Security Update

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Wednesday 20th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise the point about staff members not just here in the Palace of Westminster, where we have incredible support across the parliamentary estate—I think all right hon. and hon. Members would agree with that—but at a constituency level, and I should emphasise this, through engagement with local police forces. That equally applies to constituency offices, when it comes to local policing and engagement and through the policing work—through Op Bridger—post-today, in particular, with the threat-level change. That ongoing dialogue and support will absolutely be in place. But I would like to say to all colleagues that, while we are here, clearly, our constituency staff must be supported and protected, and they will have, through Operation Bridger, a contact point in the constituency for policing that they should absolutely engage with to cover not just MPs’ security, but their security and their place-of-work security, and to go through the diligence, checks and all the measures that we know that we need to follow.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

I am grateful for the Home Secretary’s statement. I wonder, though, whether she shares my concern that there was no tangible evidence of a threat to David, there was no tangible evidence of a threat to Jo, and there was no tangible evidence of a threat to the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms). That must clearly inform both our deliberations and the thinking of all police forces as they engage with us as Members for our security, because I believe that, across the Chamber, the unknown quantity is the most concerning element for our safety and, critically, for our teams, who may be left behind.

[Priti Patel]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct on this. This comes back to the agility across police forces to respond and to protect not just us, but members of the public who engage with us in our constituencies. Even while we are here, members of the public go into our constituency offices constantly, putting letters in, making appointments and doing things of that nature. That is why I absolutely urge all right hon. and hon. Members—obviously, I know that this is taking place right now—to continue to work proactively with their local police forces, stay in touch with them and engage with them, and that is both for right hon. and hon. Members and staff.

Trespass

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Monday 19th April 2021 Westminster Hall

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) [V]]

It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Bone. I hope that you and the Clerks are well in these difficult times. I thank those who brought forward the petition, and I am grateful to those Members who opened the debate, which I will now respond to on behalf of the Scottish National party. There will of course be those who ask why I am participating in the debate, given that the trespass in England and Wales comes under the remit of the UK Parliament. However, the debate also relates to the police Bill, which will have ramifications for Scots law.

May I first of all, if you will forgive me, Mr Bone, clarify some points on the law in Scotland? At this moment in time, trespass in both England and Scotland is a civil wrong but not a criminal act. I can say on behalf of my party that, if we are re-elected to government in May, we will certainly not bring forward any legislation at Holyrood to follow the police Bill, which seeks to criminalise trespass, at least from our perspective. I also highlight that it seemed as if some points made during the debate suggested that all members of the Gypsy and Traveller community, owing merely to their being members of those ancient and historic communities, commit criminal acts. My own window was smashed at the weekend, and I can tell hon. Members that it was certainly not by members of the Gypsy and Traveller community; it was clearly by somebody who probably had too much wine in the sun at the weekend during a global pandemic. I do not assume for one minute that it was a member of the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community. These extraordinary statements are entrenched in a lot of the narratives and debates and discussions we have had over the last couple of months leading up to the police Bill and debates on it in Parliament. It has been quite horrific to hear some of the dreadful instances of racism and bigotry that our Gypsy, Traveller and Roma communities face.

That is not to say that things are in any way perfect in Scotland, in terms of reflection, but there has been an opportunity to learn and to move forward. That is for all parties, I have to say, and not only in the Scottish Parliament; before the break-up of the last Session of the Holyrood Parliament, my colleagues in local government, through the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, co-signed Scotland’s national plan for the Gypsy and Traveller community. That was signed by my colleagues, the Minister the Minister for Older People and Equalities, Christina McKelvie, and Councillor Kelly Parry of COSLA. The aim has been to secure political support across all parties so that they work together to improve the lives of Scotland’s Gypsies and Travellers; and to formally recognise the right to travel.

