Photographic Reconnaissance Unit: National Memorial

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Tuesday 9th November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Philip Davies (in the Chair)]

Before we begin, I remind Members that they are expected to wear face coverings when not speaking in the debate, in line with guidance from the House of Commons Commission. I also remind Members that they are asked by the House to take a covid lateral flow test twice a week if coming onto the Parliamentary estate, which can be done either at the testing centre or at home. Please give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering or leaving the room.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered a national memorial to the Photographic Reconnaissance Unit.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I have a confession to make today: until seeking this debate, I knew little to nothing about the Royal Air Force’s Photographic Reconnaissance Unit. I knew little to nothing about the heroism, the bravery, and the contribution of the men who flew in the PRU and can quite legitimately claim to have turned the tide of that war against evil in Europe between 1939 and 1945.

I was—I admit this now that the debate has been granted and we are all gathered here today—doing a friend a favour. Luke Graham, the former MP for Ochil and South Perthshire, first sought a debate on this campaign for a national memorial to the PRU back in 2019. Sadly, in December of that year he ceased to be the MP for that constituency. When asked if I would carry the baton forward and continue this campaign in Parliament, I heartily agreed.

To be clear, I do fully believe in this campaign. I fully believe that the PRU deserves a national memorial. However, this campaign only became real to me yesterday when, by chance, following a phone call to my office from a Mr Menzies of Conon Bridge in the highlands Scotland, who had read an article on this debate in the Sunday Express, I was put in touch with Mr George Pritchard of Northampton—one of four living veterans of the PRU still with us .

[Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)]

I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend’s peroration so early; I am sure it will be excellent. However, I did not want to allow the opportunity to go by without expressing my gratitude to my hon. Friend for his reference to George Pritchard, who is a resident of Duston in my constituency of Northampton South. At a magnificent 97 years old, he is a lively, active, living tribute to the outstanding work that he and his fellow PRU personnel undertook in defence of our freedom. This early intervention is my opportunity to say that my hon. Friend’s campaign has my full support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and I heartily agree. It was in speaking with George yesterday who, as my hon. Friend says, at 97 remains as sharp as a tack and very much on the ball, that this campaign was really brought home to me. George flew Mosquitoes over enemy lines to gather crucial intelligence for the allies, and he made clear to me just how important this campaign is. There will come a time, which is sadly fast approaching, when there will be no veterans of that great conflict left with us. Therefore it lies with us—we who are free to stand in this Parliament today, in this country, on this continent, because of the actions of men like George—to commemorate and remember them.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate today, and in this week of all weeks, when the nation will fall silent as we remember all those who fought and did not return; those who did give their tomorrow for our today, 378 of whom flew with the PRU and 143 of whom lie with no grave. They really were the few.

Early in the morning of 5 March 1942, 22-year-old Alastair “Sandy” Gunn of Auchterarder in Perthshire climbed into his Spitfire AA810 at RAF Wick, taking off into the cool, blue dawn with one instruction: to get eyes on the Tirpitz. The Tirpitz was the sister ship of the Bismarck. She had escaped unscathed from an RAF bombing raid on Wilhelmshaven where she lay in build and, since evading the Royal Navy, local intelligence and RAF aerial searches for months, the pride of the German fleet had been seen in Trondheim harbour.

It was a beautiful late winter morning—one of those seen only over the North sea—giving Sandy no cloud cover whatsoever. Not that that mattered very much, because the Luftwaffe, from their listening station in Kristiansund, had scrambled two Messerschmitts. As with all photographic reconnaissance aircraft, Sandy’s Spitfire was stripped of guns and plating, which were replaced with cameras and enough fuel for long-range missions. Hon. Members will agree that that takes incredible bravery—to fly those most dangerous of missions, over enemy lines, with no armaments whatsoever with which to defend oneself. Diving down, the Messerschmitt found Sandy’s oil system but, as it closed in, blinded by spray, could not hold course and broke away. The second Messerschmitt, pressing home the attack, sprayed its 20 mm cannon into Sandy’s wing, bursting a fuel tank. The Spitfire was on fire, falling fast.

Sandy ejected, and parachuted into the snow-covered mountains. Two Norwegians climbed to meet Sandy with skis—and with all the daring resolve of their underground resistance. His Spitfire, the AA810, remained on the mountainside. Badly burned, Sandy was in no state to attempt a cross-country escape across occupied Norway. Instead, he handed himself in to the Germans. Interrogated for 21 days, Sandy held his resolve, and held his silence, before he was sent off to the infamous Stalag Luft III. Punished for a first, failed escape, he then set himself at the slow and steady work of tunnel Harry and, alongside his fellow inmates, made his great escape on 24 March 1944. Looking to find neutral Sweden, riding on the axles of freight trains, he and Flight Lieutenant Casey were one day’s walk away from the Baltic coast. Sadly, they were caught and, given up to the Gestapo, interrogated. Sandy was brought outside and shot, on Hitler’s direct orders.

