MOD Bicester and Illegal Migrants
Pete Wishart Excerpts(5 days, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joy Morrissey
My right hon. friend makes an excellent point: we did suggest Rwanda. We Conservatives are committed to leaving the ECHR, so that we can deport foreign nationals who come here illegally within a week. That is why we want to leave the ECHR.
Joy Morrissey
I will give way after I make some progress.
I have mentioned just a few of the horrific crimes committed by illegal migrant men—men who should have been deported before they could roam our streets. These cases show that the women of Piddington, Linton-on-Ouse and Barnham are right to be concerned. Let me be clear to those on the Labour Benches: when their only political response to hearing of these crimes, and to the legitimate fears raised by women and girls, is to shout “weaponisation”, it says more about them and their priorities than it does about their political opponents. When their only policy response is to launch a talking shop on misogyny, they should recognise how weak that makes them look. When they refuse to meet concerned women, it speaks volumes about their commitment to women and girls.
It is not hard to see why such a commitment is lacking. I wrote to the Minister for Women and Equalities to offer to work cross-party and to facilitate a meeting with the women of Piddington. I have not had a response, but I heard in the media that it was a no. She is chair of the Labour party first and Women’s Minister second.
Pete Wishart
The hon. Lady has mentioned the ECHR a couple of times, and her motion refers to the UK’s exit from the convention. I know that she is all over her brief, so can she tell me what that exit would mean for the devolved settlement? What implications would it have for the Scottish Parliament?
Joy Morrissey
None at all, but I do not want to go into that. I have talked about the asylum seeker in Falkirk; it is not just women in England, but those in Scotland and Wales, who have raised concerns about illegal migrants in their midst who are roaming the streets. There is a problem. There is a difference in how these men are treating our women and girls, and people are genuinely afraid.
I am sure that lurking somewhere in the Whips-briefed speeches for Labour Members are some of the tired old tunes, so let me save Labour Members some time by engaging with the substance of those points. When they trot out, “14 years!”, I say that they have had two years, and the British people are already desperate for them to stop there. When they say, “Illegal migrant men are not a threat to women and girls; men known to them are”, I say that both things can be true, and I want to tackle both. Why don’t they? Why will they not give us the data on crimes committed against women and girls by men with active asylum claims?
The truth is that this Government have a “hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil” approach to this issue. Labour Members do not want to hear the women of Piddington, Linton-on-Ouse or Barnham because of the uncomfortable truth that they will speak. Labour Members do not want to see the data on how significant the problem of illegal migrant men committing crimes against women and children is, for fear of a Pandora’s box being opened. They do not want to speak about this issue because of the ideological capture of their party. It has been captured by people who have placed an obsession with multiculturalism above a cohesive British society. This is about the choices we make as a country.
Max Wilkinson
The point is that we are in Europe, we are a European nation and most of our relationships are with the ECHR nations. I gently caution the Conservatives that every time they change position in an effort to catch up with Reform, the hon. Member for Clacton will move further and further to the right. This week that resulted in the horrifying suggestion made by Reform that our military should be told to murder civilians on small boats in the English channel.
The suggestion that leaving the ECHR will help us to deal with a broken asylum system is absolute nonsense—a system that was broken by the Conservatives, by the way, who now spend so much time brazenly telling us that they alone have the solution. Leaving the ECHR will not stop a single small boat crossing from France. It will not, as the Conservatives suggest, make it easier to deport people, because when a nation ditches international agreements, others are less likely to work with it.
What leaving the ECHR would do, as I have said, is make this nation an international pariah. It would likely result in the conditions once known in the public debate as a no-deal Brexit, which the Conservatives told us they were against. In fact, the trade and co-operation agreement makes continued UK adherence to the ECHR a major part of our current Brexit conditions. If we were to leave the ECHR, we would also end co-operation with our neighbours on law enforcement and criminal justice, which risks leaving dangerous criminals walking free, unidentified and able to escape overseas and evade prosecution, and would seriously jeopardise public safety, including that of women and girls. That is deeply irresponsible.
Pete Wishart
It would also have huge implications for settlements across the United Kingdom. The Conservatives did not know this, but there would be a massive implication for Scottish devolution, for all our legislation is predicated on a commitment to being compliant with ECHR regulations. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the Conservatives exactly what this would do to our internal arrangements across the UK?
