Police Surveillance of Journalists

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Wednesday 17th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Mr Newlands, I thought you were seeking to take part in the debate.

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

I would be delighted to take part, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

You are on my list as someone who was interested in doing so, but perhaps you were resting your knee muscles.

[Gavin Newlands]

I certainly was, Mr Speaker, but I was going to bob up again in a second. I am grateful for your observation.

I was also on the Investigatory Powers Bill Committee. During the progress of that Bill, the then Solicitor General, the hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Robert Buckland), said:

“We are absolutely committed to the preservation and protection of a free press and freedom of expression in our democratic society. That includes the ability of sources to provide anonymous information to journalists, which is absolutely vital if we are to have throughput of important information that needs to be in the public domain.”––[Official Report, Investigatory Powers Public Bill Committee, 12 April 2016; c. 193.]

Given the events of recent days, can the Minister tell me what has changed in Government policy?

[Mr Hurd]

I hope the hon. Gentleman’s knees are all right.

I honestly do not think that there has been a change in policy, and I have set out the processes around the Investigatory Powers Act, which he and other colleagues helped to shape and toughen. He will know better than me that those processes are now robust, and the police are complying with them.

Tier 5 Religious Worker Visas

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Thursday 4th July 2019 Westminster Hall

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes.

Since we have just heard from the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) about women priests, I take this opportunity to place on record my congratulations to the Reverend Rose Hudson-Wilkin on her appointment as Bishop of Dover—our loss but most definitely the Church of England’s gain down in Dover.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) on securing this debate. I was happy to support his bid at the Backbench Business Committee. I also thank the various different campaign groups and constituents who have been raising awareness of the issue for several months now, especially those from the Catholic community who are in effect being penalised by the Government’s policy decision to change the criteria for visas for religious workers and ministers of religion.

My simple first question to the Minister is this: what is the Government’s message to the parishioners of the Immaculate Conception church on Maryhill Road in my constituency? Throughout the month of August, they will not be able to worship at their church at the usual Sunday evening mass, because the usual arrangements for cover and supply priests are no longer possible, thanks to the change of policy. Why are the UK Government, led by a professed Christian who forever speaks about the importance of faith to our culture and society, going out of their way to deny our Christian communities the right to worship? That is the direct effect of the policy change.

I will look briefly at the background, the deeper roots, specific examples—some of which we have already heard—and some possible solutions. Ministers have heard several times in recent weeks, not least from SNP Members, that despite all the rhetoric to the contrary, the evidence is clear that the hostile environment is still alive and well in the Home Office and UK Visas and Immigration. Whatever consultation the Government claim to have carried out and whatever notice they claim to have given to faith communities, it clearly was not enough, as the extent of the difficulties caused by the change has only become clear in recent months as parishes made plans for the summer.

The rationale for the changes introduced in December last year, whereby ministers of religion may no longer apply for temporary religious worker visas under tier 5 of the immigration rules, seems to be largely based on proficiency in the English language, which leads to my second question to the Minister. This was not really about Christian or Catholic ministers, was it? Looking at the detail of the policy in the explanatory notes, written statement HCWS1159 dated 6 December 2018 states that the rules are to prevent

“religious workers to perform roles, that include preaching and leading a congregation, without first being required to demonstrate that they speak English to an acceptable standard.”

It is pretty clear that the change is targeted at religions—one in particular, I suspect—that do not usually conduct their forms of worship in English. It stands to reason that faith communities that conduct services primarily in English would not have much to gain by bringing in preachers who are not fluent in that language.

The second aspect of the change is the 12-month cooling-off period, which clearly smacks of security concerns far more than the risk of visitors simply overstaying their permit for a few weeks or months. If the Government chose to introduce that change for security reasons, they should have the guts to make that clear. Whether or not the consequences are unintended, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East said, they are real.

We heard some specific examples; I mentioned one in my constituency and I am aware of many more across the archdiocese of Glasgow. The decision puts massive pressure on our own priests and ministers, who may miss out on the opportunity for rest, retreat or physical recuperation if they are unwell. They have to choose between their own long-term wellbeing and the provision of often vital services in their parishes, many of which reach out beyond the immediate faith or worshipping community that they serve.

I have a personal connection with three very good Malawian priest friends who are studying in Rome, Fathers Dan, Isaac and Kondwani. They first had to complete their seminary training in Malawi in English; they are probably proficient in at least than one vernacular language; they will probably have proficiency in Latin and, because they live in Rome, they will be proficient in Italian, too. They have been unable to acquire tier 5 visas this year that, in previous years, would have been routine at a cost of around £200. One of the sponsoring parishes is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands)—St Conval’s in Linwood. It reckons that to bring those priests over under the new process would have cost well over £1,000, between the visas and the various test and proofs required. That is totally prohibitive and leaves parishes across that diocese struggling to cope.

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

I am grateful that my hon. Friend raises that point; it is not the first time that he has assisted with issues relating to Linwood, particularly in connection with Malawi. Not only did Father Michael McMahon of St Conval’s get in touch with me but the Bishop of Paisley, Bishop John Keenan. Father Michael has just come back from a trip to Malawi with St Benedict’s High School; he said that not only can the parish not afford those elevated costs; the wider diocese cannot absorb them at all. Simply put, there are no winners from the policy change at all.

[Patrick Grady]

The complete opposite is the case: the change is having a detrimental effect. In the past, visiting priests would have come for two or three months perhaps, spending a couple of weeks in each parish. They would have built warm and supportive relationships and they would have come back on a regular basis. Now, those parishes have to strip back their worship schedules and many other support services that run alongside them. That is repeated across Scotland and the United Kingdom, as we hear.

The Bishops’ Conference of Scotland has said that in all the years it has sponsored priests through the tier 5 process, it has not been aware of any abuses of the system. Visiting priests are tied by religious vows to return to their home diocese at the request of their bishop, to say nothing of their own personal and family ties. Once again, the base assumption of the Home Office’s immigration rules is that the streets of mother Britannia are so paved with gold that the only reason anyone would want come here is to abscond while on their visa and sponge off the NHS and the welfare state. That is simply not the case, and it is insulting to those visitors to suggest otherwise.

