Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Stuart C McDonald

Wednesday 24th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am afraid that we have managed to get through only 13 questions in more than 25 minutes. We need to speed up, because I wish to accommodate the Back-Bench Members who are patiently waiting to put their inquiries.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

Q3. The proposed closure of Cumbernauld tax office will see 1,300 good-quality jobs lost to the town, with many others under threat as millions of pounds of spending disappear from the local economy. That is just one of over 150 tax office closures being overseen by the Treasury. If the Government genuinely want to build stronger towns and are concerned about towns like Cumbernauld, surely they must now put a stop to HMRC’s damaging tax office closures.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Stuart C McDonald

Tuesday 18th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

It is the latter. We will get there when we are ready, and we are grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

The Law Commission of England and Wales says that working people on low incomes are being systematically denied the right to a fair trial because of restrictive legal aid rules. When will the Government act in this shocking and shameful situation?

Windrush

Debate between John Bercow and Stuart C McDonald

Wednesday 2nd May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I wish a happy 40th birthday to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), but I am afraid he does not get any longer than four minutes.

Windrush Children (Immigration Status)

Debate between John Bercow and Stuart C McDonald

Monday 16th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I understand the sense of anticipation in the Chamber about subsequent business, but I gently point out that we are discussing the rights and the futures of residents of this country. This is an extremely serious matter and the issue, and the people speaking about it, should be treated with respect. It really should not be necessary for me to say that again.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

Is not the key point in all this that the pernicious and “hostile environment” has an impact on everybody, whether they are here legally or otherwise? People can hardly get out of bed these days without somebody asking to see their passport. Is it not time to scrap the “hostile environment”?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Stuart C McDonald

Wednesday 7th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the hon. Gentleman’s namesake, Stuart C. McDonald.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

14. Will the Secretary of State agree to meet me to discuss the potentially disastrous consequences for workers in and the community of Cumbernauld if the proposed closure of the tax office there is allowed to proceed?

[Stuart Andrew]

Yes.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between John Bercow and Stuart C McDonald

Report stage: First Day: House of Commons
Tuesday 16th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Stuart C. McDonald—fairly briefly. The hon. Gentleman has amendments down and must be heard, but I know he will be sensitive to the importance of the Minister having adequate time to respond to all that has been said, so I am sure that he will be on his feet for only a small number of minutes.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to speak briefly to amendments 55 and 56 and to probe one simple issue: in short, what happens if there is a failure to correct a deficiency in EU law, so that it cannot operate effectively after exit, and how can we maximise the chances that such a thing does not happen?

We have had plenty of debate on how we can restrict Government powers to correct deficiencies so that such powers cannot be used to undermine the incorporation of EU rules and so that we do not end up with some sort of watered-down or dysfunctional version of the original. However, perhaps the more realistic possibility, and just as much of a danger, is that we end up with a watered-down or dysfunctional version of EU rules not because of the inappropriate use of those powers of correction, but because of a failure to use them at all in appropriate circumstances, either by accident or design, or if various incorporated rules and regulations are simply allowed to fester away uncorrected and unable to operate effectively. So, I asked at Committee stage, “What happens if there is a citizen before a court in this country, seeking to establish rights under retained EU law when that retained EU law is actually riddled with deficiencies? Is the court supposed to try and make that work? Does the person simply lose their ability to exercise that right?”

My amendment 55 simply requires the court to interpret retained EU law—as far as possible—in such a way as to make it function effectively, borrowing shamelessly from the language of the Human Rights Act. I fully acknowledge that that in itself would not take us very far, but it is there to prompt a response from the Government. What should the court do in those circumstances? There are alternative courses of action that this Parliament could take, not just in amending clause 6 but in other parts of the Bill. We could expressly require EU law to be interpreted so as to be given effect “as if the UK were still a member state”, with further provisions about how that should be done. We could put in place a procedure to allow courts to flag up rules that they have found cannot operate effectively. We could put Ministers under an obligation or a duty to ensure that retained EU laws operate effectively; indeed, amendment 57 and new clause 19 are of that nature. Alternatively, as amendment 56 suggests, we could simply require the Government to publish a list of all the deficiencies they found in retained EU law that they are not seeking directly to rectify.

In short, the task of ensuring that we have a functioning rule book or statute book on exit day is twofold. Parliament must protect important rights, not only by preventing inappropriate use of Henry VIII powers, but by providing a means of ensuring that deficiencies are rectified where necessary, either by the Government, or by Parliament or by our courts, and I still think we have a long way to go in that regard.

