Exiting the European Union (European Union)

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Julia Lopez]

As I have set out, the purpose of the instrument really is to ensure that the statute book works coherently and effectively following the end of the transition period. It does this by making various consequential amendments and repeals in respect of retained EU law relevant to the separation agreement law and other EU-derived domestic legislation.

I hear what the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) says from the Opposition Front Bench. I spoke to my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) before the debate. He shares some of the concerns about the legislative aspects of leaving the EU and was very satisfied with the regulations. He has consulted his friends and colleagues in the legal and financial services professions, and they believe this to be a useful piece of regulation that clarifies and tackles ambiguity. He has also raised concerns about the complexity of leaving the EU. Yes, leaving the EU is a complex process, and it was always going to be. I am glad to say that the UK public deemed it to be an endeavour worth pursuing. They have supported it throughout the referendum and the subsequent general elections.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) bemoaned politicians kicking off referendum processes without due consideration. I hope that he will take his own advice. At least, we listened to the result of that referendum.

Finally, I reiterate my thanks to Members across the House for contributing to the debate. This is a highly technical issue and not exactly the most exciting television viewing, but it is a critical piece of secondary legislation that demonstrates the Government’s commitment to ensuring that there is certainty and clarity about the UK statute book.

Question put and agreed to.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I suspend the sitting for the sanitation of the Dispatch Boxes.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

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

[Mr Davis]

I will tell my right hon. Friend in a moment exactly why I am not reassured by that, but he is quite right that the issue is the repeated investigation of people who are innocent, in most cases. That is a harassing and destructive thing. The best known case is that of Major Campbell, who underwent eight investigations. I am afraid that the real blame lay with the Ministry of Defence for at least four of them. That is what we should address.

As I say, the prosecution system is not slanted against soldiers. I will give the rather gruesome, well known example of Baha Mousa, a 26-year-old Iraqi man who, in 2003, was dragged from his desk while working as a hotel receptionist by British soldiers, handcuffed and taken to a detention facility in Basra. Thirty-six hours later, he had been beaten to death, having suffered 93 separate injuries while in the custody of British forces. The number of solders convicted of murder as a result: zero. The number convicted of manslaughter: zero. There was a single conviction of one soldier, who confessed to inhumane treatment and got one year in prison.

It is difficult for prosecuting and other authorities to make out a clear-cut case of torture, inhumane treatment or even manslaughter, so I do not believe that the system operates against the interests of the armed forces. Indeed, on the several occasions on which the Government have been asked to produce a case of vexatious prosecution—not investigation, but prosecution—they have never been able to name one. That is not surprising. The Service Prosecuting Authority—the body that brings prosecutions—already dismisses claims that it believes are vexatious. In evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Nicholas Mercer, the former Command Legal Adviser in Iraq, said:

“Before I left the army, I gave legal advice on a number of prominent cases…I found a case that was without merit and I closed it. It was as simple as that. I do not need legislation to do that. It happens already.” That is a good reflection on our system, and we should not be ashamed of it.

The area of contention, which has been mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member for Barnsley Central, is the triple lock against prosecutions. The Government’s own stated aim is to raise the bar for prosecutions after five years. In its scrutiny of the Bill, the Joint Committee on Human Rights concluded:

“a limitation period that would prevent prosecutions is unlawful under international law if it prevents investigations and prosecutions in relation to torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.”

The Government state that the measure is not a statute of limitations. The Law Society, which some may dismiss, agrees with the JCHR, and concludes that the presumption against prosecution creates a “quasi-statute of limitation” that is “unprecedented” in criminal law, and represents

“a significant barrier to justice.”

Rather more importantly, the Judge Advocate General, whom I described earlier, has said:

“In my view, what this Bill does is exactly the opposite of what it is trying to do. What it is trying to do is to stop ambulance-chasing solicitors and vexatious and unmeritorious claims. The Minister quite rightly said we want rigour and integrity. What it actually does is increase the risk of service personnel appearing before the International Criminal Court. That is why I said it was ill conceived.”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c.117-18, Q234.]

That is the Judge Advocate General, the most expert person in the country on this subject. He also described, incidentally, the Bill as bringing

“the UK armed forces into disrepute”.

If the Government really think that schedule 1 does not make justice more difficult, they would not have excluded sexual offences from the remit of the Bill. If it is not difficult to get a prosecution, why exclude any category? It was right to exclude sexual offences, and the Government should exclude torture on exactly the same grounds. That is the point of the amendment in my name and in that of many others.

I have a couple of minutes, so I will deal briefly with the issue of civil claims. There have been 1,000 civil claims, according to the Ministry of Defence, all of them against the Ministry, not against individual soldiers—as far as I can tell. Surprise, surprise, someone trying to get money goes to the Ministry, not to a poverty-stricken soldier. However, that does not help veterans; it actually hinders veterans.

The point has been made by other Members, so I will press it no further, except to quote the British Legion director-general:

“it protects the Ministry of Defence from civil action—from someone bringing a case. That longstop does not protect the armed forces personnel.”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 86, Q161.]