What are the solutions? The simple solution would be simply to undo the change and revert to the previous system. At the very least, the Home Office, at ministerial level, must be prepare to continue to engage directly with all the stakeholders across the UK who are interested in this issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East said, I believe a meeting is taking place with the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, but Ministers should be willing also to meet the Bishops’ Conference of Scotland and its representatives. I am sure that Ministers know the Catholic Church in Scotland has its own history and governance, which is distinct from that south of the border.

What is really needed is a deeper, more fundamental review of the overall immigration rules and the hostile environment. The Vote Office kindly produced an extract of the immigration rules for me, which are vast. The document comes with an erratum. With the greatest respect to the drafting officials, it is so complicated; no one could keep track of it. One correction, to the

“Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules, presented to Parliament pursuant to section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971, Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 11 December 2018, HC1779”,

states:

“On page 8, for change 6A.13 where it reads, ‘… paragraph 245ZP (f)(2) …’ it should instead read as, ‘… paragraph 245ZP(f)(iii)(2) …’.”

I tracked that down on page 41 of a document that runs to hundreds of pages. This is what small Catholic parishes are being asked to get to grips with when trying to bring over their priests. That is why the whole system needs to be fundamentally reviewed. Other Members have touched on wider issues in the immigration and visa system. The all-party parliamentary group for Africa and the all-party parliamentary group on Malawi are to publish a report on that in a couple of weeks. I hope the Minister will confirm that his colleague the Minister for Immigration plans to attend that launch on 16 July.

As I said at the start, the experience of anyone navigating this system is that it is designed with deliberate hostility, suspicion and to minimise the chances of a successful application. That is seriously beginning to harm the global reputation of a Government who at the same time are spending millions on a campaign to say that we are open for business and that Britain is great. For a middle eastern academic trying to come to a university conference, an author from Belarus trying to get to the Edinburgh book festival or a west African roots band wanting to play at Celtic Connections, it is not great and we are not open for business. Now, it is not great for a simple priest who wants to come and help communities pray for a few months over the summer. Those are all real, verifiable examples.

All Ministers will be wondering over the next few weeks what their legacies will be. Here is an opportunity for the Home Office to reverse this policy and launch a wider review of the overall visa system. Otherwise, the legacy will be one of shutting the door, in pursuit of an ideological and arbitrary net migration target, perpetuating a hostile environment that has done nothing but damage this country’s economy, culture, society and global reputation.

Dangerous Drugs

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd July 2019 Commons Chamber

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

The SNP also supports the order before us for many reasons, many of which are contained in the fantastic report from the Health and Social Care Committee, “Drugs policy: medicinal cannabis”, published this morning. We support it not least because we believe that, under the current regime, the potential exists for research and investigation into medicinal cannabinoids to be hindered, and in some cases blocked completely.

All hon. Members will have had constituents contact them about medicinal cannabis and the potential positive impact they feel it would have on them or their families in the face of sometimes horrendous medical conditions. I know that there are no simple answers to many of the questions facing the authorities and the Government, and that opinions in this place and throughout society are varied and sometimes conflicting. However, surely it is a primary duty of Government and the state to ensure the best possible health and welfare of its citizens, and I hope that we can all agree that those with chronic health conditions, sometimes causing unimaginable pain and suffering, should not be denied the potential fruits of research into cannabinoids simply because the legislation has not kept pace with scientific progress. As the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs made clear in its initial letter to the Minister at the end of 2017, when referring to the current statutory position:

“There are potential delays to clinical research as compounds within the scope of the MDR which move into trials in humans need to obtain appropriate licences and put practical arrangements in place for clinical trial sites”.

It is also important to note that the council’s recommendations, which have led to the order we are discussing today, were based on wide consultation with those directly involved in and managing clinical research, including the British Pharmacological Society, the Medical Research Council and the Royal Society of Chemistry. So we welcome the prospect of such trials and research becoming easier and more simplified. It is only through the scientific method of hypothesis, testing and analysis that our pharmacologists—that is easy for me to say, Mr Deputy Speaker—and clinicians can make the discoveries necessary to develop and improve on the treatment and medication available to those in desperate need. That is the story of all modern medicine in recent history, and I am glad that the order will give the scientific community some of the tools and legal protections needed in that regard.

We now know of some of the problems encountered by those attempting to access medicinal cannabis since the relaxation of legislation last year, and hope that those who have been stymied in their attempts to secure medication and treatments for their loved ones will see the changes in policy that we are making today as progress that they themselves have driven. It is disappointing, however, that the Minister, in his reply to the ACMD earlier this year, did not take the opportunity to take on board some of the council’s other recommendations that it feels would help scientific research and, in the long run, potentially help more people in need of improved and transformative medication. I understand the reasons that the Minister gave in his letter, but I would ask that he give the council’s recommendations further consideration, coming as they are from a body not known for proposing such changes in law lightly.

I would be failing if I were not to draw comparisons between the broadly sensible, pragmatic approach taken by the UK Government in this instance, albeit slow, and their head-in-the-sand attitude to the cross-party consensus —which we have just heard from the Labour Front Bench—in Glasgow for progress on drug treatment facilities in that city. As my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) highlighted, the west of Scotland has an appalling level of illegal drug abuse and addiction and a high number of deaths, and the Home Office’s refusal to allow the health authorities and third sector organisations in Glasgow to try to alleviate some of that suffering is in marked contrast to the spirit in which we are discussing the order before us.

Not so long ago, this Government had set their face against even entertaining the idea of medicinal cannabis, yet here we are today. In that spirit, I implore the Minister and his Government to think again on safe drug consumption rooms. We should be in the business of saving lives, which is exactly what that approach could do. We must give our pharmacologists and scientists every advantage as they seek to discover new treatments and medications, but, more importantly, we must alleviate the suffering of those, such as Alfie Dingley and Billy Caldwell, who have waited too long. We must all get our collective finger out in this place and improve the legislation.

We also owe it to the families, many of whom feel forced to smuggle in this life-changing treatment for their children. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who is not in her place, who recently travelled over to the Netherlands with Emma Appleby to secure the medicine required for her epileptic daughter, Teagan. The issues they faced, with Border Force initially confiscating the medicine amid much confusion, highlighted not only the inconsistency in the law, but that the law is not fit for purpose. The families are also forced to spend a lot of money, and often to fundraise, to travel overseas and secure medicine for their children. This is not right. We welcome the SI as a step in the right direction, therefore, but in doing so we urge the Government to do all they can to ensure that this process is robust but as quick as possible.

