National Security Bill

Debate between Stewart Hosie and John McDonnell

Report stage
Wednesday 16th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Hosie]

The Minister said in relation to the foreign influence registration scheme that other countries have had similar provisions for some years, and of course, that is absolutely true. It is also true that the ISC is very much in favour of introducing a foreign influence registration scheme. We are concerned, however, that the scheme as proposed is more complex than the ones in the US and Australia but that it simultaneously does not go far enough, which is a problem.

Unlike the US and Australian schemes, the proposal is for the one here to be two-tiered. I welcome Government amendments 63 to 94 to restructure clauses 61 and 64, which at least makes some of this a little more comprehensible. However, that still leaves us with a primary tier that will capture all arrangements and activity undertaken on behalf of any foreign power for the purpose of influencing a political event or decision—that is welcome at face value—and a secondary tier designed to capture all other activity beyond political influence, including, for example, acting as a foreign intelligence officer. For arrangements or activity to require registration, however, they have to be undertaken on behalf of a country set out in secondary legislation, so the provision does not necessarily apply automatically to every country.

As I said earlier, it is difficult to understand why acting covertly as an intelligence officer outwith the political influencing sphere, for example, applies only where the foreign power is set out in secondary legislation. It is perfectly possible that intelligence operations will be undertaken by countries that are not named in the regulations and so will not require registration. That is self-evidently an omission and a weakness. Requiring all countries to register such activity would be a stronger deterrent.

As the scheme does not yet name a particular country that may be registered under the second tier, it is not clear which countries the Government intend to name when the Bill becomes law. It is also not clear what criteria will be used when deciding which countries to add to the list. Furthermore, as has been pointed out, these things can take some time. I do not know how swiftly the Government might react to add a new country threat, and I am certainly not at all convinced that when that threat is lifted, the Government will act swiftly to remove a country from the list in the secondary tier.

This is a bit of a dog’s dinner. The real risk is that the secondary tier, which could be valuable tool and which I want to see work, might end up not being used. As the Security Minister recognised in Committee, use of the enhanced registration requirement will be “limited”. We do not want this to be limited; we want it to be comprehensive, to be able to capture the majority of the risks. It would surely be far more effective to have one tier which applies to all countries and a broad range of covert activity.

[John McDonnell]

For the record and as a message to the other House, I wish to say that I believe that the Government forcing through such a serious Bill in so limited a period of time today is a matter of contempt of this House and the parliamentary process.

I rise to speak because over a decade ago I gave an undertaking to one of my constituents that I would seek to ensure that no other person would go through what he had gone through. It worries me that sometimes this House’s collective memory is lost, so it is worth reminding people of what was happening in that period. There was a culture of unaccountability—almost of impunity—among some of our services, and the way they liaised with other nation states and their intelligence services resulted in the torture of our constituents.

My constituent was a young Asian doctor, who had just finished his training. He went on an altruistic, charitable expedition to Pakistan to work in hospitals there. He was picked up and for six weeks he was tortured. At the end of each torture session, which consisted of thorough beatings, he was interrogated by what could only be MI6. It was clear to us. I saw Ministers; alongside the Ministers were civil servants, and alongside them were, I believe, intelligence officers. I got the same response as has been given today, with the same phrasing: “We do not condone or support or participate in torture.” Well, they did on that occasion, and scarred my constituent for life. Even though he is now a successful consultant, he lives in fear still.

What was happening is that decisions were taken here about the arrest of my constituent and the questions that would be put to him at the end of the torture, as though at the end of the exercise we could have clean hands. It was unacceptable. I support amendment 14 because I fear that, if we try to lift some of the protections that our constituents have, we will recreate that culture of unaccountability and impunity and others will suffer like my constituent suffered. That is why it is important not to lessen the accountability of decision makers at every level, whether they are on the frontline or in ministerial offices here.

