asking for extra fees—over and above—to get people here to see whether they can work in the Government pilot. Does not that just demonstrate the excesses of the hostile environment—that it even applies to Government pilots?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I commend the work that his Committee has done in this area. It would be useful if the Home Office paid close heed to it.

I have discussed what we need to do to avoid repeating the mistakes of the Windrush generation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Nokes]

I do not think there has been any attempt to sweep that under the carpet. There was an urgent question in the House on the matter—I think it was the week before last—and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman raised his point then, but he knows as well as I do that his question is best addressed to the Cabinet Office, which is responsible for elections, not me as the Immigration Minister.

Alongside the White Paper on the future borders and immigration system that we published last year, the borders, immigration and citizenship system continues to deliver, to secure the UK border, control immigration and provide world-class services that contribute to our prosperity.

The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) talked with regret about the immigration system, but it is worth reminding the House of some salient points about its successes. In the year to March, more people came to the UK, with 142.8 million passengers arriving here; the number of visitor visas granted was at a record high of 2.3 million, an increase of 9%; 181,000 people were given entry clearance to come to work in the UK and bolster the UK’s economy; 358,000 students came to the UK to study; over 5,700 people were provided with protection and support through our four UK resettlement schemes; over 5,600 family reunion visas were issued, over 2,700 of which were for children; and 89,000 people were granted settlement, with 149,000 granted British citizenship.

The majority of the people I have referred to engage with the immigration system in a smooth way. They are contributing to the growth of tourism and our economy, attending our world-leading universities and enriching our culture. I do not believe that there is any great difference in aspiration between the Scottish National party and the UK Government on the topic of students. We both recognise that international students make a huge contribution to our education institutions socially, academically and financially. We want our education sector to flourish and to see ever increasing numbers of international students coming to the UK. Indeed, the Government have set an ambition of increasing the number of international students in higher education to 600,000 by 2030.

Where there may be a difference is that the Government are keen to share our successes and send the message that the UK is welcoming, while the SNP sadly seems determined to convey a sense of gloom. I am pleased to say that the facts support the Government’s position. The number of visa applications to study at the UK’s universities increased by 10% last year, to the highest number ever recorded, and visa application numbers are 27% higher than they were in 2011. There are close to half a million international students studying in the UK, and we continue to be the second most popular destination in the world for them. I hope that SNP Members will join in celebrating that success.

While we are on the subject of facts, I note that the motion calls for a policy “based on evidence”. The House will be aware that last year the Migration Advisory Committee—the Government’s expert, non-partisan advisers on immigration matters—carried out a detailed study into international students. The MAC took evidence from a wide variety of stakeholders representing every part of the United Kingdom, including Scotland. As the MAC indicates, 140 written responses were submitted to its call for evidence. This is absolutely evidence-based policy making.

[Pete Wishart]

We all know that the MAC does entirely what the Government want it to do. Is it not absurd that we educate international students to a high standard and then boot them out, because there is no post-study work scheme? I was in Montreal with the Scottish Affairs Committee just the other week, where they do everything possible to encourage their students to stay, because they have devolution of immigration policy. Should Scotland not have some of that too?

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Gentleman has perhaps not read the White Paper and seen the additional offer that the Government are making to international students on post-study work. He would do well to read it. He said that the MAC only gives the Government evidence that we want to hear—far from it. He is falling into the trap of being interested in evidence when it suits him.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Pete Wishart Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 28th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I saw my hon. Friend’s question to the Prime Minister and it gave yet another horrendous example of the types of family these immigration rules are splitting apart.

Some 40% of the total population is not able to meet the financial threshold set out in the immigration rules, but that proportion is significantly higher for women, ethnic minorities and certain communities across the country. Every week we hear stories such as the one referred to by my hon. Friend. These rules are wicked, but this Bill will result in their application to hundreds of thousands more families in future. Some 500,000 UK citizens currently live here with an EU partner or spouse. That gives an idea of how many future relationships will be impacted in the years ahead. Rules for other families are just as outrageous. This Bill does not end these anti-family policies; it will destroy more families.

We put families with children on “no recourse to public funds” visas, increasing the risk of exploitation and cost-shunting on to overstretched local authorities. Again there is nothing in the Bill to fix that, but more people will end up with “no recourse to public funds” visas. The UK immigration system has become ludicrously complicated and is characterised by poor decision-making and massive expense and bureaucracy. Those who seek to challenge decisions so that they can access their rights struggle because appeal rights have been swept away, while legal aid has become a rarity in England and Wales. The Bill will leave even more people subject to poor Home Office decision-making but without the means or procedures to challenge that effectively.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the objective of Tory immigration Bills is to achieve two things: to stop people coming to this country, and to make life as miserable and difficult for the poor souls who have managed to make it here? Does my hon. Friend also agree that with this Bill they have triumphed in both respects?