Immigration

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2019 Commons Chamber

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

This has been an excellent debate so far, and I am sure the Prime Minister will come to regret—at least I hope she will—that her defining legacy, quite apart from the Brexit chaos we face, is the hostile environment she created through her Government’s antagonistic, discriminatory and entirely counterproductive immigration policy.

In the Immigration Acts of 2014 and 2016, we have seen an effort to prevent people from accessing basic services such as employment, healthcare and education. We have witnessed a Home Secretary become Prime Minister and knowingly take a cruel and entirely unnecessary approach towards immigration. If we listened to the Government, we would think the immigration process straightforward, but many people are unable simply to leave, as the Government might lead us to think. More often than not, the Government’s policies have meant that the most vulnerable in society, often women, are disproportionately suffering.

One of my constituents in Paisley and Renfrewshire North, Ms A, is from Botswana, and she came to the UK 10 years ago as a student. She met her British partner, whom she married and they had one child together. Unfortunately, the relationship broke down due to abuse. Ms A is solely responsible for their five-year-old child, as the father shamefully provides no financial support, nor does he exercise any contact.

Ms A initiated the lengthy independent leave to remain—ILR—process to settle in the UK some time ago. However, with uncertainty looming and no official documentation granting ILR, Ms A’s employer chose to end her contract of employment, plunging her into an extremely vulnerable position. She has no recourse to public funds, nor the funds to secure childcare provision that would enable her to re-enter employment. As a result and understandably, my constituent’s mental health is deteriorating and she is anxious that any further delay in her application will plunge her even deeper into financial hardship, although she wonders whether that is indeed possible due to the hefty amounts of money she has spent at the Home Office already.

With Ms A’s son due to start school in August, what should be a positive time for that one-parent family is mired in insecurity and dread as Ms A waits for a decision from the Home Office. Who will look after Ms A’s son if she is sent home? I say home, but Ms A has been here for nearly a decade and naturally views Scotland as her home. What kind of future citizenry are we creating if we send the mother of a British citizen home? What will that five-year-old boy carry with him into the future?

The plight of Ms A is the plight of many refugees and asylum seekers throughout the country, and that has been further affected by the Government’s policy move to end automatic settlement for refugees after five years, deliberately leaving asylum seekers uncertain about whether they will eventually be deported. My constituency office in Renfrew deals with many cases like that of Ms A, and it is difficult to see how the climate of insecurity can be maintained if Scotland wants to continue to attract people from overseas in an attempt to combat the ageing of our population.

Recently, the UK Government also imposed changes for tier 5 entry visas, including, notably, the removal of ministers of religion from the eligibility criteria. That decision has generated much concern from faith leaders throughout my constituency and in religious communities across the United Kingdom. If we take the example of Catholic communities, that change will have a significant impact on priests coming into the UK because most Catholic dioceses regularly use the tier 5 religious worker visa route for them to come here on supply placements while parish priests are away for short periods. The supply placements are imperative as they enable people to continue attending mass and receiving sacraments, while keeping parish activities running smoothly—activities that are of benefit to the entire community, not just to Catholics.

Under the new Home Office guidance, priests on supply placements will now be required to use the tier 2 minister of religion visa route, which will double the costs incurred by parishes and make supply cover effectively unaffordable in some of the poorer communities. Unfortunately, the tier 2 route also imposes strict language requirements, and even those priests who have completed seminary in English may now be required to sit an additional English language test before embarking on their placements. Religious leaders in my constituency are extremely worried, not only about the financial and practical implications, but about the human costs of those hostile policy changes. I will go into more detail on this issue in the Westminster Hall debate next week initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) and touch on some of the representations that I have received from faith leaders across Renfrewshire, including from Bishop John Keenan.

I could go on about immigration detention policies, asylum seekers being denied the right to work, the denial of access to public funds and the ending of freedom of movement—which is one of the best intergovernmental policies ever drafted and something that my generation and the generation after have taken for granted because who in their right mind would want to end it? I could go on about Home Office incompetence, refugee family reunion rules, Windrush and sending LGBTQ people back to countries where homophobic persecution is rife.

The indifferent, iniquitous and incompetent Home Office’s roll of dishonour is, like immigration detention, limitless. We have come to expect that from the Conservatives, but the Labour party has been complicit in much of this, I am sorry to say. Of course, I am happy to acknowledge that there are many in the Labour party who speak out on those issues, and I admire the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan), who now speaks for the Labour party on the subject, but its Front-Bench team has displayed a singular lack of leadership over several years. If, instead of producing “Controls on immigration” mugs, Labour had joined the SNP and others in talking up the real and tangible benefits of immigration, the Brexit vote might not have come to pass.

Remarkably, the Labour party has failed to stand up for freedom of movement, despite the enormous benefits it has brought to the UK. The shadow Foreign Secretary said on “Peston”:

“We’re not going to die in a ditch for the sake of freedom of movement”.

What a short-sighted thing to say. When the new Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill was introduced, the Labour party intended to support the Government, but U-turned after facing enormous criticism. On Second Reading, the shadow Home Secretary said that

“the Labour party is clear that when Britain leaves the single market, freedom of movement ends. We set that out in our 2017 manifesto…so on that basis the Front Bench of the Labour party will not be opposing the Bill this evening.”—[Official Report, 28 January 2019; Vol. 653, c. 515.]

We all know that 90 minutes later, amid a growing backlash on social media, Labour shifted its position and announced that it would whip its MPs to vote against the Bill. That is not leadership; it is a political and moral vacuum at the top of the Labour party so concerned by UKIP, the Brexit party and Nigel Farage that it has allowed its policy to shift to the right along with the Tories.

The leader of the Labour party has repeatedly made the incorrect claim that freedom of movement is responsible for the undercutting of workers’ rights. He wrote in The Guardian:

“If freedom of movement means the freedom to exploit cheap labour in a race to the bottom, it will never be accepted in any future relationship with Europe.”