Sandy was one of over 1,000 who flew with the PRU and one of over 378 who fell, giving the PRU the second-highest attrition rate of any unit in the entire second world war. However, in delivering over 20 million images of enemy operations and installations—from Norwegian fjords to the Burmese jungle; for D-day, Amiens and the Dambusters raid; first spotting the V1 and V2—the PRU opened up the terrific German war machine cog and piece apart, and gave a sight of victory. If that sounds familiar to the Minister, it is because the first camera systems were fitted into the Spitfires and Mosquitoes at RAF Farnborough, in his constituency, and the men who did so taught at the RAF School of Photography nearby.

The Photographic Reconnaissance Unit was formed on 24 September 1939. Throughout the second world war it operated, as I said, in highly dangerous, clandestine photographic reconnaissance operations in all theatres of operation.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate and for his tenacity in bringing it back post 2019. He mentioned Sandy Gunn and his bravery. Sandy Gunn flew from Wick during that campaign, but he was briefly at Leuchars. Given that the hon. Member is describing the history of the Photographic Reconnaissance Unit, it would be remiss of me not to detail the fact that it was based at Leuchars airfield from late 1942 to early 1944. I hope that the hon. Member will join me in seeking to honour the memory of all those men and to ensure that all air bases are recognised in the memorial.

[Andrew Bowie]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I completely agree: all the air bases from which the PRU flew should be commemorated, and all the men who flew, from whatever airfield, should be commemorated if we are able to succeed in getting a memorial erected in a prominent position in the country in the coming years.

In 2019, Mr Tony Hoskins recovered Spitfire AA810—Sandy Gunn’s Spitfire—from the Norwegian mountainside where Sandy had ejected all those years ago. Tony Hoskins established the Spitfire AA810 Project to restore the plane to flight, which it is hoped will be completed by 2023. The project also established the Sandy Gunn Aerospace Careers Programme, which was launched at Cranfield University on 27 September 2019—what would have been Sandy Gunn’s 100th birthday.

In 2019, the Spitfire AA810 Project began its campaign to establish a national memorial to the PRU and the brave men who flew for it from wherever they were based. This year, the project established an advisory board, with representatives from industry, academia and both Houses of Parliament, to drive forward the establishment of a national memorial to the PRU. The young pilots who flew for the PRU performed their duty in highly dangerous conditions, without armour and alone. The work of the PRU and the intelligence it gathered were crucial to allied planning and strategy throughout the war. They were critical to the success of countless operations, saving the lives of thousands of servicemen in the process.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I apologise to you, Mr Davies, and to the Minister that I cannot be here for the whole debate because I am about to attend a remembrance service in the Guards’ Chapel. No disrespect is intended.

May I pay a family tribute? My late father, Reginald Francois, was on a minesweeper on D-day. There were many reasons why Operation Overlord succeeded, but one undoubtedly was the ceaseless courage of the unarmed PRU pilots who flew multiple missions to successfully reconnoitre the Normandy coast so that the allied invasion could be best planned. From the son of a D-Day veteran, I offer my hon. Friend unstinting support for his campaign, and thank him and his predecessor for having the courage to raise it in this place. We wish him Godspeed.

[Andrew Bowie]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention, and that very personal family tribute. His father, like many, served in the second world war, and they were only able to do so and complete their missions because of the bravery of men like Sandy, George, and all the others who flew with the PRU, giving Allied Command the intelligence that they required to navigate their way through incredibly difficult situations. I thank my right hon. Friend very much for his tribute and his contribution, and for his support for the campaign to get a national memorial established.

The PRU’s pilots and the reconnaissance aircraft in which they flew are, sadly, largely unrecognised in history. Their story, their success, and their sacrifices are, as I have said, mostly untold. Furthermore, the highly dangerous conditions in which the pilots of the PRU served meant that it experienced a tragically high death rate. Although it was a relatively small unit, the PRU suffered horrendous losses from its inception in 1939 through to the end of hostilities in the far east in 1945, with records now showing that—as I have said—its survival rate was the second lowest of any allied aerial unit during the entire war.

Some 1,287 men have so far been identified as having flown operational photo reconnaissance sorties, but only 29% of them have been confirmed as having survived the war. Even more tragically, due to the solitary nature of their work, 12% of those who flew are still missing to this day, their final resting places unknown and unrecorded. A permanent national memorial to the Photographic Reconnaissance Unit would be a fitting tribute to those pilots, navigators and observers who undertook those dangerous missions in the service of our country, and would serve as a de facto headstone for those who served in the PRU but have, as yet, no known grave.

