BBC Local Radio

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth), and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) for securing this important debate. I speak not only as the Member of Parliament for Warrington South, but as chair of the all-party parliamentary media group and the all-party parliamentary group on commercial radio, and I spent all my life, before I came to this place, working in radio.

There is something very special, indeed unique, about local radio’s relationship with its audience. It provides companionship, news, information and entertainment in a way that most other media simply cannot achieve. As my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Dean Russell) said, it is about the voice that emerges from a speaker in the corner of the room and talks one to one with the listener. Most listeners are doing something else while they are listening to the radio—they are driving a car, making tea or in the shower—and that opportunity to be part of a radio community is something very personal, portable and social. Radio is a medium that allows us to use our imagination to build pictures in our own minds in a way that no other medium can.

Local radio has a unique place in our media ecology. It is the space on the dial that jumps out and says, “We are all about the towns and villages that are familiar to you.” The travel news talks about the motorway that we are on, not the one on the other side of the country. Local radio features the high street where we do our shopping. It is about the town hall to which we elect our councillors. It is where the daily phone-in happens, when residents can go on air and share their views in authentic accents, using words that only local people understand to talk about the issues that really matter to them. Great BBC local radio stations around the country have the ability to connect in a unique way, providing for their audiences and for the whole community. Commercial radio simply cannot provide that. It is not that commercial radio is not great, but it is not licensed to do what BBC local radio does. BBC local radio has a special place on the dial.

Given what I have said about the unique role of BBC local radio, it is perhaps not surprising that I am concerned to hear about the BBC management plans to regionalise programming content after 2 pm each day, and to share programmes over the weekend. The weekly peak for many stations is Sunday morning. Why give that away to regional space when listeners are specifically tuning in to find out about their local area? I worry about what that says to local audiences about how much BBC management values local listeners.

I take this opportunity to acknowledge the work of the BBC teams creating local content for Radio Merseyside and Radio Manchester in my area. The Friday afternoon programme on Radio Merseyside presented by Claire Hamilton provides distinctive local content that I cannot hear anywhere else, but it will be lost. On Friday 11 November, Radio Merseyside did an outside broadcast from Tate Liverpool not only focusing on the Turner prize but celebrating the local arts scene across Merseyside. By inviting contributions from listeners, it provided a rounded experience of what is going on in the city and across Merseyside.

The following Friday, Claire was in Cheshire presenting a special programme on the upcoming City of Chester by-election, which included an hour-long daytime debate with the main parliamentary candidates, which is something only the BBC can and should be doing. Last week Radio Merseyside carried a special broadcast on knife crime to mark the murder of Ava White a year ago, and it culminated in an hour-long feature analysing what has changed in the city.

I have heard from many listeners who are worried about losing the friend on the radio they know and trust. I have also heard from people who work inside the BBC, and they are disappointed and angry about how the BBC is treating local radio. They know it will have an impact on ordinary listeners and licence fee payers, for whom local radio services top their list of BBC products.

I was struck by an email from a person who works at the BBC, saying that the teams working in local radio know their listeners like nobody else, “They tell the stories. They laugh with their listeners. They celebrate the wonderful events that take place in the cities and in the towns, and they grieve with them when tragedy strikes. They are the friends on the radio, and that is what is at risk.”

Listeners in my constituency have a massive range of stations from which to choose, but no other channel delivers content in the way BBC local radio does. The BBC holds an extremely privileged position as the nation’s public service broadcaster, but it is also our local communities’ public service broadcaster. The charter granted to the BBC sets out specific obligations and gives it an advantage that no other service provider can match.

First, the BBC has unrivalled funding from the licence fee. Secondly, it has a network of transmitters and streaming platforms, meaning audiences can pick up services on whichever platform they choose, which is a massive advantage over many other broadcasters. Thirdly, BBC local radio benefits from cross-promotion opportunities on the BBC’s television and online services. BBC local radio should be growing because it benefits from the wider BBC operation.

In fact, adding national radio, the BBC maintains a 50% market share in UK radio, which is far in excess of its TV market share of around 28%. The BBC is expert in radio, yet it wants to withdraw from local radio. I have shared my views with BBC executives and, in some respects, I believe the route they are taking will probably hasten the demise of local radio. In every part of the media landscape, the ability to personalise and precisely target audiences benefits a channel. By merging services, the BBC is effectively creating Radio Nowhere, which means audiences are likely to go elsewhere.

Matching cities and towns such as Leicester and Northampton to share programmes makes no sense. Anyone who knows the east midlands media market knows that Leicester, Nottingham and Derby have always sat together—that is the TV region. Why suddenly stick Northampton with Leicester? It makes no sense. Two minutes looking at the latest radio audience tables shows clear evidence that stations that remain fiercely focused on their local audiences, such as Radio Cornwall, maintain the highest market share of local radio in the UK. If you focus on a geographic area and serve it well, you will generate reach and time spent listening—it is as simple as that.

I urge the Minister to read a report published about 10 years ago by one of the UK’s leading radio executives, John Myers, who is sadly no longer with us. He was commissioned by the now director-general of the BBC in 2011 to review all the BBC’s radio services. Sadly, many of his recommendations have never been taken up and I feel certain, having read that report again today, that it would deliver better value for licence fee payers and would result in more popular, distinctive and sustainable services for the BBC.

I would like to use my remaining few minutes to focus on the independent regulation of the BBC by Ofcom. As the Minister will know, the Secretary of State has already set out the terms of reference for a mid-term review of the BBC, focusing on the governance and regulatory arrangements. This is a timely opportunity to look at the operating licences for all the BBC radio services, but particularly for local radio, which have been reduced and made less robust since Ofcom took over the regulation of the BBC. Having been involved with challenging the BBC Trust 15 years ago, I never thought I would get to a stage where there was less regulation of the BBC than there was with the BBC Trust, but sadly Ofcom has managed to achieve that.

The proposed operating licences being put forward by Ofcom remove a significant number of quotas that are essential for the BBC to be distinctive and to meet its public purposes. The few that remain are 15 years old and not as a relevant as they were. Although some of Ofcom’s updates to the operating licences are welcome, I share the concerns raised by Radiocentre that the proposed operating licences simply fail to adequately regulate and enhance the current provision provided by the BBC. Strangely, Ofcom appears to have accepted in principle the importance of retaining quotas in order to guarantee a minimum level of distinctive output but then, despite that acceptance, proposes to remove most of them and dilute core elements of the BBC’s public service broadcasting. Notably, on BBC local radio the proposal is to reduce the requirements of speech at breakfast time from 100% to 75%, so news output will actually reduce on BBC local radio at the peak breakfast time.

BBC local radio will be less tightly regulated than the commercial radio equivalents, who are providing news and speech for audiences but receive zero public funding. I am pleased that Ofcom proposes an operating licence for BBC Sounds, as that is long overdue, but it is the woolliest operating licence I have ever seen. It simply creates a situation where the BBC has a mandate to create services to compete against commercial services. I urge the Minister to look at that again. Finally, removing the requirements to deliver niche genre content—arts and religious content—simply allows the BBC to walk away from that as the corner foundation of public service broadcasting.