Max Wilkinson
I will come to that point later, I hope, with specific reference to Northern Ireland.
There is more than that to this debate, though. Leaving the ECHR would also rob British people of hard-won British rights—rights that have for so long been championed across political divides, in so many notable cases by Conservatives, who now argue that we must scrap those rights on the altar of the debate about small boat crossings. Article 2, for instance—the right to life—helped the brave families of the Hillsborough victims to secure fresh inquests to get to the truth of what happened in that tragedy. Article 3 helped the victims of John Worboys, the black cab rapist, to get justice and build into British law additional protections for victims. Alongside article 3, article 4 helped victims of the Rochdale grooming gangs—who Conservative and Reform Members talk about so often—to secure damages and better justice from Greater Manchester police.
Article 10 protects the right to freedom of speech and expression, something that the right tells us is so important—just for them; maybe not so much for everybody else—although certainly not important enough to retain and protect it in law for all of us. This article also guarantees the right for journalists to protect their sources. While it is not for me, as a one-time rubbish journalist and now a politician, to tell journalists how to do their job, there has so far been disappointingly little scrutiny from the fourth estate, particularly in the right-wing media, on the Reform and Tory proposals on the ECHR. Article 10, by the way, also protects the rights of people to hold their politicians to account in the most direct terms. This is established in law.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
When I saw the motion on the Order Paper, I had to look twice as I was absolutely certain that it must be a Reform motion, but then I remembered that they do not get Opposition days. The motion is indeed in the name of the Conservative party. For all this “I will never work with Nigel Farage” and so on that we hear from the Conservative leadership, they are now literally indistinguishable from Reform, with their antipathy towards asylum seekers, immigration and human rights now defining these new “Reformatives”.
The Conservatives are responsible for the crisis that we are currently confronting in the asylum system, having created huge, outstanding backlogs from their time in office that required the use of facilities such as those at Bicester. I know very little about the situation in Bicester, so I am not going to comment on the particularities, but when the Government are dealing with asylum seekers, they are absolutely right to try to ensure that there is equity across the whole of the United Kingdom, so that towns and cities like those in my constituency are not left to accommodate the masses of asylum seekers that we currently have. It is right that every constituency must play its part in trying to clear up the mess that was bequeathed by the Conservatives. The last place where this “not in my backyard” principle should apply is when we are dealing with real people’s lives.
There is blanket opposition to accommodation for asylum seekers right across the United Kingdom, and that has been created by the culture, climate and the language that is used just now when we come to describe asylum seekers. Some of the language that I have heard from Members on the Conservative Front Bench and in some of the contributions by Conservative Members is simply appalling: demonising, othering and trying to present whole communities as deviants—sexual deviancy and the rest. I find that absolutely unacceptable. It is no wonder that communities are really upset about the prospect of people coming into their constituencies.
Seamus Logan
My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I agree with everything he says. I note that the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), chose not to use the word “illegal”. Does my hon. Friend agree with me that it is anathema to see the word “illegal” in this motion, because there is no such thing as an illegal migrant?
Pete Wishart
No one in this world is illegal—[Interruption.] I hear chuntering from the Conservative Front Bench as usual. People are fleeing for their lives from situations across the world. They are fleeing from oppression—
Pete Wishart
The right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) says they are fleeing from France, but where does he think they have come from? They come from some of the worst war-torn countries. I challenge him to go there and live for six months just to see how he would get on—[Interruption.]
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Sir John Hayes and Sir Julian Lewis, is everybody calm or does anybody need to leave the Chamber? I call Pete Wishart.
Pete Wishart
Look at them! The appalling behaviour from the Conservatives on sensitive issues such as this and the language that they have used today is an absolute and utter disgrace. No wonder communities up and down this country are concerned about their very safety, given the language that these Conservatives use.