That is completely wrong and risks scapegoating migrants for weak labour regulation. The Labour party failed to show proper opposition to the toxic rhetoric on immigration coming from UKIP and the Tories, out of fear of being seen as weak on immigration. The Labour party should be ashamed of its infamous “Controls on immigration” mugs, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) referred earlier.

By contrast, we on the SNP Benches have spoken out regularly on these issues in this place. If we cannot, through argument or the voting Lobbies, change the UK approach, it is explicitly clear that Scotland requires its own distinct approach. The mid-year population estimates published on 25 April highlight the scale of the challenge. Scotland’s population continues to increase, and is at a record high of 5.4 million; however, population growth has slowed over the past two years. The Scottish population is ageing: in 2018, some 19% of the population were aged 65 and over, compared with 16% just 10 years ago. Fourteen of Scotland’s council areas—mostly rural or island councils, as well as areas in the west—have experienced depopulation.

Migration is the only reason Scotland’s population continues to grow. Over the year to mid-2018, some 20,000 more people came to Scotland than left. The recent decrease in net migration has been driven by fewer people moving to Scotland from overseas and more people moving overseas, out of Scotland. I am not entirely surprised by that, given the immigration rhetoric over the past couple of years and the Brexit decision. Natural change—births minus deaths—did not contribute to population growth: over the same one-year period, there were 7,000 more deaths than births in Scotland.

We want the Scottish Parliament to have the powers to establish a less restrictive immigration policy. It is increasingly clear that the UK Government’s immigration policy does not address our economic, demographic or social needs. There is cross-party support for the reintroduction of a proper post-study work visa that suits Scotland’s needs. It is time for a tailored migration system for Scotland, and the Scottish Government’s discussion paper shows how such a system could operate.

This is not merely politicking, or just a desire to be seen to do the right thing; it is an absolute necessity for Scotland, its people and its economy. As per usual, and as we expect, the Conservatives are blind to Scotland and its needs. I cannot quite manage it, but I really should be grateful, because by both their words and their actions more people in Scotland now realise that the only way Scotland will have policies in place to suit Scottish needs, whether on immigration or any other issue, is through independence. That day cannot come quickly enough.

Serious Violence

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2019 Commons Chamber

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

As we have heard in the contributions so far, serious violence is always an emotive subject for the public and for Members of this House. Sadly, given the recent knife crime epidemic in London and many other parts of England, it is an issue that we have had to discuss far too often in recent times. Of course, the adoption of the public health model to tackle serious violence in Glasgow and Scotland is not news to Members—indeed, it has already come up in this debate—but thanks to Police Scotland and the work of the violence reduction unit, levels of non-sexual violent crime have reduced significantly in Scotland, and the approach has been welcomed and advocated by the World Health Organisation. That reduction has been most apparent in west and central Scotland, and in Scotland’s cities more generally. Glasgow used to be known as the murder capital of Europe, yet it is now one of the safer cities in these islands. But despite this undoubted success, there is still a long, long way to go, and the Scottish Government are committed to tackling violent crime head-on, whatever form that takes.

[Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

It appears that the Home Secretary may be leaving this debate while the hon. Gentleman is making an extremely important contribution on the public health approach. Does he agree that that is a very disappointing thing to see?

[Gavin Newlands]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I am not surprised, sadly, that the Home Secretary has left. I was surprised, though, that in his very long speech, much of which we can agree with, he made very little mention of the public health model. It took interventions from Opposition Members to try to draw out his opinion on the public health model, and that was a shame.

[Douglas Ross]

The hon. Gentleman is always very keen on parity, so just for reference and for Hansard, could he confirm where the shadow Home Secretary is?

[Gavin Newlands]

I have no knowledge, for the Hansard record, as to the location of the shadow Home Secretary.

[Douglas Ross]

She is not here.

[Gavin Newlands]

She is not here, but as the SNP spokesperson in this debate, I am not here to answer for the Labour Front Bench, to be perfectly honest. I shall move on from the issue of where Ministers and shadow Ministers are.

As I said, the public health model requires multi-sectoral co-operation. Violence is a complex issue that comes in many forms and encompasses, but is not limited to, verbal, physical, sexual and emotional abuse. Only by tackling the causes of violence, not just the symptoms, can we break the cycle of violence and reduce the impact that it has on individuals, their families, and all our communities.

The Scottish crime and justice survey shows, as of 26 March, a 46% fall between 2008-09 and 2017-18 in violent incidents experienced by adults in Scotland. Violent crime is rare, with just 2.3% of adults experiencing it in the latest year—down from 4.1% in 2008-09. Police-recorded non-sexual violent crime remains at one of its lowest levels since 1974. Emergency admissions to hospital due to assault have more than halved since 2006-07—down by 55%. Emergency admissions due to assault with a sharp object have also fallen substantially in that period, and the number of homicides has more than halved.

Those stats clearly highlight some fantastic progress on this hugely important issue, but it is not enough. Too many people, particularly young people, are still being admitted to hospital and still dying. We must do more; we cannot simply rest on our laurels.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend has made excellent points about the statistics on hospital admissions and hospital visits. Does he agree that the Navigator part of the violence reduction unit’s programme, whereby interventions are made in hospitals and people are given the option to get out of a life of violence, has contributed to the reductions he mentions?

[Gavin Newlands]

Absolutely—I could not agree more. That speaks to the multi-sectoral approach that I indicated. Although police numbers and so on are important, it is not just about police—it is also about how we tackle this in our schools and our hospitals.

We know that crime is experienced disproportionately across the population, with the poorest and most disadvantaged being far more likely to be on the receiving end. The Scottish violence reduction unit is working with partners to develop innovative approaches to improving outcomes for individuals, families and communities. In the past decade, the Scottish Government have invested over £17 million in violence reduction programmes, including over £3.8 million in the “No Knives Better Lives” campaign. We have invested £12 million since 2008 in the violence reduction unit itself, which includes funding to deliver the mentors in violence prevention programme, which encourages young people not to stand by and allow violence to happen to them and those they know.

