Elections Bill (Second sitting)
Jerome Mayhew Excerpts(5Â years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chloe Smith
Could you also lift your head up so we can lip read?
Professor Howarth: The temptation when on a computer is to bend down towards the microphone. I shall try to let you lip read.
I agree that there is a problem with clause 23. The power to add groups that can campaign as third parties is obviously justifiable. The delegated powers memorandum gives no justification for the power to remove or the power to redefine. Those are powers that could be abused.
There is also a change in clause 20 that to most people looks logical, but there needs to be a replacement provision. It is the proposal to end the possibility of parties acting as third-party campaigners. The Electoral Commissionâs guidance says that is the main way in which parties can act together in electoral alliances and pacts. If clause 20 remains as it is, with no replacement provision, then parties will not really be able to operate in electoral pacts or alliances. They will be limited to ÂŁ700 of expenditure if promoting a national campaign of another party. There needs to be a specific provision for pacts that is fair. Obviously, those provisions would have to apply to canvassers campaigning on common ground, but this is too restrictive.
On the question of what ought to be in the Bill, there is a massive Law Commission report on all the problems identified in electoral law, which should be part of this Bill. That report is now gathering dust, as too many Law Commission reports do.
I go back to the Constitutional Affairs Committee and Justice Committees before 2010, which came to an agreement on the crucial issue in electoral reform, which is donations. Should there be a cap on donations? We got a Committee to agree on a very high cap, but also to the principle that there ought to be a cap. If you do not have a cap on donations, the whole system is open to the accusation that it is just there for rich people to buy elections. That is the most important problem in the way we allow elections to be run. We need to get the system on to a completely different basis of small donations by ordinary people.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
Q Professor, you asked where this idea of the statement of principles and the policy framework for the Electoral Commission has come from. I hope you were able to hear the evidence in this morningâs sitting, particularly that from Councillor Golds, who gave damning examples of where evidence of widespread fraud was taken by him and others to the Electoral Commission and, in his words, ignored.
Professor Howarth: Let me explain. The Electoral Commission does not have a role in legal contests about individual cases of electoral fraud. It has an overall supervisory role, but its regulatory powers are aimed at parties and their national campaigns. For example, on the spending returns of individuals in parliamentary elections, the commission has a power to look at them, but no power to enforce the law. That is all done by individuals and by the police.
The commissionâs power has to do with the national spending limits of the national parties. If you think the commission should be doing more on that, you need to change the commissionâs powers so that it can. What the Bill does instead is remove the commissionâs power to instigate prosecutions, which makes the situation even worse.
Jerome Mayhew
Q On that point, is it not right that although the commission claims to have the power currently, it has never once brought forward a prosecution?
Professor Howarth: That is because the Government always opposed it and tried to stop it doing it.
Jerome Mayhew
Q Forgive me; if I may ask the question, I will not interrupt the answer. Given that you have never, ever used the power of prosecution, is it fair to claim that removing a power that has never been used is somehow an additional fetter to electoral law?
Professor Howarth: Yes, it is, because it is a power that exists that could have been used, and any proposal to use it makes the Government immediately decide to go back, on whatever grounds. One of the things you should have picked up from Richard Mawreyâs evidence this morning is that the police are not particularly interested in enforcing electoral law and think that electoral offences are not important. If they do not think it is, the CPS will not get many cases and no one will be prosecuted, unless local authorities take it up using their power under section 222 of the Local Government Act, which they might do.
The Chair
We have just a couple of minutes left. Perhaps Patrick Grady will ask a short question and we can have a short answer.
Jerome Mayhew
Q Ms Irvine, if I may carry on questioning you, you are obviously aware that the Electoral Commission has recommended the use of photographic ID, and you are in very good company. We heard earlier this morning from Lord Pickles who, as you will know, produced a report three or four years ago in which he listed a number of organisations that have come out in favour of photographic ID for our election system. That list includes the Association of Electoral Administrators, SOLACE and the National Police Chiefs Council domestically, but also international recommendations from the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europeâs Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights. There is a groundswell of advice coming the Governmentâs way to introduce photographic ID to protect our electoral system from vulnerability to fraud. Can you expound for us the impact that vulnerability has on our democracy and the way people experience it?
Ailsa Irvine: We have highlighted that vulnerability for a number of years. As I said earlier, we see high levels of public confidence in our electoral process as a whole. That said, there are a proportion of voters for whom this is a concern and who would be more confident if a requirement was introduced. There is some evidence to suggest that some people would become more confident if that was introduced.
