UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Gavin Newlands

  • Gavin Newlands – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Trade Policy and Food Prices

    Gavin Newlands – 2022 Parliamentary Question on Trade Policy and Food Prices

    The parliamentary question asked by Gavin Newlands, the SNP MP for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, in the House of Commons on 15 December 2022.

    Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)

    What assessment she has made of the impact of her Department’s trade policies on UK food prices.

    The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)

    The UK’s trade policy works to increase access to good quality, good value food from around the world. For example, our recent free trade agreements with Australia and New Zealand reduce or remove tariffs on the vast majority of goods, which could help to lower prices. However, there are many factors which contribute to UK food prices and the precise impact of each is uncertain. Beyond immediate price changes, security of global food supply is essential to guarantee the availability and affordability of UK food in the long term.

    Gavin Newlands

    That is all well and good, but a new report from the UK in a Changing Europe think tank has said that new trade barriers as a result of Brexit have caused a 6% increase in food prices in the UK. Asked why food prices are rising, the former chief executive officer of Sainsburys, Justin King, answered “Brexit”, and this month a Bank of England policy maker went on the record to say that,

    “Brexit has fuelled a surge in UK food prices”.

    Does the Minister agree that staying in the EU kept food prices low and that independence and the European Union would keep prices down?

    Greg Hands

    I am always interested when the hon. Gentleman cites various reports, many of which I have of course read and studied closely, but I like to return to the facts. I checked beforehand, because I thought he might raise this. He is right that food price inflation is a real concern, and yesterday’s inflation data showed that food prices are still rising even though overall inflation is falling, which will cause difficulties for many countries across this country. However, the premise of his question is not quite right: in the UK, the most recent data available shows that food and non-alcoholic beverage prices rose by 16.4%, whereas in the EU27, for the same period, they rose by more—17.3%.

    Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)

    In this House I have been a champion for promoting the availability of affordable, healthy and nutritious food to those from all regions of the UK and all backgrounds. Families are feeling the cost of living pressures, as evidenced by research from the British Retail Consortium, which recorded a record high 12.5% inflation in UK food prices in November. What assurances can my right hon. Friend give me that he is doing everything in his power through his trade negotiations to mitigate the effect of food price inflation on ordinary working families?

    Greg Hands

    I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She is right to raise, as I did just a moment ago, the importance of this issue to families up and down the country, including in Stoke-on-Trent. The Government have comprehensive measures in place to support families through this winter, including council tax discounts, and energy and further help. On food and trade policy, ensuring that we remain committed to free trade, and that we have diverse sources of supply, is essential. We must ensure that Britain remains open for food exporters to come to the UK and help to keep prices down, as well as recognising the vital job done by our own domestic agriculture and food production sectors.

  • Gavin Newlands – 2022 Speech on Scotland’s Future

    Gavin Newlands – 2022 Speech on Scotland’s Future

    The speech made by Gavin Newlands, the SNP MP for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, in the House of Commons on 14 December 2022.

    I start by saying that I envy my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman)—in fact, I am right jealous—because she gets to sum up today’s debate following the speeches from the Government and Labour Front Benches. Holy moly, talk about fantasy stuff. It is quite incredible. They would have been hilarious, were the matter not so serious, getting to the heart of democracy in this precious Union of ours.

    I have recently been rereading Ian Hamilton’s books on his mission to liberate the Stone of Destiny, and on his incredible life before and after the event that was to make him a household name across Scotland and, for a time, the Met police’s most wanted person. Ian was many things—an incredible intellect, a top-tier advocate and a political one-off—but what comes through again and again in his writing and character is his unshakeable belief in the people of Scotland. It was not about whether they should choose self-government, although he continually argued that they should, but about his absolute conviction, rooted in his very soul, that no one had the right to stand in the way of their choice if it was arrived at fairly and democratically.

    That should be a completely apolitical and unremarked upon state of affairs, and it reflects appallingly on the two major UK parties that they have turned a matter of basic democracy and decency into a constitutional bunfight. Indeed, prior to the 2014 independence referendum, the SNP and the main Unionist parties all agreed the following joint statement:

    “Power lies with the Scottish people and we believe it is for the Scottish people to decide how we are governed.”

