Corrosive Substance Attacks

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Wednesday 20th December 2017 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Bailey, and I welcome the Minister to her place. I also welcome the opportunity to take part today and I give credit to the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) for securing a debate on a subject that is obviously so important to her constituency.

It has been a good debate during which we have heard many powerful points. The hon. Lady started by speaking about the impact of these outrageous attacks on families right across the borough. She really brought that home by telling us about the experience of Katie Piper and of the inspiring work that she has done since her attack to highlight the issue. The hon. Lady made a strong case for how the abolition of licensing has led to it actually becoming easier to obtain corrosive substances.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), a Westminster Hall season ticket holder, made an excellent contribution. He said something that we can all emphasise with: how he failed to understand the motivation to carry out these sick and vile attacks. He also mentioned that evil was restricted to no postcode. The immediate priority of my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), was to clamp down on access to the most corrosive and dangerous substances. I agree with him entirely that the burden of proving a good reason for carrying a corrosive substance should lie with the person in possession; it should not lie with the prosecution to prove intent.

The right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), who has spoken on this subject before, told us, rather shockingly, that moped delivery riders and others now feel that there are no-go areas in London, and he had three key asks of the Minister, which I wholeheartedly support. He also said that some of the action required might need primary legislation and he inquired when the time for that might be available.

Some of the stark statistics bear repeating. The Metropolitan Police confirmed that the number of acid attacks in London has risen sharply in recent years. Noxious or corrosive fluids were used in 454 crimes in 2016: an increase from 166 in 2014. Figures also suggest that violent acid attacks increased by more than 500% between 2012 and 2016. It is deeply concerning that Newham in East London, which has been mentioned, had three times more acid attacks than the next highest borough. As the hon. Member for West Ham stated, it is known as the acid capital of the UK. It is vital that local police services and politicians understand why this crime is more common in Newham than in other parts of London.

I am aware that the right hon. Member for East Ham has spoken about the “cracks of austerity” and how reducing police numbers could be key influencers in the rise of acid attacks. I think there is a lot of sense in what he says. Yesterday’s announcement that the police service in England and Wales, which is already stretched—at times beyond capacity—will be financed with a flat cash core settlement from central Government will do nothing to help in the fight against such abhorrent crimes.

As we have heard, the UK has one of the highest rates of recorded acid attacks in the world and, disappointingly, of the more than 2,000 acid attacks recorded for the years 2011 to 2016, only 414 resulted in charges being brought. I hope the Minister can explain, as others have asked her to, why so few cases end up in court. We should remember that acid attacks are not limited to Newham—or even London for that matter, although they may be more prevalent there: there have been reports of those horrendous crimes taking place throughout the UK.

However, the issues in this country are different from those faced by countries such as Bangladesh and Pakistan. The reporting of the crimes highlights a lack of understanding about what is really happening. The BBC published an article last month, which it says provides the most comprehensive data to date on acid attacks in London. It suggests that three fifths of the suspects and more than two thirds of the victims were male. That is an important distinction in relation to other countries. Another point to note from the findings is that those who commit such horrendous acts are not confined to one religion or ethnicity. We should therefore reject the notion, often cited, that acid attacks involve only the Asian community. That bears no relationship to the evidence and our efforts to tackle acid attacks will be undermined if we follow that prejudiced approach.

A feature common to acid attacks committed here and elsewhere is that all too often those violent offences go unreported; the majority of those that are reported will never reach trial. I share the concern of the hon. Member for Strangford about attacks overseas. The Acid Survivors Trust International correctly points out that acid attacks are a worldwide problem. Although the UK may be a slightly different case, those grotesque crimes disproportionally affect women—80% of attacks are on women.

The United Nations has also recognised the gender aspect of attacks. UN Women supports the efforts of female parliamentarians in Pakistan who back new legislation to put a stop to a horrendous crime. I am keen to learn what discussions the Minister is aware of the Government having with the United Nations about efforts to eliminate acid attacks overseas, and what lessons that we can learn from that.

Like most gender-based violent acts, the crimes in question go largely unreported; as many as 60% of acid attacks do. In addition to taking action to punish the perpetrators, we must listen to the experiences of those who have survived attacks. We need to know what they think can be done to eliminate the problem and how can we help them to overcome the barriers that prevent so many victims from reporting the crimes.