However, the one thing we said in our evaluation of the pilot schemes was that, in introducing any scheme, as well as ensuring it has an impact on increasing security, we ensure that its introduction does not have an impact on the accessibility of the voting process and that it is workable in practice. While there is a vulnerability and it makes logical sense for it to be looked at, it must be looked at in a way that not only protects security, but continues to ensure the ability of everybody to cast their vote.
Jerome Mayhew
Q That is a very good point, and it brings me neatly on to Virginia McVea, if I am allowed one further question. You have a lot of experience of the practical application of photo ID in Northern Ireland; I heard your evidence a moment ago that, now it is bedded in, the run rate is about 1,500 card applications a monthâis that right?
Virginia McVea: That is usually during election periods. Outside an election periodâ
Jerome Mayhew
Q That is a very good indicator for us to extrapolate from the population of Northern Ireland being 1.86 million. We will all be busy with our calculators later.
The other advice you gave was that for the overwhelming of people there is not a problemâthis is not an issue in Northern Ireland voting now, albeit after 20 years. Does that suggest that effective steps have been taken in the Northern Irish political process to raise awareness sufficiently to remove the concerns that some politicians expressed last week in the general debate, that many voters would be disenfranchised because they would turn up at a polling booth and they would not have the right ID? Is that a false fear once the system is bedded down?
Virginia McVea: We would have to time-travel back to the early 2000s to get a proper feel for the electorateâs response, but if there is sufficient communication and if there is availability of the ID card, much of which will be down to the capacity of the administrators, it is something that people are now accepting of. We have challenges to the office in relation to access to absent votes and discussions around that, but we do not have discussions about photographic ID with any of the parties. Ensuring that those smart passes can be used in polling stations is helpful, so yes, there is a general acceptance.
When you are doing your sums, being mathematically challenged myself on occasion, be careful: we work to the eligible electorate, which may possibly be around 1.45 million, rather than the 1.8 million, which would make the sums even harder dealing with the small figures from Northern Ireland.
The Chair
I have Paul Bristow, Chris Clarkson, Nick Smith and Fleur Anderson remaining to ask questions, and we have until 3.15 pm, so can we be kind to each other? Thank you.
Peter Gibson
Q I have two questions for Rob. In her evidence, the returning officer from Peterborough outlined that they had explored using CCTV in their polling stations. Could you comment on whether you have done the same and on whether that would be of benefit? Could you also outline whether all your polling station clerks are fully trained in the applicability of tendered ballots?
Rob Connolly: CCTV is something we explored in around 2010 or 2011, but we had a number of concerns, including that it might go the other way and affect peopleâs confidence in the system, in that they might be worried that we were spying on them or would be able to identify how they were voting. We opted not to go down that route. We invested more in additional training for our staff. We even considered looking at CCTV outside polling stations for people who were entering. Again, we did not think, if there were allegations of personation, that that would really help us. We had discussions with West Midlands police about the evidential side of that, and CCTV would not necessarily help you identify who had committed any crime of personation or when. We know it would have been very difficult to prove. As I say, we invest more in our staff who are delivering the ballot papers, and what have you.
In terms of the question about tendered ballot papers, that is something we make sure we reiterate every election. We introduced a form for our polling station staff. If they gave out a tendered ballot paper, they had to give an explanation as to whyâwhat was the reason? We would then spend some time collating that information post-election. That would do two things. One, if there were particular problems with particular polling stations and polling station staff, we could pick that up with them to find out why they were doing those things and fix that for next time. Two, we would then report that back to our members and give out numbers over the whole city, saying that x number of tendered ballot papers had been issued and giving the reasons why. I will be honest with you: there were times when they were probably issued wrongly, but that helped identify the issue so we could eliminate that from the process.
Jerome Mayhew
Q Mr Connolly, you were asked a moment ago about disenfranchisement, with specific reference to the first clause in the Bill, on voter ID. Although the Bill has one clause relating to voter ID, it has five clauses relating to proxy and postal voting. We heard really powerful evidence about that from Mr Mawrey QC this morning. When he was asked his view about disenfranchisement, his evidence, which was absolutely stark, was that it was the Bangladeshi community who had had their votes stolen and harvested and who were overwhelmingly disenfranchised as a result of voter fraud. Would you agree with that expression of opinion?
Rob Connolly: When we had our 2004-05 issue, I donât think it was with that community.
