Article 50
Ronnie Cowan Excerpts(7 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
There is a very simple point, which is that across the United Kingdom people voted in the referendum in different ways. But the majority of the UK electorate voted to leave the European Union, and the Government are respecting that vote. We will continue to work with the devolved Administrations and have taken them into account. There are many areas in which we have common ground with the Scottish Government, such as in wanting comprehensive access to the European single market, wanting to protect workers’ rights and wanting to recognise the importance of science and innovation. We have common ground with the Scottish Government on all those points; it is just unfortunate that they do not seem to recognise where we have common ground with them and that they are not willing to acknowledge that.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
Today’s statement was full of clichés, platitudes and jingoism, but no answers. When will the Government of Scotland, democratically elected to represent the nation of Scotland—a nation that voted to remain in the EU—be given the opportunity to contribute by supplying the facts and the figures that are so lacking? We have had one vacuous vow; we do not need another one.
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman talks about representation from Scotland. Of course, he and his colleagues represent Scottish constituencies in the United Kingdom Parliament; he is a constituent part of that Parliament and will be part of the discussions as we go forward.
Chilcot Inquiry and Parliamentary Accountability
Ronnie Cowan Excerpts(7 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
I am delighted finally to be speaking in this most important of debates.
From the outside looking in, many people assume that this place is corrupt. Let us be honest: politicians do not have a good reputation. I know the vast majority of MPs are hard-working, diligent and honest, but every example of corruption, perversion, laziness, greed or dishonesty does not just taint the perpetrator; it casts a shadow over all of us and this place. The only way to convince the citizens of the UK that they have a Parliament to be proud of is through ruthless honesty, even when it hurts. The alternative is an electorate who are dissatisfied and feel disfranchised, and so disengage from politics and politicians. We have a duty to support the mechanisms of a democracy. We must respect, cherish and protect them. We do not own them; we are simply guardians who pass them on to future generations. That is why we must investigate thoroughly any possibility that the principles we claim to hold so dear have been abused.
The Chilcot inquiry highlighted serious shortcomings and misgivings. The report stated that the UK invaded Iraq before all peaceful options had been investigated. We now know that there was no imminent threat from Iraq or Saddam Hussein, and that the reasons for our invasion were predicated on flawed intelligence. Crucially, this flawed intelligence was not challenged as it should have been. Quite astoundingly, there is no formal record of the decision and the grounds on which it was made that led to the invasion that started on 20 March 2003.
The rush to war was so fast that our troops did not have time to stockpile the necessary equipment—uniforms, boots and body armour. A lack of helicopters and armoured vehicles made it more dangerous for our forces. By July 2009, 179 members of our armed forces had died. We will never know how many Iraqis died, but conservative estimates suggest at least 150,000, with millions more displaced from their homes. How did this come about? How did this place get it so wrong? How were so many MPs misled?
In 2003, it was already US policy to change the regime in Iraq. Five years earlier, in 1998, President Clinton had signed into law the Iraq Liberation Act. It was
“the policy of the U.S. to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq”.
In 2003, Prime Minister Tony Blair threw his hat in with the US. Chilcot demonstrated clearly that Tony Blair bypassed his Cabinet, instead relying on his so-called “sofa government”. Key decisions on the future of the country were made in informal meetings, sometimes involving only a couple of the then Prime Minister’s friends, and without the input of senior members of the Cabinet. That is not how to solve a problem. The invasion of Iraq was an object lesson in how to escalate a problem. If the mission was to perpetuate instability in the middle east, it is mission accomplished.
The last line of the motion we are debating today is crucial. It calls on the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee to
“report to the House on what further action it considers necessary and appropriate to help prevent any repetition of this disastrous series of events.”
As I deliver this speech, our forces are involved in the battle of Mosul, so we can see that the ramifications of decisions made back in 2003 are still with us today.
In conclusion, we are voting today to instruct the Committee to
“conduct a further specific examination of this contrast in public and private policy and of the presentation of intelligence”.
I would say to any Members who were here in 2003 that, with all due respect, their responsibility to the future should outweigh their duty to the past. Supporting the motion today can only enhance the reputation of this place. It should be welcomed by all fair-minded elected Members.