To conclude, the age profile of BBC local radio is older, with 33% of listeners over the age of 65. Its age profile is less attractive commercially and therefore is less likely to be served by other operators. This is the space that a publicly funded public service broadcaster should be operating in. Most critically, there is a need to update the BBC’s operating licences, and I do not believe Ofcom’s current proposals are sufficiently comprehensive to hold the BBC to account and to ensure it delivers distinctive content. Frankly, the entire direction of travel by Ofcom, given that the BBC is a public service provider, is to give the BBC more freedom. The BBC receives £3.8 billion from the licence fee and it is not unreasonable to ensure that regulatory conditions are in place to ensure the corporation delivers the public purpose set out in the BBC charter. The services provided by the BBC should be distinctive and should deliver an output that is public service-orientated, rather than simply offering a service that is already provided by other operators.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

On behalf of the Speaker, the right hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) and myself representing Ribble Valley, I say three cheers for Radio Lancashire. It was great having the team at the Speaker’s Rooms on Lancashire Day when they broadcast the early morning programme with Graham Liver—three cheers for him and his team—and we look forward to welcoming them back next year. Hopefully, they will not give me the 7 am slot again—that is an early plea, Graham.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

I totally agree. My hon. Friend has a background in radio and speaks with great experience. The BBC should not be salami-slicing its services. It should be responsive to local need, and that includes looking at the peak times my hon. Friend describes.

We all agree the BBC has been entertaining and informing us for 100 years. We want the BBC to continue to succeed over the next century in a rapidly evolving media landscape and we are clear that BBC radio has a significant role to play in that success. In the light of the concerns raised in the debate, the BBC needs to clarify itself how it is going to manage those long-term tensions between modernising and becoming more sustainable while also maintaining its core public service function and output. I recognise that the BBC faces difficult decisions in reforming its services and becoming the digital-first organisation it seeks, but the debate has highlighted concerns shared across the House about the BBC’s proposals to reduce its local radio output.

I stress again that the BBC is independent from the Government, but it is now for the BBC to reflect on the concerns raised in the debate and elsewhere on its proposals. It must also clarify whether it has other plans to change local radio services in future, particularly in Scotland and Wales.

The Government are undertaking a mid-term review, as I said earlier, which will evaluate how the BBC and Ofcom assess the market impact and public value of the BBC in an evolving marketplace and how that relates to the wider UK media ecology, including with regard to commercial radio and local news sectors. That will take regard of the views of this House and the review is ongoing.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

A final word, Sir Mike Penning.

4.47 pm

[Sir Mike Penning]

Words, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank colleagues for giving up their time on a Thursday afternoon on a one-line Whip and that must send a message to the BBC.

Anybody from our constituencies who was listening to this will be very confused because there is not one plan from the BBC for this. There seems to be a mixture of plans. Our area, covered by Three Counties Radio, will lose its local at 2 o’clock. Some will lose it at 6 o’clock. Some will lose it at weekends. Some will lose it altogether, such as in Foyle. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), the former Secretary of State—it is botched. It is completely botched and I am petrified that, once it is gone, it is gone.

As many colleagues will remember, in my constituency, we had the largest explosion and fire since the second world war. When all the BBC national and the international crews disappeared, Three Counties Radio was still there for my constituents. People were out of their homes for over a year in some cases. Some businesses never recovered. BBC local radio was there. Some of those reporters and the teams behind them—the NUJ has done a fantastic job for the journalists, but some of the members of the teams behind them are not NUJ members and we must not forget them—are award-winning.

When Justin Dealey comes on the radio in my constituency, people will listen to him because they trust him. They listen to Roberto—they will do so this evening—and they listen to the morning show. Why do they listen so much? It is not just the older generation who listen: mums listen because they worry about whether their kids are going to go to school. As I said earlier, that is the link with the community. Yes, there are other mediums, but this is such low-hanging fruit and such a small amount of money that the BBC is trying to take out of local radio. And as for telling people they are going to lose their jobs—I agree with the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson): the sums do not add up. From what I hear in my part of the world, the sums of the BBC do not add up. Do we trust the BBC nationally? The public do not, but they do trust local radio.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the future of BBC Local Radio.

Scottish Independence and the Scottish Economy

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to suspend proceedings so that the Secretary of State can have a tutorial on how elections and ballot boxes work and how an x is put on a piece of paper?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I am sure that the hon. Member’s leader would not be delighted if I were to suspend proceedings for any reason whatsoever.

[Mr Jack]

I say to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil): take the splinter out of your own eye. I am explaining how ballot boxes work. There was a very good, legal referendum in 2014, and it was won by those who wanted to remain in the United Kingdom. It is as simple as that.

I return to the point about the neverendum campaign being a millstone around the neck of the Scottish economy. The last thing that people need is greater uncertainty. The last thing that Scotland needs is the SNP’s continual push for a divisive referendum on leaving the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom Government are working tirelessly to strengthen the Scottish economy.

During the covid pandemic, it was the UK Government who had the ability to support our economy through furlough and business grants, keeping businesses in business and protecting people’s livelihoods. We are now supporting households and businesses facing increased energy costs. The UK Government are also providing the Scottish Government with a record block grant settlement of £41 billion a year over the next three years. In real terms, that is the highest settlement since 1998.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jack]

I am going to make some progress—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Mr MacNeil, you could start an argument in a room on your own. The Secretary of State is not giving way. Please pipe down.

[Mr Jack]

We are close to announcing two new UK freeports in Scotland, backed by £52 million of investment from the United Kingdom Government. That is a great example of how much more we can achieve when Scotland’s two Governments work together. We know that we can achieve much more by working together. So I repeat my offer to the Scottish Government to come and work with us on transport by improving cross-border links such as the A75 and on agriculture by giving farmers the gene editing technology that they desperately want. Gene editing will make crops more disease and drought-resistant and thereby drive down food prices. They should also work with us on energy, bringing small modular nuclear reactors—yes, you heard it here—to back up our tremendous renewable energy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Blackford]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On the day of the referendum, the pound-dollar rate was 1.64. The Government have crashed the pound over the course of the last few years. That is the harsh reality and the Secretary of State might actually recognise that.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the Secretary of State.

[Mr Jack]

To clarify the record, I was referring to the recent turmoil in the market. [Interruption.] Let me proceed.

This is a challenging economic period internationally and we should not pretend that the UK is the only nation which faces difficult times. The overall economic stability that the UK offers is the best long-term guarantee we have, so the right hon. Member is simply wrong in the motion about the state of the UK economy. He compounds his mistake, because his motion speaks of a land that exists only in his overactive and deeply aggrieved imagination: the so-called failing state of the UK. That will be the United Kingdom which has the sixth-biggest economy in the world, the UK which is a leading partner in NATO, the UK which is at the heart of the G7, and the UK with a permanent seat on the Security Council of the United Nations. [Interruption.] They do not like hearing it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Please resume your seats. Come on. Stop it, please. Stop it. We did not have that noise when the leader of the SNP was speaking, so in deference, and in good behaviour, please stop the shouting.

[Mr Jack]

SNP Members do not like hearing it. Instead of insulting Scots’ intelligence, the SNP might explain what it is doing with Holyrood’s extensive powers in economic development, education and skills, planning and transport to grow the Scottish economy.

I hope that as the debate progresses we will hear something constructive from SNP Members, but I fear ferries will float before we do. Rather than deal with what actually matters to the vast majority of Scots—growing the economy and creating jobs—SNP Members want to talk about the Scottish Government’s “independence papers”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jack]

It is like musical chairs, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

If the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) carries on moving across the Labour Benches, he will find the door is there. [Laughter.]

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order to put on a Liverpool accent so that the Secretary of State will maybe give way to a Scottish MP?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

It is up to whoever is on their feet who they allow in. For whatever reason, you are not the flavour of the month, Mr MacNeil, and I have to say you are rapidly going down my list as to when you will actually come in.

[Mr Jack]

Mr Deputy Speaker, I admire the tenacity of the hon. Gentleman. He is obviously very good a playing musical chairs, but I am going to finish.