    That is not a new concept. Many, or at least some, Conservative Members may have grown up with a poster of Maggie Thatcher on their bedroom walls. She said, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) recalled, of the Scots:

    “As a nation, they have an undoubted right to national self-determination… Should they determine on independence no English party or politician would stand in their way.”

    Brendan O’Hara

    My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, and I thank him for bringing up my late constituent Ian Hamilton, a wonderful man. He is talking about the change of heart from 2011 to now. Would he care to speculate as to why that change of heart has taken place? What possibly could have occurred in those intervening 10 years to make that change of heart so dramatic?

    Gavin Newlands

    I appreciate my hon. Friend’s intervention, but I have to say he has got me stumped. I have no clue—no clue whatsoever. I could hazard a guess. It might be because they are feart: the Conservatives are now feart that they would lose the referendum. It is now five polls in a row that show support for Scottish independence.

    Mrs Thatcher’ successor, John Major, said of Scotland that

    “no nation could be held irrevocably in a Union against its will”.

    David Cameron said:

    “I felt, as the prime minister of the UK, I had a choice. I could either say to them”—

    “them” being Scotland—

    “‘well you can’t have your referendum, it is for us to decide whether you should have one.’”

    He went on to say:

    “So I did what I thought was the right thing, which was to say ‘you voted for a party that wants independence, you should have a referendum that is legal, that is decisive and that is fair.’”

    The former Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale said:

    “If the people of Scotland ultimately determine they want to have another independence referendum, then there will be one…Could there be another referendum? The answer to that question is yes.”

    The UK has had literally hundreds of referendums over decades. Many like to pretend that they still live in the age of Bagehot and Dicey, when this place could legislate to turn the sky pink and theoretically change the laws of physics, but the simple fact is that popular democracy is not a novelty; nor has it unleashed anarchy in the land. We have had referendums in the UK to solve internal disputes in the Labour party—in the days when Harold Wilson knew some things about heading a broad church that should be studied by the current Leader of the Opposition.

    We are still picking up the pieces of the last referendum, which many say was designed as a manifesto commitment by a Prime Minister to silence his Back-Bench awkward squad of arch-Brexiteers and hopefully to trade off in a coalition negotiation with the Lib Dems. That entirely self-created time bomb went off, as did that Prime Minister, in the entirely accurate words of Danny Dyer, “with his trotters up” while the rest of us count the cost. We even had a referendum to keep the Lib Dems happy, which—surprisingly for the Lib Dems—did not.

    Back in 2017, the current Prime Minister said:

    “It seems hard to block a”—

    second—

    “referendum but we should push the timing until after Brexit so the choice is clearer for people.”

    He also described the Union as being “there by consent” and said that it exists democratically and voluntarily. When asked many times in recent weeks, however, he has been signally unable to tell us how that is the case. How can it be democratic or voluntary when Scots continually give the SNP and our partners an electoral mandate to seek an independence referendum, only to have that denied time after time?

    Peter Grant

    We have heard a lot about mandates recently. Clearly, as my hon. Friend mentioned, in 2021, the pro-independence parties got more than 50% of the vote on the list vote, which is when people vote for a party rather than candidates. Does he recall that the party that told us that voting for it in the list vote was the only way to stop an independence referendum managed to get 23.5% of the vote on that occasion? Does he think that there is a lesson there about respecting mandates that the Conservative party perhaps should be listening to?

    Gavin Newlands

    I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. He will probably recall, as I do, that not just in that election, but in every election, whether it was for the Scottish Parliament, councils or Westminster, every single leaflet that the Scottish Conservatives put out was about saying “no” to indyref2. That was essentially their only policy in every election, whether it was relevant to that election or not, and they have been soundly defeated every time. Given that the Prime Minister could not tell us, perhaps the Minister or indeed the shadow Secretary of State can explain to us how Scotland or Wales can leave this voluntary Union. What is the route map to democracy? How can we get it?

    John Lamont

    I do not know where the hon. Member has been, but if he had cared to listen to my opening speech, he would have heard that I made clear the mechanism by which there could be a second referendum. We experienced it in 2011 when there was consensus between both Parliaments, civic Scotland and all the political parties. That consensus is not currently here.

