Syria

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Monday 16th April 2018 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful that the House has finally been provided with the opportunity to debate the merits of engaging in further military action in Syria—nearly 72 hours after the UK, US and France carried out air strikes. Whether we send our forces into action overseas is the most important decision that this House can debate. However, instead of that being fully debated here, the first reports that our forces had engaged on foreign soil came through the tweets of President Trump on Saturday morning. That is not good enough.

Let me be clear: no one in the House will think that the use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians should go unpunished. However, the Prime Minister has been unable to say to this House that the weekend’s action in Syria will absolutely prevent such acts from happening again. She has been unable to say what the long-term strategy is for ensuring the safety of civilians and bringing an end to the conflict. She has been unable to answer the question, “What is next?”

To be clear, I am not some sort of absolute pacifist. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) made a strong argument for action, stating that if we did not act, the use of chemical weapons, nerve agents and the like would become more widespread. I get that, and it is hard to disagree with that basic premise. If presented with evidence beyond reasonable doubt of an abhorrent act, clear objectives set out as part of a strategy to end the violence and a clear exit strategy with a plan for peace, I would vote for action.

We owe effective planning of any military action not only to the Syrian people, but to our armed forces before we commit them to action. By any measure, we have not had that. Instead, taken with no long term strategy or parliamentary consultation, this action risks escalating the situation in one of the most complex theatres of war ever seen on this planet, and innocent civilians will suffer the most.

We are living through the worst humanitarian crisis since the second world war, with more than 5.6 million Syrians fleeing the country and 6.1 million people having been displaced since the conflict began. The UK Government have shifted their military approach towards Syria, so the UK Government now have a duty to look again at their approach towards helping the refugees who have been displaced as a result of the violence in Syria. I accept that the Government’s work to assist refugees in the region has been good, but we must, particularly after our own escalation, do more to support those who have fled to Europe to escape the violence, particularly those children currently residing in European refugee camps. Not to do so would be an abdication.

We all want to see a peaceful resolution to the situation in Syria. The use of chemical weapons on innocent civilians is unforgivable, and those responsible must be held to account. As we seek to find a way forward, we need calm heads and strong leadership—I am not convinced that any leadership team involving President Trump offers either. His tweets leading up to the action were worthy of the school playground. lf it were not for the fact that these are the cold war foes, the USA and Russia —with unpredictable, perhaps even unstable, Presidents sizing each other up—it would be funny, were it not so deadly serious.

Finding a peaceful resolution to the atrocities committed in Syria should be a cross-party endeavour that seeks to unite this House and this country. The Prime Minister’s pushing ahead without Parliament’s approval is a serious mistake, and I urge her not to make the same mistake again.

Salisbury Incident

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

As I said before, our argument is not with the Russian people and we continue to recognise that this is about the actions of the Russian state and Government. As I said earlier in my statement, many of us looked at a post-Soviet Russia with hope when that was first developed, but, sadly, because of the way in which President Putin has been dealing with these matters, the picture is very different today.

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

In welcoming the Prime Minister’s actions and statement, may I point out that one notable ally who has not yet spoken out against Russia’s actions in Salisbury is President Trump? Will she urge him to condemn vociferously Vladimir Putin and the Russian Government’s actions, and to do so without delay?

[The Prime Minister]

I spoke to President Trump yesterday and he has spoken out against this incident. We will be continuing to speak with the American Administration because they are among the allies we would encourage to work with us in a collective response to this issue.

Brexit Negotiations

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Monday 11th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We are continuing to work with the Government of Gibraltar. They are part of our considerations as we proceed with these matters. That issue will be part of the wider negotiation on the trade relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom in the future, and we will continue to work on it with the Government of Gibraltar.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for her statement—it was certainly optimistic.

Last week the Irish Government showed the UK Government what effective negotiation looks like. Given that there was zero mention of any devolved Government in her 10-minute statement, may I ask the Prime Minister why the Irish Government have more influence on the UK’s position than the democratically elected Scottish Government?

[The Prime Minister]

We have regular dialogue with the Scottish Government about the negotiations and the future arrangements that we want between the United Kingdom and the European Union. Those arrangements will take into account the concerns and interests of the whole United Kingdom, and will constitute a deal that will be good for the whole United Kingdom.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Committee: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Monday 4th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

But not in the form you have said.

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

Order!

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I am always grateful for the help of the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands). Thank you very much. Mr Masterton must have a chance to answer the point made by Ms Cherry before we have any further interventions, although there will probably be another one in a moment.

House of Lords Reform: Lord Speaker’s Committee

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Wednesday 15th November 2017 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) on securing the debate and leading us off so thoughtfully and powerfully. It was not for the first time that I agreed with every word he said.

I want to start on a positive note—or at least as positive a note as I can muster—by welcoming aspects of the Lord Speaker’s report. Any attempt to reduce the number of peers is progress of a sort towards abolition. Needless to say, in my view the report is a missed opportunity and goes nowhere near far enough. It has a number of interesting recommendations, such as capping the number of peers and 15-year term limits. However, with a two out, one in limit, combined with restricting the method of reducing the existing number of peers to retiring or expiring, progress towards the proposed limit of 600 will be glacial—a pace that, although undeniably revolutionary for this place, will be viewed unsympathetically elsewhere.