We share these islands. We share a rich history. Together, we have been able to develop the great institutions we are so proud of, such as the NHS and our armed forces. People in Scotland want their two Governments to be focused on the issues that matter to them: growing our economy, ensuring our energy security, tackling the cost of living and supporting our friends in Ukraine against Russian aggression. Those are the issues that matter to the people of Scotland, not the motion before us today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. When we ask a question of a colleague in Parliament who finds it difficult to understand, is it in order that he responds with insults?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The hon. Member did apologise immediately, Mr MacNeil. I think you should accept that with good grace.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

I did not hear it. Thank you.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neale Hanvey]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know it may feel politically expedient for the shadow Minister to slur me in the way that he did, but he should be aware that I was reinstated into the SNP because the accusations of antisemitism did not stand. I have worked tirelessly with Danny Stone from the Antisemitism Policy Trust and other Members in this House to ensure that that scourge is not furthered. I am not an antisemite.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

That is now on the record. I think we should move on. As “Erskine May” states, there should be good behaviour, but to be honest I am not seeing a lot of it in this debate. Let us try and change the tone.

[Ian Murray]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I accept the timeline, but I was accurate to say that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) was thrown out as the SNP candidate following accusations of antisemitism.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

We are now moving on. Everybody has got their point on the record.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Will everybody please resume their seats? Madam Deputy Speaker suggested speeches of seven minutes, and that speech was almost twice the limit she suggested. It is not doing any favours to other colleagues in the SNP, the vast majority of whom would want to contribute in this debate. Please can you look to seven minutes and no more?

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. That speech was easily within seven minutes; that is the way to do it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

It is a great pleasure and privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Steven Bonnar), and an absolute barnstorm of a speech—excellent. This has been a good debate. I wish to extend a hand and a bit of friendship across the Chamber, as I was particularly taken by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid), who did at least accept interventions and deal with debate, unlike the Secretary of State who called for a sensible and serious debate, but would not actually debate.

Something interesting happened in this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) is to be particularly congratulated, because in one speech he got six unopposed motions through this Parliament. On 2 July 1266, the treaty of Perth joined the Hebrides and the Isle of Man to Scotland. After that speech, perhaps we can add the statutes of Perth from 2 November 2022, in which my hon. Friend passed six motions in his speech, the first being the magnificent achievement of having all parties—perhaps not the Lib Dems—agree that an independent Scotland would be a successful independent country.

We must consider where we were are today and our starting point and, as Robert Burns said:

“To see ourselves as others see us!”

Last week, The Atlantic magazine, a 165-year-old publication from Washington DC, had an article about the UK, which Scotland is in. The title of that interesting article was, “How the UK Became One of the Poorest Countries in Western Europe”, and it contained an avalanche of facts and statistics, some of which should be put in front of the House. It states:

“Behind the lurid headlines, however, is a deeper story of decades-long economic dysfunction that holds lessons for the future.”

It says that the UK is “a wealthy nation” that gave capitalism to the industrialised world,

“But strictly by the numbers, Britain is pretty poor for a rich place. UK living standards…have fallen significantly behind those of Western Europe. By some measures, in fact, real wages in the UK are lower than they were 15 years ago, and will likely be even lower next year.”

To see ourselves as others see us. It continues:

“Under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s, markets were deregulated, unions were smashed, and the financial sector emerged as a jewel of the British economy. Thatcher’s injection of neoliberalism had many complicated knock-on effects…When the global financial crisis hit in 2008, it hit hard, smashing the engine of Britain’s economic ascent. Wary of rising deficits, the British Government pursued a policy of austerity—"

the folly of George Osborne—

“fretting about debt rather than productivity or aggregate demand. The results were disastrous.”

I could go on, and I commend the article to anybody who wants to read exactly what is being said about the UK by that influential American publication. It is so unlike what is going on in Ireland and the other countries we have mentioned—such as Scandinavia and the Nordic countries—that are ahead of us in the human development index.

The final excerpt I will read states:

“Take out Greater London—the prosperity of which depends to an uncomfortable degree on a willingness to provide services to oligarchs from the Middle East and the former Soviet Union—and the UK is one of the poorest countries in Western Europe.”

We live in a state that basically governs for London and nowhere else, and demands that the rest of us should be grateful. There is no meaningful engagement with other parts of the UK.

Last week, the University of Parma in Italy published a report on my constituency entitled, “Migrants as actors of Scottish rural depopulation”. In its extensive study, it called for two things. One was to remove English language skills as an entry condition, which is a barrier to people coming to work, and to make them instead an integration goal. As we have seen in the Hebrides, people who come do learn English—some even learn words of Gaelic. It is amazing what happens on the ground outside the fantastical thinking of the Home Office. The other was dealing with an occupation list that shows up regional needs. That can be done in Switzerland, and we could do it in the UK.

If we lived in a proper union, the Home Office would not be a far-away home counties office and we would not need to beseech and send letters to it, deal with the revolving door of Immigration Ministers, or send delegations there. Instead, the Home Office would come to us to find out the problems and to try to deal with them. The fact is that the Home Office and the UK Government are not interested.

As we know, migrants are important. A small stat in the report showed that the 3% of migrants whom we were lucky to have come to Na h-Eileanan an Iar contributed 7% of our island births. Our islands’ future depends on them, our culture depends on them and our lives on the islands depend on them, but the Home Office is not interested.

Scotland in the UK will experience a population decrease, with the fall expected to be 2%. Some might think that a unique Scottish problem, but it is not. When we see the difficulties around us, we understand why the UK is failing. Over the next 30 years, the population of our neighbours in Ireland will increase by 20%, in Iceland by 32%, in Norway by 13%, and in Denmark by 10%. That illustrates how, no matter what they say about the statistics, the UK is failing Scotland, and rural Scotland in particular. The best example is the Faroe Islands—the most geographically isolated of all places—whose population will grow by 6% over the same period. Something needs to be done. We need our population to grow. The only thing that will make a material difference is for us to take control of matters in the same sensible way as Iceland, Norway and Denmark. It is reprehensible of the Labour party to go shoulder to shoulder with Better Together and to denude and degrade the rural populations of Scotland. Put simply, it does not care at all.

Whenever we say where Scotland needs to go and what we are going to do, a number of people ask how we will finance it. They never point out that the UK has not paid its own way for 70 to 80 years. In fact, of all the moneys borrowed in that time, it has paid back only 1.7% of them. The UK has been failing. In nine of the 11 years under Margaret Thatcher—one of the people who misleads and beguiles the Tory party—she ran a deficit. Had it not been for the subsidy of Scottish oil, she would probably have run a deficit in all 11 of those years, but she had the bonus of 8% of her tax revenue—one pound in every 12—coming from Scotland’s natural resources. Unlike Norway, where the money was saved for the good of the people, she and her party squandered that.

The Supreme Court will very soon decide what will happen in Scotland. It is likely to decide that the Scotland Act 1998 does not provide the powers for the Scottish Parliament to hold a referendum. That will leave us with a choice. Whether it be a referendum or an election, we will have a ballot box event to decide Scottish independence. We could wait for a Westminster election, have a Holyrood election or engineer an election at Holyrood with one simple question on Scottish independence and get ourselves safe and away from the economic extremists in the United Kingdom Parliament and Government. That is a debate for us internally, and it is a debate for Scots. I hope that we have that debate and that we decide rationally and collectively choose together.

It is likely that the Supreme Court will say that the powers do not exist to have a referendum under the Scotland Act. We will have ways and options after that, and the people here who object to Scotland deciding and who think that Scotland does not have a right to self-determination will be sorry and disappointed. We will have our say. The people of Scotland can speak, and they will speak.