Of course, what the Bill could stop are the sorts of cases that exposed Snatch Land Rover, the lack of provision of body armour and a number of other scandals, which quite properly improved the operation the MOD.

The Bill does the same for torture cases. All the stories about torture and rendition came in the first instance from civil cases—all of them. That is what brought them into the public domain; there was not a single criminal prosecution in the first instance. It is difficult to bring a torture case. In most, only two people know about the torture: the victim and the oppressor—the torturer, or torturers. Typically, no other evidence is available in the public domain. A case is difficult. Even in the case of Belhaj, the most famous torture case—we delivered Mr Belhaj and his pregnant wife to the Libyans, for heaven’s sake—it took 10 years, essentially, to get to court, and of course he got an apology from the Prime Minister. That is why the issue of torture is almost impossible to bring to court.

Time is running out, so I will finish by quoting the questions that the Judge Advocate General put to the Minister in Committee. He said that

“six Royal Military Police were killed…in 2003”,

and asked:

“would we accept that there would be a presumption against… prosecution”

of their murderers? Would we expect special arrangements—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I will let the right hon. Member read the quote before finishing.

[Mr Davis]

I will read the quote:

“Would we be content that a member of the Iraqi Government’s consent would be needed to prosecute? Would we accept a decision by that person not to prosecute? In my view, there would be outrage in this country if”––[Official Report, Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Public Bill Committee, 8 October 2020; c. 128, Q278]—

the Iraqis behaved in that way. The Judge Advocate General said that we should always remember that the law should be “even-handed” to all people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gavin Robinson]

The hon. Gentleman is right that there is a huge danger. The Government are not tearing up our international obligations—I accept that. The Government are not resiling from our international obligations to say torture is wrong, it is abhorrent, it is immoral and it is not something that we will engage in. I agree with the Government on that. But if that is their position, then why not close the circle in the Bill? Why leave it to others to determine in the International Criminal Court, when those issues should be determined here? I say again very clearly that in the context where there has been no investigation at all that cannot be right, be it five years, 10 years or whatever else. I will listen thoughtfully to the Minister in his summing up and hear what he has to say on that. I know he has the strength of numbers. I know he can push it through. I know he can reject the amendments that have been tabled, whether they are amendments 1 to 10 or amendment 32. But I ask him to reflect seriously on that.

Finally, the right hon. Member for North Durham dealt with this issue well in his new clause 1, but new clause 1 should be what the Bill is about: not dealing with the prospect of a prosecution five years after the fact, but dealing with repeated investigations, again and again and again, before the provisions of the Bill are ever engaged. That door remains open. We know some of the Northern Ireland cases that are going through the courts at the moment do not just involve a veteran, elderly and frail, but have also included dawn raids on an elderly and frail veteran of service in Northern Ireland in the ’70s and ’80s. That is outrageous, but none of that is precluded under the terms of the Bill. The investigations issue is worthy of further exploration during today’s proceedings.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We will have to introduce a five-minute limit now, because of the pressure of speakers.

[Jack Lopresti]

I will address briefly some of the points raised in this excellent debate. First, I would like to congratulate the Minister for Defence People and Veterans, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), for his efforts to bring the Bill before the House. He has been a tireless champion of the veterans community ever since he was elected and it has been a privilege to serve on the Public Bill Committee with him. And I am so pleased he has had his haircut, finally.

This is a Conservative Government who are delivering on our manifesto commitment to begin to ensure that the men and women this House sends on operations, often into harm’s way, are safe from the sort of vexatious, repeat investigations and harassment that some have had to endure after operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. In this country, we are rightly proud of the men and women of our armed forces. In this season of remembrance, it is right for the House to be considering legal safeguards for them on future operations overseas. The Bill begins to address what many have talked about over many years and which we are finally getting to grips with: it provides some reassurance and protection for those deployed in the service of our nation on operations abroad in the future.

With the greatest respect to Members across the House, there has been a great deal of nonsense spoken about this proposed legislation during the passage of the Bill so far. The statutory presumption against prosecution after five years of any incident does not constitute a pardon, an amnesty or a statute of limitations. Prosecutors will still have discretion over whether to act, bearing in mind the public interest and if there is adequate or new evidence, and, critically, after careful consideration from the Attorney General, who will act in the public interest.

Our service personnel are trained to the highest possible standard and are taught about the laws of armed conflict, as well as the Geneva convention, as some Members mentioned. The Armed Forces Act 2006 clearly states that any criminal act will be considered as an offence under UK law. This proposed legislation does not overturn that principle or statute. This Bill does not make it virtually impossible to bring prosecutions for charges of torture—this is not correct—and I welcome the fact that the threshold for a new prosecution will have to be of an exceptional nature after five years. This legislation will dramatically change the existing culture, where our armed forces personnel are seen as fair game by some lawyers. It is right that any investigation must consider the unique pressures of conflict and decisions made under great stress. This provision will, I am sure, be welcomed by serving personnel and veterans.