So, I come to the ask—except, exceptionally for Westminster and, I am sure, to the relief of the Minister, I make no financial ask of the Government. I simply request that the Minister meets with the campaign for the national memorial, and gives support to the efforts to establish a national memorial in an appropriate location in London: a memorial to the 1,287 men who flew for the PRU; to the 378 who did not return; to the 143 who lie with no grave; to Sandy and all those like him; and to George and the three others, the last of the few.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie]

I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his response to the debate and for his acknowledgment of the campaign. I also thank him for agreeing to meet me and other members of the campaign as we seek to get a memorial established.

As I said in my speech, it is an opportune time to be holding this debate about a national memorial, because the few are getting fewer. We are very lucky to be the last generation to have known and been lucky enough to speak and listen to the men and women who fought in that great conflict of 1939 to 1945 to free our continent from the tyranny of the Nazis and fascism. It falls to us to carry the stories of their bravery and heroism. That greatest generation enabled us to continue to speak and debate freely, as we do every day in this place, in this country and to a large extent across the continent of Europe.

The campaign to get a permanent memorial to the Photographic Reconnaissance Unit—a unit that is so little understood and known about, but which deserves so much more recognition—is, I believe, one way that we can carry that torch forward and take these stories on to a new generation. We must never forget those that fell for our freedoms. We must never allow the stories of the great deeds done for our own sake by that greatest generation to fall into distant memory. I thank every one of my colleagues for their contribution. It is very much a cross-party campaign, and I thank everyone for coming along and contributing. I thank the campaign for bringing the cause to my attention and the nation’s attention, which they have done by getting the debate today. Thank you, Mr Davies, for chairing the debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered a national memorial to the Photographic Reconnaissance Unit.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

2. What steps he is taking to support the Scottish fishing industry.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Iain Stewart)]

My Department continues to work closely with the Scottish fishing industry. Following the success of our Scottish Seafood Exports Taskforce, which made real progress on issues identified by industry, we are continuing to bring together industry and Ministers through our Scottish Seafood Industry Action Group to continue that productive engagement.

[Andrew Bowie]

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. As a newly independent coastal state seeking this week to negotiate with Norway an agreement on Arctic cod, what is he doing to break the monopoly of the foreign-owned and rather slyly named UK Fisheries, which has had more than its fill from Svalbard and has for decades fleeced the Scottish fishing industry over the UK quota on Arctic cod?

[Iain Stewart]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am well aware of the representations the catching sector in Scotland has made over quotas it lost when we were a part of the common fisheries policy. That saw Scottish quotas swapped for the benefit of a foreign-owned vessel. I am sure that being an independent coastal state must mean that we look after our truly domestic businesses first and foremost.

Health and Social Care

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Tuesday 7th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that as a result of this announcement today, the Scottish national health service will receive billions of extra pounds in funding? Does he share my astonishment—and, I am sure, the astonishment of the people of Scotland—at the remarkable reaction of the SNP today? It seems that because the SNP has not asked for it, it does not want Scotland’s NHS to get this extra funding.

[The Prime Minister]

That was brilliantly and succinctly put. Does the SNP want the money or not? Do the people of Scotland want investment in their healthcare and social care or not? There is more money coming for Scotland; let us hope that the SNP spends it wisely.

Afghanistan

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Wednesday 18th August 2021 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

Thank you for calling me, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is rather a shock to be called so early in the debate.

As we sit here talking today, thousands of men and women are frightened for their lives and those of their families—thousands of men and women who believed us, and indeed the entire west, when, in October 2001, in the dark shadow of that awful day in the previous month, we were engaging in Afghanistan, in the words of President George W. Bush, to defeat al-Qaeda, to remove the Taliban from power and so that

“the oppressed people of Afghanistan will know the generosity of America and our allies.”

They believed the words of our own Prime Minister, Tony Blair, when he told the US Congress in 2003:

“We are fighting for the inalienable right of humankind, black or white, Christian or not, left, right or a million different—to be free, free to raise a family in love and hope, free to earn a living and be rewarded by your own efforts, free not to bend your knee to any man in fear”.

We have done great things over the past 20 years and our veterans can be incredibly proud of the good that they achieved in Afghanistan, but these words must sound very hollow to the men, women and children huddled in the airport in Kabul at this moment. Just about every MP in this place is, I am sure, in some way involved in trying to get people out of that country. Among them is a man whose name I will not share, for obvious reasons—a man who worked for the British Government, who has certificates and commendations from the Coldstream Guards and the Royal Air Force and a certificate thanking him for his service in the year of Her Majesty’s the Queen’s diamond jubilee. He believed in us—in us and the American mission. He believed in our mission to rebuild Afghanistan after half a century of bloodshed.