My second point can be stated briefly. I am the secretary of the National Union of Journalists parliamentary group. What this Bill has successfully done—I have never seen it before—is unite the Society of Editors with the NUJ and various campaigning bodies. They say the provisions will

“strip away longstanding safeguards that are in place to prevent the wrongful access of journalistic material and are a risk to sources and investigative journalism more widely.”

They also say the legislation may “criminalise” some investigative journalism and “chill” whistleblowing.

It is not right to criticise Mr Speaker’s selection of amendments, but we were hoping that an amendment that was in order would be crafted at this stage to provide at least some protection—the public interest protection. That is why I support amendment 3, tabled by the Labour Front-Bench team. If the other place does not insert a public interest protection, a review of the legislation at an early stage will be critical and may result in such a provision. I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) and the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) for the litany of amendments they have tabled trying to ensure at least some protection in the detail of the legislation for journalists, whistleblowers and others. I regret that it looks as though their amendments will not be made today.

Amnesty for Undocumented Migrants

Debate between Stewart Hosie and John McDonnell

Monday 19th July 2021 Westminster Hall

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]]

Before I comment on the speeches so far, I want to mention this. Today I visited the Crowne Plaza hotel in my constituency, which has housed asylum seekers for the last year. This weekend a young Sudanese man died at the hotel. I will not name him because I am not sure whether his family have been contacted yet, but I want to send my condolences and sympathy to all his friends that I met today. It exemplifies the precarious nature of the life of many of the people who come here to seek safety and security. We are not sure of the cause of death. There were reports this morning about the large numbers of young men who come here and go on to take their own lives. We need to learn some lessons and approach the issue with compassion. I have listened to all the speeches, and I do not think I can add to any of the recommendations that have been made, bar one.

All I can do is bring my experience to the debate. Sometimes these debates are no longer rational. They are delivered by emotions, including the emotions that I feel. I have been dealing with asylum seekers in my constituency for over 40 years, as an activist campaigning for our local law centre, or as a Greater London Council councillor, and then as the local MP. I have met hundreds of asylum seekers and hundreds of families. Their lives undocumented have been scarred and sometimes broken by the asylum system that we now have.

As others have said, the system is complex, slow, incompetent, inefficient, brutal and inhumane. And it is expensive, especially for those living in poverty because they have been forced by the hostile environment on to the margins of our society and because there is no access to legal aid. As someone has already said, most of the people we are talking about came legally into the country and went into the process but dropped out. In my experience, people drop out in many instances, first, because of appallingly poor legal advice, with people being ripped off and given expensive legal advice that was going nowhere, and, secondly, because of the huge mental health issues that they have faced, both through their suffering in their country of origin and in their travels here, and when they arrived here—a place where they thought they would find security and succour.

The issue around the fees is important because by criminalising work for these people, it means that they are exploited. In the cases I have dealt with, because work has been criminalised it forces them into illegal work, being ripped off and often not being paid. I have dealt with many women who have been exploited sexually as a result of their vulnerability, because their work is illegal. In some instances, when they have gone to the authorities and reported it, they have been picked up as an illegal. That is why people do not report and often do not identify the perpetrator of some of these appalling acts of exploitation and, in some instances, sexual violence.

I therefore agree with all the proposals that have been put forward by my hon. Friends. Some Members who have spoken today may not accept an amnesty. It has worked elsewhere, as others have said, and I think it should be considered, just as the Prime Minister considered it when he was the Mayor of London. I welcomed the statements that he made then. If people cannot go as far as that, my hon. Friends the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) and for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), along with others, have set out a number of reforms that are readily available to us and could transform the lives of hundreds of thousands of people who are living in our communities. They come here for safety and security, but they also want to contribute to the society of their host community.

One further reform that I would like the Government to consider is the scrapping of no recourse to public funds, because it is forcing people into destitution, exploitation and, in many instances, situations of vulnerability that put their health and their lives at risk. The plea from the people who signed the petition, nearly 4,000 of whom were my constituents, is the same that others have made in the debate today, which is that this system is not working, even on the Government’s own terms, because 99% of people are not intimidated by the hostile environment to return their countries of origin because they are so vulnerable there. If the system is not working, even on the Government’s own terms, now is the time for reform, and it is needed urgently because people are suffering and, as we have experienced today in my constituency, people are dying as well.