For those who support the House of Lords, I see why these recommendations will be welcome. They address some of the common criticisms levelled at the Lords but, more importantly, supporters think it will kick the wider Lords reform debate down the road. The arguments for abolishing the House of Lords are well rehearsed, and we in the Scottish National party have been consistent in opposing the undemocratic anachronism that is the other place. It is a matter of principle for our party that is held almost as strongly as independence itself and our opposition to Trident nuclear weapons. Quite simply, we believe that a second Chamber should have representatives elected by the people, rather than appointed by party leaders.

As has been said, the House of Lords is a bloated institution that is largely manipulated by the Westminster-based parties to serve their own party political priorities. Its current gross membership stands at 821—some 171 more than the current elected Chamber. As we have heard, the Lords is the only second Chamber in the world whose membership exceeds that of the primary Chamber; only China’s National People’s Congress has more members. That is utterly ridiculous and completely indefensible. The SNP rightly has no peers sitting in the Lords; we are the only political party in Westminster not to play that self-serving game. In contrast, 70% of current peers come from the Tories, Labour and the Liberal Democrats.

In the last Parliament, David Cameron appointed 40 peers per year, which is more than any other Prime Minister—even Tony Blair, who is comfortably at No. 2 with 37 peers per Session. Cameron, like Prime Ministers before him, exploited appointments to the House of Lords, awarding them to party members and cronies who had previously donated handsomely to the Conservative party; of course, I suggest no link between the two. That yet again highlights the deep-rooted flaws with the House of Lords, with the Prime Minister able to appoint any number of peers he desired without any kind of check or balance in place. How can anybody in their right mind say that that is anything but grossly undemocratic?

It should be noted that the report suggests that political appointments to the House of Lords mirror the results of a general election. However, this is not the first time that that has been proposed. In 2010, the coalition Government agreed as an interim measure that the appointment of new peers would reflect the vote share at the most recent general election, on the way to introducing a Chamber of 450, wholly or mostly elected by proportional representation. As we know, a Tory rebellion shamefully defeated that reform.

However, being led up the path of Lords reform is not new. The Labour Government of 1997 came to power promising to abolish hereditary peers, but as we heard in the powerful contribution from the right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson), in order to get that legislation, which was planned to be the first step, through Parliament, it was agreed that 92 hereditary peers, elected from the hereditary peers en masse, should be able to sit as a temporary measure until the second stage of reform was completed. As we have heard, we still await that second stage of reform 18 years on. In March 2007, 10 years on from the Tony Blair landslide, the Commons voted by a majority of 113 in favour of a fully elected House of Lords, and by a majority of 280 to remove all hereditary peers. Once again, the country was led a merry parliamentary reform dance with nothing to show for it.

The Electoral Reform Society, among many others, points out that the House of Lords is hugely unrepresentative—I am sure it will not come as a surprise to many—with just 26% of its members being female and nearly half coming from London and the south-east, which accounts for only a quarter of the UK population. Another issue the ERS highlights is that political appointees rarely show independence and instead vote with their party Whip the vast majority of the time.

I will play devil’s advocate, and going against my better judgment, I will take on board the points made by the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham), but if we must continue with an unelected Chamber, I suggest that the newly reformed Canadian Senate serve as an example of an expert-appointed revising Chamber. I reiterate that that is not my favoured solution, but it would be churlish not to accept that there are some fantastically skilled people in the Lords who personally offer a huge amount to the legislative process. Like the House of Lords, the Canadian Senate was for decades hampered by individuals often being more motivated by partisan interest, rather than by effectively scrutinising and revising legislation. Under the new system brought in by Justin Trudeau in 2015, an appointment committee picks independent candidates to serve in the Senate, rather than people affiliated with any political party.

That has been widely welcomed in Canada, and moves it closer to having a second Chamber in which people serve based on merit, rather than loyalty towards any political party. However, I am a radical at heart, so despite offering that non-partisan, unelected Canadian alternative, I feel so strongly about the importance of electoral accountability that, if we cannot have an elected second Chamber, I would follow another Canadian example: the Assemblée Nationale in Quebec, which abolished its unelected Chamber in 1968.

I readily admit that the House of Lords might not be the No. 1 issue raised with me on the doorstep or causing long queues at my constituency surgeries, but it says so much about the country we want to be, and equally about how the international community perceives us.

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

Would it be progress, and a sign of a mature democracy that would engage people more in the democratic process, if we had a fully elected second Chamber and abolished the House of Lords?

[Gavin Newlands]

I could not agree more. That is the point almost every contributor has made thus far, apart from the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire. It is obviously a given that, in 2017, we should not appoint any unelected member to a legislative body.