Right now, that man is sitting with his entire family in the airport in Kabul—he, his wife and four children and his 73-year-old mother. His wife, his kids and he were offered safe passage out of the country, but he was told that his elderly and vulnerable mother would not be allowed to travel with them. Late on Monday night he had to make a choice—to leave with his wife and children and leave his ageing and vulnerable mother behind to whatever fate might befall her, or stay behind. He took the terribly difficult decision to stay. The last I heard was that he was still assisting British troops at the airport and, with the help of the charity that his brother works for, was reapplying for ARAP status for his entire family. This man was only in the airport because he was assisting British nationals to evacuate the country. I have the highest admiration for our amazing men and women in the FCDO and the MOD. These have been incredibly trying times. They have all the details of that case and I know that they are working hard to get that family out. But I will not stop trying to assist that man, as I know many Members of Parliament are doing for many others.

In the last few days belief in the west has been shaken, but it has not died. In America, and here in the UK, not least in our excellent Secretary of State for Defence and all his staff, we have seen examples of people who still believe in the good that we in the west can do. We should never forget that.

Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 6th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can assure you that I will take much less than 10 minutes. In this debate we have gone over the constitutional law aspects of the Bill, and we have talked much about the Parliament of 2017 to 2019 and the implications of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. I wish to look at one aspect that I do not think has been discussed sufficiently, which is that as a new Member of Parliament in 2017, I came into a situation where there was constant speculation about the possibility of an early election.

Almost every week between 2017 and December 2019, we discussed the possibility of a general election and when it would be—this year, next year or next month. That causes instability, and not only within Parliament for its Members, who are trying to figure out what they should be doing; but how does one govern in a situation where the Government could end at any moment and one could be going into a general election?

We have talked a lot about the public and their perception of Parliament today, and between 2017 and 2019 they were dissatisfied with the uncertainty about where their Government were going and what was going to happen. Business was unhappy with it, and it disrupted much of the personal, commercial and industrial life of the country.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

I am listening to the hon. Member intently. Was the problem between 2017 and 2019 not precisely the opposite, in that there was no way to have an election so that the Government could get on with governing and we could get business transacted in this place? Was it not the exact opposite of what she is describing that posed so many of the issues that we faced in those years?

[Christine Jardine]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution, but I would say that it was actually the opposite. If we all cast our minds back to 2017 when the Fixed-term Parliaments Act was in place, we will remember that we had a snap general election because the Government wanted a general election. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act allowed for that. Then, between 2017 and 2019, the Government chose to behave like a majority Government when they were not one. The right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) said earlier that we had an instruction from the public; we did not. We had a divided country and a divided Parliament as a result. We did not have a majority and we had uncertainty and a Government who did not accept that to get anything done, they had to find a way to work with the other parties. That was the problem between 2017 and 2019.

Ironically, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said, in 2019 we were able to come to a general election, even though it was in December, because the Government realised that they had to find a way and talk to people. In that respect, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act did not fail; it proved its worth in allowing the Government to be flexible enough to do that. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) said, the devolution Act allows for the same possibility in Scotland: if it is not possible for the Government to govern, there will be an election. I accept that the Fixed- term Parliaments Act is not perfect, but I do think it allows for some stability. It allows a Government, an Opposition and the public to know that there will be a period of stability if there is a majority Government.

[Andrew Bowie]

The hon. Member is being kind and indulgent of me in giving way. The simple fact is that the reason why we were able to have a snap election in 2017 was that two thirds of the House of Commons voted for it. That was never going to be the case at any point between 2017 and 2019; in fact, we had the farcical scenes of the Prime Minister wanting to dissolve his own Government to go to the country and the Leader of the Opposition agreeing, but not just yet. The hon. Member suggests that the uncertainty was brought about because the threat of an election was hanging over us, when actually the exact opposite was the case.

[Christine Jardine]

I am afraid I beg to differ. For me and for many people I know, the instability was because the Government did not accept the reality of the situation we were in and act accordingly. We could spend the rest of the evening debating what the Government did between 2017 and 2019 but we would not change it.

The fact of the matter remains that we had a general election in 2019 and we are now discussing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which I believe offers this country the opportunity for the same sort of stability as we see in democracies around the world and within our own democracy. If the Fixed-term Parliaments Act is repealed, this place will be perhaps the only sphere of government—local, national or devolved—in the United Kingdom that does not have a fixed term. It is not just about those elected to this place; those who work for it and for the elected representatives do not have the certainty and security of knowing what the term of a Parliament will be. That is why, as I said, I believe that although the Fixed-term Parliaments Act was not perfect, it was, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland said, a necessary modernisation and a recognition that the way we had done things up to 2011 had to be changed. We had to come into the 21st century, with a fixed-term Parliament with the flexibility to have an election but the stability that the country not only needed at that time but needs right now because of covid-19.

What happened in 2010 was not something that will never happen again. The situation that the country faced—the crisis that needed stability—was not something that happens only once in history. It has happened before and it will happen again and, as I have said, it is happening now. What the people of this country need from us is the certainty and the stability of what their future will be. That is why they elected us. We should not need the threat of a general election to be out there talking to and engaging with our constituents and listening to what they say. If we do, then we have failed.

