Oral Answers to Questions

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Katherine Fletcher]

I could not agree more with the hon. Lady. Women’s health issues are coming to the fore in the workplace. Although I do not have the level of detail to commit exact policy, I will get the Department of Health and Social Care to write to her about the matter.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

4. What her timescale is for the commencement and implementation of provisions in the Equality Act 2010 on reasonable adjustments to common parts of buildings for disabled people.

[The Minister for Women and Equalities (Kemi Badenoch)]

We are committed to the commencement of this provision of the Equality Act 2010. Our consultation on the detail of implementation closed on 18 August 2022, and we are analysing responses before taking further steps. We expect to introduce regulations and prepare comprehensive guidance prior to commencement in England and Wales in due course.

[Christine Jardine]

I welcome the Minister to her place. Access to public buildings is one of issues that my constituents most often bring to me: those who have a problem with accessibility feel that they are excluded in many ways. I know that, in England and Wales, there are almost half a million wheelchair users who are awaiting the results of the consultation for their own homes as much as for public buildings. I welcome the Minister’s statement, but can she assure us that this matter will not be put aside in the recent chaos?

Tributes to Her Late Majesty The Queen

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Friday 9th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

It is with a very sad sense of pride that I rise to speak on behalf of my constituents in Edinburgh West, many of whom have already visited the Palace of Holyroodhouse to lay flowers and pay their respects to Her Majesty in Edinburgh, a city she loved. She was at one of my very first events as an MP when she opened our magnificent Queensferry crossing. Most recently, she was celebrated at jubilee parties across the city.

I confess that my first thought when I heard the confirmation on Thursday that we had lost the Queen was of family—first, her family of course, but then my own family. When, as a child, I went to my first sighting of the Queen at the launch of a ship on Clydeside, I remember my grandmother telling me how wonderful the Queen was. She tried to explain to me about the war, the spirit and what the family had meant, and I thought I understood what she was saying. I thought I got it, until the night in 2020 when the Queen spoke to us at the darkest moment of the pandemic. She gave us hope; she told us we would meet again. It was not just that she empathised with our situation, but that she shared it.

I realise now that perhaps the reason why the Queen held such a special place in our hearts was that she shared our memories, our thoughts and our pain. She was also a link back to the loved ones we have lost, in that she had shared in the difficult times that they went through. Today, the speeches, reminiscences and memories we have heard in this place have all been very moving. They have all had a touch of gratitude and thankfulness for the fact that we have been part of those 70 years of her reign, and a heartbreaking recognition that that era has come to an end.

I think Her late Majesty would have been extremely proud to see our new King devote himself to the service of this country in the way that she did. While we might find this parting very sorrowful, and indeed heartbreaking, we now know that there is a future. Although our country will change—we will not have the constant figure we have had for 70 years—the transition will be smooth, there will be a future and it will be good. While we thank Her Majesty and wish that she rest in peace, we know that our future is secure. God save the King.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Wednesday 7th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for his question and for the work that he does chairing that assembly. I, too, believe, and thought when I left the Foreign Office in February, that there is a fairly obvious landing zone for the negotiations, and I very much hope and believe that that is the case today. I think that everything can be sorted out by negotiations, but we have legislation that we will use if not.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

3. What recent discussions he has had with representatives of political parties in Northern Ireland on the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill.

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Chris Heaton-Harris)]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I will be speaking to each of the Northern Ireland party leaders this week on a number of issues, including the protocol and, as I may have mentioned, will be urging them to form an Executive as soon as possible.

[Christine Jardine]

As the Secretary of State is probably aware, the leader of the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland has claimed that the Government have until now taken a rather differentiated approach to the parties, and only the Democratic Unionist party was consulted on the drafting of the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill. Given the crucial importance of the protocol to our future relationship with Europe, to the future of the United Kingdom and to the people of Northern Ireland, will he do everything that he can to ensure that each party is consulted equally?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Forgive me, but I do not think that that is completely correct, because all parties were consulted during the process—but yes, I will talk to everybody as I move forward.

Heatwave Response

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

The hon. Gentleman is correct that incidents such as these often serve to underline the importance of our collective mission on climate change. As somebody who has campaigned and been an enthusiast for the hydrogen economy for over 20 years now, I am always keen to welcome more people to the cause, but as we have seen in the debate elsewhere over the last couple of weeks, we have to take care that as we seek to progress and fight climate change, we bring the population with us. We need to illustrate to them that the work we are doing will not only make their lives better but, critically, make their children’s lives better, rather than characterising it as purely a cost today.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I am interested in what the Minister says about taking the public with us. Surely, following the past few days, the public are well aware of the impact of climate change and see the heatwave here in the United Kingdom and the five heatwaves across Europe as a consequence of inaction, or of being too slow to react to climate change. I am concerned about the contradiction between what he has said today and what we hear from his party’s leadership candidates about climate change and the action to combat it. Can he assure us that the Government are committed to continuing the fight to reach net zero as quickly as possible?