Democracy is not a one-term event. Democracy demands that, after the events of 2016 when Scotland was taken out of the EU against its will, Scotland shall speak and Scotland shall decide. None of us can say no to the people. Nobody can say to a nation, “You will go this far and no further,” because if Scotland wants to go further, Scotland will, and it will go to independence.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

That was another long seven minutes. Christine Jardine, please show Mr MacNeil how it is done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

If my maths is correct, about five Members still want to speak. The winding-up speeches will begin no later than 20 to 7, so Members can do the maths on how many minutes they have. Anne McLaughlin, do you intend to speak?

[Anne McLaughlin]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

In that case, four Members want to speak; I call Chris Stephens.

Scotland: General Election and Constitutional Future

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 17th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)]

It will come as no surprise to many in this House that I am a proud Unionist, just like the vast majority of Scottish people in their most recent independence referendum.

I support our Union because we are better together. One of the amazing things that brings us together is how our towns and cities reflect one another. In Redcar and Cleveland, we produce more than 50% of the UK’s commercially viable hydrogen. We are home to the UK’s first hydrogen hub, linking us firmly to Northern Ireland and Wrightbus, producing the UK’s hydrogen bus fleet. Redcar and Cleveland is steel town. Although we sadly lost our blast furnace in 2015, we manufacture steel at British Steel in Lackenby, linking us firmly to the steel industry in south Wales, a lot of whose steel is still exported from Teesside. Redcar and Cleveland is home to a large petrochemical footprint—where I used to work. We transported ethylene molecules up and down the Wilton to Grangemouth ethylene pipeline, firmly linking Scotland’s petrochemical and oil and gas sectors to ours.

Our Union is better together, and it is time for the SNP to own up. It does not want independence. If it did, it would not want to join the EU. It just wants to break up our United Kingdom and will stop at nothing to achieve that. The latest polls are clear that the people of Scotland are turning away from independence, yet the SNP is desperately clinging to its sinking ship. It claims to represent Scotland, yet at every opportunity it ignores the voice of its own people when it does not fit the SNP’s narrative. We are now nearly seven years on from the 2014 referendum and the SNP still does not accept the result; just like the Labour on Brexit, it is constantly trying to overturn the will of the people. The SNP likes to tell us that a vote for the SNP is a vote for independence, but they know that that is not the reality. They prefer to shout as loudly as possible about independence so that they do not have to face the realities of their failures in leadership day after day.

While support for independence falls, the SNP shambles unravels. Scottish people can see for themselves the kind of Scottish Administration they have had for the past 14 years: one that is unfit to lead and unfit to listen, while they are breaking their necks in their obsession with the separation from our United Kingdom. If the SNP cared about Scotland, they would focus on improving education, not on separation. If they cared about Scotland, they would focus on cutting NHS waiting times, not on separation. If they cared about Scotland, they would focus on tackling rising crime and drug abuse, not on separation. The reality is that they do not care about Scotland—they just hate Britain. The SNP wants out of Britain and in the EU. The Liberals want to be in Britain, but in the EU. The Labour party will not tell us its view on either. Only the Conservatives are focused on a brighter future for Scotland as part of our proud United Kingdom.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The last Back-Bench contribution in this debate will be from David Linden.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iain Stewart]

No, I have already given way once, and I want to respond to some of the points that Members have made.

SNP Members have the wrong priorities, and I can only imagine that they chose this debate today to shore up their core support and distract attention away from their domestic troubles and their failures in government.

Let me turn to some of the points that Members have made in the debate. I apologise if I am unable to get through all 30-plus contributions in the next three or four minutes. The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) made some very telling comments in his contribution. First, he made a vain attempt to wriggle out of being called a separatist, but that is the SNP’s mission. It is to smash apart one country, our country, even though so many Members on both sides of the House today have demonstrated the importance of family, business, cultural and other societal connections. It would rip apart our country. As my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) said, we are not just a family of nations; we are a nation of families. As my hon. Friends the Members for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie), for Meriden (Saqib Bhatti), for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), for Guildford (Angela Richardson) and many others have said, it would be a disaster to rip apart one of the most successful partnerships the world has ever seen.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh East also let the cat out of the bag when he said that the referendum might not be this year and that it might be very early next year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) said, the challenges from the covid pandemic will not end with the flick of a light switch. The challenges that we will have to rebuild our economy, our society, our children’s education and the mental health of the nation will run on for many years. People in Scotland want their Government to focus on that, and I think they will take very badly this obsession with having a referendum within the next 12 months.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) made the telling point that when people cast their vote, they do not cast it on just one issue. The issues that drive people’s votes will be manifold. A poll out today, I believe, shows that only 8% of people regard the constitution as a driver of their vote, and I believe the hon. Gentleman referenced Professor John Curtice in making that point. It is therefore arrogant for SNP Members to assume that every vote cast for them is a vote for another divisive referendum. I do not think people want to see that take place.

The hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) mentioned the importance of connectivity across the United Kingdom, and I am delighted that we are addressing that through the Union connectivity review. The SNP refuses to take part in the review, because it dares to have the word “Union” in it. That, to me, is a mark of a very childish and single issue-focused party.

Unfortunately, time prevents me from referring to all the points I would like to refer to in this debate. I will conclude with this: Scotland voted decisively in 2014 to stay part of the UK and we are respecting that democratic decision. Now is the time to be focusing on getting livelihoods and the economy back after the covid pandemic.

Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Serjeant at Arms, are you able to have a look in the Aye Lobby, as there does seem to be a problem? [Interruption.] Still have a look, just to make sure everybody is out, please.

--- Later in debate ---

The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I give the usual warning that if anybody shouts for this Division, they are expected to vote in the way that they shout.

Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the proposed words be there added.

--- Later in debate ---

The list of Members currently certified as eligible for a proxy vote, and of the Members nominated as their proxy, is published at the end of today’s debates.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I will not suspend the House for three minutes because both Dispatch Boxes were sanitised during the Division.

[Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you can give me some assistance. You, like I, will have been grateful, I am sure, to see in the road map out of lockdown that weddings will be able to start again from 12 April when we enter step 2. However, guidance that was issued yesterday implies that bespoke dedicated wedding venues will not be able to hold weddings after 12 April and must wait until 17 May, leading to the bizarre conclusion that one might be able to marry in the frozen food aisle of a supermarket, but not in a dedicated wedding venue. I wonder, Mr Deputy Speaker, if you may be able to assist me in how I could raise that point with Ministers to get some clarity so that we can help those dedicated wedding venues and the people who want to get married in them.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the right hon. Lady for notice of her point of order. The prospect of getting married in the frozen food department of Iceland, or of any supermarket, does indeed beggar belief. None the less, this is clearly an important matter, and there are several ways, as she will know, of raising the issue, including urgent questions or an Adjournment debate, but we have business questions tomorrow, which provides the opportunity to call on the Leader of the House for a debate—[Interruption.] However, we also have a Cabinet Minister sitting here who is eager to get to her feet.

[The Paymaster General (Penny Mordaunt)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In the spirit of trying to be helpful, I know that my right hon. Friend raised this matter previously with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and he is talking to the covid taskforce about it. I have just spoken to my office, and we will come back to my right hon. Friend this afternoon with some clarity. I shall ensure that any further clarity that Public Health England can provide is put on the parliamentary intranet’s covid hub for all Members to see.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Rarely has a point of order been more effective—

[Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

But now there is a challenge.

[Douglas Ross]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I hope that this one is just as effective. The House has just voted on an amendment that said that we believe

“the priority of the Scottish people is to recover from the effects of the covid-19 pandemic, and that it would be irresponsible to hold a referendum at this time.”

I wonder whether you can clarify something, because I thought I heard you say, when you confirmed the numbers, that more than 50 MPs voted against it and, therefore, against prioritising a recovery from covid-19 over another referendum. Can you confirm that it was the SNP MPs in this House who voted against a recovery and for another referendum, and that it is unacceptable to the people of Scotland that they are putting party priorities above the public?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

That sounds to me like an extension of the last debate. I could not confirm one way or the other which individuals voted which way, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will await with eager anticipation the delivery of exactly who voted which way either through Hansard or other electronic means. I think it is now time to move on to the next debate.

