Early Parliamentary General Election Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 29th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kate Hoey]

I do think that that is a hugely important issue, which has unity across this House. If the Leader of the House, who has just left his place, and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland really wanted to get that Bill through, they could do so this week. It could still be put through this week. It passed its Second Reading in the other place last night, so there is absolutely no reason why we cannot get that Bill through. Yes, the hon. Lady is right. There will be many things that we cannot get through, but there are also an awful lot of things that we should be getting through but we are not able to do so because there is no majority for them in this House.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thought that I heard the Leader of the House say that one reason for keeping the House going until 6 November was to get that Bill through. It would be iniquitous if we do not get this Bill through, because people in Northern Ireland really require to have it passed.

[Kate Hoey]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I hope that those whose business it is can sort out what we do over the next few days. As I understand it—I am sure that other people know more than I do on this—if there is not a general election until 12 December, we will not have to dissolve until the following Thursday, which means that there is time. If there is unity in the House about that very important measure then it could be put through.

I know, too, Mr Speaker, that you have made your decision about leaving this House. I see no reason why the election of a new Speaker could not have been brought forward to this week, so that the issue could have been resolved before Parliament dissolves. I am getting away from the Bill, and I know, Mr Speaker, that you would not want me to do that.

Early Parliamentary General Election

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Evans]

Absolutely. I did a two-day tour around my constituency last Friday and Saturday, and I spoke to a number of people. There were three hardcore remainers who would do almost anything to remain in the European Union. However, the vast majority of people who come up to me in Ribble Valley say either, “I voted leave: get on with it”—they are quite angry that we have not left the European Union—or, “I voted remain, but I can’t believe that we are still in the European Union. I am a democrat. I believe in democracy, and when we have a referendum I believe in carrying out the wishes of that referendum.” We all remember what was written on the back of that pamphlet: it said that we would follow the instructions of the British people in that referendum.

Even better than that, of course, we had a general election in 2017 in which we said that we would deliver Brexit. Labour Members stood in that general election and said they would deliver Brexit, but what do we find? Ever since that general election, we have seen dither and delay, dither and delay, and anything—anything—but vote for the Brexit that they promised. It was either, “It’s not the right deal”, or “We have to get no deal taken off the table.” Well, we had an opportunity last week to take no deal off the table, and that would have made it possible for Labour Members to have fulfilled their promise in that general election two years ago by voting for the deal that the Prime Minister brought back from Brussels. But no—the vast majority of Labour MPs voted against Second Reading. That meant that they did not want it to go any further. There was no possibility of their amending the legislation to have a customs union, to get workers’ rights or to get higher environmental standards. No, they decided they wanted to stop Brexit in its tracks, and that is why they voted against Second Reading. Only 19 of them voted to give it a Second Reading.

My constituency, Ribble Valley, is in the heart of Lancashire. In fact, on an Ordnance Survey map one of my villages is actually in the very centre of the United Kingdom. My constituency voted 57% to leave the European Union. Every constituency in Lancashire, whether it has a Labour MP or a Conservative MP—thankfully, we do not have any Lib Dems—voted to leave the European Union.

What we are seeing tonight is quite remarkable. Labour Members said that they would deliver Brexit, and they are now clearly not doing that. Then they said that they wanted more time to scrutinise the withdrawal agreement Bill, even though the vast majority of them voted against its going any further. They wanted more time, and so tonight we are offering them more time. Then they said that they wanted an early general election. Well, the way they get an early general election is by voting for the motion tonight. They will get more time to scrutinise the withdrawal agreement Bill so that they will at least fulfil part of their promise two years ago, and then get their early general election on 12 December whereby they can put forward the programme that they wish, and see where the people go.

On the other hand, we have the Scots Nats, who are at least saying that they want to go for 9 December. They do not want to deliver Brexit—they never have—but none the less they are being consistent on that. We hear time and again that Scotland voted not to leave the European Union. More than 1 million Scots voted to leave the European Union. There is no reaching out to those 1 million Scots. More people voted to leave the European Union in Scotland than voted for the Scottish National party, so we see where that is going.

Then there are the Lib Dems, who just want to revoke article 50. They are called the Liberal Democrats. I do not know what aspect of them is democratic, because we had a referendum, the people said they wanted to leave, and that is not being fulfilled.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

As I understand it, the leader of the Liberal Democrats said that if we had a second referendum, she might not agree with its result. I wonder whether that is true.

[Mr Evans]

That was a previous position. However, we are in an even more bizarre position with Labour Members, because they say that if they win the election they will go to Brussels, renegotiate Brexit, then put that to the British people in a second referendum and campaign against the deal they just negotiated. That is the most Alice in Wonderland politics that I have seen in 28 years. Now we have an Opposition, who have been calling for an early general election, running scared. The last thing they want to do is face the electorate, and, quite frankly, I can see why.

Debate on the Address

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for everything he does to promote religious freedom around the world, and I can certainly give him that assurance. We will stand up for religious freedom in all our doings, and in all our foreign policy.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[The Prime Minister]

I will give way with pleasure to my hon. Friend.

[Bob Stewart]

I thank my right hon. Friend. I know that he really cares about legacy prosecutions and what is happening to soldiers like Dennis Hutchings, but there was no mention in the Queen’s Speech of looking after our veteran soldiers from Northern Ireland. I know that my right hon. Friend intends to do that, so what are we going to do about it? In the case of Dennis Hutchings, it is urgent.

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend has anticipated a point that I am about to come to, but let me deal with it out of order, as it were, and say that we will be bringing forward legislation to protect serving and former serving personnel. As he will know, the consultation on that matter has just come to an end.

