Detention of Vulnerable Persons

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Tuesday 14th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Mr Davies. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) on securing this debate, particularly as she has campaigned for many years for the rights of the very people who the UK Government choose to detain. She made a powerful and at times emotional speech.

I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), who asked some very pointed questions, and the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who used his Westminster Hall season ticket to give a very thoughtful speech this afternoon.

The Scottish National party has long opposed the UK Government’s approach to immigration detention, which is not only inhumane but ineffective and hugely expensive. It is inhumane because it allows the indefinite detention of vulnerable people without a time limit and children and pregnant women to be detained; it is ineffective because evidence confirms that the longer a person is detained, the less likely it is that their detention will result in removal; and it is expensive, as we are detaining far too many people at great cost to the taxpayer, many of whom are not removed in any event.

The SNP’s position on immigration detention is very straightforward: we oppose indefinite detention. We oppose an abhorrent policy that allows pregnant women and children to be detained in these environments; instead, we favour an alternative approach that treats people with respect and dignity, helping those in need but still enabling us to abide by our responsibilities. We also support the calls for immigration detention to be limited to 28 days and for it to be replaced with community-based solutions. We believe that detention should always be the last resort.

The UK is the only country in Europe that allows vulnerable people to be detained in prison-like detention centres for an indefinite period. The former director of Liberty, now Baroness Chakrabarti, has spoken about

“The scandal of limitless detention”.

She has explained how this inhumane practice was designed “unashamedly for administrative convenience” and said that it is

“one of the greatest stains on the UK’s human rights record…a colossal and pointless waste of both public funds and human life.”

The Home Office defends its inhumane approach to immigration detention by saying that detention can be used

“where there is a realistic prospect of removal within a reasonable period.”

However, that defence does not stand up to scrutiny. According to Government statistics, 7% of detainees have been detained for more than six months and in 2016 only 47% of those leaving detention in the UK were being removed from the UK. The figure for Dungavel detention centre is even more stark: a mere 23% of people leaving detention were being deported. However, those statistics do not reflect the true scale of detention in the UK; migrants detained in prisons by the Home Office rather than in immigration removal centres are arbitrarily excluded from them.

As we have already heard, in 2015, following a number of shocking stories that laid bare the toxic legacy of the UK Government’s present and past approach towards immigration detention, Stephen Shaw carried out a review of the welfare of vulnerable people who had been forcefully detained by the UK Government. My colleagues and others have spoken about this issue in great detail, but it is worth noting some of the Shaw report’s findings, which confirmed that the UK detained too many people and that detention was not an effective approach to removing people who do not have the appropriate right to live here.

The Government have appeared to accept many of Shaw’s recommendations; it is an indictment of them that, more than a year on from the report, the number of people spending more than two months in detention has actually increased. More than half the detainees across the UK and more than three quarters of those in Dungavel were released back into the community. If any other Government service or Department had that rate of failure, there would be demands for an urgent inquiry, to establish why so many people were being incorrectly detained and why so much public money was being wasted.

Those who defend the detention of innocent people in these prison-like environments suggest that the public generally support this policy. I can state firmly and with some authority that that is not the case in my constituency of Paisley and Renfrewshire North. Members might remember that, in an attempt to close Dungavel, the UK Government submitted a planning application to Renfrewshire Council for a short-term immigration detention centre to be built near Glasgow airport. That application was soundly and firmly rejected in a rare cross-party and cross-sector political and civic show of unity. Renfrewshire wanted no part in the UK Government’s inhumane, ineffective and expensive approach to immigration detention.

The Minister’s desire to build a short-stay detention centre in my constituency was put forward only to make it easier to deport vulnerable individuals from their homes. That shameful approach would have resulted in individuals being moved hundreds of miles away from their homes, their families and their legal advisers. Again, the application for the centre was put forward with little concern for the rights of asylum seekers.

On that point, I have recently contacted the Minister about one of my constituents, Jorge Kidane, who has been moved hundreds of miles away from his family to Brook House immigration removal centre in London, where he has been for seven months. My constituent is a Spanish national but has lived in Paisley for 16 years and wants to move back to Dungavel to be closer to his friends and family. I would be grateful if the Minister could treat this case as a matter of urgency, because Mr Kidane’s mental health is deteriorating severely.

I return to the issue of the detention centres themselves. In the response to me confirming that the UK Government had decided not to appeal the refusal of planning permission for a new centre in Renfrewshire, the Minister helpfully stated that the UK Government were reviewing the detention policy being used in Scotland. At first glance, that seemed a positive move and something that the SNP have long called for. We do not believe that the UK Government’s approach to immigration works for Scotland. We have continually called for immigration to be devolved, to allow Scotland to deliver a more flexible and humane immigration system that meets our own needs.

However, that review will be carried out away from the public eye, it will not consult widely with the public or experts, and its findings will not be published. The fact that the UK Government plan to review immigration detention away from the public gaze is telling, because the effectiveness of their approach is not and cannot be supported by evidence in any way whatever. The Government approach is flawed and ineffective. They should consult widely, listen to the views that have already been expressed in this place and beyond, and adopt a fairer and more humane approach to immigration detention—particularly the detention of some of the most vulnerable people in society.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East has said, Scottish Detainee Visitors carries out invaluable work. SDV staff have met people in detention who have serious physical health issues, including some people with scars that strongly support their claim to have been tortured. SDV staff have also met people in detention who are suffering from mental ill-health, including people with pre-existing serious mental health conditions, such as schizophrenia, and people whose mental health has deteriorated as a result of their indefinite detention.

The latest inspection report on Dungavel by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons highlighted concerns about the detention of vulnerable people, including a torture survivor and a women with a serious health condition. There are 14 bed spaces for women in Dungavel, compared with 235 bed spaces for men. In a film made by SDV, one woman who had been detained in Dungavel described her experience there as being like that of

“a chicken surrounded by dogs”.

Over the years that SDV has been visiting detainees, it has not been unusual for there to be just one or two women detained at the Dungavel centre. That is an isolating and potentially frightening experience, particularly in light of research by Women for Refugee Women showing that many detained women have historically suffered from gender-based violence.

The most recent inspection report on Dungavel noted that

“there were inevitable risks associated with holding women in a predominantly male population”

and that there were no specific policies focusing on this issue. That report recommended that

“a specific safer custody and safeguarding policy should be developed for women.”

I definitely support that call.

Regarding legal issues, wherever detained people are held, they are subject to frequent and arbitrary moves around the detention estate. Those moves are disruptive and disorientating for anyone who has been detained, but when the move is between Dungavel and centres in England the consequences can be particularly serious because of the differences between the legal systems in England and Scotland. A move to England often takes place just before an attempt is made to remove someone. It may not then be possible for a Scottish solicitor to make representations on a person’s behalf in England, and there may not be time to find an English solicitor to challenge a possibly unlawful removal.

As a country, we are better—much better—than the immigration policies that we have in place. Those policies do not stand up to scrutiny and are a blight on our human rights record. The UK Government should and have to use their power to reject this failed approach and replace it with one that treats people with respect and dignity.

Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Bill

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 24th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The Bill now before us sets us on a clear path towards ratification of the Istanbul convention, and I want to thank all Members who have attended and participated in the debates today and at other stages of its progress. In particular, I want to thank the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), both of whom have shown real leadership from their respective Front Benches, today and throughout the passage of the Bill, in working towards a shared objective, even when we have not always agreed on the detail. I am sure that our gender is entirely coincidental to this outcome. Should the Bill pass today and progress to the Lords, it will be presented there by Baroness Gale, to whom I am also extremely grateful. I hope that it will have a smoother passage there than it has had here, but I guess time will tell.

The real credit for the progress that this Bill represents must go to the women across civil society who insisted on change and compelled Parliament to act. The women of the IC Change campaign, Women’s Aid in Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales, and a host of other individuals and organisations—including the men who have stood with us in solidarity—have advised, supported and worked so hard over such a long time to make this happen.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Dr Whiteford]

Of course I will give way to the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the white ribbon campaign UK.