There has been a commitment to finding ways to map and, where possible, reopen traditional and, as I often say, ancient stopping places across the nation of Scotland, used since at least the 12th century. The Scottish Government and COSLA, representing all parties, announced a shared commitment with Police Scotland to work together to challenge discrimination and promote equality for Gypsies and Travellers—people who have been economically, socially and politically excluded from our country. That has been brought forward with a package of investment—up to £20 million, announced through the action plan—and critically for the issue of housing, they are linking it to Scotland’s national housing strategy, to ensure that Gypsy and Traveller communities, whether living on official or new sites or in their nomadic lifestyles, have access to that investment.

We have even recently seen here in Scotland some rather unfortunate terminology from the UK Government’s party and the way in which some of its members have utilised the debate to marginalise, yet again, the Gypsy and Traveller community in Scotland. I am glad that no one else here is participating in the use of that type of language.

Will the Minister consider that this may be an opportune time to reflect on what is happening in Scotland? I am referring to the right-to-roam legislation and the working with the Gypsy and Traveller community. As Members from across England have already mentioned, there is a requirement not only to invest in existing sites, but to open up England’s ancient and historic Traveller sites, which are as much a part of England’s heritage as any other element of it. It is very important, I think, that that should be done. Will the Minister recognise the recommendation not to criminalise trespass? Because of the existing legislation, police forces across not only England but Wales and Scotland say that there is no need for new legislation.

There is also a requirement to understand infrastructure. I happen to be the Member of Parliament for West Dunbartonshire, in which are found the national park headquarters for Loch Lomond and the Trossachs. I am afraid we have to say that the vast majority of trespass, vandalism and the lighting of fires has never traditionally been by the Traveller or Gypsy community; it has been by those of us who went out and utilised that lovely part of the world. Through the right to roam and working with people, working with communities, the national park as a body has reduced those elements: fires, litter and antisocial behaviour. It has done so by ensuring that we work together. I hope that the Government and the Minister will reflect on the lived experiences and also the policy experiences across these islands, and I look forward to hearing their answers.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

I call the shadow Minister, Sarah Jones.

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Monday 8th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

I do not agree with that. As I have said already, we have closely consulted Public Health England throughout this episode. The use of accommodation of this kind is appropriate and suitable. We need to have regard to a range of factors, including value for money. We have had to use a large number of hotels to accommodate people during the coronavirus pandemic and they do not represent particularly good value for money. Barrack-type accommodation is not only suitable but a great deal cheaper than hotels. We all owe the general taxpayer a duty to ensure value for money and the Government make no apology for that.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of covid-19 health measures at the UK border.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster) [V]]

Throughout the pandemic we have kept our border measures under constant review, including through regular liaison with the devolved Administrations, given their responsibilities in this policy area. On 27 January, the UK Government announced further action for outbound and inbound passengers to minimise travel across international borders and reduce the risk of covid-19 transmission.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes [V]]

I am sure I am not the only person on these islands who has been left to wonder why the party that has spent so much of the past five years talking about taking back control of borders seemed to completely fluff the opportunity to do so when there would have been almost unanimous support in the House. Will the Minister advise the House what defence the Prime Minister previously offered to the Cabinet for not closing the border on the Home Secretary’s advice?

[Kevin Foster]

Given the overall positive engagement that we have had with the Scottish Government in this policy area, it is disappointing to hear the tone of the hon. Gentleman’s question. In deciding on border measures, the UK Government must take into account a number of factors, including the rather obvious need to keep open key supply lines across the short straits, and routes to and from the Republic of Ireland.

To give some background, since the health measures came in we have conducted more than 3.7 million spot checks of passengers arriving at the border, as part of the new testing requirements, carriers are required to check test results, and a fine of up to £4,000 in England and Northern Ireland and £960 in Scotland and Wales can be levied on passengers who fail to comply with the requirements.

Online Homophobia

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Monday 1st July 2019 Westminster Hall

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Walker, and to follow so many eloquent speeches. I thank the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for introducing the debate and for the way in which they placed it. I hope Bobby will understand—he is no longer in the Public Gallery, I think—that, as an honorary Essex boy, having studied at the University of Essex for three years, I commend him for all the work he has done.