    Gavin Newlands

    To be clear then—the Minister can intervene again if I am wrong—everything else is in place, essentially. If we look at the situation in Scotland, the votes in the last 2021 Parliament are in place, as is the role of civic Scotland. The only bit that is missing is the consensus of this Government and this Parliament. Is that correct? Perhaps he will confirm that that is the case when he sums up. You are vetoing Scotland’s right to democracy.

    Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)

    Order. I am not vetoing anything and this is not a chat, so can the hon. Gentleman please continue with his speech?

    Gavin Newlands

    To be clear, Mr Deputy Speaker, you are not vetoing anything, but this Government certainly are.

    Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)

    My hon. Friend has exposed what we already knew, which is that the Government will not tell us what the route is because there is no route. In effect, they are vetoing it because we have had our democracy. Before he became the Prime Minister, the current Prime Minister said of the First Minister of Scotland that,

    “I want to take her on and win the argument on the union because I passionately believe in it”.

    Does my hon. Friend share my view that the Prime Minister has changed his mind on that, because he knows that it is an argument that he cannot win?

    Gavin Newlands

    Well, if he started the argument, he is doing a pretty good job, given that the independence polls have been so good for Yes. However, it would appear that he has now walked away from that, because he is feart: he is feart of the voice of the people of Scotland. The Minister shakes his head. Perhaps he will now allow an independence referendum, and allow that debate. If he is so sure and the Prime Minister is so sure, let us have that debate—but I see that he is unmoved.

    We expect nothing else from Conservative Members, but those in the Labour party—a party that owes its lineage to R.B. Cunninghame Graham and the home-rulers who founded it alongside Keir Hardie—who are still, at least publicly, keen to get the Better Together band back together are setting themselves up for a very graceless fall.

    The UK has seen referendums on congestion charging, licensed premises, water authorities, council tax rises, creating directly elected mayors, abolishing directly elected mayors, English regional devolution and neighbourhood plans, as well as a referendum on whether to hold another referendum. Yet we are told that the future of Scotland—the potential self-government of a country that dates back 1,000 years, and the restoration of our relationships with our international friends and allies—is a no-go area. The smallest parish council in England can hold a vote any time it pleases, but a national Government and Parliament elected yet again on a mandate to ask the people what they think are told that now is not the time.

    This has not been true of previous referendums and the parties who have called them, but there is no internal dispute in the SNP about independence. It is what we have stood for throughout our 88 years of existence. It is what we have stood for through good times and bad, from the days when saving our deposit in a single constituency was considered a triumph to more recent times. I was there, Mr Deputy Speaker. I may have been young, but I was there. It is the parties who have used referendums to solve their own self-created intramural conflicts who now stand in the way of the democratically expressed will of the Scottish electorate and the will of our democratically elected Parliament.

    Alan Brown

    Is it not strange that the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), who is vehemently opposed to Scotland having a referendum, was advocating referendums to allow fracking?

    Gavin Newlands

    I could not agree more. The double standards on the Conservative Benches are unbelievable.

    As has been already mentioned a few times by my hon. Friends and me, we have seen the polls shift quite strongly over recent weeks following the Supreme Court ruling, and, more pertinently in my view, the UK Government’s stubborn and shameful refusal to accept the democratic mandate of the Scottish Government. There have been five polls—I wrote “four” in my speech, but now it is five—with a significant lead for Yes, with utterly disastrous polling for the Conservatives in Scotland thrown in for good measure. I say this to the UK Government: change course now, so that when the inevitable happens and Scotland has its say, they have a sporting chance of making it a contest rather than being faced with the prospect of being the side that has nothing other than no to say to a country that wants to say yes.

  • Gavin Newlands – 2022 Speech on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women

    Gavin Newlands – 2022 Speech on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women

    The speech made by Gavin Newlands, the SNP MP for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 1 December 2022.

    It is a pleasure to follow the speech that the hon. Member for Bury North (James Daly) has just given. I congratulate the hon. Members for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) and for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) on securing this very important debate. It has become somewhat of a sad and serious tradition to mark the international day for the elimination of violence against women and girls in this place. I have been proud to speak in many of these debates.

    The hon. Member for Bristol South led off the debate powerfully and thoroughly. She started with an excellent point on the decision to host the World cup in Qatar, particularly as it runs over the 16 days of action. It is a shame that women and girls are not safe to walk their own streets.

