Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill (Instruction)
Eleanor Laing Excerpts(2 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before the House resolves itself into Committee, I draw its attention to the motion on the Order Paper, in the name of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), to allow the Committee to consider amendments relating to Prorogation. This is an admissible instruction on an out-of-scope but cognate matter. [Laughter.] If hon. Members do not understand that, I suggest they turn to “Erskine May” for an explanation. This is an out-of-scope but cognate matter. It is subject to selection by the Chair. Mr Speaker has decided to select the motion, so I call Chris Bryant to move it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before the hon. Gentleman gives way, let me say for the sake of clarity that the programme for the rest of the day would not be null and void. If the hon. Gentleman’s motion is carried by the House, his subsequent amendments and new clauses can be debated; if it is not, they cannot. The position is quite clear; we want to make sure that it is clear.
Joanna Cherry
One of the most notable things after the outcome of the case was that the Prime Minister did not express any remorse for having unlawfully prorogued Parliament, so I would not be so confident that he would not try it again. What initially worried me slightly about the hon. Gentleman’s new clause was that the current Prime Minister, with his huge majority, could seek to prorogue Parliament for a dubious purpose. However, I note that the hon. Gentleman has put in a requirement that it cannot be for more than 10 days. Of course, what was so objectionable about the last Prorogation was that it was so lengthy and came at a time when Parliament had very important matters to debate, so I presume that the hon. Gentleman put that in to guard against the possibility of the current Prime Minister using the rather large majority that he has, at least in England, to force through another dubious Prorogation.
Patrick Grady
I wonder whether the Minister might just indulge the House and express the Government’s opinion on the hon. Member for Rhondda’s amendment, given that the Government seem to oppose our getting a chance to discuss it?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that this is a very narrow debate on the instruction. The Minister can of course speak about the content of the instruction on the matter of Prorogation, but not on the amendment itself.
Chris Bryant
I am sorry not for the tone but for the content of what the Minister said, not least because she is the only person who can grant additional time for debate. I cannot do it. I note that she has not provided any—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I am going to pause the hon. Gentleman for a moment. Once again, because of the screen that is in the way, I could not see the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) on the Opposition Front Bench. If she wishes to comment on these matters, it is better that she does so before the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) concludes.
Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill
Eleanor Laing ExcerptsMonday 13th September 2021
(2 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill 2021-22 View all Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 13 September 2021 - large print - (13 Sep 2021)
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Just before we begin the consideration, I should explain that although the Chair of the Committee would normally sit in a Clerk’s chair during the Committee stage, the Chair of proceedings will remain in the Speaker’s Chair while we still have the screens around the Table, about which, the House will note, I have complained several times today because they restrict the view of the Chair. That was all very well while we were working from a written list, but now that it is necessary for Members to catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair, it is also necessary for the occupant of the Chair to be able to see all Members. The person in the Speaker’s Chair will be carrying out the role not of Deputy Speaker but of Chairman of the Committee, and they should be addressed as Chairman, rather than as Deputy Speaker.
Clause 1
Repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Clauses 2 and 3 stand part.
Amendment 2, in clause 4, page 2, line 3, leave out “it first met” and insert “of the most recent general election”
The intention of this amendment is to require that the last date for a general election is five years after the previous general election.
Clauses 4, 5 and 6 stand part.
New clause 1—Election timetable not to disregard Saturdays and Sundays and bank holidays—
‘(1) Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 is amended as follows.
(2) In rule 2 (1), omit sub-paragraphs (a) and (b).”
The purpose of this new clause is to reduce the time between dissolution and the next meeting of Parliament, by including weekends and bank holidays within the parliamentary general election timetable.
New clause 2—Early parliamentary general elections—
‘(1) An early parliamentary general election may take place sooner than the automatic dissolution under section 4 of this Act only in accordance with this section.
(2) An early parliamentary general election is to take place only if the House of Commons passes a motion in the form set out in subsection (3).
(3) The form of motion for the purposes of subsection (2) is—
(none) “That there shall be an early parliamentary general election.”
(4) Subsection (5) applies for the purposes of the Timetable in rule 1 in Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983.
(5) If a parliamentary general election is to take place as provided for by subsection (2), the polling day for the election is to be the day appointed by Her Majesty by proclamation on the recommendation of the Prime Minister which must be no later than 30 days after the date on which the House of Commons has passed the motion in the form set out in subsection (3).”
The intention of this new clause is to make dissolution subject to a vote of the House of Commons.
New clause 5—Calling of Parliament—
‘(1) The date for the first meeting of a new Parliament must be specified in any proclamation for the dissolution of a Parliament.
(2) The date specified in accordance with subsection (1) may not be later than the 14th day after polling day.”
The intention of this new clause is to require Parliament to meet, and a newly elected Commons to sit to elect a Speaker, within two weeks of a general election.
Amendment 3, in the Schedule, page 4, line 22, leave out “19th” and insert “12th”
The intention of this amendment is to shorten the period between dissolution of one Parliament and the first meeting of the next Parliament by reducing the general election campaign from 25 days to 18.
Amendment 4, page 7, line 15, after “subsection (2)” insert “and”
This is a drafting amendment consequential on Amendment 5.
Amendment 5, page 7, line 17, leave out from “(ii)” to end of line 19 and insert “omit paragraph (b)”
This amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State could not make regulations to combine a UK General Election and an extraordinary general election to the Senedd.
Schedule stand part.
The Minister for the Constitution and Devolution (Chloe Smith)
May I initially seek your guidance, Chairman? Would you like me to cover all the clause stand parts and to respond, as it were, in advance to amendments? Or would you like me to return to respond to hon. Members once they have spoken to their amendments?
The Chairman
That is a perfectly reasonable question from the Minister. As all matters are grouped in one group, she may, in her opening remarks, refer to all amendments and clauses standing part, but of course she will have an opportunity to answer points made by Members when they introduce their amendments and new clauses. Or should I say “he”—[Interruption.] I should say “they”, as the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) has a new clause as well. It is perfectly in order for the Minister to now address everything that is on the amendment paper.
Chloe Smith
Thank you very much indeed, Dame Eleanor. I shall endeavour to do that, and I hope you will bear with me while I ensure that I cover all that material.
Let me begin at the beginning, with clause 1. There is consensus throughout the House that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 has proven to be not fit for purpose and has been damaging to effective and accountable government. The experience of 2019 in particular showed us that the Act was flawed and ran counter to core constitutional principles, and was therefore damaging to the flexible functioning of our constitution. It was unique legislation and it did not work. We saw how, in 2017, a Government who commanded a majority in the House of Commons were able to call an early general election with ease, irrespective of the Act’s intentions.
