Afghanistan

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Wednesday 18th August 2021 Commons Chamber

[Keir Starmer]

I will come on to the specifics of the system. Yet again, the Government seem ill-prepared and unwilling, just as they have been too slow to provide sanctuary to Afghans who have served alongside Britain. There have been too many reports of eligible Afghans facing bureaucratic hurdles, and too many are being unfairly excluded. Having known for months that the date of withdrawal was coming, the Home Office is not close to completing the process that it has already got up and running. The process was designed to help 7,000 people, yet Home Office figures this week showed that only 2,000 have been helped so far.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

The point that I wanted to make to the Prime Minister was about the situation facing Afghan Sikhs. I know from my constituency casework that there are Afghan Sikhs in the system who are waiting for clearance from the Home Office; I call on the Government to process them as quickly as possible and not leave all those people in the system waiting any longer than they have to at the moment. They are terrified by the idea of being sent back home, and despite the reassurance given to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), I do not see any movement from the Home Office to give them the legal status that they need.

[Keir Starmer]

I am grateful for that intervention. Members on both sides of the House have given examples of individuals and groups who are very obviously at risk in Afghanistan and need to come out as quickly as possible. That is why the question arises as to what is behind the 5,000 number, and why others are having to wait so long.

The scale of the refugee crisis requires an international response, but we must lead it, and lead with a resettlement programme that meets the scale of the challenge. The scheme must be generous and welcoming. If it is not, we know the consequences now: violent reprisals in Afghanistan; people tragically fleeing into the arms of human traffickers—we know that that is what will happen—and more people risking and losing their lives on unsafe journeys, including across the English channel. We cannot betray our friends. We must lead.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

We have heard many sobering words in this debate already. I pay particular tribute to the words from our colleagues who have themselves served in Afghanistan, to all their colleagues over many years and to all those in our armed forces, particularly those who have lost their lives, including two brave soldiers from Castleford, Rifleman James Backhouse and Bombardier Craig Hopson. I also pay tribute to those who have worked in our aid agencies and for partner organisations to support development and education projects and to try to rebuild a future for Afghanistan, and to all those who have rightly worked so hard and made it possible for families to live in some semblance of security and for girls—children—to be able to go to school for many years.

That is what makes it so disturbing, shameful and distressing to watch the events in Afghanistan right now: people who worked with us and helped us now hiding, their lives at risk; women and girls forced to hide in their homes simply because they are women and girls; hard-line extremists and terrorists back in charge, creating a security risk across the globe; and no evident strategy from the US, the UK and our allies, but what instead looks like just a chaotic retreat. We have a responsibility to respond, so I want to focus particularly on some of the practical things that should and can be done now to address the humanitarian crisis that we face.

First, I turn to those who have put their lives at risk by working with us. I welcome the Afghan relocation and assistance policy, but it is too narrow. It refers to directly employed staff. For the last 20 years, much of the work of the UK Government, including aid work and nation rebuilding work, has been through contracts with UK agencies and organisations. The Taliban do not recognise the complexities of a contracting-out process, so many of those lives are also at risk.

Some organisations have been in touch with their staff and former employees. One has told me that a woman who worked on the UK aid programme for three years and is now in hiding in Kabul has said this weekend:

“only 3 weeks ago one of my neighbours told me that when they come he would tell them who I am and who my family is. A couple of days ago, a strange man told me in the streets, ‘I know where you work and who you are.’

I fear seeing my kids tortured in front of my eyes or having my skin peeled off while I am alive. We remain locked inside, fearful of even looking out of the window—every time the door knocks fear goes through my whole body and I fear they are coming for me.”

Another, who provided secure accommodation for UK embassy staff and British aid workers, has said:

“Taliban fighters arrived at my father’s home this week asking for me by name. I just left my home city three days before and my father told the Taliban I had gone abroad for medical treatment. The fighters still forced their way into the house and searched every room.”

We have obligations to these people.

