Iran’s Nuclear Programme

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to correct a name that I gave wrongly in my speech. I said that Anoosheh Ashoori was in detention, but I was wrong to do so. The names that I wanted on the record were Mehran Raoof and Morad Tahbaz, who are in detention, and I obviously support a campaign for their release.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for having taken steps to correct the record immediately he realised there had been a mistake. The record now stands corrected.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Before I call the next Member, I inform Members that if they were to take between seven and eight minutes—or less—for their speeches, we would not need a time limit and this reasonable, balanced and informative debate would conclude at about 3 o’clock, or just before then, which is about the right time. The hon. Gentlemen who seek to catch my eye are all experienced enough to make their remarks fit that seven-to-eight-minute limit.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 27th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Most unusually, many people who—

[Bell Ribeiro-Addy]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

The hon. Lady has already spoken. She has forgotten. That really confused me—I am counting the people. I admire her enthusiasm. Most unusually, some Members who had indicated to Mr Deputy Speaker earlier that they wished to speak are not in the Chamber and appear not to wish to speak. Therefore, most unusually, I am going to extend the time limit, at least for a short while, to seven minutes.

Local Authority Boundaries (Referendums) Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Friday 25th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

My hon. Friend will agree that democracy is a process, not a state, and it evolves. Winston Churchill said:

“democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time”.—[Official Report, 11 November 1947; Vol. 444, c. 207.]

Does my hon. Friend agree with that, and does he agree that local democracy protects the interests of local residents, promotes equality, prevents the abuse of power and creates stability? Does he agree that these are all vital parts of the democracy for which he is fighting?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I appreciate that the hon. Lady is intervening on the hon. Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore), but she should be addressing the Chair.

[Sally-Ann Hart]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Recognition of the State of Palestine

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Thursday 24th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

As the House can see, a great many people wish to speak this afternoon, so we will have to start with a time limit of five minutes. That will probably reduce later, but, with five minutes, I call Matthew Offord.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

After the next speaker, the time limit will go down to four minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We have to reduce the time limit to three minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)]

Madam Deputy Speaker,

“statehood for the Palestinians is not a gift to be given, but a right to be acknowledged”.—[Official Report, 28 November 2012; Vol. 554, c. 230.]

I first heard those words in 2012, at the time of the historic United Nations vote, and I heard them again today from my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott), whom I thank for securing the debate. We are a decade on from that vote, and there is still no visible light at the end of the tunnel for the Palestinians; if anything, the tunnel is becoming bleaker and darker. We know that for nearly seven years there have been no peace talks; we also know that since Senator Kerry’s initiative, there has been no serious attempt at negotiations.

The Conservative party’s stated claim is that it wants a negotiated solution through peace talks before it recognises Palestine. Let us call a spade a spade, and be honest with ourselves and the House: any recognition of Palestine would not cut across any peace negotiations because the fact remains that none exist, and there is no realistic prospect of any existing because successive Israeli Administrations lurch further to the right and continue to build illegal settlements at a rapid pace, thus changing the geographical reality on the ground and making the possibility of a viable Palestinian state increasingly unlikely.

I do not have an issue with a party that has a different view on foreign policy. What I do have an issue with is the party’s hypocrisy. It cannot say that it wants a two-state solution while recognising only one state. We often talk about the right of Israel to exist, but Palestine also has a right to exist. Not recognising the state of Palestine is denying Palestine’s right to exist. We cannot repeatedly reaffirm our commitment to Palestinian self-determination through United Nations resolutions and leave it unfulfilled.

Let me put this in simple terms. Indians come from India, Americans from America, the English from England, the Scottish from Scotland, the Welsh from Wales and the Irish from Ireland, so it is surely not a leap of faith to understand that Palestinians come from Palestine—a country, a state. In the light of that fact, I urge the Minister to stop using the phrase “occupied territories” and start using the phrase “Palestine”. These are not territories; they are a country, a state.

I began my speech by referring to the United Nations recognition of Palestine a decade ago. The then Foreign Secretary, William Hague—now Lord Hague—said then, “There will be a time when we will have to recognise the state of Palestine.” That time has come. The world is watching, and I promise the House that history will not judge us kindly for continuing to abdicate our responsibilities again and again, as we did, shamefully, at the United Nations, because if we do not do this now, there will be no Palestine left to recognise.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I am really trying to get everyone in, so I have to reduce the time limit to two minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Asia and the Middle East (Amanda Milling)]

May I say how grateful I am to the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) for securing this debate? I thank Members from all parties for their contributions.

The UK’s position on the middle east peace process is clear and well known: we support a negotiated settlement leading to a safe and secure Israel living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state. We firmly believe that a just and lasting solution that delivers peace for both the Israelis and the Palestinians is long overdue—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. It is most discourteous to the Minister, who is responding to a very serious debate, for Members to come in at the end of the debate and talk among themselves. Please, stop it.

[Amanda Milling]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We also believe the best way to make progress towards such a solution is through negotiations between both sides that take account of their legitimate concerns. To that end, a two-state solution is the only way to protect Israel’s Jewish and democratic character and realise Palestinian national aspirations. The resumption of two-way negotiations, with international support, is the best way to get to an agreement.