Jerome Mayhew
I should make it absolutely clear that he was making direct reference to Tower Hamlets in that series of questioning. Rather than pinning it all on the Bangladeshi community, what I really want to focus on is that it tends to be minority communities who have had serious examples of electoral fraudâthe kind of fraud that is dealt with in the proposed legislation. That is the area where most disenfranchisement has taken place historically.
Rob Connolly: As an example of that, there was a local election in which complaints were raised with us about potential fraud in the community by one of the candidates. People were potentially going to polling stations, and what have you. We did additional training for our polling station staff in that particular wardâmyself and a police officer from West Midlands policeâto explain what the particular allegations were and also what they could do to identify offending. In the petitions we have had, people have questioned the integrity of our polling station staff, which we vigorously defend, because 99.9% of the time they are absolutely honest. As I say, they come in for one day a year and without them we cannot deliver elections.
The sort of scenario you are talking about is often identified before an election, because the communities can sometimes be split by party lines. They will flag these issues up with us and we will work not only with the police, but with the political parties. I always think that to combat fraud, there are three parts of the jigsaw puzzle: the returning officer, the police and the political parties. If they all work together, that is how you combat fraud.
Jerome Mayhew
Q You mention the police as one of the triumvirate. How important is it that the police take electoral fraud seriously and get actively engaged?
Rob Connolly: West Midlands police always have done because of what happened in 2004 and the criticism they got at the time. It was a lesson well learned for them. Ever since then, they have taken such allegations very seriously. We work very closely with them and we have a point of contact. We will meet them in early January or in February to start preparing for the next May elections.
Jerome Mayhew
Q That is a definite improvement. Prior to 2004, complaints were called âOperation Gripeâ in West Midlands police.
Rob Connolly: Yes, you are absolutely right.
Elections Bill
Jerome Mayhew ExcerptsTuesday 7th September 2021
(5Â years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Elections Act 2022 View all Elections Act 2022 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
Last week, my daughter turned 18. It was a day of enormous pride for her and for us. I would like to say that she was proud because she was adopting her civil responsibilities in full, but actually it was because she could buy alcohol. She celebrated the fact by getting on her bicycle with a friend and bicycling off to the local village shop. She was asked to present ID, and she was delighted to do it as part of the rite of passage of attaining adulthood. The point of that story is that we require ID when the act being undertaken is either important, such as collecting parcels or learning to drive a car, or personally damaging, such as buying alcohol or cigarettes orâit is a cheap jokeâattending Labour party conferences.
In my view, the right to vote is as important as collecting a parcel, and the theft of a personâs right to vote is every bit as damaging to society as the 17-year-old buying a pint. It is a key right of citizenship, and it provides the basis of all our political power in this place and around the country. I think it extraordinary that up until now this right has not been protected in any way other than being asked to give a name.
ID protection is long overdue to maintain public confidence in the system. We have heard evidence from hon. Members that two thirds of the population would have their confidence in the fairness of voting increased with photo ID, and research on the 2019 voter ID pilot found that, among ethnic minorities, a staggering 97% of respondents said that they had increased confidence in elections being free from fraud and abuse when photo ID was used. This is really important stuff. We heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Gedling (Tom Randall) and for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher) that this is not the PR stunt that Opposition Members suggest; it is real. The risk of electoral fraud does exist and needs to be tackled. We have heard the evidence from Tower Hamlets and Birmingham that shows how ethnic minorities in particular are targeted and how their rights have been infringed more than any other section of our communityâs. They deserve better, and that is why the Government are standing up for them.
The Opposition say that there is no hard evidence of fraud. That is reminiscent of the response of the Labour Government back in the day when they were faced with the evidence of organised electoral fraud by sitting Labour councillors in Bordesley Green and Aston. The election judge said that
âthere is likely to be no evidence of fraud, if you do not look for it. Especially if a policy decision is made not to look for it.â
He described Labourâs position as
âa state not simply of complacency but of denial.â
We have heard the same denial today.
I am glad that the Government are not complacent on electoral fraud and, unlike Labour, not in denial. Photo ID is the right step to take to look for fraud. I fully support the Bill.
Emergency Covid Contracts
Jerome Mayhew Excerpts(5Â years, 2Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Julia Lopez
But those are relevant only when officials are asked to take any action, and that is the point at which official process and procedure come into play. I know the hon. Lady does not want to listen to this, but that is why the eight-stage process that officials undertook is so important; that is the aspect that should reassure the public that there are procedures that ensure that taxpayersâ money is spent correctly.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
Normal contract procedures for PPE take months to navigateâmonths that patients and staff simply did not have last yearâso criticising the Government for abbreviating procedures to save time and lives seems a poor use of hindsight. Is my hon. Friend aware that exactly the same decision to abbreviate processes in the name of speed was taken by Labour in Wales and by the SNP in Scotland, the only difference being that the SNP wanted to suspend freedom of information requests at the same time?