[Kit Malthouse]

The battle against climate change has been a central part of Conservative policy since the heady days of David Cameron, who campaigned on the slogan “Vote blue, go green.”

Contaminated Blood Scandal: Interim Payments for Victims

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

I cannot speak exactly to my hon. Friend’s point, but the general point he makes is a good one. There are issues across Whitehall and across Government that need to be addressed in all these matters. As I have said, that work is continuing with DHSC and across Government.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

We have all heard what the Minister has said, and we all appreciate that he appears to be genuinely concerned, but does he appreciate that, for our constituents who have waited decades, too much time has already been wasted, too many people have died and too many families have been left to suffer without the compensation and justice they so richly deserve? Will he please say something today to reassure them that they will get more than just more words?

[Michael Ellis]

I hope I can relay, and have relayed, to the House my feelings on the matter, which I am sure are the same as feelings across this House. This is not a party political issue. It is one about which we all feel strongly and we recognise the matter for what it is. Having said that, I know that the hon. Lady will understand that we have to go through the requisite processes to make sure we get these things right, and that is what is happening. This is not a question of dilatoriness and of sitting on one’s hands. Every effort is being made to process this matter as expeditiously as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Iain Stewart]

Scotland has a long and proud history of shipbuilding. What I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that the biggest threat to future orders is his party’s plan to break up the United Kingdom.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I come from a shipbuilding community and I saw the decline of shipbuilding on the Clyde, but my constituents in Edinburgh West are concerned about building up our industries and creating jobs. Does the Minister agree that moves to improve shipbuilding are far more important than money wasted on vanity projects, ferries that do not work and a referendum that the majority of people in Scotland do not want—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I want to hear the question. If Members do not want to hear it—[Interruption.] I would not challenge me.

[Christine Jardine]

Unfortunately, in Scotland we are used to the SNP shouting down people with whom it does not agree.

Does the Minister agree that the people of Scotland would be far better served by addressing these problems, assisting the UK Government in rebuilding our shipbuilding industry and helping constituents such as mine in Edinburgh West, rather than by wasting £20 million on a referendum on an issue we do not want to discuss again?

[Mr Speaker]

Come on, Minister. We have only half an hour. We cannot use it all on one question.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point, and I know the COP President will be happy to continue the work that is already under way.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

6. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on accelerating domestic renewable energy production to reduce carbon emissions and help ensure delivery of COP26 commitments.

[The COP26 President (Alok Sharma)]

The Government recently published the British energy security strategy, which sets out plans to turbocharge our clean energy transition. As I said earlier, the aim is to quintuple our offshore wind and solar PV capacities by 2030, while also significantly expanding nuclear and hydrogen. We aim to decarbonise our electricity sector fully by 2035.

[Christine Jardine]

While I welcome the Minister’s comments, all the evidence points to the fact that we need a drastic shift towards renewables if we are to meet our climate change commitment. What does he say about figures from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy that show a reduction in growth in renewable energy over the past few years, specifically in onshore wind? Will he commit to investing more in onshore wind, and to committing to hydrogen, so that all new housing developments are hydrogen capable when boilers are replaced and central heating systems are introduced?

[Alok Sharma]

As the hon. Lady knows, a lot of work is going on with hydrogen, and we published our hydrogen strategy last year. We have announced plans to double our available capacity to 10 GW of hydrogen production by 2030. We already have 14 GW of onshore wind deployed to date, and we have made it clear that we will be consulting this year on developing local partnerships for a number of other supportive communities that wish to host new onshore wind infrastructure. That will, of course, be in return for benefits, including lower energy bills.

Sue Gray Report

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Wednesday 25th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

No, since I saw the report this morning I have not had time to identify the custodians or cleaners in question, but as I told her hon. Friend, as soon as I can, I will apologise to them in person.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I am inordinately proud of the way my constituents and people up and down this country have dealt not just with the pandemic but with the economic crisis that they now face. None of that is reflected in the shameful behaviour we see set out in the report. Earlier—much earlier—I saw the Prime Minister look at his watch, and one of his colleagues suggested that perhaps we should want to turn the page on what has happened. Believe me, I think everyone in this place would like to turn the page and never have to revisit it, but the only way we can do that is if the Prime Minister accepts responsibility fully and moves on, so we can turn that page.

[The Prime Minister]

I am going to move on with the Government’s agenda, and that is exactly what we are going to do.

Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Thursday 21st April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Robert Neill]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observations. That brings me on to the point that I was about to make. The subject of the motion is not of itself the fixed penalty notice that was accepted by the Prime Minister, or any of the other fixed penalty notices. It is, as is rightly said, the question of whether there was a deliberate misleading of the House. I think that that is the common ground. Of course, the fixed penalty notices are part of the factual background that gives rise to that, and he is quite right to say that the Justice Committee was critical of the fixed penalty regime that was brought in on a number of counts, and in particular of the confusion that existed in many people’s minds—ordinary individuals whose cases would never be the subject of any comment in this House or in the media—of the distinction, or non-distinction sometimes, between guidance and law. We were critical of that, and critical also of the use of fixed penalty notices for what were specifically described—it is worth putting this on the record—as criminal offences.