The events of 2019 then demonstrated how the 2011 Act could obstruct democracy by making it harder to hold a necessary election. The Act’s prescriptive constraints, such as the threshold of a supermajority requirement for a general election and the statutory motions of no confidence, created an untenable situation in which the Government could neither pass vital legislation through Parliament nor call a new election. The result was parliamentary paralysis at a critical time for our Government. The introduction of bespoke primary legislation that circumvented the Act and let us hold a general election in 2019 was the final indictment of the Act.
The Bill therefore repeals the 2011 Act and returns us to the tried and tested system whereby Parliament will automatically dissolve after five years, if it has not been dissolved earlier by the sovereign exercising that prerogative power at the request of the Prime Minister. The key argument is that in doing so it will help to deliver increased legal, constitutional and political certainty around the process for the dissolving of Parliament. Clause 1 repeals the 2011 Act and in doing so delivers, as I have already mentioned, on both a Government manifesto commitment and a Labour manifesto commitment to do so. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Clause 2 makes express provision to revive the prerogative powers that relate to the dissolution of Parliament and the calling of a new Parliament. That means that Parliament will, once more, be dissolved by the sovereign at the request of the Prime Minister. By doing this, the clause delivers on the Bill’s purpose, which is to reset the clock back to the pre-2011 position with as much clarity as possible. The clause is clear in its intention and in its effect. As the Joint Committee on the Fixed-term Parliaments Act put it, the drafting of clause 2 is
“sufficiently clear to give effect to the Government’s intention of returning to the constitutional position”
that existed prior to the passing of the 2011 Act.
Afghanistan
Eleanor Laing Excerpts(2 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
There are, obviously, a great many colleagues trying to catch my eye. After the next contribution, I will have to reduce the time limit to five minutes.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. There are still enormous numbers of colleagues trying to catch my eye so, after the next contribution, I will have to reduce the time limit to four minutes.
Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill
Eleanor Laing ExcerptsTuesday 6th July 2021
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill 2021-22 View all Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill 2021-22 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I have to tell the House that Mr Speaker has not selected the reasoned amendment.
Armed Forces Bill
Eleanor Laing ExcerptsWednesday 23rd June 2021
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Armed Forces Act 2021 View all Armed Forces Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 23 June 2021 - (23 Jun 2021)
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before I ask the Clerk to read the title of the Bill, I should explain that in these exceptional circumstances, although the Chair of the Committee would normally sit in the Clerk’s seat, in order to comply with social distancing requirements, I will remain in the Speaker’s Chair, which is so much more comfortable and from which I can see better, although I will be carrying out the role not of Deputy Speaker, but of Chairman of the Committee. The occupant of the Chair should, in Committee, normally be addressed as the Chair, rather than as Deputy Speaker.
Clause 1
Duration of Armed Forces Act 2006
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chairman
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 2 to 6 stand part.
Amendment 7, in clause 7, page 4, line 27, at end insert—
“(4A) Guidance under subsection (3)(a) must provide for charges of murder, manslaughter, domestic violence, child abuse and rape to be tried only in civilian court when the offences are alleged to have been committed in the United Kingdom.”
This amendment would ensure that the most serious crimes – murder, manslaughter domestic violence, child abuse and rape - are tried in the civilian courts when committed in the UK.
Clause 7 stand part.
Amendment 1, in clause 8, page 9, line 19, at end insert—
“(aa) a relevant government department;”.
This amendment, with amendments 2, 3 and 4, would place the same legal responsibility to have ‘due regard’ to the Armed Forces Covenant on central government and the devolved administrations as the Bill currently requires of local authorities and other public bodies.
Amendment 39, in clause 8, page 10, line 2, at end insert—
“and
(g) in relation to accommodation provided to service people in England, a requirement for that accommodation to meet the Decent Homes Standard.”
The intention of this amendment is to ensure that all service housing is regulated in line with the minimum quality housing standard which pertains to whatever part of the United Kingdom that housing is situated in.
Amendment 2, in clause 8, page 11, line 18, at end insert—
“(aa) a relevant department in the devolved administration in Wales;”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 1.
Government amendment 8.
Amendment 40, in clause 8, page 11, line 38, at end insert—
“and
(e) in relation to accommodation provided to service people in Wales, a requirement for that accommodation to meet the Welsh Housing Quality Standard.”
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 39.
Government amendment 9.
Amendment 3, in clause 8, page 12, line 32, at end insert—
“(aa) a relevant department in the devolved administration in Scotland;”.
See explanatory statement for Amendment 1.
Amendment 41, in clause 8, page 13, line 9, at end insert—
“and
(e) in relation to accommodation provided to service people in Scotland, a requirement for that accommodation to meet the Scottish Housing Quality Standard.”
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 39.
Government amendment 10.
Amendment 4, in clause 8, page 14, line 4, at end insert—
“(aa) a relevant department in the devolved administration in Northern Ireland;”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 1.
Government amendments 11 and 12.
Amendment 42, in clause 8, page 14, line 27, at end insert—
“and
(d) in relation to accommodation provided to service people in Northern Ireland, a requirement for that accommodation to meet the Decent Homes standard for Northern Ireland.”
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 39.
Government amendments 13 to 15.
Amendment 6, in clause 8, page 18, line 7, at end insert—
“343AG Section 343AF: report
The Secretary of State must lay a report before each House of Parliament no later than three months after the day on which this Act is passed on how the powers in section 343F (Sections 343AA to 343AD: power to add bodies and functions) will work in practice.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set out how powers in the Bill could be used to widen its scope to address all matters of potential disadvantage for service personnel under the Armed Forces Covenant including employment, pensions, compensation, social care, criminal justice and immigration.
Clauses 8 and 9 stand part.
Government amendments 16 to 23.
Clauses 10 to 13 stand part.
Government amendments 24 to 30.
Clauses 14 to 26 stand part.
New clause 1—Waived fees for indefinite leave to remain for serving or discharged member of the UK armed forces—
“(1) The Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 68, after (11) insert—
‘(12) No fees may be charged in respect of a serving or previously serving member of the UK armed forces, or their family members, applying for indefinite leave to remain under Appendix Armed Forces of the Immigration Rules.’”
This new clause would amend the Immigration Act 2014 to waive the fee for indefinite leave to remain applications for any current or previously serving Members of the UK Armed forces, and their families.
New Clause 2—Duty of care to service personnel—
“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a duty of care standard in relation to legal, pastoral and mental health support provided to service personnel involved in investigations or litigation arising from overseas operations, as defined in section 1(6) of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans Act 2021.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the duty of care standard under subsection (1) before Parliament within six months of the date on which this Act is passed.