The issue that most concerns me is the Conservative proposal to leave the ECHR. That would send a deeply troubling message to communities across the country and to our partners internationally. It would deprive our citizens of valued and essential human rights and diminish our very sense of ourselves. The new Reform and Tory hostility towards human rights is well established. Their disdain for international co-operation and consensus is now a defining characteristic. Yet the fact that they would drag us out of the ECHR tells us something reassuring about the ECHR, because when the likes of the new right Tories and Reform want to do that, that shows that the ECHR is doing its job properly and defending us from the likes of them. That tells us why we actually need it. Let us remind ourselves of the company we would keep if we were to leave the ECHR: Russia and Belarus—bastions of human rights and freedoms. Let us remind ourselves about this document.
The ECHR was born from the ashes of the second world war, when the horrors of the Holocaust still cast a shadow over the world. The UK was at the heart of its creation. It was Winston Churchill, a giant of a Prime Minister—a Conservative Prime Minister—who was the designer and who ensured that we got it in place.
Leaving the ECHR, as the Conservatives suggest, would do absolutely nothing to stop the boats coming to the UK, as it would do absolutely nothing to end irregular immigration. However, what it would do is put a huge statement to the rest of the world that Britain is closing down, does not value international co-operation and has become more insular. I loathe the idea of a world that is going to be run under that type of culture and language under a Conservative-Reform coalition.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
A friend of mine recently told me about her mother, who is British born but is a person of colour, who now feels unsafe on the streets of Britain. Does the hon. Member agree that despicable rhetoric like this contributes to making certain individuals feel unsafe?
Pete Wishart
Absolutely. Whole communities across the United Kingdom are now concerned about their safety. They are very anxious about the type of culture that is evolving and developing in every constituency and community. They are right to be concerned, because I hear it in my constituency myself.
On the subject of the small boats, the truth is that there are more National Lottery millionaires each year than there are foreign nationals who have won human rights appeals due to the ECHR in the United Kingdom. If the ECHR were removed, it would deprive us in Scotland of our basic fundamentals in the Scottish Parliament, which is that every part of our legislation has to be ECHR-compliant. It is not just the devolution process in Northern Ireland that will be compromised; it will be my Parliament and our democracy in Scotland, which the Conservatives care not a jot about, and they would pursue our leaving the ECHR without giving it a second thought.
For all of these reasons, this is a thoroughly bad motion—an abhorrent motion—and I despair of the language that has been used. I hope when the Conservatives sum up we will hear a little bit more about decency and the common values that we could all buy into, but I doubt that very much—
Police Funding: North-east England
Pete Wishart Excerpts(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Pete Wishart (in the Chair)
My apologies for my tardiness. I call Luke Akehurst to move the motion.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered police funding in the North East.
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, MrI know that I will not be the only Member in the room who was deeply disturbed to see the scenes emerging out of Cleveland earlier this year. I pay tribute to PC Matthew Blades and PC Tom Clough.
Several hon. Members rose—
Pete Wishart (in the Chair)
Order. If we all try to take about six minutes, everybody will get in sufficiently. I will not put a time limit on just now, but we will see how we get on.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) for securing this really important debate.
First of all, I pay tribute to PC Matthew Blades, PC Tom Clough and PC Jess Turnbull, three police officers who lost their lives in the line of duty. Jess Turnbull, who was killed only two or three miles from where I live, was 18 years of age when she lost her life. She had her life ahead of her. She joined the police force because she wanted to change the world and help people and she died at the age of 18 on 8 June. We should always remember the dangers that individual police officers and members of the police force put themselves in in the normal course of their duty.
Previous speakers have set out in detail the scale of the cuts faced by police forces across the north-east, so I do not intend to repeat those precise and excellent facts and figures. But it is fair to say that the years of Conservative austerity had a devastating impact on policing in our region—absolutely devastating.
It should not be forgotten that it went far beyond cuts to police budgets. Austerity reached into every corner of public life. The Crown Prosecution Service, prisons, the Probation Service, mental health services, education and countless other services were cut to the very bone. As those services weakened, police officers were increasingly left to pick up the pieces, facing growing demand with ever-dwindling resources.
At the same time, crime itself has evolved. The digital revolution has brought enormous opportunities, but the criminals have adapted just as well too. Police forces have been expected to tackle sophisticated online crime, combat the spread of misinformation, and manage an ever-growing burden of statutory checks and administrative tasks, all without the resources required to meet those challenges. It is all about resources and financing.