    The hon. Member for Thurrock spoke powerfully about the fact that this violence is carried out by male perpetrators. Every day, women take decisions to affect their own safety. The hon. Lady said she would like to see more men in this debate and in general in these debates, and I agree.

    As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, the Members present today are consistent and proud supporters of the movement. The hon. Gentleman—the hon. Member for Westminster Hall, as I like to call him—spoke of the different ways in which perpetrators target their victims and, indeed, the persecution of Christian women and children, an issue he does a huge amount of work on.

    The right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) spoke of her middle-class privilege, but I think it is fair to say that it is all of our middle-class privilege, rather than just hers. She was so right to say that all victims are not equal.

    The hon. Member for Warrington North (Charlotte Nichols) spoke of a local police officer who told her that offences are up 76%. She rightly made the point that such horrendous stats are essentially the tip of the iceberg, with many women unwilling or, indeed, unable to report their abuse.

    The hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) set out his impressive bona fides as a very strong campaigner in this area. He added a very welcome international perspective to proceedings; some of his comments on the use of rape and sexual violence in conflict were particularly powerful.

    The hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) made the good point that, as she grew up, she hoped that the world would get better, but it is in fact less safe for her daughters walking the street. She spoke of her local Reclaim the Night march; I have attended my local Reclaim the Night march as well, but I was unable to attend this year as, sadly, it was on Tuesday of this week.

    The hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) was absolutely right to lay into the victim-blaming culture and to lay out the vast improvements in abuse legislation on both sides of the border but, as we have heard, all the legislation is for nothing without proper funding and enforcement.

    The right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) highlighted the Everyone’s Invited campaign, which works in schools. When I started working on the issue, I found the stats about abuse and violence against girls in schools to be the most shocking of all.

    Last, the hon. Member for Bury North finished with a powerful speech focusing on enforcement and the scandalous levels of charging and conviction. We can all agree that that is an issue on both sides of the border; there is no politics to be had on that particular issue.

    As others have said, there is an issue with the culture these days in social media. The management and ownership of certain social media companies is consuming a great deal of attention at the moment and I am sick to the back teeth of multibillion pound international companies hiding behind the curtain of free speech when we talk about online harms and the treatment of women and girls. Their version of free speech is the kind where rape threats and stalking are treated as minor misdemeanours, while posts about breastfeeding are deleted and users banned. The rampant misogyny that is allowed to spread almost entirely unchecked online is only getting worse since the takeover of Twitter by Elon Musk. It would be wrong to single out Elon Musk and his anti-woke agenda; all the social media companies are failing abysmally at sniffing out misogyny and are utterly disastrous at stamping it out. Together with the historically unprecedented ease with which young men and boys are able to access pornography—often violent pornography, as we have heard—we are seeing an utterly toxic environment unleashed on deeply impressionable minds.

    At this point, the Online Safety Bill looks likely to fall short of forcing the media giants to accept some responsibility for the bile and abuse hosted on their servers and from which, in one form or another, they improve their profit margins. If we want to change, build a better society and provide safety for women and girls, we cannot rely on the social media companies to challenge things. It falls to us as individuals, and as a society, to do things for ourselves—that is why campaigns such as White Ribbon UK are so important. Since being introduced to White Ribbon in late 2015, I have been proud to support the campaign; indeed, I chair the all-party parliamentary group on White Ribbon UK. It has been a journey of discovery for me, going from what I imagine is the case for most men—an awareness of the cruelty and sadism of which others are capable, without looking too deeply at the reasons and complexities—to wanting to drive change forward in my own community and across the country through my work in Westminster.

    I am proud to be a White Ribbon ambassador, along with thousands of men across Scotland and the UK. To support the campaign, we pledge to never commit, condone or remain silent about violence against women. It is on the condoning and remaining silent where we can make real change. We will all have experienced behaviour or language from men whom we encounter that runs contrary to values of respect and dignity toward women. Too often, those behaviours are not challenged; they are put down as banter or old-fashioned, and left to fester.