(3) The Secretary of State must thereafter in each calendar year—
(a) prepare a duty of care update, and
(b) include the duty of care update in the Armed Forces Covenant annual report when it is laid before Parliament.
(4) The duty of care update is a review about the continuous process and improvement to meet the duty of care standard established in subsection (1), in particular in relation to incidents arising from overseas operations of—
(a) litigation and investigations brought against service personnel for allegations of criminal misconduct and wrongdoing;
(b) civil litigation brought by service personnel against the Ministry of Defence for negligence and personal injury;
(c) judicial reviews and inquiries into allegations of misconduct by service personnel; and
(d) such other related fields as the Secretary of State may determine.
(5) In preparing a duty of care update the Secretary of State must have regard to, and publish relevant data in relation to (in respect of overseas operations)—
(a) the adequacy of legal, welfare and mental health support services provided to service personnel who are accused of crimes;
(b) complaints made by service personnel or their legal representation when in the process of bringing or attempting to bring civil claims against the Ministry of Defence for negligence and personal injury;
(c) complaints made by service personnel or their legal representation when in the process of investigation or litigation for an accusation of misconduct: and
(d) meeting national standards of care and safeguarding for families of service personnel, where relevant.
(6) In subsection (1) “service personnel” means—
(a) members of the regular forces and the reserve forces;
(b) members of British overseas territory forces who are subject to service law;
(c) former members of any of Her Majesty’s forces who are ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom; and
(d) where relevant, family members of any person meeting the definition within paragraph (a), (b) or (c).
(7) In subsection (1) “duty of care” means both the legal and moral obligation of the Ministry of Defence to ensure the wellbeing of service personnel.
(8) None of the provisions of this section may be used to alter the principle of combat immunity.”
This new clause will require the Secretary of State to establish a duty of care standard in relation to legal, pastoral and mental health support provided to service personnel involved in investigations or litigation arising from overseas operations.
New clause 4—Report on dismissals and forced resignations for reasons of sexual orientation or gender identity—
“(1) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the number of people who have been dismissed or forced to resign from the Armed Forces due to their sexual orientation or gender identity.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must include cases where—
(a) there is formal documentation citing sexuality as the reason for their dismissal; or
(b) there is evidence of sexuality or gender identity being a reason for their dismissal, though another reason is cited in formal documentation.
(3) The report under subsection (1) must include recommendations of the sort of compensation which may be appropriate, including but not limited to—
(a) the restoration of ranks;
(b) pensions; and
(c) other forms of financial compensation.
(4) The report must include a review of the cases of those service personnel who as a result of their sexuality have criminal convictions for sex offences and/or who are on the Sex Offenders Register.
(5) The report must include discharges and forced resignations back to at least 1955.
(6) The first report under subsection (1) must be laid no later than 6 months after the day on which this Act is passed.
(7) The Secretary of State may make further reports under subsection (1) from time to time.
(8) In this section, “sexuality or gender identity” includes perceived or self-identified sexuality or gender identity.”
This new clause requires the Government to conduct a comprehensive review of the number of people who were dismissed or forced to resign from the Armed Forces due to their sexuality and to make recommendations on appropriate forms of compensation.
New clause 6—Duty of care for alcohol, drugs and gambling disorders—
“(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 20(2)(d) insert—
‘(e) the person is dependent on, or has a propensity to misuse, alcohol or drugs.’
(3) After section 20(3) insert—
‘(3A) The Secretary of State has a duty of care to offer a specific pathway for support and treatment for current and previously serving service personnel who experience—
(a) a propensity to misuse, alcohol and drugs,
(b) alcohol or drug dependency, and
(c) gambling disorder.
(3B) The Secretary of State must include in the annual Armed Forces Covenant report—
(a) the number of people accessing treatment and support as set out in section (1), and
(b) the current provisions for rehabilitation facilities for Armed Forces personnel who are experiencing a propensity to misuse or have a dependency on alcohol, drugs and gambling.’”
New clause 7—Indefinite leave to remain payments by Commonwealth and Gurkha
members of armed forces—
“(1) The Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 68 (10), after ‘regulations’ insert “must make exceptions in respect of any person with citizenship of a Commonwealth country (other than the United Kingdom) who has served at least four years in the UK armed forces, or in respect of any person who has served at least four years in the Brigade of Gurkhas, such exceptions to include capping the fee for any such person applying for indefinite leave to remain at no more than the actual administrative cost of processing that application, and”
This new clause will ensure that Commonwealth and Gurkha veterans applying for Indefinite Leave to Remain following four years of service will only pay the unit cost of an application.
New clause 8—Armed Forces Federation—
“(1) The Armed Forces Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 333, insert—
‘333A Armed Forces Federation
(1) There shall be an Armed Forces Federation for the United Kingdom for the purpose of representing members of the Armed Forces in the United Kingdom in all matters affecting their welfare, remuneration and efficiency, except for—
(a) questions of promotion affecting individuals, and
(b) (subject to subsection (2)) questions of discipline affecting individuals.
(2) The Armed Forces Federation may represent a member of the Armed Forces at any proceedings or on an appeal from any such proceedings.
(3) The Armed Forces Federation shall act through local and central representative bodies.
(4) This section applies to reservists of the Armed Forces as it applies to members of the Armed Forces, and references to the Armed Forces shall be construed accordingly.
333B Regulations for the Armed Forces Federation
(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations—
(a) prescribe the constitution and proceedings of the Armed Forces Federation, or
(b) authorise the Federation to make rules concerning such matters relating to their constitution and proceedings as may be specified in the regulations.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), regulations under this section may make provision—
(a) with respect to the membership of the Federation;
(b) with respect to the raising of funds by the Federation by voluntary subscription and the use and management of funds derived from such subscriptions;
(c) with respect to the manner in which representations may be made by committees or bodies of the Federation to officers of the Armed Forces and the Secretary of State; and
(d) for the payment by the Secretary of State of expenses incurred in connection with the Federation and for the use by the Federation of premises provided by local Armed Forces bodies for Armed Forces purposes.
(3) Regulations under this section may contain such supplementary and transitional provisions as appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate, including provisions adapting references in any enactment (including this Act) to committees or other bodies of the Federation.
(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(5) This section applies to reservists of the Armed Forces as it applies to
members of the Armed Forces.’”
This new clause would create a representative body for the Armed Forces, akin to the Police Federation, which would represent their members in matters such as welfare, pay and efficiency.
New clause 9—Investigation of allegations related to overseas operations—
“(1) In deciding whether to commence criminal proceedings for allegations against a member of Her Majesty’s Forces arising out of overseas operations, the relevant prosecutor must take into account whether the investigation has been timely and comprehensively conducted.