I have drawn several important points of distinction between this Government and the party led by the Leader of the Opposition, but, for our present purposes, perhaps the most immediate is that we want to get on and deliver Brexit on 31 October whereas he wants to dither and delay. I cannot in all conscience believe that that is the right way forward for this country.

The right hon. Gentleman recently said that he was “daunted” by the prospect that he might actually become Prime Minister. Well, I have to say that he is not alone in that fear—so are most Opposition Members, judging by their actions, most of the House of Commons, and, indeed, most of the country. I can give him the reassurance —the consolation—that I intend to do everything I can to prevent that from happening.

I hope very much that, in spite of some of our differences, the right hon. Gentleman will support at least some of the measures in the Gracious Speech. At the heart of the speech is an ambitious programme to unite our country with energy and with optimism, but also with the basic common sense of one nation Conservativism. Contrary to some of the gloomier things that we heard just now, we have unemployment at its lowest level since 1974, we have inward investment at record highs, we have 700,000 fewer children in workless households than there were in 2010, and we are leading the world in so many sectors of 21st-century business and technology. It is because of that economic success, that free market success—and I see the shadow Chancellor recoil at the notion of a free market success like a Transylvanian in the sunlight—that we will look after those who look after us and keep us safe. That is how we will spend another £2.2 billion on the armed services, which brings me to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart)—and yes, as I said, we will bring forward legislation to protect our serving men and women.

I should be very clear about this. The Government understand that no one can escape justice for a crime that they have committed, but we also understand that there should be no unfair prosecution when no new evidence has been produced; and yes, in the same spirit we will protect our brave police—who run towards danger to keep us safe—by putting the police covenant into law and by giving them the political support that they need in order to do their job, even if that means difficult and intrusive procedures like stop and search, because those procedures save lives. As we back our police and insist on serious sentencing for serious crimes—and I think it was the Labour party that instituted automatic early release—this Government, this one nation Government, also insist—

--- Later in debate ---

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

I am most grateful to be called to speak on this first day of the Queen’s Speech debate. I echo colleagues’ remarks about the excellence of the speeches that we heard at the beginning from my hon. Friends the Members for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) and for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton).

I do not know whether you recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the House of Commons gift shop used to sell a fridge magnet featuring the words of a certain British comedian, Spike Milligan. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) remembers it. Those words were “One day the don’t knows will get in, and then where will we be?” I fear that there is a danger that we shall be known as the “don’t know Parliament”.

This is the second Long Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West referred to the first Long Parliament and he may recall what Oliver Cromwell said on 20 April 1653:

“Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress’d…In the name of God, go!”

My hon. Friend is nodding.

I pray, in the earnest sense of the word, that on Saturday this House determines this matter of Brexit. I speak as a just-remainer who represents a midlands constituency that voted 60:40 out. I believe I have a moral duty to get my constituents out of Europe, and that the authority of the electorate—we delegated power to the electorate—supersedes anything passed by this House. It may be a legal nicety that the referendum was not legally binding, but woe betide this House if it ignores the will of the people.

We need a bit of luck in politics, and I cannot believe my luck seeing the Minister for Health my hon.—or probably right hon.—Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) sitting on the Front Bench, because I am intending to talk about health. Of course, one of the problems with the Queen’s Speech is that if we try to talk about the subject we wish to talk about someone like you, Madam Deputy Speaker, gets up and says “We have to restrict the debate to four”—or three or two—“minutes,” so we end up with no debate at all. As my perspicacious hon. Friend the Member for Southend West knows and pointed out, one of the joys of being lucky enough to be called on the first day, however, is that we might get a chance to make a longer speech, so I am particularly grateful to be called, and I want to talk about the health measures in the Queen’s Speech and, if I have time, say a word about the environment.

I absolutely welcome the 40 new hospitals that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has committed to, and I am particularly excited because Leicester, with the Royal Infirmary, the General and Glenfield, is going to be part of that massive hospital upgrade programme. I would like to think that when my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary came to Hinckley and saw what we were doing there—he visited an integrated healthcare clinic, where he saw chiropractors and massage therapists working together, apart from the main hospital—that might have influenced his decision.

Madam Deputy Speaker, it will be no secret to you and possibly the Minister of State that I have argued pretty much all my parliamentary career for integrated healthcare. I note that an integrated healthcare Bill was referred to in the Queen’s Speech, but I do not think it is quite the integration that I have been looking for, which is a wider range of treatments available on the NHS. I will go further today, in what might be my last speech—it will certainly be my last contribution to a Queen’s Speech debate—in what has so far been a 32-year career as I am standing down and say that, despite my support for these 40 hospitals, I think we need a new health paradigm. If we look around at what is happening outside—the Attenborough effect, worries about plastics and the Antarctic, not to mention activities recently—we can see that what we really need now is a sustainable healthcare policy. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) is getting a phone message.

[Bob Stewart]

It is totally in support of you.

[David Tredinnick]

I am glad, and I wasn’t expecting that; Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope you will waive the rule that says electronic devices are not allowed to be used in support of a cause.

We really need a new paradigm. We need a new health paradigm and that paradigm must look at the carbon footprint of drugs among other things, and it must look at how we are deploying resources in the health service. I have to say to my hon. Friend the Minister that there is a reluctance on the part of the medical establishment to share any space or any resources with anything it does not control itself. I cite in evidence the Osteopaths Act 1993 and the Chiropractors Act 1994. I sat on both those Bills; they were private Members’ Bills and they became Acts of Parliament. We were told beforehand, “The osteopaths and chiropractors do not have proper regulations so how can we bring them into the health service?” Well, they have now got proper regulation; they are regulated by Acts of Parliament, but where in the country do we find them working with orthopaedic surgeons? The osteopaths and the chiropractors have a carbon zero footprint—and the western acupuncturists for that matter have a carbon zero footprint—and they can help these practitioners in our hospitals. I would like to see a small percentage of the money going to these new hospitals put towards a broader base of treatment.

