Armed Forces Bill

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

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

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP) [V]]

Just as when I first took part in Armed Forces Bill debates, in 2016, I am afraid there is a feeling of a missed opportunity. While we will be back here tomorrow to talk about the integrated review, it always strikes me as odd that these changes either to the armed forces covenant or to the service justice system, while welcome and worthy, squander the opportunity that a Bill of this scope has to redefine what the armed forces mean for all of us in the 21st century, in the same way as the integrated review seeks to.

I am afraid we are at something of an inflection point with civil-military relations in the history of this political state. The confluence of two contemporary currents—namely, the politicisation of our armed forces by the Government of the day, and the need for armed forces to redefine their role in society—is, for my part, pushing us towards the creation of a discrete military class removed from the society it has vowed to protect, unrepresentative and poorly understood.

How can we better define what the armed forces are for and what they represent in the 21st century? I have spoken many times in the House about my military family, but it is undoubtedly the case that, with a shrinking armed forces and a move away from the overseas operations that defined the cold war, there is a diminishing number of people across these islands with first-hand knowledge of what military life means.

Let us turn to covid. The pandemic is undoubtedly a threat to the economic and health security of all who live in this political state. Those of us who read the MOD’s threat assessments and global trend papers know that the military have known that all along, so it is bit of a surprise to see such confusion, particularly among many of those sitting—virtually, at least—on the Government Benches, about what the armed forces’ role should be. Over the past year, I have felt myself to be something of a lonely voice in turning the question around: why does there always need to be a military solution to a wide-ranging public health emergency? On several occasions, Government Members have called for the military to take charge of the logistical challenge in some way or another, saying they are happy about the vital role that the military have been playing in support of the civilian uniformed services.

I recognise and am grateful, as we all are, for the service of many on the Government Benches, such as my friend the Chair of the Defence Committee, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), but I cannot help but conclude that the lived experience of those whom I represent and those in my family are increasingly at odds with the vision of service put forward by the Government. I began this speech by talking about fears of the creation of a military class because I see such differences between the way the armed forces are talked about in the House and the experiences of the predominantly working-class people who make up the ranks. These are people for whom the rather abstract way we talk about military justice makes it an impediment to their availing themselves of it, should that be required—people who often find it difficult to make their way through the alphabet soup of the military charity sector to access the rights to which they are entitled and that they should theoretically be given when the Bill is passed.

For many, muddling through is very much part of the charm and the bonds of forces life, but my almost four years with Defence Committees have shown me that an opaque and inconsistent military justice system, and an opaque and inconsistent application of the armed forces covenant, is the logical end point of a system that is in dire need of root-and-branch reform. Ever since the first Armed Forces Bill that I saw in 2016, there has been the assumption that such reform refers to the need to adapt the civilian sphere to the needs of the military—something that continues to baffle me. Why is it that we do not seek to address this imbalance the other way as well, by allowing the members of our armed forces as many rights that they had as civilians as possible?

As I often say, members of our armed forces should have the ability to form an armed forces representative body; the right to a contract that sets out not only their responsibilities as members of the armed forces but the obligations and responsibilities of their employer, the Government, to them; and the guarantee—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. We need to move on now.

European Union (Future Relationship) Bill

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 30th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Just a gentle reminder that, if there are interventions, it does take time away from others who have been put on the list and drawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP) [V]]

At the outset, I thank the Irish Government and Michel Barnier for standing up for the Good Friday agreement and the people of Northern Ireland when others refused to do it. The majority of people in Northern Ireland, of course, voted to reject leaving the European Union and they still reject it today. This Boris Johnson deal does not address the core problem with Brexit for us. We have chosen a different path from the one driven by English nationalism. While we welcome the fact that a no-deal outcome has been avoided, we have absolutely no intention of giving our consent or endorsement to an outcome that will make people poorer. This is the first example of a trade deal in modern history that actually puts up barriers to trade. The protocol protects us from a hard border in Ireland—yes it does—but this deal still will damage our economy, our society and our public services in a range of areas. Whether it is on services, roaming or policing and justice, this deal puts us in a far worse place than we are in right now, and I, for one, refuse to apologise for voting against it. Our position has remained consistent throughout.

My firm view now is that the United Kingdom is coming to an end. I say this in the full understanding that many in my community will see the break-up of the Union as a tragedy, and I fully respect that position. Just because I believe that the Union is ending does not mean I say it in a tone of thoughtless triumphalism. It instead places a solemn responsibility on us to manage the relationships across these islands. Our scarred history places a moral duty upon us. We need to conduct the coming conversation with patience, care and compassion. The prize is to build a shared homeplace for all our people, but a new Ireland will not be built upon the rubble of our past, and I want to appeal to some of my fellow nationalists: there is no future in glorifying the ugliness of our past. Stop pretending that murdering unarmed farmers up country lanes was somehow heroic. There is no future worth having to be built upon that narrative.

To my Unionist neighbours, I want to say this: look at where the DUP has led you and look at where London has left you. It is my firm conviction that we can build a new society together—one built on mutual respect, which recognises and celebrates all our rich traditions. We in the SDLP will remain true to that proud heritage. We will be patient and generous, but we will also be honest about our view of the unfolding constitutional realities. Young people everywhere rejected Brexit. Thankfully, in Northern Ireland, young people will have a choice again. They will be able to choose a European future again. They will be able to choose an open, liberal and modern future, which is a prize worth fighting for. As John Hume said—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I am afraid the hon. Gentleman has well overrun his time, so I thank him for his speech, but we now move on to David Davis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Davis]

That is the point. First, it was a negotiating aim, as the hon. Gentleman’s leader said at the time, but secondly, that is why I resigned. The strategy that we were pursuing then did not, and would not, deliver that. The only honourable thing I could do was to stand down.

This treaty is a new beginning, which is not to say that it is perfect—I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that. On Northern Ireland, we have issues to deal with. On fishing, we have issues to deal with, which I will come back to. On Gibraltar, we have issues to deal with. It is not over. All will lead to uncomfortable decisions in the near future.

Freedom is only as good as what we do with it; it is only as good as how we exploit it. One day, frankly, is not enough for us to deal with a 1,200 page treaty in that respect. Some may say, “Well, surely it’s a day to celebrate—to vote yes and move on,” but not at all, because the European Union will, of course, use the treaty to its own advantage. We can look at the past and see how it has done that.

For example, Switzerland struck a whole load of trade treaties, primarily in the ’90s, but subsequently as well, with the European Union. About four or five years ago, the Swiss people voted to restrict their migration and cut back on the free movement of people. The European Union bullied the Swiss Government into giving in by saying, “We will withdraw all the free trade arrangements we currently have.” That is important, because we have not been through the whole 1,200 pages here to make sure that we do not have any such issues in there. We do have one in the fishing arrangements. In five years’ time, the EU can trigger an end to the trade and transport elements. That is not impossible—we can deal with it—but we will have to devise a strategy for that.

My point to the House is that we have to come back to this treaty and look at it in detail—all 1,200 pages—to devise a strategy, so we do not get into conflicts with the European Union, fall into traps or get into acrimonious disputes with the member states. They are our neighbours and friends, and we have to devise a strategy that will keep them as neighbours and friends and maximise our joint benefits. If the House does that, we will have a bright future. To come back to the point of the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), we will have better than the exact same benefits, because we will have bigger opportunities in the rest of the world, as the Department for International Trade has already demonstrated, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said. On that basis, I will vote for this treaty.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I very much hope that if hon. Members who are down to speak intervene on others, they will shorten their own speeches accordingly. If people want to take interventions, it is probably a good idea to run a little short, as the right hon. Gentleman just did.