(2) Where an investigator of allegations arising out of overseas operations is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence of criminal conduct to continue the investigation, the investigator must within 21 days refer the investigation to the Service Prosecuting Authority with any initial findings and accompanying case papers.
(3) An investigation may not proceed after the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which the allegation was first reported without the reference required in subsection (2).
(4) On receiving a referral under subsection (2), the Service Prosecuting Authority must either—
(a) order the investigation to cease if it considers it unlikely that charges will be brought, or
(b) give appropriate advice and directions to the investigator about avenues of inquiry to pursue and not pursue, including—
(i) possible defendants to consider,
(ii) possible explanations to consider for the circumstances giving rise to the investigation, and
(iii) overseas inquiries and seeking the help of overseas jurisdictions.
(5) Where the investigation proceeds, the Service Prosecuting Authority must monitor and review its progress at intervals of three months and must on each review make a decision in the terms set out in subsection (4).
(6) On the conclusion of the investigation, the investigator must send a final report with accompanying case papers to the Service Prosecuting Authority for the consideration of criminal proceedings.
(7) After receipt of the final report, the facts and circumstances of the allegations may not be further investigated or reinvestigated without the direction of the Director of Service Prosecutions acting on the ground that there is new compelling evidence or information which might—
(a) materially affect the previous decision, and
(b) lead to a charge being made.
(8) The Judge Advocate General may give Practice Directions as he or she deems appropriate for the investigation of allegations arising out of overseas operations.
(9) For the purposes of this section—
‘case papers’ includes summaries of interviews or other accounts given by the suspect, previous convictions and disciplinary record, available witness statements, scenes of crime photographs, CCTV recordings, medical and forensic science reports;
‘investigator’ means a member of the service police or a civil police force.”
That schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.
That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.
Government amendments 31 to 38.
That schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.
That schedule 4 be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.
That schedule 5 be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.
The Minister for Defence People and Veterans (Leo Docherty)
It is a privilege to speak to the Armed Forces Bill before a Committee of the whole House. Indeed, it is fitting that the Bill should come before the Committee during Armed Forces Week, when we celebrate and commemorate Her Majesty’s armed forces.
Before speaking to the Bill, I want to express my gratitude to the members of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, some of whom are here today, and to thank them for their rigorous and professional approach to the work of that Committee. I commend their published report.
In simple terms, the Bill’s primary purpose is to renew the Armed Forces Act 2006—
G7 and NATO Summits
Eleanor Laing Excerpts(2 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman should study what all the G7 countries said, because several of them made very big commitments indeed—the Canadians, the EU—to financing the tackling of climate change. He says that £11.6 billion is not enough. I think that the people of this country will think that, in a very tough time, with huge pressure on our resources, to spend £11.6 billion over the next few years to help other countries tackle climate change is a huge commitment. He deprecates. I remember how people reacted in the UN when I announced that commitment. They were ecstatic and they are quite right.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We still have 30 people who would like to ask questions to the Prime Minister, and around 20 minutes in which to do it. That is probably not possible. But the idea of a statement is that people ask questions; it is not a time for making a speech. If people ask short questions, it will be possible for the Prime Minister to give short answers and then all will be well, because we have a lot of business to get through this afternoon.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I congratulate the Prime Minister on a successful weekend in Cornwall and on a very successful summit. Away from the doom and gloom of the Opposition, it is staggering that global Britain was on display this weekend in striking new trade deals. Could he perhaps reassure the House that, when we look at trade deals, they are the floor, not the ceiling of the economic growth that this country will be able to strike now and in the future, as we reach for the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is completely right, particularly about the CPTPP.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
With coronavirus, none of us are safe until everyone is safe. The world needs over 11 billion vaccine doses to end the pandemic, but the G7 vaccine offer falls well short and leaves billions of people without protection. To ramp up vaccine production needs a temporary waiver on intellectual property, so that all countries can access the technology. President Biden supports that, more than 100 other countries support that, but this Prime Minister is one of the people blocking it. So is not the Prime Minister putting the interests of profit-hungry pharmaceutical companies ahead of the lives of millions of people?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend puts the matter very succinctly. There are many ways in which we are seeing the disproportionate and unnecessary application of the protocol. I think our partners understand that, and we are hoping for some pragmatic solutions before too long.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We will manage to get everybody who is on the list in. I thank people for being succinct and the Prime Minister for also being brief. It is wonderful.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
The Prime Minister delivered his statement on the Australian trade deal in his usual sunny, optimistic manner. Like all his statements, however, once we look at the detail, it comes with a nasty after-smell, the source of which will be familiar to many British farmers. May I ask him in detail how this deal will affect the livelihoods of farmers in my constituency of North Durham and across County Durham—particularly hill farmers, who not only produce good-quality British food, but are the custodians of some of the most beautiful land in this country?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that overseas spending should be one of the great focuses of UK spending in the next few years. I repeat what I said earlier about the 70 million doses next year. That will not come out of the existing ODA budget, but clearly funding vaccine technology around the world is one of those things in which this country excels and we will be doing a lot more of it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the Prime Minister and everybody who took part in this session for doing so with alacrity. I shall now suspend the House for three minutes, so that arrangements can be made for the next item of business.
Debate on the Address
Eleanor Laing Excerpts(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to be back in the Chamber; it is the first time for nearly five months that I have appeared physically rather than virtually. Much as I long to see Scotland regain its independence, I recognise that this is one of the great debating chambers of the world, and it is always a privilege to speak here. It is also a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who speaks so knowledgeably about matters of public health.
Since the last Queen’s Speech, in December 2019, the four constituent parts of the United Kingdom have been through very tumultuous times. The United Kingdom left the European Union on 31 January 2020; the pandemic almost eclipsed the end of the transition period at the tail end of last year, but that does not mean that traders, particularly those in the Scottish fishing industry, have not felt the pain of being out of the single market and the customs union.
As a result of the pandemic, many of our constituents have suffered grievous loss or serious illness. Others have suffered the associated health, social and economic impacts caused by the necessity of lockdown. In many ways, the elderly have suffered most. At the outset, there was the terrible death toll in care homes, but elderly people have also suffered the pain of being unable to see their loved ones at a time when their society and guidance was most needed. Of course, young people have suffered too: their education, social lives and mental health have been greatly disrupted. Jobs have been lost, and businesses, particularly small businesses, have struggled.