[Gavin Newlands]

I share in my hon. Friend’s praise of Becca, Rachel, Robyn and all at IC Change, and it has been a pleasure to work with them over the past year-and-a-half. It would be remiss of me if I did not take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend herself on behalf of SNP Members for her professional and fantastic stewardship of the Bill.

[Dr Whiteford]

I am flattered by my hon. Friend’s remarks, but the real thanks go to the people, some of whom are here today, who led the way and made us listen. I know that the campaign will not end here. In many ways this is a beginning for substantive change.

I also thank Emma Watson, who took time out of her busy film promotion schedule to speak out in support of the Bill to an audience that politicians find hard to reach. These issues lie close to her heart.

On reflection, it strikes me powerfully that Parliament has frequently been left playing catch-up on progress for women: from those who campaigned for women’s suffrage for more than a century before it was achieved to those trade unionists who fought for equal pay for women years before the Equal Pay Act 1970 came into force and the women who, in the 1970s, set up refuges for women fleeing domestic abuse at a time when there was absolutely no support from the state or the authorities for women experiencing violence or coercive control from an intimate partner—a time when rape within marriage was not even a crime. Every step of the way, it is citizens who have driven progressive change. Sisters have had to do it for themselves.

Immigration Rules: Spouses and Partners

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2017 Westminster Hall

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Ryan. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) on securing this morning’s important debate. Immigration visa matters are among the most common constituency casework for MPs. Putting the complexity of the UK immigration system to one side, I struggle to put into words my frustration with a system that lacks any common sense. It is incredibly complacent and riddled with mistakes and inconsistencies, and its approach to dealing with clients wanting to extend a stay in this country or come to join partners and families is amateur.

I put no blame on the hard-working staff at immigration centres. They work in stressful circumstances in a system that makes an already difficult job harder. Despite the stress of their work, my experience of contacting the Home Office has mostly been positive. Staff have always done their best to find answers to questions that I have raised with them.

The Scottish National party has long opposed the UK Government’s approach to immigration. My feelings have only been strengthened during my time in this place—particularly during my time serving on the Public Bill Committee for the Immigration Act 2016. SNP Members view the immigration system as inflexible, treating applicants with suspicion and not catering to the needs of all parts of the UK. We have witnessed cases in the highlands of Scotland in which hard-working families have been threatened with deportation because they do not meet all the requirements of the UK Government’s rigid and unfair system. That is despite the massive contribution they make to their local communities, where the problem is not immigration but emigration.

I may not represent a highland community, but I have experienced a system that is counterproductive to the economic needs of my constituency. I am currently assisting one of my constituents, who is from Houston; given that we are dealing with an American spouse, I should stress we are talking about Houston, Renfrewshire, not the Texas hamlet that pales into insignificance when compared with the original and best. My constituent, Beth, is having a fairly torrid time in trying to get a spousal visa for her American husband. Beth and her husband, Willie, met at Glasgow University and spent a few years in California working as highly skilled and specialised vets.

As a result of Beth’s mother falling seriously ill, they made plans to return to Scotland. They both gained employment as vets, thereby meeting and exceeding the necessary wage threshold in a skilled job, and were expecting a straightforward, successful application. However, the Home Office refused Willie’s application on the grounds that it had doubts over the legitimacy of the relationship—despite the US Government having already awarded Beth a spousal visa and indefinite right to remain in California. Despite their meeting at Glasgow University in 2007, being together since 2012 and marrying in 2014, regularly coming back to Scotland on holiday, securing employment and meeting the wage threshold, and despite the emotional circumstances surrounding Beth’s mum, the Home Office still refused the application.

The case would be laughable if the process had not caused an overwhelming amount of stress and pain for Beth, Willie and their families. After they applied relentless pressure and jumped through the burdensome hoops, and after I made the Immigration Minister aware of the case—I am grateful for his assistance—the Home Office has now accepted that a real relationship exists between Beth and Willie. However, anyone who thinks that is the end of the story is probably inexperienced in dealing with the immigration system.

The Home Office—after first emailing an incorrect address—has requested that Willie makes the final international health surcharge payment on his application and sends over his American passport. However, Willie has already made that payment a long time ago, and UK Visas and Immigration already has his passport. My office has been trying for weeks to get the situation resolved but, frustratingly, UKVI is all over the place with the case and does not realise that Willie has completed everything that has been asked of him and more.

Hopefully that case will be resolved soon enough. It should have been a clearcut case for UKVI, but needless problems and delays have caused much stress and misery for the family, cost a significant amount of taxpayers’ money and caused real logistical problems for the employer, who deserves great credit for holding the job open in good faith despite the Home Office’s delays.

The previous Immigration Minister, the now Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, said last year:

“The Government certainly do recognise the contribution that skilled and talented people from outside this country can make to our economy, and I have been very explicit about the way in which our immigration rules are designed to facilitate that.”—[Official Report, 26 May 2016; Vol. 611, c. 689WH.]

We have heard that refrain time and again, despite the barriers erected and fortified by the same Government. My question to the current Minister is whether he will apologise for the stress caused to Beth, Willie and the entire family. They have done everything asked of them and met every criterion that the Government set, at great expense. All they want is to help to take care of Beth’s mother, live together in the UK and contribute to wider society.

That case highlights the deep flaws rooted in the immigration system. Despite Beth earning more than the £18,600 minimum annual income that was put in place in 2012, Willie experienced a number of issues when trying to secure the appropriate visa to join her. When the coalition Government introduced the minimum income threshold, it was widely criticised and challenged in the courts. Civil society at large, including the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, the Migrants’ Rights Network, BritCits and the Family Immigration Alliance campaigned against the minimum income requirement, claiming that it would divide families and make it harder for the overseas spouses of UK citizens to join them. In my experience of helping people go through the visa process, the initial fears raised back in 2012 have proven entirely correct.

I will touch on some common criticisms of the minimum income requirement. First, notwithstanding the Minister’s earlier intervention, the threshold was set too high, with hard-working and genuine applicants losing out as a result. I do not doubt that we all value the positive contribution that our international friends make to life in the UK. They enrich our communities, and we offer some the opportunity to better themselves. However, the threshold prevents many people from being able to live a life in the UK, especially when we consider that as many as 45% of people in the UK earn less than the required threshold, particularly in areas outside London and the south-east.

Secondly, research conducted by the University of Oxford confirms that the policy disproportionately affects particular groups. It found that the minimum income requirement has

“important indirect effects across gender, ethnicity, education, age and place of residence.”

Female workers hoping to act as sponsors for their male partners are particularly disadvantaged, with 57% not earning enough to sponsor a non-EEA spouse.

The financial threshold has been called unfair, disproportionate and counterproductive, and it is for that reason that the UK is now considered to have the least family-friendly immigration policies in the developed world. For a party that preaches the importance of family, it seems strange that the Conservative party would design a system that breaks families apart; as a result of the Government’s policies, families have been separated and children are growing up without a parent.

It seems entirely nonsensical and almost beyond comprehension that no account is taken of foreign spouses’ prospective earnings. Because of the financial threshold, many skilled workers may be discouraged from returning to, or choosing to settle in, Scotland, and will instead go elsewhere. Instead of the savings originally predicted, the minimum income requirement could end up costing the UK more, with the loss of tax revenue from migrants who have been unable to come to the UK, and with some families unnecessarily having to rely on benefits because the migrant partner is unable to join them.

