Election of Speaker

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley) (Lab)]

I will say, as has everybody else, that you will be missed in this House, Mr Clarke, but I do know one thing: I don’t think it will be the end of your voice—I think your voice will continue to give us advice for a lot longer in time.

A great hero of mine is here today: Baroness Boothroyd. She was the white rose; she was the voice of the north, and what the white rose brought, hopefully the red rose will follow.

Of course, it is an absolute privilege to speak again from these Back Benches. These are the Back Benches that matter. These are the Back Benches that hold the Executive to account, and there has been no better time than the 13 years I spent here, sometimes with the Labour Government and shortly afterwards with a different Government. But this is about making sure, whoever is in power, that those on these Benches have the right to question and hold to account. That is what matters. Of course, this is about having an accountable Speaker to back to that up: it is not just about the Back Benchers; it is about a Speaker who endorses and supports the Back Benchers. That is what I hope I have always shown during my nine years as Deputy Speaker. I have tried to ensure that not one part of this House has not been called to speak, and whatever the size of a party I have encouraged Members to make sure that their voice is heard, and I want to continue to do that.

This is not a club for people who have been here for 35 years—do not take that the wrong way, Mr Clarke. The fact is that when I look at people who have been in this House for 35 years, I think, “I’ve heard that speech before and will do again many more times.” That speech is important, but the person who walked through the Chamber door yesterday is just as important to their constituents. Their voice must be heard as well and there ought not to be a pecking order. It is about equality. We are all equal in this House when we come to speak. That is the point that we must retain, and I promise that that is what I will do.

A Speaker has to be trusted, and I hope that I have built up that trust. It is about having a proven track record, and I hope the House will agree that I have that track record. People say, “Well, I’ll do this in such an amount of time for Prime Minister’s questions,” or that they will do something else, but I have done it. I have been there and yes, we did reduce the time, because it is not about me; it is about the people on these Benches. That is why we can do it in good time and that is what I want to continue to do. When I say, “I have done it”—I have done Prime Minister’s questions, I do the Budget and I have done many other things in this House—it has all been done with fairness, which is what matters to us all.

Other Members have touched on reform. We need to continue to reform. We need to support the people in security. When I took over responsibility for security, there were no measures for MPs. There was so little for us—we did not matter. I hope people will recognise what I have done: I have stood up and made sure that we can feel safe. That job has started, but it has not finished; I want the House to give me the chance to finish it as Speaker. I promise that I will continue to fight to make sure that we are safe, our families are safe, our staff are safe and the House is safe. That is what matters.

It is about delivering for all and I assure the House that that is what I will do. It is about experience and drive. I will make sure that reform continues for the best of all. I believe that the Chamber is underused; we ought to look seriously at how much more we can get out of it. We can come forward with great ideas.

My pledge to the House and its Members is that I will be here for you. I will make sure that a Deputy Speaker can become Speaker and will not let you down. I will be accountable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kenneth Clarke (in the Chair)]

I invite Sir Lindsay Hoyle to take the Chair of the House. [Applause.]

Mr Kenneth Clarke left the Chair, and Sir Lindsay Hoyle was taken out of his place and conducted to the Chair by Jackie Doyle-Price, Mr Nigel Evans and Caroline Flint.

[Mr Speaker-Elect]

(standing on the upper step): No clapping. [Laughter.]

Mr Clarke, thank you for the way you have chaired our proceedings. We have kept you longer than expected and I really appreciate it. You have been steadfast in the job you have done and it really is appreciated.

May I say thank you to all the candidates? Whoever was selected would have made a great Speaker. We thank those who withdrew—Sir Henry Bellingham and Mr Shailesh Vara—for the way they wanted to ensure that we did not have to stay for another two rounds.

As I have discussed, it is about the campaign and the challenges ahead for me and this Chamber. I stand by what I have said and stand firm. I hope that this House will be once again a great, respected House, not just in here but around the world. I hope that once again it is the envy of the world. We have to make sure that that tarnish is polished away and that the respect and tolerance that we expect from everyone who works here will be shown, and we will keep that in order.

I also want to say something to my family. [Applause.] There is one difficult part that I want to get over. There is one person who is not here: my daughter Natalie. I wish she had been here. We all miss her, as a family, and none more so than her mum Miriam. I have to say that she was everything to all of us. She will always be missed but she will always be in our thoughts. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]

I hope to show that the experience I have shown previously will continue. As I have promised, I will be neutral. I will be transparent. I think that this House can do more to ensure that that transparency continues, and nowhere more than in respect of the Commission. I have never served on the Commission—I have never even seen the minutes of the Commission—but I do believe there is a need for a little bit of transparency once again.

I have to say thank you to my family, but also to the staff from my office who are also with me tonight. They have been with me for a long time. In fact, Bev, who is up there and who will get all embarrassed, has been with me for 21 years. She left university and said, “I’m never going to get married. I’m never going to have children. I don’t want any of that in my life.” Guess what? She is married; she has children; and she is still with me. The same with Peter and Mike. They have done a fantastic job. They have been really good.

I want to thank everybody. It has been a long night. I do not want to keep you any longer, but I do stand by what I have said. This House will change, but it will change for the better. Thank you, everybody.

The Speaker-Elect sat down in the Chair and the Mace was placed upon the Table.

[The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)]

Mr Speaker-Elect, I know that you will want to join me in thanking, first of all, the Father of the House for the way that he has conducted today’s proceedings. Where is he? [Interruption.] There he is! I pay renewed tributes to my right hon. and learned Friend who outranks just about every Member not just in length of service, but in distinction. He has held six Cabinet posts, including two great offices of state. His Hush Puppies have been found propped up on the desk of ministerial offices in four separate decades. His continuing physical and intellectual robustness are a tribute to the benefits of a lifetime’s diet of beer, curry and Castella cigars, all of which I hope he will continue to enjoy in a long and happy retirement at Trent Bridge, or touring the famous jazz clubs in West Bridgford.