[Stuart C. McDonald]

My hon. Friend is spot on. So much of this is about immigration theatre; it is about the politics of immigration and being seen not to stand up to those who are anti-migrant—almost trying to be seen to be hard on immigration for electoral purposes. It is a disgrace.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

Each of our lives—all lives—is characterised by change and challenge. We attempt to rise to the second and cope with the first. How successful we are in that depends on context, individuals and circumstances. What is absolutely certain is that the familiar touchstones of enduring certainty, by accentuating what we know, affirm our personal sense of belonging and communal notion of identity.

In trying to build a society in which the things that unite us are greater than any which divide us, mass migration proves difficult simply because of its scale and the difference it makes. When communities quickly change beyond or nearly beyond recognition, people find it hard to cope. That was precisely why the people decided to say, as expressed through the referendum, that they wanted no more of free movement, and that was what the Home Secretary and shadow Home Secretary drew the House’s attention to. Of course, that was not the only thing that the referendum was about but, emblematically, what people saw as migration “out of control” became a proxy for not being able to command their own future and not being able to govern themselves.

Free movement has that problem at its heart. The idea that people can come here at will, regardless of need and of what they do when they get here, and can choose where they go and what their life is like thereafter, seemed to be at odds both with immigration policy before, which was based on applications, visas, needs and specificities of various kinds, and with what the people who are here already feel is fair and reasonable.

[Pete Wishart]

The right hon. Gentleman is correct that immigration was the cold beating heart of the case for leaving the European Union—there is no doubt about that. However, he is just making a traditional, right-wing Tory speech on immigration, saying that immigration somehow changes communities and drives down wages. Does he have even a shred of evidence to support all these lazy, right-wing Tory views about immigration? We have never seen any evidence.

[Sir John Hayes]

I do not mind being called a traditional Tory, but I am not so keen on “lazy”. If I am articulating that view and if it reflects a view that is held by many of my constituents and a large number of other people, I am doing the House a service.

Future Immigration

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Wednesday 19th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I am afraid that I do not agree with the hon. Lady’s assertions. She suggests that somehow this will lead to more bureaucracy and red tape, but having no cap and no resident labour market test for high-skilled workers and more use of e-gates are all examples of where there will be less bureaucracy and less red tape.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

This is just a Faragist blueprint for drawbridge Britain, a grotesque plan simply to keep people out of this country. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to be absolutely straight with the British people that their freedom of movement will come to an end? What we do to the EU, it will do to us, and all the unrestricted rights that we have had, to live, work and love across a community of 27 nations, will be lost to our young people forever. Is that not an absolute tragedy and shame?

[Sajid Javid]

The people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. That means the end of freedom of movement.

Windrush

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I was one of the 18 Members of Parliament who voted against the “hostile environment” Immigration Bill back in 2014. It was a nasty, pernicious Bill that gave legislative ballast to the issues that we are dealing with today. Those of us who spoke out against that Bill warned of its consequences, and yet, for some inexplicable reason, Labour failed to oppose it. What other Home Office initiatives does the “hostile environment” culture inform, and how far does it reach within the Secretary of State’s Department? Given what has been discovered on her watch and what has been unleashed, does she not really think that the honourable thing for her to do is to consider her position and to resign?

[Amber Rudd]

The reason why the compliant environment is important—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may be aware that that is the phrase, for good reason, that the Government use to show that what we are doing is promoting compliance with UK law, but in a way that tries to protect individuals and is sympathetic. I want to make sure that we are not a country that allows illegal migration to flourish. If that happens, more people will be trafficked here, more people will be abused, and more people will be forced to work in really terrible conditions. It is an important, valid part of what this Government are doing. As for my position, I want to put this right. I believe that I can do that, and I hope that I will win the confidence of the House when I achieve it.

UK Passport Contract

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Nokes]

As part of the procurement process, it was important that we scored issues such as quality, our confidence in the ability to supply, security features and value for money equally. When this is over, we will of course seek to inform all companies as much as we can within the law.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

In Perth, there have already been spontaneous demonstrations, with placards abound, and there are even rumours that the Daily Mail has sold out. Does the Minister agree that the billions of pounds of Brexit pain and international isolation will be all for nothing if we cannot have this new symbol of British freedom—the blue passport—British made?

[Caroline Nokes]

Well, if the Daily Mail has sold out in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, I have indeed done well, haven’t I? What matters in this process is that we have the best possible passport made at the best possible value to the taxpayer, and that we ensure that we award the contract fairly and, indeed, within the rules.