The pandemic has exacerbated the inequalities that already existed in our society, and I was disappointed to see no acknowledgment of that in the Queen’s Speech. At the very least, I would have expected to hear confirmation of measures to address the September cliff edge on furlough—yes, things might be going well at the moment, but we cannot assume that they will always go well in relation to the virus. I would also have liked to see measures to address the cliff edge in self-employed support, the reduced hospitality VAT rate and the £20 uplift to universal credit. It is disappointing to see no measures to end unfair zero-hours and fire-and-rehire contracts or to deliver a living wage—a real living wage—for all.
As Citizens Advice Scotland has reminded us,
“The last year has shown the vital importance of our social security safety net”,
and universal credit not featuring in the Government’s legislative agenda
“risks missing lessons from the pandemic. While UC survived the influx of new claimants—in part by easing verification procedures and conditionality—fundamental aspects of its design have continued to put people in hardship.”
They will continue to do so unless we reform them. Reform is urgently needed in that department.
The Government say in the Queen’s Speech that children must have the best start in life, but that will not happen unless we tackle the scourge of child poverty—I would have liked to see some outlining of measures to do that. The British Government might do well to take a leaf out of the Scottish Government’s book. The Scottish Government established a Scottish child payment in the last Parliament and have committed to doubling it in the next, which child poverty campaigners have described as a game changer. Can the UK Government match that sort of commitment? I wonder.
Likewise, I am sure that people in England will be disappointed still to see no concrete plans for social care. Again, the British Government might do well to take a leaf out of the Scottish Government’s book: the SNP election manifesto pledged to take forward the recommendations of the independent Feeley review and to establish a national care service for Scotland in the current parliamentary term. The service will oversee the delivery of care and improve standards in care homes. It will also improve training and, importantly, staff pay and conditions for our care workforce, and it will give support to unpaid carers.
That is the kind of concrete action that led to the SNP winning an historic fourth election victory last week, and that brings me to the constitution. The British Government say they want to
“strengthen and renew democracy and the constitution”—
those were the words used in the Queen’s Speech—and to strengthen “the integrity of elections”. Well, they would do well to start by respecting the outcome of the election that we had in Scotland last week. As I said, it was an historic fourth election victory in a row for the SNP, and it was won with a record 47.7% share of the vote and a record turnout. It was won on a very firm manifesto commitment to deliver a second independence referendum. It is no use Members on the Government Benches arguing otherwise, as the Conservative and Unionist party in Scotland put preventing a second independence referendum at the heart of its campaign and has ended up with only 21.9% of the vote and 32 seats. The SNP has twice as many. The Greens got eight seats in Scotland and also had a firm manifesto commitment to deliver a second independence referendum, so taken together the pro-independence referendum parties in the Scottish Parliament now have 72 seats to the 57 of the anti-independence referendum parties. Of course, it was the exact same position—72 seats to 57—in 2011, when David Cameron came to the negotiating table and negotiated with Alex Salmond an agreement to hold an independence referendum.
The British Government have said today that we cannot have another independence referendum, because we had one seven years ago—it is worth pausing to note that we are not saying that we want one immediately; we want one after the pandemic is over—but they would do well to listen to former senior civil servant Ciaran Martin, who oversaw the delivery of the Edinburgh agreement in 2012 and is now a professor at the University of Oxford. He said last month that if the pro-independence parties in Scotland won another majority, there would be no legitimate justification on which to resist a referendum. He is, of course, correct. I remind Government Members that in the 2019 general election the current Prime Minister secured an 80-seat majority on just 43.6% of the vote—considerably less than my party secured last week in percentage terms—and that that result has been used by the Conservative and Unionist party to justify far-reaching consequences for all of us in the United Kingdom, altering both the nature of the Union and relations with our neighbours radically. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Of course, the Scottish Government have a plan to initiate legislation for a second independence referendum in the Scottish Parliament, regardless of whether the Prime Minister gives us a section 30 order, and I am very proud to have been instrumental in persuading my party to adopt that approach. However, the Prime Minister should have the guts to come to the negotiating table, as David Cameron did in 2011, to ensure that the referendum is held on an agreed basis. The Union of Scotland and England is a union of consent; it is not a union enforced by force of law, and the British Prime Minister would do well to recognise that.
I want to say something positive about the proposals in the speech, because I would like to give a cautious welcome to the Government’s plans to protect freedom of speech. I would not wish to give their plans unqualified support without hearing more about them, but I am in no doubt that they have correctly identified that there is a problem with free speech in our universities, and I would welcome more public debate about it.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, identified issues with freedom of speech in our universities in a report that we issued in 2018. We did not find the wholesale censorship of debate in universities that media coverage has suggested, but we did find that there were issues, and we recommended some reforms. I am afraid, though, that the situation has got worse since that report. For example, while society has worked hard to tackle sexual harassment, it is common now in universities across the United Kingdom for feminist academics who speak up for women’s sex-based rights under the Equality Act 2010 to be harassed and threatened. I have previously spoken on the Floor of the House about the experiences of Professor Selina Todd, Professor Kathleen Stock and Professor Rosa Freedman.
I have recently had brought to my attention the case of a law student at a Scottish university who is facing a disciplinary investigation and potential expulsion from her course for stating during a seminar that only women have vaginas and for objecting to the statement that all men are rapists. This woman is a final-year mature law student, and she is undergoing this investigation and the threat of being thrown off her course in the middle of her final year, while doing exam work. It is farcical that a law student—a female mature law student—should be facing disciplinary action for stating a biological fact and challenging a sweeping statement. The reality is that university authorities are under pressure from those who wish to silence feminist voices, and universities need support and encouragement to stand up against what can sometimes be very nasty and threatening campaigns. Madam Deputy Speaker, when I say nasty and threatening, I know whereof I speak.
That is as far as my support for the Government’s legislative programme goes, and I just want to point out that there is no point in legislating to protect freedom of speech in universities while at the same time legislating to undermine freedom of expression and assembly, as the Government are doing in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. I implore them to look at that afresh to see what the all-party parliamentary groups on democracy and the constitution and on the rule of law, and also the Joint Committee on Human Rights, are saying about that.
Finally, looking at the international aspects of the Queen’s Speech, the Government said that they want to uphold human rights and democracy across the world. If they are really committed to doing that, why do they frequently fail to do it when it comes to the Palestinian people? The inaction from the international community, including from the United Kingdom Government, to properly defend and support Palestinians in the face of Israeli Government and Israeli human rights abuses is not indicative of a country that supposedly stands for human rights and democracy abroad. The excessive force used by Israeli forces on worshippers at al-Aqsa and against families in Sheikh Jarrah in occupied East Jerusalem only prompts the mildest of criticism and zero consequences for those responsible. Those families are facing forced transfer and dispossession of their homes, which would constitute a war crime. In the past 24 hours, we have seen a grim escalation, with 24 people, including nine children, killed in Israeli attacks on Gaza. Although we should rightly condemn the rocket attacks coming from Gaza to Jerusalem, we should also condemn and take action against the events that led up to these escalations and the excessive response to them.