The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) described this Bill as a power grab and, in that, I have to agree with him. It is taking power away from Parliament. It is taking power away from the Members of Parliament and, in doing so, from the elected representatives, and placing it in the hands of the Government and only the Government. It is making the timing of a general election the whim, potentially, of one person based on the scenario of the time. We have talked about lots of decisions about when general elections were and when they were not. In 1974, when, sadly, I was also alive—

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), and even more of a pleasure to know that we are going to be in the same Lobby this evening—that is not always the case. I want to join everybody across the House in welcoming the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), back to the Chamber. It has been a lesser place without her, and although she has been joining us through the wonders of Zoom, it is absolutely brilliant to have her back on the Front Bench doing her job so ably. I wholeheartedly echo the thoughts expressed by everyone in the House today.

It would be remiss of me not to mention that today, 6 July, is a day that is clouded by tragedy in the north-east of Scotland, because today we remember the 167 men who lost their lives in the Piper Alpha disaster 33 years ago. Many people are still grieving for lost loved ones, and this still causes many of us in the north-east to pause and think about the sacrifices made on our behalf by those people working to ensure that we continue to receive our energy in the way we do. We thank them and we remember them.

I am not a constitutional geek by any stretch, certainly not to the extent of my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price). I thought I was, but listening to the arguments today, I realise that I am but a rank amateur when it comes to constitutional history, the details of how this country got to the place it did, how our constitution was created and how we run the country. However, I am strongly of the view that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act was, frankly, a piece of constitutional vandalism that I cannot wait to see repealed.

Governments must have the confidence of this House, and they must be able to govern. Most of us in this House who lived through the events between 2017 and 2019 will know that neither was the case in that Parliament, and 2019 is a year that I still shudder to remember. It a year—you will not believe this, Mr Deputy Speaker—in which I started with no grey hairs and ended up with plenty, and I think my hairline was 2 cm further down my forehead than it is today. It is vital that the action we are taking today goes ahead.

In the autumn of 2019, the British people had confidence in this Government and in the Prime Minister. Most wanted us to deliver on the referendum result, while others just wanted the country to move on; neither was possible. Who can forget the utter farce of the indicative votes process, when this Parliament literally voted to do nothing? It was a shambles. What arrogance for politicians to deprive the people of their will, when it was so clear that, in the national interest, we needed to go to the country and expunge that dead, or dying, Parliament. Who can forget the frankly absurd spectacle of the Prime Minister, almost on bended knee, seeking the permission of the Leader of the Opposition, then the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), a man who claimed he wanted an election, just not quite yet—was it three times he used that line?

Indeed, we could still be in that awful holding pattern of wanting to go to the country but failing to get the two-thirds majority required under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, had Jo Swinson and the Liberal Democrats not come graciously to the aid of the country and the Government. For her and their sacrifice, we and indeed the entire country will remain eternally grateful. [Laughter.] We laugh now, but I remember the debates back then about when the right hon. Member for Islington North would decide that it was right for us to go to the country—maybe it would be after Christmas; maybe it would be in spring, when the weather would be better. Knowing what we know now, imagine if we had still been in that position, with that Parliament coinciding with the coronavirus pandemic and all that it wrought on the country. Are we not so very glad that we went to the country when we did? It is a genuinely frightening thought.

It is hard now in this new Parliament—sort of new—with a functioning Government majority, to imagine returning to such a scenario, but in 2010 we were told by very clever people on TV that coalitions would be the future, and in 2015 we were told that government by a single-party majority had returned. I remember in 2017 also being told that the country was braced for an era of minority government. Now, of course, we are told that we have returned to large one-party Governments that command control of the House. It is very bad to try to predict the future. In this game, it is hard to predict what will happen in three weeks, let alone three years.

The greatest asset that this country has is the flexibility of its famously uncodified constitution not only to dignify, but to bend and adapt to, circumstance and event. It has been the habit of recent Governments since the late 1990s to meddle with that, and in many instances we have learnt the hard way that we do so at our peril. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) said, the old adage “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” should be every Government’s mantra. The joy and brilliance of the previous system—whereby a House of Commons could boot out a Government if they lost confidence, or a Prime Minister could, in the national interest, go to the country—was flexible and enduring. And it worked; it did not need fixing.

Ultimately, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act failed. It expressly failed to ensure that we had fixed-term Parliaments. If it had succeeded, I would not be standing here today—some might think that would be a very good thing, but from my perspective I am very glad that the Act failed. The Act is bad law. It was ill conceived and ill thought through, with awful consequences. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) spoke about the confusing situation that would arise in the two-week gap between a Government falling and the creation of a new Government. I am very glad that the Government are seeking to overturn the Act. I support this Bill and look forward to voting for it this evening.