The Professional Standards Authority was set up by the Government to regulate, with oversight, a whole range of professions from sports therapists to all sorts of other therapists. I have argued so many times that the Government should respect the PSA’s own request that it be taken seriously and be able to refer cases that it sees to doctors. It is almost as if it does not exist. The Government speak with forked tongue on this, and I am really concerned about it, so I ask my hon. Friend—who perhaps will be winding up the debate—if she will look at that.

One third of the world’s population already has sustainable healthcare so this is hardly a novel approach. China, which has a population of 1.4 billion, has its traditional 4,000-year-old herbal medicine system and acupuncture, and India has a sustainable health ministry and a 4,000-year-old medical system plus the world’s greatest usage of homeopathy.

I have just been to India for a week at the request of its Government; I was invited by the Government to see what was going on. I went because on 17 January I had a chance to ask a question of a man I respect, Sir Andrew Dillon, who is the chairman of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. I said to him, “I can’t understand why you and your committee are dithering over whether acupuncture works for lower back pain—it has been on and off. Have any of your team been to China or India where the critical mass is, to see what is going on?” and he said, “No, we haven’t; we haven’t got the money.” In fairness to NICE, its budget has been cut by 30%.

I do not pretend to be an academic—I am a politician—but I did do research at Oxford under Professor Sammy Finer of All Souls and Gillian Peele at Lady Margaret Hall for a research degree in the ’80s, and they always said to me, “If you’re doing research, go to the biggest base of information you can find.” Yet NICE has been making decisions on tiny numbers of people—a few homeopaths in Liverpool, a couple of different groups of herbalists and acupuncturists. Why on earth are we not looking at the two biggest countries in the world that use these systems?

As I have said, I have been to India for a week as the guest of the Government. The Secretary of State knows all about this as I have talked to him about it; I was their guest and I shall declare it in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, but I paid for the flights. The AYUSH Ministry—Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, Sowa Rigpa and Homoeopathy—covers a range of disciplines, but I want to dispose first of one component, and that is homeopathy. I want to dispose of this to give some idea of the scale of the operation. Here in the UK, the tiny group of homoeopaths has been under constant pressure in recent years from so-called sceptics saying that there is no evidence. When I was in Delhi, I met Dr Raj Manchanda who runs the Government services in Delhi. Delhi has 6,000 homeopathic clinics, with 15,000 registered homeopathic practitioners, of whom 80% are doctors who have had five years’ training. They practise in almost every street. I also went to the homeopathic institute and teaching hospital in Calcutta. On a 14-acre site, I found three different lines of patients waiting in areas the size of the New Palace Yard. The hospital was treating some 2,000 patients a day, off season, and 3,400 in the hot season, with 100 doctors and postgrads on duty at any one time.

This is the evidence we could look at. How can we possibly accept that there is no evidence when in the whole of India homeopathy—which was exported from London to India during the British time and caught on—has 300,000 practitioners, 250,000 of whom are doctors, treating an average 20,000 patients a day? I will leave that now. I know that not everybody wants to hear me going on about homeopathy—[Interruption.] Well, doesn’t it make it look ridiculous? There are a quarter of a million homeopathic doctors there, yet somebody here who is not very well qualified is saying that there is no evidence. I really think we should look at this. A lot of Indian homeopaths come back to the Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine to do research degrees, and they regard it as the ultimate to come back here and do that work.

I was honoured to have a meeting with Shripad Naik, who is the Minister in charge at AYUSH. He is actually the equivalent of a Secretary of State. Here, the Secretary of State here has responsibility for 66 million people; Shripad has responsibility for 1,300 million, which is 1.3 billion. I think I have got that right; I never was a mathematician. I spoke to our Secretary of State about this, and he would be happy to receive an invitation from Minister Naik to visit India and look at these medical systems—I went round 12 hospitals—and also to establish a working group on traditional medicine such as the one India has with Germany. I would say to the Minister of State, before she gets distracted, that Minister Naik is in the process of opening 5,000 integrated health clinics with allopathic medicine, complementary medicine, the Ayurveda medical system of India and homeopathy. AYUSH, with its medical system including naturopathy, yoga and homeopathy, has 700,000 practitioners, 700 teaching institutions and 200 postgraduate institutions, with an annual intake of 46,000 for its degree courses and 6,000 for its postgrad course. It runs 3,000 Government hospitals that are integrated healthcare hospitals, and it has 28,000 dispensaries. It has 9,000 Government manufacturing units and there are six AYUSH practitioners per 10,000 population.

That is a massive operation, and I suggest that my hon. Friend the Minister really needs to look at this, because it offers us a chance to have a much better regulatory regime in this country. I do not think that our complementary and integrated healthcare regime is thorough enough, in the sense that it is scrappy and fragmented; I know that from working in this field. The AYUSH Ministry was set up by Prime Minister Modi in 2014 as an independent ministry—I remind colleagues that he has just been re-elected for another five-year term—and he has doubled the AYUSH budget twice. It has gone up four times in five years because AYUSH is so effective at treating people. It is extraordinary. It controls research, through central regulatory bodies and research councils. It controls 11 national educational institutes and it controls drug quality care regulation with two central pharmacopeia laboratories and a national medicinal plant board.