--- Later in debate ---

[Conor Burns]

I think that doing so would test the patience of the Chair, but perhaps my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) would welcome an intervention when she speaks.

We are now talking about the future relationship, and today marks the day when the British dog finally leaves the federalist manger. Our European friends can now pursue their ambitions unencumbered by reluctant Brits. We are no longer a reluctant and truculent member, but a sovereign equal and close friend.

We would be deluding ourselves if we believed that leaving the European Union was, in and of itself, a panacea or solution to the challenges that the United Kingdom faces. The new freedom that we take up as an independent sovereign country will be daunting. It will test our institutions, which are not used to having to make decisions for themselves. It will take time to adjust. As a Trade Minister, when I was looking at international trade agreements, I sensed a profound interest around the world in doing business with the United Kingdom. Our businesses will have to step up and seize the opportunities that the new free trade agreements will create. We could be at the dawn of a new golden era for this country. I relish the reality that, today, we are at last again the masters of our own destiny.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I emphasise again that I do not want to stop people taking interventions. However, if they do so, it would be helpful to colleagues if they shorten their speeches accordingly, because it is stopping others coming in—that is the point.

Public Health

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)]

While we wait for the roll-out of the vaccine, there are no easy choices available to the Government. The choice is between lockdown, a tiered system and unrestricted return to normal life. From an economic and social perspective, lockdowns are by far the worst option. Entering a cycle of lockdown, reopen and repeat does not amount to living with the virus; it is hiding from it, while causing long-lasting damage at the same time. People have put up with a great deal this year and are understandably desperate to return to their normal lives, but we know that the national health service comes under strain in the winter months in normal times and that these are very far from normal times. To simply reopen with no restrictions would be a huge gamble that could lead to the loss of tens of thousands of lives. That leaves the option of regional tiers, which I believe offer the best option for living with the virus while waiting for a full deployment of the vaccine. In acknowledging that, it is important to recognise that tiers are not a destination; they are a holding pattern.

As colleagues have said, the Government could do a great deal more in making transparent the evidential basis for decisions on tiers. I am not especially happy with my constituency’s tier. Orpington is part of the London Borough of Bromley and as such is part of Greater London. While Greater London has a range of infection rates, most are much higher than those in my borough. Greater London also has a very large number of hospitals. We know from Department of Health and Social Care figures that the NHS in London is now, at the end of the year, at only 76% of the level it was in spring. On that basis, it is possible to make the argument that the NHS has surge capacity to cope with a spike of infections in London and it could therefore perhaps have been placed in tier 1, rather than in tier 2. However, it is also possible to conceive of a situation where the virus could run out of control.

In addition, I note that the Government have listened to representations from colleagues on the Conservative Benches and across the House, and a range of activities can now resume in tier 2 that were not available during lockdown. However, as other colleagues have said, hospitality, in particular pubs, will be hard hit. While the existing measures and the additional financial support announced by the Prime Minister today are welcome, I call on the Government to have another look and see whether more can be done while we wait for the vaccine.

In closing, I must comment on the total abdication of responsibility offered today by the Leader of the Opposition. It is truly scandalous. It is all very well pointing to the faults of others, but a supposedly alternative Government must have an alternative plan. The moral vacuity of standing and saying, “I do not like what you are doing” but neither offering an alternative nor having the courage to vote on it is absolutely damning.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Speakers 82 to 84 have withdrawn, so we go straight to Rob Butler.

--- Later in debate ---

[Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)]

I am glad that I came to the Chamber in good time.

I was one of those who voted against the national lockdown, because I am in a privileged position: I am a Cornwall MP and I represent the Isles of Scilly—and Cornwall, the Isles of Scilly and the Isle of Wight are the only parts of England in tier 1. I will therefore be voting, if not enthusiastically, certainly in support of the Government, because the tier system is the right thing to have, in particular for Cornwall.

I want to raise a few things. As a libertarian, I do not want to say this, but it is an important part of a national effort to control the spread of coronavirus. Cornwall, the Isles of Scilly and, I assume, the Isle of Wight are concerned about what might happen after today, right through to the Christmas break, because we are already attractive parts of the world and we have suddenly become very much more attractive. Will the Minister and the Secretary of State consider strengthening travel restrictions to ensure that travel from tier 3, for example, is only done when absolutely essential?

We will always welcome visitors to Cornwall to spend their money, but not when we are in a national effort to control the spread of the virus. I say that not just for my constituents, but for the whole of the country. We are seeking to battle the virus, to put an end to it, and to move into 2021 with, I hope, a brighter and more hopeful future.

Even a tier 1 MP, however, needs to make the case for hospitality. This year has been brutal for hospitality. Most of the businesses in Cornwall—as well as in Devon and across the country—depend in some way on tourism and on providing food, accommodation and entertainment for people. Despite the generous support so far, large parts of the sector are very unlikely to survive. Again, as a Cornish MP, so much of my hospitality can open, but it is still very curtailed.

I recognise that this is partly driving the restrictions that we have to vote on tonight: I long for the day, as I am sure millions of people in the UK do, when the NHS can return fully to providing the care that it usually would to people with long-term conditions. I chair the all-party parliamentary group for diabetes; it is a great honour and privilege to do so. A recent report from Manchester University with the Salford Royal Hospital demonstrates that, in April alone, there were twice as many deaths of people with diabetes during the lockdown as would normally be the case; and that there were 45,000 missed or delayed diagnoses of diabetes type 2. We know that, if diabetes is identified later, people’s life chances are reduced, their conditions are aggravated, and pressure of all kinds on the system of social care and the NHS is increased. Please may we do what we can to get the NHS to return to fully caring for those with long-term conditions?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I am not going to reduce the time limit, but I will say that if colleagues speak for less than three minutes, more people will get in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

A month ago, my reasons for not supporting a second lockdown were that the measures represented a gross overreach of Government powers over our basic freedoms, that the tiers provided a more targeted response and needed more time, and that the information provided by Government was inadequate and unpersuasive. I made the following requests of the Government: to operationalise rapid testing on a community and venue basis; to put covid into context with other illnesses, so that they did not appear disappeared in terms of their importance; and to make available to Members of Parliament a full assessment of policy consequences before we are asked to make decisions.

In the intervening period, the Government have indeed progressed on many of those fronts. Thankfully, freedom of communal worship has been restored. Freedom to trade has been substantially restored. More needs to be done on freedom to associate. Rapid testing is being deployed, but more needs to be done, particularly to restore confidence in events, in the travel industry and in theatres.

The Government have been kind enough at last to give us the criteria and the data on the decisions about restrictions and we have had a stab at an impact assessment. I have to say to the Minister that the impact assessment has all the hallmarks of an essay crisis, with all possible factors raised, but few of them investigated with any rigour. This is important because for too long the decisions of Government have been in thrall to the medical profession alone, and the trade-offs of the medical profession are always likely to be more precautionary than the broader considerations of Members of Parliament. But we can work with this to help us inform our future decisions.

A month ago, I wrote to constituents to say:

“I am sure we are all irritated that restrictive measures are being proposed, but irritation is not a sufficient basis for a Member of Parliament to oppose them.

We are all irritated that perhaps some of us have been placed in higher tiers than we should have been. We are irritated that the geographies are broader than we think they should be. We are irritated that the Government have, in a sense, put us in a place where we are looking backwards rather than forward, but irritation is not a sufficiency for an alternative policy. We will be able to make tweaks, we will be able to make suggestions, but I return to my conclusion of a month ago that the continuation of the tiered approach is the right policy. We must, however, ask the Government to challenge clause 3.11 of the impact assessment, where they talk about the NHS being overwhelmed in terms of the loss of life, saying such a scenario is considered intolerable. The best way to do that is through scenarios of hospital occupancy to March being made available.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I remind Members again of the two-minute target to get more people in.