This Bill does not prevent personnel from bringing civil claims against the MOD. The six-year time limit proposed applies from the point of knowledge or the point of diagnosis. The MOD estimates that 93.8% of claims by service personnel or their families arising from service in Afghanistan or Iraq would be eligible under the provisions of this Bill. I also welcome the establishment by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence of the judge-led review of the wider service justice system. This will I hope ensure that from the beginning when allegations are made or incidents occur, they will be dealt with more swiftly.

The message from this House must be clear to our allies around the world: this Bill does not exclude British personnel on operations from their obligations under international law or the Geneva convention. The wider interpretation of the European convention on human rights has produced additional confusion. In an area where we have unattributed forces acting in grey zone operations, or not wearing uniforms or insignia, the opportunity to provoke incidents and then claim the use of excessive force will be a more attractive option from these states or others who wish us ill. Crucially, other NATO allies, such as France, obtain a derogation from the ECHR when their forces are deployed overseas on operations. This Bill will put in statute the proviso for Ministers to consider that they would derogate from the ECHR.

In welcoming this Bill, I look forward to supporting the Government’s measures to extend similar protections to our Northern Ireland veterans, which is long overdue. This Government are proud to stand up for our armed forces while they protect human rights, democracy and the rule of law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Wind-ups will begin at 5.26, so I will ask whoever is on their feet at that time to resume their seat.

[Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)]

I have co-sponsored a number of amendments in the hope—perhaps it is naive—that some of the rougher edges of the Bill can be improved. Ultimately, I think this Bill is flawed from top to bottom and is unnecessary. We have, for example, existing prosecutorial tests. One is the evidential test and the second is the public interest test, which are more than adequate to take into account some of the concerns raised by Members. The Bill also raises the question whether our judiciary are not capable of weeding out vexatious claims whenever they come before them. I believe they are, and we should have confidence in their abilities to address those very points.

The Bill creates some very difficult and unnecessary precedents by breaking up the long-standing convention that everyone is equal before the law. There is no need to put in place measures that create additional prosecutorial tests and hurdles to be jumped in relation to certain categories of people—even those who on the face of it are incredibly deserving of our support, such as our veteran community and current active service personnel.

The most egregious aspect of the Bill is what it does in relation to torture. A number of Members have already said this, but in effect it decriminalises torture. I say “in effect” because that is not on the face of the Bill. That is the outworking of what the provisions entail. People will say that torture and war crimes can still be prosecuted through the courts, but it is a fact that a triple lock of additional hurdles, which do not exist for any other category of criminal offence, is to be put into law, and that makes this situation much more difficult and challenging.

I am conscious that we are all looking across the Atlantic today to see what happens in the US presidential election, and there is a clear interest in ensuring that the values of decency and support for democracy, human rights and the rule of law prevail over those who are pursuing other agendas. At the same time, it is deeply troubling that the Government, and potentially this House, are willing to implement measures on torture in legislation that overturns centuries of precedent. That should be very troubling to us all.

[Stephen Farry]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for his comments. I very much respect his service, and his commitment in that service to upholding the rule of law and the highest standards of international humanitarian law. The point I am making, however, is that while on the surface the Bill does not do what he says, the fact that the triple lock and the additional prosecutorial hurdles in effect create that outcome is, I think, deeply troubling to us all.

There are just two other points I want to make in conclusion, to try to let someone else say a few words. First, anyone who opposes the Bill today should not be labelled as someone who is opposed to our armed forces. It can be viewed and construed as respecting our armed forces. Let us ask ourselves the question: what was it that they were actually fighting for, particularly when they were in Iraq and Afghanistan? I appreciate that both of those interventions were controversial in many respects, but surely it is about peace, upholding the rule of law in those countries and upholding international law? We therefore do ourselves a great disservice if, in recognising their contribution, we in turn undermine those very values in what we do in the Chamber today.

My final point relates to Northern Ireland. Members have made reference to potential legislation in that regard. I do not look forward to seeing similar legislation being put in place for Northern Ireland—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. We must come to the winding-up speeches. I call Stewart Malcolm McDonald.

[Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)]

I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am only sorry we did not get to hear the end of the speech by the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry).

I rise to support the new clauses, and to speak to amendment 32 in my name and those of my hon. Friends. I want to begin by thanking my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan) and for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), who served on the Bill Committee, among other hon. Members who find themselves here this afternoon. I am afraid to say to hon. Members, particularly those who were with us on Second Reading, that very little has changed from what I said then. In fact, almost nothing has changed from what I said then and that is a great shame. It is the case, then as now, that senior legal, military and political opinion was united in consensus against the Bill. That has not changed. [Interruption.] That did not take very long, did it? The Minister should not worry; I will come to the points that he loves to chunter.

Covid-19 Update

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Monday 12th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I share my hon. Friend’s views entirely and I desperately wish that these measures were not necessary. The better and more united way we can enforce them, the faster we will be able to lift them, and in Redcar, and across the country, we will be able to get on with our agenda of uniting and levelling up. By the way, we have not forgotten about that—we are continuing to do it, irrespective of this crisis, as I think the people of Redcar would expect.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for answering well over 100 questions in over two hours, and I am grateful to those who have participated. There will be many other MPs who would have loved to have got on the call list.