    I was pleased to host a coffee morning on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, bringing together those working to support survivors and community groups that work with men and boys in those communities. We were fortunate to hear from both Renfrewshire Women’s Aid and Jubilee House, a charity serving Renfrewshire and beyond, which I was lucky enough to visit recently. Its focus is on empowering families to live fulfilled lives, free from abuse, and pretty much anything that empowers women to live their best lives. I met Fiona from Jubilee House, who shared some of the great holistic support provided by the charity and emphasised the crucial importance of education and supporting women and children to recover and get on living once the initial emergency support has been provided.

    Some of the facts and stories were, as is unfortunately always the case at such events, utterly shocking. Violence against women and girls costs the Scottish Government alone £2.6 billion a year. Up to 10% of women will be victims of domestic violence in any given year, and, as we all know, more than 80% of domestic abuse incidents involve men abusing women. Marianne from Women’s Aid highlighted the financial challenges faced by women who are affected by domestic abuse, and told us of the new Cost of Leaving campaign. In the light of the cost of living crisis, the need to highlight such challenges has never been more urgent.

    Despite the horrific stats and narrative, that event was absolutely worth organising, and it is something that I want to do annually—well, for as long as I am in this place.

    Jim Shannon

    Hopefully for a long time!

    Gavin Newlands

    I know there is subtext to the hon. Gentleman’s intervention.

    I want to ensure that organisations in my constituency know that support and help is there for them if and when they want to start making change among the people they speak to daily. Young men have dozens of interactions with friends and family every day, and those friends and family members will have hundreds more. Some of those conversations will be about women and girls, and of those, some will perpetrate disrespect and disregard for the rights of women and girls. If we can turn just a fraction of those conversations into something to be challenged or objected to, we can make a start—just a start—on nipping the attitudes in the bud before they are allowed to fester and develop into something more serious five, 10, 15 or 20 years down the line. That does not mean letting grown men off the hook, but helping a developing mind along the right path is light-years easier than attempting to put the genie back in the bottle in adulthood.

    To conclude, I welcome the UK Government’s progress on ratification of the Istanbul convention, on which I have campaigned on for many years—indeed, an SNP colleague passed legislation on it—but the previous Secretary of State had reservations about ratifying it. I urge the Minister to speak to the Home Secretary and revisit the decision to opt out of articles 44 and 59, because migrants deserve the same protection as everyone else.

    Despite the progress that has been made in removing the taboo around domestic abuse, to some extent it is still society’s dirty little secret. The attitudes of misogyny and bigotry that ultimately lead down a path of gender-based violence are still there and are, in some cases, being allowed to grow unchecked. It is incumbent on us all, not just as MPs but as human beings, friends, fathers, mothers, sons and daughters, to bring that dirty secret out into the open and ensure that all of us—men and women—are fully aware of the carnage and horror that some of our ilk wreak on women and girls, because challenging those behaviours means knowing about them.

  • Gavin Newlands – 2022 Speech on Rail Cancellations

    Gavin Newlands – 2022 Speech on Rail Cancellations

    The speech made Gavin Newlands, the SNP spokesperson on rail, in the House of Commons on 1 December 2022.

    Over the past two days, TransPennine Express has managed to run a total of 42% of its timetabled cross-border services from Glasgow Central. That is from a timetable that was already slashed, as TPE struggled to provide even a basic service to passengers. Add to that the Avanti shambles and cross-border services are a disaster. It simply is not good enough, and there are real implications for the cross-border economy.

    Two separate industrial disputes involving ScotRail and the Scottish Government have been resolved this year, in contrast to the ongoing disputes across talks that have dragged on for months and are only now involving Government Ministers. The RMT’s general secretary Mick Lynch said yesterday:

    “In Scotland and Wales, RMT has settled similar disputes with the support of the governments there but where companies are controlled by the DfT, time is running out.”

    Previous Ministers have stood at the Dispatch Box and told us that disputes were for the talks and Network Rail to resolve, but clearly that stance is no longer fit for purpose. This Government are letting down Scotland and the north of England, and it is now well past time for rail to be fully devolved to Scotland. Will this welcome new and shiny team at the DFT meet me to discuss how we advance that?