As has been mentioned, the intrinsic nature of homophobia—whether in the real world or the unreal world—is bullying. It is a bully that does not show its face, and is often ignorant of the reality and the impact of that type of discourse. Plenty of people engage in this type of discourse, which is based on a falsehood, evidenced by hate, which allows them a veneer of respectability; there are those of us who believe we see it even in this place on a regular basis.

Therefore, why should the digital age be less full of hate than the previous age? Since the dawn of time, the LGBT community has faced unfounded and pernicious discrimination. As an openly gay man, I am very much aware of it; I was born into a world in which homosexuality was illegal. I hope the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) will forgive me if I mention that the legal systems of the United Kingdom meant that, in Scotland, homosexuality was not decriminalised until 1980—when I was nine years old—and that in Northern Ireland, it was not decriminalised until 1982.

Notions of who we should be, and the dictation of what we are meant to conform to, are so often what underlines hate. The transfer of hate from the real world to the unreal world should come as no surprise. This debate is taking place on 1 July, so we have come to the end of Pride celebrations in June specifically—I know a Pride march is coming up in London at the end of the week. That should remind us, especially those of us in the LGBT community, about the real nature of Pride, which is activism and solidarity. We must now seek to transfer that traditional method of activism and solidarity to the unreal world, where we really need to challenge these things.

This is a situation in which neither politics, religion nor society is free. As I mentioned during a debate on the Floor of the House last week, I am especially grateful that the Bishops’ Conference of Scotland has signed up to the Time for Inclusive Education campaign. It has stated that no child in state-funded Catholic schools in Scotland should leave school having been bullied because they are gay, whether in the real world or—as I have said—the unreal world. I use the terminology “unreal world” because online is not real; the words are real, and the hate is real, but it is a world that is controlled in a very different way.

We need to be clear that online homophobia crosses over to the political sphere—a place in which it has always found fertile ground, whether on the far right or the extreme far left. Earlier, we heard mention of the LGBTQ community in Russia, which suffers more from the onslaught of online hate transferring into physical hate. We also heard about Chechnya, and we can only imagine the trauma caused to the LGBT community there. However, let us not assume that social or liberal democracy is free from homophobia; how many political debates in this place have been infused by it, across both the right and the left? No political party, including my own, can claim a clear conscience about the history of homophobia. As of today, I am sure I will start to get a hell of a lot more of it; I actually do not get that much, but I believe that is about to change. I have actually told my team who deal with online communications for my office to expect it, because it is something they have never really had to deal with.

I am especially grateful to my 256 constituents in West Dunbartonshire who signed the petition. I also note the actions—I have to say this, because a lot of the elements mentioned today are devolved—of the Scottish Government and Members of the Scottish Parliament in light of the Lord Bracadale review of hate crime legislation in Scotland, which reported in May 2018. It has been noted that crimes against LGBTQ people in Scotland have risen, and, in an ever-changing world, there is no place for complacency. The Scottish Government’s consultation on hate crime aims to ensure that the legislation is fit for the 21st century and that Scotland, like the rest of the UK, has laws that remain focused on protecting its citizens from all hate crime, in either the real or the unreal world and across myriad platforms.

We have heard mention of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and so on, but what we have not heard about is mass data storage. Large conglomerates own the physical data, strewn across the globe; some would think of Google and so on, but, more importantly, there are organisations such as Amazon, which owns that data through Amazon Web Services, commonly known as AWS. It is hate data, and there can be no doubt that such private companies are aware of the online hate that they physically own. They must be challenged about their custodianship of such hate-filled data. To exclude them from this debate is to ignore the word “online” in the title of the petition, and to ignore how hate-filled data dominates our lives today.

Before I conclude, I will pay tribute to some of my colleagues who cannot join us today, who come from what is proportionately the largest LGBT group of parliamentarians in the House of Commons. In this very room, my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) has articulated, boldly and publicly, the vile and pernicious abuse that she receives on a regular basis, both for being lesbian and for being a woman. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) receives pernicious, continuous online abuse because he happens to be a gay man. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) receives abuse because she is a lesbian, a woman and of Irish Catholic background.