I suspend the House for three minutes.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dehenna Davison]

That is much appreciated. I must say I really respect the fact that we on this side of the House tend to be more polite and to listen when Opposition Members are speaking.

I have spoken about the freedoms that we have, and about the freedoms that we are aiming to deliver. They are the freedoms that the British public have told us time and again that they want us to have. Clause 46 is a vital part of a Bill that allows us to maintain and reclaim our freedom, and that is why I reject the amendments laid down by other hon. Members.

But today is about more than just these clauses and this Bill; it is about the very heart of our democracy. We find ourselves today at a defining moment in British history, and on this day we must recall that the British people have the freedom to choose their own future, that they freely chose to leave the EU, that they have put their faith in our Prime Minister, and that they need us to be able to operate in a sovereign manner to allow us to open our arms to the world. We will look back on this moment in the years to come, and we owe it to ourselves and our constituents to say that we stood on the right side of history.

With just weeks to go until the end of negotiations in the David and Goliath battle between the UK and EU, this is the eleventh hour. We have a duty to honour the freedom that the British public have, so we must reclaim our sovereignty, protect the territorial integrity of the United Kingdom and empower the country to trade with nations around the world, not just with our immediate neighbours. As the voice of the British people, it is our responsibility to create the brighter future that they have demanded, and on this day we must vote to give the Government the freedom they need to achieve that. I ask my hon. and right hon. Friends right across the House to vote with me, to vote with the voice of the British people and to vote to uphold the freedom of choice that underpins our democracy. I will always stand for freedom, and this week I have been and will be voting for it. I hope hon. Members will too.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Before I call Pete Wishart, I just want to remind everyone that 18 Members still wish to participate in the debate, so please be mindful of that fact when making your contributions.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison). I just love all the new Tory Members of Parliament—they are the best recruiting sergeant we have for the cause of independence anywhere in the House. Their lack of understanding of the devolution settlement is just astounding sometimes. What they are doing with their contributions and how that is assisting our cause is just fantastic for us. We very much enjoy every single contribution they make, and we want to encourage them. Please get up and disparage Scotland! Tell us our democracy does not matter! Tell us no, all the time, because all it does is grow support for independence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Hunt]

We are talking specifically about clauses 46 and 47. We are talking specifically about this money. My argument is that, under these clauses, the people of Scotland and its representatives will have far more influence over how that money is spent than under the status quo. I am glad you intervened on me, because I wanted to give you some political advice, because you are very good at giving political advice to us—

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. You are not the only one who is doing this, Tom, but I remind everybody to not use the word “you” unless you are referring to me. You are speaking through the Chair.

[Tom Hunt]

I am very sorry, Chair. I know that you have let me get away with it once or twice before, and it is right that you are stern. Getting back to this important point about political advice, and in the spirit of co-operation, I would say that I am proud of the Union. I am a Unionist. My Welsh grandfather fought for Britain in the second world war, and I love every nation in the United Kingdom, and that includes Scotland. I want Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom, but I respect the fact that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) has a different view, and I respect him and all his people.

However, one of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey), denigrated this country, entire and whole, on Monday, saying that we have a history to be ashamed of. He went back over the past 200 years and found different reasons why we should be ashamed of Great Britain and Northern Ireland at a time when we reflect upon the battle of Britain and how it was Scottish pilots, Ulster pilots, Welsh pilots and English pilots who made the most decisive intervention. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath says that we are a country of chancers and lawbreakers, but we should be proud of the fact that we made a decisive intervention in standing up to the most evil regime in modern history. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire should reflect upon that.

Going back to clauses 46 and 47, I do not see a power grab. I see greater opportunities for the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and also the people of England and the constituency that I represent, because we all have crazy examples of how the structural funds have been spent in the past. Let us come together as a House and frame the way that money is spent and invest it in our communities.

I am not surprised that the Labour party has taken a position that seems to be slightly contrary to supporting the Union, because we know that some Opposition Members see no problem with mocking St George’s flag. I found it interesting on Sunday night that a shadow Front Bencher was mocking new Conservative MPs for being proud of the Union flag and for having the Union flag in their backgrounds while they were speaking. I am as proud of the Union flag as I am of St George’s flag. I rest my case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Davies-Jones]

I can wholeheartedly say: spending powers. The Government will take that power away from the Welsh Government and away from the Welsh people, and prevent them from spending that money, on which they rightly have the decision to make.