    Huw Merriman

    This shiny rail Minister will always happily meet the hon. Member. I have always enjoyed working closely with him in our previous roles, so I am happy to discuss matters with him. He talks about the ministerial approach, and I think it should be put on the record. Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Transport travelled up to the north to meet the northern mayors to discuss these issues. We want to work collaboratively with all those who can influence change. The Secretary of State’s trip yesterday demonstrates that we do not just talk about it—we actually want to deliver on it, as well. Both the Secretary of State and I have talked of the need to reach some form of agreement. We have not used the language that might have been expected or heard in the past. We want to work closely. We have both met Mick Lynch and his counter at the Transport Salaried Staffs Association. I am due to meet again with Mick Lynch, the trade unions, the train operators and Network Rail, so that will be the employers and the trade unions, with a Minister in the room, not to negotiate, but to try to facilitate some form of end and to allow this change to come through. I will happily meet the hon. Gentleman and all across the piece so that we can make a difference and get this settled.

  • Gavin Newlands – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Gavin Newlands – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gavin Newlands on 2015-10-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many (a) large and (b) small businesses have been found to have employed illegal migrants between 2010 and 2015.

    James Brokenshire

    The Home Office does not hold information on the size of businesses found to have employed illegal migrant workers. I can inform you that between the financial years 2010-11 and 2014-15 a total of 8,632 civil penalties were issued to employers who employed illegal migrants. The same employer may have received more than one penalty during this period.

  • Gavin Newlands – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Gavin Newlands – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gavin Newlands on 2015-10-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment has been carried out of the performance of the right to rent pilot in Birmingham, Walsall, Sandwell, Dudley and Wolverhampton.

    James Brokenshire

    The Government has carried out an evaluation of phase one of the Right to Rent scheme in Birmingham, Walsall, Sandwell, Dudley and Wolverhampton. This includes assessment of the implementation of the Landlords Checking Service. The findings of the evaluation were published on 20 October and will inform the extension of the scheme. The evaluation can be found at the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/evaluation-of-the-right-to-rent-scheme

  • Gavin Newlands – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Gavin Newlands – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gavin Newlands on 2015-10-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many staff are employed by her Department’s landlords’ checking service.

    James Brokenshire

    The Government is tightening up access to public and other services to protect them from abuse by people who are in the UK illegally. It is right for people only to be able to access private accommodation if they are here legally. This is only fair to people who play by the rules, not least, those who come here legally.

    This service enables a landlord to verify a person’s immigration status, with regards to the Right to Rent, with the Home Office in cases where a person has an ongoing application outstanding or where a person’s identification documents are with the Home Office. Resource of this service is kept under review to ensure capacity meets demand. At present the service is staffed by 2 full-time equivalent members of UK Visas and Immigration staff. A further 20 members of the call-handling team are also trained to respond to enquiries if additional recource is required. We have plans in place to scale-up the resource in line with the demand requirements of the national roll-out.

  • Gavin Newlands – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Gavin Newlands – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gavin Newlands on 2015-10-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many staff are employed by her Department’s landlord helpline service.

    James Brokenshire

    This service is for general queries and is provided by a commercial partner. Re-sources are constantly reviewed and deployed according to demand. Currently 2 full time equivalent members of staff handle incoming calls with a further 20 members of the call handling team trained in this area if additional resource is required.

  • Gavin Newlands – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Gavin Newlands – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gavin Newlands on 2015-10-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment has been made of the effectiveness of her Department’s landlords’ checking service before the right to rent scheme is rolled out nationally.

    James Brokenshire

    The Government has carried out an evaluation of phase one of the Right to Rent scheme in Birmingham, Walsall, Sandwell, Dudley and Wolverhampton. This includes assessment of the implementation of the Landlords Checking Service. The findings of the evaluation were published on 20 October and will inform extension of the scheme. The evaluation can be found at the following link : https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/evaluation-of-the-right-to-rent-scheme

  • Gavin Newlands – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Gavin Newlands – 2015 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Gavin Newlands on 2015-10-09.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many driving licences were incorrectly revoked from people who were suspected of living illegally in the UK in each of the last five years.

    James Brokenshire

    The Immigration Act 2014 only granted this power in July 2014. Since the Home Department commenced the referral of driving licences of people with no valid leave in the UK to the Driver Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) and Driver & Vehicle Agency (DVA) in July 2014, over 12,500 driving licences have been revoked. So far only 283 driving licences have been reinstated.