Ministerial Code: Investigation of Potential Breach

Charles Walker Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Quin]

There is nothing incorrect with the process, which is being conducted properly and professionally. The Prime Minister will gather the information and then decide the next steps. It is very simple.

[Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I have an admission to make: the Home Secretary is not on my Christmas card list, and I am certainly not on hers. I hope this is a question and not a statement: I find it hard to get my head around the fact that the BBC sent its political editor halfway across the world, to a G7 summit where energy security, Ukraine and defence were being discussed, to ask our Prime Minister a question about a speed awareness course. This is the question: why?

[Jeremy Quin]

As my hon. Friend is well aware, the BBC is editorially completely independent, but I absolutely hear what he says.

Tributes to Her Late Majesty the Queen

Charles Walker Excerpts

Saturday 10th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Broxbourne mourns the death of Her Majesty the Queen, but it celebrates her life of selfless service. Quite simply, I join my constituents now in saying: God save the King.

Ukraine

Charles Walker Excerpts

Thursday 24th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that there is a continual struggle beneath the surface of the sea between submarines that are out to sever cables and those of us who are trying to make sure those links are maintained.

[Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) asked a question about war crimes, and I suspect those crimes are already being committed by Russian soldiers against their Slavic brothers and sisters. Will the Prime Minister join NATO heads of state in setting out, at an early stage, how war crimes will be prosecuted so that all Russian soldiers, field officers, generals and, of course, politicians are brutally aware of where they will end up in a few years’ time?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and it is why we are working on setting up a particular international war crimes tribunal for those involved in war crimes in the Ukraine theatre.

Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

Charles Walker Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 6th July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our approach to the dissolution of Parliament and the calling of elections before the Fixed-term Parliament Act was robust, successful and effective and ensured that our democracy worked as it should. What we are doing is ensuring that those tried and tested procedures are restored, and in so doing not just fulfilling our manifesto pledge, but—and it was a pleasure to do so—fulfilling the manifesto pledge of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and making sure that democracy in that way is underpinned.

[Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act was probably the single worst piece of legislation that the coalition Government introduced? Fortunately, I did not vote for it then, but I will certainly be voting for this repeal tonight.

[Michael Gove]

Regarding the coalition years, I think that others are better placed—given that I served in the Government for five years—to decide which was the worst piece of legislation that was passed. The one thing I will say for the Fixed-term Parliaments Act is that it was very much a child of its time. It did achieve one purpose. It was introduced at the request of our Liberal Democrat coalition partners in order to ensure that, for the five years of that Parliament, neither party could collapse the Government in a way that might secure for either the junior or the senior coalition partner perceived political advantage. It did serve that purpose for those five years. Notwithstanding the points made by my hon. Friend, there was a significant range of achievements that the coalition Government can take pride in; nevertheless, the Act was specifically a child of its time. While it worked in that narrow sense, in cementing the coalition and ensuring it could achieve the policy gains that I believe were gained during those five years, its utility beyond those years in tougher circumstances has been tested to destruction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

That is definitely my understanding of constitutional practice, but—without getting into the details—there have been one or two recent decisions by the courts that might be thought by some to have moved one or two goalposts on the constitutional playing field. Lest there be any doubt, the ouster clause is there to affirm that interpretation. It is a new pair of braces to join the sturdy constitutional belt to which my hon. Friend refers.

Clause 4 makes it clear that the maximum length of any Parliament should be five years. Clause 5 contains some minor updates, taking account of how the Fixed-term Parliaments Act modernised our electoral law, and introduces the schedule attendant to the Bill. Clause 6 makes it clear that the Bill covers the whole of our United Kingdom.

[Sir Charles Walker]

On clause 4, will my right hon. Friend confirm that a maximum five-year term will mean that the latest that we could have a general election in this Parliament would be January 2025?

[Michael Gove]

I think that I would defer to others on fixing the precise date, but I believe that that is so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cat Smith]

It would not be at all like the Liberal Democrats to dig into a position and hold it. [Laughter.] I do not believe that that Parliament hit the troubles it hit necessarily just because of the FTPA. If the Act had not been in place, there would still have been huge problems, because the governing party could not command confidence within its own Members and have a majority for its flagship policy. That was the sticking point for that Parliament.