In conclusion, we must continue to challenge at every opportunity the normalisation of hate, whether in the real world or the non-real world. We must ensure that there is a call to arms for my constituents and for anyone who may be watching in Scotland to participate in the Scottish Government’s consultation, which is now in Holyrood. We must combat the monopoly of data ownership—I hope the Minister can say something about this—by stating that the conglomerates must come to the table, talk to Governments and be held to account for the data they physically own. Finally, I congratulate those who have campaigned for this petition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

I absolutely understand the hon. Lady’s impatience with the timetable. I think I am correct in saying that she was in government herself when some of the legislation we are looking at came into force. I remember the 1997 Act coming into force when I was a practitioner trying to make sure that that law was applied in the criminal courts. I appreciate that my answer will not satisfy the people who have contributed to the petition, but we have to get this matter right. We have asked the Law Commission to look at the issue because it is a very complicated area of law. The hon. Lady will know—this draws me on to the second review—about the debate on whether misogyny should be listed as a hate crime. In this Chamber almost a year ago I was open to the concept or the idea that that form of hatred, particularly, as has been said, the intersectionality with homophobia, biphobia and transphobia, should be looked at carefully to ensure there are no unintended consequences of any legislation that we bring to this House in future. We must get it right. As has been noted in the debate, the ways in which people of ill intent target the people to whom they wish to be hateful shows that we need to be considered, thoughtful and careful in the way in which we approach it.

The second review that we are conducting is a full review of hate crime legislation. As I have said, we are looking at the coverage and approach of the current hate crime laws, including whether misogyny should form part of it, to ensure that the legislation continues to protect the existing characteristics covered, but also whether we need to update the law in this really important area, given all the factors that have been raised in the debate, to ensure that the law reflects the lived experience of our fellow residents.

The petition raises questions not only about our criminal laws, but about how we stay safe and are kept safe online, which is one of the biggest debates of our time. The challenges presented by the internet—the wild west, as it has been described—along with the freedoms that it brings about have to be carefully balanced.

We are clear that we want the United Kingdom to be the safest place in the world for everybody to be online. That is why the Government published the “Online Harms” White Paper in April. Through it, we plan to make technology companies more responsible for their users’ safety, including through a new statutory duty of care, which will be overseen by an independent regulator. The White Paper sets out plans to hold companies to account for tackling a comprehensive set of online harms, from which we will expect technology companies to take reasonable steps to protect their users.

[Geraint Davies in the Chair]

We have said that technology companies must do more, and they need not wait for the legislation following the White Paper to do so. The platforms must have clear and accessible terms and conditions about what is and is not acceptable behaviour, and they need to enforce them in a fair and consistent manner.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

Other than the platforms, what about those who own the data and own the servers?

Oral Answers to Questions

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Monday 10th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hurd]

I have had those conversations with the Met Commissioner because I have heard exactly the same thing from members of the serious violence taskforce and officers on the beat in my own constituency. It is clear to us that mobility—the ability to work on the move without having to go back to the station to fill in reports—is critical to improving police productivity, so we must make sure we get the technology right.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

What was not known during the Huawei furore was that it was a leading pioneer of facial recognition technology distinguishing between Han and Uighur citizens within the Chinese republic. Are the Government seeking to use this technology as a solution on the British border on the isle of Ireland?

[Mr Hurd]

I will not get drawn into that. It is our responsibility as a Government and a Parliament to support the police in pushing the frontiers of what technology can do in law enforcement, but I come back to this fundamental point: we have to take the public with us, and that means the regulatory environment has to be fit for purpose.

Draft Law Enforcement and Security (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2019 General Committees

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I want to make it clear that the Opposition do not oppose these regulations or the aim of having a functioning statute book without prejudicing the outcome of the negotiations. I will, however, make a number of observations on the regulations and on the wider security position with regard to our exit from the European Union. I hope that the Minister will be able to comment on them.