Article 50

Debate between John Bercow and Stuart C McDonald

Wednesday 29th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Patience rewarded—Stuart C. McDonald.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I wonder, how would the Prime Minister have responded if Donald Tusk had simply said, “Now is not the time”?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman, with his background, will know that the treaty on European Union enables the member state to trigger article 50 in the way in which we have done. It is then for the European Union to respond to that by setting out the basis of two years of negotiations.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Stuart C McDonald

Monday 5th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure there is no suggestion that anybody would be anything other than honest in this Chamber.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

What is so difficult about some state variations in immigration rules? Many visas tie people to a specific job and employer. We have Tech City visas, which have special rules for certain UK cities, and we do operate a common travel area and an open border with Ireland, which is a completely distinct immigration system. Does the Secretary of State accept that there is no practical reason why we cannot see significantly different rules applying in Scotland for those significantly different needs?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Stuart C McDonald

Wednesday 23rd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Stuart C. McDonald.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

I have No. 12, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Spit it out, man. Come in on this question; yours was similar.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

12. In July, the party leader of the Secretary of State told the BBC:“I want to stay in the single market, even if the consequence of that is maintaining free movement of labour.”Ruth Davidson was 100% correct, so can the Secretary of State explain the shoddy U-turn?

Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse

Debate between John Bercow and Stuart C McDonald

Monday 17th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

Every MP in the Chamber is anxious for the inquiry to succeed, but before we can draw a line under recent difficult problems and move on, we need honesty and transparency from the Home Office. When the Home Secretary appeared before the Home Affairs Committee in September alongside the permanent secretary, she left Members with the impression that Justice Goddard resigned because, in short, she was “lonely”. There was no mention of concerns about conduct then or, indeed, in her subsequent letter to the acting Chair of the Committee. For clarity’s sake, did she know before giving evidence that day, or before writing the letter, about the concerns that had been raised? Will she confirm that only she could remove the inquiry chair from office and that the limited grounds for doing so included misconduct? Is that not why all these questions about the state of her knowledge are so important?

Will the Home Secretary confirm that the secretary to the inquiry, to whom she has already referred, is a lifelong Home Office staffer and that that secretary regularly meets the permanent secretary to provide progress updates? Is she categorically stating that these issues were not raised before July? If they were not raised before July, why on earth were they not raised before then? When did the permanent secretary or the special advisers first make either the current or previous Home Secretary aware?

When the Home Secretary gave evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, was she being economical about what she knew, or had she been badly briefed by the permanent secretary—it has to be one or the other? Finally, does she accept that, by sticking its head in the sand, the Home Office hierarchy allowed the inquiry to descend into a state of paralysis, which we must never see again?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I fear it is rather discourteous for the hon. Gentleman to suggest or imply that the Home Secretary might be “economical” with what she knew. That comes fairly close to crossing the line. Given that he has a prepared text, and therefore had full knowledge of what he was going to say, may I suggest that, for the future, he ought to phrase things rather differently?

Immigration Bill

Debate between John Bercow and Stuart C McDonald

Tuesday 1st December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

Stuart McDonald, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Indeed. I am grateful. I had not received intelligence as to who was going to speak for the SNP, but the hon. Gentleman is here and he will be heard.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 17—Residential Tenancies: repeal of provisions of the Immigration Act 2014—

‘(1) The Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows.

(2) Omit sections 20-37, 74 (2)(a) and Schedule 3.”

Repeals the provisions of the Immigration Act 2014 in relation to the right to rent.

Amendment 18, in clause 1,  page 1, line 9, at end insert—

‘(3A) The matters to which the Director must have regard in pursuance of his or her functions include the provision of assistance and support to victims of non-compliance in the labour market, as defined under subsection (3)(1).’

To ensure that the functions of the Director of Labour Market Enforcement are exercised for the purpose of protecting the victims of labour market exploitation and to make this explicit on the face of the Bill, mirroring section 41 of the Modern Slavery Act in respect of the Anti-Slavery Commissioner established by that Act.

Amendment 19, page 5, line 2, leave out clause 8.

To omit the clause on the new illegal working offence and maintain the status quo.

Amendment 20, in clause 8,  page 5, line 9, after “if” insert “without reasonable cause”.

To provide for a defence against the offence of illegal working.

Amendment 33, in clause 9,  page 7, line 11, leave out subsection (1) and insert—

“(1) In section 21 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (offence of knowingly employing illegal worker), leave out subsection (1) and substitute—

(1) A person commits an offence if he knowingly or recklessly employs an adult subject to immigration control, where—

(a) this adult has not been granted leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, or

(b) this adult’s leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom—

(i) is invalid,

(ii) has ceased to have effect (whether by reason of curtailment, revocation, cancellation, passage of time or otherwise), or

(iii) is subject to a condition preventing him from accepting the employment.”