Constitutional Law

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We come now to the motion on constitutional law. I call Douglas Ross to move the motion. The Minister is asked to speak for no more than 20 minutes.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Douglas Ross)]

I beg to move,

That the draft Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014 (Consequential Modification) Order 2020, which was laid before this House on 25 March, be approved.

I start by reminding the House that my wife is a serving police officer in Scotland—a police sergeant in Moray—which clearly relates to the business in front of us today.

May I take the opportunity, for the first time at the Dispatch Box, to welcome the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) to his role as shadow Scottish Secretary, and the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) as the shadow Under-Secretary of State for Scotland? I look forward to working with them both in the weeks and months ahead.

May I also send our best wishes to the shadow Scottish Secretary’s predecessor, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd)? All of us in this House were extremely concerned when he spent 25 days in Manchester Royal Infirmary. He is a great servant to this House and his community, and we wish him continued success as he recovers from coronavirus.

I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this order. Police officers and staff are on the frontline each and every day protecting the public. Members will likely have seen some media reports showing that, in the first three weeks of the current restrictions, police in Scotland recorded more than 100 coronavirus-related attacks and threats aimed at officers. These included officers being spat at or deliberately coughed on. Attacks against our officers and staff are deplorable and completely unacceptable, and this order facilitates police officers in Scotland in receiving the support they need should that ever happen. This will be quite a technical speech about the orders and the legislation in front of us, but we should always remember that behind this important order are our police officers and staff who are unacceptably being attacked in Scotland, and we must do everything we can to prevent that.

This order is part of the Government’s ongoing commitment to devolution and is made in consequence of the Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014, which I shall refer to as the 2014 Act, and has been requested by the Scottish Government. This order is made under section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998, which allows for necessary or expedient legislative provision in consequence of an Act of the Scottish Parliament. In this case, provision is required in consequence of the aforementioned 2014 Act.

Through the 2014 Act, the Scottish Government sought to increase the support available to victims and witnesses of crime in Scotland. In doing so, the Scottish Government made provision for the creation of a new pathway called the restitution order to be imposed on offenders who assault a police officer or certain other prescribed persons. That will mean that those who assault police officers can be compelled to contribute towards the cost of support services for such victims. In the event of a non-payment of a restitution order, the Scottish Government were to enforce payment through a deduction in sums from benefits where appropriate. However, social security schemes for making deductions from benefits are not within the executive competence of Scottish Ministers.

The Criminal Justice Act 1991 introduces a process whereby fines can be collected through certain benefits. This order therefore amends Section 24 of the 1991 Act by referencing the restitution order and indicating that it should be treated in the same way as a fine for the purposes of that section. This facilitates the Scottish Government’s aim by allowing the recovery of the penalty via deduction from an offender’s benefits.

The process for collecting the restitution order from an offender’s benefits will follow the same process as for other fines or compensation orders. These are predominantly means-tested benefits such as income support and universal credit. The 1991 Act gives the Secretary of State the power to introduce a process whereby courts can apply for a deduction from an offender’s benefits to pay for a fine or compensation order through what is called a deduction from benefits order.

Once the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service has secured a deduction from benefits order, the Department for Work and Pensions will recover the restitution order on behalf of the courts in Scotland by direct deduction from an offender’s benefits. The funds collected will be transferred to the restitution fund, which will be held and managed by the Scottish Government, although functions can be delegated to a third party.

The fund will directly benefit police officers and police staff by securing the provision of any type of treatment which is intended to benefit the physical or mental wellbeing of the victim. Examples of this include the police treatment centres in Auchterarder and Harrogate, where treatment ranges from physiotherapy to psychological wellbeing,

The territorial extent and application of this instrument is England, Wales and Scotland. The territorial application is required as the courts in Scotland need to be able to make the deduction from benefits order, and agencies in England, Scotland and Wales may need to carry out the processes to ensure that the deductions are made. In addition, it provides for the collection of the restitution orders imposed on offenders who move from Scotland to one of the other two territories after conviction, and it also provides for those who reside in England and Wales but committed the offence in Scotland and were therefore tried by a Scottish court.

To summarise, this instrument facilitates the recovery of the Scottish restitution order by deductions from an offender’s benefits in appropriate cases. The order only gives Scottish Ministers the necessary powers to apply to the Secretary of State for a deductions from benefit order; it does not set the policy. That is, of course, a matter for the Scottish Government, under the scrutiny of the Scottish Parliament.

The UK Government remain committed to strengthening the devolution settlement, and this order demonstrates the two Governments working together to deliver for the people of Scotland. It also reiterates our support and respect for police officers and staff across the country. These police officers and staff do so much to protect us; with these orders we are supporting them. I commend the order to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before I call Ian Murray, I remind those taking part in the debate who are not in the Chamber that they have a 10-minute limit, so they should have a timing device made available to them.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con) [V]]

May I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) on his return to the role of shadow Secretary of State for Scotland after his sabbatical? One of the great disappointments to me in my time as Secretary of State was the announcement, following his departure from that role, and in the absence of a Front-Bench spokesman, that either the Leader of the Opposition himself or the shadow Chancellor would participate in Scottish questions. Perhaps not unsurprisingly, immediately before the first such occasion, a shadow Scottish Secretary was appointed.

This process is important. It is unusual not just because we are participating in a virtual Chamber but because we are in the Chamber more generally. Usually, section 104 orders and others that flow from the original Scotland Act are transacted on the Committee corridor and get very little attention, but, as the Minister said, they are in many ways the backbone of the devolution settlement and the relationship between the two Governments and Parliaments. It is very easy, particularly given some of the headlines and media reports that we have seen in recent weeks, to think that the devolution settlement is not working, but this order and all the others that go through Parliament are actually a manifestation of the fact that it is working. Behind the scenes, officials in the UK Government and Scottish Government work closely together to ensure that these orders and the things that really matter to people in Scotland—the provision of a police service and a criminal justice system—go ahead in a way that relates to the whole of the United Kingdom. As the Minister said, this order ensures that, if people are in England or Wales, such orders still apply and the benefits system recognises that.

It is very important, when we see the flare-ups that sometimes happen between politicians north and south of the border, that we understand that, in the day to day, the devolution settlement is working and has been tested through these systems. There were many times when I had to put through orders on matters of substance with which I did not agree, but I did agree that the Scottish Parliament had made that decision, in terms of the devolution settlement, and therefore it was appropriate that the Westminster Parliament and the UK Government ensured that that legislation was fully enacted.

I want to give my thanks and praise to the police in Scotland for the job they do more generally and what they have done specifically during the coronavirus crisis. I particularly commend the chief constable of Police Scotland, Iain Livingstone, for his calm, measured approach to these matters. He said right at the start that it was important that he continued on the basis of policing by consent. From my experience, and from feedback I have received from constituents, I think that has been achieved. That is very important. He underpinned that by setting out three key roles for Police Scotland: ensuring that social distancing is enforced to reduce the mortality rate during the spread of the virus; ensuring that the relationship of trust between the public in Scotland and the police is maintained; and, of course, ensuring the welfare and safety of not just police officers but their families.

I also commend the chief constable on his very reasoned approach. When there were some differences in the guidance between England and Scotland and we heard some unhelpful suggestions, from my point of view, that we should have border patrols, Iain Livingstone was clear that that would be a wholly inappropriate use of police resources. That was very helpful for my constituents, many of whom cross the border regularly.