The cherry on top of the world’s worst cake is that the UK Government did not even bother to consult the Welsh Government on the Bill. We are told that the Welsh Government only saw a copy of the Bill at 8 pm the day before it was published—an absolute disgrace. I would consider myself a creative person, but it is a stretch even for me to see how the UK Government can say in good faith that the Bill aims to strengthen the Union. At a time when co-operation between our nations has never been more important, I am frankly flabbergasted by the Government’s shameless attempt to squeeze power and undermine our devolved nations. It is vital that when the UK leaves the EU, we have a system in place that ensures that standards are maintained across all four countries, but there are ways to do that that does not undermine our devolved Administrations. Yet, as we hear in the media today and in the breaking news just now, the Government are preparing to undertake yet another U-turn. I have lost count of the number of U-turns we have seen in recent months, but an additional parliamentary vote on breaking the law will not make the problem go away.

The Bill and the UK Government are making us an international laughing stock. What happened to the Government’s oven-ready Brexit deal? The microwave is waiting, but it is empty. Not only does the Bill mean that the UK Government will have the power to overrule the Welsh Government and centralise power into the hands of a serially incompetent Tory Government in 10 Downing Street, but it will make it harder for the Welsh Government to legislate on issues that matter to people locally in my constituency of Pontypridd. I have had hundreds of emails from constituents concerned about the rolling back of animal welfare and food standards across our country. Does the Minister agree that the Bill, as it stands, could lead to a race to the bottom in the standards of goods produced in the UK?

The Bill will also make it harder for the devolved Administrations to legislate on climate issues, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) has already stated, the Welsh Government are currently proposing a ban on nine different single-use plastic items in Wales—actually making a difference in the climate emergency.

By contrast, the UK Government are proposing just three. If the Bill passes, the mutual recognition principle could mean that Wales would not be able to legislate to ban the sale of the other six items, even though there is clearly high demand and we are in the middle of a climate emergency. The Welsh Government are taking that seriously, but the Bill and the Westminster Tory Government are deliberately making their work harder.

Ultimately, the Bill risks the integrity of the Union and undermines devolution at every opportunity. The Government are showing complete contempt for the people of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. I urge Members on the Benches opposite, especially those who represent constituencies in our devolved nations, to ensure that spending provided by the UK Government actually comes forward in the first place and then, when it is in a devolved policy area, would have to be approved by the UK Parliament or allocated by the devolved Administrations. We must stand up for devolution and we must respect the devolution deal. Diolch.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Before I call Gavin Robinson, I just want to remind everybody that we are clearly limited in time. The wind-ups will be at around the 7.35 pm mark, because we will want to hear from both Front Benchers and from Alison Thewliss, so I ask Members to show some restraint and not to forget the clauses and amendments we are talking about today.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

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

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I inform the House that the wind-ups will begin at 9.40.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Lab)]

By rushing through this legislation, this Government are treating the people of Leicester and the entire British public with utter contempt. Perhaps more than any election in recent memory, the 2019 general election was decided by a single issue. The Prime Minister promised to get Brexit done, and his party boasted time and again about an oven-ready deal that would settle the divisive issue of Brexit for good. “Very good”, “great”, “wonderful”, “fantastic” —those were just some of the words that the Prime Minister used during the general election campaign to describe the Brexit deal, which he is now openly willing to break international law in order to rewrite.

This is an agreement that the Prime Minister negotiated and signed himself, yet he now says that it contains grave problems that could break up our country. I do not know of any instance in which a Government have openly admitted to flouting their central election promise less than a year into their Administration. This is an unprecedented failure that raises serious questions about the Government’s entire mandate. Sadly, it comes as no real surprise. This Government are the embodiment of elitist double standards, where it is one rule for them and another for everyone else.

The Prime Minister is apparently not satisfied with misleading the public once by claiming that his half-baked deal was oven-ready. In addition, his Government are now being dishonest about the reasons why the deal must be changed. The issues of state aid and customs declarations are not a revelation but were repeatedly and explicitly spelled out to the Government last year, not least by their confidence and supply partners, the DUP. In this House, we cannot risk the sanctity of the Good Friday agreement or threaten peace on the island of Ireland, yet that is what this legislation proposes to do.

Why? This self-inflicted crisis is either a counterproductive negotiating tactic or a pathetic attempt to distract from this Government’s calamitous record over the last few months. After all, this Government have overseen the worst coronavirus death rate of any European country. Boris Johnson and his Ministers are used to U-turning—[Interruption.] The Prime Minister and his Ministers are used to U-turning, but tearing up their own international—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am sorry, but we have to move on, and please remember not to refer to other Members by their names.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

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

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

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

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to consider the following:

New clause 2—Allocation of constituencies—

‘(1) Rule 8 of Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act (the allocation method) is amended as follows.

(2) After rule 8(5) insert—

“(6) Notwithstanding the allocation of constituencies according to the allocation method set out in rule 8(2)(5), there must be a minimum allocation of constituencies as follows—

(a) Wales must be allocated at least 40 constituencies (including the protected constituency);

(b) Scotland must be allocated at least 59 constituencies (including the two protected constituencies);

(c) Northern Ireland must be allocated at least 18 constituencies; and

(d) the allocation of constituencies must be adjusted accordingly.”’

This new clause seeks to protect representation in the devolved nations by securing a minimum number of constituencies in each of the devolved nations.