Integrated Review

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Thursday 19th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)]

Of all the humbug that I have heard from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that really takes the cake. This is a man who campaigned until December last year to install in government a Prime Minister who wanted to scrap our armed services and pull out of NATO, and his own record of support for our armed services is very thin indeed.

I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman now welcomes this package, although his comments scarcely do it justice. This is the biggest package of support for our armed services since the end of the cold war. It bears absolutely no relation to discussions about overseas aid. This House and this country should be incredibly proud of what Britain does to support people around the world. Under any view, this country is, has been and will remain one of the biggest contributors to aid of any country on earth. I am proud of that, and I am proud that this package will help to deliver 40,000 jobs around the UK.

The Conservative party fundamentally believes in defence of the realm, supporting our armed forces and ensuring that the country as a whole is strong and able to project our strength around the world. It is notable that, in government, we have instituted such extra protections for the armed services as wraparound childcare for armed services families and, by the way, protection for our veterans and their families from the misery of continual vexatious prosecution by well-paid lawyers long after the alleged crimes were committed and with no new evidence provided. The Opposition, under the leadership of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, refused to vote in favour of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill, which will give veterans that protection and reassurance.

I do not think I have heard so much phoney stuff from the right hon. and learned Gentleman in all the time that we have faced each other. This is a guy who campaigned actively to install in government somebody who wanted to break up our armed forces and pull out of NATO. I do not know what he was thinking. He never mentioned his support for the armed services then, and frankly I do not attach much credence to it now.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

I welcome the commitment to significantly upgrade our defence posture, for which the Prime Minister knows I, the Defence Committee and others in this House have been calling for some time. I also welcome his honesty in recognising that the UK, and indeed the west, has become too risk-averse in standing up to some of the threats we face. I recall my frustration as a Foreign Office and Defence Minister in wanting Britain to play a more assertive and proactive role on the international stage, not only with our hard and soft power but with our thought leadership. However, there was ever less appetite to do so, so I very much welcome this statement today.

Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that, as we take on the presidency of the G7, we will work closely with the new US Administration in boosting western resolve to confront a growing number of hostile competitors, including China, who have for too long been allowed to pursue their own destabilising and competing agendas?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend; he is completely right. This package will encourage and bolster our friends and alliances around the world and enable the UK to project global influence into the future. That is why it is a multi-year package. I do not think that anybody around the world will doubt, after this announcement, our commitment to NATO, to the transatlantic alliance and to the security of our friends and allies around the world.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the leader of the Scottish National party.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement.

In the SNP, we support a refocusing on the contemporary threats that we face. We need to readjust our defence capabilities for the modern world and it is especially important that a focus is given to issues such as cyber-security, but what we do not accept are the priorities of this Government and the threat of the disbanding of historic regiments such as the Black Watch. Disbanding the Black Watch would show that the promises made to Scotland during the Scottish independence campaign have been broken, buried and forgotten by this Government. We were promised 12,500 personnel stationed permanently in Scotland; the number remains well below 10,000. Such broken promises not only mean fewer jobs in Scotland, but undermine Scotland’s security interests. Billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money are still being spent on Trident nuclear weapons. Scotland remains overwhelmingly opposed to weapons of mass destruction on the Clyde. We need to respond to today’s challenges rather than on vanity projects.

The SNP also has serious reservations regarding such a windfall to defence spending during these unprecedented times of hardship for so many. This review will reportedly see the UK as Europe’s biggest defence spender, when just three weeks ago this Government refused to provide free school meals for children during the holidays. We have learned that the UK Government are considering cutting the overseas aid budget by billions of pounds. The Prime Minister may use the term “global Britain”, but on these Benches we believe the Prime Minister has his priorities all wrong. The Tories have closed the Department for International Development, one of the most successful Departments of Government, in order to politicise instead of focusing it on sustainable development goals.

In our submission to the integrated defence review, we have put forward sensible suggestions on how to meet the modern-day threat picture, but not to the detriment of our historic regiments in Scotland. I ask the Prime Minister today: will he rule out scrapping the Black Watch—[Interruption]—and cuts to international aid spending? [Interruption.] It is an absolute disgrace, in the face of the threats, that we get contempt yet again from the Defence Secretary and his colleagues on the Tory Benches. It is shameful, and he really ought to grow up and show some respect to the regiments of Scotland.

With independence, Scotland can have a foreign policy that reflects our values and interests and a defence capability that matches capabilities to threats. With our submission to this review, we are looking to play a constructive role in informing UK policy, but we will be setting out how Scotland can play a full role as a normal, law-abiding and values-driven independent country on the world stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

We are in daily contact and communication with the aid organisations that have benefited from the many billions of pounds that the UK contributes to international development—more than virtually any other country. We will continue to do that, and we will continue to work with those organisations on the ground.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I am sure the hon. Lady meant “inadvertently” misleading the House.

[Mary Kelly Foy]

indicated assent.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I am absolutely thrilled to hear about the company my hon. Friend raises, Drone Defence. I understand that it has also been able to take on some new young employees through the kickstart scheme, and that is great. These are exactly the kinds of cutting-edge companies that we are going to be supporting, but also many, many other types of industry and business across the country. I certainly look forward to coming to see him in Bassetlaw, where I think we have good news on the hospital as well.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

We will have a three-minute suspension to allow safe exit and entry of hon. and right hon. Members.

Public Health

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)]

Like many hon. Members, I would like to start by paying tribute to all the British public, including those in my Aberavon constituency, who have shown such resilience and fortitude throughout an extremely difficult 2020.

These new restrictions are, of course, for the people of England, but the economic package accompanying them will have a significant effect on Wales and on my constituents. Regrettably, it has become all too evident that the Prime Minister and Chancellor only took decisive action in terms of economic support once London and parts of the south-east were put into tier 2 and then full lockdown. When we in Wales went into our fire breaker, the UK Government refused to extend furlough. When the north of England went into tier 3, the Government refused to extend furlough. Now, with new restrictions affecting the south-east, the money suddenly appears as if by magic. Furlough must be fair for all—it is as simple as that.

During his successful general election campaign, the Prime Minister promised to level up the UK. In reality, the very opposite has happened. This virus has turned the gap between the south-east and the rest of the UK into a chasm. We now need a clear and specific plan that states what levelling up is actually supposed to mean in practice. This plan must have our steel industry at its heart.

A focus on steel would deliver three interlinked benefits. First, it would support the creation of high-skilled, well-paid jobs in areas of the UK that have been ignored by successive Conservative Governments since 2010, including in south Wales. Secondly, it would strengthen the UK’s sovereign capability. One of the most important lessons of the pandemic is that we are far too dependent on supply chains from other countries, and increasingly, those countries are run by authoritarian Governments who are not our natural allies. Thirdly, it will enable our transition to net zero, backing the industries of the future but also greening current industries. Yet, by failing to provide the UK’s largest steelmaker and the employer of 4,000 steelworkers in my constituency with the emergency loans during the pandemic to plug the cash flow gap caused by the fall in demand, the Government have again chosen to sit on their hands. There can be no post-pandemic recovery, no levelling up and no modern manufacturing renaissance without a strong and healthy steel industry.