Looking around at the landscape outside the House now and at the general attitude that has got very intense—including people’s anger about plastics—I believe that it is only a matter of time before a tsunami of anger comes round the corner because people here are not allowed these services across the health service. I really encourage my hon. Friend to look at this, because they provide solutions where antibiotics are failing, and they provide solutions to opiate addiction. The three main services that AYUSH offers are: Ayurveda; yoga and naturopathy; and homeopathy.

Madam Deputy Speaker, you are smiling at me and I really appreciate that. I do not think you are standing to be the next Speaker—[Interruption.] You might be; perhaps you are, so you could be smiling for two reasons. Certainly, one of your reasons is to try to get me to sit down, so I will finish on this.

In 2013, I was acting Chairman of the Health Committee for a short period of time in the interregnum between our other hon. Friends who were Chairs, and I put out the report—HC401—entitled “Managing the care of people with long–term conditions”. It contains evidence from the late great Peter Fisher, the Queen’s homeopath, and George Lewith, who ran a department at the University of Southampton. What I found, going round 12 institutions and research laboratories in India, was that homeopathy was used frequently for long-term conditions with multiple problems because it can find the root of the problem, and I just ask my hon. Friend to look carefully at that and perhaps visit the Royal London Hospital for Integrated Medicine, which is world-famous.

I hope that I may get called to speak again one day, Madam Deputy Speaker, but with that, I will sit down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart]

I agree with my right hon. Friend—absolutely—but I am confused. Most of us who drive cars carry an identity card: it has our name, our address, our date of birth, and a photograph on it. Effectively, therefore, we already have an ID card.

[Dame Cheryl Gillan]

For my hon. Friend and me, that is true, but I am thinking about the people who do not drive. I am thinking about disabled people and people who cannot afford a car and who need a better bus infrastructure. These people will feel threatened and will feel that they are being excluded or even prevented from voting. I ask the Government to think very carefully about how they go about this provision, because there are dangers inherent in it for the very people that he and I would seek to protect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart]

My hon. Friend says we aim to spend 2.4% of GDP on R&D. If that is correct, it is an enormous amount of money. To put it in context, it is way more than our defence budget.

[Alan Mak]

My hon. and gallant Friend is right that 2.4% is a huge investment, but it is welcome that the Government are investing so much in this area. I hope the defence budget will increase to the same level.

[Bob Stewart]

And to 3%.

[Alan Mak]

And to 3%, which is where we need to be on R&D.

UK Shared Prosperity Fund

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

European funding has been hugely important to Wales: particularly to my area of north Wales, but also to mid-Wales, and other areas. I echo the concern expressed by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry): many of us are frustrated by the lack of information—any information at all, for that matter—about how the shared prosperity fund will operate. The delay in the consultation is just symptomatic of the lack of care that the Government have shown towards the European funding that we have already had and towards what will happen in future, suggesting that regional funding is a low priority for this Government.

This issue is incredibly important in Wales, because we get a large amount of European funding. In fact, we get four and a half times more per head from the European Union in funding than any other nation or region in the UK. Of course, this was not always the case. Some people here will recall that the maps were redrawn to delineate west Wales and the valleys as the area that would get funding. These maps are called nomenclature of territorial units for statistics maps—ludicrously known as NUTS maps, as that is the acronym. The previous NUTS map for Wales put poor west Wales, where I live, in with the rather more prosperous north-east Wales, and south-west Wales in with the rather more prosperous Cardiff area. When the map was redrawn, suddenly we were allocated funding under the European Union’s regional policy, showing the value of that policy and also that a degree of cleverness is required in acquiring that funding, which we eventually showed.

Wales—particularly my area—is economically on a par with the former communist parts of eastern Europe, Portugal and southern Spain. That is not something that we celebrate, of course, although it does bring us in a certain amount of funding. Rather, it is the consequence of decades of marginalisation, neglect and mismanagement by Westminster. Let me echo the points made by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey. At the very least, can we have an assurance from the Minister that not a penny less will come to Wales under this fund as compared with under European funding?

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

My reading is that, actually, the funding will continue. It will just not come from Europe; it will come from London—at least in the immediate future.

[Hywel Williams]

The hon. Gentleman may be right, but I would like some confirmation of that, and certainly more information than “the immediate future” because we are looking beyond 2021. There are projects whose timescales demand that. In fact, there are projects in my community that require funding for many years into the future, including projects at Bangor University.

What is also extremely unclear, to me at least—perhaps the Minister can enlighten us—is the criteria for the allocation of money under the shared prosperity fund. I would argue for allocation on the basis of need. We will not accept the milking of funds that would otherwise have gone to Wales to fund projects elsewhere. That is certainly a fear. For example, Welsh farming might proportionately get considerably less money than one would expect if the criteria were based on, say, per head funding.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Graham]

I secured a debate on Scottish funding and devolved funding just before the summer recess to which no SNP MP turned up. In that debate, I gave the opportunity to challenge those figures and have an in-depth, detailed discussion about them, because they are not recognised by the Library. If they are, I will be happy to welcome another debate on the topic, so that we can take it further.

I would like to go on to the positive things that we are trying to do. The shared prosperity fund allows us to formalise the process of applying for funds. It could also build and improve the city deal and growth deal projects that have already been awarded Scotland to the value of over £1 billion. The money in the city deals has been very welcome, but I think Members on both sides of the House would agree that the city deal and growth deal process could do with some improvement. We can have less bureaucracy, and central Government should provide support to not only the devolved Administrations but the local authorities and civic groups that are applying for these funds. So often, exciting and transformational opportunities are lost because local businesses and local groups do not have the skills to meet a Green Book or European set of qualifications to access the funding that they so require.