Although the gendered nature of the attacks is more prevalent in other parts of the world, we cannot, as the hon. Member for West Ham said, ignore the fact that a proportion of attacks that happen here continue the violence that far too many women experience at the hands of a male perpetrator. One effort that would help to deal with the problem would be tackling the inequality and discrimination that women still face on a daily basis. A report by the Avon Global Centre for Women and Justice at Cornell Law School states that Governments must do the following to eradicate acid violence:

“(1) enact laws that adequately punish perpetrators of attacks and limit the easy availability of acid, (2) enforce and implement those laws, and (3) provide redress to victims”.

I believe those basic, simple recommendations would be a good starting point for the UK Government.

For their part, the Scottish Government welcome further steps to limit the harm from crimes involving corrosive materials. In October, the Scottish Justice Secretary Michael Matheson pledged that views on tackling the corrosive substance attacks will be carefully considered by the Scottish Government. That is in the context of a consultation announced by the UK Government in October on an approach to tackling the issue effectively. The Scottish Government have been in dialogue with the UK Government since an action plan to tackle the use of corrosive substances in attacks was announced in July. The two Governments are committed to working together on those important issues, and part of the work will include considering whether, following the consultation, there should be a UK-wide approach to legislation. A consistent approach across the UK would be better, so that there will be no loopholes to take advantage of.

Owing to the increasing frequency of acid attacks, there have rightly been calls for the Government to introduce further restrictions on the sale of acid—particularly sulphuric acid—and to criminalise the possession of acid without good reason. That would be somewhat akin to the current law on knives, as has been mentioned. It is an undeniable fact that it is still far too easy for the wrong people to get their hands on those dangerous substances, which cause life-changing harm to people. Of course, restricting access to dangerous acids will in many cases simply force the perpetrator to find a different method of continuing their violence, so in addition to a commitment to efforts to end acid violence, we must pay equal attention to preventing the violence from occurring in the first place.

I trust that the Government will analyse the responses with the attention that they deserve. However, I hope that the UK Government will deliver on previous commitments and take action to restrict the availability of acid for sale. I urge them to introduce a new offence applicable to those who look to cause harm through the possession of a corrosive substance. Acid attacks are instant attacks with life-changing consequences for the victims, and there is a need for drastic and urgent action.

Policing

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Tuesday 19th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

I thank my right hon. Friend for making that point. If there is a powerful symbol of the change in the pattern of demand on policing, it is how much crime is now digitally enabled. We know from our constituencies how vulnerable our constituents are; they are many times more likely to be vulnerable to a crime online than they are on the street. That is part of the change in policing that we have to respond to, which is why we have just under £2 billion-worth of investment earmarked for cyber-security.

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

I thank the Minister for prior sight of the statement.

Let me be charitable and start by welcoming one aspect of the statement, namely the £50 million increase in counter-terrorism resources. However, I echo entirely the sentiment of the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) that, given the huge pressure on the police service in England and Wales, a flat-cash core settlement from the Government is simply not enough. In doing so, I pay tribute to all police officers right across the UK for the hard and oftentimes dangerous work they do to keep us safe.

Just last week, the Scottish Government Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Derek Mackay, committed to increasing the police authority’s Government-allocated budget in real terms in 2018-19—a clear difference from the approach taken by this Government. In March 2017, there were 32 officers per 10,000 population in Scotland, compared with around 21 officers per 10,000 population in England and Wales—over one third more police officers per head keeping Scots safe.

In Scotland, public confidence in the police remains strong. Recorded crime is at a 42-year low, recidivism is at a 16-year low and police clear-up rates are the highest for 40 years. That is all while, in the words of Calum Steele, the general secretary of the Scottish Police Federation, UK Government cuts

“have put almost immeasurable financial stress”

on public services, including the police. He went on to highlight the fact that the police VAT relief could have been delivered with the stroke of a political pen, and that inaction put further unnecessary stress on police funding.

Following a sustained SNP campaign, we welcomed the Chancellor’s announcement in the Budget that Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service will be eligible to reclaim VAT in the future. However, in the spirit of today’s statement, will the Minister commit to requesting that the Chancellor also reimburse the £125 million already taken from frontline police services in Scotland so that it can be used for future reinvestment in Scottish policing?

[Mr Hurd]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reply. It is fair to say that there are mixed views across Scotland about the benefits of merging all the forces into one, and time will tell. However, I thank him for his welcome for the additional £50 million for counter-terrorism policing.

The hon. Gentleman talks about a flat-cash settlement. It is no such thing; we are talking about an increase of £450 million in investment and, at the local police level, a move, effectively, from flat cash to flat real.