I will end by saying a few words on test, track and trace. While Welsh Labour backed local experts and our local authorities, the UK Government have put test, track and trace in the hands of Serco, without any proper tendering process. Serco won huge contracts to the tune of £500 million and, through no fault of the vast majority of its employees, I might add, utterly failed our country at this time of need. The choice that the Government have taken is to privatise and centralise when they should have been keeping what is a truly public function in the public sector and allowing local authorities to mobilise the expertise that they have on the ground. I hope that the UK Government will look to Cardiff Bay—to the Welsh Government—learn the lessons of Test and Trace, and take this four-week lockdown as an opportunity to fix the system and learn from the way in which the Welsh Government have done it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I will be moving straight to the right hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), but after he has spoken, I will reduce the time limit to three minutes to try to accommodate as many colleagues as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Craig Mackinlay]

An overwhelming number of the responses that I have had are from churchgoers, and I will develop that point very briefly. Congregations that go to churches, synagogues, mosques and temples are adherent, sensible, disciplined people. To treat them as anything but is, I am afraid, nothing but an insult.

A few weeks ago, we were offered the tiered system and the House supported it. It was deemed to be the new holy grail. Liverpool, under tier 3, seems to be having results, but we simply have not given enough time for those opportunities to bed in. Kent and my constituency of South Thanet are currently under tier 1. What will all this mean to businesses and pubs that have invested heavily in covid-friendly and secure facilities? We have already seen flip-flopping on the earliest-published proposals on off-sales, and microbreweries can now continue selling beer outside. The supermarkets could always sell as much as they liked. That, I am afraid, is at the heart of the muddled thinking. I want to develop what I want to call the Wilkinson conundrum—a great store on every high street. How can it be that it can continue to sell essential and non-essential items when it is illegal for the independent shop next door to sell just some of the non-essential stuff?

I am being asked to spend £50 billion extra today, or perhaps even more. There is no data about what that means for other health issues, and no assessment about what it means to family members who are not able to see grandchildren or see off loved ones in their final days. I am here to make a decision. I will not abstain; I am paid to have a view, and I will be voting against the measure.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I just want to point out gently that not everybody is going to get in on this debate. If interventions are taken at this stage, particularly from people who are not on the speaking list, that will prevent others from speaking.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 3rd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Kevan Jones]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister has just accused my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) of being disingenuous. Is that actually parliamentary?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I am sure the Minister meant “unintentionally disingenuous”.

[Johnny Mercer]

It is quite extraordinary the way that individuals carry on in this House. That is precisely why I became a Member of Parliament—because quite frankly the military were sick and tired of some of the warm words that come out of this place when actually the actions are what matters.

I thank the Chairs of the Public Bill Committee and my fellow members of the Committee for their scrutiny of the Bill. As I said in Committee, we may not always agree, and that is to be expected, but I have listened to the views put forward, including those of Members who have spoken today. I hope that I will be able to address a number of the points raised and set out the Government’s position on the amendments chosen for debate.

On part 1 of the Bill, as I have said before, I fully recognise the importance of striking an appropriate balance between victims’ rights and access to justice. This has meant seeking to have a balance in the Bill. On the one hand, we are introducing protective measures that set a high threshold for a prosecutor to determine that a case should be prosecuted and ensuring that the adverse impacts of overseas operations would be given particular weight in favour of the service personnel or veterans. On the other hand, we must ensure that in circumstances where our service personnel fall short of the high standards of personal behaviour and conduct that is required, they can still be held to account. That is one of the reasons why we have not proposed an amnesty or a statute of limitations for service personnel and veterans as part of these measures—a claim again produced by Labour Members today. That is not true. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne can chunter from a sedentary position about what is in the Bill, but all that has been mentioned all afternoon is what is not in the Bill. It is literally a waste of everybody’s time. I see that Momentum has said this afternoon that we have forced Labour Front Benchers to vote against it. I was unaware that Momentum had any seats in the House of Commons, but clearly Labour Members are unable to think for themselves. However, that is a matter for them. We have also ensured that the measures are compliant with international law.

I recognise that alleged misconduct by service personnel is dealt with most effectively if individuals are investigated and, where appropriate, subject to disciplinary or criminal proceedings at the time of the conduct. Nobody should underestimate the often inordinate difficulty in delivering timely justice in relation to investigations of alleged historical offences. As we have heard in many oral evidence sessions, this can leave our service personnel with stress and mental strain for many years afterwards. There is a danger that if we fail to recognise that all the elements of the armed forces have come a long way from the beginning of the Iraq conflict, it looks like we are not continuing to learn and adjust. That is not true, which is why the Secretary of State has announced, in parallel with this Bill, a judge-led review of how allegations of wrongdoing on overseas operations are raised and investigated. The right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne raises time and again the issue of the investigations, but he knows that they are for the forthcoming armed forces Bill and will be addressed there. That is why it might be unintentionally disingenuous to suggest that nothing is being done, Madam Deputy Speaker.

A number of amendments are proposed to clause 6 and schedule 1. A number seek to exclude torture offences from the presumption, and we know what this is; I should make it clear again that there is no requirement in customary international law for a state to prosecute a war crime or other breach of the Geneva convention in all circumstances where it has sufficient evidence of the offence, irrespective of this clause. We believe that the statutory presumption, which still allows the prosecutor to continue to take decisions to prosecute, is consistent with our international obligations.

Similarly, amendments 1 to 10 seek to ensure that the offences in section 134 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 in relation to torture, and the relevant sections of the International Criminal Court Act 2001 in relation to offences of torture, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, should be excluded offences in schedule 1. I am very much aware that many people have misinterpreted the decision to exclude only sexual offences from the presumption against prosecution, including by suggesting that it somehow undermines the UK’s continuing commitment to upholding international human rights law and humanitarian law, including the UN convention against torture. As Opposition Members well know, that is completely untrue. The UK does not participate in, solicit, encourage or condone the use of torture for any purposes, and we remain committed to maintaining our leading role in the promotion and protection of human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister has now added mind-reading to his many skills. The Minister, who is actually a good friend of mine, has just made an accusation against me and has not given me the right to reply to it. It was his Government, in 2010, who set up IHAT and Northmoor, not the Labour Government.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I do not want the point of order to become a subject of debate, but obviously—[Interruption.] Thank you; I can cope. Obviously, the Secretary of State has referred to the right hon. Gentleman, and he may feel it appropriate to give way.

[Mr Wallace]

It is a shame that the right hon. Gentleman used up more debating time by raising a bogus point of order, but nevertheless, in case Opposition Members think the way to conduct a Third Reading is to shout people down, I will repeat that this legislation is one very important part of the jigsaw. We must not forget, given the point raised by the Opposition about the thoroughness of the investigations, that it was not under their stewardship that the investigative capability of our armed forces was strengthened; it was not under their stewardship that the training for men and women about detention of suspects was improved; it was not under Labour’s stewardship that article 2 compliance was met, often, on some of these investigations that allowed those lawyers to come back and repeat inquests, inquiries and investigations into our veterans.

On the other hand, it is we, a Conservative Government, who have commissioned and started implementing a service justice review programme, who appointed a respected former judge to review and scrutinise the investigative process, and who have brought legislation to actually do something about it.

The Government have listened to many of the contributions throughout the Bill’s progress, but we have been unable to accept the amendments because they would have undermined rather than strengthened the Bill. In the case of the Opposition, they are simply, as it turned out, opposed to its aims, as Momentum has boasted today.

Despite all the warm words and sympathy, the Labour leopard has not changed its spots. In this week of all weeks, with Remembrance Sunday approaching, veterans up and down the country will note Labour’s opposition and recognise what fair-weather friends they are. However, this Government have been determined and resolute in acting to protect our armed forces, and that is why I commend the Bill to the House.