Julia Lopez
My hon. Friend is right that the devolved Administrations also use regulation 32 to procure in an emergency. It is important to note that the Government are dissatisfied with the procedures at our disposal. That is why, in our procurement Green Paper, we are looking at what measures we can take to procure with greater transparency and success in times of crisis to give us a better option between a full-fat procurement, which takes too long, or a direct award, which raises concerns about transparency.
Oral Answers to Questions
Jerome Mayhew Excerpts(5Â years, 3Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Brandon Lewis
I join the hon. Gentleman in expressing some surprise at the comments we saw yesterday. We would be concerned about any deviation from the principle of consent, as enshrined in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, but that agreement of course also respects the right of anyone to express their views, and we fully support that. We note the recent life and times survey, which showed support for a united Ireland at a low of 30% in Northern Ireland. I am also aware of the polls that put Sinn FĂŠin ahead in the Republic, which may explain the timing of some of these comments from the Tanaiste. I urge everyone to dial down any rhetoric, particularly at this time of year, as it is unhelpful and ill-advised. Whatever the circumstances, this Government will support the principle of consent and all of our obligations under the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
Jerome Mayhew [V]
I was not lucky enough to be in this place with Jo Cox, but it is clear that she made an enormous impact during her time here and is much missed.
I know that both negotiating teams worked hard, but it was really disappointing to see the lack of a significant breakthrough last week. We need pragmatic, sensible arrangements in place, just as we need devolved government working again with a new First Minister. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the EU needs to engage with the practical proposals that are being put forward on issues such as veterinary agreements and authorised trader schemes if we are to make progress on the ground?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I know that he has a huge knowledge and understanding of the nuances and the issues in Northern Ireland. It is absolutely right that we need to see a pragmatic and flexible approach. The EU has talked about that, and the vice-president himself outlined that point on British media. We need to see that in practice as we move forward. As I said, we have put forward a whole series of proposals and we look forward to the European Commission engaging with those in a real and direct way.
Debate on the Address
Jerome Mayhew Excerpts(5Â years, 4Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It will not surprise you that I wish to focus on the impact of the Gracious Speech on Scotland in the context of last weekâs Scottish Parliament elections. However, before I do so, I want to make two other points, one of which is directly related. As we all know in this House, elections always involve winners and losers, and the loss of my former colleague John Scott, the MSP for Ayr for the past 21 years, by just 170 votes, was keenly felt across the Scottish Conservative family. John had been Deputy Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament, a Committee Chair and a Front-Bench spokesman, and he was an assiduous constituency Member. He will be much missed right across the Parliament.
May I also welcome the measures in the Gracious Speech to ban conversion therapy, an issue on which I have campaigned, cross-party, along with many other colleagues, and express the hope that such measures can be brought forward in conjunction with the devolved Administrations, so that we can have a uniform approach to this abhorrent practice across the UK? I will certainly be highlighting the need for that during the consultation.
Turning to Scotland, I particularly welcome the Governmentâs practical commitment to the Union in the Gracious Speech and look forward to the transport infrastructure investment promised to improve connectivity within the United Kingdom, which is needed nowhere more than on the A75 in my constituency, a key route between England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. This Governmentâs commitment to working constructively with the Scottish Government for the benefit of the people of Scotland has been evident throughout the pandemic, not least in the vaccine roll-out. It was evidenced again in recent days by the Prime Ministerâs initiative in bringing together the UK Government and the devolved Administrations to work together to fully overcome the pandemic and plan for recovery. That is where Nicola Sturgeonâs laser focus should be, not on talk of another divisive independence referendum.
Despite the outrageous assertions we have heard from the Westminster leader of the SNP here today, the real story of the election on 6 May in Scotland was, as Alex Massie highlighted in todayâs The Times, the incredible success of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party. We returned 31 MSPs and gained more than 100,000 additional votes to deliver our highest ever share, and we stopped the SNP majority, just as we promised the voters we would. More than that, we proved that the 2016 election was not a fluke, or solely down to the unique personality of Ruth Davidson. The Scottish Conservatives are Scotlandâs second party and the main Opposition.
