Illegal Migration
Debate between Eleanor Laing and Joanna Cherry(6 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Enough. We have had that question, and we are now moving on to the next one.
Illegal Migration Update
Debate between Eleanor Laing and Joanna Cherry(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Now, now. We will just calm down before we go any further, thank you. I expect better from Members.
Refugees from Ukraine
Debate between Eleanor Laing and Joanna Cherry(2 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
There is clearly a disagreement here, which is why we are having a debate. Debates are about disagreement. This has been a polite debate so far, so let us keep it that way.
This is obviously not a point of order for the Chair, but the hon. Gentleman has put his point of view on the record. The hon. and learned Lady has done so, too, and I have a feeling she will do so again. If there is a disagreement, I hope she might take an intervention because it is not a matter for the Chair.
Joanna Cherry
If the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle had taken interventions during his speech, we could have clarified it then. The key words are “per capita,” which mean “per head.” As I said, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East will set out those figures in her speech.
The single biggest thing the UK Government could do to ensure the efficient evacuation and resettlement of Ukrainian refugees would be to permit visa-free access to the United Kingdom, in the same way that our near neighbours such as Ireland and, indeed, all the member states of the European Union are doing. It seems to me that there are two reasons for the refusal to do this, and neither is tenable. The first is alleged concerns about security, and the second is dogma, by which I mean this Government are thrawnly clinging to their anti-refugee and anti-asylum seeker policies despite all the evidence that they are untenable because of the new order in Europe ushered in by Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine.
We debated these matters in Westminster Hall on Monday afternoon, and I put it to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), that the Government’s security concerns are unfounded according to such a distinguished expert as Lord Peter Ricketts. Sadly, the Minister failed to address my point and instead resorted to a cheap and unfounded attack on the record of City of Edinburgh Council, and indeed my constituents, in rehousing people fleeing other war zones, particularly Syria and Afghanistan.
Fortunately, today’s debate will give the Minister the opportunity to set the record straight and, if he is able, to explain why his Government are pleading security risks against free access, despite expert evidence that such risks as might exist are small and can be managed safely without visas.
I pray in aid Lord Peter Ricketts, who is of course a former National Security Adviser. He spoke about these matters in the other place last week, and he was interviewed by Mark D’Arcy for “Today in Parliament.” He said:
“Security is always a matter of risk management—there is never zero risk.”
However, as these refugees are mainly women and children, they do not, in his opinion, pose a security risk. The UK Government therefore should not require visas, and they should do the security checks once the women and children are here. We have heard other speakers, and particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), explain how that could be done.
Lord Peter Ricketts thinks we can do it, the European Union can do it and Ireland can do it, why cannot the United Kingdom? The Minister did not answer that question in Westminster Hall on Monday. He tried to deflect attention from his failure to answer that crucial question by attacking the record of local authorities in Scotland, including City of Edinburgh Council, which covers my constituency of Edinburgh South West. As so often with him, his attacks were unfounded in fact.
Let me take this opportunity to put the Minister right. The people of Scotland and our capital city of Edinburgh stand ready to welcome refugees from Ukraine, as we have always done. We have already heard about the generous offer from the Scottish Government. Since 2015, City of Edinburgh Council has resettled 585 Syrian refugees, the majority by the council but two households by Refugee Sponsorship Edinburgh, including a number of my constituents with whom I worked to get that sponsorship scheme off the ground. Those refugees have been supported by local partners such as the Welcoming Association in my constituency.
Since the fiasco of the UK’s withdrawal from Afghanistan last August, City of Edinburgh Council has accepted more than 200 Afghan refugees. City of Edinburgh Council has produced a plan to increase the number of refugees it takes each year. In fact, looking again at per capita, which means per head—
Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill (Instruction)
Debate between Eleanor Laing and Joanna Cherry(2 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before the hon. Gentleman gives way, let me say for the sake of clarity that the programme for the rest of the day would not be null and void. If the hon. Gentleman’s motion is carried by the House, his subsequent amendments and new clauses can be debated; if it is not, they cannot. The position is quite clear; we want to make sure that it is clear.
Joanna Cherry
One of the most notable things after the outcome of the case was that the Prime Minister did not express any remorse for having unlawfully prorogued Parliament, so I would not be so confident that he would not try it again. What initially worried me slightly about the hon. Gentleman’s new clause was that the current Prime Minister, with his huge majority, could seek to prorogue Parliament for a dubious purpose. However, I note that the hon. Gentleman has put in a requirement that it cannot be for more than 10 days. Of course, what was so objectionable about the last Prorogation was that it was so lengthy and came at a time when Parliament had very important matters to debate, so I presume that the hon. Gentleman put that in to guard against the possibility of the current Prime Minister using the rather large majority that he has, at least in England, to force through another dubious Prorogation.