Mr Speaker-Elect, in congratulating you on your election, I observe that you have prevailed over an extremely strong field and that every other candidate earlier on spoke forcefully and well. I will not presume to identify exactly what characteristics other Members of this House saw in you when they elected you just now, but speaking for myself, after long and happy years of dealing with you, I think I know what it is. Let me say that, whenever any of us is preparing to speak in this Chamber, we all know that there is a moment between standing up and when the Speaker calls us when our heart is in our mouth and in that moment of anxiety about whether we are going to make a fool of ourselves and, indeed, at the moment when we sit down amid deafening silence, the kindliness of the Speaker is absolutely critical to our confidence and the way that we behave.

Mr Speaker-Elect, over the years, I have observed that you have many good qualities. I am sure that you will stick up for Back Benchers in the way that you have proposed, and I am sure you will adhere to a strict Newtonian concept of time in PMQs. I believe that you will also bring your signature kindness and reasonableness to our proceedings, thereby helping to bring us together as a Parliament and as a democracy. No matter how fiercely we may disagree, we know that every Member comes to this place with the best of motives, determined to serve the oldest parliamentary democracy in the world and to achieve our goals by the peaceable arts of reason and debate invigilated by an impartial Speaker, which was, and remains, one of our greatest gifts to the world. Thank you, Mr Speaker-Elect, and congratulations.

[Mr Speaker-Elect]

The only people I forgot to thank were all the staff of this House and Joanna Dodd for the way that she ran this election campaign. I thank everybody in this House.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Mr Speaker-Elect, may I join others in offering my congratulations to you on winning the election, and thank the Father of the House for conducting the election in the way in which he did? Congratulations and commiserations to the other candidates who did not succeed in getting elected, but who nevertheless made sure that we had a good campaign and serious debate all across the House; that was very important.

We are well aware, Mr Speaker-Elect, of your abilities at chairing the House because we have been through Finance Bills and Budgets in which you are robust in ensuring that people stick to the point and the subject of the debate, as some comrades on my side of the House and Members on the Government side sometimes deviate from the subject in hand—unprecedented, I know, but there we are.

In your position, Mr Speaker-Elect, you are going to need eyes in the back of your head. It is a difficult job; you do not know what is coming at you next. I realise that you have actually been in training in this regard, because I have been looking at a photograph of you at the weekend apparently watching the rugby world cup final while at the same time not watching the television. The only conclusion that I can draw from this is that you literally do have eyes in the back of your head, because you were able to make some very wise comments about the progress of the match that you were apparently not watching at the same time. These qualities alone equip you to be an absolutely brilliant Chair of this House.

Mr Speaker-Elect, as you have said and many know, the job of Speaker is not just a ceremonial one. It is about the rights of Back Benchers to be able to speak up and the power of Parliament to hold the Government to account. The whole principle and point of a parliamentary democracy is that we have a strong Parliament that can hold the Executive to account, and I know that you will stand up for that principle because that is what you believe in. It is absolutely at the heart of our political system.

Mr Speaker-Elect, you take the wellbeing of everybody who works in this building, and of Members, very seriously. This is a fevered and imaginative place that we all work in. People are put under enormous stress, and both staff and Members of this House sometimes find themselves in a lonely and desperate place because of that. I know that you take your responsibilities in that area very seriously and that you want to make this an even more compassionate and humane place in which to work.

Mr Speaker-Elect, thank you for your work and for taking this job on, but also for assuring us that you will always stand up for the democratic values that this House represents and the power of an elected Parliament to express its views and hold the Executive to account, because that is the whole principle behind our parliamentary democracy.

[Mr Speaker-Elect]

Just for the record, the score had come through and England could not win; that is why I wasn’t looking at the television. [Laughter.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

I thank the Father of the House for the way in which he conducted this election. Congratulations from the Liberal Democrat Benches on your new role, Mr Speaker-Elect. You have been clear that you want to be a strong champion for Back Benchers in this place, and have always conducted yourself with good humour and taken great care of Members in this place. The focus that you placed on the importance of health and wellbeing—particularly mental health—in your election campaign is very welcome indeed for those who work here, including Members and others in different roles.

Mr Speaker-Elect, you take the Chair at a time of great challenge for our democracy. The issues of security that you have championed as Deputy Speaker are more important than ever, with increasing threats. The focus on stamping out the unacceptable culture of bullying and harassment is hugely important. I hope you will also continue the work of modernisation of this place that we have seen in the past decade. I welcome your pledge on outreach to make sure that we reach out to disadvantaged groups. We should none of us be happy until this place properly represents the communities that we serve.

I wish you well in your new role. It is not one that will necessarily be a popularity contest where you will find yourself welcomed by everybody, but I may at least hope that you will frustrate the various parts of this House equally.

[Mr Speaker-Elect]

I call the right hon. Nigel Dodds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker-Elect]

Order. The House is suspended until 9.30 pm.

Early Parliamentary General Election Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 29th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 2, page 1, line 2, leave out “12” and insert “9”.

This amendment would change the date of the proposed general election to Monday 9 December.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 14.

Clause stand part.

Clause 2 stand part.

Amendment 3, title, line 1, leave out “12” and insert “9”.

This is a consequential amendment.

[Cat Smith]

The Prime Minister came to office promising to deliver Brexit by 31 October, and he has failed. He has shown his utter incompetence, and he simply cannot be trusted. We have consistently said that we will support a general election once a no deal is absolutely off the table and when a date can be fixed in law. After lengthy denial by the Prime Minister, we have now reached that point, which is why the time is right for a Labour Government and real change.