The Scottish Government’s implementation, with cross-party support in the Scottish Parliament, of an ambitious twin-track approach of pioneering violence prevention programmes, coupled with enhanced penalties and tough enforcement, has helped to deliver huge falls in violent crime over the last decade. Penalties for possession of a knife are higher in Scotland than in England and Wales, with a five-year maximum term, versus four years in England and Wales. The average length of custodial sentences for knife possession has increased by 85% since 2007-08, with the average sentence now being 421 days, up from 228 days in 2007-08.

As I said, a large part of our success in Scotland has been down to the violence reduction unit, which aims to deliver that reduction by working with partner agencies. Its motto, “Violence is preventable, not inevitable”, is simple but thus far has proved accurate. Influenced by the World Health Organisation’s 2002 report on violence and health, the VRU became the only police force in the world to adopt a public health approach to preventing violence. That includes prevention activity such as education and early intervention, coupled with appropriate law enforcement as necessary. In treating violence as essentially a disease, the VRU sought to diagnose the problem, analyse the causes, examine what works and for whom and develop specific and bespoke solutions that, once evaluated, could be scaled up to help others. That approach has undoubtedly helped and been admired elsewhere.

[Stephen Doughty]

I wholeheartedly agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the public health approach. Does he agree that there is a lot to be learned from the devolved Administrations? In Wales, there is excellent partnership working between South Wales police and our local health boards on a series of issues relating to violence—not only violence in our cities at night but domestic violence, with thousands of women now being protected as a result of partnership working between the health boards and policing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Newlands]

I could not agree more. As I will come on to say, the Scottish Government and Scottish politicians are always looking elsewhere for better ideas and fresh thinking. In recent times, the UK Government have started to open their eyes and mind a lot more to policies of other Governments, including potentially looking at a presumption against short sentences. It is a shame that the Secretary of State has moved on from the Chamber, so we will have to see whether that progresses, but the Government are to be commended for moving on from their closed approach.

The public health model and the violence reduction unit have worked so well that they are now being tried and tested elsewhere. Most notably, Sadiq Khan has taken forward a VRU here in London, which we very much welcome. I hope it is allowed to be effective and is resourced appropriately, as far too many young people are losing their lives on the streets of London.

Any legitimate and full discussion of serious violence must recognise the scale of gender-based violence. Scotland is not exceptional in the sheer scale of this disease, but the Scottish Government are committed to tackling it root and branch. Conviction rates in this area sit at their highest ever levels. Clearly there is still work to do, but victims are now more likely to come forward and report abuse and violence.

The 2017-18 recorded crime statistics included 421 new crimes of disclosing or threatening to disclose an intimate image. The recording of those new crimes is due to the enactment of the Abusive Behaviour and Sexual Harm (Scotland) Act 2016, passed unanimously by the Scottish Parliament. About 25% of the increase in sexual crime in 2017-18 can be directly attributed to the new intimate images offence. The Scottish Government set up an expert group last year to identify fresh actions to prevent sexual offending involving children and young people, after commissioned research found an increase in cyber-enabled sexual crime between 2013-14 and 2016-17. Those crimes, such as communicating indecently or causing others to view sexual images, typically have younger victims and offenders when committed online.

Police Scotland has a national rape taskforce and rape investigation units within every division, dedicated to investigating rape and serious sexual crime. The Scottish Government are investing an additional £1.1 million to improve how sexual offences cases are handled and improve communication with victims, and a further £2 million to speed up access to support for those affected by rape or sexual assault. That will bring total investment in Scotland in tackling all violence against women and girls to at least £25 million over the next three years.

Sexual crime is a crime of the utmost seriousness, and a type of crime that disproportionately, perhaps overwhelmingly, affects women and girls. Often sexual crime and gender-based violence stem from ignorance, because of a lifetime of unchallenged views and attitudes among men—attitudes that are often exacerbated by peer groups. We need to challenge the sexist attitudes that support this most heinous behaviour.

I am proud to chair the all-party group on the white ribbon campaign and to be an ambassador for White Ribbon UK and White Ribbon Scotland, which is to be commended for its recent work with bookmakers across Scotland in educating customers and getting them to sign the white ribbon pledge. I urge everybody, particularly all the men present, to make sure they sign the white ribbon pledge never to commit, condone or excuse gender-based violence.

The SNP Scottish Government are leading the way on evidence-based, progressive policy in tackling serious violence. The scale of Scotland’s success is in many ways astonishing. Much of the credit goes to the violence reduction unit—including its co-founders, Karyn McCluskey and John Carnochan—and of course to Police Scotland. However, this success itself comes with a recognition that we must keep trying harder. Indeed, John Carnochan has himself said recently:

“There is a danger people think Scotland is fixed—it is far from being fixed”.

He is right. As I said earlier, too many young people are still being hospitalised and too many young people—too many people—are still being killed. We have made fantastic progress, but there is still a lot more to do. The public health model, when implemented and resourced properly, is effective. I am confident that it will continue to grow and develop in Scotland, but we are always looking elsewhere for fresh thinking about and approaches to many of the challenges we have heard about and undoubtedly will hear more about as the debate develops. In that spirit, I hope that Members and Ministers from elsewhere will continue to look to Scotland and learn from our experience.

ISIS Members Returning to the UK

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2019 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I thank the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall)—something I have not said before—for setting out the petition so well. It can be quite difficult to do that in a balanced way on such a sensitive issue, but he handled it very well. He spoke of the declared area offence, which is intended to make it easier to convict those who travel to conflict areas. We tried to put appropriate safeguards in place, and we welcome the measure, provided that those safeguards are in place. I join him in sending our condolences to those involved in the atrocities in Utrecht and Christchurch—an urgent question is being asked about that in the Chamber. It is important to remember the victims of extremists and terrorists.

The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) mentioned the clash between this debate and the urgent question in the Chamber. I am curious about why we are often quick to label far-right violence and extremism as that, rather than as terrorism. We are quick to describe members of Daesh and al-Qaeda as terrorists, but we seem to talk about the far right in stages; we call it extremism and violence, and only after a certain amount of time do we call it terrorism. I am a little uncomfortable with that, to be honest.