The UK participates in about 40 European Union measures that are meant to enhance security, law enforcement and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. They are very important tools, as is our participation in security-related EU regulatory systems. As the Minister has set out, the regulations essentially do three things. First, they seek to revoke or amend retained EU law that is directly applicable to our current domestic legislation. Secondly, they try to deal with a situation in which we would have a live case that has not been completed at the point of exit. That is a particular concern with regard to data: what would be the status of data that we held without a legal means to continue to hold it?

Thirdly, there is the issue of extradition. The Minister has referred to the 1957 Council of Europe convention on extradition, which, according to the explanatory memorandum accompanying the regulations, would be used

“in lieu of the European Arrest Warrant”,

but this is undoubtedly a far more limited measure than the European arrest warrant. It is clear from part 14 of the instrument that the UK and the EU would allow EU extradition requests from other member states in lieu of the European arrest warrant.

Paragraph 3 of article 2 of the convention itself states:

“Any Contracting Party whose law does not allow extradition for certain of the offences referred to in paragraph 1 of this article may, in so far as it is concerned, exclude such offences from the application of this Convention.”

In other words, an EU member state is required to surrender a wanted individual only if there is dual criminality across the two jurisdictions. That would be an important restriction on the regulations, and I would like confirmation that the Home Office is seized of it and an explanation of what it would do to plug that gap.

The Government’s own advice, as set out in the explanatory memorandum, states:

“In 2017/18, the UK arrested over 1,400 individuals on the basis of European Arrest Warrants…issued by the other 27 EU Member States. In the same period, EU Member States arrested 183 individuals on the basis of EAWs issued by the UK.”

It is a very important tool, and there will be practical consequences if the necessary measures are not in place.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

We will not vote against these regulations, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that they do not replace the fundamentally important European arrest warrant? The warrant has assisted constituents of mine, including the family of Lisa Brown in the Vale of Leven. Her mother was buried only last week, and Lisa is missing and presumed to have been murdered by a UK national. We used a European arrest warrant to get him from Denmark to Spain.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, who is absolutely right. Although the Opposition do not oppose the narrowness of the regulations, there is a whole host of wider issues relating to security capacity. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the importance of the European arrest warrant mechanism, which has clearly been very important in the situation to which he referred. There is real concern about the potential state of uncertainty, and we need clarity about the impact of different outcomes on our security.

On “The Andrew Marr Show” on 3 February, the Home Secretary refused to dispute claims made by Sir John Sawers, the former head of MI6, that

“the harder the Brexit, the greater the damage,”

and by Neil Basu, the head of counter-terrorism policing at the Metropolitan police, that a no-deal Brexit would be

“a very serious flaw in our security arrangements.”

When pressed, the Home Secretary conceded only that there would be “a change in capability” and that

“most of these capabilities were only relevant for us from 2015 onwards.”

Yet it is clear, even from these regulations, that there is a loss of access to databases. I will come back to that issue.

There is lack of clarity in both the regulations and the explanatory memorandum, which states:

“The practical impact of a ‘no-deal’ exit on security, law enforcement and criminal justice cooperation with EU Member States is outside the scope of the provisions found in this instrument.”

That may be technically correct, but the Government need to set out what they plan to do to at least maintain our security capacity through co-operation with the EU27, and how they propose to build on it. I have read the Government’s assessment of the security partnership. It is a list of ambitions, but there is very little in the way of practical proposals to achieve them.

Quick access to information and co-ordinated work across borders is vital to our security, and there is a Europe-wide interest in working together to keep all our peoples safe. In their negotiations thus far, the Government have failed to get the Schengen information system—SIS II—and the European criminal record information system included in the political declaration. As I have indicated, this instrument would actually revoke access to databases such as Prüm and SIS II.

Similarly, the Government’s current promise to

“establish effective arrangements based on streamlined procedures and time limits”

is insufficient for the UK to maintain the benefits of the European arrest warrant. As I have said, reliance on the 1957 Council of Europe convention on extradition will not have the same effect, because it does not have the same capacity as the European arrest warrant.