The purpose of any general election is to allow the largest possible number of people to participate and have their say on the future of the country. Up to 9.5 million people in Great Britain are not correctly registered to vote. Young people are less likely to be registered, with almost a third of people aged 18 to 34 missing from the electoral roll. This means their views and interests are being under-represented.

The Government know they are less likely to do well in elections when lots of people are registered to vote, which is why they have done nothing to tackle this issue. The Prime Minister even tried to fix the date of the general election to make it harder for students to take part. Students must not be disfranchised by an election date that will not allow them to vote at their term-time address—the address at which they live for the majority of the year, and at which they rightly should be able to vote. Labour’s amendment to fix the date of the general election for 9 December is the best possible way of ensuring the next election is accessible.

We can do better than that, which is why we would have supported, had they been selected, the amendments to expand the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds and to EU citizens with settled status. We recognise their contributions to our society, and they should have a right to vote on their future as well.

Whatever date the House decides the election will be held on, the Labour party is ready to get rid of this Tory Government, who have pushed our public services into crisis. We are ready to put forward our vision for a different kind of country: a country where people get the care they need, from a properly funded NHS; a country where everyone, regardless of their family background, gets the education they need to do well in life; a country where regions that have been held back get the investment they need and a chance to rebuild after a decade of neglect; a country where homelessness is a thing of the past, and everyone can access safe and affordable housing; and a country that is led by a Prime Minister that puts the control of Brexit back in the hands of people in a new referendum, with a real choice between a leave deal and remain.

Labour is the only party that can, and will, let the people decide on Brexit. This is a once-in-a-generation chance to rebuild and transform our country, which is why I urge this House to support this amendment, to ensure that this election is as accessible as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Oliver Dowden]

I think I have dealt with this point.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We cannot have everybody on their feet at the same time. It is for the Minister to give way.

[Oliver Dowden]

I will make some progress and then I will consider giving way. 

        There are principled reasons why we wish to have proper scrutiny of legislation for the Northern Ireland budget. It is essential for teachers, doctors and nurses in Northern Ireland to be paid.

There is a convention that elections are held on Thursday. Once again, the Opposition are trying to move the goalposts. Initially, the argument was that they did not want a general election on 12 December because they were concerned that the Government would somehow seek to ram through the Bill giving effect to the Prime Minister’s deal. Yesterday, at the Dispatch Box, the Prime Minister give an assurance on that. Now, they seek to contrive another reason artificially to create divisions in this House over moving the date by three days.

We have had three years to consider this matter. Will three days really make that much difference? That is in tune with a wider point. The public are getting more and more frustrated at this House endlessly coming up with procedural reasons that prevent us from getting on and doing the thing we want to do, as set out in this Bill—to have a general election to allow us to resolve the issue. We will resist the Opposition amendment to move the date of the general election.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

On the issue of votes for 16 and 17-year-olds, I believe that all men and women are born equal and that everybody in this place should be equal. Amendment 10, which fortunately was not selected today, would have given 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland and Wales the vote, but—

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Lady is out of order; amendment 10 is not debatable.

[Tommy Sheppard]

I am confused as to why that particular intervention should have been made at this point in my speech, but I will mention the issue when I come to consider the amendments before us.

I think it was the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) who said that the outcome of an election could be another hung Parliament, without a majority one way or the other. That, of course, is true. But an election will allow us all the opportunity to refresh a mandate. I for one believe that there are far too many people in this Parliament who are imprisoned by an out-of-date mandate from 2017 that is against what they would do now, having considered the matter. It will give colleagues, particularly those in Her Majesty’s Opposition in seats where a majority voted to leave the European Union, the opportunity to go there and argue, if they so wish, for a rethink and for this matter to be put back to the public before any final decision is taken. That mandate was not present in this Parliament; it could be present in a new Parliament. That is another reason why an election would be welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Percy]

If the hon. Gentleman will give me a moment to let me finish my point, I will then give way to him.

We have seen consistently throughout that people who did not vote for Brexit and are on the other side of the debate consistently tell Brexit voters what it is that we voted for, and they think they have the right to interpret what—

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. No, it is not a debate about Brexit; it is debate about the clauses and amendments. Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman is trying to widen the debate from where we are. We are on the clauses and amendments. Has the hon. Gentleman now finished?

[Andrew Percy]

No.

[The Chairman]

Right, but let us stick to where we are.

[Andrew Percy]

I am responding to a speech made in the Chamber, Sir Lindsay, and directly to a point that was made.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

On a point of order, Sir Lindsay.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

I am going to deal with the point myself. We are not broadening the debate. Others wish to speak and we are getting bogged down in something that is not relevant to the clause and the amendment. You have answered the question at least five times already, Mr Percy, and I would love to hear from Michael Tomlinson who is next to you. He is desperate to get in.

[Andrew Percy]

We have two hours for this debate, so I hope we will get to hear other Members.

[The Chairman]

Order. You are a former member of the Panel of Chairs. You know exactly what I am relating my comments to. We have allowed a little movement away from the clause and the amendment, and I now want you to speak about them. If not, other Members wish to speak.

[Andrew Percy]

I am responding to points that were made in other speeches and interventions in the debate, but I will of course—[Interruption.] Opposition Front Benchers need to calm themselves. I know they are not looking forward to an election because they broke their promises from the 2017 election, but they need to calm down. I will of course follow your ruling, Sir Lindsay, because after all you did me the honour of putting me on the Panel of Chairs.

This Parliament is broken precisely because the votes of the majority of this country—17.4 million people—in 2016 have not been respected. That is why we have to have a general election.

Debate on the Address

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 14th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Dame Cheryl Gillan]

It is good to know—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I do believe that the previous incumbent of the Chair suggested 15 minutes.