I jokingly said before the debate that I do not think the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness and I have ever knowingly agreed on anything since my election in May 2015. However, halfway through his speech I found myself agreeing with almost everything he was saying—I even said, “Hear, hear” at one point. That was a shock to both of us. We did diverge at one point, where we have subtle differences of opinion, but I welcome much of what he said. He made a good point about the impact on international relations in an incredibly sensitive area if we were to disallow the return of Daesh terrorists to the UK. His point about social media companies is incredibly important. I think we would all accept that there has been an improvement in those companies’ reactions with regard to taking down content and so on, but too often their reaction is still far too slow. There is still a long way to go with regard to social media platforms doing their bit.

There is no doubting the gravity and importance of this issue and of the petition. We must all recognise that there is a deep sense of anger in the country. That is evidenced by the nearly 600,000 signatures on the petition, 582 of which came from my constituency. Regardless of our opinions on the petition or anything else, we are all deeply concerned about the threat from Daesh, al-Qaeda and other terrorist organisations and ideologies. I very much feel the anger—I hear it in surgeries, and I get emails the same as everybody else—of those who signed the petition. However, I do not agree with the solution they call for.

The petition asserts that removing citizenship from Daesh members would keep the UK safe from terrorism, but that is fundamentally flawed and, as we heard, flies in the face of international law. The UK must meet its international obligations, allow the return of its citizens and ensure that they face the full consequences of their actions. If we do not take responsibility for that, on whose shoulders should it fall? Stripping extremists and terrorists of their citizenship would leave a line of angry, radicalised and violent people in post-conflict regions and give them, through their extremist lens, further reason to wish violence upon the people of our countries.

Alex Younger, the chief of MI6, insisted that although he is “very concerned”—as we all are—about the individuals making their way back from Syria and elsewhere in the region, British nationals have a right to come to the UK. The Times also reported that MI5 sees individuals who have joined Daesh as potentially valuable intelligence assets in continuing the fight against Daesh and its murderous ideology at home and in the region.

However, no one who has fought for or assisted a terrorist group will ever face a warm welcome on their return to the UK. Many of these fighters have committed unimaginable acts of terror and violence against innocent people in the name of a fascist ideology; of that there can be no doubt. It is vital that we recognise that if a UK citizen becomes isolated from society and susceptible to radicalisation, it is we—our society and our Government —who failed to prevent that. As has been said already, if the UK allows radicalisation to happen, it is our responsibility to make amends and bring the UK national in question to justice.

Having been the SNP’s Front-Bench spokesman on the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill—I am sure that I took interventions from the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness—I very much look forward to the review of the Prevent strategy that the Opposition secured during the Bill’s passage. We will seek to ensure that the review is independent and that its scope is wide enough for it to be truly effective. The point was made earlier that that is not about watering down our approach to Prevent; I say in response that it is about ensuring that it is effective, which I think we all want.

Between 2014 and 2017 there was a dramatic rise in the number of UK citizens who lost their citizenship, so will the Minister carry out a full review of the powers available to the Home Office to strip an individual of their citizenship? Statistics show that citizenship deprivation was used only a handful of times a year, but its use rocketed from 14 times as recently as 2016 to 104 times in 2017. Under the Immigration Act 2014, the UK Government are required to carry out a review of the Home Secretary’s power to revoke citizenship. The first such review was conducted in 2016 by the eminent QC David Anderson—he is now Lord Anderson—in his capacity as the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, but no subsequent review has been published, and the position of independent reviewer is currently vacant. The next review would need to cover the period from July 2015 to July 2018.

On that note, it is worth considering these comments by Duncan Lewis Solicitors:

“The power to deprive UK citizens of their citizenship can only be used against the children of immigrant parents—meaning that the application of the policy is inherently discriminatory. It cannot be used on a white English person with white English parents.”

That aspect of the current powers must surely be dealt with in the next review to address fully the obvious concerns about the policy.

The Home Secretary also has powers to ensure that foreign fighters can return to the UK to face justice, and powers that would enable him to manage the return of foreign fighters. Provided he reasonably suspected that an individual had been involved in “terrorism-related activity” and posed a threat to security in the UK, he could impose a temporary exclusion order, which have been mentioned, under the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015. That would permit return only on strict licence conditions. If an individual was still considered a threat to national security, further restrictions could be imposed on his or her liberty through a terrorism prevention and investigation measure, or TPIM. It may be possible to prosecute under the Terrorism Act 2000, which includes offences of being a member of, or aiding and abetting, a proscribed terrorist organisation.

I shudder to think what state we would find our world in if all countries abdicated responsibility for the terrorists born in their country. The UK has been described as being in the “vanguard of citizenship deprivation”, with an approach that contrasts starkly with that of other European countries, such as France and the Netherlands, which have returned their citizens from Iraq and Syria to face justice at home. In a recent similar case, Ireland most likely will not revoke the citizenship of a Daesh fighter returning there. Even Donald Trump tweeted that the UK should “take back” Daesh fighters captured in Syria and “put them on trial.” Surely that shows just how out of step with the rest of the world we have become.

I have not mentioned her by name thus far, although she has been brought up, but the reason this issue has gained so much attention of late is of course the case of Shamima Begum, who had her citizenship revoked by the Government—a move I wholeheartedly disagree with. Surely she must come to the UK to face justice. What has not gained the same attention is the death of her son, Jarrah, an innocent newborn baby and a British citizen who died in a refugee camp in Syria—a child who, if he had returned, may eventually have gone on to live a normal life in the UK. I hope that the Government reflect on their actions, or lack thereof, in that case.

Our position is clear: the UK bears responsibility for all its citizens, and the actions of the Home Secretary are to be condemned. It is time for Daesh members to come back to the UK and face justice.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Eighth sitting)

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Thursday 28th February 2019 Public Bill Committees

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

Just a small point on the statistics that the Minister cited. In the last year, there has been a 90% drop in the number of nurses coming from the EU to work in the UK.

[Caroline Nokes]

That gives me a marvellous opportunity—I might have to look at my hand to check the statistics—to say that the net migration statistics came out this morning; very hot off the press. Net migration of EU citizens to this country is still positive. The hon. Gentleman makes the point that there has been a drop-off, but we have seen—this gave me significant reassurance—that among the EU citizens who have been living and working here and exercising their right to free movement over the past year or so, the level of emigration is absolutely static. That gave me at least one statistic to cite, which is that 57,000 more EU citizens have come here over the past 12 months than have left.