The Act has been used as quite an easy scapegoat. It is blamed for all the ills of that Parliament. While it is not a perfect piece of legislation, and I support its repeal, I can see that the principle of fixed terms is not, in itself, necessarily a bad thing. Indeed, I believe the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, said 10 years ago, during the passage of the Act, that it was the biggest move of powers from the Executive in several centuries. That raises the question, if we are to repeal that Act and go back to the status quo and the old way of doing things, whether today is the biggest transfer of powers from the legislature to the Executive. Indeed, the 2015 Conservative manifesto celebrated the Fixed-term Parliaments Act’s success:

“We have also passed the Fixed Term Parliament Act, an unprecedented transfer of Executive power.”

That raises the question of whether we are transferring power back to the Executive and, if so, whether that is something this House really wishes to do.

[Sir Charles Walker]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, as this is such a therapeutic exercise. It is 10 years of hurt. [Laughter.] I am like a dog with a bone. The problem with the Fixed-term Parliaments Act in 2011 was that it transferred responsibility for keeping the coalition together away from the leaders of each of the coalition parties to Parliament. It was never any of Parliament’s business to keep that coalition going; it was the responsibility of David Cameron and Nick Clegg.

I feel so much better for having got that off my chest for the second time in a decade. I thank the hon. Lady.

[Cat Smith]

If it does not work out in politics, perhaps I have a career as a therapist.

I find it remarkable that Ministers sitting on the Treasury Bench filed through the Lobby 10 years ago to vote for the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, as today they will presumably be voting the opposite way.

His Royal Highness The Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh

Charles Walker Excerpts

Monday 12th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Time is short and many Members wish to pay their respects to the Duke of Edinburgh, so I will be brief. I would like to pass on my condolences and those of my constituents to Her Majesty the Queen and her family. This is a sad and difficult time for them all, and they are in our thoughts and prayers.

European Union (Future Relationship) Bill

Charles Walker Excerpts

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

[Ian Blackford]

Really? I am amazed that the right hon. Gentleman, who of course comes from Scotland, seems to be threatening the people of Scotland with lack of access. Is that really the message the Conservatives want to deliver to the people of Scotland? Shame on him, shame on him, shame on him.

For all the Tory talk of levelling up, the deal is blatantly preparing the ground to level down on standards. Only in the last few days, the Institute for Public Policy Research has warned of what many of us have suspected all along: that the deal leaves workers’ rights and environmental protections at

“serious risk of being eroded.”

Another Brexit bubble that badly needs bursting is the myth that leaving the EU will somehow make it easier for businesses to trade. This is literally the first trade deal in history that puts up barriers to business instead of removing them. In 2016, the leave campaign’s assortment of lies included the claim that Brexit would remove red tape for business. Huh—since then, plenty of Brexit red lines have disappeared, but none of the red tape. This bad Brexit deal means that businesses will be burdened with mountains more bureaucracy and more costs. If the Prime Minister wants to disagree with that, I will certainly give way to him.

Presumably the Brexiteers think that that is okay, because the tape will now be coloured red, white and blue. [Interruption.] I hear the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster say, “It’s how they tell them.” He should tell that to the fishing businesses that all of a sudden will have to fill in customs declarations. He should tell them why, at his behest and based on his narrow ideology, that is the answer. The deal means more delay, paperwork and checks—[Interruption.] If he wants to deny that, he should rise to his feet. He knows that fishing businesses will face additional costs as a consequence of what his Government have done.

The deal means more delay, paperwork and checks, all of which will burden business, slow trade and cost jobs. This deal not only inflicts economic self-harm; it ignores economic reality. There is barely a reference in the deal to the service sector, which is 80% of the entire UK economy. Services have been left in complete limbo. Where there is any mention, it is not good news. The deal confirms an end to the financial passporting rights that have been relied upon by financial services firms across the United Kingdom.

Let me turn to the biggest betrayal of all: the broken promises to Scotland’s fishing communities. There are no Scottish Tory MPs in the Chamber. If there were, they would now be squirming. We know that the Brexit deal means a drop in key fishing stocks. For cod, haddock, whiting and saithe, the deal means less access to fish than under the existing arrangements. Let me say that again: less access to those fish than under the common fisheries policy.

One thing that is missing from the deal—I would have thought better of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—is the special privileges, the so-called Hague arrangements, that gave additional fishing rights to Scotland. They were not even negotiated as part of this deal. We have lost them, one can only assume, through the incompetence of the UK negotiators.