[Bob Stewart]

It seems to me that there is a requirement for the shared prosperity fund organisation to have a local office, particularly to help small businesses.

[Luke Graham]

I thank my hon. Friend for his suggestion. That is just the kind of innovative proposal that we should be putting forward and having a cross-party discussion about, to ensure that the shared prosperity fund works for the entire United Kingdom.

Although we could talk about this for a great many hours more, I am conscious of time, so I will conclude. I am pleased that the Government have guaranteed funding to 2022, which I am sure the Minister will confirm, so that we can give assurances to the charities, local government and businesses in our communities. We do not come with grievance; we come with solutions. Let us keep the central fund of around £1.2 billion plus inflation for the future, but let us also recognise that it has not delivered transformational change for our constituents in Scotland. Perhaps we could put some of the UK match funding into a new direct central fund that local authorities and businesses could bid into, along national lines, to provide greater clarity and guarantees for our local communities, so that they can access the funds they so badly need to thrive and survive.

I agree with colleagues in Wales, Scotland and England that these funds provide opportunities to all our regions. We want to combat structural inequality and improve the opportunities we have, and we want to do it through a fine United Kingdom system.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Karen Bradley]

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman. He is absolutely right in the way he describes how the 2021 anniversary should be marked. I reflect on the work by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) on the world war one commemorations, which had an inclusive nature that fostered reconciliation and brought great joy to the people of Northern Ireland.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Would it not be a good idea for the Secretary of State to declare, or to get the relevant organisation to declare, a bank holiday on 5 May, which will be the exact date, 100 years ago, that Northern Ireland was founded?

Oral Answers to Questions

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2019 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

I thought I heard just now the Secretary of State doing a pretty good job of showing the personal commitment and the urgency with which she is treating this. I am afraid I cannot add any more detail to the timetable, but I hope everybody here will have understood and heard the passion in her voice and the determination to move this forward promptly and swiftly.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

9. If the Government will bring forward legislative proposals to prevent veterans who have previously been investigated and cleared of illegal shooting incidents in Northern Ireland being prosecuted for those incidents.

[The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (John Penrose)]

My hon. and gallant Friend gave a very powerful speech on this on Monday, and I would encourage anybody here who has not heard it to go back and listen again. I think he and I agree that the current situation is not working for anyone. The question is not whether things need to change, because they clearly do, but how, so we have laws that work for police veterans as well as armed forces, for unionists and for nationalists, for victims and their families on all sides of the community, and that bring truth and justice and closure so society can move on. We will bring forward proposals as soon as possible.

[Bob Stewart]

As an ex-soldier, and now a Member of Parliament, I am ashamed that my Government have not sorted this matter out. I ask the Minister, and especially the Secretary of State, who has been in post longer—how much longer before it can be sorted out, and are you not ashamed?

[John Penrose]

My hon. and gallant Friend, having served in Northern Ireland, speaks with huge authority on this matter. I suspect that successive Governments have to share some blame for failing to fix it over many years. Clearly, as I said in my previous answer, the situation cannot be allowed to continue—it is not right; it is not just. It must be sorted out as promptly as possible. On that, I hope that he and I agree.

Exiting the European Union

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 10th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

As I said earlier, the timing of the vote will be determined by the extent and nature of the discussions with the European Union.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Changing tack a little, will my right hon. Friend assure me that the proposed new deep and special relationship on defence, security and intelligence matters mentioned in the draft withdrawal agreement will not affect our special dealings with other “Five Eyes” nations, especially the United States?

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, I am very happy to give my hon. Friend that absolute assurance.

Overseas Electors Bill (Fourth sitting)

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 14th November 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Chloe Smith]

I have two arguments on the treatment of new clause 7. First, I have a preliminary argument, if Members will bear with me. My comments in response to previous amendments that would have required reports on various matters and delayed the legislation until their publication stand true for new clause 7. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire, whose arguments I endorse, I am sceptical about whether the proposed new clause would add value to the Bill.

I have two additional comments about the substance of the new clause. First, it asks for an assessment of the demands placed on MPs and of their performance in representing their constituents. That is not a matter for the Government in respect of constituents at home or overseas, and I do not accept that it should be. It is not for the Government to monitor or report on MPs’ performance of their duties. This is a clear case of the difference between the Executive and the legislature, and it is important that that difference stands. The code of conduct for Members of Parliament describes their responsibilities as Members of the House, and I think that is how this is best done. The application of the code is a matter for the House of Commons, and particularly for the Committee on Standards and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I am slightly concerned, but I hope that the Minister will be able to answer my question. In a general election, our electoral communications are sent out by the Post Office. Am I right to assume that they will be sent to all overseas voters? Will the Post Office and the Government pay for every single overseas voter on the electoral roll to receive an electoral communication from all parties campaigning in the general election?

[Chloe Smith]

My hon. Friend will have to forgive me, because I do not have any detail to hand about how the Bill will change that situation. However, I would be happy to come back to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire on that point, which is important and well made, although it may not necessarily relate to new clause 7—I suspect it is more general.

Certainly, whether as candidates at an election or as Members of Parliament, with the privilege of being elected, we would all wish to perform that role to the best of our abilities, and to communicate with our constituents whether at home or abroad. My point, in the context of new clause 7, is that that is not a matter for the Government.

The hon. Member for City of Chester said that we should look at how constituencies may be swollen—I think that was his choice of word—by the number of overseas electors. I think he asked that the question of whether more resources may be needed to deal with that be directed to IPSA. I would point out that the Boundary Commission, using the concept of a quota, already serves that function by conducting regular reviews. I do not think that an additional function is needed. The fundamental concept of a quota will not be changed as a result of any of the current debates in the House about boundaries.