I will finish by echoing the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell), when he wondered whether many people were tuning into BBC Parliament to watch this debate. Shame on them if they are not, because today I genuinely think we have seen Parliament at its best—a dignified, in-depth, serious debate with no time limit. The only cry I would make is: more of this sort of thing, please.

Debate on the Address

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Tuesday 11th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)]

I thank Her Majesty for coming to the Houses of Parliament today to deliver the Queen’s Speech. Our thoughts remain with her, given the sad passing of her husband, the Duke of Edinburgh, some weeks ago. I also welcome the new hon. Member for Hartlepool (Jill Mortimer) to her place.

It was a joy to hear the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Shailesh Vara) proposing the motion. I have some friendship with him: he and I served together when he was the Pensions Minister six years ago and I was the SNP pensions spokesperson. I remember, at the first meeting that we had in his office, the look of horror on his face when we were met by Baroness Altmann. He said, “Good grief. Are the two of you friends?” And, of course, we were. I am delighted to say that we had a very warm and cordial relationship when he was the Minister, and we worked together over a number of matters. He delivered a typically erudite, humorous and passionate speech this afternoon, and I cannot help thinking that it was an application for a job in Government again, if the Prime Minister was listening to him.

I also thank the hon. Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) for what was a tour de force and a ramble round the Tory Benches. I am sure that she, too, will have an outstanding career as a Member of Parliament on the Tory Benches.

This new Session of the Westminster Parliament comes at a time of huge challenge and crisis, but equally a time of fundamental choice for people right across these islands. The covid pandemic has seen our world rapidly change over the course of the past year. This year and into the future, people’s clear desire and demand is that we change things profoundly and for the better. That is exactly why the electoral results of the past week represent such a historic and defining moment. Last Thursday, the people of Scotland turned out in record numbers—the highest turnout at a Scottish parliamentary election—to re-elect the SNP Government for a fourth consecutive term. They turned out to support the message of hope and change so brilliantly characterised by our First Minister. It was an election that broke nearly every record in the book, and the result will continue to reverberate.

That electoral earthquake opens the democratic path that will shape Scotland’s future. Let us be clear: that future will be in Scotland’s hands, and it will be the choice of the people and nobody else.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman mentions the record-breaking election, but he did not mention that it was the Scottish Conservatives’ record-breaking election: there were more votes for the Scottish Conservatives than at any time in the history of devolution, making us the definite party of the main Opposition in Scotland. He talks about Scotland’s choice, but four days before the election on Thursday, the First Minister of Scotland was on the BBC saying that it was not an election about independence. Barely hours after the polls closed, she was calling for another referendum. Why did she mislead the Scottish people four days before we went to the polls?

[Ian Blackford]

I have to say that I am disappointed in the hon. Gentleman. It is going to be important over the coming weeks and months that we can debate properly the choices for the future of Scotland. I make this offer to him: all of us who have Scotland’s interests at heart should be able to debate rationally and honestly what those choices are. Let us respect the electorate in doing that.

Everybody knows that the Scottish National party is the party of independence, and everybody knows—without prevarication, without doubt—that the SNP stood on a very clear manifesto commitment of giving the people of Scotland the choice to have that debate and to have a say in their future. It was clearly contained in our manifesto. We said to the people of Scotland, “Put us back into government again and allow us to lead the country through the pandemic,” but the promise that we made to the people of Scotland was that if they voted for us in that election and delivered a majority for independence in that Parliament, nobody—not the Prime Minister and certainly not the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie)—would stop them having their democratic choice.

The hon. Gentleman has to recognise what happened. Let us look at this in the context that Westminster looks at it—on the basis of the first-past-the-post system. Now, we do not support that system; we support proportional representation. But there are 73 first-past-the-post constituencies in the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish National party won 62 of them. We won 85% of the constituencies on 48% of the vote—the highest number of constituencies ever won by any party and the highest share of the vote ever won by any party. For the Conservatives to try to argue that black is white and they won the election, if we listen to the hon. Gentleman—frankly, nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is that the ambition of the Conservative party in Scotland is to be in opposition. The ambition of the Scottish National party is to govern and to take our people to independence.

Ministerial Code

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Monday 26th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I do not want to embarrass the hon. Gentleman too much by saying that almost every time he asks a question or makes a point in the House of Commons, I think how lucky his constituents are to have him as their Member of Parliament. Even though we disagree on many issues, he puts his finger on an important point of public scrutiny at this time, as people decide how to cast their votes.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is only one party in this House that stands guilty of ignoring votes in a Parliament to which it is responsible, that withholds legal advice, that spends thousands of pounds trying to cover its back in a botched court case, and whose leader had been found guilty by a cross-party Committee of that Parliament of misleading that Parliament? It is not my party but the party of the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), who asked this urgent question today: the Scottish National party—the real cosy, sleekit cabal that is running Scotland today.