[Emma Hardy]

I am sure that my right hon. Friend, along with many other Members across the House, have been contacted by people desperately worried about loved ones in Afghanistan. One of my constituents has contacted me, saying that his pregnant wife is in Afghanistan now. The Taliban have taken out the communication signals, so he is unable to contact her. He did not put in an application for her to come to this country because of the English language requirement on the application form. Surely now is the time to relax that rule temporarily to allow these people to come to our country.

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. This is the kind of flexibility that the UK Government could adopt right now. We need such measures for those who have families at risk, but we also need urgently to review and broaden the scope of the relocation scheme. The Home Secretary said in interviews this morning that those who have worked for NGOs that delivered UK aid programmes would also be included. I say to the Foreign Secretary that that is not happening on the ground right now; it is not reflected in the guidance that the Government are operating at the moment or in the application process, and people are being turned down as we speak. People have been turned down this weekend, even though they are at risk and have worked on UK-funded programmes. I urge the Government urgently to look at the relocation scheme. People cannot wait for the resettlement scheme to be in place.

Let me say something about that too. I welcome the Government’s commitment to a resettlement scheme. The Prime Minister confirmed to me earlier that the pledge to help 5,000 people this year is in addition to the commitment made in 2019 to resettle 5,000 people a year from across the world, not instead of it. That existing resettlement scheme is not fully reinstated after covid and it urgently needs to be, but the fact that that infrastructure, those systems and that funding is in place should make it possible for us very urgently to put in place an Afghan relocation scheme, and to accelerate and be more ambitious than the announcement that the Home Secretary made this morning. Again, I urge the Government to work urgently with the agencies on the ground, which can identify straightaway the people who are at most at risk, and to recognise the position of those who are currently here, whose applications for asylum may have been turned down before circumstances escalated. Please can those cases be urgently reviewed rather than refused on out-of-date grounds? Finally, I urge the Government to do more to support refugees in the region, because we know more people will flee.

We have a responsibility not to turn our backs. The situation may be bleak and the circumstances difficult, but we have a duty not to disengage.

Covid-19 Update

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Wednesday 12th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for pointing out another of the advantages of leaving the European Union. Although we have consulted publicans and brewers on the potential for a differential duty rate on draught beer, we are awaiting the responses from the Treasury, and the Treasury will reply in due course.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

An 11-year-old girl called Mary caught covid in December 2020. Her family used to describe her as bouncing off the walls and full of energy. She loved sport and was excited about starting secondary school in September. Now she is fatigued and lethargic, she walks with a stick and she can only attend school part time. The doctors are baffled because she had no underlying health condition and she seems unable to recover. Please can the Prime Minister help me find for the family the expert advice and support that Mary needs, and provide urgent resources for children suffering with long covid in Hull and East Riding?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Member for raising the case of Mary, and I am very sorry to hear about her suffering. If the hon. Member would be kind enough to write to me about her I will see what I can do to make sure that we get the right answers from the Government and see what we can do to get her the medical help she needs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)]

I note and support my right hon. Friend’s concern and I will pass it on—particularly in terms of the UK leadership—to the Environment Minister. The work that we have done already in setting resources and waste strategy is leading the way and we as a country are looking to implement all avoidable waste by 2050. With so much of COP, it is about our leadership and proving that we are walking the walk by making these policy changes here at home. I will make sure that the Minister continues to work on that with him.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) [V]]

Zero Carbon Humber is a partnership that aims to build the world’s first net zero carbon industrial cluster while creating high-quality green jobs. My question simply is: will the COP President look kindly on its submission of interest to be part of COP26?

[Alok Sharma]

Of course, I am very positive about all these initiatives around the country, but the hon. Lady refers to a matter that I think sits under the Business Secretary. I am sure that when submissions come in they will be looked at very carefully.

