Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Alex Norris Excerpts

Tuesday 14th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mitchell]

I think the hon. Lady should put some greater hope in the achievement of humanitarian pauses, and then the development of those pauses. In the meantime, as she will be aware, it is the policy of both the Government and the Opposition that we should promote pauses, not a ceasefire.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Minister confirm that it is the Government’s position that there should be no compulsion for people to leave their homes in Gaza, and that when people are displaced by fighting, they must be allowed to return home as soon as possible?

[Mr Mitchell]

The Government are acutely aware of the extraordinarily difficult situation in Gaza, and it is not for me to give advice from the Dispatch Box to people on the ground there who need to assess their situation for themselves within their community.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Norris Excerpts

Tuesday 21st June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Vicky Ford]

This is a terrible tragedy. So far this year, we have provided more than £72 million of additional support to countries in the region, which is helping about 8 million people. We played a vital role in convening a roundtable in Geneva that raised about $400 million. Last week, I wrote to the president of the World Bank to urge it to mobilise further funding urgently. I will meet representatives of the Disasters Emergency Committee later this week to discuss further steps.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

My constituent Godwin Suh from Bafut in Cameroon, who now lives in Nottingham, came to see me. He described the political violence that, as anglophones, he and his family have suffered. His brother is missing, his nieces and nephews have been hospitalised, and lately his house there has been badly damaged by Government forces. Will the Minister for Africa meet me and Godwin to hear more about the human rights challenges that many face in north-west and south-west Cameroon?

Elections Bill

Alex Norris Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 27th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to speak for the Opposition in these proceedings. We have said from the outset that this is a bad Bill. Rather than opening up our democracy, it closes it down and puts up barriers to participation, apart from for foreign donors, who will now have an unfettered ability to flood our democracy with donations from the comfort of an offshore tax haven.

We will get to some of the criticisms shortly, but I want to recognise, as the Minister did, some of the progress that has clearly been made in the other place. I pay tribute to my colleagues and teammates Baroness Hayman and Lord Khan for their work in this area. First, I come to Lords amendments 15 to 19, on assistance with voting for persons with disabilities. We raised this issue in Committee and during consideration of the remaining stages. I did not then and do not now believe it was the Government’s intention to make voting harder for disabled people, particularly those who are blind or partially sighted. But those who have been concerned about this matter have campaigned well and made their case strongly, and I am glad that it is has been recognised in the Bill. Like plenty of right hon. and hon. Members, I will be keeping an interest in this area, to make sure that returning officers continue to make voting accessible for everybody, regardless of disability, at every polling station.

Lords amendment 50 would remove clause 27, deleting the provision on joint campaigning that meant that spending by one entity in a joint campaign had to be counted by all entities. That never made sense to us and we are glad to see it dispensed with entirely. In his letter to his colleagues in the other place, Lord True paid tribute to the campaigning efforts of the TUC and of the Trade Union and Labour Party Liaison Organisation. He was right to do so, as their campaign was a brilliant one and I, for one, am glad it succeeded. Of course we will be supporting that this afternoon. Also, I am pleased to see that addition made via Lords Amendment 80 to wire in post-legislative scrutiny of this Bill. I would have such a provision in every Bill, as it is a good way of doing business. Beyond that, we do not have an issue with the tightening of provisions relating to secrecy, undue influence, candidate names, expenditure or electronic material. However, I will finish this section of my speech with a minor whinge, which I hope the Minister will address in her summing up. Lords Amendment 21, a Government amendment, deals with home addresses on ballot papers. Currently, as the Minister said, we or those who challenge us in elections to this place have a choice of having our home address or the constituency where we live on the ballot paper. For security reasons, that is a very good idea. Not only is it important for safety, but it allows voters to have a sense of where we are from. This provision adds a third option: we could specify which local authority we live in. That does not develop the original intent, because I do not think there is a case for safety there; I think this is there more for candidate vanity, and I am not sure what problem it is solving. So I am keen to learn from the Minister what needs to be addressed with that provision. It is not egregious enough for us to divide on, but I am keen to understand a bit more about why it is necessary.