The Government must review this unfair policy, which is hurting families all over the UK. We need a reasonable immigration system that does not separate children from their parents or wives and husbands from each other, and does not prevent migrants from making a positive contribution to the UK. We need a fair, robust and secure immigration system that takes account of the varied social and economic needs of different areas of the country and does not discriminate against half the population. Perhaps even more importantly, we need to allow UKVI officers and the Home Office in general to exercise common sense, which in many cases would save taxpayers money and end the continuing stress of so many people like Beth and Willie.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

Yes, I am happy to update the hon. Lady on that. Some £40 million of that money is apportioned by the Department for Communities and Local Government, particularly for accommodation. We have access to most of the rest of it, and I particularly draw her attention to the £15 million that a combination of commissioners and local organisations are bidding for. She may like to access that money to support her constituents.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

The SNP Scottish Government are strongly committed to ending gender-based violence, including through our proposed all-encompassing criminal offence of domestic abuse. They have also urged the ratification at the earliest opportunity of the Istanbul convention on ending violence against women and girls. Will the Secretary of State commit to a timetable for the Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Bill—the private Member’s Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford)—and for that long-awaited ratification?

[Amber Rudd]

I am always delighted to work with the Scottish Government on this important subject. I know that they have put aside £20 million to work on the topic, and I welcome that initiative. If the hon. Gentleman would like to see me or one of my colleagues, we can discuss his proposal.

EU Asylum Reform Package

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2016 General Committees

[Mr Goodwill]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and for his work as a member of the European Scrutiny Committee. Although I am reluctant to disagree with him on the Committee’s not serving a purpose, I have to say that what is said here could cause the Government to opt into the measure at a later date. However, I rather suspect that the debate will stiffen my view that we have made the right decision.

My hon. Friend tempts me into the area of Brexit negotiations. I suspect you might pull me up were I persuaded to go into that area, Mr Evans. All these matters are under consideration. As I said in my opening remarks, we feel that they are best determined at a national level, which is even more important as we approach the era in which we are no longer members of the European Union.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Evans. Going back to the points of order raised at the beginning of proceedings, will the Minister explain why we are debating the measures not only after the proverbial horse has bolted, but after the deadline for opting in? I appreciate that the former may be owing to human error, but the latter treats Parliament with a fair dose of contempt.

[Mr Goodwill]

I have already tendered my apology for the matter having been decided before it could be debated. Indeed, I mentioned the logjam of measures that are coming forward and the pressure on parliamentary business in some cases. I repeat my unreserved apology for this not having been brought forward sooner, but no colleague has raised with me a concern that we have made the wrong decision. I hope that the debate and the questions will give Committee members the opportunity to explore other aspects of the four measures before us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Newlands]

I will be very brief, for two reasons. The first is that, with my throat, I am not sure I would get through any lengthy remarks. Secondly, it all seems rather pointless, as has been mentioned several times.

The Scottish National party supports the broad thrust of the proposals and the principle of trying to achieve consistency across the EU, but it has some concerns about some of the specific proposals. For example, in chapter 1 the provision that refugee status or humanitarian protection would not be available to people who are in danger because of what they have done since leaving their home country—for example, speaking out against a tyrannical Government, but only after leaving—would seem potentially to weaken rather than strengthen the protections. Also, regular status reviews seem to be based on a grant of asylum of three years, rather than five. In chapter 2, there are some very strict interim time limits, and the use of accelerated procedures as a matter of compulsion.

However, we feel that engaging with the EU in amending these proposals is the way forward, because we are talking about an international crisis and we need an international response. Overall, we want some improvements in some of the proposals during negotiations, but it would be better to participate than to stand on the side.

We will accept the Minister’s apology, but it is quite disgraceful that the Government have yet again provided MPs with a belated and limited opportunity to scrutinise and debate these issues.

Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Bill

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 16th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, but I am not sure that I can do as he asks, because this is a thorny issue. My hon. Friend has a great advantage over me, in that not only is he experienced in legal matters—which I certainly am not—but for many years he was a member of the Council of Europe. I hope that we may benefit from some of his expertise later, when he may, in passing, be able to answer his own question, which I am not able to do.

The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North tabled an early-day motion on this subject, which read:

“That this House notes that 8 June 2016 marks the fourth anniversary of the UK Government becoming a signatory to the Istanbul Convention on violence against women and girls; expresses disappointment that the Government, despite outlining their commitment to do so several times, has still failed to ratify this important convention; recognises that women still face a significant amount of inequality, with one in four women experiencing some form of domestic, sexual or psychological abuse during their lifetimes; further notes that ratifying the Istanbul Convention should ensure that a series of preventative policies will be introduced to help tackle and end violence against women, such as non-violent conflict resolution in relationships and the right to personal integrity being included in school curricula at all levels; congratulates the campaign group ICchange for their continuing work in applying pressure on the Government to ratify the convention; and calls on the Government to accede to this pressure and ensure ratification as soon as possible.”

There are a couple of interesting things to note about that motion. First, when I last looked it had 47 signatories, so despite the contention by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan that the House was unanimous in its support for her proposal, that unanimous support does not seem to have found its way there. Secondly, notwithstanding Members’ attempts to do a bit of back-tracking now, and to start saying that they care about violence against men as well—they offered no such views in the speeches we heard earlier— the EDM lets the cat out of the bag. Those Members do not care about violence against men. The EDM makes no mention of violence against men. It is all about violence against women. Let us not try to pretend now, at this late stage, that this is about gender neutrality; it is not, and people obviously know that it is not.

There is an awful lot to the convention—far more than I intend to go into today; I am sure Members will be relieved to hear that. Although I am sure that I would be deemed to be in order if I went into all of it, I want to hear from other speakers. Given that the Bill requires the ratification of the convention, however, it is all very relevant, and I want to put on record some of the key facts that it contains.

The Council of Europe’s website sets out the position. It says:

“In simple terms, preventing violence against women and domestic violence can save lives and reduce human suffering. Governments that agree to be bound by the Convention will have to do the following: train professionals in close contact with victims; regularly run awareness-raising campaigns; take steps to include issues such as gender equality and non-violent conflict resolution in interpersonal relationships in teaching material; set up treatment programmes for perpetrators of domestic violence and for sex offenders; work closely with NGOs; involve the media and the private sector in eradicating gender stereotypes and promoting mutual respect.”

That last bit sounds a bit like media censorship to me, but I am not entirely sure what the Council of Europe has in mind.

“Preventing violence against women and domestic violence should not be left to the state alone. In fact, the Convention calls on all members of society, in particular men and boys, to help reach its goal of creating a Europe free from all forms of violence against women and domestic violence. Violence against women is pervasive because misogynistic attitudes towards women persist. Each and every one of us can help challenge gender stereotypes, harmful traditional practices and discrimination against women. It is only by achieving real gender equality that violence against women can be prevented.”

It is clear that the convention goes well beyond trying to combat violence against women, and has a much wider remit than people would have us believe.

The website goes on to say:

“When preventive measures have failed and violence incidents have happened, it is important to provide victims and witnesses with protection and support. This means police intervention and protection as well as specialised support services such as shelters, telephone hotlines etc. It also means making sure that general social services understand the realities and concerns of victims of domestic violence and violence against women and support them accordingly in their quest to rebuild/resume their lives.

Some examples of measures set forth in the Convention include:

Granting the police the power to remove a perpetrator of domestic violence from his or her home: In situations of immediate danger, the police need to be able to guarantee the safety of the victim. In many instances this may mean ordering the perpetrator for a specified period of time to leave the family home and to stay away from the victim.

Ensuring access to adequate information…victims are usually traumatised and need easy access to clear and concise information on available services, in a language they understand.

Setting up easily accessible shelters in sufficient numbers and in an adequate geographical distribution: Victims come from a wide range of social realities. For instance, women from rural areas or disabled women need to have access to shelters as much as women from big cities.”

There is not one mention of a male victim of domestic violence. In a moment I shall say something about the supply of refuges for men and women, because I think it important to establish the extent to which the Government are fulfilling that requirement.

The website continues:

“Making available state-wide 24/7 telephone helplines free of charge: Specialised helplines for victims of violence against women and domestic violence can direct the victims to the services they need…

Setting-up easily accessible rape crisis or sexual violence referral centres: These centres provide immediate medical counselling, trauma care and forensic services and are extremely rare across Europe. It is important to make these services more widely available.