Again, I want to place on record my sincere thanks to the police officers serving my Blyth and Ashington constituency. Just for the record, my constituency is based in Northumberland, which, for those who are not aware, is cradled between the Scottish border and North Tyneside. It is the political no man’s land. I think Ministers generally forget where we are and have not really adapted the financing required for the police service that we desperately need. I feel sorry for some of these police officers, who go to work day in, day out, facing the problems they have in Ashington, Blyth, Bedlington, Newbiggin and Choppington, because of the lack of financial resource, with resources in general facing an uphill battle. I want to mention Inspector Dawn Sykes and Inspector Wayne Daniels, who serve our communities with great professionalism and dedication in the most unbelievable circumstances. I thank Northumbria’s police and crime commissioner, Susan Dungworth, who has worked tirelessly to ensure that the priorities of local people remain at the heart of policing.
I want to focus the rest of my remarks on what budget constraints have meant for the communities I represent. South-east Northumberland contains three of the county’s four largest towns, yet two of them have no police station at all, so members of the public cannot simply walk into one and speak to an officer. That is a direct consequence of funding pressures. Two of the largest towns in Northumberland have no manned police stations—the police stations are still there, but there is nobody in them.
The situation gets worse. The police station change has an immense impact on the people of south-east Northumberland. I will give a simple example. A constituent noticed that his neighbour’s porch light had been on continuously for several days. Concerned for their welfare, he phoned 101 to request a welfare check. After waiting almost an hour for his call to be answered, he gave up and went to Ashington police station, in the centre of the town, in person. When he arrived, he found a sign stating that the station was closed to the public, with an arrow directing him to a telephone on the wall so he could ring 101 again. That is unreal, but it is something that has happened right throughout the country, by the way: the closure of major police stations in major towns, right across the UK. We rightly pride ourselves on a system of policing by consent, but we also rely on the good will and public spirit of people such as my constituent. After an experience like that, I suspect he might think again about taking similar action.
Earlier this year, the custody suite in Bedlington closed, with the police citing funding constraints. That was another blow to local policing. Officers who make arrests in my patch must now transport detainees to Newcastle for processing, taking valuable police time and resources off the streets at critical times. We see that in my patch all too often. An already stretched police force is routinely called upon to respond to threats, the likes of—
Pete Wishart (in the Chair)
Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman will be concluding his remarks so that his regional colleagues get a chance to say a few words.
Ian Lavery
Thank you very much, Mr Wishart. We see lots of things occurring due to lack of resourcing in my patch. We have masked motorbike riders, shoplifting, antisocial behaviour, county line drug dealing—it goes on and on. The police need the resources required to tackle not just those types of crimes but basic crimes as well.
Several hon. Members rose—
Pete Wishart (in the Chair)
Order. There are four speakers left and we have 20 minutes, so if Members stick to a strict five minutes, we will get everybody in.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) on securing this important debate.
We have heard from colleagues representing constituencies covered by the Northumbria, Durham and Cleveland forces about what a huge issue this is for the north-east. That is because our forces, collectively and individually, have been asked to do more with less for longer than anywhere else in the country. There is a clear case for the north-east to be prioritised in responding to this challenge, for example, in the same way that Mission North East has prioritised schools in the north-east.
For my own force, Northumbria, between 2010 and 2019, central Government funding fell by more than 31% in real terms. No force was hit harder. It lost a quarter of its officers and we know that when budgets are cut, it is unfortunately the neighbourhood teams that often go first. Today, Northumbria has 255 fewer officers than in 2010. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham said, that was a political choice by the previous Government which skewed funding formulas and completely ignored deprivation and the need for places like the north-east to be policed appropriately.
We know that demand is higher than elsewhere. In the Office for National Statistics’ figures, the north-east records 98 crimes per 1,000 against 85 per 1,000 nationally—the highest of any region. In Sunderland we saw 27,000 recorded crimes last year, which is down 3%, but still above the national rate. However, recorded crime only tells us a small amount. Recorded crime is not all crime; it only shows what is reported. The ONS survey suggests that about a third of crimes people experience are reported to the police. The gap between what people live with and what they report itself tells us about the confidence in policing. Of course, police deal with much more than crime. Mental health incidents in Northumbria have risen by 152% since 2017—demand that never shows up in any crime figures.