[Michael Gove]

I could not put it better myself. The surprising thing is: where are the SNP MPs now? Some people might think that turning up, reading out a question and then leaving before the debate has concluded is the perfect definition of a cynical political stunt, but I will leave that for other people to decide.

Lobbying of Government Committee

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Wednesday 14th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

I agree with much of what my hon. Friends the Members for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) and for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) have said.

There are two facts here that may appear contradictory, but are not. This is basically an honest place and the overwhelming majority of us are deeply honest and straightforward—there are flaws in politicians, but in this country corruption is not necessarily one of them. At the same time, it is sadly true that the UK is an influence peddler’s paradise. I will explain why; it has much to do not only with the weakness around domestic lobbying laws, but with foreign lobbying.

I will not spend much time on the points raised by Opposition Members; for a “loyal Opposition”, I am not sure that they seem particularly good at being either. I know that the Prime Minister wants to do the right thing, so I will make some suggestions, partly based on a report that I wrote earlier this year with the Henry Jackson Society about looking into foreign interference in the UK and models for a UK foreign lobbying Act.

The problem is that the current lobbying rules are not fit for purpose, because there are barely any lobbying rules. In fact, it is very difficult to break the rules, because they are so limited: they are built around a very narrow definition of what it is to be a lobbyist and what a lobbyist does. Most importantly, they do not look at the lobbying done by law firms and reputation managers—the sleaze launderers and reputation launderers. If we look at some of the most corrupting elements in our system and at the relationship that BT had for 10 or 15 years with Huawei, effectively, BT, a corporate entity that had high standards—

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

My hon. Friend raises Huawei. Does it not demonstrate his point that there are very strict rules in this country that many companies and individuals stick to, but when it comes to foreign influence in politics, we must go much further? For the Opposition to have made no reference to that in the motion is a matter of deep regret.

[Bob Seely]

I agree. I thank my hon. Friend for his point and hope to build on it. If we look at Huawei and its relationship with BT, effectively, BT became a front entity for Chinese state technology in this country. Another example is Lord Barker, a former Minister who is now in the other place—I think that is the correct expression. We found out about his extensive work for one of President Putin’s most loyal oligarchs, Oleg Deripaska, by reading the US media. Why? Because we have no foreign lobbying accountability laws in our own country, in much the same way as our domestic lobbying laws are very fragile as well.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Steve Double) was right: a lot of us rely on a clean system because we are honest people, but the problem is that it is easy to abuse a system that is still largely based on trust, and it is often difficult to understand the ways in which it is being corrupted. That is perhaps the most significant problem.

We are talking about one individual politician, David Cameron. I am sorry to hear that he has done this, because actually I quite like the guy and hope he can in some way explain himself rather better than he is doing, but we are talking about one individual politician and one or two—a small number of—civil servants. However, the systemic threat of malign covert influence is not necessarily from specific individuals who may or may not be flawed, but is from states that use covert influence to try to manipulate laws and influence public opinion in other people’s countries, and we now have a mini-industry of that in the United Kingdom.

To sum up to ensure others have the time to speak, I will send, if I may, to the Minister my report on foreign lobbying in the hope that when we produce these laws the Government will take into account some of the things the Henry Jackson Society and I have worked on, so we can try to clean up our system and these occasions become even rarer, as they should be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. Before I proceed, I think I speak for the whole House when I say how nice it was to see the Minister for the Constitution and Devolution, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), opening the debate. I am sure everybody sends her their best wishes, albeit virtually.

As my hon. Friend and so many others have said already, we all condemn the actions that are alleged to have taken place regarding Greensill and the involvement of the former Prime Minister. It leaves a bad taste in the mouth and, as so many have said far better than I could, it tarnishes us all. We need to ensure that we uphold the best possible standards in public life and that there is transparency in all interactions between companies, individuals and decision makers in Government.

However, that is not at all the aim of the motion in front of us today. The motion, if passed, would do no such thing. It is blatant, tawdry politics. It is ill-thought-through, but even worse than that is the stench of hypocrisy that remains in the air given some of the utterances from Opposition Members. I notice that the shadow Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), is opening the next debate. It was he who wrote to the Business Secretary asking him to expand Greensill’s access to Government loans. The hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) opened this debate, speaking about how we should go further and faster in tackling corruption in lobbying. In December—just last year—she said:

“Democracy is deeper than sporadic elections, it is about what happens in between with citizens’ voice, rights and power. That requires guarding the independence and voice of civil society and is why measures in the Lobbying Act which mutes so many, really must go.”

The Opposition want to repeal the lobbying Act. It is frankly astounding.

As I have said, we need to ensure transparency and trust in politics. We need to ensure that the way companies and individuals interact with Government and decision makers is transparent. We must maintain standards in public life. However, the motion in front of us today would do no such thing.