UK's Nuclear Deterrent
Ronnie Cowan Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
When I sit in the House of Commons, I talk to many Members who support Trident. I can tell them that those weapons can kill 100 million people, but they know that. I can tell them that watersheds will be poisoned, crops will fail and many people will die from famine, pestilence and plague, but they know that. I can tell them that weapons of mass destruction have not stopped wars across the globe, but they know that. I can tell them that WMD are no protection from terrorism or cybercrime, but they know that. I can tell them that the £179 billion could be spent on health, education, housing, transport and social welfare, but they know that. The difference between us is that they believe that WMD are a deterrent and that their existence has kept us safe. Let us look at those claims.
In the lead-up to today’s debate, the Henry Jackson Society was kind enough to send me a copy of its report, “Foreign Nuclear Developments: A Gathering Storm”. A better title would be “Be afraid: be very afraid”. The report makes it clear that it would be foolhardy of the UK to give up its nuclear weapons because North Korea, Russia, China and Iran either have nuclear weapons or are actively pursuing them.
Ronnie Cowan
No.
It is a well-rehearsed argument on deterrence that to prevent other nations from striking us, we must have the ability to strike them. It is of course a flawed theory. I will, however, give the Henry Jackson Society credit for its bravery in issuing a report outlining bold theories about the imminent nuclear threat of other nations just a week after this House was asked to consider the findings of the Chilcot report. Chilcot reminds us that we should be cautious of second-guessing the military intentions of other countries.
In voting on the renewal of the Trident nuclear weapons system, we need to ask ourselves: who are these weapons deterring? Can those in favour of Trident genuinely foresee a situation in which China or Russia would commit such an act of economic suicide as a nuclear strike against a western power? The primary factor in establishing peace in an increasingly globalised world is the linked economic interests of nations, not the imminent threat of nuclear attack. To say the world is safer because of nuclear weapons is akin to saying that there would be less gun crime in the United States if there were more firearms.
General George Lee Butler, a former Commander in Chief of the US Strategic Command who was once in charge of all US strategic nuclear weapons, has said:
“Nuclear deterrence was and remains a slippery intellectual construct that translates very poorly into the real world of spontaneous crises, inexplicable motivations, incomplete intelligence and fragile human relationships.”
Nuclear deterrence requires an assumption that the Governments of our enemies will always act rationally. What deterrence are nuclear weapons to Governments or organisations that hold extreme or fundamentalist religious views and have no fear of death? What deterrence are nuclear weapons to a dictatorship on the brink of collapse that has nothing left to lose? The reality is that we cannot guarantee that such Governments will always act rationally. Trident therefore offers us no protection. So if it is not a deterrent, is it therefore nuclear revenge?
Ronnie Cowan
No.
We are locked in our cold war mentality of maintaining weapons to counter threats that do not exist, telling ourselves that an imminent threat could emerge at any time. Spending billions on Trident renewal is paying a ransom to past fears when we should be investing in a hopeful future. The generations to come shall reap what we sow. I fear that if we continue down this road we may never be able to find our way back to a safe haven.
Record Copies of Acts
Ronnie Cowan Excerpts(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
I have been fortunate enough to represent Inverclyde in this House for almost a year. In that time I have welcomed a number of constituents to the parliamentary estate not only to give them a tour of these historic buildings, but to show them how this Parliament operates. While guiding my constituents through the Royal Gallery and Central Lobby, I have often thought that the Palace of Westminster would make a magnificent museum.
I am not against tradition and today I am proudly wearing my Innerkip Society tie. The Innerkip was established as a charitable organisation in 1798, and for over 218 years has survived to do its good work in the Inverclyde community by adapting and moving with the times.
Politically, Westminster means different things to different people, but this Parliament has had an undeniable influence on the history and culture of the UK’s nations over the centuries. Those centuries have led to the development of many important traditions, and I hope we can all agree that the history of any elected Chamber is worthy of respectful consideration.