If the UK Government really want to be a human rights defender, they should fully support the International Criminal Court’s investigation into an alleged grave crime committed in the occupied Palestinian territory, and they should not undermine it. Please can we have real meaning to the words of “upholding human rights and democracy abroad”?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
As Mr Deputy Speaker has previously said, we are trying to manage without a time limit because there is a lot of time left, but there are also many people who wish to speak. It would be courteous if people spoke for around eight minutes. If that were to happen, everyone who has indicated that they wish to speak would have an opportunity to do so, and we could manage without a time limit. Otherwise, I shall just put on a time limit. It is much better, though, if we can self-regulate without a time limit.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
Daniel Teggart was murdered by the Parachute Regiment in Ballymurphy in August 1971. These are the words of his daughter, Alice Harper: “We identified my daddy by his curly hair. Fourteen times they shot him. The next day they blackened his name and called him a gunman. Two years later my brother Bernard, with a mental age of nine, was killed by the IRA. We want no amnesty for anyone.” Who in this House is going to tell Alice that she is wrong?
Today, thankfully, after many years of campaigning, the Ballymurphy families have got the truth out there for the world to see. The inquest findings into the people who were killed in Ballymurphy in 1971 were clear. The names and the findings are as follows: Father Hugh Mullan, 38, a Catholic priest, entirely innocent; Frank Quinn, 19, a window cleaner, entirely innocent; Joan Connolly, 44, a mother of eight, entirely innocent; Joseph Murphy, 48, a rag-and-bone man, entirely innocent; Noel Phillips, 19, a window cleaner, entirely innocent; Daniel Teggart, 44, a father and husband, entirely innocent; John Laverty, 20, a city worker, entirely innocent; Joseph Corr, 43, a machinist at Shorts, entirely innocent; Edward Doherty, 31, a former soldier, entirely innocent; and John McKerr, 49, a joiner, entirely innocent.
The families of the Ballymurphy massacre have been absolutely and totally vindicated today. The truth that some people in this House will not want to accept is this: if those people were entirely innocent, the soldiers who killed them were guilty. Fifty-seven children lost a parent during the Ballymurphy massacre in August 1971. The families of those innocent victims have marched, met, lobbied and fought for decades so that the whole world would know what they have always known: well, you did it, and I, for one, am inspired by your courage and tenacity. Will this Prime Minister now finally apologise for what those British forces did by murdering 10 entirely innocent people, or will he continue to pursue an amnesty for their killers? That is the question, that is the challenge, and that is the standard that should be met by any country that wants to call itself a democracy.
Thanks must also go to Mrs Justice Keegan for her forensic examination of the facts. Her finding that there was “basic inhumanity” in the treatment of the people of west Belfast speaks volumes. That finding was hardly surprising when victims like Mrs Connolly were shot by the British Army and left to die. “Inhumane” is the right word for it. To those Members of this House and this Government who pursue an amnesty for those who murdered Mrs Connolly and every other victim of our terrible, terrible past, regardless of who the perpetrators were, I challenge you to come with me, meet the Ballymurphy families and tell them to their face that they are not entitled to pursue truth and justice.
Six months after Ballymurphy, the Parachute Regiment came to my city of Derry. They murdered 14 innocent civil rights marchers, unarmed as they were. If Ballymurphy had been properly investigated and properly dealt with by the British Government, Bloody Sunday would not have happened, those people would not have died, and the events that came after would never have happened either. This Government need to think again and go back to Stormont House, agreed by two Governments and the majority of the parties in Northern Ireland. As difficult as it is, it is the only way to properly, morally deal with the past that we have all had to suffer. I understand that—nobody wants to move on more than the victims of our difficult past—and it is well meaning, but it is absolutely and totally naive. We have tried to move on since 1998, but by not dealing with issues of the past, where are we today? We are mired in the past. How can people be told by a democratic Government that they are not entitled to pursue truth and justice? Does anybody in this House really believe, as the Government say, that the paramilitaries—the IRA, the Ulster Defence Association, the Ulster Volunteer Force—or the British state will willingly give the victims the truth that they are entitled to? If they do believe that, let me tell them about Paul Whitters, a 15-year-old boy from my city, who was shot by a rubber bullet fired by the RUC on 15 April 1981. His file was finally released a couple of weeks ago, but half of it has been redacted and withheld until 2059. What could possibly be in that file that people need to be worried about?
Forty years ago today, Julie Livingstone, a 14-year-old from Lenadoon in west Belfast, was hit and killed by a plastic bullet fired from a British Army vehicle. Her file has been closed until 2064. What is the justification for that? How does anybody think that we are going to get to the truth by politely asking the British state or the IRA to give it to us? Why do Joanne Mathers’ family have to wait for the IRA to give them the truth? She was 29 years old in 1981 when she was murdered by the IRA for collecting a census form, leaving behind her baby son. Jean McConville’s family had to wait decades to find out where the IRA had buried their mother. Why does anybody believe that any of the state or paramilitary actors will give the victims the truth that they so desperately deserve?
I understand that we need to move on, but if we do not deal with this properly, morally and decently, we are going to entrap future generations into dealing and living with this, and into a campaign for truth and justice that will go on and on. The way to make it stop is to get at the truth, and the only way to get at the truth, as we have learned, is through proper judicial investigatory processes. That is the only way we will ever get to the truth. As uncomfortable as all of that is, that is the truth, as we have learned.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We now go, not by video link but by audio link only, to Philip Dunne.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
My plea for people to take about eight minutes has not worked, so after the next speaker I will impose a time limit of eight minutes.
David Mundell
I know that the hon. Gentleman does not really want to focus on the election result because, in reality, it was a failure for the SNP. Only weeks ago, the SNP was riding at 58% in the polls, and we were told that 78 MSPs would be returned; he was quoting those polls in the House on a regular basis. The SNP moved forward by one seat—that is what happened—and that is not, in my view, a landslide or a major change in the political environment in Scotland.
The Scottish Conservatives will continue to oppose nationalist plans for a damaging referendum that could wreck our recovery. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) has made it clear that, over the next five years, the party he leads will not just be a party of no to indyref2. For the last two Scottish Parliament elections, the Opposition have not been so seriously contending to be in government. In 2026, after two decades of SNP government, the Scottish people deserve the right to choose a real alternative and end the obsession with independence.