The Minister and the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland have already alluded to the shocking report that in the first few weeks of the lockdown 100 officers had been attacked or the subject of abuse. As the deputy chief constable Fiona Taylor said, that is outrageous and disrespectful. Abuse and assault are simply not part of the job of police officers and can never be tolerated. I think that that is at the heart of the legislation in the Scottish Parliament and this subsequent order to ensure that we do not in any way accept that the abuse or assault of police officers is regarded as routine or tolerated. In the event of such behaviour they must be supported in every way.

I do not think that we waited six years for this subordinate legislation to come through just so that the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill), who in 2014 was the Justice Secretary in Scotland and brought forward that Act, could speak in this debate. I am sure he must be disappointed, given the passion that I know he has for this matter and for an effective criminal justice system, that it has taken quite so long for the legislation to be fully enacted and this order put in place, just as I am sure he was disappointed that it took until 2019 for the victim surcharge fund, which was also announced in 2014, to get up and running in Scotland.

This is not, Mr Deputy Speaker, the place to rehearse arguments that are rightly had in the Scottish Parliament, but it would be wrong for me not to ensure that the House is aware that my Scottish Conservative colleagues in the Scottish Parliament are concerned about the Scottish National party Government’s approach to the police and justice system in Scotland, particularly in relation to the ongoing issue of police funding and the ability of the police to do the job that is important to them. Indeed, my colleague Liam Kerr MSP has brought forward legislation in the Scottish Parliament which would give police officers even further protection. The events to which I have just referred, which have happened to police officers on at least 100 occasions, demonstrate that it is appropriate to have additional measures in place. Conservative colleagues in the Scottish Parliament will continue to advocate for that, and to call the SNP Government to account on their approach to policing and justice in Scotland.

The order, however late in the day, is to be welcomed. It is important that, wherever people who have been asked to make such an order are in the United Kingdom, the orders can be effectively approached. I therefore hope that the House will take the view that the order should be passed.

I have one specific query that I want to raise with the Minister, which is in relation to the Department for Work and Pensions and its ability to deal with such things at this time or in the immediate future. As we know, and as the shadow Secretary said, there has been an increase in the existing claimant count, so that is an increasing workload, but it has also obviously prioritised within its workload. I hope the Minister, in his closing remarks, will confirm that the DWP will in due course have the capacity to deal with these orders. We all want to see a minimal amount of these orders, because the optimum situation would be—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. We gave you a bit of injury time to get the question out and I know the Minister heard it. Thank you very much for your contribution. I call Kenny MacAskill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Douglas Ross]

This has been a largely consensual debate, although I have to say that it is rather strange that I am not the most political speaker in debates on Scottish matters now. It seems that some of our colleagues when they were in the Scottish Parliament had a newfound zest for political points, as has the former Secretary of State for Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell). Those points were rightly made across the board, from Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat Members. I think the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) also acknowledged that the pace of introducing this order has been far too slow. I agree with every speaker who has suggested that this should have been done far quicker, because members of our police force across Scotland should have been benefiting from this for years.

I want to pick up on a number of points that have been made. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), the shadow Scottish Secretary, briefly mentioned football. I thought long and hard about mentioning football, but I thought that this week of all weeks, with the sad demise of his club to the championship next season, it was perhaps not the right time to mention it. Clearly, that wound will be open for some time and we will bear that in mind as we go along with our proceedings throughout this Parliament.

The hon. Gentleman raised an important point on the affordability of these orders and any sanctions imposed. It is important to note that the court has discretion over whether to impose a deduction from benefits order and the amount imposed. Under section 253E of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995, the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service must take into consideration the means of the offender in determining the amount of any fine. In addition, the Department for Work and Pensions must take into consideration the ability to pay when deducting benefits, and this will apply to the restitution order. The offender can appeal against the imposition of the restitution order and the amount imposed, as well as appeal to the Department for Work and Pensions if they feel there is insufficient benefit for the payment deduction to be made. It was an important point, but I hope the clarification reassures the hon. Gentleman.

I now wish to deal with the points raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale. It was clearly an important question, because it took him nine minutes and 40 seconds to get to it! However, I genuinely enjoyed his contribution. It was a well-thought-out and passionate speech in defence of our police officers across Scotland. He was right to commend the chief constable of Police Scotland, Iain Livingstone, for his approach and the guidance he is giving to officers the length and breadth of Scotland, who police by consent. I also thought it was important that my right hon. Friend considered in great detail the effects of this order across borders, because his constituency, like those of my right hon. Friend the Scottish Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), is along the border between Scotland and England. As I said, the collection of the restitution order imposed on offenders who move from Scotland to England and Wales is covered in the order, which also provides for those who reside in England or Wales but commit an offence in Scotland and are tried in Scottish courts. That is important.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale also asked about the DWP’s capacity to deal with these restitution orders. I have raised this issue and been in discussions with the Department about it. There has been a steady increase in recovery applications, from 17,581 in 2010-11 to 24,362 in 2016-17, but the Department is content that it has the capacity to deal with any increase in work arising from this order.

The hon. Member for East Lothian brought his experience as the Cabinet Secretary for Justice in the Scottish Parliament to this debate. He spoke of his visits to Auchterarder, which were doubtless made in that role. I have not visited the treatment centre at Auchterarder, but I have spoken to many people throughout Scotland who are unanimously in praise of the work that happens at Auchterarder—I am sure it happens at Harrogate, too. I know police officers who have tried to get professional and private help, who have had long-running injuries and who thought there was nowhere else to turn, but when they have gone to Auchterarder they have, almost by a miracle, received the treatment that has allowed them to get back to work, doing full duties, and has improved their private and personal lives. As well as highlighting the outstanding work of our police officers and staff across Scotland, we should also take the opportunity today to thank those who work at Auchterarder to get our police officers back on to the frontline on duty across Scotland. As is suggested by everyone I have spoken to and by the speech today from the hon. Gentleman, they clearly do excellent work and should be recognised for that.

I also wanted to pick up on one other point the hon. Gentleman raised. He was right to say that no one in the police or any of our emergency services, or indeed in any job in public or private life, should expect that part of their job is to put up, in whatever way, with abuse or violence. I do not always agree with him, but we can all agree that no one in society, including police officers, should have to put up with that type of abuse in their working life.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) spoke about us working together, and it is right that across parties and across this House we are working on this issue to get this order through to ensure that the restitution orders are in place as quickly as possible now. She was also right to talk about the length of time it has taken to get to this stage, which others have also mentioned. The Scottish Government have stated that the initial work to set up the victims’ surcharge model proved more complex than was initially anticipated and this had a knock-on effect on the impact and implementation of the restitution orders, but that should not have meant it has taken seven years, since the legislation was first passed, to get to this stage.

That means there have been a lot of missed opportunities for police officers and staff across Scotland, which is extremely unfortunate. I do not want to dwell too much on the past, though, and we now look at the positives of getting this legislation through, but it was a point well made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West while outlining her support for the order.

Finally, we heard an excellent speech from the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), who comes from a family of police officers. Having one police officer and one politician in our family, I cannot be sure whether our young son Alistair is going to follow his mother or father, but given that my wife continually buys him toys that resemble police cars and make noises, I know which direction she is pointing him in.

The hon. Lady was right to highlight her family’s involvement in the police and, sadly, how each and every member of her family has suffered assault or abuse in their duties as police officers. Whether it was her husband being knocked unconscious at football, or in her own case attending the scene at someone’s house, she put into sharp focus what this debate and the order is all about.

I wish to highlight the example the hon. Lady gave about her father, who she said suffered an assault in police cells. It is important that she put that on record because, as I said in my opening remarks, the order is imposed on offenders who assault police officers or certain other prescribed persons—and such a prescribed person could be someone working in police custody. They are not police officers, but the civilian staff in police custody also unfortunately suffer the abuse and assaults that we are discussing today, and they are also covered by the order. It is important that we discuss their involvement in respect of the order and policing in Scotland.