Similarly, the Government have not identified exactly what our crucial relationship with Europol and Eurojust will be. To say that they are still working on the terms of co-operation is not good enough—it is nearly three years since the 2016 referendum.

Although the Opposition do not oppose the narrow measures in these regulations to have a functioning statute book on exit day, the Government have to focus on the vital issue of security co-operation and come up with workable solutions to maintain that level of co-operation, rather than allow that capability to be diminished.

Migrant Crossings

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

I can tell my hon. Friend that much cross-governmental action is being taken, especially by the Department for International Development, to tackle some of the root causes of the increase in migration that we have been seeing across Europe. Central to that is the help for Syria and, more broadly, the middle east and parts of north Africa. As I have said, the United Kingdom has provided nearly £3 billion of humanitarian funding, which makes it the largest single donor to the region. We are helping with infrastructure and education, and providing other types of humanitarian support to try to prevent people from undertaking these dangerous journeys and working with people smugglers in the first place.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Deputy Speaker. A happy new year to you.

The Home Secretary has not been shy in trying to make their mark over the Christmas recess. Before the announcement of this migration emergency, they made headlines by commenting on the Government’s intention of protecting the rights of persecuted Christians abroad. Many of those who are now taking to the boats and are in peril on the sea appear to be Christians from Iran. Does the Home Secretary see no contradiction between a commitment to protect those persecuted Christians abroad and telling them that there is no room at the inn in the UK?

[Sajid Javid]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has been listening to what I have said about the Government’s policy. We will continue to assess each application, but it is a widely accepted principle that those who are fleeing persecution should claim asylum in the first safe country in which they arrive.

UK Entry Visas

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Monday 19th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Patrick Grady]

Absolutely, and I will have some examples from my constituency in a couple of moments.

In the debate in June 2016 I listed example after example of delays and denials experienced by members of the Scotland Malawi Partnership. I declare an interest, because the partnership provides pro bono secretariat support to the all-party parliamentary group on Malawi, which I chair. The Minister may also know that in February, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) had to raise an urgent case at business questions, because just days before they were due to fly to Scotland a group of Malawian schoolchildren and priests had been denied visas, which they had been assured would be granted, risking thousands of pounds that pupils and families in Scotland had raised to bring them over.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

On that point about members of religious faiths, in West Dunbartonshire we have St Margaret of Scotland hospice, run by the Sisters of Charity, who have hospices across the entirety of the UK from Hackney to my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that the problems facing us are affecting not only people of religious faith, such as them, but those in hospices across the UK trying to deliver social work, palliative care and frontline services?

[Patrick Grady]

Absolutely, and I would have thought that if anyone was going to honour their visa requirement to come here for a short period and then go back to their country of origin, it would be members of religious orders whose vows of obedience and stability mean that they need to remain where they are based.

Departments at the University of Glasgow frequently encounter difficulties in bringing over visiting academics. Last year, the Home Office denied a UK entry visa to Dr Nazmi al-Masri, the vice-president for external relations at the Islamic University of Gaza, despite the fact that he had a 30-year history of entering and returning from the United Kingdom, and that he was due to travel to support research programmes funded by the UK Government’s own research councils. The situation is perverse and the list goes on.

Examples emerge from all around the world on a weekly and sometimes daily basis. No fewer than 17 researchers were reported as being unable to attend the Women Leaders in Global Health Conference hosted by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine last week, which the organisers said was tantamount to discrimination and bad for science research in the UK, and means that they may have to consider hosting events overseas in the future. Pioneering anti-poaching female rangers from Zimbabwe were denied entry to collect humanitarian awards on 3 November. The Syrian journalist Humam Husari was granted entry, again to collect an award, only after high-profile complaints. Here in Parliament, on a weekly if not daily basis, events I have been to recently hosted by the Industry and Parliament Trust and various all-party groups all have similar stories which are heard frankly with embarrassment and cringing by the UK-based participants.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Immigration (Caroline Nokes)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) on securing this debate on UK entry visas.