To be honest, as somebody who has been campaigning for Scottish independence since I was nine years old, I never feel more strongly about independence than when I view the farce on the day of the Queen’s Speech. I have always viewed the Lords as a kind of pumped-up parliamentary panto, and seeing all that ermine and fancy dress, and the Lord Chancellor playing Widow Twanky, is embarrassing in the extreme in 2017. I believe that the Lord Speaker’s report was probably as much as we could have expected, given his position and his narrow remit, but it falls spectacularly short of what any developed western democracy should be aiming for.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Wednesday 25th October 2017 Commons Chamber

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

14. What his policy is on devolving further powers to Scotland as a result of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU; and if he will make a statement.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

We are in agreement with the devolved Administrations that common frameworks will be necessary in some areas but, as I have made it clear, we expect that there will be a significant increase in the decision-making power of each devolved Administration.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell]

I can give the hon. Gentleman a definitive answer on the last part of his question. Immigration is not being devolved to Scotland. The Smith commission process identified those areas of responsibility to be devolved, and immigration was not one of them. The Scottish National party accepted that report and, on the basis of that, we implemented it in the Scotland Act 2016.

[Gavin Newlands]

I am disappointed that, after three questions, we still have not had an answer. On immigration, I am disappointed that the Secretary of State was disinclined to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day). Perhaps he will listen to Nobel laureate Joe Stiglizt who, over the weekend, said that Scotland should have the powers to go its own way in migration policy. He knows a bit more about this than we do, so is he right?

[David Mundell]

I seem to remember that Professor Joe Stiglizt supported independence for Scotland, but the people of Scotland knew a bit more than the professor and decided to keep Scotland in the United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Wednesday 26th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

5. What assessment he has made of the potential effect of provisions of the great repeal Bill on Wales’s devolved competences.

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

11. What assessment he has made of the potential effect of provisions of the great repeal Bill on Wales’s devolved competences.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alun Cairns]

As powers are repatriated from the EU, it is vital that we provide industry and communities with as much certainty and security as possible. We need to protect the integrity of the UK market, and we need to work with the devolved Administrations to construct common standards and common frameworks to support that single market.

[Gavin Newlands]

After a decade of Tory rule in Westminster, it is clear that the Government have given up on Wales. They have refused to devolve the responsibility for rail infrastructure, as both Plaid Cymru and the Silk commission suggested, and in paragraph 4.2 of the great repeal Bill White Paper they have pledged to snatch the transport powers currently held by Brussels away from the people of Wales. Will the Secretary of State tell us what exactly he is doing to ensure that the people of Wales, and their interests, are not forgotten?

Article 50

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Wednesday 29th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

This is the United Kingdom Parliament and as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom I have said, and I continue to say, that I think that now is not the time for a second independence referendum. Indeed, now is not the time to be focusing on a second independence referendum. At this time, we should be focusing on working to ensure that we get the best deal for the whole of the United Kingdom as we leave the EU.

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

In both her statement and her letter to President Tusk, the Prime Minister speaks of the expectation that the devolved Governments’ powers will be increased. I am sure that she will want to honour the promises made to win the referendum, so will she confirm that the powers devolved to Scotland will include immigration, as promised by the then Justice Secretary during the campaign? Or is now not the time?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the issue of immigration was considered by the Smith commission but was not determined by the commission as one of the issues that should be delegated. I repeat what I said in the letter and what I have said again today: I think that as a result of the repatriation powers we will see significant decision-making powers being given to the devolved Administrations, over and above what they have today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Wednesday 8th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend raises an important point that is, I know, of concern to many people in the House and outside. We should be proud that in the UK we have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world—indeed, one of the highest scores for animal protection in the world. Leaving the EU will not change that. I can assure her that we are committed to maintaining and, where possible, improving standards of welfare in the UK, while ensuring of course that our industry is not put at a competitive disadvantage.

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

Q15. Last week, the Russian Duma shamefully decriminalised domestic violence committed against women and children. Given the Prime Minister’s new global Britain approach, I trust that the Government will encourage Russia to rethink that regressive approach, which trivialises domestic violence. Does she agree that ratifying the Istanbul convention would send a message to Russia and the world about the priority that should be placed on ending gender-based violence?

[The Prime Minister]

I am proud that in this country we have strengthened the law on domestic violence and violence against women and girls. We see this as a retrograde step by the Russian Government. Repealing existing legislation sends out the wrong message on what is a global problem. We have joined others in the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe in criticising that decision.

Informal European Council

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

For those who are in member states of the European Union, the Dublin regulations obviously allow for reuniting families under certain circumstances. That is something we have been actively working on. Over the past year or so, we have actively worked with the French Government to increase the speed at which we are able to reunite children with families here in the United Kingdom, and we continue to do so.

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

We are constantly told by Ministers at the Dispatch Box that they are maintaining close relationships with countries that have dubious human rights records, allowing us to speak to those regimes as only friends can. Can the Prime Minister therefore tell us, given our extra-special, super-duper relationship with the US, what particular home truths on Trump’s outrageous plans she delivered on our behalf?

[The Prime Minister]

I was very clear about the UK’s position on a whole range of issues that we wish to discuss with the United States Administration. It was the special relationship that enabled us very quickly to ensure that UK citizens were not covered by the ban and the Executive order that President Trump brought into place in relation to the movement of people from seven countries into the United States.