The Scottish people have voted to elect a Scottish Parliament without an overall majority. They could have given the SNP the majority that the nationalists themselves set as the test for another referendum, yet instead they have sent a strong message that people in Scotland want parties to work together now in the national interest of managing the coronavirus pandemic and delivering our economic recovery. The Scottish Conservatives will work constructively with all parties to rebuild our country.
Of course, as after all recent elections in Scotland, we are now told that every single person who voted SNP was doing so to bring about independence and another referendum. It is strange, then, that despite the SNP registering the slogans âVote SNP for indyref2â and âBoth votes SNP for indyref2â as planned ballot descriptions with the Electoral Commission for last Thursdayâs election, it instead used âNicola Sturgeon for First Ministerâ. So the SNP literally removed indyref2 from the ballot paper when that could have been put on it and left no room for doubt.
Of course, it is clear why the SNP did thatâso that it could claim that those people who responded positively to Nicola Sturgeonâs handling of coronavirus could have their vote used to support independence when that was never their intention. Indeed, Nicola Sturgeon told Glenn Campbell of BBC Scotland only last Tuesday that people should of course vote for her if they wanted her leadership but not the distraction and division of another referendum. How disappointed such people must have been when, even before all the votes were counted, the SNP again pushed its divisive plans for a second independence referendum. We have heard it here again today, and I think we are going to hear more of it. Not only is this the wrong priority for our country; it is a betrayal of every voter who supported the party out of a desire for leadership through the pandemic and into recovery. The SNP has no moral authority to hold a second referendum. It failed its own test to secure a majority and has been left as a minority Government.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
Is it not the case that more people voted for pro-Unionist parties in the recent election than for separatist parties?
David Mundell
In the constituency ballots, that is indeed the case, but the point I have just made is that many people who voted SNP did so on the basis of the handling of the pandemic, not in a call for an immediate independence referendum. That is why the SNP now needs to listen to the Scottish people and focus on getting our country through this crisis.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
Let me start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Shailesh Vara), the proposer, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher), the seconder, of this Loyal Address in reply to the Gracious Speech. As a member of the 2019 intake, I particularly enjoyed being referred to as a bouncy young puppy. It has been a while since I felt like one, but I am glad that I give that impression to others.
I turn to the body of the Gracious Speech and refer to my entry in the Register of Membersâ Financial Interests. Every year, the Government buy nearly ÂŁ300 billion of services from the private sector, yet this tool for economic regeneration has been blunted by EU procurement procedures that favour large corporations. I know from my own experience of contracting with governmental organisations that time and again SMEs are excluded from this competition because they cannot provide the huge amount of managerial time simply to undertake the overly complex procurement processes.
Reform of our public procurement rules is long overdue, and I am delighted that this benefit of Brexit is going to be realised. The Government will be able to focus their huge investment, allowing them to be both more strategic and to save the taxpayer money through much simpler procurement procedures that allow us, for the first time, to favour British suppliers. The public sector will be able overtly to buy British, allowing competition for contracts under ÂŁ4.7 million for public works and ÂŁ122,000 for goods and services to be reserved for SMEs, voluntary community and social enterprises, or a geographical area, ensuring that maximum local economic benefit can be obtained by levelling up investments.
It seems bizarre to have to say this, but this legislation will also allow the tender process to take account of a bidderâs past performance, allowing Departments to exclude suppliers that have failed to deliver in the past. As a previously frustrated bidder for contracts, I know how refreshing that simple improvement will be. Simplifying procurement processes, making them accessible to smaller challenger businesses, encouraging innovation and entrepreneurialism, and enshrining common sense principles, such as taking account of past performanceâwhat better way to kickstart local economies and entrepreneurialism? I can immediately see how these changes will drive local growth, promote innovation, support local recruitment and level up communities.
It is an increasingly clear characteristic of this Prime Minister and this Government that they are not just about talking about doing things; they get on and do them. Whether it is getting Brexit done despite the obstacles, delivering a vaccination strategy, or providing the economic support to protect jobs and maximise our storming economic recovery, the Prime Minister is a doerâhe makes things happen.
Her Majestyâs Gracious Speech has been described as providing rocket fuel to level up the country and ensure equal opportunities for all. It is clear from the Queenâs Speech that improving life chances throughout the United Kingdom is at the core of the Governmentâs mission. It seems that Labour and Liberal Democrats share an instinct: through punitive redistributive taxation and their distrust of business and personal success, they want to promote equality by levelling down. We saw last week that people have had enough of being told that they have been left behind. People do not want victimhood; they want opportunity.