Debate on the Address
Debate between Eleanor Laing and Joanna Cherry(2 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to be back in the Chamber; it is the first time for nearly five months that I have appeared physically rather than virtually. Much as I long to see Scotland regain its independence, I recognise that this is one of the great debating chambers of the world, and it is always a privilege to speak here. It is also a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who speaks so knowledgeably about matters of public health.
Since the last Queen’s Speech, in December 2019, the four constituent parts of the United Kingdom have been through very tumultuous times. The United Kingdom left the European Union on 31 January 2020; the pandemic almost eclipsed the end of the transition period at the tail end of last year, but that does not mean that traders, particularly those in the Scottish fishing industry, have not felt the pain of being out of the single market and the customs union.
As a result of the pandemic, many of our constituents have suffered grievous loss or serious illness. Others have suffered the associated health, social and economic impacts caused by the necessity of lockdown. In many ways, the elderly have suffered most. At the outset, there was the terrible death toll in care homes, but elderly people have also suffered the pain of being unable to see their loved ones at a time when their society and guidance was most needed. Of course, young people have suffered too: their education, social lives and mental health have been greatly disrupted. Jobs have been lost, and businesses, particularly small businesses, have struggled.
The pandemic has exacerbated the inequalities that already existed in our society, and I was disappointed to see no acknowledgment of that in the Queen’s Speech. At the very least, I would have expected to hear confirmation of measures to address the September cliff edge on furlough—yes, things might be going well at the moment, but we cannot assume that they will always go well in relation to the virus. I would also have liked to see measures to address the cliff edge in self-employed support, the reduced hospitality VAT rate and the £20 uplift to universal credit. It is disappointing to see no measures to end unfair zero-hours and fire-and-rehire contracts or to deliver a living wage—a real living wage—for all.
As Citizens Advice Scotland has reminded us,
“The last year has shown the vital importance of our social security safety net”,
and universal credit not featuring in the Government’s legislative agenda
“risks missing lessons from the pandemic. While UC survived the influx of new claimants—in part by easing verification procedures and conditionality—fundamental aspects of its design have continued to put people in hardship.”
They will continue to do so unless we reform them. Reform is urgently needed in that department.
The Government say in the Queen’s Speech that children must have the best start in life, but that will not happen unless we tackle the scourge of child poverty—I would have liked to see some outlining of measures to do that. The British Government might do well to take a leaf out of the Scottish Government’s book. The Scottish Government established a Scottish child payment in the last Parliament and have committed to doubling it in the next, which child poverty campaigners have described as a game changer. Can the UK Government match that sort of commitment? I wonder.
Likewise, I am sure that people in England will be disappointed still to see no concrete plans for social care. Again, the British Government might do well to take a leaf out of the Scottish Government’s book: the SNP election manifesto pledged to take forward the recommendations of the independent Feeley review and to establish a national care service for Scotland in the current parliamentary term. The service will oversee the delivery of care and improve standards in care homes. It will also improve training and, importantly, staff pay and conditions for our care workforce, and it will give support to unpaid carers.
That is the kind of concrete action that led to the SNP winning an historic fourth election victory last week, and that brings me to the constitution. The British Government say they want to
“strengthen and renew democracy and the constitution”—
those were the words used in the Queen’s Speech—and to strengthen “the integrity of elections”. Well, they would do well to start by respecting the outcome of the election that we had in Scotland last week. As I said, it was an historic fourth election victory in a row for the SNP, and it was won with a record 47.7% share of the vote and a record turnout. It was won on a very firm manifesto commitment to deliver a second independence referendum. It is no use Members on the Government Benches arguing otherwise, as the Conservative and Unionist party in Scotland put preventing a second independence referendum at the heart of its campaign and has ended up with only 21.9% of the vote and 32 seats. The SNP has twice as many. The Greens got eight seats in Scotland and also had a firm manifesto commitment to deliver a second independence referendum, so taken together the pro-independence referendum parties in the Scottish Parliament now have 72 seats to the 57 of the anti-independence referendum parties. Of course, it was the exact same position—72 seats to 57—in 2011, when David Cameron came to the negotiating table and negotiated with Alex Salmond an agreement to hold an independence referendum.