The hon. Gentleman talks about cuts. Again, he is allowed his own opinions, but he is not allowed his own version of the facts. Overall, public investment in policing will grow from £11.9 billion in 2015-16 to £13 billion next year if these proposals are accepted by the House. That is not a cut in my language.

Draft Drug Dealing Telecommunications Restriction Orders Regulations 2017

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Tuesday 21st November 2017 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson, and to see the Minister in her place. I will not detain the Committee for anywhere near as long as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley because, at the end of the day, Scottish National party Members fundamentally agree with these Government proposals, for a change—it is always good to be collegiate.

It is estimated that drug misuse in Scotland costs about £3.5 billion a year, which amounts to nearly £1,000 for every adult in Scotland. As we know, the regulations for all proscribed drugs is still a reserved issue, and the policy is set by the UK Government, but the Scottish Government and police forces continue to work with the Home Office to implement a series of actions against drug misuse. However, this would not be an SNP response were I not to request—this is almost a contractual obligation—the immediate devolution of drug policy to Scotland, so that the Scottish Parliament can consider the options for harm reduction, including drug declassification, decriminalisation and regulation. I highly recommend that the new Minister does that at her earliest convenience.

Modern Slavery Act 2015

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Thursday 26th October 2017 Commons Chamber

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

I am delighted to take part in today’s debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee and particularly the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), who led us off so powerfully, for providing us with the opportunity to debate the implementation of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. There have been many fantastic contributions from both sides of the House, including by my hon. Friends the Members for Livingston (Hannah Bardell) and for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald). I also thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) for sharing her extraordinarily powerful experiences of working in this sector. The debate is better for her participation.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East said, we sometimes allow ourselves to believe that human trafficking and exploitation takes place in some other country, in some other culture and in some other time and place. However, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston, it is happening throughout our communities, and we all have a role in ending this exploitation.

The perfectly laudable Modern Slavery Act aims to rid the world of modern slavery, including commercial sexual abuse, forced unpaid labour, domestic servitude and organ removal. We are shocked when we hear about those crimes on the news, but we are deeply wrong and misguided if we allow ourselves to believe that human trafficking and exploitation do not take place here at home.

Two thirds of trafficking victims are women. However, human trafficking is committed against men, women, boys and girls, and it does not take account of a person’s nationality or citizenship. Indeed, travelling from one place to another is not a required action for there to be an offence of human trafficking in Scotland, and it does not matter whether the victim has consented.

Statistics from the National Crime Agency report that 3,805 potential victims were submitted to the national referral mechanism—the framework for identifying victims of trafficking or modern slavery—in 2016. As the hon. Member for Gedling said, that was a 17% increase on the previous year. Of those 3,805 victims in 2016, 150 were from Scotland, 123 from Wales and 33 from Northern Ireland. Behind those damning statistics are horrifying stories of lives being destroyed, of women being abused, of children being sexually exploited and of workers being forced to work without pay through fear of the consequences if they refuse.

Unfortunately, despite the implementation of the 2015 Act, the National Crime Agency warns about the scale of modern slavery and has stated that it is “far more prevalent” than previously estimated, with alleged victims as young as 12 being sold and exploited. However, the police seem to be failing or are unable to tackle the issue. I can accept the police in England and Wales are under Government funding pressures, but I am concerned that police forces are failing to recognise the crimes that make up modern slavery. That is leaving victims unprotected from the actions of those who would take advantage of them.

As has been mentioned, a recent report by Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary states rather bluntly that victims of modern slavery are being let down at every stage. The police are not investigating cases quickly enough, allowing the prolongation of abuse, with some referred victims also being dismissed at the start due to assumptions about their citizenship. I cannot believe that when a case of slavery is suspected, the authorities’ first response is to check the victim’s passport and immigration status, rather than providing a helping hand to stop the abhorrent abuse.

Cases of slavery or suspected slavery are also being closed without inquiries being made, and in some cases detectives have not even spoken to victims. Wendy Williams, the inspector of constabulary, spoke on this issue:

“We found inconsistent, even ineffective, identification of victims and investigations closed prematurely. As a result, victims were being left unprotected, leaving perpetrators free to continue to exploit people as commodities.”

That is simply not good enough. We are failing those who need our help the most.

The Prime Minister previously vowed that Britain would lead the world in ridding the problem of modern slavery. How close are we to achieving that admirable aim when, first, the problem is increasing and, secondly, we fail to take action when modern slavery is reported to the appropriate authorities? Although the Government’s intention to rid the world of modern slavery is laudable, we should be concerned that the implementation of that vision is failing.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the white ribbon campaign, I take pride in being part of an international movement that stresses the important role that men can play in ending the abuse that too many women and girls face on a daily basis. Gender-based violence, including the abhorrent acts of trafficking and exploitation, affects every society, and we all have a moral responsibility to create a society where it is consigned to the history books.