As Conservatives, we should focus on equality of opportunity for all, levelling up to share and increase prosperity and progress, so I particularly welcome the proposed skills for jobs programme, which does not gloss over the 50% of the population who do not go to university but encourages lifelong skills and training to improve life chances, particularly as our economy develops its low-carbon future. The opening up of the student loan scheme to all adults over the age of 24 has the potential to revolutionise lifetime learning and transform the fortunes of further education colleges, placing them at the heart of their communities. Self-improvement is the cornerstone of levelling up and it is the cornerstone of Conservatism.
The chance to own oneâs own home is another of the great levelling-up opportunities. Home ownership creates stability, savings and often something to pass on to the next generationâa desire at the core of us all. I welcome the Governmentâs recognition that the current planning and construction system is not working and that action needs to be taken to fix it, but much work needs to be done to ensure that the cure does not create additional problems for existing communities. The Governmentâs seminal âBuilding Better, Building Beautifulâ report sends the right signal to developers, and I look forward to working with the Government to implement its objectives.
The Gracious Speech shows a Government who are brimming with ideas and in a hurry to get things done to improve the life chances of communities across the United Kingdom, and I look forward to supporting it.
Northern Ireland Protocol: Implementation
Jerome Mayhew Excerpts(5Â years, 7Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. One can never predict the future with accuracy, but I think, given the universal condemnation with which the Commissionâs actions were met, that it knows that it has to step away. It is remarkable; the Archbishop of Canterbury, Carl Bildt, Alexander Stubbâthe former Finnish Prime Ministerâall the parties in Northern Ireland, the Taoiseach and the Irish Foreign Minister were all critical of the decision that was made. This is not some sort of gaggle of Eurosceptics rehearsing traditional linesâit is a recognition that the Commission mucked up.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con) [V]
The Joint Committee is empowered to determine the practical arrangements relating to the UKâs implementation of the protocol. Given this morningâs need to suspend animal-based food checks at the port of Larne because of paramilitary threats, it is clear that these decisions have real physical consequences. What conversations has my right hon. Friend been able to have with his counterparts in the Joint Committee on the practical steps not only to de-escalate the situation but to ensure that food supplies are maintained and eased in future?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I had the opportunity to talk to Vice-President Ĺ efÄoviÄ over the course of the weekend, on Friday night and on Saturday afternoon as well. As I mentioned earlier, he is very conscious of these questions. Although criticisms might be directed at some, he should be exempt from criticism because he is absolutely committed to working to resolve these issues in a practical way.
Covid-19
Jerome Mayhew Excerpts(5Â years, 8Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
Wales is actually at the forefront of our thoughts and continues to be. We are anxious to continue to support the people of Wales in any way that we can. The salient point that I take from today is that there is ÂŁ1 billion that the Welsh Labour Government have failed to spend in the way that they could, and I urge them to get on and do that, but the UK Government will continue to support Wales, as we support the people of the whole United Kingdom.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con) [V]
In Norfolk, those most at risk from covid have already received 27,000 vaccination first injections since 9 December, which are now available in our hospitals and 11 primary care networks, including the excellent Fakenham Medical Practice in my constituency. From Monday, those sites will be joined by many others. We are ready to do whatever it takes to keep up with vaccine supply, so what are the chances of securing more than 2 million doses of vaccine per week?
Covid-19 Update
Jerome Mayhew Excerpts(5Â years, 11Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
I think the hon. Lady may have missed what I said. We are putting up to another ÂŁ1 billion into supporting local authorities and ÂŁ500 million into supporting local test and trace and enforcement.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
While rightly moving to simplify the message, does my right hon. Friend agree that flexible local approaches are the best way to tackle outbreaks in order to prevent a total lockdown and minimise the wider economic impact, particularly on low-incidence-level areas such as Broadland?
The Prime Minister
That is exactly right. That is the strategy that we have been pursuing for some time now, and that is why it is necessary to intensify the restrictions in some areas.
Oral Answers to Questions
Jerome Mayhew Excerpts(5Â years, 11Â months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
We have changed the law to ask landlords to provide tenants with at least six monthsâ notice before eviction. We are not going to have evictions in lockdown areas, there will not be any enforcement of evictions over Christmas and we are putting ÂŁ180 million into discretionary payments for local authorities to help hardship cases. We are also embarking on a huge programme to build hundreds of thousands more homes, particularly affordable homes, which I hope the hon. Gentlemanâs constituents will want to buy and to part-buy.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I appreciate the temporary disappointment that my hon. Friend is experiencing, but this Government are immensely ambitious for the improvement of our transport infrastructure, and active consideration is now being undertaken of that project again. I understand that parliamentary colleagues are meeting Baroness Vere, the roads Minister, this week to discuss the options for additional schemes from 2025 onwards.