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

I call Anne McLaughlin, who has eight minutes.

Charter for Budget Responsibility

Debate between Stewart Hosie and John McDonnell

Wednesday 14th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I shall be as concise as I can be, within reason.

The Chancellor was right to talk about the ups and downs in the economy, and he is right to be cognisant of the risks involved, but to set out a charter with a fixed target with a fixed timescale—namely, to run a fiscal surplus by 2019-20—is precisely to remove any flexibility that might be required in the meantime. No one could have been in any doubt about the Government’s intention when the charter for budget responsibility summer update—the most recent update—was published in July. It was to target a fiscal surplus by 2019-20 and continue to run a surplus thereafter.

The problem for us is what that means in the real world, for ordinary people in the real economy. We kind of know what it means because many have told us—not least the Institute for Fiscal Studies, an organisation often prayed in aid by the Chancellor. We have had our disagreements with the IFS, but for the purposes of tonight’s debate I have to say that it is doing a sterling job. It has published an updated analysis on the scale and distribution of the public sector spending cuts expected in the November spending review. Those cuts underpin the charter’s objectives and the Government’s austerity policies, but the IFS says that those policies put a disproportionate burden on the most disadvantaged families.

The IFS also talks about the higher minimum wage, but says that it will not be enough to compensate lower income households for the welfare cuts. That is a particularly important point, given how many of the welfare cuts are now being directed at tax credits. We all believed that tax credits were an essential tool to “make work pay”, but they are now to be removed to the extent that perhaps 3 million households will be worse off. Also, the scale of cuts to public services envisaged by this trajectory in the public finances will be substantial, with non-ring-fenced Whitehall Departments being asked to find real-terms cuts of between 25% and 40% over the next four years. In short, the austerity measures announced in July will disproportionately harm the poorest and most vulnerable households and non-ring-fenced Departments while of course giving tax breaks to the better off, thus increasing inequality.

Indeed, the IFS and others have repeatedly warned that the planned changes to the tax and benefit system are regressive. They have said that, given the array of benefit cuts, it is no surprise that the changes overall are regressive, taking much more from poorer households than richer ones. The September analysis of the IFS said that the poorest two income deciles will each lose on average about £1,000 a year as a result of the tax and benefit changes announced for implementation during this Parliament. Of course the richest two deciles will be largely unaffected.

According to research by the House of Commons Library—this is the most commonly accepted figure—we are now looking at some 3 million households losing somewhere in the order of £1,300 a year. Importantly, notwithstanding the rhetoric we sometimes hear from the Government Benches, it is the case that the increase in the minimum wage for people aged 25 and over—wrongly branded a living wage—is nowhere near enough to offset the cuts in tax credits.

If we go back to what the IFS said, the national living wage is not a substitute for targeted benefits and tax credits when it comes to helping poorer households and tackling poverty, which runs rather contrary to the assertions made in answers by the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions today. The irony is that the largest part of the gains from the new minimum wage will not go to the poorest households. Indeed, 55% will go to households with higher than average median earnings. The Chancellor’s national living wage is no such thing. In the context of the charter it is important to remember that the real living wage reflects the minimum income necessary to achieve an acceptable standard of living and accounts for existing in-work support. As tax credits are cut, the current living wage, which is already higher than the proposed national minimum wage, will have to be increased further. On top of that, the UK Government are set to continue with their cuts to day-to-day public services. That is the implication of the fiscal charter. Those day-to-day cuts to public services in unprotected Departments will be around £24 billion—19% in real terms over the rest of this Parliament. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will see something in the order of a 5.2% real terms cut to their budgets over the same time frame.