The UK will recognise a Palestinian state at a time when it best serves the objective of peace. Bilateral recognition in itself cannot deliver peace or end the occupation. Without a negotiated settlement, the conflict and the problems that come with it will continue.

The UK works closely with international partners to strongly advocate for a two-state solution and encourage a return to meaningful negotiation between both parties. We welcome recent engagement between the Government in Israel and the Palestinian Authority. That engagement includes discussions between the Ministries of Finance aimed at improving the economic conditions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Such direct engagement is vital, given the scale of the challenges. We consistently call for an immediate end to all actions that undermine the viability of the two-state solution.

The UK remains resolute in its commitment to Israel’s security. We have been clear that Israel has a legitimate right to self-defence in responding to attacks—

Countering Russian Aggression and Tackling Illicit Finance

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Are you able to help me? I may have inadvertently misled the House earlier today when I said in a point of order that the Prime Minister was intending to correct the record of what he had said yesterday regarding whether Roman Abramovich had or had not been sanctioned—the Prime Minister said yesterday that he had, but I think he now admits that he has not. I was told by one of the Prime Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretaries yesterday afternoon that he was going to write to me, and that there would be an apology. I gather that a version of the Prime Minister’s apology was submitted a while ago for a clarification, as is standard practice for Ministers, but I understand that has now been withdrawn. So the Prime Minister was going to correct the record, but now he is correcting correcting the record by not correcting the record. Can you confirm that that is the case, Madam Deputy Speaker?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order but, to be perfectly honest, I am having difficulty in grasping what his actual question is. He has asked me to confirm something, but I would have to be absolutely certain what it was that I was confirming before I could say that I was confirming it. This is a very serious matter and I want to make sure that we get the facts correct. I am told that a written ministerial statement has now been published and is available online. It might be that that contains the information for which the hon. Gentleman is searching. I am quite sure that if the record requires to be corrected, the Prime Minister will have it corrected.

[Chris Bryant]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I just wonder whether that is the correct procedure for a Minister. Normally we have a specific procedure in the House for correcting the record, which is only available to Ministers, so it would seem very odd to have sent forward a correction of the record through the standard process and now suddenly to divert down a completely different route, namely a written ministerial statement. My understanding was that written ministerial statements were normally announced in advance, rather than being suddenly sprung on the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, and there does seem to be some confusion. My understanding is that the written ministerial statement, which the hon. Gentleman is suggesting has been withdrawn, has not been withdrawn, and that it stands. Does that help the hon. Gentleman?

[Chris Bryant]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. No, I am sorry, but it does not. As I understand it, earlier this afternoon, during this debate, the Prime Minister submitted a correction to the record, as is standard practice for a Minister who has misled the House inadvertently—in those circumstances, Ministers correct the record. As far as I know, this is the first time the Prime Minister has chosen to do so—hurrah.

What I understand you now to be saying, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that instead of correcting the record—which is the standard, proper process for a Minister—the Prime Minister has decided to table a written ministerial statement. As I understand it, written ministerial statements are only meant to be tabled when they have been announced in advance on the Order Paper, and, as far as I am aware, that is not available.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Now I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. I have to say that I think it is better that I tell the truth to the House, because I am not aware of exactly what this situation is, but I will immediately, by the methods available to me, find out precisely what the situation is, because—I note that those on the Government Front Bench are agreeing with me—it is very important that the information available to the House, to the Chamber and more widely is correct and accurate. I have a great appreciation of the point made by the hon. Gentleman. I want to make sure that the information I give to the House is accurate, and as I do not have it at my fingertips, I will find it and announce it as soon as I possibly can.

Now, where were we? I call Alison Thewliss.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made a perfectly reasonable point of order, and I could not give a clear answer. As I consider it to be extremely important that information given in the House, particularly from the Chair, should always be absolutely clear, I would like to make clear the proper answer to his question.

The hon. Gentleman is concerned that the Prime Minister sought to clarify, by means of a written ministerial statement today, something that he said in the House yesterday. That is perfectly proper. The written ministerial statement was notified on today’s Order Paper and has since been properly published. It has not been withdrawn, so it stands. It says:

“Further to my answer to the Rt Hon member for Barking during my oral statement on Ukraine, it is the position that oligarchs at the heart of Putin’s inner circle and banks which have bankrolled the Russian occupation of Crimea have been targeted by the first wave of UK sanctions in response to Russia’s further violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty. As I said in my answer, these include Gennady Timchenko, Russia’s sixth richest oligarch, to whom she referred in her question, and Boris and Igor Rotenberg, two long-standing associates of the regime. In the event of further aggressive acts by Russia against Ukraine, we have prepared an unprecedented package of further sanctions ready to go. Further details can be found at: UK hits Russian oligarchs and banks with targeted sanctions: Foreign Secretary’s statement—GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

Roman Abramovich has not been the subject of targeted measures.

More generally anyone who comes to this country on an Israeli passport is a non-visa national. Israelis are required to obtain a visa if they want to live, work or study in the UK.”