As other hon. Members have already done, I want to also express my thanks to our officers. The range of what we ask them to do is extraordinary. I was three weeks into being elected when officers placed themselves in harm’s way in Sunderland city centre as thugs threw bricks and stones at them. They stood protecting our community and places of worship. Just two weeks ago, we had a terrible tragedy on the River Wear in Sunderland. Again it was police officers along with other emergency services responding and not just doing the search and rescue and the investigation of the incident, but liaising in the most difficult circumstances with the bereaved families. Every day, officers are on our streets, with people in crisis, tackling crime.
Our constituents tell us that police visibility is crucial, and it is probably what constituents raise with me more than anything else. When I am out on walkabouts with officers in Hendon, Pallion and the city centre, I see the response of the public to visible policing. I can sense that residents and shop workers feel safer, and that potential troublemakers are thinking twice. People stop to talk and share intelligence with the police about what is going on.
Too often, of course, residents do not see the police. When they do not see an officer and when they wait too long for a response to a call or an online report, they stop reporting and their trust and sense of security reduce. We need to boost visibility as a way of boosting confidence and reporting. Nowhere is that clearer than with antisocial behaviour, which is absolutely not low level. It is drunken, intoxicated behaviour; e-bikes and off-road bikes around estates or parks; yobbish behaviour. It wears down our communities night after night, and it is not good enough.
Visible policing matters. That is why I welcome the Government’s decision to replace the previous headcount target with a neighbourhood policing target, because Northumbria could hit the previous Government’s headcount target and still not have on-the-ground policing in Fulwell in my constituency. Northumbria is adding 54 neighbourhood posts by next March, which is a good first step, but those posts must be protected. We must have more and they must reach the estates and villages, not just city centres.
The Government have talked about structural reform of the police alongside funding formula reform. I will not speak for colleagues, but I am open to regional reorganisation. We already have a north-east regional organised crime unit, which does effective work across our forces. Where there are capabilities such as firearms, or potentially drones, we have seen a significant amount of mutual aid, particularly in recent months following events in Cleveland.
There is a reasonable case that moving to a north-east-wide regional force, if that is what the Hogan-Howe review recommends, would strengthen resilience and potentially produce some efficiencies in those areas, but people will only accept a bigger force with two guarantees. The first is to ensure that local policing areas are strong and protected, and that local officers still know Sunderland and have a local commander who we can hold to account. The second, crucially, is funding reform. Merging three underfunded forces would give us one large, underfunded force. We have to move on both together.
I will finish by asking the Minister a couple of questions. As she considers police force reorganisation, and if a north-east force is proposed, can we move faster than others? Others have also mentioned the funding formula, and there could be transformation funding as part of a move to a regional force, if that is helpful to the Home Office and considered necessary. There is clearly a case for the north-east to be treated differently—
Pete Wishart (in the Chair)
Order. We have to move on to the Front-Bench spokespeople. I call the Lib Dem spokesperson, Max Wilkinson.
Dover and Portsmouth: Protests
Pete Wishart Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Jones
There was no two-tier policing in this situation. My hon. Friend is right to say that if people hold banners supporting a proscribed terrorist organisation, they will get arrested, and she is right to say that the protests were not spontaneous. The Dover incident was obviously planned, and was obviously a tactic by a nasty organisation called Patriot Platform or South-East Patriots—I think it calls itself various different things. No notice was given to the police—that is why it was described as “spontaneous”—but it was clearly planned and intended to be intimidatory. I have talked to the police today, and I know that they are reviewing the closed-circuit television footage, the automatic number plate recognition data and all the evidence to see where criminality has occurred, and they will take action where it has occurred.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
The sight of massed far-right thugs causing mayhem and disruption on the English south coast was as nauseating as it was frightening, and it was so reminiscent of a dark period in our history that we thought was long behind us. Does the Minister agree that the growth of the far right is the most dangerous development in our politics, and if so, when will the Government start to take it seriously? There were no arrests at all over the weekend, and there is no real challenge to the disinformation that the far right puts out to all our communities to cause this disruption and division. When will this Government stop pandering to this right-wing agenda?