Covid-19: Road Map

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, indeed. The travel taskforce will be looking at all those things—quarantine, destinations and so on and so forth. I think at the moment one consideration is that we need to make sure that there are countries that will be willing to accept British tourists in the way that we would like to see. Some of them have stepped forward and said that they will, but they are currently not very numerous.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) [V]]

Lateral flow testing is central to the Prime Minister’s educational reopening plans, so can he explain why our only real-world published figures—from the student asymptomatic testing programme in Scotland before Christmas—showed that almost 30% of positive tests turned out to be false when subject to a confirmatory polymerase chain reaction test? Considering the financial, educational and mental health impact of self-isolation, does the Prime Minister share my concerns that a lot of students will be told to self-isolate for no reason?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not recognise that figure. Lateral flow tests are extremely valuable in isolating asymptomatic positive tests and in helping schools to restart. That is why we are pursuing them.

Armed Forces Bill

Emma Hardy Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 8th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) [V]]

Hull and the East Riding have always been popular recruitment areas for the armed forces, so the whole of the UK owes our local veterans and armed forces community a huge debt. Labour’s Hull City Council takes this debt and these obligations very seriously. Hull Labour understands the need to increase local knowledge and awareness of how the armed forces community’s requirements may differ from those of civilians, how service can affect access to public services, and the benefits of creating greater consideration of their specific needs in the provision of those services.

Because of this, Labour’s Hull City Council has already embedded much of the covenant into its systems and practices, and its efforts have been recognised with the award of gold employer standard, as it has demonstrated due regard through its initiatives. For example, reference to the covenant is linked into existing equality protected characteristics, and veteran status is included in all questionnaires circulated through the council’s people power surveys. Reference to valuing our armed forces community is included as a social cause in the council’s commissioning process, and dedicated reference to the covenant is included in a section of the schools admission guidance.

To help to ensure awareness among council staff when dealing with veterans, Hull Labour has designated armed forces champions in the council’s customer service centres. Hull City Council has made training available for all members of staff, and this training is mandatory for housing staff. To ensure oversight and accountability, the council has in place an elected armed forces champion and a senior office lead for the authority. An armed forces covenant officer is already employed to further ensure that the council adheres to its duty.

Labour’s Hull City Council supports and maintains strong links with the veterans community hub, which I am proud to have situated in my own constituency of Hull West and Hessle. The hub provides specialist support for veterans, including money and employment advice. The council’s relationship with the service has been recognised as an example of best practice. We are also very fortunate to have active local charities and breakfast groups such as Hull 4 Heroes and the Hull Veterans Support Centre. The council also leads the armed forces forum, which is well attended by charities and statutory services, including the Voluntary, Community and Social Enterprise Health and Wellbeing Alliance, which, as one of its core outcomes, is improving outcomes for veterans.

Labour’s Hull City Council’s commitment to the veterans of Hull cannot be doubted. Despite the huge cuts to its budgets imposed by successive Conservative Administrations since 2010—now standing at £120 million a year less—it continues to put veterans’ welfare front and centre. However, the impact on resources of embedding the new statutory covenant legislation cannot be ignored by the Government, who are creating that legislation and requirement. Veterans are facing increasingly complex issues, and the services they need are in high demand from all quarters of society. I know that Labour will play its full part in improving this legislation by pushing to include measurable national standards for the covenant, equality of treatment for all British armed forces veterans, regardless of country of birth, and Lyons’ recommendation that civilian courts have jurisdiction in the matters of murder, rape and serious sexual offences. I look forward to seeing this Bill proceed through Parliament.

Veterans deserve the support that this legislation is intended to provide, but the fact is that there is no additional funding to allow local authorities to deliver on its expectation. Like many councils up and down the country, Hull City Council is actively engaged in providing that support our veterans need. It must now be given the means to continue to do so.

Covid-19: NAO Report on Government Procurement

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2020 Westminster Hall

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Eagle. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) for securing this debate. I hope that, in the short time I have, I can impress on the Government the need to acknowledge the mistakes that have been made and the lessons that need to be learned. At the end of my remarks, I will offer a constructive way forward, and I hope the Minister takes it very seriously.

There is a company in my constituency called Arco, which was founded in 1884. It is a local family-run company that specialises in safety equipment. All it does is PPE and safety equipment. It is acknowledged as being world-leading in its field, and it is the only safety distributor that has its own independently accredited testing laboratory in the UK, so it really is a world-leading expert. During the pandemic, it took the decision to prioritise its existing clients, which were healthcare institutions and food production institutions.