However, I would caution that we should not let grand architecture and fine paintings distract us from the primary purpose of this building—as a functional centre of governance. It will be apparent to some Members that the UK Parliament does not always convincingly carry out that purpose. We need only look at the outdated estimates process, the antiquated upper House’s unelected bishops and hereditary peers or this Chamber’s box of complimentary snuff to see that every tradition is not worth continuing. Indeed, as Woody Allen said,
“Tradition is the illusion of permanence.”
It is in that context that we are here today to consider whether it is appropriate to continue recording public Acts of Parliament on vellum. Perhaps it is unsurprising that the modernisers in this debate are those advocating the use of paper—a writing material that has been available in Europe since the middle ages. Westminster politics has never been known for its ability to quickly adapt to changing circumstances.
Those arguing in favour of the continued use of vellum have cited its durability as one of the most important aspects of its use. I understand the point that original copies of records should survive so that future generations can enjoy them. I suggest, however, that the UK Government flatter themselves if they think that, 500 years hence, schoolchildren will clamour to visit this Parliament, eager to see an original copy of the Speed Limits on Roads (Devolved Powers) Act 2016. Whether or not legislation is written down on paper that is replaced over subsequent generations is inconsequential; it is the idea, principles and continued effectiveness of our laws, not the means of recording them, that are most worthy of our attention.
As Members are aware, the National Archives are one of two locations in which vellum copies of new public Acts are stored, and the National Archives, too, take the practical view that archival-quality paper is sufficient to maintain the public record.
Ultimately, there are risks associated with any form of recording, whether vellum, archival paper or full digitisation. We should be wary of anyone claiming that there is any one foolproof method of storage. Lack of foresight and unpredictable events have led to the destruction of records before and may do so again. It is worth remembering that the vellum records in the House of Commons archive were destroyed by fire in 1834, with the House of Lords records surviving only because they were housed in a separate building. Many nationally significant paper records have also been destroyed—particularly during the blitz.
Digitisation has also had its difficulties, as evidenced by the BBC Domesday project, which ran from 1984 to 1986, but which faced technological difficulties just 15 years later. My personal preference is for a combination of archival paper and digitisation. After all, the increased accessibility as a result of digitisation has undoubtedly improved the transparency of our public records.
I am sympathetic to those who argue that discontinuing the use of vellum would negatively affect the UK’s sole remaining producer. I would never argue lightly in favour of a measure that negatively impacted on the employment of any Member’s constituents.
None the less, Westminster is not a museum. It does not exist to propagate tradition for the sake of tradition. We are here to govern, to pass laws and to do so in a way that reflects the UK’s nations as they are today—not as they were in the past. For too long, this Parliament has doggedly refused to enter the 21st century. I therefore urge colleagues to vote against the motion.
Finally, if anyone from digital services is listening, could they please pop into my office and fix my printer? I have a sheet of vellum stuck in it—apparently vellum is not compatible with the 21st century.
Several hon. Members rose—
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I just want to clarify one point. The Minister for the Cabinet Office stated that the first page of his speech was printed on vellum. [Interruption.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)
Order. Never mind the hon. Gentleman having his hand in his pocket, I want to hear the point of order.
Ronnie Cowan
The first page of the Minister’s speech was of course not printed on vellum. It may have been printed on a product called vellum paper, which is a completely different synthetic product. It is not vellum.
Mr Deputy Speaker
All I can tell the hon. Gentleman is that that is not a point for the Chair, and I am certainly not going to reopen the debate after what we have just been through.
Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee
Ronnie Cowan Excerpts(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Jenkin
On the latter point, we certainly intend to give Mr Riddell an opportunity to appear before the Committee before too long to see how he is settling into his new role. We would not have agreed to his appointment unless we were convinced that he was determined to be independent, but with so many of his powers being questioned and with Ministers substantively proposing to take back control of the appointments process, how he carries out the role will be crucial. How he maintains the importance of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments will be very interesting to observe.
We would like whatever changes are made to be made on the basis of consensus. We have picked up a certain amount of—how shall I say it?—tension between civil servants and Ministers about these appointments. There may be an opportunity to build a better understanding of both parties, so that these changes are not necessary.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that to ensure that the best candidates are aware of these opportunities, the vacancies must be promoted far and wide? That would go some way towards ensuring that applications were received from candidates regardless of their race, creed, colour, religion, gender or even the university or school they happened to go to. It would also open up the process to people from different and varied walks of life who could bring their life experience to a different arena. Advertising a job on a specialist website and then phoning round our pals to encourage them to apply is not an effective or appropriate way to attract the strongest candidates.