Sarah Jones
We are not pandering to the right-wing agenda at all. The police will come down hard on criminality, as we would expect. No one was arrested in Dover on Saturday, or in Portsmouth, but as I just said, the police will review all the evidence from the weekend. Where crimes have occurred, they will make the appropriate arrests.
Oral Answers to Questions
Pete Wishart Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Jones
I am sorry to hear that my hon. Friend’s constituent has been a victim of crime. We are funding the rural crime unit and we are putting neighbourhood police back into every neighbourhood, including rural areas, so that every single person, wherever they live, will have a named, contactable officer who they can get in touch with. We are also doing what we can in legislation to stop this kind of crime, and I am happy to speak to my hon. Friend about that.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
There were truly shocking and appalling scenes in Glasgow last week, fuelled by misinformation about the accommodation of asylum seekers. People were harassed in their own homes and roads were blocked. When will the Government finally take on the spread of misinformation, and will they finally recognise the real threat posed by the right wing, which is ready to take advantage and exploit these situations?
Alex Norris
We recognise that threat—we monitor hundreds of protests a year. In a democracy, people have to be able to make their case, but that should never tip into harassment, abuse or the type of disruption that the hon. Gentleman talks about. Our job is first to fix the system, and I hope that he will support us today in that venture, but we are clear that we will not accept harassment, intimidation or any type of prejudice.
Death of Ann Widdecombe
Pete Wishart Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend makes some really important points. Just as joke candidates are a feature of British democracy, so is knocking on doors at election time and talking to people up and down the country. All of us have a responsibility and a duty to ensure that the unique features of British democracy are protected at all times. That has been the work of the defending democracy taskforce, which was led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), the former Security Minister and now the Defence Secretary, and has been taken over by the new Security Minister. I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) that we will do everything we can to protect the norms by which our democracy is felt across the country and to ensure that the ways in which we all take part in it are protected.
My hon. Friend mentioned potential amendments to the Representation of the People Bill, as have other Members. The Home Office is not the lead Department for the Bill, but I undertake to discuss this issue with colleagues in Government and ensure that we respond on specific amendments, or at least on a body of work, to ensure that any additional amendments made to the Bill are capable of reflecting the nature of the challenge we face.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
The news about Ann Widdecombe is truly shocking, and it is compounded by the way in which she met her death. The thoughts of the Scottish National party are with her friends and family today. As has been said, Ann was a larger-than-life political figure, liked by people right across this House for her wicked sense of humour and her straight talking. I remember when I inadvertently strayed into a private Conservative event, only to be met by Ann sending me packing. For somebody of her stature, she was a very effective bouncer.
There is great interest in this tragic death beyond those with an obvious interest in politics, and there will be temptation to speculate about her death, including among those with more malevolent intent on social media. Will the Home Secretary do everything she can to ensure that the information passed on about this particular case is correct? Will she do everything possible to counter bad bits of misinformation?
Shabana Mahmood
It is incredibly important that nobody indulges in speculation of any kind, and we should collectively call out those who do. People should exercise caution before they comment on this case—that is the right way to behave for those who wish to see justice done. We should all want the proper functioning of our criminal justice system, which requires careful handling of information. Wherever possible, we will step in to correct misinformation, as the police have done, but occasionally in these sorts of cases the police are constrained in what they can put out into the public domain, because they wish to protect proceedings that may follow. We all have to be vigilant and careful, and send out the right message from this House about our expectations.
Immigration and Asylum Bill
Pete Wishart ExcerptsMonday 13th July 2026
(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026-27 View all Immigration and Asylum Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shabana Mahmood
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is really shocking that we no longer seem to give huge amounts of attention to the deaths that still occur in the channel; in fact, they barely make the news. Most people do not realise that so many still lose their lives when crossing on small boats in the channel. That is why there is a moral responsibility on all of us to think about how we deal with the particular challenge of small boats crossing the channel, how we play our part as a Government committed to our humanitarian responsibilities, and how we ensure that we finish off this trade once and for all. The only people who really benefit from this trade, and from the huge risks that people place themselves under, are the criminal gangs themselves. That money is going into the pockets of hardened criminals who would harm us in other ways, and we have got to put a stop to it.