The Scottish Tories said that

“tying fishing to a trade deal”

was a red line that must not be crossed, yet here we are: it is exactly what has been done. Every single Tory promise—every red line—has been blown out of the water. Countless broken promises, but not even one resignation—yet. Not even one apology; not a hint of humility, or of regret.

I take no comfort in saying that this was predicted because this deal represents a history of bitter betrayal. Our fishing industry—our Scottish fishing industry—was sold out by the Conservatives on the way into Europe in 1973, and as the United Kingdom leaves, it has been sold out all over again. The Scottish Fishermen’s Federation knows that it has been conned, stating that the deal

“does not restore sovereign UK control over fisheries, and does not permit us to determine who can catch what, where and when in our own waters.”

[Interruption.] I hear the Prime Minister muttering, “Rubbish.” This is fishing organisation after fishing organisation in Scotland, Prime Minister, that knows exactly what you have done to them. For Scotland’s fishing communities, lightning might not strike twice, but the Tories definitely do.

The latest Scottish Tory leader, the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), gave one of the more graphic promises: he said that he would drink a pint of cold sick rather than vote for a deal that gave EU vessels access for two years. Well, this deal gives them five years’ access, and potentially much more. Let us just say that there will be plenty of Scottish voters in the north-east who will be very interested in what he is drinking after he and his colleagues break every single promise and walk through the Lobby with the Prime Minister.

In later speeches, my colleagues will attempt to cover and scrutinise as much as we possibly can, in the limited time, of the effect of this Bill in Scotland. It has to be said, though, that this lack of scrutiny is not helped by the stance taken by the Labour party. I am sad to say that the official Opposition have been missing in action. There was a time when Labour had six tests that it said needed to be passed in order for it to support any deal. Labour’s Brexit tests have disappeared as quickly as Tory promises. I can understand that this might be politically pragmatic for Labour, but it definitely is not politically principled. But I suppose political principle is hard to manage when you cannot even get a coherent position between Scottish Labour and its UK bosses. Unfortunately, when it comes to a position on this Brexit deal, Labour is literally all over the place. Today in the Scottish Parliament, Labour will join with the Scottish National party in refusing to grant a consent motion to this Bill. I am grateful for that. Labour will not only join us but the Greens and the Liberal Democrats standing with us: our Scottish Parliament united against the Tories, united against this Bill.

It is ultimately for others to explain their own actions and the litany of broken promises that will stay with them at the next election, because, in the end, this is not so much about the Brexit promises of political parties as about its impact on people. It is about respecting the democratic decisions that voters make. Both England and Wales voted to leave the European Union. They have decided that their future lies elsewhere. Let me make this clear: I may not agree with that decision, but I, and my party, respect it. This legislation respects it, and it forms a pathway to the future. The people of Northern Ireland voted to remain in the European Union. Due to the efforts of both Michel Barnier and the Irish Government, the protocol protects the peace process. It means that Northern Ireland avoids a hard border and stays in the European single market. I support that protocol and its protection of a hard-won peace. This deal respects that. That being said, the Scottish Tories, including Baroness Davidson and the former Scottish Secretary, the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), threatened to resign if Scotland was not offered the same deal as Northern Ireland. I say to both of them now that there is still time—we are still waiting.

The only democratic decision that has been ignored is the voice and vote of the Scottish people. None of this deal respects the choice that we made. I genuinely ask Members to reflect on that reality. Imposing this Brexit, imposing this deal means imposing a future that Scotland’s people did not vote for and do not want. Let us not forget that one of the central claims of the Better Together campaign in 2014 was that if we stayed in the UK, we would stay in the European Union. That is the promise that was made.

We were also told that if we stayed in the United Kingdom, we were to lead the United Kingdom. On the day after the referendum, that all changed: Scotland was told to get back in its box. Right through the Brexit process, Scotland’s voice has been ignored by Westminster, our attempts at finding compromise rebuffed at every opportunity, tossed aside on the premise that Westminster is supreme, locking Scotland out of the key decisions affecting our future and ignoring our desire to retain our European citizenship.

[Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Despite the right hon. Gentleman’s gloom, he knows that I adore and love his country. Does he not believe that Scotland has the character to succeed? Despite his misgivings, Scotland is a great country. Why is his speech so full of gloom and misery when Scotland has the character to prosper and succeed now?