I hope that clarifies the position and that the hon. Member for Rhondda will be pleased the matter is now absolutely clear. [Interruption.] We will have no more on this. I have clarified it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I hope we can manage without a formal time limit. If everybody takes around six minutes, we will manage without one, but if that does not happen, I shall put on a time limit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Seely]

I will make some progress.

Does anyone here respect Peter Mandelson, or does anyone want to—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must not directly criticise a Member of Parliament, and that includes peers. I would like him to change his remarks somewhat and make his point without reference to the peer he has just mentioned.

[Bob Seely]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would anyone like to defend the actions of various peers who have defended—

--- Later in debate ---

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)]

I congratulate Labour Front Benchers on calling this debate, because we are required to come together today to discuss, to expose and to unravel what could be the greatest coincidence in British politics. The cynical would say, in the words of Yogi Berra, that it is almost too coincidental to be a coincidence, although of course this House would not hazard such a judgment, but here it is: on the one hand we have a Government who have presided over the most comprehensive failure to tackle economic crime, which is a failure so profound that we have earned a reputation around the world as one of the world’s capitals of money laundering, yet on the other hand we have a flood-tide of money—not £2 million, not £3 million but over £4 million, and counting—that has come into Tory party coffers from generous souls with close ties to Russia. The ministerial code, for what it is worth, says that Ministers are required not only to avoid a conflict of interest but to avoid an appearance of a conflict of interest.

I therefore speak today in a spirit of great generosity to the Minister, because I want to try to extract him from the pickle that he now finds himself in. I am seriously concerned that Tory Ministers are now exposed to the allegation that they are quite simply poodles on roubles. In that spirit of generosity, I want to set out the two problems that the Minister will be required to resolve if he is to escape such an appearance over the weeks, months and years to come. Problem No. 1 is the gaping hole where a plan for tackling economic crime should be. We know the scale of the problem because the National Crime Agency has told us. It says that the scale of economic crime is some £100 billion a year in money laundering and £190 billion lost to fraud—a total of £290 billion. That is a significant chunk of our nation’s GDP, so this is not an insignificant problem: it is a monumental problem over which the Government are presiding. Secondly, the reputational damage is so serious that think-tanks in Washington are writing reports saying things like:

“uprooting Kremlin-linked oligarchs will be a challenge given the close ties between Russian money and the United Kingdom’s ruling Conservative Party”.

How on earth has the Conservative party got itself into this mess? Well, it is quite a story. I am going to rattle through the 10 key steps that have led the Government to get into this mess. First, they abolished the Minister in charge of economic crime. When the Minister was appointed—[Interruption.] Well, he was appointed with the title of Minister for Security and Borders, whereas his predecessor was known as the Minister for Security and Economic Crime. So the Government are taking economic crime so seriously that they deleted it from the title of the Minister who has been asked to wind up this debate.

Secondly, the Government have now tasked not one, not two but 12 different agencies with tackling the problem of economic crime without going to the trouble of appointing someone to be in charge of these 12 different agencies so as to lead the charge. Thirdly, they have neglected to implement 60% of the measures in their own economic crime plan. Going through the list of measures rated “red” by the Royal United Services Institute, some of them are pretty significant, such as making sure that the police get serious about tackling fraud and economic crime.

Next, the Government have starved the National Crime Agency of so many resources that its director general says that it will not take on cases where it thinks the legal costs will be too high. Then they have failed to equip Companies House with the powers to check information sent in by people setting up shell companies. According to the Minister, there are now 11,000 companies on the register that still have not filed returns on who is the person with significant control, yet how many prosecutions have we had? One hundred and nineteen. It is pathetic; it is lamentable. Then they have failed to bring forward a register of beneficial ownership of property, like the multi-million-pound mansions in Westminster. Then they have failed to use our unique role in the global financial economy to light up where bad actors are doing bad things. SWIFT, the financial messaging system, is based in the UK. We are the global hub, along with New York, of financial settlement worldwide. We could be using the panorama of information to which we have access to light up bad people, to create intelligence packages and then to ensure that those people are pursued to the ends of the earth.

We have failed to stop our courts being used as arenas to silence journalists such as Catherine Belton and Tom Burgis, who are pursuing bad and corrupt companies. Thank God for HarperCollins and Arabella Pike because, frankly, without such brave publishing houses, we would not have the truth brought into the public domain. Then we have the Government’s failure to introduce a foreign agents registration Act, despite the fact that it works in America and Australia. To cap it all, they have failed to offer us any kind of hard timetable for the economic crime Bill, which is an omission so serious that they lost their own Minister to it in the House of Lords.

Those 10 elements—this 10-step decent into chaos—is why we now have a situation where the grand total of unexplained wealth orders targeted against oligarchs is zero. Apart from the Magnitsky sanctions, which came from a list of the crimes handed to us in 2007, we have not proposed any sanctions for economic crime against Russian-born individuals since 2014. Some might say that is benign neglect; others might say it is malign neglect; and others might say that the Conservative party has been paid to look the other way.

I am sure we were all reassured by the Secretary of State for Instagram’s appearance on “BBC Breakfast” this morning, where she—the Foreign Secretary—told a grateful nation that the Tory party vets its donors and that we must not confuse Russian heritage with proximity to President Putin. I think we would all agree with that, which is why, in the spirit of generosity and helpfulness, I offer my vetting services to those on the Conservative Front Bench this afternoon.