I move on to the points of greater difference—the outstanding issues facing us. This Bill is littered with various things we have voted against throughout the process, in relation to voting, to political finance and to electoral systems, but today we are really down to just two issues: voter ID, as set out in part 1 of the Bill; and the independence of the Electoral Commission, as set out in part 3. The other place has done important work to help save the Government from themselves in this area, and it is sad that the Minister is not minded to accept that salvation, particularly on Lords amendments 22, 23 and 86. We have opposed and continue to oppose the introduction of voter ID. It is a solution in search of a problem; there is scant evidence of voter personation. In 2019, there were two major sets of elections—council elections in the May and a general election in the December—and in that year there was precisely one conviction for personation.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about the disproportionate effect that evidence suggests photographic voter ID might have on ethnic minority voting rates?

[Alex Norris]

I do have concern about who will miss out as a result of this. We know from the Government’s own figures that there are 2 million people without the right sort of photo ID. I see some shaking of heads from Conservative Members who are still listening to the debate, but it is not us making this point—the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has said that the poorest are six times more likely than the best off to miss out under the Government’s proposals. The key thing is: when all of us who can vote next Thursday stand in line to vote—and we hope the lines will be long—we are more likely to be hit by lightning three times than to be queuing behind someone who is committing an act of voter personation. Once again, this is a solution in search of a problem.

We have seen this in the pilots as well. As the Minister mentioned, the Government have done pilots in this area and if what happened in those were replicated across the country, 184,000 people who wanted to vote would be unable to do so. Again, that is a demonstration of why Lords amendment 86 is so important and why this is such a bad idea. This amendment does not delete the voter ID provision, as would be my preference and as we have sought to do in Committee and on Report. Instead, it just makes things a little easier by expanding the list of accepted ID at polling stations. That is a worthy compromise, and I am surprised that the Government have not sought to take it.

The Minister has talked about the provision of a voter card from the local authority, but she has not yet said who is going to fund that. May we have a concrete assurance that that will come from central Government funding and it will not be put on the rate payers? Will she also assure us that thoughtful consideration has been given to the pressures on our electoral administrators, since the demand for these voter cards will peak at the same time as demand for postal votes, voter registration and proxy votes? Our electoral administrators, who do such a great job, are already overburdened, so I would love to know what assessment had been done of the capacity to deliver those things. The Lords amendment would ameliorate many of those challenges.

We always seek to be helpful to the Government, and Conservative Members will know that their manifesto pledge on voter ID was that they intended to introduce simply voter ID, not photographic ID—the word “photographic” was not mentioned. So the solution proposed in the amendment is very much in line with what they have committed to. We know that the alternative, which is forcing through photographic ID, is about a form of ID that more than 2 million voters lack, according to the Government’s own figures. This was an opportunity to do better and the Government should have taken it. We certainly will be pressing that point.

Lords amendments 22 and 23 remove clauses that undermine the independence of the Electoral Commission. It is worth saying, although it is staggering that this needs to be said, that it is not for this Government or any Government, be they Labour or Conservative, to dictate the priorities of an independent watchdog, especially one that regulates our own elections. One would think that that would be axiomatic, but we have seen this creeping culture of the Government trying to put their thumb on the scale, whether in the scandal with one of our former colleagues at the end of last year or in the debacle last week relating to the privileges motion. This very much sits within the same family, and although the public do not necessarily take interest in the granular details of particular bits of legislation such as this one, they are starting to pick up on this constant pattern of injustice and unfair play. This really is another example of it.

Let us do a useful thought experiment: if something like this happened in a nearby democracy, or perhaps a country where we were concerned about the future of its democracy, and it said that it wanted its Executive to be able to direct its electoral commission, would we not say that that did not feel right? I do not think that it feels right in this case. Although he is not in his place, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, which he chairs, and to the Electoral Commission, which has made persuasive arguments for the protection of the commission’s independence. The Minister said that the Secretary of State would not have broad-ranging powers or interest in directing the work of the commission. In the annex to his response to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, the Secretary of State said:

“The Strategy and Policy Statement (clause 15) will provide an opportunity for the Government, with the approval of the UK Parliament, to outline a clear articulation of principles and priorities for the Commission to have regard to when going about their work—particularly in areas where…the Commission are exercising the significant amount of discretion they are afforded in terms of activity, priorities, and approach.”