[Dame Cheryl Gillan]

Thank you so much, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have taken rather a lot of interventions.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

That does not matter.

[Dame Cheryl Gillan]

In a similar vein, I would like to see regulation and transparency enhanced around companies such as 38 Degrees, which insert themselves between MPs and their constituents, gather data and raise funds for lobbying outwith the rules that govern political parties and yet, in effect, they are acting as an adjunct to political movements with no oversight or accountability.

There are many things to welcome in this Queen’s Speech, particularly on the law and order front. We need to halt this tide of knife crime and the scourge of county lines, both of which have affected my constituency, and we must give our police forces the resources to provide the safety and security that our citizens need to lead peaceful and successful lives.

I should like to finish by mentioning one provision that has delighted me—I am delighted that it has come to prominence—and that is the ambitious national space plan. My husband, Jack Leeming, during his lifelong career as a civil servant, was finally appointed director general of the British National Space Centre, then attached to the Department for Trade and Industry. He had a vision for the role of space in telecommunications, earth observation and remote sensing and was a huge supporter of our space industries and scientific endeavours. He was passionate about the possibilities of space, and my only sadness is that he died earlier this year and did not live to see a Conservative Prime Minister appreciating the opportunities that this sector affords.

This Prime Minister now has many, many challenges. There is no doubt that there is an overwhelming desire to get Brexit done and to reduce the bandwidth that is occupying Government, which, in turn, is impeding the progress that we can make on things that matter to people and have now been covered in the Gracious Speech—health, education, local government and new opportunities for our service and manufacturing industries. I hope that by the end of the week we will have not just a pathway to delivering our exit from the EU, but a firm grip on the destination.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Soubry]

No. I completely agree. There was nothing for businesses of any size, or indeed in any sectors. I have listened to the debate over the past two hours. I remember the comments of the right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who sadly is no longer in his place. He celebrated the successes of the manufacturing sector—he talked about pharmaceuticals, for example—yet nowhere in the Queen’s Speech is there any measure, not one, to mitigate what will happen if we leave the single market and the customs union. The just-in-time supply chains absolutely rely on, depend on and have been created from that single market.

Ironically, the single market found its greatest supporter in the former Prime Minister and former leader of the Conservative party, Margaret Thatcher. We all know that, without the single market and the customs union, our manufacturing sector—the 450,000 jobs, by way of example, in the automotive sector—will be particularly badly hit. There is no plan and no vision of how to mitigate the harm that Brexit will do to our society. It is about not just the manufacturing jobs, but what will happen to the 80% of our economy that relies on the service sector, as well as, of course, what I celebrate: the free movement of people throughout the European Union and the huge benefits that that has given to our economy. We have had no real plans there and no real solution.

Looking at the lack of investment, notably, in our infrastructure, as I said to the Prime Minister, I am concerned that there is no mention of HS2 phase 2b: the line that goes through my constituency, with the east midlands hub at Toton, and then goes up to Leeds. I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Dame Cheryl Gillan) is not in her place. I did not intervene on her because this is not really a debate about HS2, but HS2 is not just about taking people to London. In my constituency, it is about taking people up to Sheffield, to Birmingham and to Leeds, about providing the essential connectivity that is at the heart of a modern public transport system and about the ability to bring all these pieces together. HS2 plays a critical part in that. It provides the extra capacity and is an engine for growth. We know that, wherever those hubs exist—we have seen this from other examples in France and HS1—we find the new skilled jobs, the new exciting world of work, that can be built around that connectivity with all that it gives.

I pay tribute to the comments of the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden), who rightly talks about the value of investing in electric cars. She speaks with passion about her constituency and what that would mean for her. We certainly want people to use public transport, if we are going to achieve these hard targets that we have set ourselves for climate change, but we also need to make sure that our cars are electric. One per cent. is certainly not enough. When I was a Minister in the old Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, I sat on the inter-ministerial group for the electrification of vehicles. We had so many plans and ideas, looking at the development of battery research and the implementation of the chargers that must be put in over the full length of the United Kingdom, as my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said. None of this work has been done. Everything has been glued up with the process of Brexit. My fear is that, if we leave the EU, it will still not get any better because we will see the harm and damage that will be done to our economy.

Services rely on a successful and growing economy, but I do not think there is anything to encourage businesses to grow in this Queen’s Speech. Without those services being properly funded, we simply will not be making the investment that we have to make as a nation. One of the great joys of the time that we are in recess, especially in the September break—and about the only benefit of the unlawful Prorogation—is that it gives us all an opportunity to visit our schools and really put that effort in. That is one of the things that I did, and it is simply not acceptable in this day and age that, for example, Chilwell School in my constituency, which was built in the late ’60s—flat-roofed, under the old Consortium of Local Authorities Special Programme system—is not fit for purpose. That is not good enough. It does not inspire young people and does not help a school that is desperately seeking to improve its standards and to offer all children the greatest opportunity to reach their full potential.

I also went to Foxwood Academy, for children with special needs, which, again, was built in the early ’70s under the CLASP system. It has corridors that are not even wide enough properly to accommodate wheelchairs. This is a special school, with flat roofs. Again, it is absolutely not fit for purpose. The deep irony is that only last week we heard from the Government that they were spending £8 billion on no-deal Brexit preparations, which would provide 400 brand spanking new schools throughout the United Kingdom—schools that are needed.

The hon. Member for Mansfield talked about social care. He wrongly said that we do not work cross-party in this place: we absolutely do. Maybe the problem is that he has not taken part in that enough. For years now people have talked about the need to work cross-party to achieve real changes in social care for our elderly population and that still has not taken place. I suggest that there are still no plans in the Queen’s Speech. We are not meeting the needs of our elderly, or of those children and young people with special needs.