It should be borne in mind that it is not enough to set up protection structures and support services for victims. It is equally important to make sure victims are informed of their rights and know where and how to get help.”

I absolutely agree that victims should be better protected and have more of a voice in the justice system, but as far as I am concerned that applies to male victims as much as it does to female victims. When it comes to domestic violence, it is actually male victims who have the least support, not female ones.

An Office for National Statistics report from February 2016 on violent crime and sexual offences relating to the year ending March 2015 states:

“Overall, 27.1% of women and 13.2% of men had experienced any domestic abuse since the age of 16, equivalent to an estimated 4.5 million female victims and 2.2 million male victims.”

Those are shocking figures. New data from the ONS for the year ending March 2016 found that, of those who said that they had experienced domestic abuse, 1.2 million were female and 651,000 were male. As I established earlier, of every three victims of domestic abuse, two will be female and one will be male. Yet despite that split of two thirds and one third—we must all agree on that; they are the official figures and I have not heard anybody argue against them—there is absolutely no such funding split. Perhaps the Minister will explain why.

According to the Mankind Initiative:

“20 organisations offer refuge or safe house provision for male victims in the UK—a total of 82 spaces, of which 24 are dedicated to male DV victims only (the rest being for victims of either gender).”

Men have a chance of accessing only 82 spaces, only 24 of which—in the whole country—are guaranteed for them. The Mankind Initiative continues:

“For female victims, there are nearly 400 specialist domestic violence organisations providing refuge accommodation for women in the UK with c4,000 spaces for over 7,000 women and children.”

Two thirds of victims of domestic violence are women and a third are men, but there are 7,000 places in refuges for women and a maximum of 82 for men. How can that possibly be gender neutral or fair? I genuinely want to know why people think that that can possibly be fair, if we are genuinely interested in being gender neutral. Of course, we know that many people are not interested in being gender neutral.

It is interesting, too, that male victims are much less likely to come forward than female victims, which again suggests that it is male victims who need more encouragement. According to the Mankind Initiative:

“Male victims (29%) are over twice as likely than women (12%) to not tell anyone about the partner abuse they are suffering from. Only 10% of male victims will tell the police (26% women), only 23% will tell a person in an official position (43% women) and only 11% (23% women) will tell a health professional.”

On discussing sexual abuse during childhood, the recent Ministry of Justice report, “Statistics on Women and the Criminal Justice System 2015”, states:

“12% of female victims and 25% of males told someone they knew personally about childhood sexual assault by rape or penetration (including attempts) at the time, usually a family member (18%). Only 10% of female victims told someone in an official position, with 8% reporting the abuse to the police. Only 2% of male victims reported the abuse to the police.”

Although sexual abuse is an absolutely huge issue among girls, with only 30% of victims telling anyone at all, it is also an issue among boys, but it is being massively under-reported, with only 27% of victims telling anyone, and only 2% telling the police.

The convention’s position on the prosecution of perpetrators is interesting, too. The Council of Europe says:

“The convention defines and criminalises the various forms of violence against women as well as domestic violence. This is one of the many achievements of the convention. To give effect to the convention, state parties will have to introduce a number of new offenses where they do not exist. These may include: psychological and physical violence, sexual violence and rape, stalking, female genital mutilation, forced marriage, forced abortion and forced sterilisation. In addition, state parties will need to ensure that culture, tradition or so-called ‘honour’ are not regarded as a justification for any of the above-listed courses of conduct.”

I am not sure how we deal with psychological violence, but most of those offences can have male victims, too. That does not include female genital mutilation, obviously, as that clearly relates only to females, and male circumcision is still considered to be legal. In the case of a forced abortion, which on the face of it is a female issue, if the person doing the forcing is not the father, there is potentially a father who is the victim of a lost child, so it is not just the woman who might suffer in that situation.

According to figures obtained by the Mankind Initiative:

“Of those that suffered partner abuse in 2014/15, a higher proportion of men suffered from force (37%) than women (29%). For emotional and psychological abuse the proportions were 61% and 63% respectively.”

There is not a fat lot in it, as it happens. There is almost exactly the same number of male victims of psychological abuse as female victims.

On the issue of psychological abuse of children, the recent MOJ reports states:

“Of those who experienced psychological abuse as a child, the perpetrator was most likely to have been the victim’s mother (40%) or father (35%). Women were more likely to have experienced this form of abuse from their mothers (42%) than fathers (33%), whereas men were equally likely to be abused by either parent.”

The matter of actual violence and injury is also interesting. The Mankind Initiative states:

“Of those that suffered from partner abuse in 2012/13, 29% of men and 23% of women suffered a physical injury, a higher proportion of men suffering severe bruising or bleeding (6%) and internal injuries or broken bones/teeth (2%) than women (4% and 1% respectively). 30% of men who suffer partner abuse have emotional and mental problems (47% women). Only 27% of men sought medical advice whilst 73% of women did.”

This Bill would ensure the ratification of a convention that does nothing to address domestic violence against men, just women.

I want briefly to mention the other offences that might, on the face of it, seem to apply only to women. Government figures show that one in every five victims of forced marriage is a man. In 2013, there were 234 cases of forced marriage in the UK where the victim was a man. On stalking, which many will no doubt assume involves a man stalking a woman, 2.4% of men and 4.9% of women experienced stalking in 2014-15. Again, of every three victims of stalking, two are women and one is a man.

The Council of Europe says:

“Once these new offenses have found their way into the national legal systems, there is no reason not to prosecute offenders. On the contrary, state parties will have to take a range of measures to ensure the effective investigation of any allegation of violence against women and domestic violence.”

It does not say that state parties will have to take a range of measures to ensure the effective investigation of violence against men. It seems to me that that does not matter to the Council of Europe. It goes on:

“This means that the law enforcement agencies will have to respond to calls for help, collect evidence and assess the risk of further violence to adequately protect the victim.

Furthermore, state parties will have to carry out judicial proceedings in a manner that respects the rights of victims at all stages of the proceedings and that avoid secondary victimisation.”



In February 2015, the Joint Committee on Human Rights published a report, “Violence against Women and Girls”, on the UK’s progress towards ratification of the convention. Again, the report is about violence against women and girls, with nothing about violence against men and boys. I do not know what anybody else thinks, but if the son of somebody in this House is the victim of violence, would they consider that to be less important than if their daughter was a victim of violence? I would like hon. Members to explain why they think violence against their sons would be less important. We may hear about that from other Members later, but we have not so far.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

That’s because you keep talking.

[Philip Davies]

I am glad that I am educating the hon. Gentleman, because he certainly knew nothing about article 1 of the convention before I highlighted it for him.

Chapter 8 of the report looked at ratification, and began by setting out what others had said about it. The International Development Committee has called on the Government to do more to address violence against women and girls within the UK. Again, it is about violence against women and girls. It states that

“the UK’s international leadership is weakened by its failure to address violence against women and girls within its own borders”.

Professor Kelly argued in evidence that, although the Government are undertaking good work abroad on violence against women and girls, more needs to be done in the UK:

“I think we have a hypocrisy about human rights. We talk about human rights internationally for others, and we are mealy-mouthed about it at home. If we could have a common discourse that, actually, this happens here, too—then I think we might be able to have a more constructive conversation about it.”

The Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales said:

“Ratification would emphasise that the state has a positive duty in law to intervene in a proactive way to modify practices that result in harm, violence and degradation to women and girls. It would provide a further basis in law for those who wish to persuade the state to provide adequate and meaningful resources to construct an effective mechanism to protect women from gender violence and harm.”

Again, this is not gender-neutral. How can anyone argue that the convention is gender-neutral? There is no gender-neutral language anywhere in it for anyone to read. The report set out the background to the then Government’s position, which I do not want to go through in detail.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to be able to contribute to this debate on the ratification of the Istanbul convention. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) on introducing the Bill. Naturally, I was disappointed not to be successful in the ballot for private Members’ Bills, but I am delighted that she has used her success as an opportunity to raise this extremely important issue. I have been campaigning on this cause since I was elected.