I hope that those two points are helpful to the Committee and that the hon. Gentleman accordingly feels able to withdraw his new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Stewart]

The hon. Gentleman referred to the hon. Member for City of Chester, who is extremely popular with my old soldiers. That will give him quite an advantage, despite the fact that he is from that accursed Opposition party. I want to reassure him that he is extremely popular with old soldiers, and they will probably—despite my instructions to the contrary—vote for him.

[Alex Norris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. I think he might have made my hon. Friend blush, which is certainly a first in the time that I have known him.

I think that I have dealt with new clause 13 adequately. I am pushing new clause 14 with a little trepidation. It is not that it is not party policy, but more that we do not have a policy in this area and I am not sure how much the party would welcome my writing one. However, I thought I would just test this, because it is a matter of interest.

It follows from new clause 13 that having a codified place would be one tool for ensuring that we do not have double or treble registration. Members might say, and they are probably right, that my view is perhaps that we could have a single register for the whole of the country, and I probably do think that. We could certainly start with overseas electors, which would offer a chance to eradicate any fraudulent activity. In France, they do it at municipality level, so it is certainly technically possible. I wanted to probe and test the waters to find out whether it is seen as desirable, and I would be very interested to hear from the Minister as well as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire. I will not say any more, because I think the new clauses are relatively self-explanatory.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith]

I am almost inclined to break up this Chester love-in and invite people to Norwich, an equally fine medieval city—some would say finer, but we will have to take that up in another Committee at another time.

The hon. Member for City of Chester is correct: the Government are 100% committed to maintaining the integrity of the register and guarding against electoral fraud. There are, however, already provisions in place to address the circumstances that new clause 13 seeks to address. I will briefly go through those for the Committee’s information.

Under the new system, all overseas applicants will be required to prove their identity and establish a verifiable connection to an address in the UK before they can be added to the register. That address must be the last one at which they were registered or resident. The Bill does not allow for cherry-picking, so that concern is unwarranted.

As I said in response to amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Nottingham North for an earlier sitting, the Bill sets out that the declaration made by the applicant must contain any of the prescribed information and satisfy any other prescribed requirement, which may include other information to be requested or a requirement for it to be attested. The Bill already contains tools to address some of the issues in new clause 13.

I turn to what electoral law already does before the Bill’s provisions come into force. As the hon. Gentleman has said, it is an offence to vote at more than one location in the same election—in this case, a general election. Conviction for such a practice carries a financial penalty, which is an unlimited fine in England and Wales, and up to £5,000 in Scotland.

The law already provides that a British citizen may register to vote as an overseas voter only in relation to one constituency. That will remain the position under the Bill’s provisions. If they were registered to vote in more than one constituency at the same time, it could be because false information was provided to an electoral registration officer. It is, therefore, already an offence under section 12 of the Representation of the People Act 1985 to provide false information to an ERO in relation to an overseas elector’s declaration. A person found guilty may face a fine, which is an unlimited fine in England and Wales, and up to £5,000 in Scotland.

Furthermore, it is an offence under section 13D of the Representation of the People Act 1983 to provide false information to an electoral registration officer for any purpose connected with the registration of electors. A person found guilty of that offence may face a custodial sentence of up to 51 weeks in prison, or a fine, or both. There is a separate offence of providing false information when making a postal vote application, under section 62A(2)(b) of the 1983 Act, and that is clearly stated on the postal vote application form. A range of offences are already covered in law, so proposed new clause 13 is unnecessary.

The changes proposed by new clause 14 are also unnecessary. It is already possible to obtain information about overseas electors. At present, each ERO maintains the register for their local area. Those officers will mark on that register those electors who are registered to vote as an overseas elector, and they will also produce a list of overseas electors for their area. Parties and candidates are entitled to be supplied with copies of the register and lists of overseas electors. EROs also produce electorate figures for the Office of National Statistics, which will then show separate figures for the number of overseas electors registered.

If I have read it correctly, proposed new clause 14 also argues for a single register of overseas electors. I hear the slightly broader argument made by the hon. Member for Nottingham North about whether there should be a single register of everyone in this country. The constituency link remains our guide in this case, as it does in all aspects of registration. The constituency link is very important to the way in which our electoral system has developed over decades, and it is also important in this regard. A single register for overseas electors would result in them being treated differently from domestic voters. The proposal is unnecessary.

I hope that those are helpful points of fact and argument. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for City of Chester, who is clearly beloved, will reconsider the matter, and that the hon. Member for Nottingham North will withdraw the motion.

[Bob Stewart]

No love-in this time, but I am worried about two things connected to the proposed new clauses. The first is how difficult it would be for an electoral registration officer to ascertain someone’s home 50 years ago. That would be extremely difficult. I know there will be records, but as time goes by people’s memories will obviously recede and blocks of flats and houses will be knocked down. I just think it is quite difficult that that is the sole criterion for having a vote.

By the way, I am totally supportive of the Government—please do not think I am against them—and I think Her Majesty’s Opposition will support them, too, so if there are any problems from you, see me later—[Interruption.] I am sorry: if there are problems from the hon. Member for Nottingham North, he can see me afterwards in the corridor.