We need big, bold, imaginative government to deal with the challenges of climate change and we need rigour. The party that I have the pleasure of leading—a small band but nevertheless important—takes the view that the target for complete carbon neutrality should be 2040. That is the rigour that is now needed.

I know the clock is against me, but I am nearly done—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

I suggested up to 15 minutes, so the right hon. Lady has time to carry on.

[Anna Soubry]

I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker.

We talk a great deal in this place about Brexit, but the one thing that we have not talked about—or actually addressed—is the causes of Brexit. I want a democratic revolution. What happened to the commitment in the 2010 manifesto that I was proud to stand on as a Conservative under the leadership of David Cameron? It included a promise that we would reduce the number of Members of Parliament and look at the boundaries to make sure that all constituencies were properly represented and we had a fairer system. That has completely gone.

I would go further and have a radical reform of local government. One size does not necessarily fit all, and I pay tribute to the courage of Conservative borough councillors in my constituency who did the right thing by making the case—bizarre though it may sound—for the abolition of the very borough council that they sit on. Like the hon. Member for Mansfield, they recognise that we need a new unitary system in the county of Nottinghamshire. We also need a much stronger role for our parish and town councils, if we take out the district and borough council levels in our county authorities. We need to put power back into the hands of local councillors who will represent people at a parish or town level. Give them more power and the ability to raise money, because they will spend it wisely on their communities whom they directly represent.

While I am on the subject of a democratic revolution, we have to have honesty in politics now. The trust between us and the electorate has been broken. Long before Brexit, people were disillusioned and fed up. One of the reasons was that too many politicians, especially in this place, were not honest with people about the tough choices they faced. They promised everything—often admirable things which could never be delivered in reality. That pragmatic and honest approach is needed.

To be honest—it might get me into trouble with the Nottingham Post—the city of Nottingham should expand. If we were being honest about how to do things better in the city, that is what we would say. But if we do, we run the risk of headlines and criticism. That lack of honesty is one of the reasons why the immigration debate is in the pitiful state it is and—at its heart—is why we have Brexit. Too many politicians could not be trusted to have an open, honest debate based on evidence. On that basis, we look at the Conservative party and see the drift to the right—

[Anna Soubry]

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but the fact is that 21 members of his party were effectively expelled from the party for having the temerity to put their country before their party. They were, in effect, expelled. Joseph Stalin would have been proud. As for the Labour party, that too is in the grip of neo-Marxists who would take us into a command economy, making promises that they could not deliver.

I think there is a great deal that we should be talking about. Whether it is the fact that we should be bringing British citizens back from northern Syria, or the fact that there was no mention of housing in the Queen’s Speech, a huge problem—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I can honestly say that I have been very generous, but the right hon. Lady is now abusing the Chair, and I do not think that that is fair.

Principles of Democracy and the Rights of the Electorate

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 26th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Dowden]

I think my right hon. Friend answers his own question. It is only too clear that there is only one reason why the Opposition do not wish to have an election: they do not believe they will win it. They wish to keep this Parliament in a state of suspended animation until they think they may have a chance to win a general election.

Indeed, even as the Opposition continue to frustrate a general election, leaflets from the Labour party are dropping through voters’ letterboxes demanding an election. It is an extraordinary state of affairs, and this from a Leader of the Opposition who has spent his life going weak at the knees for revolutionaries. He suddenly seems rather scared of change. Apparently there is a world to win and nothing to lose but chains, but maybe just not right now. Is it not the truth that the public have had enough of this dither and delay? They are saying “enough,” and we are saying “enough.” If the Opposition do not have the courage to say what they are for, they should at least have the courage to ask the electorate what they think of that.

Conservative Members have always recognised that the principles of democracy and the rights of the electorate matter. I am proud to be in a Conservative party that, time and again, has embraced reform to give people their say and has represented them effectively. We are the party of Disraeli’s second Reform Act, which helped enfranchise the working classes; of the law that gave all women the same right to vote as men; of the first female Member of Parliament to take her seat; and, of course, of two great female Prime Ministers.

In this case, the principle also unlocks something far more practical: 17.4 million people gave us an instruction three years ago to leave the EU, and they want us to move on. I am conscious that Mr Deputy Speaker also wishes me to move on, so I will wind up my remarks very shortly.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

We are obviously up against time. The spokespeople for the other parties need to come in, and 14 Back Benchers also want to speak. I am concerned that we will run out of time very quickly.

[Oliver Dowden]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

We want to get on with our job as legislators and move on to the things that people want us to focus on: their hospitals, their schools and the safety of their streets. That is what this Government are determined to do.

I commend this motion to the House.

Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Monday 9th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Kevin Foster)]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 2 to 12.

[Kevin Foster]

Given the wide consensus that the Bill has attracted, I do not propose to go on too long—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] It is nice to be liked. The Government committed to bring the spirit of several amendments that were supported in this House on Report to the other place, with appropriate wording and at the appropriate place in the Bill. We are pleased that these amendments were also supported in the other place and are now included in the Bill. They include an amendment on heritage, which was brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and requires that, in exercising its functions, the Sponsor Body must have regard to the special architectural, archaeological and historical significance of the Palace of Westminster.

As agreed in the House, the Bill now places a duty on the Sponsor Body to require the Delivery Authority, when considering the awarding of a contract in respect of the carrying of the parliamentary building works, to have regard to the prospective contractor’s policy relating to corporate social responsibility and their policies and procedures relating to employment, including in relation to the blacklisting of employees. I am especially grateful for the collaborative approach and constructive contribution of the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) in formulating that amendment.

The Bill now provides that the reports prepared by the Sponsor Body must be laid before Parliament and must include information about persons to whom contracts in respect of the carrying out of the parliamentary building works have been awarded, in particular with regard to their size and the areas in which they operate. I am particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) for her collaboration in formatting that amendment.