[Ian Blackford]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. May I reciprocate and say that I love England and its people? I want us to maximise our opportunity, but this deal limits our opportunity. I want to unleash Scotland’s potential. That potential will be unleashed with an independent Scotland at the heart of Europe.

The Prime Minister’s broken promise on Erasmus has been such a totemic issue in the last few days. He will remember standing in this House and promising us that we will stay in the Erasmus programme. That betrayal denies our young people the opportunities that European citizenship has given us. It denies them the European freedoms that we cherish—living, working and studying abroad. Around 200,000 people have taken part in Erasmus, including around 15,000 UK university students each year. It is also important to say that Erasmus is not solely about university students but about supporting youth workers, adult education, sport, culture and vocational training. That is why the Scottish Government are so committed to exploring every opportunity to keep Erasmus in place for our people.

Even the very name Erasmus signals our long-established European links. That long tradition of connection comes right into the modern day with our own Winnie Ewing, Madame Écosse herself. Winnie, a former mother of the European Parliament, was Chair of the EU Education Committee that brought in the Erasmus scheme. [Interruption.] People at home will be watching this, and we have the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster laughing about the success of the Erasmus scheme. Utterly, utterly, utterly pathetic—utterly pathetic.

All that history between Europe and Scotland, all those links and all these opportunities are now at stake. Scotland’s story is European, and that story does not end today. Our past is European, and our future must be European. As a nation, that is a choice that we made in 2016, and I am confident that it is a choice we make now. We cannot support this legislation because it does not respect that choice and it does not provide for our future. Scotland’s course is now set, and it is a very different course from the decisions being taken in the Westminster Parliament. We know that the only way to regain the huge benefits of EU membership is to become an independent state at the heart of Europe once more. That is the decision that the Scottish people will make. We begin that journey today. There is now an empty seat at the top table in Europe. It will not be empty for long.

Public Health

Charles Walker Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

In these debates, we talk about elderly people as if they are not in the room. We talk over their heads. We patronise them. We say to them, “This is being done in your name to keep you safe and, really, your view is of little interest to us.” I have been contacted by many grandparents and parents who say, “Charles, not in my name. I do not want to see my children’s future destroyed or my grandchildren’s business destroyed. I do not want to see my son and daughter worrying about losing their home and their livelihood. I do not want to see my grandchildren arrested on the streets of London for daring to raise their voice in protest at the removal of their liberties.” Old people—the people we patronise—have a view, and we should listen to it. Of course, it is not a universal view, but it is a view that is held by many.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster asked on Saturday, “How could we protect every old person?” The answer is obvious to everyone in this place: we could not protect every old person, but we could provide them with the information to make informed choices about their own safety because, funnily enough, you do not get old by being that stupid. There is a degree of wisdom in older people, and I hope to achieve that wisdom one day myself.

There is a serious point here: no Government can abolish death. It is impossible. Every year, 615,000 people die in this country, and not every death is a tragedy. It is so distressing when I hear leaders of political parties, leaders of communities and leaders in this place say that every death was a tragedy. A tragedy is when a child dies. A tragedy is when some young woman or young man dies, or when someone is cut down in their middle years. When we say it is a tragedy that someone at 80 or 90 has met their mortality, we diminish that life so well lived. We diminish the love. We diminish the way that that person was cherished and valued. Please can we change the narrative when we talk about death? Not all deaths are equal—there is the same outcome, but to compare the death of someone of 90 with the death of someone of 19 is not right.

Of course, there has been tragedy attached to the death of elderly people, and that tragedy is that in their final days and months, they have been denied the touch of the people they love. We have kept families apart for the good of an old person who is desperate to see their child and desperate to be cared for by their daughter in their final weeks and months. My plea to this place is: please can we involve older people in this discussion? They love their children and grandchildren and want to see them prosper. They want to see them have the same chances and opportunities that they had in their life.