To restrict the criminal offence of “employing illegal worker” to where this has been done “knowingly or recklessly”.

Amendment 47, page 7, line 36, in clause 10, leave out “Scotland or”.

Removes the power for the Secretary of State to make regulations relating to illegal working extending to Scotland.

Amendment 48, page 7, leave out line 41.

Prevents the Secretary of State making regulations that confer functions on Scottish Ministers in relation to illegal working.

Amendment 49, page 8, line 5, leave out “an Act of the Scottish Parliament or”.

Definitional change for purposes of amendments 47 and 48.

Amendment 50, page 8, line 6, leave out “under such an Act or”.

Definitional change for the purposes of amendment 49.

Amendment 51, in clause 11, page 8, line 13, leave out “Scotland or”.

Removes the power for the Secretary of State to make regulations relating to illegal working in relation to private hire vehicles extend to Scotland.

Amendment 52, page 8, leave out line 18.

Prevents the Secretary of State making regulations that confer functions on Scottish Ministers in relation to illegal working relating to private hire vehicles.

Amendment 53, page 8, line 25, leave out paragraph (b).

Definitional change for purposes of amendments 51 and 52.

Amendment 35, page 9, line 4, leave out clauses 13 to 16.

Removes the extension of the right to rent legislation in the Bill.

Amendment 46, in clause 13, page 9, line 31, at end insert—

‘(5A) A landlord will not commit an offence under subsection (1) if—

(a) the landlord enters a residential tenancy agreement with an organisation or person who is supporting an adult mentioned in in subsection (2);

(b) the rental payment received by the landlord as a result of this tenancy does not significantly exceed the costs that are incurred by the landlord for having the adult occupy the premises.”.

Ensures that a landlord who has agreed by working with an organisation/charity to provide accommodation to support failed asylum seekers are exempt from committing an offence.

Amendment 22, page 10, line 4, at end insert—

‘(8A) A landlord does not commit an offence under this section during the period of 28 days specified in section 33D (4).”

To protect a landlord/landlady from prosecution for renting to a person without a right to rent during the period for which they are prohibited from evicting the tenant under section 33D(4).

Amendment 23, in clause 14,  page 12, line 1, leave out subsection (2).

To remove the provisions providing for summary eviction.

Amendment 24, page 13, line 18, leave out “Sections 33D and” and substitute “Section”.

See explanatory note for amendment 23.

Amendment 25, page 13, leave out line 24.

See explanatory note for amendment 23.

Amendment 26, page 13, line 26, leave out subsections (5) to (7).

See explanatory note for amendment 23.

Amendment 54, in clause 16, page 17, line 7, leave out “, Scotland”.

Removes the power for the Secretary of State to make regulations in relation to the right to rent scheme extending to Scotland.

Amendment 55, page 17, line 10, leave out “, Scotland”.

See explanatory statement for amendment 54.

Amendment 56, page 17, leave out line 17.

Prevents the Secretary of State making regulations that confer functions on Scottish Ministers in relation to the right to rent scheme.

Amendment 57, page 17, line 27, leave out paragraph (c).

Definitional change for the purposes of amendments 55 and 56.

Amendment 41, in clause 57, page 50, line 4, at end insert—

“(7) Regulations made under—

(a) section 10;

(b) section 11; or

(c) section 16

of this Act shall not come into force in Scotland without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.”

Ensures regulations made under the relevant sections cannot extend to Scotland without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.

Amendment 21, in clause 58, page 50, line 9, at end insert—

‘(2A) Section 13 shall come into force subject to the conditions set out subsection (2B).

(2B) The Secretary of State must prepare and publish an evaluation of the national implementation of provisions contained in sections 20 to 37 and Schedule 3 to the Immigration Act 2014, and must lay a copy of the report before Parliament.

(2C) The report in subsection (2B) must include an assessment of the impact of those provisions on—

(a) individuals who have a protected characteristic as defined in Part 2, Chapter 1 of the Equality Act 2010, and

(b) British citizens who do not hold a passport or UK driving licence.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament an evaluation of the national roll out of the 2014 Right to Rent Scheme before the new offences in clause 13 come into force.

New clause 8—Detention of persons—exempted persons—

In paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971, after subsection (4) insert—

“(5) A person may not be detained under this paragraph if they are—

(a) a woman who—

(i) states that she is pregnant, where this is confirmed to be the case or,

(ii) is reasonably suspected to be pregnant by an immigration officer;

(b) a person whose initial claim for asylum to the United Kingdom was based on being a victim of one of the following:

(i) human trafficking;

(ii) torture;

(iii) sexual violence;

(c) a member of any other group as may be prescribed in regulations by the Secretary of State.”