Immigration and Social Security Coordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Seventh sitting)

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Thursday 28th February 2019 Public Bill Committees

However, as we heard earlier in this Committee, there are limitations to the level of scrutiny that even the affirmative procedure provides. This area of policy, in my view, requires full debate and scrutiny from Parliament and the principles of any future policy in relation to it should be set out in primary legislation.

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

That is an important point: this is too important an area to rely on secondary legislation. Incidentally, the hon. Lady is making a fantastic speech; the detail she is giving makes any speech that I might make thereafter totally redundant, but I reassure the Committee that the Scottish National party stands in support of this amendment. More power to her elbow.

[Kate Green]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support, and I agree with him about the huge significance for individuals and families of the way in which social security co-ordination regulations are adopted and adapted in future. It is about how much money people have to live on, to support their families or in their retirement. They have every expectation of a right to the support, because they have paid in and contributed to social insurance systems, and it would be frankly unethical of any Government to damage those legitimate expectations.

In conclusion, through my amendment I seek to curtail Ministers’ delegated powers in relation to social security co-ordination. The Government have stated that the anticipated policy changes, both in a no-deal scenario and in certain deal scenarios, could not otherwise be delivered by existing powers such as the European Union withdrawal agreement powers. However, in my view, such policy changes, or at least the principles of the policy, should be set out in primary legislation. That will be the case in a deal scenario, as the withdrawal agreement and its implementing primary legislation will address future policy on social security co-ordination. In a no-deal scenario, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 provides sufficient powers to make regulations—indeed, the Government have already drafted them—to maintain the status quo as far as possible until an agreement on social security co-ordination is reached with the EU for the future, at which point further primary legislation will be needed.

It is for those reasons that I commend my amendment to the Committee. It is important that we have parliamentary oversight and parliamentary scrutiny of Ministers’ powers in the area of any future decisions that will have an impact on social security entitlements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Newlands]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and to rise to speak for the first time in the Committee—potentially the last time, as the Leader of the House has announced that the Northern Ireland Budget (Anticipation and Adjustment) (No. 2) Bill will be debated on Tuesday. I apologise in advance for my absence on Tuesday.

I cannot match the almost giddy levels of excitement displayed my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East in approaching matters of immigration law in the previous session—only an immigration lawyer could generate that kind of excitement—especially because I detest the Bill. It brings into effect one of the worst repercussions of the Government’s approach to Brexit, namely the ending of free movement. It is an act of sheer folly and economic vandalism, combined with the fact that the Government, as in almost all Brexit-related legislation, have granted themselves huge discretionary powers.

With that off my chest, I will move on to clause 5, which is no different. It gives broad and powerful Henry VIII powers to Ministers to make changes to social security co-ordination post Brexit—a move that the3million and British in Europe would describe as moving the goalposts. I feel deeply uncomfortable about approving the clause and giving the Government that agency for many reasons, not least because of the history of “Go home” vans and the creation of the hostile environment, although I happily concede that they predate the current ministerial team.

As was referenced a moment ago, in response to the question that the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston asked about existing social security rights, Jodie Blackstock, the legal director of Justice, said:

“The Bill does not protect those rights, because it does not set out the principles by which it will do so. It simply provides the structure for the removal of all current reciprocal arrangements. As with the discussion we had on clause 4, it creates the power for not only a Minister but an appropriate authority to replace those current rights with an alternative arrangement.

For us, clause 5 is the most concerning clause in the Bill, as if clause 4 was not concerning enough. Our view is that the clause ought to be entirely deleted, and we say that for a few reasons—not just the extraordinary breadth of power that it creates, but the fact that the provision to remove the co-ordination regulations and replace them is already provided for by way of section 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Indeed, there are four regulations that have already been laid, pursuant to that Act, before Parliament and that comply with what are perhaps broad powers, but at least are curtailed far more than the power here; and, because they have been laid, it is possible for them to be scrutinised by Parliament.”––[Official Report, Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Public Bill Committee, 12 February 2019; c. 59, Q157.]

As Jodie said, it appears to many—outside the Home Office, at least—that the powers are entirely unnecessary. Section 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 does provide the scope to replace the current arrangements on co-ordination and the EU has not agreed or announced changes to those arrangements. In the modern world, more people, certainly in the EU, are living lives between different states and cherish the right to chase the opportunity to work where they please. That is an opportunity that many in the next generation will not be afforded in the manner to which we have been accustomed.

Despite being vastly inferior to freedom of movement, there will still be various routes open to EU citizens post Brexit, including the tier 2 and the 11-month low-skilled worker visa options. That makes social security co-ordination a hugely important issue for many more people in the future, in addition to the 3.5 million EU citizens in the UK and the 800,000 UK nationals in the EU. It is not justifiable, therefore, for future policy changes in the area to be made through delegated powers.

I am sure that the Minister will insist that the Government do not plan to remove benefits or further co-ordination—in fact, he addressed that in response to the previous amendment and in his opening remarks in support of the clause—but even if we take him at his word, that is not good enough, because the EU and UK citizens affected by the issue want to be assured and to have certainty. If they cannot have certainty, they want to ensure that any changes in the area have the rigorous scrutiny of primary legislation.

As it stands, clause 5 also risks politicising social security co-ordination and leaves us with the real prospect of losing reciprocation from the European Union’s 27 member states in addition to EFTA’s four member states. Without that co-ordination, there is no guarantee that rights such as pensions and others that hon. Members have spoken about at length will continue to accrue for British citizens in the EU. That risks deterring people from moving abroad.

The Government have already awarded themselves too many broad Henry VIII powers. All too often, the Government’s answers to the question of why they need those broad powers are wholly insufficient. We firmly believe that the Bill should not be legislation at all. In the context of this debate, we firmly believe that clause 5 should not stand part of this regrettable Bill.

[Alok Sharma]

Perhaps I can respond to some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton and the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North.

The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton asked whether the powers would be too broad. I want to be absolutely clear that the power can be used only to make changes to specified retained EU social security co-ordination regulations that are listed in the clause, and to make consequential changes to primary legislation or other retained direct EU legislation that is not listed in the clause. The power is broad, because it provides the Government with the flexibility to respond to a range of scenarios. I repeat for the third time that regulations made using this power will be subject to the affirmative procedure, so they will be scrutinised and voted on by both Houses.