Let us start with Lubov Chernukhin, who has donated £2.1 million. The Guardian revealed that her husband, Vladimir, who was appointed deputy chairman of VEB, which was not sanctioned yesterday, received $8 million from Suleiman Kerimov, who was sanctioned by the US Treasury in 2018. The transfer to Vladimir came on 29 April 2016, mysteriously just before a donation of £1.5 million to the Conservative party. Then there is Alexander Temerko, a man who, it is said,

“forged a career at the top of the Russian arms industry and had connections at the highest levels of the Kremlin”.

He was a former deputy chairman of Yukos Oil Company and somehow mysteriously escaped the purge of his colleagues. He has now donated £747,000. He has been working very closely with Viktor Fedotov, a director of Aquind, a source of great largesse to many Members in the House. Mr Fedotov is the former head of a subsidiary of Lukoil, and was revealed in the Pandora papers as a man who, along with two others

“made fortunes from the company in the mid-2000s, around the time it was alleged to have been siphoning funds from the Russian state pipeline monopoly Transneft.”

Then we have Dmitry Leus, who has donated £54,000. According to the Daily Mail, he was

“found guilty of money laundering and jailed in Russia in 2004. The conviction was later overturned and he insists the prosecution was politically motivated.”

Here is the mystery: he also donated to the Prince’s Foundation, which has decided to return Mr Leus’s money. The House will be amazed to hear that the Conservative party has not.

Then we have Mohammed Amersi. He and his wife have given £793,000 to the Conservative party. The BBC said he was involved in one of Europe’s biggest corruption scandals, which entailed $220 million being paid to a Gibraltar-based company owned by the daughter of the President of Uzbekistan. He has always insisted that his donations came from UK profits, but the Financial Times tells us that he

“received $4m from a company he knew to be secretly owned by a powerful Russian”—

Putin’s then telecoms Minister.

Then we have Murtaza Lakhani, whose firm Mercantile & Maritime has donated £500,000. This is the chap who Bloomberg tells us has been revealed as making large parts of his fortune through channelling

“a $6 billion torrent of cash”

from the Russian oil giant Rosneft to Kurdistan. The money flowed to a company registered in the tax haven of Belize, with a mailing address in Cyprus.

Then we have David Burnside, formerly of this parish. His firm has donated £200,000. Mr Burnside boasts links to senior figures in the Kremlin. The Guardian reported that he

“has introduced several prominent Kremlin figures to senior Conservatives”,

including Mr Putin’s old friend, Vasily Shestakov.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I note that the right hon. Gentleman has a long list. I wonder whether he could just deliver it a little bit faster.

[Liam Byrne]

I will conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I think my vetting services have been exhausted for the Front Bench. I will conclude by saying that Conservative Ministers are behaving like innocents abroad in a world that is not innocent. No wonder people are now saying that the capital of Londongrad is not Mayfair but Matthew Parker Street, home of Conservative central office. The cruel would say it is 5 Hertford Street, co-owned by Jamie Reuben, scion of the family that made its fortune in the Russian aluminium wars and, as we know, the place where the Foreign Secretary insists on her £3,000 lunches.

The Government have to work harder to persuade us that there is not a coincidence. They have to persuade us that they are not poodles on roubles. They have to bring forward a proper plan for tackling economic crime, not least because of the fact that the financial services industry is worth £165 billion to this country, and it employs millions of people who work hard every day. But we trade on our reputation, and right now, this Government are destroying that reputation for good.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

We are doing quite well, but I have to impose an informal time limit of five minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Seely]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In my speech, I was going to name another Member of the House of Lords—I will not do so—who has recently taken leave of the House of Lords to work for Russian interests but does not want to declare what he is doing. Because that person has taken leave, could one mention them in a speech—or despite them taking leave, is one still not allowed to mention them?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. My immediate answer, but I stand to be corrected if I am wrong, is that someone who has taken leave is still a Member of Parliament—a Member of the House of Lords—and must be treated as such in a debate here and not criticised directly by name. There are good reasons why we do things in this way. That is my answer to the hon. Gentleman.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I now have to reduce the time limit to four minutes.

Sanctions

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Hon. Members have been most disciplined in keeping their speeches to around 10 minutes, but I hope that now Members will keep their speeches to around eight minutes. We have managed without a formal time limit and it would be better if we could continue without one. If people keep to around eight minutes, everyone will have an equal chance to speak.

Elections Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 17th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Relevant documents: Fifth Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Legislative Scrutiny: Elections Bill, HC 233 / HL 58; Seventh Special Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Legislative Scrutiny: Elections Bill: Government Response to the Committee’s Fifth Report, HC 911; Fifth Report of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, The Elections Bill, HC 597; Oral evidence taken before the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee on 7 and 14 September 2021 on the Elections Bill.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

The programme (No. 2) motion has not been moved. We will therefore proceed in accordance with the original programme order of 7 September 2021. Report must be brought to a conclusion no later than 9 pm; any debate on Third Reading must be concluded no later than 10 pm. There will be a single debate on all new clauses, new schedules and selected amendments until 9 pm. Decisions at the end of the debate will be taken no later than 9 pm in the sequence on the revised selection list, which is slightly different from the sequence on the amendment notice paper.