Point of Order

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point of order. The Paymaster General, who of course is a Cabinet Office Minister and does an excellent job in keeping Members from all parties updated, and has done throughout the difficult time of the coronavirus pandemic, is resuming the calls to augment the scrutiny that, quite rightly, Ministers will be exposed to at this Dispatch Box, as we all seek to ensure that we do the right thing by all our constituents at this inevitably testing time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the hon. Lady for that point of order. I am very glad that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was present to respond, and I hope that that will give her some reassurance.

In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

I certainly will not, because the hon. Gentleman has asked every single speaker this afternoon to give way, and I really need to answer the points raised by other hon. and right hon. Members here tonight.

The UK Government do not take any powers away from the devolved Administrations, because this is in addition to devolved powers, which continue. As I have said, we want to continue to work with the devolved Administrations and local authorities to ensure that this power is used to best effect, augmenting the existing powers used to support citizens across the UK. At this point, I want to thank the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), who made the point very well about the need for consultation and partnership working. I believe that UK Government Ministers, under the scrutiny of the UK Parliament, should have that ability to invest UK-wide. A legislative obligation to seek consent from colleagues in Stormont, Cardiff Bay or Holyrood might not always be appropriate in that context. That is because, as I have set out, the plans for investment will be at a strategic level, including on UK-wide projects, which would not be suitable to be blocked by any one part of the country. Indeed, the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) revealed in his comments that his party’s priorities lay elsewhere. Perhaps that is the case on independence, as SNP Members have missed no chance to tell us about that this afternoon, but the hon. Gentleman said that economic development, infrastructure, education, culture, sport and more were not a priority in Scotland. Those were his words, and there we have it—[Interruption.] They would block such things.

Amendment 14, from the hon. Member for Sheffield Central, would require both Houses of Parliament to agree by resolution how the power should operate. It is absolutely essential that any and all spending of taxpayers’ money is subject to proper scrutiny and, as the House well knows, we have this responsibility and authority when the Government seek to raise taxes and set budgets for public spending. We have it in the Commons, but not in the Lords, and the first thing I would say about amendment 14 is that it has a weakness—indeed, a major flaw—in that it invites the House of Lords to take a stance on financial matters, which it does not do. I have full confidence in the House of Commons to scrutinise UK Government spending decisions in this way, as it also does daily through Committees such as the Public Accounts Committee. The House would also have the opportunity to vote on spending allocation under this power, through the estimates process. So I argue that amendment 14 is unnecessary because there are already processes for looking at that expenditure, and I argue secondly that it is not right to give that power to the House of Lords as well as to the House of Commons.

Amendments 15, 16 and 12 propose that the devolved Administrations should themselves be funded to provide financial assistance under this legislation. I have already articulated why a new power is needed, so this really comes down to the very core point. For investment that is strategic, that is at a certain scale, that can be intra-UK and that can provide benefits universally across the UK, should that power be held at UK level or at the devolved level? This argument has been made pretty clearly, and it has reverberated across every side of the Chamber this afternoon. I do not think I need to re-summarise it here, but I say very clearly that this Government is a Unionist Government and we put the argument today that it is a sensible role for the UK Government to hold such a power. Therefore I turn away from those amendments that are simply based on a different view.

Amendment 12 seeks to go further. It suggests that the funding arising from the power be pre-allocated based on GDP and it should take the form of multi-annual funding.

Let me take this opportunity to be absolutely clear that devolved Administrations will continue to receive funding through the block grant and the Barnett formula, where appropriate. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) for making a powerful argument that the nations are home to some of the most deprived communities in the UK, and this goes to the argument that is contained in this amendment, perhaps, about where need is. The spending power in the Bill helps to answer that call.

Turning to the idea of long-term planning and multi-annual funding that is also encapsulated in the amendment, the funding arrangements and the governance for use of the UK-wide spending power will be a decision for the spending review, and that is the right way to allocate multi-annual funding. I urge hon. Members to withdraw the proposed amendment because it is not necessary in that instance.

I turn to amendment 22, on which colleagues from Northern Ireland have spoken passionately today, especially the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson)—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is waving at me from slightly outside the Chamber. I assure the hon. Members who authored that amendment that it is the intention and the effect of the power to apply equally across all of our nation, but I do not think that was quite the point of the hon. Gentleman’s argument here today. In fact, I suggest to him, politely and gently, that those arguments are best taken up again in the next session of this Committee, when we turn to Northern Ireland’s interests more broadly, and specifically to do with state aid, which is where I think he will be able to get a much fuller discussion of the points that he was making.

I would like to take this opportunity also to reassure the hon. Member for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) that community balance can be accommodated, such as it has been indeed through the Derry-Londonderry and Strabane city deal, and we intend that kind of partnership to be able to continue.

I also thank the hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) for her passionate speech. She is of course right to quote John Hume that the best peace process of all is a job, and that is the kind of economic focus we intend through the Bill.

Let me also, just in passing, say to the hon. Member for Foyle—and I hope he is able to hear me, although he is also not in his place—that there is no intention to change any arrangements to do with water and water charges in Northern Ireland through the Bill, I hope he can note that—

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I want to explain for the benefit of any people who may be watching that normally Members would be in their place, but the restrictions in the Chamber mean that some are not.

[Chloe Smith]

Of course, Dame Rosie, and I mean no discourtesy, either to them or to your chairing of the debate. It is just a little unusual not to be able to see the Member that you are directing a comment to.

Let me turn to amendment 22 on the important topic of climate change, tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). She made her case with her usual passion and eloquence, which I greatly respect, and I share her determination to see those goals achieved, and so do the United Kingdom Government. However, there is already an overarching legal and policy framework for achieving those goals, and I do not think it is necessary to put that restriction on to that power, so I urge her to withdraw the amendment.

Let me turn briefly to the Government amendments 23, 24, 25 and 36, which seek to add to the types of mechanisms by which such assistance can be provided to further support economic development and other matters across the UK by means of an investment fund. Those are to help to ensure that this power can be used to best effect to boost growth, and I certainly hope every right hon. and hon. Member would support that.

This power, and the Bill overall, present a real once-in-a-generation opportunity to level up our country, to strengthen our Union and to allow the UK Government to invest better the taxpayers’ money that was previously spent by Brussels. We have a responsibility to support people, businesses and communities across the whole of our United Kingdom. This power enables the UK Government to do that in a variety of ways. I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends who asked about the UK shared prosperity fund that we can meet the manifesto commitment to deliver the fund, which matches the value of EU structural funds by using the provisions set out in this part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

The Minister has given no concessions and very little by way of explanation for why these powers are required and exactly what the Government intend to do with them. Some Members said that this is about money. It is not about money; there is no money in the Bill. It is about the principle, devolution and where powers are best exercised.

I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said. Many people who now vote for the SNP did not start out as nationalists. That would be impossible, given the growth in our party over recent years. Many of them would have a lot of sympathy with what he said about what the Union ought to be, but that is not where we are. That is not where Scotland is right now, and it is as a result of this Government and previous Governments, and of promises made and promises broken, that we are in the situation that we find ourselves in today.

This Bill exemplifies the very worst of that with this power grab. The explanatory notes clearly state that the purposes in part 6

“fall within wholly or partly devolved areas under the Scotland Act 1998, Government of Wales Act 2006 and Northern Ireland Act 1998.”

They are powers that are being removed from the devolved institutions and hoarded here at Westminster. We will no longer have a say over all the issues that we have a say over at the moment; that will be exercised by a Government and Ministers we did not elect. That cannot be allowed to stand.

