| Allan Wilson:
This is a place
of opinion—a Parliament ought to be full of different personal and party
political opinions. Therefore, it is correct that parliamentarians should
express the opinions on whatever matter exercises them. In this instance,
it is whether Mike Tyson, former heavyweight champion of the world and
convicted rapist, should be allowed to enter the UK to fight at Hampden
park in Scotland.
For a variety
of reasons, which have been given by Roseanna Cunningham and others, I
would prefer that Mike Tyson did not come here. I admit that I am not a
boxing fan, although I appreciate that many others are—even boxing fans
have expressed the opinion that he should be denied entry. I recognise,
as does the Scottish Labour party, that there is widespread concern in
the Parliament and the country about the decision to grant entry to Mike
Tyson.
However, that
is not really the point or the point of the motion that we are debating.
I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that it was entirely predictable
that permission would be sought and granted, based on Mike Tyson's most
recent visit only a few months ago, when by all accounts his behaviour
was satisfactory. No one claims that he poses any risk to the public, which
is a ground on which a less high-profile applicant could normally be denied
access—assuming that he declared his convictions. Instead, a refusal to
permit entry could, undeniably, result in a loss of economic benefit to
Glasgow and the UK and militate against such promotions in future.
Therefore, the
case against granting permission for entry is based entirely on the presumption
that, because of his spent criminal conviction for rape, to grant entry
to Tyson sends out the wrong messages and glamorises his criminal past.
However, that is an entirely subjective opinion, which serves only to underline
the importance of the discretionary element in the process. After all,
it is perfectly possible to conceive of circumstances in which it would
be desirable to permit the entry of another high-profile applicant with
a criminal past because it sent out the right messages—for example, a former
terrorist who was reconciled to the democratic process. Indeed, some people
think that the visit of Mike Tyson provides precisely such an opportunity—to
reinforce to young males the fact that, world heavyweight boxing champion
or not, if someone commits rape, they go to jail. That message was strongly
associated with the Manchester fight.
Whatever opinions
we hold, as immigration is a reserved matter, the decision to grant entry
is quite properly one for the Home Secretary. Scotland's Parliament can
express its opinion on any matter, but immigration policy is determined
at the Westminster Parliament, to which Scotland still sends 72 MPs, who
have the power to speak out on the matter.
Labour members
have done that, but, as Angus MacKay said, SNP members have been noticeable
by their silence. They are all talk in Scotland but no action in Westminster.
As Johann Lamont mentioned, last week, the nationalist leader asked the
rhetorical question:
"is the only
solution for Scotland for this Parliament to have the power to decide who
shall and who shall not enter our country?"—[Official Report, 18 May 2000;
Vol 6, c 857.]
The I-word is
not mentioned, but that is independence unmasked. The SNP is not interested
in violence against women, but is interested in searching Eddie Stobart
lorries for illegal boxers. How would the nationalists enforce their decision
to restrict entry to Scotland to someone granted entry to England? They
want the power to grant entry visas, and to do so they must restrict the
right of free movement within this island. That means immigration controls
and border posts.
Two weeks ago,
the Scottish Parliament rejected independence as a solution. Today, the
Parliament rejects the nationalists' final solution to the Mike Tyson affair.
I support the Labour amendment to the amendment.
To
read this debate in full, click here
|