United Kingdom Internal Market Bill
Jerome Mayhew Excerpts(6Â years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pete Wishart
That is exactly the essence of what this is all aboutâthis idea that somehow they know better for Scotland, better than the directly elected representatives of the people in the Scottish Parliament. It is an absurd suggestion. There is no evidence that they know better than the Scottish Parliament, and we will not accept that. I thank my hon. Friend for his thoughts.
The Government have suggested today that we are complaining about extra funding. First, is there any extra funding? Secondly, where does it come from? Thirdly, how much is it going to be? We could have a debate about extra funding if they could answer all those questions. I am looking at the Minister; maybe she could tell us. We have the devolved powers for a particular reason. It is because we want democratic control over the decision makers on everything from education to health to infrastructure to waterâall the things that they now want to exercise responsibility over.
Pete Wishart
I do not have time. I am conscious that other people want to come in.
Before devolution, there was a Scotland Office. It exercised responsibility, authority and powers over all the areas that are now controlled by the Scottish Parliament. The reason devolution came across was to directly express democratic control over those responsibilities. The Government now want to go back to the dark days of the 1980s, under the regime of Michael Forsyth and Malcolm Rifkind. [Hon. Members: âHear, hear.â] They are going âHear, hearâ! I am hearing a âHear, hearâ from the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie). May I just say that the rest of Scotland does not share that ambition? I am pretty certain that when he stands next year for the Scottish Parliament he will find that out.
So that is what the Government are doingâthey are attempting to take us back to those days. Extra money is great if there is any; I am just wondering how much it is, and whatever it is, how it will be distributed. But it should be under the democratic control of the Scottish Parliament when it comes to the devolved powers, because that is what it is there to do.
Why are the Government really doing this? Here is my theory; tell me if I am on the right tracks. They can never win an election in Scotlandâthe Scottish Conservatives have absolutely no chance of winning an election in Scotland. The new ever-cheerful hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) and his belligerent baroness partner are actually taking the Scottish Conservatives further down. They are sinking below 20% in the polls. So they are thinking, âWeâre never, ever going to get legislative responsibility and control of the Scottish Government, so weâll just go round itâweâll just circumvent it.â That is actually easier for the Scottish Conservatives than winning an election. So that is why they are doing it.
Another thing that they are doing is what I call âslap a jack on itââthe idea that somehow, the Scottish people will learn to love the Conservatives if they see a whole load of projects with Union Jacks on, given by the largesse and generosity of the Great Britain and United Kingdom Parliament. Nothing will irritate the Scottish people more than seeing all that rubbish splattered about our country.
I will just finish with this. Aggressive Unionism is not working for them. I know that they have all these new figures in the Scotland Office. They have the new constitution unit. Surely, with all these great thinkers on the Union, someone must be able to turn round to the Government and say to them, âWeâve tried this. We tried undermining the powers of the Scottish Parliament. We tried âslap a jack on it.â We tried all these things to curtail Scottish democracy, and all that is happening is that support for independence is going up and up and up.â Now, it might just be me, but if you are doing the same thing again and again and it is not working for you, surely you should change it and do something different, to try and ensure that the Union case prevails. It is almost to our benefit that they are continuing with this type of aggressive Unionism, because what we have seen is a rise in support for independence. I give them this advice only because I know that they will never take it: what they are doing is ensuring the Unionâs demise.
The day of Scotland being subject to rubbish like this rogue state UK Bill, with the stripping of our powers and the diminishing of our democracy, is a day too long. This issue will be critical in the next Scottish parliamentary election. They are going to get gubbed. There will be a demand from Scotland for independence, and it will be goodbye Westminsterâand it cannot come soon enough.
Patricia Gibson
No, I will not. I was trying to educate the hon. Gentleman a wee bit. I am always happy to clear up confusion about what devolution means, because there is a clear lack of knowledge about it.
What we are seeing in this legislation is an underhand, sleekit, sleight of hand whereby Scots, who for decades have rejected the Tories, are being put in their box, with powers stripped from their Parliamentâa Parliament for which the case was hard fought, and won in the teeth of vociferous Tory oppositionâand taken back to Westminster. We all know that the Scottish Parliament was established for Scots to have some say in their own affairs; to allow Scotland to do things differently, instead of every single aspect of our lives being governed by a Tory Government who have won the support of few Scots and the hearts of even fewer.