The hon. Lady asked about the potential number of applications for restitution orders. It is obviously difficult to put a precise figure on it, but the Scottish Government estimate that there will be in the region of 250 to 500 restitution orders a year, with an average value of around £350, giving a total somewhere between £87,500 and £175,000. Those are clearly rough figures based on the advice and best estimate of the Scottish Government, but I think the hon. Lady was right to seek that figure to show how much money could have gone towards supporting our police officers and staff across Scotland had restitution orders been available earlier.

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. It has been a largely consensual debate of a type we do not often see on the Floor of the House of Commons; as others have stated, such proceedings would normally be held in a Committee Room. Although public and available online, such proceedings do not get the attention that proceedings in this place get. It is right that our police officers and staff the length and breadth of Scotland can see their Parliament uniting in a common goal to support them in the terrible circumstances where they face assault or abuse at work. We have heard an unequivocally clear message from both sides of the House and from all parties representing Scotland that we are behind our officers and behind our police staff. We thank them for everything they do, not only in these challenging times to deal with covid-19, but at all times, because they are on the frontline protecting us. With this order, we can help to protect them. I therefore commend the draft order to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I announced to the House earlier this afternoon Mr Speaker’s provisional determination that a remote division would not take place on the question now before the House. That is also the final determination.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014 (Consequential Modification) Order 2020, which was laid before this House on 25 March, be approved.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I will now suspend the House for a technical break of 15 minutes. The House will resume at 3.48 pm.

Migration and Scotland

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Chamberlain]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Before the hon. Lady comes back into the debate, can I just advise her gently that the amendment was not selected and therefore should not be referred to in any depth during the debate?

Claim of Right for Scotland

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Ian Blackford]

As a matter of fact, the hon. Gentleman is correct. Of course the people of Scotland voted in a referendum in 2014 and I say to him and others who put their name to the amendment that, yes, we would have accepted it had it been taken this afternoon.

The fundamental issue, as many people have said, is that, when the polls opened in Scotland on 18 September 2014, between the hours of 7 o’clock in the morning and 10 o’clock at night, the people of Scotland had sovereignty in their hands. The difference between SNP Members and the Conservatives is that we believe the Scottish people are always sovereign. In the light of the change in the facts and the circumstances—those being that Scotland voted to stay in the European Union by a decisive majority, and that the wishes and the rights of the Scottish people are being ignored by a Conservative Government who want to drive us out of Europe—it is perfectly right that the people of Scotland have the opportunity to demonstrate their sovereign will.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about referendums. I am getting a bit confused—it does not take a lot, I admit—but are we talking about the referendum on 23 June 2016, when the British people voted to leave the European Union and, if they had decided to remain in the European Union, would those powers still be in Brussels, to this day?

[Ian Blackford]

For anyone watching this with subtitles, it might say, “Not for viewers in Scotland” because the fact of the matter is that the people of Scotland voted to stay in the European Union. That is the point. In the debate that took place during Scotland’s referendum in 2014, we were told two things: that if we stayed in the United Kingdom, we were to lead the United Kingdom, but also that, if we voted to stay in the United Kingdom, then our part in Europe would also be preserved. What has happened? Any pretence of Scotland leading the UK has been thrown away by the Secretary of State for Scotland. He does not believe that we are a partner in the UK; he believes that we are a part of the UK. How can we have a Secretary of State for Scotland, who is supposed to represent Scotland’s interests, when he is prepared to lie down and be walked all over because he does not see Scotland as an equal part of the United Kingdom? [Interruption.] He can shout and scream in this Chamber, but the reality is that he has failed to defend Scotland’s interests. [Interruption.] Yes, you can point and gesticulate, but the people of Scotland—

Constitutional Law

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 15th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davidson]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wish to leave the Chamber, but I do not wish my departure to be interpreted as some sort of juvenile stunt. How can I achieve that?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We are going to miss you, Mr Davidson, but each of us will have to come to terms in our own way with your absence from the Chamber.

[Mr Davidson]

Excellent; thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. This debate is time limited, and the wind-ups will start at 6.30 pm, so I must ask Members for self-discipline and time restraint to ensure that everyone may be heard.

Public Sector Pensions

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sheila Gilmore]

I suspect that in the fantasy world of the debate on independence, as it tends to be, SNP Members would indeed say that that is the answer, but they have to know how they would fund that and about issues to do with tax and making people as well off as possible.

During the SNP Member’s brief appearance in Tuesday’s debate on the economy, he kept talking about the Scandinavian economies. Of course, in the Scandinavian economies there is a very different view of taxation. It is disingenuous of the SNP to want to pose as a low-tax party and tell people that they can have wonderful public services and, at the same time, council tax freezes—which, by the way, are very regressive because they most benefit the people who are best off. The SNP has to decide where it wants to be. It deliberately put such a sentiment in the motion because it wants to be able to say that Labour Members will not support it.

We are in support of public sector workers. We do not think that what the Government are doing is right. We feel, very strongly, that we have to stop what this Government are doing, which is constantly to pit one group of workers against others. They are setting public against private, setting people in work against people who are out of work, and stirring up what I heard described on two occasions on Radio 4 at the weekend as an atmosphere of anger and bitterness. In the discussions on phone-in programmes about what is happening, all the clips were of people shouting at each other, saying, “Why should I, as a private sector worker, pay for your pension?” No commentator said, “Where is that anger being generated from?”, but it is being deliberately stirred up by this Government—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am sorry, but we have to start the wind-ups now.

Scotland Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davidson]

On a point of order, Mr Evans. Has it been established that all Members were aware of the time at which the vote was held? I understand that two of the nationalists will be here in about an hour and a quarter.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We will now move on to new clause 19.

New Clause 19

Regulation of food labelling and content

‘In Part 2 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 (reserved matters: specific reservations), at the end of section C8 to add the words “but this exception does not permit the Scottish Parliament to legislate on food content or labelling of foodstuffs that are placed for sale within Scotland”.’.—(Tom Greatrex.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Tom Greatrex]

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

I hesitate to introduce an element of gravity to the proceedings, given some of the entertainment that has featured so far. Over the past few hours, however, there has been much debate on issues that did not feature in the Calman report. This issue was dealt with in the report, but it does not feature in the Bill. It featured in the previous Government’s White Paper and is referred to in the Command Paper that accompanies the Bill, but it is one of the issues that appear to have fallen off the edge of the Calman process.

During this Committee stage the Government have produced explanations, some convincing and others less so, for the fact that they are not implementing some of Calman’s recommendations. Part of the purpose of the new clause is to give them an opportunity to explain why they are not implementing one particular recommendation. I note that the Scottish Parliament legislative consent memorandum Committee, in one of its conclusions, suggested that the Government provide a fuller explanation. As I am sure that its members read the Command Paper before reaching that conclusion, I suspect that merely repeating the terms of the Command Paper will not serve to provide the explanation sought by the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. It was not a particularly brilliant joke the first time round. Can we now get back to new clause 19?

[David Mundell]

I apologise, Mr Evans, for getting sucked into matters that diverge from the subject under discussion.

The Government appreciate the concern behind the Calman recommendation, and we have fully considered its implications. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell), who has shown great stamina throughout today’s proceedings by taking part in many of the individual debates, asked whether we had consulted the retail and business sector. I am pleased to tell her that I have met the Scottish Retail Consortium and discussed this issue in detail. I have also met the director of the CBI in Scotland, who has also previously set out concerns on this matter. I hope that I have been able to persuade both organisations that the legal basis, which I have set out in detail, is a sound one and is the basis on which the Government did not include that particular recommendation in the Bill.