New clause 3—Definition of “electorate”—

‘In rule 9(2) of Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act, for “whose names appear on the relevant version of a register of parliamentary electors” substitute “who are estimated by the Electoral Commission to be eligible to vote in an election, were they to register”’.

This new clause would change the definition of ‘electorate’ to include all potential electors, both those who are on an electoral roll and those who are not.

Amendment 1, page 2, line 19, leave out clause 2.

This amendment aims to maintain the status quo of parliamentary oversight within the boundary review process.

[Cat Smith]

It is a pleasure to speak again on the Bill, as it gives me the opportunity to put on the record the Labour party’s support for the boundary review in time for the next general election. I would like to start by thanking all the right hon. and hon. Members who served on the Bill Committee—in particular my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), who regrets that he cannot be with us this afternoon.

Our current constituencies were drawn up on electorate data that is now nearly two decades old; we cannot go into the next election with constituencies based on data that will, by then, be a quarter of a century out of date. Our country and our communities look very different, and the review will take into account new electors as well as significant demographic shifts. A review is urgently needed, and the Opposition do not stand in the way of that.

Throughout the Bill’s passage, we have worked constructively to improve it for the good of our democracy, and there have been areas of distinct improvement along the way. The size of the House of Commons has varied massively over the centuries. The largest Commons, in 1918, came in at 707 MPs—they really would have struggled with the social distancing measures we are adhering to. However, certainly in the last two centuries, we have not dropped below 615 MPs. Reducing the number of MPs while maintaining the size of the Executive was always an affront to democracy, and I welcome the Minister’s U-turn on that matter. Given our departure from the European Union and this Government’s chaotic handling of the current pandemic, it is clear that there will be plenty of work for 650 MPs.

We supported and welcomed the amendment in Committee to use the March 2020 register for the new boundary review. It is important that we use the most accurate snapshot of our country to draw up our electoral boundaries. The inclusion of Ynys Môn as a protected constituency is something that the Labour party has long campaigned for, although I was surprised to see the Minister support it in Committee, given her party’s previous firm opposition to it. But then I remembered that the Tories may have an alternative motivation for suddenly recognising the island’s unique status. I welcome that recognition all the same.

UK-EU Negotiations

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition is beginning to develop a reputation for going to ground on the most contentious issues, such as whether his party supports an extension of the transition period or whether he continues to think backing freedom of movement is democratically acceptable after the 2016 referendum and the general election—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Mr Hunt, resume your seat for just a second, and I will explain that the Minister is not responsible for the policy of Opposition Members. Please could you get to the question for which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is responsible.

[Tom Hunt]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, by contrast, those on this side of the House will be resolute and determined in ending the transition period on 31 December and freedom of movement along with it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend was a very effective Home Office Minister, and he speaks with great authority on these questions. He is absolutely right. We need to be outside the ambit of the ECJ, but we need to ensure that we have security, criminal justice and other forms of co-operation, precisely in order to ensure that we keep our citizens safe and work with the EU to keep its citizens safe.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. Please be aware of social distancing as you leave the Chamber. We will suspend for three minutes.

Parliamentary Constituencies Bill

Nigel Evans Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 2nd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)]

I rise to support the Bill knowing that I may well be a turkey voting for Christmas. I am a new MP, but I am reliably informed by my predecessor that when the boundary commission previously turned its attention to my seat, of its various proposals, none helped. Perhaps that enhances the force of my support for the Bill, because I give it without much to gain.

In the six months I have been a Member of this House, I have thought carefully about what it means to represent and what it means to be represented. Before consideration of this Bill, I had not been fully aware of the extent of the population disparity between the various seats. It is striking how closely the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey) resemble my own. I did not know that the seat of Ashford, with its 90,000 constituents had more than double the constituents of the Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross seat. I acknowledge the sensible remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones) that there are important geographical considerations, but we cannot avoid the fact that a vote in Caithness has twice the value of a vote in Ashford, and to me that distorts representation. When he wrote “Of true and false democracy”, John Stuart Mill said that in a “really equal democracy” every community is represented in equal proportion. Without this, he added, there are those

“whose fair…share of influence in the representation is withheld from them…contrary to the principle of democracy, which professes equality at its very root”.

For that reason, it seems right to me that we equalise seats based on number and that the margin for variation is deliberately circumscribed.

My second point relates to the retention of 650 seats, rather than the reduction to 600. All the way through, three issues concerned me. First, I had grave concerns about whether the new super-constituencies could offer the sort of quality of representation that people deserve, just at the time we were losing the Members of the European Parliament. I was glad to see that reflected in the impact assessment prepared on 4 May. Secondly, one thing I knew about my own seat is that the 600 seats proposal lacerated some of our communities, cleaving villages from towns that had deep historical links. I hope—I will make submissions as the Bill proceeds—that we can use the preservation of 650 seats to put that right.