Lastly, in exercising its functions, the Sponsor Body must now have regard to the need to ensure that opportunities to secure economic or other benefits of the parliamentary building works are available in all areas of the United Kingdom. I would particularly like to thank the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) for collaborating on that amendment and for his work as a member of the shadow Sponsor Body.

I am sure that the House welcomes the fulfilment of the Government’s commitments to the House that these amendments would be included in the Bill at the appropriate place and appropriately drafted. Other amendments passed in the Lords and are now included in the Bill, and I consider that they echo the will of the House, particularly as they build on the recommendations of the prelegislative Joint Committee. There are also minor technical amendments that ensure consistent references to the parliamentary building works in clause 2(5).

In summary, the Bill has benefited from close scrutiny both by the Joint Committee and during its passage through both Houses. I hope the House, having considered the amendments passed in the other place, will concur with them and support the passing of the Bill as it stands, so that we can progress with these important works and secure the home of this United Kingdom Parliament for future generations.

UK Shared Prosperity Fund

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I want to make sure that everybody gets in and that we start the next debate on time, so Members will have up to six minutes. Please be aware of that.

Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 19th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

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

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 1, in clause 2, page 2, line 16, at end insert—

“(f) to require the Delivery Authority when allocating contracts for construction and related work to have regard for the company’s policies on corporate social responsibility, including those relating to the blacklisting of employees or potential employees from employment.”

Amendment 6, page 2, line 21, at end insert—

“(h) to undertake, and publish, an annual audit of the companies that have been awarded contracts for the Parliamentary building works, with a view to establishing their size and geographical location.”

Amendment 7, page 2, line 44, leave out “desirability of ensuring” and insert “need to ensure”.

This amendment requires the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body, in exercising its functions, to have regard to the need to ensure that educational and other facilities are provided for people visiting the Palace of Westminster (rather than requiring it to have regard to the desirability of ensuring that such facilities are provided).

Amendment 4, page 2, line 46, at end insert—

“(h) the need to ensure that economic benefits of the Parliamentary building works are delivered across the nations and regions of the United Kingdom, in terms of contracts for works and in any other way the Sponsor Board considers appropriate.”

Amendment 5, page 2, line 46, at end insert—

“(h) the need to conserve and sustain the outstanding architectural, archaeological and historical significance of the Palace of Westminster, including the outstanding universal value of the World Heritage Site.”

Amendment 8, in schedule 1, page 10, line 20, at end insert—

“( ) See also paragraph 7A, which makes provision about the appointment of the first external members.”

This amendment signposts the new paragraph 7A inserted by amendment 9 (which deals with the appointment of the first external members of the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body).

Amendment 9, page 12, line 2, at end insert—

“Appointment of initial external members

7A (1) The person who, immediately before the commencement day, was the chair of the shadow Sponsor Body is to be treated as having been appointed on that day as the chair of the Sponsor Body in accordance with paragraph 2.

(2) Appointment by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) is to be treated as being for a term of 3 years.

(3) A person who, immediately before the commencement day—

(a) was a member of the shadow Sponsor Body (other than the chair), and

(b) was not a member of either House of Parliament,

is to be treated as having been appointed on that day as a member of the Sponsor Body in accordance with paragraph 3 (external members).

(4) Appointment by virtue of sub-paragraph (3) is to be treated as being for a term ending with the last day of the period of 3 years beginning with the day on which the shadow Sponsor Body was established.

(5) An appointment by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) or (3) ceases to have effect at the end of the period of 1 month beginning with the commencement day unless, before the end of that period, the appointment is confirmed by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

(6) Paragraphs 2, 3 and 6 do not apply in relation to a member who is appointed by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) or (3).

(7) In this paragraph—

“the commencement day” means the day on which section 2(1) comes into force;

“the shadow Sponsor Body” means the body, established in July 2018 in connection with the restoration of the Palace of Westminster, which is known as the shadow Sponsor Body.”

This amendment provides for those who were external members of the shadow Sponsor Body immediately before clause 2 comes into force to be appointed as the first external members of the Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Tami]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We need to keep to the Bill and the amendments. I know that a man of great stature like the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to lead the House where it is not supposed to go. I think that he was giving way to Mark Tami.

[Mark Tami]

To reinforce your point, Mr Deputy Speaker, I was about to say that we have had these arguments for ever and a day. We could have them again, but this debate is about the governance.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Hence I am sure Sir John will now go back to where he wanted to be.

[John Redwood]

I am very willing to do so. As I say, I welcome the principle that where works are conducted, there needs to be a proper audit. However, I go back to the intervention that I made at the start of the debate, when I said that any audit should also look at the policy, because I note that the legislation we are being asked to approve today makes it very clear that the policy has not been finalised. We are setting up authorities and bodies to sort out both the policy and the implementation, so I submit that the audit must apply to the policy as well as to the implementation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

My colleague and good friend is making a powerful speech. In describing the raid on the Scottish lottery budgets at the time of the Olympics, he is highlighting that what is happening here is another not very well disguised London subsidy from the pockets of Scottish taxpayers. This is why the Union is creaking. I say to Scottish Tory MPs who acquiesce in this: “You are not Unionists if you are doing this; you are submissionists. You should be making sure that Scotland gets its fair share of any subsidy that goes to London.”

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Come on—let’s stick to what the debate is about.

[Neil Gray]

Mr Deputy Speaker, I thought it was a perfectly reasonable intervention.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I am the judge of that, not you, Mr Gray. Come on!