Strong as the result was for the Scottish Conservatives last week, starting from now, we are on the long road to becoming a broader movement and building Scotland’s real alternative to the SNP. My hon. Friend the Member for Moray will lead a patriotic Scottish party that has at its heart a belief that Scotland best succeeds and prospers by working within the United Kingdom. We will continue to be a strong Opposition at Holyrood while aspiring to be an ambitious Government dedicated to growing our economy, restoring our schools, rebuilding our communities and supporting our NHS. Today I say to anyone in Scotland who shares our dream of removing the SNP from power and delivering a real alternative focused on the priorities of the people of Scotland, rather than a divisive referendum: join us in the Scottish Conservatives on that journey.
Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill
Eleanor Laing Excerpts(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Leo Docherty
I do not share the right hon. Gentleman’s analysis. We have to bear in mind the fact that 6% is a small number. However, it is still too high, and we will work to get it down to zero.
It is worth reminding ourselves that the limitation longstops will cover only a small subset of the personal injury claims brought by current and former service personnel against the Ministry of Defence—those connected with overseas operations. Additionally, personnel will continue to have access to the armed forces compensation scheme. Let me conclude by confirming that part 2 of the Bill will not breach the armed forces covenant, which states:
“Those who serve in the Armed Forces, whether Regular or Reserve, those who have served in the past, and their families, should face no disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public and commercial services.”
The primary focus of the covenant is to help ensure that service personnel and veterans are not disadvantaged in comparison with civilians in the same position. Indeed, the longstops in part 2 will apply in the same way to all claimants bringing claims connected with overseas operations against the MOD, whether they are military personnel, civil servants, contractors or local nationals. Everyone, military or civilian, who is deployed on an overseas operation is treated equally in that respect. I therefore urge the House to reject the amendment.
Lords amendment 5 would require the Secretary of State to establish a duty of care standard for current and former service personnel and, where appropriate, their families, and would require the Secretary of State to provide an update in the armed forces covenant annual report. I would like to begin by saying that we take our responsibilities to our service personnel and veterans extremely seriously. On Tuesday 13 April, the Secretary of State published a written ministerial statement setting out as a matter of record the support that is, and will continue to be, available. First, that makes clear that service personnel are entitled to receive legal support where they face criminal allegations or civil claims that relate to actions taken during their service and where they were performing their duties. Legal advice and support are also available whenever people are required to give evidence at inquests and inquiries, and in litigation.
Secondly, a range of welfare support and mental health support is routinely offered to all service personnel. The potential impact of operations on a serviceperson’s mental health is well recognised, and there are provisions in place to help manage and mitigate those impacts as far as possible. Additionally, the Office for Veterans’ Affairs works closely with the MOD and Departments across Government, the devolved Administrations, charities and academia to ensure that veterans’ needs are met.
Significant progress has been made to ensure that our service personnel and veterans have access to a comprehensive package of legal, pastoral and mental health support, so we believe that it is unnecessary to establish a statutory duty of care. Not only is Lords amendment 5 unnecessary but it could result in unintended consequences, and would be likely to lead to an increase in litigation, which would mean more of our people being subject to potentially lengthy and stressful court proceedings, which is profoundly undesirable and contrary to the Bill’s objectives. Notions of moral and pastoral duties are extremely difficult to define adequately, and there is a real risk that attempting to do so in legislation would lead to more, rather than less, litigation and greater uncertainty. We are concerned that as allegations may occur in operational theatres involving commanding officers, the Royal Military Police and service personnel, the amendment might have unintended consequences that would undermine our operational effectiveness. The Government are clear about their responsibilities to provide the right support to our personnel, both serving and veterans, and to seek to improve and build on that wherever necessary. I do not believe that setting a standard duty of care in the Bill is necessary, so the Government cannot support Lords amendment 5.
Lords amendments 6 to 8 are minor and technical, and are simply drafting improvements. All in all, I urge the House to accept the Government amendments in lieu of Lords amendment 1, and to reject Lords amendments 2, 4 and 5 so that we can fulfil our solemn obligations for greater legal protection for our service personnel and our veteran community.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
May I also congratulate the Minister on his appointment and welcome him to the Dispatch Box?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. For the sake of good order, we refer to Members using their constituency.
James Sunderland
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point is well made and well taken.
I made it clear on Second Reading that the Bill is a good Bill. I voted it through because it was the right thing to do. My view has not changed, despite the Lords amendments that have been introduced. People would be amazed by the hysteria and shock in my inbox from people attacking the Bill from every angle. But I want to make something absolutely clear. The supposition in some quarters that British troops are predisposed to wantonly commit war crimes in operations, or that the UK has given them a green light or a get-out-of-jail-free card is absurd. The MOD already has one of the most effective and robust service justice systems in the world, and I can tell the House as someone who has served on eight operational tours that we have the best-led and best-trained soldiers in the world.
We have a great record in this area and nothing will change. That is why I am less worried about the exclusion of war crimes. The presumption against prosecution does not affect in any way the UK’s ability to conduct investigations or prosecutions. It is a higher threshold, not a bar. However, in deference to those who spoke so eloquently, both on Second Reading and on Lords amendment 1, and the views of many in this place, I note that the MOD is seeking to exclude more serious crimes such as torture, genocide and crimes against humanity from the five-year rule, which I welcome.
Lords amendment 2 sets out a new process for investigations. It introduces timelines for them and gives a direct role for prosecutors in investigations. Personally, I do not like the phrase, “artificial timelines for the progress of investigations”, or the power of the Judge Advocate General to intervene. Furthermore, the limitations in the amendment do not apply in civilian life to police force investigations, meaning this would create an anomaly. I am therefore comfortable with the Government’s position and I urge the House to reject the amendment.
Lords amendment 3 removes from the Bill the duty to consider derogation from the convention. The Government have noted that article 15 of the European convention on human rights provides that states may temporarily suspend relevant human rights obligations. The removal of clause 12 would not prevent the Government from making a conscious decision when committing armed forces to overseas operations. I am therefore comfortable, as we maintain the capability to deploy soldiers abroad and derogate, that we are in the right place. So, again, I support the Government’s position on Lords amendment 3.
Lords amendment 4 excludes action brought against the Crown by serving or former service personnel from the limitation measures introduced by part 2 of the Bill. The impact of new limitation periods on the ability of service personnel to make claims will be minimal. The longstops in part 2 have been introduced to offer greater legal certainty, as well as greater certainty to service personnel. So I agree again that the amendment should be opposed.
