Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Gavin Newlands and Joanna Cherry

Wednesday 22nd February 2023 Commons Chamber

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

11. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill on Scotland.

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

14. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill on Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Gavin Newlands and Joanna Cherry

Tuesday 23rd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

What plans he has to ensure that the NHS has the capacity to tackle the next phase of the covid-19 outbreak.

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

What plans he has to ensure that the NHS has the capacity to tackle the next phase of the covid-19 outbreak.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Debate between Gavin Newlands and Joanna Cherry

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

[Gavin Newlands]

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

[Joanna Cherry]

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

[Gavin Newlands]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. and learned Friend.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Investigatory Powers Bill (Eighth sitting)

Debate between Gavin Newlands and Joanna Cherry

Committee Debate: 8th sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 19th April 2016 Public Bill Committees

[Joanna Cherry]

The Minister talked about the duty to take into account the likely benefits of the notice, but does my hon. Friend agree that something may be beneficial without being necessary?

[Gavin Newlands]

I agree with my hon. and learned Friend. We are not opposed to every measure in the Bill. There are benefits, but unfortunately they are not covered by enough safeguards and are not drawn tightly enough. I would like to make progress but I will give way once more.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Newlands]

I appreciate what the hon. Lady says but, as I am not a lawyer, I am struggling to distinguish the difference between Scottish and English law. Perhaps my colleague could address that.

[Joanna Cherry]

My hon. Friend will no doubt agree that, in Scotland at least, it is the police who investigate serious crime, under the direction of the Lord Advocate.

[Victoria Atkins]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Newlands]

I hear what the Solicitor General has said, but I do not wholly agree with him. I reserve the right to bring this back at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Joanna Cherry]

I beg to move amendment 306, in clause 78, page 61, line 18, at end insert—

‘(2A) A retention notice may not require a telecommunications operator to retain any data belonging to a third party data, unless that third party data is retained by the telecommunications operator for their own business purposes.”

Scotland Bill

Debate between Gavin Newlands and Joanna Cherry

Monday 9th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Joanna Cherry]

I said “we”. Listen carefully. I know my accent is a bit difficult to follow, but I said “we”.

In conclusion, our primary intention is to preserve the Act for the whole of the UK, but the amendment would give us the option to implement the settled will of the Scottish people to keep the Act for Scotland, if we fail to keep it for the whole of the UK.

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

In the wake of Scotland’s referendum on independence last year, the Prime Minister set up the Smith commission to secure cross-party recommendations for the further devolution of powers to the Scottish Parliament. With regard to the constitutional aspects of the report, the Smith commission recommended that the permanence of the Scottish Parliament and Government be established in statute, ensuring that devolution could not be abolished at the whim of a Westminster Government. Therefore, I sincerely welcome the UK Government’s latest U-turn on this issue. The provision should have been included at the inception of the Scotland Bill, but I welcome the Government’s coming round to our way of thinking—better late than never, some might say.

The Smith commission report also stated that the Sewel convention should be put on a statutory footing by the UK Government. Unfortunately, the UK Government’s proposals in this area fall far short of Smith, despite the Prime Minister’s pledge to implement the commission’s proposals in full. Clause 2 of the Bill states that

“the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.”

The Government’s current position on the matter is ridiculous and risks weakening, not strengthening the Sewel convention, and it is at odds with the Smith commission report. The Government’s vow that they will “not normally legislate” in devolved areas will simply not suffice and raises serious concerns that it will set a dangerous precedent.

Indeed, from my work on the Immigration Bill Committee, I can already see one instance where the UK Government’s Bill encroaches on devolved areas in Scotland. For example, immigration is of course a competence reserved for the UK Parliament, but housing is not: it is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Yet, as part of the Immigration Bill, the UK Government will introduce the right to rent. This is legislation that will compel landlords to establish a person’s legal status before they can offer a tenancy, introducing penalties for landlords who fail to comply. The UK Government’s “right to rent” provisions in the Immigration Bill will be extended to Scotland through secondary legislation without a legislative consent, or Sewel, motion being debated and passed by the Scottish Parliament. Furthermore, consultation with the Scottish Government on housing and with housing stakeholders in Scotland ahead of that Bill being introduced is said to have been rushed and extremely limited.

The Scottish Government are very concerned at this development and the Scottish housing Minister wrote to the Immigration Minister asking for a meeting on this very subject, only to be arrogantly rebuffed by him. In his reply, he said:

“The Right to Rent scheme and the new measures in the Immigration Bill relate to immigration control, which is not devolved”—

so far correct—but then said:

“These measures restrict access to housing”.

We have already established that housing is very much a devolved issue. So much for the respect agenda, much lauded by the Prime Minister.

The SNP’s new clause 35, which would place the Sewel convention on a statutory footing, is pragmatic and would ensure that the Bill lived up to the Smith commission’s recommendations. The UK Government’s approach to policy making where there are wider implications for devolved areas can be ignorant and churlish. There is no better example of that than the Conservatives’ much trailed desire to abolish the Human Rights Act.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Gavin Newlands and Joanna Cherry

Monday 2nd November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)]

7. If he will make an assessment of the potential effect of benefit sanctions on claimants’ mental health.

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

15. If he will make an assessment of the potential effect of benefit sanctions on claimants’ mental health.