I took the trouble to look again at the regulations. The original regulations, the Health Protection (Corona-virus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020, which were amended shortly before the incident with which we were concerned, specifically set out in terms that a failure to comply with a restriction under the regulations creates an offence, and the word “offence” is specifically used in the regulation.

We should not minimise that. We should not say, “This is a civil matter. This is equivalent to a parking ticket.” It is not. That is a simple question of fact. The Ministry of Justice accepted that in the statement it made when the regulations were brought in, and the Justice Committee, in carrying out that inquiry, heard that from the noble Lord Wolfson of Tredegar and Sir Jonathan Jones QC, the former Treasury Solicitor when they gave evidence to us. That is common ground.

I will equally accept, as I am sure anyone else with experience in legal matters would, that within the range of fixed penalties, a fixed penalty notice of £50 is at the lower end of the scale of available penalties. The Select Committee raised the question whether the level of fixed penalty notices imposed were appropriate to be dealt with via fixed penalty rather than fine, but that is by way of background. That is all very well. We are dealing with something that was an offence. Accepting the fixed penalty discharges and deals with a criminal matter, but it does not change its nature, so we should not try to minimise it, and I do not.

I will say, without having come to a final decision about the Prime Minister’s position, that I am profoundly disappointed in what happened at No. 10 Downing Street. People were badly let down. My constituents feel badly let down. I feel personally badly let down by what happened. There must be consequences that follow from that. I think anyone would accept, in fairness, that what that consequence is depends on an ultimate assessment of the measure of culpability. That is why I would prefer, both in making my personal decision and ultimately in the House’s making a decision, to wait until we have the full evidence and information before us.

Had the amendment in the Government’s name been moved, I would happily have voted for it, because I think that full evidence includes not just the conclusion of the police investigations and the issuance or otherwise of any other fixed penalty notices, but the content of the Sue Gray report. As anyone will appreciate, the Sue Gray report is likely to include material that gives background and context beyond the strict requirements of the statement of facts that go with a fixed penalty notice. It is important to have that.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

rose—

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Robert Neill]

Yes, and I agree with my right hon. Friend in that respect. It was unfortunate—I say no more than that—that the way the police investigation has been handled has led to a delay that may not have been needed in terms of prejudicing any ongoing investigations. As a matter of fact, I believe the report should be published in full at the earliest possible opportunity.

[Christine Jardine]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very sound legal argument, and I acknowledge where he is coming from. Does he agree that, in politics as in life, very often there comes a point where one needs one’s closest friends, one’s strongest allies, one’s wisest counsel, to put a hand on one’s shoulder and say, “Enough. What you’re doing now is going too far. It’s damaging yourself, in this case your party, and potentially the country. Stop. That is what is in the best interest.”?

[Sir Robert Neill]

That was a little more of a mini speech than an intervention. I will simply say this: I will speak for myself and the advice I give to my friends, my constituents and this Chamber. As I have made clear, I would have preferred to have the Sue Gray report as well as all other material before taking a decision on reference to the Committee, but I will not stand in the way of this unamended motion, because matters of important public interest arise.

Personally, I will withhold my final decision until I have all that material. You will understand, Mr Speaker, an obvious reason for that: a course of conduct may very properly attract a different judgment and different consequences from an isolated incident, particularly if it were one that were immediately admitted to and no more occurred. That context will be really important to me, and ultimately I think it will be important to this House, to the broader community and to the country as a whole.

That is my word of caution. That is why I would have supported the amendment and I understand and appreciate the spirit in which the Treasury Bench brought it forward, but I will not stand in the way of this motion’s proceeding, because there are important issues at hand. I will then, in due course, reach my final conclusion, and when I do, I will not be backwards in coming forwards about it. However, I hope I will manage to do so loyally, but, in the way I have tried to do politics, in a spirit of genuine calmness, based on the facts and the evidence. At the end of the day, the country deserves an assessment based calmly upon the evidence and the facts, applied to the relevant tests of this House or the other appropriate bodies.

Easter Recess: Government Update

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Member’s constituents very much for what they did throughout the pandemic. It is thanks to people up and down the country who followed the rules that we have been able to defeat covid, or beat it back in the way that we have, and I apologise heartily for what I got wrong.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I, like so many others in this place, I am sure, am profoundly proud of the way in which the people of this country stood together and showed commitment and resolve throughout the covid crisis. They are now facing a cost of living crisis, and on top of all that, they are giving 100% support to the people of Ukraine. It breaks my heart that they have been so badly let down by the person to whom they looked to lead them with the same sort of commitment and honour that they have shown. Does the Prime Minister recognise that no apology, however heartfelt or genuine, can make up for that loss of faith? Perhaps it is time he recognised that the people of this country deserve better.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Member very much, and I understand completely people’s feelings about covid, what they did and the failings in No. 10, but I think that the job of the Government is to get on and deliver for those very people now facing the cost of living crisis that she describes, and that is what we are going to do.