The British Government have said today that we cannot have another independence referendum, because we had one seven years ago—it is worth pausing to note that we are not saying that we want one immediately; we want one after the pandemic is over—but they would do well to listen to former senior civil servant Ciaran Martin, who oversaw the delivery of the Edinburgh agreement in 2012 and is now a professor at the University of Oxford. He said last month that if the pro-independence parties in Scotland won another majority, there would be no legitimate justification on which to resist a referendum. He is, of course, correct. I remind Government Members that in the 2019 general election the current Prime Minister secured an 80-seat majority on just 43.6% of the vote—considerably less than my party secured last week in percentage terms—and that that result has been used by the Conservative and Unionist party to justify far-reaching consequences for all of us in the United Kingdom, altering both the nature of the Union and relations with our neighbours radically. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Of course, the Scottish Government have a plan to initiate legislation for a second independence referendum in the Scottish Parliament, regardless of whether the Prime Minister gives us a section 30 order, and I am very proud to have been instrumental in persuading my party to adopt that approach. However, the Prime Minister should have the guts to come to the negotiating table, as David Cameron did in 2011, to ensure that the referendum is held on an agreed basis. The Union of Scotland and England is a union of consent; it is not a union enforced by force of law, and the British Prime Minister would do well to recognise that.
I want to say something positive about the proposals in the speech, because I would like to give a cautious welcome to the Government’s plans to protect freedom of speech. I would not wish to give their plans unqualified support without hearing more about them, but I am in no doubt that they have correctly identified that there is a problem with free speech in our universities, and I would welcome more public debate about it.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, identified issues with freedom of speech in our universities in a report that we issued in 2018. We did not find the wholesale censorship of debate in universities that media coverage has suggested, but we did find that there were issues, and we recommended some reforms. I am afraid, though, that the situation has got worse since that report. For example, while society has worked hard to tackle sexual harassment, it is common now in universities across the United Kingdom for feminist academics who speak up for women’s sex-based rights under the Equality Act 2010 to be harassed and threatened. I have previously spoken on the Floor of the House about the experiences of Professor Selina Todd, Professor Kathleen Stock and Professor Rosa Freedman.
I have recently had brought to my attention the case of a law student at a Scottish university who is facing a disciplinary investigation and potential expulsion from her course for stating during a seminar that only women have vaginas and for objecting to the statement that all men are rapists. This woman is a final-year mature law student, and she is undergoing this investigation and the threat of being thrown off her course in the middle of her final year, while doing exam work. It is farcical that a law student—a female mature law student—should be facing disciplinary action for stating a biological fact and challenging a sweeping statement. The reality is that university authorities are under pressure from those who wish to silence feminist voices, and universities need support and encouragement to stand up against what can sometimes be very nasty and threatening campaigns. Madam Deputy Speaker, when I say nasty and threatening, I know whereof I speak.
That is as far as my support for the Government’s legislative programme goes, and I just want to point out that there is no point in legislating to protect freedom of speech in universities while at the same time legislating to undermine freedom of expression and assembly, as the Government are doing in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. I implore them to look at that afresh to see what the all-party parliamentary groups on democracy and the constitution and on the rule of law, and also the Joint Committee on Human Rights, are saying about that.
Finally, looking at the international aspects of the Queen’s Speech, the Government said that they want to uphold human rights and democracy across the world. If they are really committed to doing that, why do they frequently fail to do it when it comes to the Palestinian people? The inaction from the international community, including from the United Kingdom Government, to properly defend and support Palestinians in the face of Israeli Government and Israeli human rights abuses is not indicative of a country that supposedly stands for human rights and democracy abroad. The excessive force used by Israeli forces on worshippers at al-Aqsa and against families in Sheikh Jarrah in occupied East Jerusalem only prompts the mildest of criticism and zero consequences for those responsible. Those families are facing forced transfer and dispossession of their homes, which would constitute a war crime. In the past 24 hours, we have seen a grim escalation, with 24 people, including nine children, killed in Israeli attacks on Gaza. Although we should rightly condemn the rocket attacks coming from Gaza to Jerusalem, we should also condemn and take action against the events that led up to these escalations and the excessive response to them.
If the UK Government really want to be a human rights defender, they should fully support the International Criminal Court’s investigation into an alleged grave crime committed in the occupied Palestinian territory, and they should not undermine it. Please can we have real meaning to the words of “upholding human rights and democracy abroad”?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
As Mr Deputy Speaker has previously said, we are trying to manage without a time limit because there is a lot of time left, but there are also many people who wish to speak. It would be courteous if people spoke for around eight minutes. If that were to happen, everyone who has indicated that they wish to speak would have an opportunity to do so, and we could manage without a time limit. Otherwise, I shall just put on a time limit. It is much better, though, if we can self-regulate without a time limit.
Overseas Operations (Service Personnel And Veterans) Bill
Debate between Eleanor Laing and Joanna CherryWednesday 23rd September 2020
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill 2019-21 View all Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joanna Cherry
That seems to be what he is suggesting. But let us focus on what we are talking about here. We are talking about torture—[Interruption.]
European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill
Debate between Eleanor Laing and Joanna CherryWednesday 22nd January 2020
(4 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 22 January 2020 - (22 Jan 2020)
Joanna Cherry
Should not the Scottish National party’s Front-Bench spokesman have been called?