Women’s Aid, the White Ribbon Campaign, Zero Tolerance and many other organisations have all played an important part in this cause, and we owe them our thanks. I want to pay particular attention to IC Change. If I was allowed to say that Becca, Rachel and Robyn are in the Gallery today to watch the proceedings, I would say so, but I am not allowed to, so I won’t. I thank them and other volunteers from IC Change who have worked extremely hard. They have held a series of lobby sessions and pestered every Member of the House to ensure that they are aware of the convention and of the positive effect that its ratification would have on tackling violence against women.

Tackling violence against women and girls is not a party political issue. As long as violence against women and girls occurs in our society, we should be united in our pursuit of ending that violence. We need to recognise that domestic abuse is deep-rooted in the societal inequality between men and women, and that women are far more likely to experience domestic abuse.

That brings me on to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). I rarely agree with him, and in fact, I sometimes question whether I am from the same species as him. He brought up the subject of violence perpetrated on men. All violence is shameful, but the vast majority of cases of violence against men are perpetrated by men, which is the point of today’s proceedings. His attitude is not shared by as many people outside this Chamber as he thinks.

Like every decent-minded person, I want to live in a world where no one has to live with the fear of violence hanging over them. It sickens me that so many women live in a house where violence is the norm. Violence against women and girls happens primarily at home and is largely hidden.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) talked about women’s refuge services. As an ambassador for Inverness Women’s Aid, I have seen the great work that refuges do to help women to get back on track. Does my hon. Friend agree that refuges throughout the UK should be protected in the way that was described earlier?

[Gavin Newlands]

Absolutely. I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. We have heard many instances of the support that refuges offer. I am pleased to say that I support my local refuges. In fact, a local charity is building a new refuge at Jubilee House in Renfrewshire. My hon. Friend’s point is well made.

[Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

As we are approaching the Christmas period, will my hon. Friend recognise that it is at Christmas time that most domestic violence happens in the home? Can we therefore wish all women and young girls who are watching this debate a very safe Christmas, and wish all the refuges all the support they need to deal with what we know is likely to happen over this time?

[Gavin Newlands]

Absolutely; my hon. Friend makes a fantastic point. Before Christmas last year, I highlighted the increased incidence of abuse at Christmas time. I completely agree with what she said.

As we have heard, the stark reality is that a third of women will face violence in their lifetime. That is the reality that has motivated me in working towards ending the violent, sexual and psychological abuse that too many women still face.

The Istanbul convention aims to tackle violence against women on a number of fronts and covers such areas as prevention, protection, support, monitoring and persecution. Crucially, it establishes a link between achieving equality between men and women and eradicating violence against women. As long as the structural and systemic inequalities of power and the objectification of women persist, the abuse will continue.

That is why I am particularly keen on article 14, which addresses the importance of education. It states that all Governments should ensure that there is

“teaching material on issues such as equality between women and men, non-stereotyped gender roles, mutual respect, non-violent conflict resolution in interpersonal relationships, gender-based violence against women and the right to personal integrity”.

I am passionate about this point and believe that it provides an ideal opportunity to introduce a coherent, structured and consistent prevention programme in our schools. That is the missing link in the gender-based violence chain in the UK.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am listening intently to the hon. Gentleman’s excellent speech. Does he agree that the key problem is men—obviously, it is men perpetrating the violence—and that there is a responsibility on all of us as men, as well as on women, to talk to other men about how it is completely unacceptable to use violence and abuse against women? We must step up to the plate and speak out by becoming ambassadors for White Ribbon and other organisations. We must preach to the unconverted and ignorant men in our land and across the world who continue to perpetrate this unnecessary violence.

[Gavin Newlands]

I could not agree more. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was addressing that point to the hon. Member for Shipley. He was right to mention White Ribbon. One way to do what he has described is to make the White Ribbon pledge, and I urge all Members of the House to do so.

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) on bringing forward the Bill. Does he agree that the Government need to ratify the convention as soon as possible to prevent further incidents of abuse against women like the one that took place against a constituent of mine two weeks ago, leaving her on a life-support machine?

[Gavin Newlands]

I could not agree more. That is a shameful story. The important thing about the Bill is that it forces the Government to take the action that they have promised to take at some point, but have not found the energy to take. I will come on to that point in a moment.

I was talking about article 14 and education. The article also sets out how the principles of the convention should be embedded in more informal education facilities such as sports clubs, cultural centres and leisure facilities. The White Ribbon campaign, which stresses the positive role men can play in ending gender-based violence, is working hard and delivering training sessions on that very subject. It uses male ambassadors to act as role models for young boys. If we can eliminate sexist behaviour at an early age and engender a deeper sense of respect in boys, I believe we can prevent some of them from turning to this devastating gender-based violence later in life.

The UK Government signed up to the Istanbul convention, but their ratification of it is long overdue. It is just under a year since I first wrote to the then Home Secretary and current Prime Minister, urging her to ratify the convention. The letter, which was co-signed by more than 10 organisations, urged the Government to introduce a series of preventive policies that would allow us to take effective action against the violence that one in three women face in their lifetime. Unfortunately, I have to say that I received a fairly weak response from the then Home Secretary. I have continued to receive disappointing responses from the Government after every call I have made on this issue.

The Government signed up to the convention in 2012. Since then, 22 countries have ratified the convention, while the UK has been left behind. The average time taken for ratification has been just over two years. The UK has so far taken four years and six months. That delay alone should shame the Government into action to ensure that the convention is ratified as soon as possible.

Violence against women is not a women’s issue. As the hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) said, it is a societal issue. It is the responsibility of men to ensure that women and girls do not have to face violence. The White Ribbon all-party parliamentary group, which I co-chair, stresses the positive role men can play by helping to challenge the sexist attitudes and behaviours that far too many men still exhibit. The White Ribbon campaign also actively supports the convention, as I have said.

This House and wider society uniting against the violence that affects too many women is extremely important. Those in a violent relationship deserve to have us work together in our pursuit to end that violence. We should not forget the power of this place. Passing this Bill will send a strong message to the thousands of women and girls who have experienced domestic abuse that they are not alone and that we stand with them. It will also say to the perpetrators of domestic, sexual and psychological abuse that that violence is completely unacceptable and that they will be held to account. Let us unite around the Bill and play our part in changing history for the better for women and girls.

Immigration Rules (International Students)

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2016 Westminster Hall

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) on securing such an important and timely debate. What we have heard so far proves that students contribute not only to higher institutions, but to our economy. As my hon. Friend said, international students’ day tomorrow—17 November—is an opportunity for the Government to make students their priority. The economic benefits in research, employment and opportunities for trade and international alliances have been well versed by all my colleagues in the Chamber. Our institutions in Scotland and throughout the UK are world renowned and attract the brightest and the best. We should celebrate that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) highlighted how the unrealistic thresholds and the crude way in which we are seeking to reduce immigration figures simply do not serve our constituencies or local communities well. The reputational damage to institutions and the UK globally will not be forgotten for a long time, when the brightest and the best—those who could find a cure for cancer or any number of illnesses—are unable to secure places at Oxford, Cambridge, Glasgow, St Andrew’s and elsewhere because they cannot secure the visas they need to come to our best institutions.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend and I share campuses of the West of Scotland University, whose principal is Australian. Does she agree with him, as I do, when he says the Government’s proposal to restrict universities from recruiting overseas students is an ill-considered and retrograde step that will damage our economy, our competitiveness and our cultural standing?

[Angela Crawley]

Indeed. I thank my hon. Friend for his comment. I will come to the West of Scotland University.

Our advantage is that we are a world-leading country and we have world-leading institutions. I call on the Government to make the necessary practical changes and to look at the pilot scheme, the tier 2 visa, the work study visa and so on, and to consider how much more there is to be gained from bringing the brightest and the best to our country and retaining them than there is from sending them elsewhere.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) has fascinating stories to tell. Unfortunately, my stories from Stirling University are slightly different, and I do not think the songs I learned are fit for Hansard, so I will move on.