This amendment would provide that pregnant women, people who claimed asylum as victims of trafficking, torture or sexual violence, and any other group prescribed by the Secretary of State, may not be detained pending an examination or decision by an immigration officer.

New clause 9—Time limit on detention—

In paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 after subsection (4) insert—

“(5) Subject to subsection (6), no person shall be detained under this paragraph for more than 28 days.

(6) Subsection (5) shall not apply where the person detained under this paragraph has a criminal conviction with a sentence of imprisonment for three months or more.”

This amendment provides that people shall not be detained pending an examination/a decision by an immigration officer for more than 28 days, unless they have a criminal conviction.

New clause 13—Review of Immigration Detention—

“(1) Before the end of the period of three months beginning on the day on which subsection (1) of section 32 comes into force, the Secretary of State must commission a report on detention under paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 that addresses the following matters—

(a) the process for, and detail of, introducing a statutory maximum limit of 28 days on the length of time an individual can be detained under that paragraph;

(b) how to reduce the number of people detained under that paragraph;

(c) how to minimise the length of time an individual is detained under that paragraph;

(d) the effectiveness of detention in meeting the Secretary of State’s objectives; and

(e) the effectiveness of procedures to review decisions to detain and to continue to detain.

(2) The Report must be published by a panel appointed by the Secretary of State.

(3) The panel appointed under subsection (2) must be independently chaired.

(4) On completion of the report, the Chair of the panel must send it to the Secretary of State.

(5) The Secretary of State must lay before parliament a copy of the report received under subsection (4).”

Reflecting the unanimous agreement of the House of Commons to the recommendations of the joint APPG on Refugees and APPG on Migration inquiry into immigration detention, the new clause requires the Secretary of State to appoint an independently-chaired panel to consider the issues raised therein and report to Parliament within three months of Schedule 7 to the Bill coming into force.

Amendment 32, in schedule 7, page 97, line 22, at end insert—

“(2A) The Secretary of State must grant a person bail if a person is detained under a provision mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) after no later than the 28 day following that on which the person was detained.”

To introduce a 28 day time limit on the amount of time a person can be kept in immigration detention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I could never imagine the adjective “speechless” being applied to the hon. Gentleman.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I agree with my hon. Friend.

Such an honest debate must include discussion of how we assist communities that face challenges because of significant levels of migration. It must be about how we incentivise migrants to live in the parts of the United Kingdom that most need them and can most easily accommodate them. It should be about whether and how we can properly count those coming in and out, and how we can enforce the rules we already have, rather than create endless new rules. The debate must no longer proceed on the basis of the vicious climate of hostility policy that the Government pursue, and which affects all of us. We need a better approach to migration than the ludicrous one-size-fits-all target, which actually incentivises—my hon. Friend alluded to this—the exclusion of husbands and wives, the persecuted and the bright young students who will be the leaders of tomorrow.

We should reject this flawed Bill, which is designed to pursue a flawed target. Indeed, saying that it seeks to pursue that flawed target is in itself almost certainly being too kind, because it has zero chance of getting us anywhere near the target. This is not pursuit, but pretence. The Bill has been well described as “immigration theatre”. That is the fundamental flaw at the heart of the Bill, but there are so many problems with its pernicious clauses that it is not possible to do them all justice in the time available.

The Government may feel compelled to be seen to do something about net migration, but in reality the Bill will do nothing to resolve the challenges of migration, nor to maximise its benefits, and it will not certainly achieve the bogus target. However we look at it—from the perspective of the rule of law, human rights, the best interests of children, or just simple common decency—the Bill is pretty desperate stuff. I encourage Members to vote against it on Third Reading.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Stuart C McDonald

Wednesday 4th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am genuinely trying to be helpful to Members. May I please urge them to look at the terms of the question on the Order Paper? This one is specifically about onshore wind planning. I think we must now move on.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

2. What recent discussions he has had with Her Majesty’s Treasury on the future of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs tax offices in Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between John Bercow and Stuart C McDonald

Wednesday 28th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald]

I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful answer. As he said, registration can be vital to prevent statelessness, yet some estimates suggest that nearly 30,000 Syrian refugee children born in Lebanon could fall into that category, with long-term consequences for their education and a vulnerability to violence and exploitation; it could even affect their ability to return home should the conflict come to an end. Does the Minister recognise that that situation requires a response from the Governments of the host countries and grass-roots legal advice organisations on the ground, and will he commit to working at all levels to support access to registration—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. May I suggest politely to the hon. Gentleman that the deployment of a blue pencil is helpful on these occasions?