We all know that the United Kingdom is an attractive destination for legitimate travel, and the Government are determined that it stay that way. We want people to come here on holiday, to do business, to visit family, and our immigration system contributes to the prosperity of the UK. We are also keen to ensure that the UK continues to attract the world’s brightest, most talented and most innovative people once we leave the EU. We will continue to be a global, outward-looking nation that is home to the best talent in the world, and our immigration system is fundamental to delivering that ambition. For example, the UK is a global leader in attracting international students, and our student offer is already one of the best on the global market.

That said, we recognise the need for an adaptive immigration system to meet the UK’s needs as we leave the EU. As such, we are designing a future borders and immigration system that will incorporate recommendations made by the Migration Advisory Committee, and we plan to publish further details in the autumn. The Government also have a duty to keep citizens safe and the country secure, and our visa requirements are one of the effective means we have in this regard. They are a valuable tool for the UK in reducing illegal immigration, tackling organised crime, protecting national security and safeguarding vulnerable people.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes]

On the point about safeguarding, how many nuns, monks and priests have absconded in the last 18 months?

[Caroline Nokes]

I am sure it will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to learn that I do not have those precise figures to hand, but the Home Office is working closely, and will continue to work closely, with the all-party group led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) on this precise subject, because it has raised concern across the House.

Everyone entering the UK has to meet the same set of entry clearance requirements. Some nationals of non-EEA countries need a visa to come to the UK; others must demonstrate that they meet our entry clearance requirements on arrival at the border. All applications are assessed on a case-by-case basis, according to their individual merits and against the part of the immigration rules that relates to why someone is coming to the UK. Many categories of temporary migration, such as students or those coming to work in the UK, are required to obtain an entry clearance before coming, regardless of their nationality. This allows assessments to be made before someone travels.

I am committed to ensuring that the UK visa service is high performing, customer focused and continually improving, in terms of both products available and the route for application, and there is always room to improve as we respond to evolving demands and requirements, harness new technology and reflect customer experiences and needs. Globally, our international network of over 300 visa application centres manages applications from customers from over 200 countries. In the year to June 2018, 2.7 million visas were issued, and 96% of non-settlement applications were processed within 15 days.

The UK offers a priority visa service that sees applications normally processed within five days in nearly 200 locations. The UK is also the only country to offer a 24-hour service in China and a same-day service in India. Access UK, a new online application service, has been successfully rolled out to visit visa customers in over 200 countries and 19 different languages. This new system means a faster, more streamlined and increasingly automated application process for customers.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North mentioned the creative industries. Of course, that sector is a major cultural and economic success story for the UK. It is a high-value, high-growth sector worth £91.8 billion to the UK economy in 2016. The Government as a whole are committed to supporting and promoting a thriving live music industry and ensuring the continued growth of a vital and vibrant sector. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the UK continues to welcome artists and musicians who come here to perform. They make an important contribution to our creative sector, which is a major cultural and economic success story. The Home Office is working with the sector and with the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to better understand the needs of the creative industries, clarify visa requirements, and ensure that processes are as smooth as possible.

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

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

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

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) on introducing this tremendously important Bill. I want to focus on the issue of domestic violence in relation to women with disabilities.

The comprehensive nature of the Istanbul convention is welcome. The convention requires states to take all necessary measures to protect all victims from any further acts of violence, which means properly funded support through refuges, health and social care, legal and psychological counselling, financial assistance, housing, education, training, and assistance in finding employment. In cases of domestic violence, access to specialist services is vital, but according to the charity Women’s Aid there has been a reduction of more than 200 in the number of bed spaces in refuges in England over the past four years. The current estimate is 3,639, but the estimated capacity requirement is at least 5,000. The charity also reports that local authority commissioners frequently favour non-specialist, generic providers who may not give survivors the expert support that they need.