Public Health

Charles Walker Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

It is lovely to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Our freedoms are like the air we breathe. They are fundamental to us as a nation and to who we are as its people. Yet once again we stand on the threshold of using the rule of law to undermine the rule of law, the foundations of which have been laid over centuries. We are not asking our constituents to do anything. We have never asked; we have coerced them. We have coerced them through criminal and civil law. Let us not use the word “ask”, because it is not an accurate description of what we have done. We have criminalised freedom of association, the freedom to go about one’s business, the freedom to travel—and the freedom to protest. The freedom to protest is the oxygen of democracy. This hurts my head and it hurts my heart. Dismissing these sincerely held concerns as wanting to let the virus rip is both deeply ungenerous and deeply, deeply unkind, but in responding to that charge, I say that if this Parliament is not the place for disputation, delectable or otherwise, where is this rigour to be found? I want people to live long lives, full lives, happy lives, myself included, but my mortality—our mortality—is ultimately our contract with our maker, whereas our fundamental rights are our contract with Government. I will not be supporting this legislation. I think it is terribly unjust and, like my dear friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Sir Graham Brady), I think it is, in many parts, cruel.

I will have no part in criminalising parents for seeing their children and children for seeing their parents—no part. This legislation goes against my every instinct—perhaps an instinct even more fundamental than the love and touch of my family. I am not living in fear of the virus. I will not live in fear of the virus, but I am living in fear of something much darker, hiding in the shadows, and when the sunlight returns, and it will return, I hope that it chases those shadows away, but I cannot be sure that it will. I cannot be sure, and that is at the heart of my anxiety and the anxiety of so many of the people whom I represent in this place.

Covid-19 Update

Charles Walker Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The answer is yes because the furlough scheme is a UK-wide scheme and it applies across the whole of the UK. It is true that Scotland is currently taking a slightly different approach, but the right hon. Gentleman was talking complete nonsense about the non-application of furlough in Scotland—absolute nonsense. The Treasury of the United Kingdom has supplied £7.2 billion to support the people of Scotland, and quite right too. That has protected 900,000 jobs in Scotland, thanks to the might of the UK Treasury.

[Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I will not be supporting the Government’s legislation on Wednesday, because as we drift further into an authoritarian, coercive state, the only legal mechanism left open to me is to vote against that legislation. That is all we have left, Mr Speaker—if my constituents protest, they get arrested.

Given that the people of this country will never, ever forgive the political class for criminalising parents seeing children and children seeing parents, does the Prime Minister not agree with me that now is the time for a written constitution that guarantees the fundamental rights of our constituents—a constitution underpinned and enforced by the Supreme Court?

[The Prime Minister]

What the people of this country want, rather than delectable disputations on a written constitution, is to defeat the coronavirus. That is why I think that overwhelmingly they understand the need for these measures and the need for us to come together as a country and get the R down in the way that we are proposing.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Charles Walker Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 14th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Sir Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I hope I will not be too foul tempered tonight, Mr Deputy Speaker; it is not a disposition I warm to.

There is a worrying trend—a worrying narrative—emerging, and this debate is a good opportunity to get a lot of things on the record, as I build an argument in the next 2 minutes and 45 seconds. First, I am extremely concerned that we are placing severe restrictions on people’s liberties without any recourse to Parliament. I would actually vote, in certain circumstances, to take people’s liberties away if I thought it was in the national interest, but I would like to have the chance to debate it on the Floor of the House and represent the concerns of my constituents.

I am also concerned that we go around arresting old men in Trafalgar Square for having a peaceful protest and fining them £10,000. I never thought I would ever be defending Mr Corbyn in the Chamber, but I am—I am defending a Corbyn. We have to be allowed to protest without fear of arrest and being fined, and today we hear that the public will be urged to inform on their friends and neighbours, because granny has followed grandad into a family home of five. This is a profoundly un-conservative thing.

All these things are un-conservative, and I do think that we are being asked here to put this country—this House, Members of this House, our constituents—on the wrong side of the law before we have exhausted all other options. I am no fan of the EU—I was in every single Division Lobby for Brexit and I think the EU is a pain in the neck—but surely we have to exhaust all other options before we press the nuclear button.

I will not be voting for the Bill’s Second Reading, because if you keep whacking a dog, you shouldn’t be surprised when it bites you back. We are all Members of Parliament and we deserve to be taken seriously. I accept that there is a pandemic and a national crisis, but surely that is the time when our voices should be heard on behalf of our constituents. It is the most important time, so I hope—I see the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in his place—the Government go away tonight and the Prime Minister reflects on what is going on, listens to the concerns of this House and comes back with a solution that allows me to skip through the Lobby on Third Reading and support him on this important Bill. I do believe, colleagues, that the Conservative party is the greatest political party ever, and we have to have the courage to live up to that greatness.