I have many things to say about the Bill, but we are late in hour and late in time. With the leave of the House, I will withdraw amendment 33, but I reserve the right to vote against clause 46. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 46

Power to provide financial assistance for economic development etc

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I must inform colleagues that, unfortunately, the pass readers in the Aye Lobby are not working. This means that colleagues who wish to vote Aye will need to do so by walking through the Chamber and stating their name at the Dispatch Box. I ask colleagues who want to vote Aye to join the queue to enter the Chamber. The No Lobby is unaffected and colleagues can continue to use the pass readers—[Interruption.] Apparently, the pass readers in the No Lobby are not working either, so all colleagues will need to vote by walking through the Chamber and stating their name at the Dispatch Box. I ask colleagues to join the queue to enter the Chamber. I ask the Tellers for the Noes to take up their place in the Under Gallery and the Tellers for the Ayes to take up their place in the officials’ Box.

Once the Tellers are in place, I will start inviting Members to file past the Table, stopping at the Dispatch Box to state their names and how they are voting. You should file to the left-hand side of the Table if you are voting Aye and the right if you are voting No. I suggest that Members on the Front Benches move further back for social distancing purposes, because other Members will be filing past. May I invite the first Member to step forward?

--- Later in debate ---

This amendment would enable the Minister to provide financial assistance to investment funds for onward investment.—(Maria Caulfield.)

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Amendment 14 has been selected by the Chairman of Ways and Means for separate decision.

Amendment proposed: 14, in clause 47, page 37, line 29, at end, insert—

“(3A) Financial assistance under section 46 must be the subject of a framework agreement to be agreed by resolution of each House of Parliament.”—(Edward Miliband.)

The intention of this amendment is to provide a policy framework for the allocation of financial assistance.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

It has not been possible to mend the electronic pass reader, so we will repeat the same procedure as previously. We need to wait until the tellers are in place and then I will invite the first hon. Member to come forward.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

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

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I am sure colleagues can see that there is a lot of time pressure in this debate. I urge Members to stick to a maximum of six minutes, rather than having me impose a time limit at this stage. If Members can do that, we will see how we get on.

[Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)]

First, I thank the Minister and her team for their hard work on this Bill. There are a select few of us in this House who can get excited about boundary reviews, and most of us are here today, and I thank her for indulging my psephological exuberance throughout.

I will speak about the merits of the Bill before turning to the amendments. At its heart, the Bill is about fairness; it is about recognising that everybody in this country should have an equal voice in our democratic process. Fundamentally, it is about saying that no one person’s vote should count more than another’s. There will be some in this Chamber who believe that that is the case already, and no doubt we will hear a series of eloquent speeches about that to one effect or another, but the crux of the matter is that there are some parts of the United Kingdom where just 56,000 people can send the same number of representatives as 100,000 in another.

Before this is hand-waved by Opposition Members as a ploy to make the electoral geography somehow better for one party or another, we need to understand the basic principle of electoral equality. This idea is not new; it was not cooked up in some trendy centre-right think-tank over on Millbank the other day. It started with the Chartists back in 1838, who, in the “People’s Charter”, called for this measure to be introduced as an essential cornerstone of our democracy.

As I mentioned in the Bill Committee, we do not need to look far for extreme examples of disparity. Greater Manchester, where I am an MP, has 27 MPs whose electorates range from 63,000 to 95,000. How can that be fair or right? My own seat, Heywood and Middleton, is around 111% of the electoral quota. Why should my constituents’ voices count for less than those of voters in Wirral West or Preston?

The issue is not just about apportionment within regions or counties, however—far from it. Using the December 2019 figures, we arrive at an electoral quota—the number of voters per seat—of about 72,431. That should be the average size of every seat in every region, but it is not. In Wales, it is a shade over 57,900; in the south-east, excluding the Isle of Wight, it is nearly 78,500. As a tenet of fundamental fairness, we simply cannot turn a blind eye to such disparity.

I accept that, historically, there are good reasons for that malapportionment—to ensure that the four nations of our Union could all have a voice in this place—but Scotland now has a Parliament that is the most powerful devolved legislature anywhere in the world, Wales has the Senedd and Northern Ireland has its Assembly. Outside London, there is a patchwork of uneven devolution settlements in certain counties and metropolitan areas, none of which comes close to those devolved legislatures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Clarkson]

The hon. Gentleman knows that I have a lot of time for him, too. I am not here to blindly say that I agree with everything that my party has ever done; I think that using an electoral quota is a much fairer way of doing it.

As I say, it strikes me as frankly bizarre that when we are concerned about the overpopulation of the other place, we should be trying to pack this place out. The hon. Gentleman played an extremely constructive role on the Bill Committee, with some very sensible proposals —he is one of us! [Interruption.] I mean an electoral geek, obviously. It is just a shame that his new clause 2 does not follow that lead, so I will give it “D minus —must try harder.”

Let me move on to new clause 3, which I think our Liberal Democrat friends might find a bit disappointing, too. Although on some level I have sympathy with the idea of including those who are not on the electoral register, we have to use the fairest and most consistent data available to us, which is the electoral register. If some people choose not to be on it, that is their choice. Similarly, some people will not qualify, and it is unfair to try to guess who those people might be. In either case, I do not think that adding additional people to the register will improve any electoral chances.

Lastly, I turn to the concept of automaticity, which is covered by amendment 1. I hardly need—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order.

[Chris Clarkson]

Shall I wind up, Madam Deputy Speaker?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Yes.

[Chris Clarkson]

Okay. Somebody else can deal with automaticity.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

We are not really doing very well so far, are we? We will have another go at trying to stick to six minutes. John Spellar, I am sure, will do that.

[John Spellar]

I shall certainly try, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Can we be frank? Boundary changes are a real nuisance, but a necessary nuisance. We all accept that they have to happen, even though they are a problem for Members of Parliament, and indeed for political organisations and often for constituents. Everyone accepts that; what people do not accept is gratuitous disruption, which is what we have had over the past 10 years.

Let us be clear about what the Bill is trying to do: it is trying to clear up the mess from the shoddy, squalid deal between David Cameron and Nick Clegg, into which they both put exercises for party political advantage. The Lib Dems thought that they would get proportional representation; the Tories thought that they would rig the redistribution process; and neither worked. One of the reasons why there was such opposition in Parliament, and why the changes were never put to Parliament, was precisely that the Government knew that they could not command a majority among their own Members, who recognised that. Several Chief Whips tried to persuade very stubborn Prime Ministers of that fact.

Why did the problems occur? Basically, the idea was fatally flawed, and it was made worse by the 5%. That rigid demarcation ended up forcing the Boundary Commission to make decisions and plans that made no sense on the ground. Take Birmingham: one ward was taken out of Sutton Coldfield, which has never accepted that it is part of Birmingham, and transferred to Birmingham, Erdington, while another ward was taken from Birmingham, Erdington and put into Sutton Coldfield. Nobody was happy with that, but it was forced on them by the narrow constraints. Similarly, my constituency, part of which is right up at the edge of Birmingham, was moved right the way through Sandwell and into Dudley town centre.

There was no coherence, no community, between them, and everybody recognised that. Another one went from the middle of Halesowen right the way in a strip across Birmingham, and that was replicated all around the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

It is up to the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) whether she wants to give way.

[Mrs Miller]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I actually wrote it down—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman needs to check Hansard.

[John Spellar]

You got it wrong! I said “a necessary”, not “unnecessary”.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman has put his views on the record, but he really must not interrupt in that way.