I hope that that is clear; it is because the notice paper was prepared to match the programme (No. 2) motion on the Order Paper, which has not been moved.

New Clause 11

Power to make regulations about registration, absent voting and other matters

“Schedule (Power to make regulations about registration, absent voting and other matters) contains provision, including provision amending Schedule 2 to RPA 1983, in connection with applications relating to registration, applications to vote by post or proxy, and applications for particular kinds of document.”—(Kemi Badenoch.)

This new clause, to be inserted after clause 1, introduces NS1.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[The Minister for Levelling Up Communities (Kemi Badenoch)]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government new clause 12—Purposes referred to in section 39.

New clause 1—Voting from age 16 in parliamentary elections—

“In section 1(1)(d) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (definition of voting age for parliamentary elections), for ‘18’ substitute ‘16’.”

This new clause would lower the voting age to 16 in UK parliamentary elections.

New clause 2—Permissible donors—

“(1) Section 54 (permissible donors) of PPERA is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (2)(a), after ‘register’ insert ‘at the time at which the donation is made, but not an individual so registered as an overseas elector;”.

This new clause would prevent overseas electors donating to political parties in the UK.

New clause 3—Citizens’ assembly on electoral systems—

“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a citizens’ assembly representative of the population aged 16 and over to consider electoral systems in the United Kingdom.

(2) The Secretary of State must, for each category of election reformed by section 10 (Simple majority system to be used in elections for certain offices), provide to the assembly a report assessing the effects of the reforms on the matters in subsection (3).

(3) The matters are—

(a) voter engagement and understanding,

(b) electoral integrity,

(c) fairness and proportionality.

(4) A report under subsection (2) must be provided to the assembly no later than three months after the first election in each category of election after this section comes into force.

(5) The assembly must—

(a) consider the reports under subsection (2),

(b) consider other evidence relating to the matters in subsection (3).

(6) The assembly may make recommendations for legislative or policy change, including for parliamentary elections.”

New clause 4—Automatic Voter Registration—

“(1) It is a duty of—

(a) the Secretary of State; and

(b) registration officers

to take all reasonable steps to ensure that persons eligible to register to vote in elections in the United Kingdom are so registered.

(2) The Secretary of State must by regulations require public bodies to provide information to registration officers in accordance with the duty under subsection (1).

(3) Regulations under subsection (2) must apply to public bodies including but not limited to—

(a) HM Revenue and Customs;

(b) the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency;

(c) the National Health Service;

(d) NHS Scotland;

(e) all types of state funded schools;

(f) local authorities;

(g) the Department for Work and Pensions;

(h) HM Passport Office;

(i) police forces;

(j) the TV Licensing Authority.

(4) Registration officers must—

(a) use the information provided under regulations under subsection (2) to register otherwise unregistered persons on the appropriate electoral register or registers, or

(b) if the information provided does not contain all information necessary to register a person who may be eligible, contact that person for the purpose of obtaining the required information to establish whether they are eligible to register and, if so, register them on the appropriate electoral register or registers.

(5) If a registration officer has registered a person under subsection (4), the officer must notify that person within 30 days and give that person an opportunity to correct any mistaken information.

(6) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to registration officers on fulfilling their duties under this section.

(7) Where a person is registered under subsection (4), that person shall be omitted from the edited register unless that person notifies the registration officer to the contrary.

(8) Nothing in this section affects entitlement to register to vote anonymously.”

New clause 5—Voting by convicted persons sentenced to terms of 12 months or less—

“In section 3(1A) (exceptions to the disenfranchisement of prisoners) of the Representation of the People Act 1983, after ‘Scotland’ insert ‘or a parliamentary election’.”

This new clause would allow prisoners serving a sentence of 12 months or less to vote in UK parliamentary elections.

New clause 6—Voting by qualifying foreign nationals—

“In section 1(1) (entitlement to vote in parliamentary elections) of the Representation of the People Act 1983, for paragraph (c) substitute—

‘(c) is a Commonwealth citizen, a citizen of the Republic of Ireland or a qualifying foreign national; and’”.

This new clause would allow foreign nationals who either do not need leave to remain in the UK or have been granted such leave to vote in UK parliamentary elections.

New clause 7—Voting by EU nationals—

“In section 1(1) (entitlement to vote in parliamentary elections) of the Representation of the People Act 1983, for paragraph (c) substitute—

‘(c) is a Commonwealth citizen, a citizen of the Republic of Ireland or a relevant citizen of the Union; and’”.

This new clause would allow EU citizens to vote in UK parliamentary elections.

New clause 8—Fines for electoral offences—

“(1) The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums (Civil Sanctions) Order 2010 is amended as follows.

(2) In Schedule 1, paragraph 5, leave out ‘£20,000’ and insert ‘£500,000, or 5% of the total spend by the organisation or individual being penalised in the election to which the offence relates, whichever is greater’.”