This country has always provided sanctuary to those fleeing war and persecution, and I am proud of that fact, but we must accept that public consent for our asylum system is fraying, and unless we restore control, we will lose the British public’s support entirely. My goal as Home Secretary is to rebuild the public’s confidence, and thereby ensure that we can continue providing protection to those in need today and for generations to come. To do so, I believe we must restore fairness to our asylum system—fairness both to those who are fleeing war and persecution, and towards those communities already here who bear the burden of support.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
On fairness, I understand that some 80 Labour Back Benchers have written to the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), asking him to review the Home Secretary’s plans for indefinite leave to remain. Are they likely to be disappointed or encouraged by his response?
Shabana Mahmood
Indefinite leave to remain, and the Government’s proposals on earned settlement, will be settled policy later this year when the Government respond to the earned settlement consultation, in which we have said that we are consulting on transitional arrangements. Those will be settled later this year, but as the hon. Gentleman knows, that is not the subject of the Bill.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
We are at a critical juncture in the whole debate about immigration. Look at what is going on across the UK—things are not good. Such is the noise that a general culture of anti-immigrant sentiment now sweeps this country, leading to whole communities feeling unsafe, demonised and scapegoated. On a weekly basis, we now see disgusting scenes at hotels hosting asylum seekers, vigilantism is on the rise, and people of colour do not feel safe in their own homes. All the time, dangerous misinformation fuels the mood, supported by billionaires and bad actors spreading messages of hate and division.
The far right is on the rise—more confident, visible and organised than it has been in decades. The rise of the far right is perhaps the most dangerous political development of recent years. Looking at the situation just now, I would say that, at best, it is 50:50 whether it succeeds or not. That is the context for the introduction of the Bill. The Government continue to think that they can beat the far right and the populists by doing exactly what the anti-immigration right wants them to do: they accept the right’s premise that immigration is bad and negative, and that it must be controlled by ever-increasing restrictive and repressive measures; they join in calls to weaken essential human rights protections and to use force to remove them; and they agree that routes to citizenship should be extended and for payments that cannot be afforded. It is the usual doomed attempts to try and out-Farage Farage. After two years of following this particular logic, the Government’s attempts are almost becoming heroic.
People who come to this country seeking refuge from conflict and persecution are not asking for special treatment—they just want to feel safe. I have gone through the Bill hoping to find measures that genuinely address the problems facing the asylum system, and I have spoken to organisations that work daily to support refugees and survivors of trafficking and modern slavery. All are disappointed and concerned because the Bill does not address any of the issues at hand.
I thought that when we had a Labour Government, we would see a new and fresh approach to issues around immigration—how disappointed we have all been. At least there are some Labour Back Benchers who are prepared to change the narrative and who want to do something positive when it comes to things like indefinite leave to remain. This is their chance. They will have new leadership within the next week, so they should try and impress upon whoever is going to be leading this country that we cannot go on continuing to do these things again. We are at a critical juncture and we need to change our approach.
European Entry and Exit System
Pete Wishart Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Mr Speaker, it is the 10-year anniversary of Brexit, but you would barely know it. There have been absolutely no celebrations whatsoever—no carrying of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) shoulder-high down the mall, no celebrations of how we spent that extra £350 million per week—but here we have it, the Brexit birthday present after 10 years: a miserable start to people’s holidays and our business being disrupted. Scotland did not vote for Brexit. Scotland wanted nothing whatsoever to do with Brexit, so why are Scottish holidaymakers getting caught up in this situation, and what is the Minister doing to alleviate it?
Alex Norris
The hon. Gentleman has heard what we are doing—engaging with our partners across member states and the Commission to make sure they prioritise flow over compliance, which is the right thing to do. He raises important points about Brexit, which come up frequently in our discussions. As he may well have heard me say, I deal with challenges on a daily basis that result from the decision the British people took, such as access to data and information that we are doubtlessly missing, which we are seeking to add back as part of the UK-EU summit. I am just not sure that this situation fits into that category, because we would be having this conversation in some form either way.