His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Monday 12th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)]

It is an honour to rise to pay tribute to His Royal Highness, Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh. I rise with the Queen and the entire royal family obviously at the forefront of my thoughts, but also the many estate staff and estate pensioners at Balmoral and, indeed, the many more in the wider Royal Deeside community, who today mourn the passing of not only our Queen’s consort but an employer, a neighbour and a friend.

On Saturday, my wife and I climbed up to Prince Albert’s cairn, a large granite pyramid standing high above the River Dee, erected by Queen Victoria on the death of her Prince consort. From it, we looked across the Dee valley towards Crathie and its kirk, west towards Braemar and east towards Ballater. Behind us, although hidden by the giant fir trees—many of them only there due to the hard work of the Duke of Edinburgh—rose majestic Lochnagar, standing high above Glen Muick. All these were areas that his Royal Highness, through more than 70 years of regular visits, knew well and on which he left his indelible mark.

Balmoral was a place that, like Victoria and Albert, Prince Philip and the Queen loved as a private home. It was of course at Balmoral where the then Princess Elizabeth and he became engaged during the summer of 1946, and following their marriage they spent part of their honeymoon at Craigowan, on the estate. It was there that he was able to enjoy his passions—stalking, shooting, fishing, conservation; taking a keen interest in the agricultural life of the estate, especially the fold of highland cattle, and indeed improving the gardens, one of which he dug out himself with a bulldozer. The Duke was also instrumental in regenerating some of the largest areas of Caledonian pine forest left in Scotland.

Royal Deeside is a part of the world where, although proud of their links to the estate and the family, people do not shout about it; where, with typical north-east reserve, the royal family are afforded respect and allowed privacy as owners of one of the local estates, even when, as remains regularly the case, they are spotted in and around the village of Ballater. It was from Sheridan’s butchers in Ballater that the Duke would source supplies for his now-famous family barbecues, and it was not unusual for him to pop into various shops in the village just to say hello and catch up.

In saying that, when walking around the estate, if one was to see a dark green Land Rover appear over the horizon tearing towards them, they had better have their wits about them. Stories of run-ins with the Duke of Edinburgh are legend and numerous. My favourite, however, is of the occasion when the Duke, driving through the estate on a typical Aberdeenshire summer’s day—which means that the rain was horizontal, not vertical—came across a wet, bedraggled and miserable-looking group of young hikers. He rolled down his window. “What on earth are you doing up here in this weather?” he inquired. One of the lads turned around and spat out, “Our bloody Duke of Edinburgh’s Award!” The family and the estate still welcome hikers and ramblers, although course it is expected that they respect the land in return. One year, the Duke of Edinburgh, fed up with visitors tramping across the estate and not respecting the paths, stuck up signs: “Beware of the adders”. It worked.

Even at Balmoral there were, of course, occasional public engagements, and he would rarely miss the annual Braemar Gathering, an event that draws tens of thousands of visitors from around the world to the heart of my constituency each September, many there just to catch a glimpse of the royal family. For the Duke, however, as I saw with my own eyes on countless occasions, it was simply about enjoying the day and the sport.

Above all, Balmoral was a private home, somewhere he and Her Majesty the Queen could get away from the demands and pressures of public life, albeit for only a few months every year. It therefore, not surprisingly, was to Balmoral that he and the Queen returned last summer when the restrictions eased enough to allow them a break. When they departed on 16 September, the couple waved happily to photographers. Of course, that was to be his last visit to the north-east of Scotland.

The entire country is mourning the loss of the Duke of Edinburgh today, but nowhere more so than in and around the Balmoral estate and the communities on Royal Deeside. His Royal Highness was a proud naval man and a deeply spiritual man, a decorated veteran of world war two, and it was with that in mind that when writing my speech I turned to this part of the naval prayer:

“Preserve us from the dangers of the sea and of the air and from the violence of the enemy; that we may be a safeguard unto our most gracious Sovereign Lady, Queen Elizabeth, and her dominions, and a security for such as pass on the seas on their lawful occasions; that the inhabitants of…our Commonwealth may in peace and quietness serve thee our God; and that we may return in safety to enjoy the blessings of the land”.

At Balmoral, in peace and safety, I know His Royal Highness did just that.

Covid-19: Road Map

Andrew Bowie Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I think that most people in this House would agree that the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation was right in its prioritisation of those who are most vulnerable, and that our ambition in the vaccine roll-out programme should be to vaccinate first those who are most at risk of serious disease and death; that is the right approach.

[Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con) [V]]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement this afternoon and very much hope that it is matched by the First Minister’s statement to the Scottish Parliament tomorrow, because it is better for business—not least the tourism and hospitality sector—that the whole country moves at the same pace. In that vein, does the Prime Minister agree that the incredible success, pace and take-up of the vaccine just shows what this country can achieve when we do it together?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is completely right. It has been a stunning example of the whole of the UK working together to roll out a programme that has been absolutely vital for our whole country. Co-operation with the devolved Administrations has been terrific on this, but it is something that could not have been achieved without the UK working together.