This new clause would allow the Electoral Commission to impose increased fines for electoral offences.

New clause 9—Permissible donors to be based in the United Kingdom and associated offences—

“(1) Section 54 of PPERA (permissible donors) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) to (5).

(2) At the end of subsection (2)(a), insert ‘ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, and domiciled in the United Kingdom for purposes of individual taxation.’

(3) After subsection (2)(b)(ii) insert—

‘(iii) employing a majority of its staff at locations within the United Kingdom, and

(iv) employing at least five staff within the United Kingdom’.

(4) At the end of subsection (2)(f), insert ‘has a majority of partners who are on a UK electoral register, are ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom and are domiciled in the United Kingdom for purposes of individual taxation, employs a majority of its staff at locations within the United Kingdom, and employs at least five staff within the United Kingdom.’

(5) At the end of subsection (2)(h), insert ‘has a majority of those persons with significant control who are on a UK electoral register, are ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom and are domiciled in the United Kingdom for purposes of individual taxation, and also either employs no staff at all, or employs a majority of its staff at locations within the United Kingdom.’

(6) Section 61 of PPERA (offences concerned with evasion of restrictions on donations) is amended in accordance with subsection (7).

(7) After subsection (2) insert—

‘(3) A person commits an offence if they are a director of a company, hold a position of significant control in an unincorporated association, or are a partner in a limited liability partnership, and that company, association or partnership—

(a) is not a permissible donor and offers a donation to a political party (whether the donation is accepted or not), or

(b) commits, or otherwise causes to be committed, an act which were the body be a person, would be an offence under subsection (1) or (2).’”

This new clause makes requirements for individual and company donors to be based in the United Kingdom and makes persons running companies liable for donation restriction evasion offences committed by those companies.

New clause 10—Removal of requirement for election agent’s address to be published—

“(1) The Representation of the People Act 1983 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 67 (appointment of election agent), after subsection (6) insert—

‘(6A) Though if the candidate or the person acting on behalf of the candidate under this section provides a statement signed by the candidate that the candidate requires the address of the election agent not to be made public and instead states the relevant area within which that address is situated, the public notice under subsection (6) should state that relevant area rather than the address.

(6B) In this section, “relevant area” means—

(a) for a parliamentary election, the constituency,

(b) for an Authority election, the Assembly constituency,

(c) for any other local election, local government area, or

(d) if the address is outside the United Kingdom, the country within which it is situated.’”

This new clause would remove the requirement for public notice of the addresses of election agents (including candidates acting as their own agent) to be given at parliamentary and local elections. The area in which the address is situated could instead be given, as for candidates.

New clause 13—Proportional representation for elections to the House of Commons—

“(1) The simple majority system must not be used for any Parliamentary general election after the end of the period of six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed.

(2) The Secretary of State must take all reasonable steps to establish a new proportional representation system of election for Members of the House of Commons that would be expected to result in seats being held by each party roughly reflecting the proportion of votes cast for candidates of that party at the preceding general election.

(3) A system is suitable for the purposes of subsection (2) if it would over the past five Parliamentary general elections have had a mean average Gallagher proportionality index of less than 10.

(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision (which may include provision amending any enactment) contingent on the prohibition in subsection (1).”

This new clause would abolish first past the post for UK general elections and require the Government to take all reasonable steps to introduce proportional representation.

New clause 14—Enfranchisement of certain foreign nationals at parliamentary elections—

“(1) Section 1(1) (entitlement to vote in parliamentary elections) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph (c), after ‘Ireland’ insert—

‘or a foreign national who has—

(i) the right of abode in the United Kingdom;

(ii) settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme;

(iii) indefinite leave to enter the United Kingdom; or

(iv) indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom.’”

New clause 15—Prohibition of double registration—

“In section 4 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (Entitlement to be registered as parliamentary or local government elector), after subsection (1) insert—

‘(1A) A person is only entitled to be registered at one address within the United Kingdom at any one time.’”

This new clause seeks to provide an additional check and balance against double voting in UK Parliamentary elections.

New clause 16—Restrictions on foreign and foreign-influenced donations—

“(1) PPERA is amended as follows.

(2) In section 54(1) (circumstances in which party may not accept donation), after paragraph (aa) insert—

‘(ab) the party has not been given a declaration as required by section 54C; or’.

(3) In section 54(2) (permissible donors), in paragraph (b)(ii), for ‘carries on business in the United Kingdom’ substitute—

‘satisfies the condition set out in subsection (2ZAA)’.

(4) After section 54(2ZA) insert—

‘(2ZAA) The condition referred to in subsection (2)(b)(ii) is that the company or limited liability partnership’s profits generated and taxable within the United Kingdom over the previous 12 months are greater than the value of the donation given.’

(5) After section 54B (declaration as to whether residence etc condition satisfied), insert—

‘54C Declaration as to whether profit condition is satisfied

(1) A company or limited liability partnership making to a registered party a donation in relation to which the condition set out in section 54(2ZAA) applies must give to the party a written declaration stating whether or not the company or limited liability partnership satisfies that condition.

(2) A declaration under this section must also state the company or limited liability partnership’s full name, address and registration number.