[Mrs Miller]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The Bill is all about the quality of our democracy and about fair and equal-sized constituencies, which are at the heart of the Bill. It is to ensure that every vote counts the same. I see that as part of a fair democracy. This group of amendments repeats many of the debates in Committee, despite the compelling evidence that we received. They are designed to dilute the intention of the Bill and, in doing so, reduce its effectiveness in delivering better democracy.

I will look at just two amendments: new clause 1 and amendment 1. New clause 1, which would allow an up to 15% difference between each of our constituencies, fundamentally tries to undermine the intention of the Bill. Anyone listening to the debate today would think that our communities all come in packages of particular sizes; that is simply not the case. Swindon and Reading both had to be split in two, and any increase in the tolerance around the quota would not have really helped them. My constituency of Basingstoke now has 83,000 people. Whatever way we read that, Basingstoke will have to be carved up into different constituencies, regardless of the fact that it is clearly one coherent community.

The cornerstone of what we are doing here has to be the issue of equal suffrage. That is the cornerstone of our democracy and we cannot con ourselves into thinking that our communities can be carved up easily—they cannot. It is difficult. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Warley had a point when he used the words—which I must get right now to ensure I do not affront him again—an unnecessary nuisance, because in many ways this is very difficult to put into practice. However, it was central to our 2019 Conservative party manifesto that we would have updated and equal parliamentary boundaries to ensure that every vote counted the same.

On the amendment, if we are to reach the Bill’s objective, we need to urge the Boundary Commission to be far more imaginative in how it looks at our communities and go below the ward level when trying to construct new boundaries. It is possible within the existing rules to do that—no rule change is required—but I was rather taken aback by some of the Boundary Commission’s evidence saying how difficult that would be, particularly given that software with geographic information system capability has been purchased to enable sub-ward-level boundaries to be considered. I hope that the Minister may be able to edify the Chamber a little on what more work has been done in that direction.

I note that the Boundary Commission’s letter by way of supplementary evidence said that the political parties were going to meet the commission prior to the review starting. I hope the Minister may be able to reassure us that further headway will be made on this issue. I welcomed the commission suggesting, in that supplementary evidence, the prioritising of the mapping of metropolitan council areas where the largest ward electorate sizes occur, but if other areas in the country require that to happen, how will we handle that?

Perhaps the Minister could also consider how we should be dealing with the Boundary Commission between reviews to make sure that it is doing this basic spadework then, rather than when a review is imminent. It seems to be a poor use of resources to be dealing with it in this way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie). I congratulate her on her success; I hope it is the first of many. I shall not repeat her constituency name too frequently in case I injure its pronunciation. It is a great tribute to her that she has got that success so soon in this Parliament.

As we know, every day is a school day. It has been interesting to hear people on the Government Benches talk with a straight face about the equalisation of seats, having operated and implemented the English votes for English laws process in this Parliament. If Members want an English Parliament, they should create it, and I will support it, but it is no substitute for our national Parliament, which is this Chamber. It is hard to listen to equalisation arguments, having been unnecessarily excluded from so many votes in this place since the creation of that policy.

As I say, every day is a school day, and it is interesting to learn that not only is there a song called “Sussex by the Sea”, but it is an anthem with a national day on which to be sung. The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) is looking at me because he understands all the nuances in our wonderful British Isles. It would have been no surprise to him, but it was to me.

Having heard the comments from the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), who is not in the Chamber, about how much he enjoyed the Bill Committee, I suppose I should probably not admit that I gave evidence to the Committee and probably added to the pain and suffering that he and other Committee members endured. I was pleased to give evidence as our party’s director of elections.

Some important contributions have resurfaced today, not only from the Bill Committee but on the amendment paper, and should be considered. I can see no argument against parliamentary sovereignty or parliamentary scrutiny of boundary commission proposals. I added my name to amendment 1 for that precise purpose. The hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) made the argument earlier about setting the task and then agreeing with the conclusion, and that is our role.

I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) when she suggests that there is a commensurate removal of Executive power. When I gave evidence to the Bill Committee, I think I was fair when I reflected that there is no equivalence or equalisation between parliamentary sovereignty and approval and a technical amendment mechanism that is not used by Ministers and has not been used by Ministers. I have yet to hear Ministers put forward a comprehensive or compelling example of when that ministerial power was used and how it is of equal comparison to the removal of parliamentary approval for boundary commission proposals in respect of the restructure in the Bill. I do not think there is such an example and I have yet to hear one, but I am happy to give way should somebody wish to correct me.

I support new clause 1, but it is fair to say that it contains many arguments in which I have no part to play. I will not put forward arguments about the retention of seats in Wales—that is for others—or about the retention of seats in Scotland, either. In 2018, the Government published the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill, which secured 18 seats for Northern Ireland. It was published but never progressed, but that legislative commitment was given by Government, and it was important for the constitutional and balanced position that we have in Northern Ireland. It was a commitment that was given and has not been repeated in this Bill, which is hugely regrettable, so I will support new clause 2 if it is brought to a vote.

On new clause 1, there are fair arguments about 5% and how much better the constituencies will be with the increase of every percentage point thereafter. This has not been raised in the Chamber thus far, but Members will know that, under the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, Northern Ireland has a special provision in rule 7 whereby, if the Boundary Commission is unable to construe boundaries with geographical significance or there is no further inaccuracy, we are allowed to have a tolerance of 10%. That rule is retained in this Bill, and we think it is an important rule. The Minister will know from the comments I made in evidence to the Bill Committee that, following a judicial review last year and the Court of Appeal judgment issued only two months ago, Boundary Commission proposals from Northern Ireland were struck down in the operation of rule 7, and we are concerned that there may be a chilling effect on the application of rule 7 in future Boundary Commission proposals.

We will support the increased tolerance from 5% to 7.5% because we think that it would give the greater flexibility required to ensure that Boundary Commission proposals in Northern Ireland are fair, balanced and not infected by other historical arguments that could be brought into the process. However, I am keen to hear from the Minister how lessons can be learned from the application of rule 7 and that the 10% tolerance—or 20%, since it is plus or minus 10%—is important for Northern Ireland, and future boundary commissioners should not be precluded from using it, because it plays an important part in the Boundary Commission process in Northern Ireland, and ultimately it needs to be retained.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Things have perked up enormously on the time front. However, from now on, if Members could stick to five minutes, everyone will be able to speak. I call Shaun Bailey.

[Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)]

Before I begin, on Black Country Day, I want to pay tribute to the Black Country chartists and suffragettes in Wednesbury and Tipton who fought for us to be here under one member, one vote and ensure that our constituents could be represented.

I fear that I may repeat many of the arguments that had been made eloquently today. It is great to follow the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), who gave enlightening and interesting evidence to the Bill Committee. I would like to thank all members of the Bill Committee. It was my first Bill Committee, and what a Bill Committee to be on. As my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) put it, it allowed me to utilise my psephological exuberance, which is a fantastic phrase that I will try to make sure I get into conversations from now on.

I want to touch on three main points. The first is on automaticity—a word that I have finally learned to say without tongue-twisting. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) said in Committee, at the moment we are in a situation where we mark our own homework; there is no doubt about that. I do not understand how we can reconcile that. I repeat what I said on Second Reading: what is being proposed is an independent, judiciary-led commission. I have trust and faith in our judiciary. I am a lawyer—that is bred into me. Unless someone wants to take me to school on this, my understanding of our constitutional structure is that this place sets the laws, and the judiciary help to interpret them, so I do not understand where this fear of what is business as usual comes from.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) articulated the point eloquently, as did my neighbour, the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar), about the Boundary Commission’s Selly Oak proposal. The independent commission took evidence from the community, after which it made the decision that the proposal was not acceptable. We talk about this as if, once we get the initial recommendations, that is it—game over. It is not like that at all. Those who have been through the experience of a boundary change know full well that it is not like that, so I struggle to accept that argument from the Opposition.