International students matter, and we have heard about the direct impact that the Government’s policies can have on the prosperity of constituencies such as mine. My home town of Hamilton is rich in heritage and once had a thriving town centre. Only two weeks ago, I launched a joint consultation with my Scottish Parliament counterpart on the need to take action on town centre regeneration and to consider the importance of Hamilton being a university town, where Lanarkshire’s only university is located. However, like many communities across the UK, there are challenges because town centres and institutions with a student population and employment generate the local economy, but that is dwindling. This is in no small part due to the Government’s policies.

One saving grace is that the student population of universities, and particularly the West of Scotland University, enhances the town and the environment. I studied as an undergraduate at Stirling University, which is a fine example of a thriving university town. I also went to the world renowned Glasgow University—something I share with you, Mr Gray. As a group, students contribute to the local economy. It is clear that where there is a university institution, the local economy benefits. The financial contribution is huge, and we need more students, particularly those who live in or close to student accommodation and spend time in town centres. There is a direct benefit to the economy, and we must not forget that.

Every year, the University of the West of Scotland welcomes more than 1,000 international students from 65 different countries around the world. In Hamilton, students contribute £69 million to the local economy. Recently, when the university took the decision to move to a new campus, it was clear that this expansion was with a view to attracting more international investment. In a letter to me, the university’s principal, Craig Mahoney, said that the Government’s plan

“would be significantly damaging the University of the West of Scotland and the wider Scottish and UK higher education system”.

I therefore call on the Minister to please consider the concerns raised by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. In a world of uncertainty, all Governments must provide leadership. The proposal also sends a message of exclusion at a time when language must be about inclusion.

Rights of EU Nationals

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Nuttall]

Talking of uncertainty, as the hon. and learned Lady was just then, may I ask her about the last few words of the motion? Why does it say

“should the UK exit the EU”?

Why is it “should”?

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

To annoy you, David!

[Mr Nuttall]

The reality is that 17.4 million people voted for this country to leave the European Union and we are going to leave. There is no “should” about it; that word should surely be “when”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

It has been 118 days since the EU referendum—118 days of blunders, slap-downs, in-fighting and conflicting statements from this UK Government. It is a case of life imitating art, as this shambolic response from the UK Government is more akin to a plot line from “The Thick of It” than a co-ordinated response to a deeply challenging and serious situation. It would be laughable if the consequences of Tory Brexit were not quite so serious.

It might be 118 days of in-fighting and a failure to govern, but it has also been 118 days when 3 million of our citizens do not know what the future holds for them or their families. Since 23 June, 3 million EU citizens, who pay an estimated £14.7 billion in income tax and national insurance contributions, have been referred to as “bargaining chips” in a Tory game that no one ever wanted to play in the first place.

But this is not a game and our EU-born nationals are not “bargaining chips”, “pawns” or “playing cards”. They are our wives, our husbands, our neighbours, co-workers, doctors, nurses, teachers and our friends. Instead of throwing fuel on the fire and making a very worrying situation for them even worse, this Government should be doing all they can to provide the assurance to the 3 million EU citizens in the UK that their future is secure here.

This debate says a lot about what kind of country we are. It might be an inconvenience for a few in the Brexiteer camp to think of the UK as a diverse country, but that is exactly what we are. We are better as a country because of the 57,000 NHS staff who were born elsewhere in the EU. Many sectors of our economy are world-leading not in spite of EU workers, but because of their expertise and skills. Times Higher Education highlighted how UK universities are world-leading, and this is in no small part because of the excellent level of teaching and research that EU nationals provide.

The Prime Minister’s short-sighted refusal to provide our EU nationals with the assurance that they are entitled to represents a slap in the face despite their hard work and the contribution they have made to our society.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gavin Newlands]

Not right now.

The UK Government may want to pretend that nothing will change, but the fact is that everything has changed for our EU nationals following the Brexit vote. Many are starting to think again about the country in which they have invested so much time and effort. Agnieska from the Renfrewshire Polish Association, whom I met a few weeks ago, shared her concerns and those of many members of her group not only about the result of the referendum, but about some of the divisive rhetoric since. However, she felt somewhat sheltered from this by living in Scotland, with the different approach taken by the Scottish Government.

It is not only the failure to give assurances that is problematic. The statements and speeches at the Conservative party conference caused many EU nationals to consider their future. The new Home Secretary seems to share her predecessor’s bleak vision of reducing migration to tens of thousands and sees Brexit as one means of achieving this, refusing to recognise that 78% of working-age EU citizens in the UK are in work, compared with around 74% of UK nationals. It is economic vandalism of the highest order for the Home Secretary not to give these hard-working individuals the right to live and work in the UK, all with the aim of achieving the right-wing holy grail of reducing immigration.

Adding fuel to the fire, the Home Secretary expressed her desire to implement a system which requires companies to compile lists of foreign workers which would be used to “ name and shame” those who employ large numbers of foreign workers. It is not the companies that should be placed in any wall of shame. The only person who should be ashamed is the Home Secretary for managing to propose a policy which even UKIP says goes too far.

Following a poisonous Brexit campaign, which has helped to create the environment in England and Wales for an increase in racially or religiously aggravated offences, a responsible Government would be praising and thanking EU nationals for the contribution that they make to our communities and assuring them of their right to stay. This UK Government have singularly failed to do so. The contrast could not be any sharper north of the border. Whereas the Prime Minister has remained silent and allowed her “hard Brexit” colleagues to describe EU nationals as “bargaining chips”, Nicola Sturgeon has shown compassionate leadership and adopted a positive and inclusive approach, and has repeatedly reassured those EU nationals who have made Scotland their home that Scotland is and will continue to be their home.

Economically, socially, culturally and morally the UK Government should do the correct thing today and offer a cast-iron guarantee to all those who have made the UK their home. That is a call that the Scottish Parliament, wider civil society, the business sector and EU nationals have all made to the Prime Minister.

Scotland voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU and to reject the narrow-minded politics of the UKIP-Tory right-wing alliance. Those votes and those voters need to be respected, so the Government should stop playing games, end the xenophobia, lead for all our citizens, back this motion and categorically state to EU nationals that their future lies here and their residency status will be protected.

EU Nationals in the UK

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

That is challenging, Madam Deputy Speaker. In 2013, Glasgow adopted the slogan “People Make Glasgow”. That could not be more apt at present, because EU citizens—in my constituency and in those of my hon. Friends who represent parts of the city—make it the vibrant and wonderful city that it is. According to the 2011 census, 5.2% of residents in my constituency were born in EU countries; that is double the figure for the Scottish population as a whole.

In the academic year 2014-15 alone, more than 4,000 EU students enrolled at academic institutions across Glasgow. I heard during the week from Professor Philip Cooke, who is professor of Italian history and culture at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow. He says:

“Since I started teaching here I have seen a radical shift in the composition of the student body—at last week’s graduation ceremony there were students from Latvia and Bulgaria receiving degrees in Italian, as well as many young Scots. The free movement of students facilitated by the Erasmus program has meant that I have taught, for example, Italian to English translation to mixed groups of students who have all greatly benefited from the different linguistic backgrounds of their peers... All of this—and I am not even going to mention European funding for research—is at risk following the referendum.”

He speaks of his own young children, who want to have the opportunity that I and others have had of going to Europe to travel and work.

We must not lose sight of the fact that politics is about people. Among the messages I have received this week is one from Courtney, a Greek national living in Queen’s Park in the south side of Glasgow, who sums up the anxiety and bewilderment that many people face:

“I, like all the other EU immigrants that are here, have broken no laws by settling here. I have been here for five years and am proud to call Scotland my home, meanwhile others have been here for decades. Since settling here I have started a long term relationship, taken work, paid tax, and done volunteer work. Like so many others I am happy to contribute to the local community and overall economy.”