(3) A person who knowingly or recklessly makes a false declaration under this section commits an offence.

(4) The Commission may issue a notice to a person to provide accounts for the purpose of verifying whether a declaration made under this section is accurate.

(5) A person who fails to comply with a notice under subsection (4) commits an offence.

(6) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring a declaration under this section to be retained for a specified period.

(7) The requirement in subsection (1) does not apply where, by reason of section 71B(1)(b), the entity by whom the donation would be made is a permissible donor in relation to the donation at the time of its receipt by the party.

(8) For the purposes of the following provisions, references in this section to receipt by a registered party should be read instead as follows—

(a) for a relevant donation controlled under Schedule 7, receipt by the regulated donee;

(b) for a relevant donation controlled under Schedule 11, receipt by the recognised third party;

(c) for a relevant donation controlled under Schedule 15, receipt by the permitted participant;

(d) for a relevant donation controlled under Schedule 2A of the Representation of the People Act 1983, receipt by the candidate or the candidate’s election agent.’

(6) After section 55 (payments etc. which are (or are not) to be treated as donations by permissible donors), insert—

‘55A Donations and national security risk

(1) The Commission may give a notice (“a call-in notice”) if the Commission reasonably suspects that a qualifying donation has given rise to or may give rise to a risk to national security in relation to electoral integrity.

(2) If the Commission decides to give a call-in notice, the notice must be given to—

(a) the person who made the donation,

(b) the party that received the donation,

(c) the Secretary of State, and

(d) such other persons as the Commission considers appropriate.

(3) When assessing whether a donation has given or may give rise to a risk to national security in relation to electoral integrity, Commission must consider the characteristics of the person who made the donation, including—

(a) their sector or sectors of commercial activity or holdings,

(b) their technological capabilities,

(c) any links to entities which may seek to undermine or threaten the interests of the United Kingdom, including the integrity of its elections,

(d) their ultimate controller, or if they can be readily exploited, (e) whether the acquirer they, or their ultimate controller, has committed, or is linked to, criminal or illicit activities that are related to national security, or activities that have given rise to or may give rise to a risk to national security.

(4) In this section, a “qualifying donation” is a donation of an amount exceeding £25,000.

(5) The Commission may, in relation to the Commission’s functions under this section, issue a notice to a person to—

(a) provide information, or

(b) attend, or

(c) give evidence as if such a notice was a notice under section 19 or 20 of the National Security and Investment Act 2021.

(6) A person who fails to comply with a notice under subsection (5) commits an offence.

(7) In this section, “assessment period” in relation to a call-in notice under this section has the same meaning as in section 23 of National Security and Investment Act 2021 in relation to a call-in notice under that Act.

(8) The Commission must, before the end of the assessment period in relation to a call-in notice—

(a) make a final order, or

(b) give a final notification to each person to whom the call-in notice was given.

(9) The Commission may, during the assessment period, make a final order if the Commission—

(a) is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the qualifying donation to which the call-in notice applies has given rise to or may give rise to a risk to national security in relation to electoral integrity, and

(b) reasonably considers that the provisions of the order are necessary and proportionate for the purpose of preventing, remedying or mitigating the risk.

(10) During the assessment period, the Commission may make an interim order in relation to a qualifying donation if the Commission reasonably considers that the provisions of the order are necessary and proportionate for the purpose of safeguarding electoral integrity during that period.

(11) An order under subsection (9) or (10) may—

(a) require a donation to be held unspent for a period as may be prescribed in the order,

(b) require a donation to be refused,

(c) require a donation to be returned, or

(d) prohibit the acceptance of any donation by any registered party from the person who made the donation to which the call-in notice applies, or from a prescribed person or category of person connected to that person, for a period as may be prescribed in the order.

(12) The Commission must keep each order under review and may vary or revoke it.’

(7) In section 156 (orders and regulations)—

(a) in subsection (3), before paragraph (a) insert—

‘(za) any order under section 55A;’;

(b) after subsection (4D) insert—

‘(4E) Subsection (2) does not apply to regulations under section 54C and regulations may not be made under that section unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.’

(8) In Schedule 20 (penalties), at the appropriate places insert the following entries—

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)]

I am interested to know the hon. Gentleman’s perspective, from a Labour point of view, on Labour Live in 2018. When people signed up for a ticket it said: “All under-18s need to be accompanied by an adult or guardian at Labour Live. That means all youth and child tickets must be bought alongside an adult full price ticket and ID will be checked at the festival gate.” I would be grateful—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. What is all this shouting? The hon. Gentleman will make his point and the Opposition spokesman will undoubtedly be able to answer it without shouting from the background.

[Dr Evans]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was simply asking how that fits into the perspective that the hon. Gentleman has just been putting across.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

It will be obvious that a great many people wish to speak and that we do not have very long. We have to finish this stage of the Bill at 9 o’clock, so I shall immediately impose a time limit of five minutes.

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

I cannot promise to be as succinct as I was in my last speech before you, Madam Deputy Speaker, which clocked in at a loquacious 10 words, but I will do my best.