When we talk about a 7.5% threshold, it is not actually 7.5%—it is 15%. Let us be honest about that. The Venice Commission report, which Opposition Members have quoted freely, states clearly that that 15% threshold is for exceptional circumstances.

The semantics of that report were quite clear. It effectively advised to steer well clear of going anywhere near that, and actually went so far as to suggest that we should keep that threshold as minimal as possible to ensure certainty, fairness and parity among constituencies. I do not accept Opposition Members’ interpretation of that report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I call Emma Hardy.

[Emma Hardy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

No, I am afraid that time is very tight.

The predecessor Committee to mine suggested 10%, with a 15% allowance in exceptional circumstance. That was agreed across the parties in 2015; this is a far more modest proposal. Of course the Boundary Commission should aim to be dead on—no one is saying otherwise—but where that is impossible, we should allow it flexibility. To use a judicial analogy, we should allow the judge to use their expertise, rather than tying their hands behind their back.

We know that if the rules are written incorrectly, we will get a gerrymandered outcome. That is not the fault of the commissioners; it is not the fault of the judges, although it is not a judicial but a quasi-judicial process; it is a fault in how the rules are written, which is why it is so important that the question should come back here. It is not we who vote in Parliament; our votes are for the people, so removing this place’s oversight is removing the oversight of the people.

Finally, I will quickly touch on how we look at the numbers. The 1917 boundary review, which was the first major boundary review in this country, used census data. The 1911 census, which I have been looking at recently while doing my ancestry—scarily, I am related to the Eustices; I must inform the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—was used as the building block, because it was both the census and the electoral roll. Splitting it has meant that we no longer have an automated electoral roll. If we either had an automated electoral roll or used the census, we would have fairer constituencies as well. I am disappointed that the Government have not included that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call Alex Davies-Jones.

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

Diolch, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this very important Bill; I will keep my comments brief because I know that we are short on time.

It will come as no surprise that I have concerns about the restrictive 5% electoral quota and the impact that it will have on constituencies such as the area that I represent in the heart of the south Wales valleys. Creating constituencies that make sense to the local communities is even harder with our local geography. I know that this has already been eloquently explained by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake), but locals in my patch in Pontypridd and across Rhondda Cynon Taf will tell you in a heartbeat that it would make no sense for constituencies to have more than one valley and a mountain range in between. Indeed, during her evidence session, Shereen Williams of the Local Democracy and Boundary Commission for Wales said:

“I think the valleys will present a unique challenge for us, because you do not really want to split a valley and have half in one seat and the other half in another seat.”––[Official Report, Parliamentary Constituencies Public Bill Committee, 18 June 2020; c. 20, Q35.]

I completely agree. It is clear that our stunning valleys should be given greater consideration than the 5% variance in drawing Welsh boundaries, and I urge colleagues to support a flexible and sensible approach.

Naturally, I also have general concerns that Wales will be hit most by the loss of constituencies in the next boundary change, because of the large population shifts in the area over the past 20 years, which colleagues have alluded to. I have also been shocked, frustrated and actually quite tamping, for want of a better word, to read the incredibly reckless comments from colleagues in the Senedd, most notably from Mark Reckless MS, about abolishing the Welsh Parliament. It is clear, now more than ever, that the Welsh Parliament plays a vital role in scrutinising policy that has an impact on communities across Wales.

I urge colleagues on the Government Benches to stand with me and commit to strengthening, as opposed to weakening, Wales’s voice, both here in Westminster and in the Senedd. It is vital that the boundary commissioners be given greater flexibility to take into account our unique geography, particularly if we are to ensure that representation in Wales is not forgotten here in Parliament.

EU-UK Partnership: EU’s Mandate

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), who must represent one of the most beautiful parts of the UK. Sadly, I do not share his Panglossian view of where we are with the negotiations.

I tend to agree more with the former leader of the hon. Gentleman’s party, who asked the Prime Minister yesterday about the sorry state of manufacturing at the moment and the risk to car companies such as Nissan, with a possible 10% tariff to be levied if this does not go right. The purchasing managers index is down to 40, indicating contraction. We know that that is, in recession terms, a very serious position for manufacturing. The Governor of the Bank of England has described our economy as potentially going towards a depression rather than just a recession. This feels to me less like a Panglossian rebirth and more like a second punch in the face after covid.

I am very concerned about the sanitary and phytosanitary arrangements, which are not yet pinned down. I hope that the Minister will be able to clarify where she thinks we are on food standards. We have the gold standard at the moment, but we read in the newspaper concerns about the quality of imported food. What is her view of where we are with that negotiation?

Will the Minister also outline whether she believes we are likely to veer away from the excellent environmental protection standards in the European Union in order to save some of our businesses, which will be severely at risk? Will we cut corners on workers’ rights? Has she had conversations with the TUC about protecting the rights of workers? Obviously, statements were made about that in the last Parliament, and it was something that we debated a lot. However, given the way the economy is going at the moment—possibly even towards a depression—will the Government cut corners on important questions such as environmental protections and workers’ rights?

We have talked a lot this afternoon about Northern Ireland. Will the Minister please give businesses there clarity? They are not just important for communities in Northern Ireland; when we go to the shops and buy a bar of cheddar, which is our most popular cheese, we are buying it from farmers in Northern Ireland, so we all have an interest in getting these details right.

We know that the Prime Minister’s promise of an oven-ready deal with no checks at the border in Northern Ireland was a fiction. We now know that new red tape and rules will be introduced for the business community, much of which is small and medium-sized enterprises. Even a small amount of red tape can tip a small business into a problematic area, so please may we have some detail on that in writing, so that Members can disseminate it to those small businesses that are worried about it?

In conclusion, I beg for some pragmatism and not just an ideological approach to this important area. Given that we are in a seriously problematic area for our economy, we need to stop being ideological and be much more pragmatic.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call Duncan Baker. You have 90 seconds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Penny Mordaunt]

I can give the hon. Gentleman those assurances. I will just say, as a quick plug, as it is my Department, that the work that the civil service did last year in terms of those preparations was incredible and has made this country very resilient. We have drawn on much of the work that they did at that time to help us with the covid response. They are stellar individuals and I pay tribute to them for what they did then and for what they are doing now.

Finally, I just want to mention my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), who gave an extremely confident speech and reminded us why all this will come to pass. It is because it is good for us and it is good for our partners with which we are trying to get trade deals, and, as a consequence, I remain optimistic about our future.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

That concludes the debate. I understand that the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) wishes to withdraw his amendment.

[Paul Blomfield]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House, having regard to the constitutional and legal functions enshrined in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020, urges the Government to conduct its negotiations with the European Union with the fullest possible transparency to facilitate essential parliamentary scrutiny; also urges the Government to make regular progress reports on the negotiations, including on stakeholder contributions to the consultation on The Future Relationship with the EU: the UK’s Approach to Negotiations, and to address the issues identified by the European Scrutiny Committee in its Fifth Report of Session 2019–21, HC 333, as matters of vital national interest.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I have a short announcement. Further to the House’s decision earlier this afternoon to hold an emergency debate on the matter of the arrangements for the conduct of House business during the covid-19 pandemic, I can announce that the debate will be held at the commencement of public business on Monday and will last for up to two hours.

In order to allow the safe exit of right hon. and hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I will suspend the House for three minutes.