The need for specialist services is particularly acute in the case of disabled women, who are, by definition, more vulnerable and may face greater challenges in seeking help. It has been estimated that they are twice as likely to experience domestic violence as non-disabled women, which is a shocking statistic. Disabled women are also likely to experience abuse over a longer period and to suffer more severe injuries as a result of the violence, often because of the difficulty of escaping and finding alternative accommodation. It is likely that both the overall rates of domestic abuse and the rates of domestic abuse experienced by disabled people are much higher than reported. Generally, studies have shown that the risk factors are lower educational attainment, unemployment and poverty, but we also know that domestic abuse is suffered by people of all genders and classes.

Domestic violence is caused by one person’s desire to exert power and control over a partner. Disabled people are likely to be more physically vulnerable to abuse, and less able to protect themselves. Abusers can include carers, whether they are partners, family members or paid carers, and the disability or impairment is often exploited by the abuser. Domestic abuse of a disabled person can take specific forms. For instance, a partner may withhold vital care, medication or food, or remove or damage equipment such as sensory or mobility aids in order to limit the person’s independence. If someone has a visual impairment or mobility problems, a partner may create obstacles around the home. The abuser may claim disability benefits on the person’s behalf, and then limit her access to funds. The abuser may also use her disability to criticise or humiliate her, or threaten to tell social services that she is not fit to live alone.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

The hon. Lady has raised a crucial point about people controlling finances. Members who support the Bill will be specifically supporting disabled women who require protection from the social and economic impact of domestic abuse.

[Margaret Greenwood]

That is indeed an important issue.

It can be much more difficult for those who are disabled to communicate what they are suffering, and also to escape from their abusers. People with severe sensory, cognitive or communication impairments or mental health issues may have particular difficultly in communicating that they have been abused. Disabled people may be more socially isolated as a result of their disabilities, and more dependent on their partners or other carers. That, of course, often includes older people. When a partner is her carer, a disabled woman may have fewer chances to attend medical or other appointments alone, and may therefore have fewer opportunities to tell someone in confidence about the abuse. The Government have allocated funding for early intervention in cases of domestic abuse, but in the case of disabled people it is important to recognise that it may be especially difficult for someone to come forward and report abuse for practical reasons, or for the abuse to come to light at an early stage.

Some disabled women may feel particularly nervous about leaving their partner if they have had special adaptations made to their home. They may also worry about who will care for them if they move away, or about a change to their care package in a new area that could leave them with less support. Women with disabled children may also be hesitant in seeking help, because of concerns about the child’s healthcare and the emotional impact that leaving their home may have on the child.

That is why it is important that funding is not cut for domestic refuges by capping local housing allowances for people who use them. After leaving refuge providers in great uncertainty while carrying out a prolonged review, the Government have at last announced that refuges will be exempt from the local housing allowance cap on housing benefit rates for those in social housing until 2019, when the new funding model will be introduced. I urge the Government to work closely with specialist providers such as Refuge and Women’s Aid to design the system that will be introduced after 2019; to give particular attention to the needs of disabled women; and to ratify the Istanbul convention.

Rights of EU Nationals

Martin Docherty-Hughes Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Walker]

We should not be trying to create an atmosphere of fear. We should set out the reassurances I have given and will continue to give.

In conclusion, EU nationals can have the Government’s complete reassurance that there is no immediate change to their right to enter, work, study and live in the UK as a result of the EU referendum. I reassure EU citizens in Scotland and up and down the country generally that we recognise the enormous contribution they make to our economy, our health service, our schools, our care sector and our communities. We will act fairly towards them as we expect other EU countries to act fairly to our citizens living there.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

rose—

[Mr Walker]

I will not give way again.

We have heard from all parts of the UK and all sides of the referendum debate today, and as we move forward we must seek to bring the whole country together. Given that the UK and the EU would like to maintain a close and friendly relationship, the Government are confident that we will work together and that EU and British citizens will be protected through a reciprocal agreement. Because this motion fails to acknowledge that, and because of its technical failings which were pointed out by my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration, my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) and my hon. Friends the Members for Braintree and for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double), I urge Members on both sides of the House to reject it.

Question put.