Secondly, I am slightly queasy at the idea of someone leaving this country at a relatively young age, going abroad and staying there for 50 years, to the relatively old age of 70, which is around my age—or older; perhaps another 20 years—and, despite not having contributed or paid tax to this country, still having the right to decide how we govern ourselves. I know it is the only way—we cannot suddenly make it an arbitrary 15 or 30 years—but I nevertheless remain slightly queasy because I would like all who vote in our general elections to have a stake in the country, and that normally means by being present at some stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Order. Before the hon. Member for Beckenham resumes, I remind the Committee that we are discussing new clauses 13 and 14, not the general principles of the Bill.

[Bob Stewart]

Forgive me, I thought I was on new clause 14. I will shut up in that case, having been admonished by you, Mr Robertson. I totally agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire, but he had a stake in the country while he was away. My queasy thought is that, while they may be very small in number, some people might not. That is my point and now, Mr Robertson, I am quashed.

[Alex Norris]

I appreciate all the comments that have been made. In the spirit of what the hon. and gallant Member for Beckenham has said, it is important to be sure of the implications of these matters and to monitor them over time. I hope we will all keep an eye on that.

I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the measures in the 1983 and 1985 Acts. That goes quite a way to reassuring me, so I will not push proposed new clause 13 to the vote. On cherry-picking, I did not miss the point about last registration, but I still do not know how on earth an electoral registration officer would know it was the last one. They would know it was a valid one, but they would not know what the person did next, if they had left the local authority area. That is perhaps something to consider as we go along, but probably not this afternoon.

That covers proposed new clause 13. I have served the purpose of proposed new clause 14 by giving it a run out, so I will not push that to a vote, either. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.

Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 31st October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that the pay reduction seems a bit unfair, because the vast majority of MLAs actually want to do their job, and it is only a small percentage that are stopping the Assembly being reassembled?

[Mr Vara]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the vast majority want to get on with doing their job; but we have to recognise that some of their duties have lessened, so we are making a reduction but recognising that they still have constituents to look after and are still voices within their communities.

Overseas Electors Bill (Third sitting)

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 31st October 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Christian Matheson]

What a great pleasure it is to see you in the Chair, Ms McDonagh. I may be incorrect, but I think this is the first time that I have served under your chairmanship in my three and a half years in this place, in which I still consider myself richly privileged to serve.

My amendments and new clauses would require a detailed review of absent voting arrangements. I have some problems with the Bill in principle, including an objection to the idea of people continuing to have a vote when they have lived overseas for many years and have no direct connection with this country. However, these amendments reflect concerns not about the principle of the Bill, but about how its proposals will be administered.

My staff and I have sought the advice of local electoral administrators and the Association of Electoral Administrators to understand the administrative burdens and pressures that the Bill would place on them. Local administrators are charged with upholding our democracy by maintaining the integrity of electoral registrations; they need to ensure that everybody who should be allowed to register can do so, but that those who seek to exploit the register for nefarious reasons are exposed, caught out and dealt with. As with previous amendments, I have sought a response at least from the Minister and from the Member in charge, my good friend the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire.

The amendments would request consideration for the administrative burdens that might fall on local electoral registration officers, often at a time when the pressure on them is at a maximum—we know from past practice in election years that most people seek to register as voters only when an election is called. Given the current state of confusion surrounding absent voting arrangements for overseas voters, the Government need to carry out proper investigations into the reasons for that patchy record. Sufficient time is required for any absent voter arrangements to be put in place, so that overseas electors can cast their vote at the election or referendum in time for it to be counted.

The hon. Member for Kingswood, who is a former Minister, made a very helpful contribution last week, explaining that the timing issue is central to the way the timetable is worked out. It is worked back from polling day, and there are other considerations such as the close of nominations and laying out a suitable period for postal votes. As we already have that timetable in place, reviewing how it might be affected by a large increase in absent voting and postal voting might be a useful exercise to undertake before the Bill becomes law so that electoral registration officers are fully prepared for the arduous task that they may well face.

I am requesting a review to consider whether the current voting arrangements grant sufficient time for overseas electors to participate adequately in parliamentary elections. Furthermore, I share the concerns of the Association of Electoral Administrators that there needs to be greater emphasis on encouraging overseas electors to establish clear absent voting arrangements and to do so in good time. Failure to prepare absent voting arrangements serves to further burden our already overworked and dedicated electoral staff.

Currently the deadline to apply as an overseas elector and for absent voting arrangements is polling day minus 12 —I think this is getting to the point that the hon. Member for Kingswood alluded to last week. Absent voting arrangements refer to any form of voting not carried out at the polling station, with proxy voting and postal voting being the two principal mechanisms. In order to vote, overseas electors have three options; they can vote by post, by proxy or in person if they happen to be in the UK on election day. It is vital that those three options function efficiently in the run-up to elections. A review of the current system of absent voting for overseas voters is necessary before the Government consider enfranchising millions of new overseas voters. Indeed, a number of significant faults have been exposed in recent elections that need to be reviewed and resolved before we are ready to take the next step of expanding the franchise as significantly as is proposed.

At both the EU referendum in 2016 and the UK parliamentary elections in 2015, the processing of absent voting applications for overseas voters was a real challenge for EROs. The AEA has outlined a number of areas of concern relating to absent voting arrangements. It fears that difficulties experienced between 2015 and 2017 will only be exacerbated with the removal of the 15-year rule. One significant issue relates to the failure of many overseas voters to provide absent voting information. In what has become a commonplace occurrence, a significant number of overseas electors did not request absent voting facilities when originally applying to register. That resulted in administrators spending significant time contacting, or attempting to contact, those individuals to seek their instructions, and in numerous situations whereby overseas electors were registered but were unable to participate without returning to their polling station.