I received a message just this morning from a ward sister at Glasgow royal infirmary who says that nurses there who have come from Poland are deeply concerned about their future in the country. They are here, working and contributing, and they deserve to be able to stay.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would not take much for the Minister to reassure the citizens she has just mentioned? A caseworker in my office is from Finland. She is extremely uncertain at the moment about her future. As her employer, I, like many other employers, would like to know whether these citizens will continue to have rights. It would be easy for the Minister to stand up and say that they will continue to have the rights that they have at the moment.

[Alison Thewliss]

Absolutely. It would be a very easy thing for this Government to do.

This issue is not simply about EU citizens who have come here; it is about people in Scotland who want to have future opportunities. I had an email from Jemma Brown, who says:

“I am a classical musician with a fledgling international career living…in your constituency and I can see everything I’ve painstakingly worked for caving in upon me if my right to live and work in the EU is no longer straightforward.”

I met the owner of a coffee shop across the road from my son’s school who came from Portugal originally. He lived through fascism. He has travelled the world and come to live in Glasgow. I spoke to him on the Friday after the referendum result. He was heartbroken. Nothing I could say could console him or give him confidence that his future in Scotland was assured. I would like Ministers to reflect on that and come up with a strong message that I can give to people I know in Glasgow who do not know what their future holds.

The testimony I have received underscores the reality of the feelings of isolation that Brexit has caused. It is shameful that the Government have not done enough to tackle that or reassure those people about their future. My Home Office casework tells me that the dignity and respect that the Minister spoke of earlier is not a feature of the immigration system. Constituents from all over the world cannot get a fair break even to get into the UK. I have no confidence that the Home Office could even cope with dealing with the immigration status of EU nationals from all round Europe.

In stark contrast is First Minister Nicola Sturgeon’s message to EU citizens living in Scotland following the referendum result. She made it perfectly clear that they are welcome in Scotland and that their contribution is valued. I unequivocally reject the notion that EU citizens could be considered as bargaining chips in any future negotiations. The Church of Scotland rejects that, too, and its representatives have been in touch to put that forward. I beg the Government to change their stance.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Report: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 7th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. and learned Lady is, I am afraid, picking on a hole in the Bill that is simply not there. [Interruption.] It is not there because the collection of bulk data is entirely categorised by the Bill. The Bill supervises entirely the ability to collect bulk data. The analysis is then done by trusted officers of the state. To accuse them of anything other than the highest forms of integrity would be an extraordinary statement to make in the House.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tom Tugendhat]

No, I am afraid I will not. I have given way enough.

It would be baffling to look at that list and accuse people of such integrity of having anything other than the best intentions. The important thing, however, is that we not only trust them, but supervise them. We trust but verify, as the old diplomatic phrase goes. The verification comes from the commissioners, which were listed yesterday, with their explanations, which the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) was talking about yesterday. The supervision also comes from the Minister, and ultimately and eventually from the House.

I am therefore reassured that the Bill is not a snoopers charter or a grubby attempt to procure the information of the private citizens of these islands. On the contrary, this is an extremely effective Bill. It has been through months of discussion, and hours of detailed and deliberate interrogation. It has satisfied the extremely demanding standards of the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee, and the exemplary work of the former Director of Public Prosecutions, the hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras, whom I am pleased to see on the Opposition Front Bench.

The Bill comes to the House as a nigh-on complete work. Even so, the Government have considered and accepted amendments and further changes. We have not only a final but a polished copy of a Bill that is designed to do exactly what this country vitally needs. It does exactly what the Government are here to do. It keeps the people of these islands safe, whatever their background, origins, occupation or duties.

Fundamentally, it also protects the freedoms that we enjoy. Those freedoms are not, as the Americans put it, free. They are fought for every day, by the people on the list in schedule 4 that I have identified—our armed forces and our intelligence services. That is why I am so proud to be here today to speak up for the intelligence services who have asked for those powers; for the armed forces who require them; for the police who use them; and most importantly for the Government and, in this case, the official Opposition, who have so carefully crafted a legal document that will hold water today and for long into the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Grieve]

The hon. and learned Lady raises a relevant point. The Bill has not been amended, but we received sufficient assurances from the Government that the way in which the system would be operated, in terms of the internal workings of the agency, would be such as to meet the concerns we expressed. Indeed, the Solicitor General or the Minister may be in a position to confirm that. On that basis, despite the fact that we raised the point, we did not table an amendment on it. The hon. and learned Lady is quite right to pick it up. I have not wanted to detain the House for too long, otherwise I could take her through a list of areas on which, having had further discussion, we decided amendments were not required. She is right to focus on that and I hope very much the Minister is able to provide some confirmation. I am grateful to her for having raised it.

[Gavin Newlands]

Along with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), I represented the SNP in Committee. I am grateful for the opportunity to take part on Report.

I have many concerns about the Bill, and my hon. Friends have already outlined a number of areas where the SNP is sceptical about the Government’s case. This is a wide-ranging and complex Bill and time constraints prevent me from speaking to everything I would like to. However, I will focus my contribution on communications data and internet connection records. The measures in the Bill are not limited to internet access, email or telephony and include, explicitly, communication without human intervention. As it stands, the definition of communications data can tell us an awful lot about someone’s life. Stewart Baker, former senior counsel to the NSA in the United States, states that the content of a person’s communications data is redundant when we consider the amount of metadata that is already collected.

Communications data can be key in obtaining leads, solving crimes or preventing crime. However, I have a real issue with the length of the list of public bodies that would be able to access such personal and sensitive information on an individual without sufficient oversight in place. As we heard at the end of the previous debate and again at the start of this debate, from the hon. Member for Stevenage (Stephen McPartland), schedule 4 currently provides for a list of bodies that would be able to access retained data, including a range of regulatory bodies. Among them are the Food Standards Agency, the Gambling Commission, the Office of Communications, and the Health and Safety Executive. No fewer than 47 bodies are listed, a reflection of the tightly drawn nature of the Bill—or otherwise. That suggests that access to communications data may be granted for a range of purposes, which will almost certainly be disproportionate and inconsistent with the guidance offered by the European Court of Human Rights.

It is only appropriate that the correct level of protection and oversight is in place. The SNP tabled amendments 320 to 327 and 328 to 350 to ensure sufficient judicial oversight. The relevant public bodies must seek a warrant from a judicial commissioner, replacing the Secretary of State in the process where necessary. They also ensure that a threshold of reasonable suspicion would be necessary before a warrant is issued.

The arguments on judicial warrantry have already been rehearsed at length and I do not intend to detain the House long on this issue, particularly as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West speaks with a lot more authority on that subject than I do. Suffice it to say, I think hon. Members should pause and reflect on the lack of oversight. Decisions concerning necessity and proportionality can only be made properly by someone who is truly independent from the operations of the organisation.

Clause 54 contains the first mention of internet connection records. Subsection (6) defines ICRs in such general terms as to render the definition pointless. In that regard, I welcome some of the comments from the shadow Home Secretary and the Minister in their courting across the Dispatch Box a little earlier.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alistair Carmichael]

The point about the arm’s- length retention gets to the heart of the matter. The concerns expressed by the Opposition Front-Bench team all surround the question of a threshold, but the threshold will never be of any significance to those out there waiting to hack into this information, as we have seen only too clearly with the recent experience of TalkTalk.

[Gavin Newlands]

I could not agree more with the right hon. Gentleman. I will come to that point shortly.

The question of who retains the information is secondary to the fact that it will be retained and accessible in the first place. The Government have, true to form, merely contracted out data retention to the private sector. Many people share unease about the security of this information. As we have seen recently, private providers are susceptible to sophisticated hacking operations. The consequences, should this information get into criminal hands, are deeply worrying. Indeed, the Joint Committee on the Draft Communications Data Bill shared similar concerns when it said that storing weblog data, however securely, carried the risk that it might be hacked into or fall accidently into the wrong hands.

