Debates between Mr Gavin Shuker and Nick Thomas-Symonds

There have been 1 exchanges between Mr Gavin Shuker and Nick Thomas-Symonds

1 Wed 30th January 2019 Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Bill [Lords]
Home Office
3 interactions (352 words)

Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Bill [Lords]

(3rd reading: House of Commons)
(Report stage: House of Commons)
Debate between Mr Gavin Shuker and Nick Thomas-Symonds
Wednesday 30th January 2019

(1 year, 6 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Bill Main Page
Home Office
Nick Thomas-Symonds Portrait Nick Thomas-Symonds - Hansard
30 Jan 2019, 2:56 p.m.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging that.

Let me turn to the issue of death penalty assurances, which has clearly aroused a great deal of controversy, and explain our position. I should say to the Security Minister that I totally accept that new clause 1 is an improvement. The position the Opposition have ended up in today is a procedural one: unfortunately, because new clause 1 is the lead provision in the group and is therefore at the head of the list to be voted on, the only way that the Opposition can secure a vote on our own amendment is by voting against new clause 1. That is just the procedural position we have ended up in, but accept that it is a step forward and make that entirely clear from the Dispatch Box at the outset.

Mr Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op) Hansard
30 Jan 2019, 2:57 p.m.

Just to be clear on the procedure, my hon. Friend’s direction to Labour MPs will be to vote against new clause 1, although he accepts it to be an improvement; were he successful in stripping out new clause 1 and unsuccessful in passing his own amendment, would that not put us back to a worse position?

Nick Thomas-Symonds Portrait Nick Thomas-Symonds - Hansard
30 Jan 2019, 2:58 p.m.

I accept that there is always a danger that when we vote on a number of new clauses and amendments in a row, the order matters and what happens on them matters, as we have seen in recent days. Let me reassure my hon. Friend: what I am trying to say is that although I do accept that new clause 1, with its duty to seek assurances, is certainly an improvement on the case we had in the summer, when no assurances were sought at all, it does not match the position of the Labour Front-Bench team, which is that if there are circumstances—they will be rare—in which assurances are sought but not given, the data should not be handed over. That is the difference between myself and the Minister. The Minister accepts that we should be getting assurances. That is the difference: new clause 1 is an improvement, but it does not match our position.