Amendment 5 requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament, within six months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, a duty of care standard in relation to legal, pastoral and mental health support provided to service personnel involved in investigations or litigation arising from overseas operations; it also requires an annual report. As someone who knows, I can tell the House that service personnel are entitled to legal support at public expense when they face criminal allegations and civil claims. Legal support is also available when people are required to give evidence at inquests, to inquiries and in litigation. In addition, the Armed Forces Bill is bringing the armed forces covenant into statute, and medical support available to all soldiers and veterans is unrivalled. And let us not forget mental health. The Government are now throwing money at this problem, and we are getting better all the time. I agree with the Government that the amendment is neither viable nor necessary.
This is a good Bill, and the Government’s concessions today make it even better, but the rest of the Lords amendments, in my view, should be rejected.
Lobbying of Government Committee
Eleanor Laing Excerpts(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I will now suspend the House for three minutes in order to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next debate.
His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh
Eleanor Laing Excerpts(3 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman)—what a lovely and fitting tribute he paid. I too pay tribute on behalf of my constituents to the extraordinary long life, filled with service, of His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh. When I was Leader of the Commons and Lord President of the Council between 2017 and 2019, I had the privilege of regularly meeting Her Majesty the Queen, and I met Prince Philip on a number of occasions. Is it not wonderful that everybody in this place seems to have their own stories of meeting members of the royal family? How wonderful it is that they have reached out to us all over such a long period.
In particular, I recall a lunch at Windsor castle where I had the pleasure of sitting next to His Royal Highness. The noble Baroness the Leader of the Lords and I were chatting with him at length about his role in the restoration of Windsor castle, following the 1992 fire—a role for which he was awarded the Europa Nostra medal for his commitment to making the past reflect the importance of the future. The noble Baroness and I shared our ambition to see the restoration and renewal of the Houses of Parliament. In the peppery way for which Prince Philip is world famous, he was in absolutely no doubt about the need to, shall we say, get on with it, and he was slightly dubious about whether Members of this House and the other House might ever settle themselves down and find a way forward—so, colleagues, take note, please.
I also had a more personal encounter, which to this day is an extraordinary family memory for me, Ben and our sons, Fred and Harry, when we were invited to a garden party at Buckingham Palace. The Queen’s private secretary was kind enough to introduce my family to the Queen and Prince Philip. Fred—my eldest son—to his great delight, had been presented his gold Duke of Edinburgh Award by Prince Philip at his last ceremony before stepping down from public duties. Fred mentioned this with pride, whereupon Prince Philip turned to Harry and said, “What about you, young man?” Harry told him that he, too, had completed all stages of his gold DofE Award, but I am afraid that I was unable to resist throwing in that he had not completed the paperwork and so would not be getting his award any time soon, whereupon Prince Philip looked at Harry fiercely from under his eyebrows and said, “Well, you’d better get on with it, young man.” Harry told me afterwards that of all the many terrible things that I have done to him as his mother, probably the worst of all was telling tales about him in the presence of Prince Philip and Her Majesty the Queen.
It was an incredible honour to hold the office of Lord President of the Council because it provided a bird’s eye view of Her Majesty the Queen’s and Prince Philip’s extraordinary commitment to duty. I would like to finish by paying humble tribute to their extraordinary achievements together, and by sending the Queen the deepest condolences on her very sad loss.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The right hon. Lady is absolutely right about everyone having recollections of their encounters with Prince Philip. I have never forgotten the advice that he gave me—I have never told anyone what it was, and I am not going to now—when, as chancellor of the University of Edinburgh, he came to the students’ ball, and I was, as a very young and naive 21-year-old, the union president. I had the privilege of spending a few hours that evening with him, and I vividly remember how unexpectedly kind, charming and absolutely inspiring he was. As many people have said, he has made such a difference to the lives of so many young people. I was one of them, for which I am eternally grateful. He will be so greatly missed.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
I pay this tribute to his Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh not just in a personal capacity, but on behalf of those residents I represent in the constituency of Southend West who would like to express their appreciation of everything the Duke has done for our nation.
Without question, the Duke of Edinburgh was one of my favourite royals. He really was my sort of person. We most definitely shared the same sense of humour, which not everyone understands and occasionally gets you into hot water, but there was never any malice. He was kind, generous, wise and a thoroughly decent person.
For someone who lived so long—just short of 100 years, and how I was looking forward to his sending a message to my annual centenarians’ tea party!—it was incredible that he did so much throughout his life. His childhood, his upbringing and what followed were quite extraordinary. It is not everyone whose mother becomes a nun and it is not everyone who has suffered so many personal tragedies, all carried out in the public gaze; yet in spite of innumerable challenges, he really did make the most of his life, whatever it threw up. In that, he set a wonderful example, hence the Duke of Edinburgh Awards.
I met him on a number of occasions, and I have three stand-out memories. When, together with the Queen, he visited Southend and they were going on to my former constituency of Basildon, he suggested I join them in the car; I did not think that would go down particularly well. For many years, I was associated with the Caravan Club, and he hosted a garden party at Buckingham Palace in 2007 for the club’s centenary. It was a wonderful occasion. Finally, at another event, he acted as the host of a Buckingham Palace reception on a rare occasion when Her Majesty was unwell, and we had a very amusing exchange, which I am not prepared to broadcast publicly.
For me, his lasting legacies will be as follows. I have had the privilege of handing out the wonderful Duke of Edinburgh Awards on many occasions. I am very involved with the scouts, many of whom subsequently went on to achieve the award. There was such pride and joy in the faces of the recipients, who really felt they had achieved something. Then there was his wonderful work through the World Wildlife Fund. He loved animals, and was passionate about the conservation of endangered species and the preservation of our environment long before it became a popular cause. His greatest legacy from my point of view is probably the support that he has given to our Queen. I doubt she would have been the wonderful monarch she is without the support her husband has given her over so many years.
Finally, I am drawn to two remarks made by members of the royal family following the Duke’s death. The first was from his daughter, Anne, who said:
“You know it’s going to happen but you are never really ready”,
and his daughter-in-law, the Countess of Wessex said:
“it was like someone took him by the hand and off he went”.
His spirit will live on in his children and grandchildren, who I hope will take notice of his wise counsels for the future of our monarchy. We will not see his like again. May he now rest in peace and receive his just reward.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We are not operating with time limits this afternoon—I hope we can be dignified and find that that is not necessary—but if everybody adheres to Mr Speaker’s request to speak for three minutes or less, each and every colleague who has indicated that they would like to speak will have the opportunity to do so.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We now go, by audio link only, to Ian Paisley.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP) [V]
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is an honour—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. No, I am afraid that it is not going to work. We will move on, and come back to Mr Paisley when we can.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We now go, or I hope we do, to Ian Paisley—[Interruption.] We will try yet again later to contact Mr Paisley. Meanwhile, I call Tobias Elwood.