[Andy Burnham]

I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and he is obviously aiming some of his comments in Labour’s direction. In a world where people are making fewer voice telephone calls—and if he is proposing that he would not want to collect this data—how would he propose the authorities go about locating a missing child in the early hours after the disappearance?

[Gavin Newlands]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I wish to say, before the hon. Gentleman develops his case, that although I absolutely understand that he speaks for his party from the Front Bench and is entitled to develop his case, I would gently point out that another seven Members wish to contribute, several of whom sat on the Committee, and I most certainly wish to include the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It is not a criticism, but I am sure he will tailor his contribution to take account of that fact.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

The answer to the right hon. Gentleman, who has considerable experience in these matters, not least from when he was on the other side of the fence, as a very senior Whip, is that it is always open to the Government to table an alternative programme motion. That is not a matter for the Chair. The amendments were, of course, all on the paper at the point at which the House agreed the programme motion.

I ought just to say for the avoidance of doubt that the hon. Gentleman who has the floor is not in any way being criticised; I simply wanted to make him aware of the level of demand. I think we ought now to proceed. I would happily sit here all night for colleagues to debate these matters, but I rather doubt there would be the same enthusiasm among Government Whips for such a proposition.

[Gavin Newlands]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker; I have almost forgotten what the intervention was—[Interruption.] I do not doubt that, but to answer it, we do not know what ICRs are at the moment. They are not clearly defined—the shadow Home Secretary made that point himself earlier; nor do we know how effective they will be. People in the industry tell me that current technology, such as Tor, virtual private networks and what have you, may render them useless. We do not know what ICRs are at the moment, so I have to be honest with the shadow Home Secretary: I do not have all the answers.

[Joanna Cherry]

My hon. Friend sat on the Bill Committee with me and will remember that we heard evidence that if, for example, he wanted to see whether a missing child had been on Facebook, all that the internet connection record would show was whether they had been on Facebook, not whom they had been in contact with. Does he therefore agree that the utility of internet connection records for tracing missing children, which we all recognise is of the utmost importance, is perhaps being rather overblown?

[Gavin Newlands]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. and learned Friend.

Before I was intervened on the first time, I was saying that the Joint Committee on the draft Communications Data Bill said that

“storing web log data, however securely, carries the possible risk that it may be hacked into or may fall accidentally into the wrong hands, and that, if this were to happen, potentially damaging inferences about people’s interests or activities could be drawn.”

It is clear that the intelligence services and the police need powers that befit the digital age in order to keep us safe and to catch perpetrators. However, when seeking to introduce powers as intrusive such as ICRs, it is incumbent on the Government to ensure that their case is watertight. As my hon. and learned Friend said in Committee, we very much hope to be an independent country writing our own security policy, so we do not take our opposition to such measures lightly.

In drafting such a proposition, with such a loose definition, the Government are asking us all to trust them and to sign a blank cheque to allow the wide use of such powers without knowing what their full impact, costs or consequences will be. The Home Office has said that companies will be reimbursed for the additional costs placed on them, but that commitment does not appear in the Bill. The Government have earmarked £175 million to reimburse companies for the costs of meeting their new responsibilities. However, most in the sector believe that is a vast underestimation of what the true costs will eventually amount to. Owing to uncertainty about the extent and definition of ICRs and the extension of communication service providers that will be affected by the proposed provision, the cost is difficult to estimate, but industry figures have told me that they expect it to be anywhere between £1 billion and £3 billion.

I appreciate that the Minister, in a letter to the Committee, reiterated the Government’s intention to bear the cost of implementation, but without clearer information we cannot expect Parliament to sign a blank cheque. Between £175 million and £3 billion is a rather large range, and at a time when disabled people are losing benefits and the WASPI women cannot get the pension they were promised, this seems a rather anomalous and large black hole in potential Government spending. I have said in the past that the Government know the cost of everything and the value of nothing, but in this case they do not even know the cost.

This is a global problem and as such requires a global solution, and it is important that we reflect on what other countries have done to address the issue and that we learn any lessons from their experiences. It is unfortunate, therefore, that a similar scheme of logging data in Denmark has recently been abandoned. That scheme operated for seven years, and although I accept that there were differences in that scheme, there were many similarities. Upon its abandonment, the Danish security services expressed their view about the difficulty of being able to make proper and effective use of the large amount of data that had been gathered. It seems that, instead of spending their valuable time locating criminals, the security services will spend most of it working on spreadsheets and filtering out the useless from the useful. It should be noted that the Danish ICR model was proving too expensive and the cost spiralled out of control, that Australia considered the proposal but decided not to pursue it, and that, as we have heard, the United States is rescinding many of its intrusive powers and moving in the opposite direction.

It is for those reasons that we believe the case for ICRs has simply not been made. The Government have failed to convince us, and those working in the industry, that ICRs are necessary, proportionate and in accordance with the law. We tabled an amendment to remove them from the Bill, but it was not accepted, which leaves us no option but to vote against the Bill in its entirety. That is not a step that we take lightly, but, ultimately, it is a necessary step.

In the event that we are unsuccessful in bringing down the Bill, we will still attempt to ameliorate aspects of it in order to protect smaller companies, especially those that supply lifeline and low-profit services to rural communities. New clause 26, which I tabled along with SNP colleagues, would exclude the providers of rural or community access communication services and small service providers from the obligation to collect and retain data. I have mentioned the deep concern in the sector about the expense that the Bill will impose on industry. I am sure that the Government will not want to put any businesses in a perilous situation, particularly those that operate with smaller cash flows and tighter margins in rural Scotland in order to provide a vital service for their local communities.

The Committee was provided with written evidence stating that smaller internet service providers were still subject to the same demands as the much larger organisations that operate on the world stage. Organisations such as HUBS are supplying vital internet connections to some of the most remote communities. If the Government railroad these clauses through the House without proper regard for the impact they will have, they will seriously endanger those small businesses and restrict internet use for some of our rural communities.

[Dr Murrison]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gavin Newlands]

I am afraid not, because I do not have time. Plenty of other Members want to speak.

You will pleased to hear, Mr Speaker, that I am nearing the end of my speech. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Thank you.

We live in a digital age. I therefore welcome the Government’s proposed digital economy Bill, and, indeed, the Chancellor’s commitment to match the Scottish Government’s commitment to universal broadband provision. The digital economy Bill is intended to make the United Kingdom a world leader in digital provision. However, according to many in the industry, this Bill will completely undermine that goal before the draft Bill has even been printed.

It is only right and proper for the Government to consider and propose new powers that our security agencies can use to keep us safe, but in many parts of the Bill the Government fail to make the case that the powers they want to introduce will be effective, are necessary, are in line with our right to privacy, and cannot be challenged in the courts. It is for those reasons that the SNP are still unconvinced of the merits of the Bill, and will vote against its Third Reading later this evening.

[Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)]

I rise to support new clause 19, which stands in my name. It is a scoping amendment, which I do not intend to press. A large number of amendments have been tabled so I will be extremely brief, but I want to pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General, who has been incredibly receptive to the concerns that I have raised throughout this process.

We all remember the examples of local authorities using powers inappropriately, whether that has involved rummaging through our bins or spying on paper boys to determine whether they have the right to work. I welcome the steps that the Government have taken to try to address that, including the creation of a new criminal penalty for the misuse of these powers. However, I believe that more needs to be done to ensure that the wider public can be confident that we will not see a repeat of history, and will not see councils misusing the powers in the future.

New clause 19 would introduce a requirement that when a judicial commissioner approves an authorisation for telecommunications data for a designated senior officer of a local authority, that senior officer must notify his or her chief executive before the authorisation has taken effect. I believe that that will help for two reasons. It will discourage over-zealous officers from applying for authorisations if they know that their chief executives will see those authorisations before they take effect, and, in the event that a council officer is found to have misused the powers, the chief executive will be accountable. Chief executives will never be able to say that they did not know what was happening in their authorities.