[Neil Gray]

Returning to the London Olympics, at the time, 4,200 Scottish companies registered their interest in providing services, while fewer than 200 actually secured any business. Most galling of all was that £135 million of legacy funding was made available for grassroots sport, but to be distributed by sports governing bodies south of the border. No extra funding was made available for Scottish sports governing bodies. There is no doubt that that experience left a bitter taste. We are not here to debate the London Olympics, but that is the last major infrastructure project similar in status to the restoration and renewal project, which is London-based, without full Barnett consequentials and with a similar delivery model—I will come back to that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making the case that there is too much capital expenditure in London and the south-east on this project. I remind him of the massive expenditure on the two aircraft carriers built in Rosyth in southern Scotland, at enormous expense for the Union’s taxpayers, for the benefit of Scottish companies and Scottish labour.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We have a debate on amendments and Members are meant to be speaking to those amendments. I am not going to let the debate drift wherever people decide they want it to drift to. We will now go back to Mr Neil Gray. We need to get back to where we should be.

[Neil Gray]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have been referring to a relevant project, which was similar in status to the one under discussion today and one from which we should have learnt lessons. My colleagues and I have done our very best to be constructive in all our dealings on this issue, but there will come a point where we will have to ask for how long we can be ignored on an issue of fundamental importance to us, which is the fair share of resources. I fully expect this project to go beyond £10 billion, when all is said and done. If the project is Barnett-ised, that would mean a transfer just shy of £1 billion to Scotland. Right now, the Government are unwilling to contemplate not only some form of capital investment spin-off, but even a subtle instruction to the Sponsor Board to ensure contracts are secured across the UK. That is not acceptable and there must be a revision of that approach.

On the other amendments, we will support Labour’s amendment 1 on blacklisting companies. Amendment 5 is a little bit concerning for me. I understand the intention from the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), but as I have said before this project will throw up irreconcilable conflicts which will make for very difficult decisions. One will be the conflict between access for members of the public versus heritage. Amendment 5, as well-intentioned as it may be, will make it far more difficult to make this place more accessible to disabled people. Besides, if this is just going to be a project to empty everything out and return it all back as it was but a bit cleaner, then what on earth is the point? The building contributes to the culture here, which is elitist, inaccessible and out of date, and that must change. We support amendment 6 as a way of improving the Bill, but it does not in itself satisfy our desire for greater emphasis to be placed on the Sponsor Board and the Delivery Authority to ensure the project has discernible UK-wide benefits.

In conclusion, I intend to press my cross-party amendment 4 to a Division to test the willingness of the Government to do more than just talk about this being a UK-wide project. We have seen what happens in the past: they are no such thing. We need concrete action to confirm that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tim Loughton]

—and we should have part of that story—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. It might be more helpful to the Chamber if the hon. Gentlemen had this discussion afterwards.

[Tim Loughton]

If the hon. Gentleman turned up to meetings of the all-party parliamentary archaeology group more often, we could have the discussion there.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

It has nothing to do with what we are discussing, or listening to, in respect of the Bill.

[Tim Loughton]

That table is part of the heritage of this place. It is thought that it may have been broken up by Cromwell to symbolise the fact that the monarchy was over and the new rule had begun. It is a really important part of the Palace’s heritage, and I think that it should be brought back from the museum and displayed here, with a considered explanation of where its origins and historical significance may lie.

If we look at the façade of the whole Palace, we see, for instance, the inspiration that came from the Henry VII chapel in Westminster Abbey, going back to the late 15th and early 16th centuries.

It is remarkable that what I have described in those few vignettes has made this such an important building, and continues to contribute to its importance. People come here not just to see the building with all its wonderful statues, carvings and other features, but to see the living embodiment of a Parliament that is working and doing its daily business in this place. Much of what we discuss is relevant to what we can see in the basement, in the roof, in Westminster Hall or in the Chapel of St Mary Undercroft.

After detailed evidence sessions, the Joint Committee concluded that the Bill should

“recognise the significant heritage which the Palace of Westminster embodies.”

The Government welcomed that recommendation in principle, and said that they would look into it further; but alas, since then—as we heard earlier from my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman)—we have heard no new arguments for not listing heritage in the Bill.

I know that the Minister will argue that the considerations that I am trying to insert in the Bill are covered by planning law, and by the various agencies—English Heritage, as was, and others—which will have an input. However, things that have happened in the past have led to the neglect or destruction of major features in the House. I think it is crucial—and sensible—that when the Sponsor Body is carrying out all its other important functions, someone should be able to ask, “And how does that preserve, or promote, or make more accessible or available or better explain, the archaeological, historical and architectural importance of this building?” That is all I am asking. I do not think it unreasonable, and I think that many others, in another place, will advance a similar argument. Many of them have, perhaps, been in the Palace for many more centuries than I have, and will talk with more authority.

Interserve

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister has said on two occasions that no Interserve employees would lose their jobs, but there has been an acknowledgement that five redundancy notices will be issued on Friday. I would suggest that those statements are incompatible. Can you advise me on how the Minister can correct the record about jobs being lost, and is there any other way in which Members can lobby the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to ensure that those five employees are not served with a redundancy notice on Friday?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

The hon. Gentleman has resolved the matter by putting it on the record. I know that through his good offices, and given his background, he will not let the issue drop today. I am sure that he will find other methods to ensure that he continues to support the employees whose jobs may be at risk.

Business of the House (Today)

Ordered,

That, at this day’s sitting, proceedings on the Motion in the name of Jeremy Corbyn relating to the Human Medicines (Amendment) Regulations 2019 (S.I., 2019, No. 62) may continue, though opposed, for 90 minutes after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order, and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of, and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) will not apply.—(Iain Stewart.)