Arco prides itself on having incredibly high standards. Hon. Members would therefore expect that it would be at the top of the list of any Government procurement system looking for PPE distribution suppliers. In fact, if hon. Members google “UK world-leading PPE suppliers”, they will see Arco right there at the top. Sadly, during the pandemic, it found that its products were unwanted. It was floored by the Government response to creating a new procurement structure, which led to confusion. Suppliers lacked information and clarity about who they should be working with, and the failure to obtain decisions and sign-off led to failed orders.

Arco tells me that the online portal system had one single email address for all inquiries, and I have heard since that it was flooded with offers from companies all around the UK, with no real process for sifting those that were more genuine or reputable. That single point of contact did not require suppliers to provide information about their expertise, experience or record in sourcing or providing safety equipment. In fact, it seemed to lack the quality control that we would expect. No proof was required of the ability to meet obligations under PPE regulations when making offers to supply to the Government. Arco tells me that genuine suppliers were crowded out.

Arco has produced a 10-point plan with recommendations to improve the future processes and ensure that high-quality PPE is made at all times. It has written to the Government, and I will be writing to the Minister with its 10-point plan. I urge the Minister to have a conversation with Arco. Let us learn the lessons from the mistakes that have been made and ensure that they never happen again.

Integrated Review

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Thursday 19th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) [V]]

I am really pleased to hear the Prime Minister recognise the excellent work that the armed forces have been doing throughout this pandemic. I am hoping that the Prime Minister will make some of those excellent armed forces personnel available to Hull and East Riding to assistance us during the awful time we are facing right now with our health emergency.

[The Prime Minister]

Yes, indeed. The hon. Lady makes a really good point and a good request, because we are looking at what we can do with our armed services to ramp up and roll out the lateral flow mass testing—the rapid turnaround test that people, I hope, are starting to be aware of. We are looking for places to trial that in addition to what we have done in Liverpool, and the armed services will certainly be playing a part in that.

Covid-19 Update

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is entirely right. That is why I encourage everybody who is vulnerable to get a flu vaccine now, and that is why we have 30 million available.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

Today we had a Yorkshire briefing with 15 minutes’ notice that failed to invite all Yorkshire MPs, and neither have all Yorkshire council leaders been contacted. We are left waiting for the Prime Minister’s website update to find out which tier we are in. This shambles is creating confusion and fear, and we need clarity, so will decisions about Hull and East Riding be made together as part of Yorkshire, made separately, or made as part of Yorkshire and the Humber? How much notice of the changes will we get?

[The Prime Minister]

I can tell the hon. Lady that the Government at all levels have been in constant contact with authorities in Yorkshire for the past few days, and I am very grateful for their co-operation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I do indeed agree with that. It would be a fantastic thing to hear the Labour party stand up to their friends in the unions and issue the same instruction—that would be a wonderful thing.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

The Social Market Foundation report identified Hull as the area facing the worst economic hit and the slowest recovery from covid-19. I have stood here in this place and called on the Government for support for our caravan manufacturing, Hull Trains, The Deep, Hull City Council, excluded young entrepreneurs and many others. I received an inadequate response from the Government, which fails to address the gravity of the situation Hull faces. What the Prime Minister needs to recognise is that you cannot level up by shutting down, so what new support will he give to prevent job losses in Hull West and Hessle?

[The Prime Minister]

We have already given the East Riding of Yorkshire more than £21 million to deal with the pressures of coronavirus. We have supported 90% of caravan manufacturers, whom the hon. Lady rightly supports, with the furlough scheme. As she knows, we have not only the £2 billion kick-starter fund to help young people into work, but the furlough bonus scheme to retain people in their jobs, as part of a massive package—£640 billion overall—to get our country moving again and make sure that we bounce back stronger than ever.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Emma Hardy Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 14th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chris Clarkson]

Certainly, in some of the larger metropolitan boroughs, there is what I call the martini paradox, where three wards is not quite enough and four is too many.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

I am listening to the hon. Gentleman’s speech with great interest. I wonder if he agrees with me, as an advocate for democracy, that we should have automatic voter registration. That would genuinely ensure that everybody gets an equal voice.