Thirdly, I welcomed the coalition Government’s intention to manage the cost of Parliament, but I felt it was directed at the wrong Chamber. The other Chamber comprises 783 Members and costs the taxpayer less but almost as much as our Chamber. If the Members of this House spoke honestly to their constituents and asked them how many Members of the Upper Chamber they could name, they might find that some could name none at all. I know that some Members of that Chamber are brilliant and bring expertise; I know that some of them serve in the Government and in the shadow Cabinet, and are very active in that Chamber; and I know that the vast majority adhere to the highest standards of professional conduct. But when they fall short—and some do—there is absolutely nothing the public can do, and to me that conflicts with the whole principle of parliamentary democracy.

As Ted Heath once said, those who have been appointed to or inherited seats have done in the main

“a tremendous task and we owe them a great deal”,—[Official Report, 2 February 1999; Vol. 324, c. 761.]

but I hope that in this Parliament, we will make the move—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am terribly sorry, but we have to move on to the next speaker.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)]

I think I win the prize for patience this evening. Many of my points have already been made, but I make no apology for reiterating them because this Bill will have an important impact on all of us in this House.

The onset of the covid-19 pandemic and its continued impacts in Newport West and across the United Kingdom —indeed, across our whole world—has shown now more than ever that strong and constructive scrutiny of the Government is vital. That is how we must approach this Bill, and this debate, as it works its way through the House. As such, I am pleased that the Government’s plans to cut the number of MPs has been scrapped, because this is not the time to engage in less democracy. As we leave the EU, it is even more vital that the increased workload of MPs is reflected in the make-up of our national Parliament and the design of its constituencies.

I am concerned about the removal of parliamentary approval and scrutiny from the process. Under the current rules, Parliament has the ultimate authority to accept or deny boundary changes. The draft boundaries order must be agreed by both Houses of Parliament before being approved by Her Majesty at a meeting of the Privy Council. However, the measures contained in the new Bill will remove Parliament from the process, which means that Parliament will no longer be required to approve the draft order before it is made by Her Majesty at the meeting of the Privy Council. We all remember what happened the last time the Government attempted to bypass Parliament as they sought to illegally prorogue Parliament, and this is not a good way to go.

Another key part of the Bill is the fact that the review will be based on the number of registered voters on 30 December 2020. This means that the size of the electorate on 30 December 2020 will be used throughout the new boundary review as the officially recognised size of the current electorate. We know the pressures that will be triggered by Brexit and covid-19, and we know about the uncertain housing situation at the moment. This risks the data on which these major changes will be based being flawed and incomplete. We all remember what we were doing in December 2019 and can testify to the obvious fact that a general election acts as a major driver of registering to vote. As has already been said, we see huge spikes in voter registration during national elections and during local elections, too. We now know that there will be no election between today and 1 December 2020, so we will lose that ability to ensure that the voter roll accurately reflects those entitled to vote. Let us stick to the December 2019 data.

My final point is that we must take account of geography, not just numbers of voters. Mountains and valleys, rivers and reservoirs make a difference, and I urge the Minister to remember this. I will not be opposing the Second Reading today and I am pleased the Government have made some concessions, but I caution them to take the politics out of this process, and to give the people of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland the House of Commons they need and deserve.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

The wind-ups will be at 7.44 pm. I call Lee Rowley.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am afraid there are three parts to this, the first of which relates to the voting we have already done. I was a Teller in one of the earlier Divisions this afternoon. It is up to others to judge quite how ludicrous the whole process looks to the outside world, but to my mind it looks preposterous. I feel that one of the oldest Parliaments in the world should be the best and most able to adapt to modern circumstances, not the worst, but that is a battle for another day. There were some specific order issues during those Divisions, with one being that the Speaker adopted a new version of what we had to wear when voting. I just wonder whether we could have some clarity on that for the future, as, historically, people, including some Whips, have been able to vote in the Lobby when they have been to the gym.

Secondly, one Member tried, during one of the Divisions, to vote in both directions. I know that historically that has not been allowed, but the Member is certainly under the belief that that was recorded. As I understand it—I was one of the Tellers—we were not including that as one of the votes on either side, so it would be good to have some clarity on that.

The other point is that the Leader of the House said earlier in today’s debate that we were going to have a motion on the Order Paper tomorrow for us to debate enabling some Members of the House to participate not, I think, in debates, but in urgent questions, questions and statements. Obviously, I would welcome that, but as I understand it the Government have not so far announced what kind of debate it will be, whether any time will be allocated for it tomorrow, whether it is expected that this should be agreed to on nod or nothing, whether we are able to table amendments, or whether we have to submit to be able to take part in that debate. There are many of us who feel deeply concerned that the Government have tabled a motion that suggests the only people who will be able to participate are those who self-certify as having a medical need. I do not think that disabled people, or people who are shielding or have shielding responsibilities for others, should be treated in that way. I do not think that they should have to justify themselves for wanting to participate from a distance. In particular, parents who have childcare responsibilities should certainly not have to claim that there is some kind of medical reason. Some of us would therefore like to have a full debate.