Unfortunately, a rapid Brexit, particularly a no-deal Brexit, may have consequences for the Government’s ability to protect people from being the victim of modern slavery practices. A report by The Independent suggested that Brexit could dramatically curtail efforts by the police service to tackle slavery and human trafficking. Tamara Barnett, from the Human Trafficking Foundation, says that many lawyers working in this field make use of the EU to defend victims of trafficking because of the lack of safeguards provided in the Modern Slavery Act. Brexit will also make it harder for the UK to work with other EU partners to resolve the crimes that take place across national boundaries.

The 2005 convention on action against trafficking in human beings was a great example of European countries working together to protect people from being caught up in trafficking. Ryan Mahan, of the campaign group Every Child Protected Against Trafficking, has spoken about the importance of this law:

“Almost every significant trafficking victim-protection provision we have in law and policy in the UK has been implemented as a direct result of the Convention.”

Brexit will undoubtedly make it harder for us to tackle this issue, so, as other Members have mentioned, the Prime Minister has to guarantee that that security co-operation will continue following our exit from the EU. This must be a crucial part of the negotiations.

In Scotland, we are also taking seriously our responsibility to seeing a world free from modern slavery. The Scottish Parliament unanimously passed the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015, whose overarching objective is to consolidate and strengthen the existing criminal law against human trafficking and exploitation and to enhance the status of and support for its victims. The Act also strengthened the penalties that can be passed down, adopting a maximum penalty of life in prison.

Earlier this year, the Scottish Government published their “Trafficking and Exploitation Strategy”, which sets out how our country intends to eliminate this abhorrent crime from our society. It was developed in partnership with support groups and those who have survived human trafficking offences and aims to identify and support victims; detect perpetrators and disrupt activity; and address the conditions that foster trafficking. By listening and learning from victims themselves, the Scottish Government have been able to capture the physical and psychological damage caused by trafficking. This new strategy has been welcomed by important stakeholders, including Lord Advocate James Wolffe, who said:

“We welcome the publication of the Trafficking and Exploitation Strategy. Human trafficking is a serious and complex crime that presents unique challenges to investigators and prosecutors. This strategy will work hand in hand with the tools we have at our disposal to tackle this abhorrent trade”.

As the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) said, the Scottish Government have also recently announced that the period of support for victims of trafficking in Scotland will be doubled to 90 days, demonstrating that Scotland is again leading the way in protecting the most vulnerable members of our society. The victims of human trafficking have been calling for that, and I encourage the UK Government to follow Scotland’s lead.

In conclusion, this has been a consensual yet challenging debate. One of the scandals of the modern age is that we have to debate this at all. Everyone—children, women and men, UK national or not—can be affected by these sick and abhorrent crimes. We should all be deeply concerned that this is still happening and furthermore that the problem is actually growing. Our response to helping those who are being abused is coming up short. Today’s debate should serve as a wake-up call for us to do more to rid our society and, indeed, the world of modern slavery.

Police Pay and Funding

Gavin Newlands Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Newton]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words and his very good question. He is a marvellous champion for his constituency and his local police force. Like many colleagues, he has in the past made the case for changes to the funding formula, and the Policing Minister and the Home Secretary have that information and that consideration carefully under review.

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

Notwithstanding the unrecognisable response from the Labour Front Bench, the SNP welcomes the UK Government following the lead of the Scottish Government in lifting the pay cap for public services—recognising that pay is behind inflation and that pressure is increasing on household budgets. Given that Steve White, the chair of the Police Federation of England and Wales, has said that many of his members would be “angry and deflated” at their pay award, does the Minister recognise that the police force at the frontline of our services must be supported? Does she also agree with the First Minister of Scotland, who said that it is not just police officers but nurses, teachers, firefighters and workers right across the public service who deserve a fairer deal for the future?

[Sarah Newton]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming the Government’s decision. It is a pity, as he says, that the Labour party is not supporting the fact that the Government are recognising the extraordinary contribution that our police officers make every single day, in facing up to the even greater pressures they have been put under in the last 12 months, as they have responded so magnificently to the terrorist threats we have faced as a country. The Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that the views of the independent pay review bodies for all parts of the public sector will be carefully considered and carefully listened to, and the Chancellor will respond to those at the appropriate time, which will be when those bodies report later this year.

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.