[Chris Clarkson]

If the hon. Lady will bear with me, I will come to that point when I address new clause 3.

I do not support new clause 1; I think that it is intended to undermine the concept of electoral equality and that it would cause further exponential disruption in future reviews as seats get further and further away from the mean, exacerbated by the large deviation permitted

New clause 2 is unconscionable. Setting a minimum quota for each nation would ultimately lead to one of two outcomes: either the malapportionment that we currently have, whereby some votes count for nearly twice as much as others, or the situation that developed in Canada, which has minimum quotas for areas and where rafts of new seats had to be added to Parliament to ensure some level of electoral equality. Under that approach, if Wales were to maintain its 40 seats, Greater Manchester alone would have almost as many MPs and the south-east would have well over 100. When we have one eye on the overpopulation of the other place, it strikes me as frankly bizarre that our nationalist friends should seek to pack this one, too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

I was actually enjoying the speech from the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar), and I agreed with some of his points, but it is worth pointing out that the purpose of the original decision by David Cameron and Nick Clegg to reduce the number of constituencies was to reduce the cost of politics at the time. [Interruption.] That was the argument put forward. Then we had Brexit and so on, but I actually agree with the principle of 650 constituencies in the UK, because if we are not going to reduce the size of the Executive, it would create some disparity, so I welcome the changes.

I congratulate the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), and all the members of the Bill Committee on their work. It can be a complicated matter on occasions. We must not lose sight of the basic principle behind the Bill, which is to ensure that each vote in the UK carries the same weight—that there is an equal suffrage. When someone casts their vote in the polling station at any election, they should be confident that their vote is just as valuable as anybody else’s. We therefore need boundary changes to take place, because there is an unacceptable disparity now.

I agree again with the right hon. Member for Warley that we as parliamentarians and constituency MPs do not like boundary changes, because we put a lot of investment, time and commitment into building up a relationship with our constituents, communities, villages and towns, and at a stroke of a pen the Boundary Commission can remove that connection that we have worked so hard on. In some ways, these changes are welcome, but in some ways they can be very difficult.

The main reason I wanted to speak in this debate is that, as sad as it may sound, I was looking through the Hansard reports of the Public Bill Committee and an awful lot was said about the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and its attitude towards the electoral quota and how much tolerance there should be between the size of different constituencies. I am the UK lead on the OSCE, and I have looked into what it actually said. For Members who are unaware of its work, the organisation sends election monitors to various countries around the world to ensure they are carried out in a fair, impartial and democratic way.

The OSCE does not have a view on whether there should be a 5% or a 7.5% tolerance in the electoral quota, but it is worth noting what it states in its “Guidelines for Reviewing a Legal Framework for Elections”. It states:

“Electoral constituencies should be drawn in a manner that preserves equality among voters. Thus, the law should require that constituencies be drawn in such a way that each constituency has approximately the same population size…The manner in which constituencies are drawn should not circumvent the principle of equal suffrage, which is a cornerstone of democratic elections.”

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Since his hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) was unable to get to the point in his speech where he was going to answer my question, I will instead ask him. In this keenness to involve every person and make every vote count, what is his opinion on automatic voter registration?

[Gareth Johnson]

People have the option, if they want, to register to vote. That was made a very easy process by the previous Government, particularly through the actions of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), who was at pains to ensure that people found it very easy to register to vote. Of course, people have the right not to vote if they wish. I would argue that automatically assuming that somebody wants to vote is incorrect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I call Emma Hardy.

[Emma Hardy]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have found the debate a little confusing, because the arguments that Conservative Members have been making, some of whom I hold in high regard, make me wonder how clearly and accurately they listened to the opening speeches. I would go as far as to say that there have been many straw man arguments created throughout this debate. At the outset, I wish to say that when quoting any Member of the House it is important that it is done accurately and precisely, and I hope Hansard will reflect that.