I am sorry that that is a long point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, but you are a very indulgent man.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Thank you very much, Mr Bryant. As far as the first point is concerned, you said it was a battle for another day and clearly it will be. On the dress code during a Division, you are absolutely right. In the past, people have come straight from the gym and worn what they were in when the Division Bell rang. I will ensure that that gets raised tomorrow, so that clarity is brought to how people should dress when there is a Division, as I will on voting both ways. We do not have the opportunity to abstain or, for whatever reason—we can only hazard a guess as to why people do it—vote both ways.

As far as the motion tomorrow is concerned, I have not seen that motion yet, but you have raised several points as to why people would want to at least make known their anger, one way or another, as to what may or may not happen in that motion. I hope that Members will get an opportunity to at least express their views, however that motion is brought forward. I hope that is okay. [Interruption.] Thank you very much, Mr Bryant. The thumbs up will do me fine.

Future Relationship with the EU: Negotiations

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Tuesday 19th May 2020 Commons Chamber

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 127) with explanatory notes (EN-127).

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Three items of business today are designated for remote Division. Mr Speaker’s provisional determination is that remote Divisions will not take place on the motion on human tissue, the motion on constitutional law, and the Finance Bill (Ways and Means) motion.

Veterans’ Mental Health

Nigel Evans Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Johnny Mercer]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising clear and pertinent points in this fight to understand this issue. I will cover them in turn.

We are in conversation with the coroner service about coroner data. The hon. Gentleman will understand that suicide is a very complex and difficult issue. When it comes to data, Governments of all colours over the years have started from a very low point. That is why some of the earliest funds of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs have gone into gathering the data—so that we can lead the way with evidence-based, research-based, genuine solutions to provide outcomes to our servicemen and women. A number of studies are under way. I mentioned the cohort study and our “through life” study of three quarters of a million veterans. Conversations are ongoing with the coroner service and I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman with an update.

I believe that this place has made serious progress on stigma. When I first came here in 2015 and talked about the issue, we were in a very different place with mental health. Sterling work has been done by other people and I believe we are beginning to win the battle on stigma. The critical ground now is not stigma but the need to ensure that when people have the courage to come forward, the services and provision are there to meet their needs. I am fully focused on that.

On resilience training, the military now is a fundamentally different experience from five or 10 years ago. Op Smart and other service applications are doing brilliant work. We take the issue very seriously. Mental fitness and mental wellbeing are embedded in training, in phase 1 and throughout a person’s career. Indeed, we are looking to launch an enhanced programme later this year, with the Royal Foundation.

There is a challenge in tracing people who have left the forces, as we do not have a veterans’ administration like our colleagues in the United States, and nor would I seek to create one. But there is work that we can do. Three months ago, I tasked the Department to come up with options for tracing individuals as they go back into civilian life. There are mechanisms through which to do this already, such as writing to people to remind them of their reserve service. I am looking to couple that with a requirement for a GP appointment or similar—even if people feel well and do not want to go—so that we can get a better handle on outcomes.

I warmly welcome the commitment in yesterday’s Budget to funding for mental health. That funding is going to a specific area, but in no way is that the total amount going into veterans’ health. I have asked the Department to do a study outlining what we are actually doing. We are investing more than £200 million in veterans’ mental health over the next 10 years, but I accept that it can be hard to see where some of this stuff goes and what we are doing with it, which is why I have tasked the Department with making clear what we are spending where. It is not fair on the professionals who are working so hard in this arena day to day for politicians to try to score points on money when there is a whole load of money going into this project, but I accept that we need to do better to get that message out there. The shadow Minister makes a fair point. This is a challenge for the Department, but we will meet it. I look forward to meetings with him in due course. This is not a party political issue. We have to meet this challenge and, under this Prime Minister, we will.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I intend to get everybody in who was here at the beginning of the statement.

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

With the Minister’s own strong record on the subject, I am sure that he will agree that the misapplication of human rights law to the battlefield, rather than the law of armed conflict, is a cause of immense stress and mental distress to the veteran population who have taken part in campaigns and fear being dragged through the courts. When will the Government be bringing forward the promised legislation—I have in mind the promise made on Armistice Day last year, during the election campaign —to stop the repeated reinvestigation of veterans in the absence of any compelling new evidence?

--- Later in debate ---

[Johnny Mercer]

I want to be clear with my hon. Friend: there is no reason why any organisation in this country that takes public money cannot sign up to the armed forces covenant. There is no reason why somebody who has served or their family should suffer any disadvantage because of their service. Where that is happening, I urge people to get in touch with me. We are legislating to ensure that that cannot be the case, to put the power of the armed forces covenant into individuals’ hands and to make it really mean something.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I thank the Minister for his statement.

Bill Presented

Gender-based Pricing (Prohibition) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Christine Jardine, supported by Daisy Cooper, Wendy Chamberlain, Layla Moran, Sarah Olney, Wera Hobhouse, Munira Wilson, Jess Phillips, Caroline Nokes, Mrs Maria Miller and Hannah Bardell, presented a Bill to prohibit the differential pricing of products and services that are substantially similar other than being intended for, or marketed to, a particular gender; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 November, and to be printed (Bill 105).