At a time when the public are rightly demanding more accountability from their elected representatives, the opportunity to apply for jobs such as the Commissioner for Public Appointments should be widely publicised across a spectrum of United Kingdom society to encourage a diverse range of applicants, rather than going down the traditional route, which will reaffirm the public’s view that there is cronyism and engender disenchantment and apathy.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ronnie Cowan Excerpts(8 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
13. What recent discussions he has had with Sir John Chilcot on the final publication date of the Iraq inquiry.
The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Matthew Hancock)
The Government continue to publish a wide range of data sets. More than 22,000 are now available on the Government website.
Ronnie Cowan
With no Chilcot report, no lessons learnt and seemingly none the wiser, will the Minister agree that the constant delays are unacceptable and are an insult both to those involved in the conflict and to those who lost loved ones?
Matthew Hancock
We have had this debate many times. The Chilcot inquiry is rightly independent, so it would not be right for me to comment on the timings, but a timetable has now been published, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will welcome.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ronnie Cowan Excerpts(8 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)
5. What recent discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on Scotland’s fiscal framework.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
10. What recent discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on Scotland’s fiscal framework.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)
May I begin by wishing you a very happy new year, Mr Speaker?
In the light of the recent flooding in Scotland, may I pay tribute to all those in the emergency services and in local authorities, and the volunteers, who have dealt with the challenging circumstances? The thoughts of the whole House will be with those whose homes and businesses have been flooded.
The UK and Scottish Governments are discussing the fiscal framework through the Joint Exchequer Committee, and there have been five meetings between the Deputy First Minister and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to discuss it. The next meeting is due to take place on Friday.
David Mundell
I think what many people in Scotland will find bizarre is that at a session in Parliament that is called Scottish questions, the Scottish National party could come up with only one question, which all its Members were clearly told to ask.
I know that it may impinge on the importance that some SNP MPs attribute to themselves, but it is the Deputy First Minister of Scotland, John Swinney, who is negotiating the agreement, not them.
Ronnie Cowan
The model of indexed adjustment for the adjustment of the block grant may result in the Scottish block grant falling substantially without consideration of the different rates of population growth north and south of the border. Does the Secretary of State agree that that or any other model of block grant adjustment that results in a diminished Scottish budget year on year will not fulfil the Smith commission’s principle of no detriment?
Syria
Ronnie Cowan Excerpts(8 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He speaks clearly about this issue. Frankly, we should document the many crimes against Muslims in Syria and Iraq that are being carried out by this brutal organisation.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
I was disappointed to hear the Prime Minister say that we cannot look back to what happened in Iraq, because if we do not look back, we will not learn anything. Would he concede that if the Chilcot inquiry had produced its report, we would be better informed as to how best to handle this complex situation?
The Prime Minister
First, if we had had our way over the Iraq inquiry from the start, it would have been published by now. I am not saying that we should not look back and learn. I am absolutely saying that we should look back and learn. Let us learn about the importance of clear processes, legal advice, the Joint Intelligence Committee and all those things. I think you have heard that today. The only point I am making is that we should not go back to what happened in Iraq and therefore enter a freeze where we are incapable of making the decisions that are necessary to keep our country safe in the future.
Oral Answers to Questions
Ronnie Cowan Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Mundell
The view of the all-party Smith commission was that the proliferation of betting terminals was not good for Scotland, that it needed to be dealt with, and that the Scottish Government were best placed to deal with it. That is the measure that we are implementing.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP)
The draft clause would provide a power to restrict the number of FOBTs only when a new betting premise licence was being sought. The Law Society of Scotland has proposed that the clause should be amended to include existing and new premises. Will the Minister at least concede that to the Scottish Parliament?
David Mundell
I think I said in my earlier answer that we had not reached those amendments on that day of the Committee stage, but I am reflecting seriously on them.