The Labour party of course accepts the need for boundary changes. No one has argued against that, so again I am slightly confused by the arguments presented by Conservative Members that somehow we are speaking against it. We have welcomed the fact that the Bill has moved to having 650 MPs and that the data being taken is from March 2020. I wish to spend a moment paying tribute to my staff for the amount of work they have done and for how hard they have worked during this pandemic. I am sure that is the case for all Members’ staff throughout this time and we should all recognise the need for 650 MPs.

I wish to address some of the comments made by Conservative Members. I was disappointed to hear our amendment referred to as a “wrecking amendment”, as I thought that was unjustified. Trying to extend the flexibility of a boundary commission to take into account local history and local cultures is not “wrecking”; it is merely pragmatic and sensible, so I was disappointed with the language used. Another Member mentioned the need for the Boundary Commission to be more imaginative, but surely there needs to be recognition of the fact that it is difficult for it to be imaginative when its hands are tied behind its back because it is restricted to 5%. As our shadow Minister said, 5% on the basis of 600 Members is 4,000 electors, whereas 5% on the basis of 650 is only 3,500.

Yet another straw man argument being presented by Conservative Members is that all these constituencies would be 15% different, which shows that they have not accurately read the amendment. That is not what it says. It says that the Boundary Commission would use the 5% and have a tolerance to extend to 7.5% in areas where it is absolutely necessary. It does not at any point say, “Let’s encourage the Boundary Commission to make sure all our constituencies are 15% different.” Again, we saw another straw man and another disappointing argument from Conservative Members.

Some of the evidence that was given during the Bill Committee included comments from David Rossiter and Charles Pattie, who noted that it was the 5% that caused the greatest disruption. Indeed, one of the things that was so intolerable to the people in the community in the changes that were going to be implemented in my constituency of Hull West and Hessle was the movement across the natural boundaries. A ward was proposed that would instead go from east Hull into west Hull. I do not expect anyone in the House now to be aware of the historical traditions and rivalries between east and west Hull, but if Members look at our rugby teams as a good example of that friendly rivalry that exists in the community, they can perhaps start to understand why a movement across the River Hull would be so intolerable. That was indeed mentioned by my predecessor, Alan Johnson, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) in the evidence that they gave to the previous Boundary Commission. I suppose that part of my message to the Boundary Commission, via the Minister, is that it really does need to look at natural geography and the histories and cultural traditions of places. That is why I am in favour of allowing this extra tolerance—not on every occasion as has been mentioned—to ensure that it takes those historical differences into account.

I will not detain the House for too much longer, but I think it is also worth pointing out—it is certainly the feeling I get from residents in Hull—that no one would thank a political party for trying to enforce a new identity on an established community by moving it out of one community and insisting that it belongs to another. I am also a little perplexed by the idea that a political party, which seems to be so keen on taking back control of our borders, seems to want to relinquish control of our constituency borders to an unelected body.

On the point about bringing the decision back to Parliament, it is worth pointing out that we are under no illusion that, if we bring the matter back to Parliament, the Conservative party has the majority to force through what it wants, so this is a point of principle, rather than any realistic notion that we could change the decisions that have been made. That is why I support new clause 1 and amendment 1 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.

[Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy). I am very glad to be able to speak today as, unfortunately, time ran out on me on Second Reading. I congratulate the Bill Committee on all the work it has done on this Bill in the meantime.

The obvious core point is about fairness, which a number of Members have mentioned. I will not go into any great detail, because it does seem to be a point that has been broadly conceded. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) represents nearly 100,000 people when plenty of Members in this House represent fewer than half that number. That is not fair on either him or, more importantly, on his constituents, because their votes literally count half as much as those of other constituencies.