Overseas Electors Bill: Money

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Money resolution: House of Commons
Tuesday 16th October 2018 Commons Chamber

Queen’s recommendation signified.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

May we return for a moment to my old friend Harry Shindler? He is 97 years old and has lived in Italy for much of his life, but he is stoically British. He fought at Anzio, where he watched his friends die, and has since sought to establish memorials to them, and he has been honoured for so doing. Furthermore, he is not one of the oldest members, but the oldest member of the Labour party. Can my hon. Friend suggest any reason why the Labour party would want to prevent that old man from voting?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We need to stick to the money resolution, as you should know better than anyone, Sir Roger. I want to get on with this, so please can we deal with what is in hand? I do not expect the Minister to be driven off course.

[Chloe Smith]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend for his question, but I will return to the finance matters in front of us.

I will explain why the amendment to the money resolution is unrealistic. The figure in the proposal, £10,000 per annum, is just 1% of the estimated cost of implementing the Bill. We have published a detailed impact assessment, which I am sure hon. Members will have read, and it outlines how much we expect the measures to cost. I am not backward in coming forward about the amount: we think it will cost £1 million per annum over 10 years. I will put that into context in a moment and explain why we think it is an appropriate figure.

If any Bill becomes law, it should be properly funded, so that is the starting point.

[Chloe Smith]

As I understand it—you might know this better than I do, Mr Deputy Speaker—it was 1912; it was over a century ago.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I think the hon. Gentleman actually knew the answer.

Strengthening the Union

Lindsay Hoyle Excerpts

Monday 23rd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Con)]

I am going to do something that breaks with convention in this debate—I am going to say something positive about what is going on. I am not going to get into arguments about different areas of the UK, what is going wrong and who could be doing things better than the others. Let us just pause and look at exactly where we are at this moment in time.

I have to make a declaration: apparently, I am the only Parliamentary Private Secretary in history to have been PPS to the Secretaries of State for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Even I did not know that when it happened.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

And Lancashire!

[David Morris]

And Lancashire, and quite right, too, Mr Deputy Speaker; one great Lancastrian speaks to another.

So what have we done to make things even? Well, we have English votes for English laws, which went a long way to try to even out the big question—the West Lothian question. [Interruption.] It did. When we did that, we looked into the Barnett formula and idiosyncrasies that went with it. The Government have put £1.2 billion into Wales, boosting the Barnett formula by 5%, so for about every £100 spent in Wales about £120 is actually coming back into Wales. This has gone a long way to evening out the equilibrium of the economies.

If we think about that, we see that putting an extra 5% into the Barnett formula works out at £67 million over the next five years, which has to be welcomed. This has put Wales in a very positive position in terms of the Brexit problem of leaving the EU. The Government are extending to mid-Wales a growth deal similar to the city deal in Cardiff. That city deal is £615 million, which has been more money put into Wales than any other Government have ever done before. That has to be welcomed. If we are doing that in mid-Wales, imagine what is going to happen there. There is always a problem with transport in mid-Wales, but if we get the transport sorted out in that area, that will provide a boost—it is inevitable. If we get a spaceport there, which is something I will discuss when I get to the Scotland part of my speech, that will pay dividends for mid-Wales, because we have aerospace factories there—Airbus is there and just nearby. That is a huge contributor to that part of the economy in that area, so we must think of this in a positive way.

Turning to Scotland, I know I am probably going to upset the SNP, although I do not really want to do that because the whole tone of what I am trying to do is to be constructive. [Interruption.] I do not want to upset my own colleagues either, so please behave!

I have to make another declaration, as I am the chairman of the parliamentary space committee—there is such a thing. A lot of SNP Members are on it, along with a lot of Conservatives and a lot of Labour Members. The space industry is growing by 11% a year—it has done so year in, year out, all the way through the recession we have just been through. The industry is getting bigger and bigger. Within the next 10 years, space tourism will be a reality. Not so long ago, it was announced that we were going to be having horizontal take-offs from the south-west, but we are going to be having ballistic applications happening in Sutherland. What does that really mean? I do not want to stir up my SNP friends and make a political point, but if we have a spaceport in that area, that will change the economy; it will be a big game changer and a huge infrastructure programme. Although I really want you to stay with us, another problem we would have if Scotland did go independent is that it would contravene the ITAR—International Traffic in Arms Regulations—agreement. The Americans would not accept anything ballistic we put up there, so we would not be able to send satellites up from there or they would not put satellites up from that area. [Interruption.] That is true. If Members would like to look into it, they will find that is a valid point.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Morris]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that interjection. You are right: it has nothing to do with that; it is to do with trade. But I want you to stay with us. I do not want Scotland to go. As has been said, your rhetoric of leaving—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. This is not about private chats. You have to speak through the Chair. I know there is great temptation among Members on both sides of the House to have a private debate, but the rest of us need to hear it and be part of it.

[David Morris]

I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am speaking collegiately.

Looking at where we are going to go with this, we must think of the opportunities that will be afforded to us if we all stay together. We are talking about investment of £2.5 million in an area that is crying out for it, and an estimated injection of £4 billion over the next five years. That cannot be bad.

When I was in the Northern Ireland Office with my hon. Friend the Minister, we had to set a budget. I hope that we will soon be back to having a full, devolved, operating Government there again—I would love to see that—but £410 million has been put into Northern Ireland, with £80 million for health and education, £30 million to support mental health, and £100 million for ongoing health matters.

We have to look after all parts of the UK, which is why it is imperative that the Union survives—from the top end in Scotland, to Northern Ireland, Wales and England. We are all one people and we should reflect that in our politics.

I do not agree with the SNP, but I do respect its policies, which are about leaving the rest of the UK. I do not want that to happen; I respect and understand that position, but I do not agree with it. As has been said, there is an anomaly in that the SNP wants Scotland to have its own sovereignty while remaining in the EU. There is a paradox there, because it is not possible to have sovereignty and give it away to Europe at the same time.

On that note, I will just say that we are all better and stronger together. I hope that toned things down a little—I am sure it did—but please just think about that.