After 21 years, the Tories have run out of patience with us pesky Scots and they are using legislative procedures, hellbent on bringing to heel the nation that continues to reject them. In the Bill, Scotland will now be denied the choice to use her Parliament to do things differentlyâto do things according to our values, according to our beliefs. The very essence of devolution is being undermined, diluted and constrained, and in the process opposition to this arrogant madness has united whole swathes of Scottish societyâour people, civic society, our educational institutions, our farming communities and our trade unions.
We in Scotland rejected these measures in the Scottish Parliament last month, overwhelmingly. Tory Members do not seem to understand that for Scotlandâs Parliament not to have control over its own spending priorities is an affront to the democratic will of the sovereign people of Scotland.
The fact that the plans are set out in these clauses means that democratically elected MSPs and members of the Scottish Government can be overlooked, bypassed and marginalised when it comes to spending decisions, and the Bill will jeopardise the current Barnett funding formula. For the Tories, though, it will certainly solve the problem identified by Labourâs Baron Foulkes of Cumnock, whoâI paraphraseâsaid, âScotland is doing things better than in Englandâ and
âthey are doing it deliberately.â
This mean-spirited, grubby, underhand, squalid, sweaty-handed power grab is an attempt to stop just thatâScotland doing things better, and doing them better deliberately. In short, the Bill grabs power from the Scottish Parliament.
In answer to the question of what powers will be lost, the Bill could even allow Westminster to interfere on devolved taxation powers, threatening schemes such as the small business bonus.
The Sewel convention says that the UK Parliament would ânot normallyâ legislate in respect of devolved matters without the consent of the devolved Parliaments, and the devolution settlement is clear: what is not reserved is devolved. For this Tory Government to undermine the devolution settlement by refusing to recognise the correct vehicle for delivery for such programmes designed to replace EU funding, is to ride a coach and horses through it. Spending decisions on key infrastructure projects, such as social objectives, will be taken out of the hands of the Scottish Parliament and could be completely out of step with the social and public policy of Scotlandâs elected Government, excluding important players in Scotlandâs civic society.
What if the UK Government impose on Scotland a project that goes against the democratic wishes or priorities of the Scottish Parliament? What will happen? How will such disputes be resolved? I think we know where the power grab takes us, in answer to that question. I can barely believe the blatant insult of this UK Government trying to portray the dismantling of the powers of the Scottish Parliament as a power surge. They should get a grip of themselves. Who on earth do they think that they are fooling? Scots are not daft. We can see the bluff and the bluster and the grubby way that this Government do politics. We have waited too long for our own Parliament to see it dismantled by a party that has been rejected by Scotland again and again and, for the record, has been rejected because it simply does not understand Scotland.
Jerome Mayhew
I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving wayâit shows that perseverance is rewarded eventually. She has made reference to the devolution settlement, so I draw her attention to Donald Dewarâs 1997 White Paper, âScotlandâs Parliamentâ, where it says:
âWestminster will continue to be responsible for those areas of policy best run on a United Kingdom basis.â
It goes on:
âBy preserving the integrity of the United Kingdom, the Union secures for its people participation in an economic unit, which benefits business, provides access to wider markets and investment and increases prosperity to all.â
What is wrong with that?
Patricia Gibson
What the hon. Gentleman does again, as, to be fair to him, many of his colleagues have done, is demonstrate that he does not understand devolution. There is nothing to prevent common frameworks. The SNP Government have never objected to that, but what the Government are doing with this Bill is deliberately removing powers from the Scottish Parliament, preventing the Scottish Government from setting their own priorities, so common frameworks are not the issue.
There is a dawning realisation that up with this we in Scotland need not put. This Government know that they will never get legislative consent from the Scottish Parliament for this Bill. If the Tories want to win Scotland, if they want to run Scotland, then they really should try winning an election. The grubby tactics being used in this Bill to emasculate our national Parliament will simply not work. The more they try to constrain Scotlandâs democratic rights, the more the ties that bind us to the rest of the UK loosen, so keep talking. The Scottish people are sovereign. Clauses 46 and 47 are merely footnotes on the journey to Scotlandâs independence. All this Government are doing with their incompetence and bluster is moving us along our way to independence. They are overplaying their hand and putting the final nails in the Unionist coffin. For that at least, Scotland can be grateful.