Oral Answers to Questions
Pete Wishart Excerpts(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Jones
As my hon. Friend knows, that is a decision for the Met in terms of how it allocates its resources, but I hear what she said. In the light of the tensions we have faced in recent months, I am sure there is a role for policing in building relationships with our faith communities.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Every few weeks, assorted far-right activists descend on my peaceful city of Perth to holler abuse at asylum seekers placed in hotels by the Home Office. They come tanked up on misinformation and loathing, and the people of Perth are getting thoroughly sick of it. Some who attend have even been served with bans in their own communities, yet they roll up in Perth. What will the Home Secretary do about these individuals? Will she consider something like buffer zones between the protesters and the hotels?
Alex Norris
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that important point. We know that those hotels across the country are providing a focal point for people to do things that they absolutely should not do, and we condemn that behaviour in the fullest terms. Our No. 1 goal is to shut the hotels—that is the priority—and I make that commitment to the community of Perth. Alongside that, we work with the local police to ensure that areas are supported and that all tools are used as effectively as possible. I can support the hon. Gentleman in that.
Improving the UK Visa System
Pete Wishart Excerpts(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairing, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) on securing the debate, but I say to him, as gently as I possibly can, that he could barely be more wrong about the emerging situation concerning immigration and what we must do to equip ourselves for the future. What he, in fact, described was a situation that is quickly vanishing and proposed solutions that can do only more harm than good. The UK is actually experiencing one of the steepest declines in net migration in recent history, which is at one of its lowest points since 2012. All we hear, from what can only be described as a Westminster consensus, is that there is a crisis around immigration and a perception that it is out of control and must be curbed.
Let us have a look at what is actually going on. The latest figures from the Home Office and the Office for National Statistics show that net migration has dramatically fallen to 171,000 in the last year. That is almost half the figure for the previous year. It is more than three quarters below the post-pandemic peak of more than 900,000 in 2023, which was achieved under the Conservatives, who did not quite understand their own asylum policy. Far from migration continuing to spiral upwards, it is dramatically decreasing. Whether for work visas, study visas or family routes, it is all down.
Those real figures do not seem to matter a jot to a Government and Opposition still trying to convince us, for what I can perceive only as political reasons and purposes, that immigration is out of control. British Future has done us a great favour by describing this disconnect between what is actually happening—decreasing migration—and the public’s perception of what is happening. Politicians have been so successful at garnering their arguments about immigration that the public still believe that immigration is out of control and is rising.
The Home Office is happy to continue to paint a picture of escalating migration, and therefore tackling immigration is the core mission for all its activities. Again, it has been spectacularly successful. Just look at some of the figures for visas. In the year ending March 2026, work visas were down 17%, family visas were down 17%, refugee family reunion visas were down by 17%, and asylum claims were down by 12%. The sharpest and most invidious decline is in the number of visas issued to care workers, which, in effect, has collapsed after restrictions introduced by the previous Government and taken up with aplomb by the current Labour Government.
Visas issued to workers in caring personal service occupations have fallen from 108,00 at their peak to just 1,400 last year. There are real-life consequences to that. Public services have been impacted. The general economy is starting to suffer. Such is the situation that in the next couple of years we might have negative net migration. Who knows, it might actually be coming this year. If they think immigration is bad, just wait until they see the consequences of immigration and population decline.
Just look at one country—Japan. Ten years ago, it was No. 2 in the GDP leagues. It has been resistant to immigration for nearly all its history, and it is now going to collapse to No. 6, such are the demography issues and constraints.
There are also issues across southern Europe. In Italy, houses are being sold for €1 to try to get people to come to those communities. Countries are now looking at their immigration systems to see whether they are fit for purpose. Spain is attracting immigration to try to resist some of these problems. That is the agenda that we have to get into. If Members think immigration is bad, just wait until they see what is going to happen with emigration.
Several hon. Members rose—
Oral Answers to Questions
Pete Wishart Excerpts(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Norris
If the right hon. Gentleman checks the record, he will see that I answer an awful lot of questions from colleagues on a daily basis. I seek to give the fullest available information, so that we can have the best and most based in fact debate on what is a very contentious issue. I will have to look more closely at the element he raises, but he will know from his time in government that cost and person time are factors in what we can and cannot pull together to release.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
In the past few weeks, the Home Secretary has announced a whole swathe of new restrictive asylum and immigration policies which, as we know from over the weekend, are at best contentious. When will we have a vote on them?