Let us put that in context for the people who may be watching this debate. This will be 10 years of discretionary consolidation—a decade of austerity for real people and the real economy. Austerity strangled the recovery early in the previous Parliament and it will increase inequality in this one. All of that is driven by the fiscal charter. [Interruption.] I think I will leave our friends in the Labour party to their own mourning over the shambles of the position changes over the past 24 hours.

[John McDonnell]

rose—

[Stewart Hosie]

Before I move on to the fiscal charter, I will happily give way to the shadow Chancellor.

[John McDonnell]

Is it not true that the proposals that the Scottish National party have now brought forward are actually Labour’s proposals from six months ago?

[Stewart Hosie]

May I say gently to the hon. Gentleman, whom I genuinely like, that we voted against the fiscal charter on 13 January? Whether he liked it or not, it was his party that voted with the Tories. I am pleased that it has changed its position, but I think on balance it might be better to focus on this matter, where the Chancellor and his party are on rather weak ground, rather than on some internecine struggle.

Before I move on to the fiscal charter, I want briefly to ask the Chancellor about the consequences for Scotland. He knows that under the Scotland Act 2012 Scottish Ministers now have limited borrowing powers, so can he confirm that there is nothing in the charter that will limit the exercise of those statutory powers and that, irrespective of whether or not the UK is borrowing, Scottish Ministers will remain free to borrow up to the agreed limits?

What the Chancellor has done, of course, is insist that the economy not only breaks even, but runs a current account surplus that will hit £40 billion by 2019-20. He announced in July that, in order to do that, additional welfare cuts would total £33 billion in this Parliament. Cuts to essential capital expenditure would total another £5 billion in this Parliament. Essentially, he is cutting £40 billion more than is necessary to run a balanced current budget, and almost all of it will be paid for by punishing the poor and stripping the capital budget of another £5 billion.

Finance Bill

Debate between Stewart Hosie and John McDonnell

Monday 12th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. My amendment tackles tax evasion, which is clearly an illegal activity, but we need to address a wider issue that goes beyond the normal tax planning: tax avoidance beyond the spirit of the law. In previous debates, we have tried to insert into the tax laws of this country a general duty of tax compliance, which exists in other countries. Such an approach puts an onus—as a duty in law—on the individual to comply and to try to emphasise that duty, rather than to look for every possible means to avoid tax. There is a gradation in these matters, but I tackle both these things because they are both legitimate concerns in wider society and will become increasingly pressing ones as individuals experience the public expenditure cuts that will take place as we seek to tackle the deficit.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman is making his case extremely well, but surely he should be pushing at an open door, given that the Red Book itself talks about changes

“to prevent avoidance of corporation tax using accounting ‘derecognition’ rules”.

It also discusses tax avoidance involving “the creation” of certain things “for corporate investors”, and mentions alternative investment funds, financial securities, inheritance tax on trusts and so on. There is also the possibility of a general anti-avoidance rule, as this is being considered informally by this Government as we speak.

[John McDonnell]

That is why I was hoping my amendment would achieve consensus in this House, although that might be a first for me. I was hoping that it went with the flow of Government policy, as well as with past Government policy, if not with past practice under successive Governments. A number of practices of tax avoidance clearly incur public opprobrium. The hon. Gentleman has cited a number that are listed in the Red Book, but there are others. These are seen as instances where people are not doing the right thing within the spirit of the law, which is why, no matter how difficult it can be at times, we can identify practices that fall within either tax evasion or tax avoidance by the practical response from the community.

This is an issue whose time has come, particularly because of the current financial climate. There is clearly a concern among Members in all parts of the House about tax evasion and tax avoidance, and there will increasingly be concern about it in the wider community. Therefore, my simply asking for the Treasury to produce a report before this latest round of taxes are implemented—this would give an element of timetabling and immediacy to the proposals that will be introduced by the Treasury—is nothing but helpful and will be seen in the wider community as actually getting the Treasury to examine this issue with some seriousness in a way that may not have been happening under previous Administrations of all political parties. I cannot see how anybody could vote or argue against this, but I shall sit down and wait for the argument to come.