On the need for legislative change, taking together all the points I have made, the Government do not necessarily consider—

Scotland Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 7th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Tom Greatrex]

I beg to move amendment 11, page 3, leave out lines 4 and 5.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: clause stand part.

New clause 7—Timing of the Scottish Parliamentary general election—

‘(1) Section 2 of the 1998 Act is amended as follows.

(2) At the end of subsection (2) there is inserted “or unless the poll is advanced or delayed as a result of the operation of subsection (6A) below”.

(3) At the end there is added the following new subsection—

“(6A) If the poll to be held under subsection (2) or subsection (5) above is in the same calendar year as an early parliamentary general election under section 2 of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, the Parliament may by resolution appoint an alternative day for the poll for the next Scottish Parliamentary general election no more than 12 months earlier nor more than 12 months later than the day appointed under subsection (2) or subsection (5) above and at least 6 months before or after the parliamentary general election, and the day so appointed shall be treated as if it had been proposed by the Presiding Officer under subsection (5) above.”’.

[Tom Greatrex]

Amendment 11 and new clause 7 are probing amendments regarding the potential for elections to happen on the same date. In the previous discussion, we heard a lot about the Gould report and the issues encountered in the 2007 Scottish Parliament elections. Ron Gould concluded that one of the primary problems was a combination of elections on the same date, and that has been implicitly recognised by the Secretary of State in some of his discussions about the potential clash arising from the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill. Despite the fact that there are a number of concerns, this issue has been included in the Bill not because of something that Calman deliberated on, but because of the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill going through Parliament. That would not, of course, be an issue if that Bill had proposed a four-year term, because a four-yearly cycle for the Scottish Parliament elections and a four-yearly cycle for the UK Parliament elections would mean that the elections would always be at different times. That is why we tabled the amendment. As every authority questioned by the Select Committees that have examined the issue has said, there is very little, if any, precedent for a five-year term, and a four-year fixed term is much more appropriate. That is why I raise the matter today. New clause 7 is also relevant to the potential problems created if an extraordinary general election for the UK Parliament were to take place under a coalition Government, for example.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Greatrex]

I beg to move amendment 12, page 4, line 36, at end add—

‘(1A) In section 31(1) of the 1998 Act, at end add—

“(1A) A person promoting an amendment to a bill in the Scottish Parliament shall on or before the lodging of the amendment state that, in his opinion, the bill if amended in accordance with the amendment would be within the legislative competence of the Parliament.”.

(1B) In section 31(2) of the 1998 Act, at end add “and state the reasons for his view.”.’.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[Tom Greatrex]

We have had the opportunity to discuss a number of amendments with interested parties, including the Law Society of Scotland. This amendment relates to the statements of legislative competence that are made in the Scottish Parliament. The Minister will be aware that, before introducing a Bill in the Scottish Parliament, it is the responsibility of Ministers there to issue a statement of legislative competence. It is also the responsibility of the Presiding Officer to make a similar declaration. The amendment deals with a situation in which amendments are tabled to such Bills, either by Ministers or by Members, including to private Bills. For example, the Bill on the Forth road crossing is a private Bill. Many Members’ Bills are also dealt with in the Scottish Parliament.

It is important that, when the Scottish Parliament deals with legislation, it is aware that it is competent so to do. It is also important that the measures that come before it are appropriate. That has not always been the case for amendments, however. Our proposal also deals with Government amendments. A number of Bills, particularly technical Bills, have had a whole series of Government amendments tabled for which no declaration of competence has been made. It has therefore fallen to the Law Officers to consider those issues, post-stage 3 and before Royal Assent. Our proposal would enable that problem to be rectified, and would introduce a degree of consistency to the arrangements. This would bring confidence and competence to the work of the Scottish Parliament when legislative matters were brought before it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Greatrex]

I beg to move amendment 13, page 5, line 28, after Officer’, insert ‘and the Law Officer making the reference under subsection (1)’.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment 14, page 5, line 30, leave out ‘Edinburgh Gazette’ and insert ‘Belfast Gazette, the Edinburgh Gazette and the London Gazette’.

Amendment 15, page 5, line 31, leave out ‘considers’ and insert ‘and the relevant Law Officers consider’.

Clause stand part.

[Tom Greatrex]

We have discussed amendments 13, 14 and 15 with a number of bodies, including the Law Society of Scotland, and we are attempting to clear things up and respect the doctrine of the separation of powers, so that the Executive can take responsibility for publishing references made by them in relation to the suspension of Acts subject to scrutiny by the Supreme Court. The Bill currently stipulates that the Presiding Officer shall publish the notice of any reference to the Court in the Edinburgh Gazette, and in other ways as he or she considers appropriate. As the Minister will be aware, the references will be made by one of the Law Officers, be it the Attorney-General, the Lord Advocate or the Advocate-General. Our contention is that the Law Officer making the reference should also have the responsibility to publish the fact of the reference, whether by publication or on a departmental website, so that it is not left to the Presiding Officer.

Amendments 14 and 15 deal with the publication of the notice, which the Bill currently states should be in the Edinburgh Gazette. To ensure consistency of approach, we suggest adding the London Gazette and the Belfast Gazette to the list of publications in which a reference must be published. That is significant, particularly as we are dealing with issues that are potentially subject to a reference to the Supreme Court.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Greatrex]

I beg to move amendment 17, page 7, line 26, after ‘weapons’, insert

“except those intended to be utilised in recognised international sporting competitions”.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 38, page 7, line 26, after ‘air weapons’, insert

“below a muzzle energy of 6 ft/lbs”.

Amendment 3, page 7, line 27, leave out from ‘1968’ to end of line 34.

Amendment 18, page 7, line 34, at end add—

‘(1A) The Secretary of State shall have the power to issue regulations to deal with any cross-border issues arising from the operation of this section including but not limited to issues arising from the transport of air weapons from, or their use in, Scotland and England and Wales.’.

Amendment 39, page 7, line 34, at end add—

‘(2) The use or possession of air weapons as defined in subsection (1) above which were acquired before the coming into force of any Act or other legislative instrument of the Scottish Parliament made as a result of this section shall until then continue to be subject to any regulations made under the Firearms Acts 1968 to 1997.’.

Clause stand part.

[Tom Greatrex]

There has been much discussion of this issue and I know that many hon. Members wish to contribute to this part of our consideration today, so I shall keep my remarks brief. This emotive issue was considered in detail by the Calman commission and I know from my own experience that lengthy discussion has taken place involving the Scotland Office, the Home Office and, on various occasions, the Scottish Government on issues associated with the control of air weapons. The current definition of “air weapons” has often been raised and I was slightly surprised to see that the Bill uses the 1968 definition, because an issue had previously arisen regarding the proper definition of “air weapons”. I am sure that other hon. Members will deal with that in greater detail. I took the opportunity at today’s Home Office questions to ask the Home Secretary when she planned to review that definition and one of her Ministers said that he was not sure but he would come back to me on it at some point. We need to be confident that the definition is appropriate in respect of what the Calman commission recommended on air weapons and therefore what the Bill tries to do.

Amendments 17 and 18 do not relate to that issue but are probing amendments dealing with a couple of specific areas, one of which is the treatment of air weapons for recognised sporting events and what happens when people travel to the Commonwealth games or another event through England and into Scotland. Amendment 18 deals with cross-border issues—for example, what happens when an airgun is licensed in Scotland but not in England and someone from England takes a weapon without a licence north of the border. The Minister represents a rural constituency on the border, so I am sure he will be aware of the potential for some of these issues to arise. The amendment seeks to ensure that there is a mechanism to deal with any of those issues. I am well aware that other hon. Members wish to discuss this matter in much more detail, so I shall draw my comments to a close.