I rise to support the Bill having been on the Committee; I am confident that we have before us a sensible and necessary package of measures to ensure the continued robustness of our electoral system. Before speaking to the general merits of the Bill, I would like to speak to some of the new clauses and amendments selected for discussion. With a Bill of this size and complexity, Members will have a range of views on these issues, but I am quite disappointed to see that some of the things we voted down in Committee have found their way back for a second go.

I will start with some of the measures proposed by the Scottish National party. As a member of the Electoral Reform Society, I have to say that I have a small amount of sympathy with new clause 3, but I do not think its proposals belong in this Bill. However, I will cheerfully have a conversation with the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) if he wants to bring them forward another time.

Although I understand the motivations behind new clause 4, I cannot be the only one to have baulked at the long list of organisations required to provide our personal data to the state. On the whole, registering to vote should be positive affirmation of someone’s intention. Simply adding everyone to the list will not increase participation and make people exercise their franchise. It will just be more names on a list.

New clause 5, I am afraid to say, is completely beyond the pale. When we deprive somebody of their liberty as a result of their criminal acts, we deprive them of their most fundamental freedoms, including the right to exercise their franchise.

New clauses 6 and 7 and, by extension, new clause 14, are opportunistic and completely unprecedented. No EU state allows British citizens to vote in its parliamentary elections. That we should extend the franchise to EU members when, even as a member of the European Union, we could not, is completely and utterly inconceivable. The UK already has one of the widest franchises in the world, allowing Commonwealth and Irish citizens to participate in our general elections. If someone is that committed to participating in our democracy but they cannot because of their nationality, they are more than welcome to apply for citizenship.

As I mentioned earlier in respect of new clause 3, I have some sympathy with the provisions of new clause 13 in the name of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), but something of that magnitude should be done not as an amendment to a Bill but as a separate debate.

I am concerned by new clause 15, because I disagree not with the general intention but with its prescriptive nature. There are any number of legitimate reasons why somebody might want to be registered in more than one area, but I accept the principle that we must do more to tackle multiple voting.

I particularly like new clause 17. I represent a borough named after its principal town—I see the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) in his place. I represent two towns in that borough that have no particular affinity for the main town and have a strong sense of their own identity; in fact, in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency there will be areas such as Littleborough and Wardle that would like to be identified as such rather than as Rochdale. I have some sympathy with the idea of allowing people to describe more accurately on the ballot paper where they live. If we are not going forward with the new clause tonight, I would be pleased to see it come back at a later date.

Local Government (Disqualification) Bill

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 14th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sir Paul Beresford]

I will be very succinct. I have mentioned the taxi cab, and I can hear it behind me—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman might like to ask the leave of the House.

[Sir Paul Beresford]

My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. After all this time, I should have remembered that. I ask the leave of the House to say a few words.

I thank the Minister for her support, and I am grateful for the support from right across the House. Even my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) is behind the Bill, although he was going to add all sorts of thorns to it—much, I think, to the dismay of local government. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) and the Minister mentioned MPs. If my hon. Friend had spent some time on the Standards Committee, he would have heard of the ghastly accusation of bringing the House into disrepute. That would apply to any MP in this situation, and the door would be shown to them.

I thank everybody again, and I hope that the Bill will progress swiftly through the other place, led by another ex-leader of Wandsworth Council.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Bahraini Political Prisoners

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Thursday 13th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. We now have to have a formal time limit of five minutes.

Point of Order

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Excerpts

Thursday 25th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, during the urgent question on Bulb going into special administration, the Business Secretary told my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), after refusing to answer a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), the shadow Business Secretary:

“There is no Government bail-out”.—[Official Report, 24 November 2021; Vol. 704, c. 358.]

Yet we learned from a court hearing on the same day, and indeed on the front page of The Daily Telegraph and other papers today, that the taxpayer is on the hook for as much as £1.7 billion as a result of this Government’s failure to properly regulate the energy market.

I ask for your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it right and proper for a Minister to say one thing to this House and another thing to the courts? Do you have any guidance on how the Business Secretary can be brought back to this House to explain why he has misled it in his answers to yesterday’s urgent question. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Although I am not listening to sedentary comments, I do not need to be reminded. I hope the hon. Gentleman will come back to the Dispatch Box and find other words for his last sentence. I am quite sure that no right hon. Member of this House could have misled it.

[Dr Whitehead]

Thank you for your guidance on this matter, Madam Deputy Speaker. Of course I withdraw the question of misleading the House. I hope the Business Secretary will come to the House in due course to explain his comments.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. That is a perfectly polite and in-order question. However, it is not a point of order for the Chair, as I think he knows. Ministers are, of course, responsible for the content of their speeches and answers at the Dispatch Box, and the Chair has no control over such matters. If, however, he wishes to take the matter further and require the Secretary of State to come back to the House to revisit the matter on which he is in disagreement, I suggest that he visits the Clerks in the Table Office for advice on how he might go about that. I am also sure the Treasury Bench will have heard—

[The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)]

indicated assent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I have assent from the Minister who is now at the Dispatch Box. The Treasury Bench has heard what the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) said, and I trust that his concerns will be brought to the attention of the appropriate Secretary of State and that the matter will be revisited and, if necessary, clarified. I trust that that satisfies him.