I will dwell on that point for a moment. The Association of Electoral Administrators talks about its members making a proactive attempt to contact overseas voters to encourage them to make suitable arrangements. That electoral registration officers will do that speaks not only to their dedication, but to the additional workload that will need to be supported, particularly if we increase the franchise as greatly as is proposed.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I presume that British embassies have some sort of form or instructions for overseas voters. An overseas voter who wants to find out what is going on could go to the embassy if perhaps they did not have a computer or were not on the internet, for example.

[Christian Matheson]

I have to say that I do not know the answer to that question. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is probably better versed in international affairs than I am. That is precisely the kind of question that could be asked as part of such a review. The Cabinet Office Minister who will be responsible for implementing the Bill could well speak to their counterparts in the Foreign Office to find out what support and information is and, perhaps more importantly, should be available via British embassies and our network of high commissions and, in larger countries, consulates. That is a very interesting suggestion, which deserves deeper consideration. That is the intention behind the amendment.

Following the Bill’s passage, EROs will inevitably be overburdened by the intense administrative cost of registering the influx of new overseas voters. Given that extra workload, it seems only fair to grant EROs more time to process absent vote forms. At the very least, a review of the procedure is required.

At previous elections, there were issues with electors having limited understanding or unrealistic expectations of the process. Many applied for postal votes when they were unlikely to receive and return them in time. The significant spike in applications for postal votes in the lead-up to a general election inevitably places EROs under stress, as they are overburdened with applications in the short period before the election. That is despite the fact, which I have already referred to, that some go out of their way to try to resolve proactively the problems that electors face, in addition to dealing with complaints or queries from domestically resident voters on the register.

Many overseas voters who applied for postal voting expected to be sent a postal vote immediately. That is simply unrealistic and puts too much strain on EROs in the lead-up to a general election. In addition, some overseas voters appointed a proxy who themselves lived a distance from the local authority area in which the overseas elector was registered. Again, that led to many votes remaining uncast, simply because the proxy could not attend the relevant polling station.

Electoral administrators faced unnecessary and unreasonable criticism as a result of those issues. The process of applying for an absentee vote is convoluted and difficult. The AEA has raised that issue on many occasions, especially in view of the Government’s proposal to remove the 15-year registration period for overseas electors. Will the Minister consider whether her Department has responded to the AEA’s concerns? What consideration has it given to those issues?

Have the Government considered reviewing the proxy voting process for newly eligible overseas voters if the Bill passes? It may be difficult for voters who have lived abroad for decades even to find a proxy. They may lack any personal connection to their old constituency. Will regulations be put in place to require the proxy to live in the constituency? I do not believe that is the case at the moment, but I am interested to know whether this is necessary.

The AEA’s position on that matter is unequivocal. It stated:

“In view of this time limit being removed, consideration needs to be given to the deadline being brought forward for overseas electors to register so that it allows sufficient time to process and check previous revisions of registers, followed by documentary evidence or attestations being provided, if necessary. In addition, sufficient time is required to arrange for any absent vote arrangements to be put in place so that the overseas elector can cast their vote at the election or referendum in time for it to be counted.”

In moving other amendments, other hon. Members and I have suggested that people should have a greater responsibility, or be required to provide greater proof, to demonstrate a connection to a particular constituency. That may have seemed onerous, particularly when we were considering previous clauses. However, there is an argument that doing that earlier and making those applications much more robust would mean that less work would need to be done closer to the deadline for people who have already been through the process and registered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christian Matheson]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Once again, I refer the Committee to our previous discussions about the administrative burden on electoral registration officers and the spikes in applications for electoral registration that always occur close to elections and when elections are announced. The new clause would introduce a provision to prompt UK citizens who are considering moving abroad or are in the process of moving to register as an overseas voter.

The Labour party is committed to taking radical steps to increase voter registration and turnout. We feel that it is important to use the Bill to encourage overseas voters to register in the early stages of moving abroad. That would not only reduce the workload of EROs, who must send out reminders to encourage new overseas voters to register, but strengthen our democratic culture by encouraging voter registration. If new overseas voters register early, they will be more likely to remain invested and engaged in British politics in the long term. Of course, the purpose behind the Bill is to get people who have perhaps lived abroad for more than 15 years involved and give them a stake in the electoral process.

The basic structure of electoral registration has remained unchanged for many years. Under the current structure, it is electoral registration officers’ duty to ensure that the voting register is as accurate and complete as possible, to conduct an annual household canvass, and to issue and chase inquiry forms. Household inquiry forms are sent to every household to confirm the details of those living at the property. Although the forms do not directly generate new registrations, they are critical to producing information about voters across the country.

Under the new clause, any information suggesting that a British person is moving or has moved abroad would trigger a prompt from the ERO to encourage them to put themselves on the voter register abroad.

[Bob Stewart]

On the practicalities of sending out a form to someone abroad every year, presumably that would be quite an expense to the electoral system. I presume that the people abroad who want to stay on the roll will have to send a letter back, and will have to pay for the postage.

[Christian Matheson]

I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his intervention. That is the current situation. The purpose behind the new clause is to ensure that people register at the outset so that we avoid spikes in registration in the immediate lead-up to an election period when, given everything else that is going on, electoral registration officers are at their busiest, their work is at its most hectic and they are under the most careful of examinations. As we saw in constituencies across the UK at the previous general election, there was not just a flurry of late registrations, but in certain constituencies there were complaints afterwards that people had not been allowed to vote, even though they felt they had registered in time. In some circumstances, they had confirmation that they had been registered, but they were not on the register. The new clause is intended to avoid that. The problem that the hon. and gallant Gentleman mentions would not necessarily have been avoided anyway.