Both hon. Gentlemen called for the clause to be removed from the Bill. We believe that it is very important that the clause remains part of the Bill, so that the Government can respond at pace to the outcomes of negotiations and the scenarios that we find ourselves in. Without the clause, the Government would not be able to deliver policy changes to the retained social security co-ordination system, including those that could help us to deliver effective support for UK nationals abroad.

The current rules around aggregating and paying benefits pro rata and paying pensions based on contributions across member states depend on reciprocity. I have made that point a number of times. The power allows us to amend the rules in an appropriate and manageable way if the Government need to operate the system unilaterally and deliver changes beyond the scope of the deficiency fixes. Taking this enabling power is the most appropriate option, because it provides us with the flexibility that is required.

The hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton spoke about the fixing SIs. I think I responded to that point earlier, in the debate on amendment 26.

I know that Members on both sides of the Committee have raised these points with a great deal of interest in making sure that we get the matter right for citizens. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North has just said that he wants to give citizens certainty. That is what I and Conservative colleagues want, and the best way of doing that is for all of us to support the deal and the withdrawal agreement that are on the table.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 2 and 3 agreed to.

Clause 6

Interpretation

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2019 Public Bill Committees

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

Does the hon. Lady agree that there is a huge degree of confusion about freedom of movement, and that it is conflated with the rest of immigration and asylum policy? That is not helped by a lack of knowledge in this country about how the European Union works and operates, and how we approach such issues with the EU. The direct impact on people in the UK, and on their ability to travel freely across the EU to work, travel and be educated, was not known, so we cannot possibly say that the UK voted to end freedom of movement.

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It is entirely possible that people do not know all the ins and outs and details of the immigration system—I would not expect them to; it is quite complicated. Having stood in three general elections in a swing marginal seat, I suggest that anyone who thinks they can be involved in British politics and not get involved in conversations about immigration is kidding themselves. We must accept that immigration is an issue, and that people will seize on anecdotes and their own personal experience. That is not illegitimate either—people rely on their lived experiences, but when it comes to decisions that we take, it is a mistake to rely on anecdote and we must consider the actual evidence for what immigration has done in our labour market.

In 2015, one Bank of England study found that immigration had had a very small effect on the wages of those at the lower end of the earnings distribution, but that that effect was not significant. Often that study is seized on as evidence that immigration has somehow had this huge impact on people’s earning potential, but I simply ask people to compare that with what we know has happened to wages since the financial crash of 2008. Compared with the trend of 2% annual growth in real wages from 1980 to the early 2000s, which was pretty regular, between 2008 and 2014 people’s real wages fell significantly, with a shortfall of about 20% in what they would otherwise have expected had that real wage growth continued.

If we consider groups in our society, apart from pensioner households, no one is better off than they would have been in 2008. The significance of that impact while we have been in the European Union demonstrates that what has happened is a change in Government policy and the decisions that have been made to support people’s incomes. Real wages have been weakened by rising inflation since the 2016 referendum, which has had a huge impact. Depreciation will lead to rising costs. In the end, when considering people’s earnings potential, what matters is not the nominal figure of the amount they have coming in, but what they can buy with it.

I would say to people who worry about the impact of immigration on wages that we should definitely consider it. It is true that most of the studies that have investigated this matter have found that, at the local level, there is no statistically significant impact of immigration on the earnings of those in that local economy. However, if that is considered so important that it ignores the impact of prices and what has happened since the referendum, that is not being serious about dealing with poverty in this country. We need to understand that if we tell people that we will make the average British person better off by restricting immigration, we are offering a false promise.

Immigration and Social Security Coordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Committee Debate: 5th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 26th February 2019 Public Bill Committees

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

Does the hon. Lady agree that there is a huge degree of confusion about freedom of movement, and that it is conflated with the rest of immigration and asylum policy? That is not helped by a lack of knowledge in this country about how the European Union works and operates, and how we approach such issues with the EU. The direct impact on people in the UK, and on their ability to travel freely across the EU to work, travel and be educated, was not known, so we cannot possibly say that the UK voted to end freedom of movement.

[Alison McGovern]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It is entirely possible that people do not know all the ins and outs and details of the immigration system—I would not expect them to; it is quite complicated. Having stood in three general elections in a swing marginal seat, I suggest that anyone who thinks they can be involved in British politics and not get involved in conversations about immigration is kidding themselves. We must accept that immigration is an issue, and that people will seize on anecdotes and their own personal experience. That is not illegitimate either—people rely on their lived experiences, but when it comes to decisions that we take, it is a mistake to rely on anecdote and we must consider the actual evidence for what immigration has done in our labour market.

In 2015, one Bank of England study found that immigration had had a very small effect on the wages of those at the lower end of the earnings distribution, but that that effect was not significant. Often that study is seized on as evidence that immigration has somehow had this huge impact on people’s earning potential, but I simply ask people to compare that with what we know has happened to wages since the financial crash of 2008. Compared with the trend of 2% annual growth in real wages from 1980 to the early 2000s, which was pretty regular, between 2008 and 2014 people’s real wages fell significantly, with a shortfall of about 20% in what they would otherwise have expected had that real wage growth continued.

If we consider groups in our society, apart from pensioner households, no one is better off than they would have been in 2008. The significance of that impact while we have been in the European Union demonstrates that what has happened is a change in Government policy and the decisions that have been made to support people’s incomes. Real wages have been weakened by rising inflation since the 2016 referendum, which has had a huge impact. Depreciation will lead to rising costs. In the end, when considering people’s earnings potential, what matters is not the nominal figure of the amount they have coming in, but what they can buy with it.

I would say to people who worry about the impact of immigration on wages that we should definitely consider it. It is true that most of the studies that have investigated this matter have found that, at the local level, there is no statistically significant impact of immigration on the earnings of those in that local economy. However, if that is considered so important that it ignores the impact of prices and what has happened since the referendum, that is not being serious about dealing with poverty in this country. We need to understand that if we tell people that we will make the average British person better off by restricting immigration, we are offering a false promise.