On the subject of tolerance, a 5% tolerance is a 10% band, and every seat should be within 7,000 or so people, which is a perfectly reasonable proposition. We might flatter ourselves that the identity of our constituents is formed by the constituency in which they live, but I do not think that is the case at all. Our constituents actually look to their immediate community, and perhaps even to their church hall, which, as a polling station is an element of community. I do not think that constituents are that bothered by the name of the constituency in which they happen to live. My seat of Newcastle-under-Lyme is slightly on the small side, so I understand that that will mean changes for me. It means that I will probably have to absorb some more of the Loyal and Ancient Borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme, which I welcome. I gently point out to the Boundary Commission —if it is listening or reading Hansard—that crossing the A500 into Stoke-on-Trent will probably not go down very well in the area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Hardy]

I am listening carefully to the Minister’s observations about the need to have equal constituencies. Will she not take back to the Government the need for automatic voter registration, so we can have a truly accurate picture of the number of people in each constituency?

[Chloe Smith]

I admire the tenacity with which the hon. Lady has made that argument today. It is not the subject of the Bill, and, for what it is worth, I do not agree with the concept of automatic voter registration, but I am happy to have that conversation with her in more detail at another time. I will be more sparing in taking interventions from now on, because there is a time limit and I have much to get through.

As I understand it, the intention behind new clause 1 is to require the boundary commissions to aim for the 10% range, and only if necessary would they then use the extra 5%. That approach gives rise to a number of concerns. First, it seems to me that there is a lack of clarity, which could generate confusion; it would certainly generate ambiguity and might undermine the effectiveness of the process. One can imagine local authorities simply not knowing at the outset of the process whether their constituency would fall within the 10% range, or whether they might be a special case. A process that was previously clear and transparent would become less so.

Secondly, there is the risk of a ratchet effect. If we were to offer the boundary commissions the option to go up 7.5%, they would quickly come under pressure. That might lead to lobbying and the 15% range becoming increasingly widely used. It might be said that those who want that outcome should put it directly and courageously in an amendment, rather than saying it could be used if the commission wanted to use it.

Thirdly, and quite important, the discretion provided to the four boundary commissions would be likely to generate different approaches in different parts of the United Kingdom. That could open the door to legal challenges and a situation where the commissions’ work was made more difficult. I acknowledge the words of the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) about rule 7 and the court case there. I recognise his points, and much more detail was drawn out in that ruling, but let me say briefly now that I think rule 7 is important and it stands, notwithstanding that ruling.

In Committee, we discussed 5% versus other numbers at length. Today, I say that we should be in the business of giving the boundary commissions clear instructions. There are times when we give them room for judgment and discretion. We ask them to conduct an intense process, but this should not be one of the times when their instructions lack clarity. The matter of the tolerance is a judgment for us; it is for us in this House to set out what we think it ought to be. A balance must be struck, and no academic can tell us the right answer. Conservative Members believe in equal-sized constituencies and in being able to deliver updated and equal constituencies, and the 5% tolerance gives a better chance of achieving that and ending an unfairness that has persisted for too long.

Let me address new clause 2. I thank the hon. Members for Glasgow East (David Linden) and for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) for making this an interesting debate—one that we also had in Committee. It seems that something that is actually quite technical is being used here as a conduit for a much larger constitutional debate about the Union and how its nations relate to each other. That is important and extremely interesting, but today is rather a narrow debate and it is not necessarily the time for concluding such big questions. Let us talk about what this new clause would actually mean.

My concern is that new clause 2, by fixing a minimum number of constituencies, would effectively enshrine electoral inequality, cementing the current situation and not allowing it to develop. I can give the House lots of examples of unequal constituency sizes within and between our nations, and those are the kinds of inequality that we are trying to address in the Bill overall. Of course, it is critical that every nation and every part of the Union has a powerful voice in Westminster. They have two powerful voices here today—and across the Chamber—but there is already a sensible way of setting the nation’s participation in Westminster. The new clause would not add value in that respect.

Under the current legislation, a mathematical formula exists to do exactly the job of allocating constituency numbers to each of the four nations. It is widely used internationally and is widely thought of as being one of the fairest methods. It should be maintained because it is fair and rational. The problem with the new clause is that it suggests that the hon. Members who tabled it could be fairer and more rational in deciding what the numbers ought to be, but in effect those Members are guessing what the numbers should be and trying to lock them in. The new clause would lock in quite radical inequality between the nations of the Union in terms of the citizen-to-MP ratio that would result, and there is not a good reason for that.