I do not think that quite chimes with what the Minister says: it is clear that the Government do fully intend to use these powers significantly and we should be very concerned about that.

I want briefly to reference the Government amendment in lieu. It is better, and it is welcome to hear that the Secretary of State’s statements will need to pass both Houses; that greater degree of scrutiny for Parliament is good. Similarly, the point around individual investigations is a welcome clarification, but it does not change the basic question: why are we doing this at all? There has been no clarity from the Minister previously or in her opening remarks today about what the problem is for which a solution is sought. We strongly believe that the regulation of elections must be independent, impartial and free from political control, and the Government’s proposals, whatever might be said, challenge and compromise this principle, so I think it is very surprising that we are having this conversation.

I will finish there. The problems boil down to two points: voter ID and the Electoral Commission. We will continue to push those points and defend the very good amendments made in the other place.

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

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, as I have at every stage of this Bill, and I am sure the Minister will agree that it is nice to be on the home stretch after so long, especially as she very bravely took over halfway through. I know today could potentially be quite a long one and we are all keen to get to Prorogation so that those of us with candidates can get out on the doorsteps campaigning in the local elections, so I will not take too long.

I spoke previously about my psephological exuberance, and I am afraid that today I will expose my psephological exasperation at some of the amendments that have come back from the Lords. I am, as we would expect from the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Leader of the House of Lords, a keen advocate of the upper Chamber and the excellent work it can do in refining legislation, as has been the case here. As such, I do not intend to speak to the amendments the Government are accepting; I think they speak for themselves, but I do welcome the refinements they present. Instead I shall touch briefly on Lords amendments 22 and 23 in the name of Lord Judge and then on amendment 86 in the name of Lord Willetts.

On amendments 22 and 23, clauses 14 and 15 will allow the Government, with the approval of Parliament, to clearly articulate the principles and priorities for the commission to be guided by when discharging its duties, especially where primary legislation is not explicit and where the commission enjoys a great degree of latitude in priorities and approach. Fundamentally, we should have confidence that there is a clear framework underpinning the role and duties of the commission in its work. At present, just three of the sitting commissioners have any electoral history of their own and, however august their CVs may be— and I absolutely accept that they are—they are not experts in elections or electoral law, nor do they have any lived, practical experience that informs their decision making.

Setting appropriate thematic guidance is wholly appropriate and clauses 14 and 15 give the power to the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission to approve that guidance. Despite some of the alarmist talk about this part of the Bill from those on the Opposition Benches, this does not take away from the independence of the commission, and I think if anyone were to be truly honest they would agree that the commission has not steered entirely clear of controversy or perceived bias in its past. We know at least of one recent case where its decision was overturned, in relation to the referendum; in fact, a former head of the commission was actively campaigning in that referendum. I want a robust commission, not one that plays fast and loose with the rules and gives itself carte blanche to do as it pleases. That said, I will be supporting Government amendments (a) to (k), which refine the Government’s approach.

Amendment 86 seems, I am afraid, to be another attempt to override the voter ID provisions of the Bill. The specified list of IDs, including the freely available Government ID to be introduced, provides a wide-ranging yet robust range of options to validate the right to vote. We have heard some disgraceful attempts to paint voter ID as a form of voter suppression against certain minority groups. I was told by a member of the Labour party in the Bill Committee that I, as an LGBT Member, would not be able to vote because of this new provision; it was absolutely disgusting. This is dog-whistle politics at its worst and Opposition Members should be ashamed.

In fact, just yesterday the Supreme Court ruled on this matter and I will read from the judgment:

“I consider that if persons have confidence in the electoral system by the elimination or reduction in voter fraud then they might be encouraged to vote by virtue of their increased confidence in the electoral process.”

In other words, the Supreme Court thinks this makes it more likely that people will vote.

According to work conducted by the Electoral Commission, two thirds of voters support voter ID, just 4% of people surveyed did not have any of the qualifying ID in the Bill, and just 17% of those people said they would not take up the freely available ID. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris) is chuntering from a sedentary position; if people choose to absent themselves, that is their choice.

Opposing or undermining this measure is at very best to turn a blind eye to the problem. I asked in Committee and on Third Reading and will ask again: what is an acceptable level of fraud? How many votes is it okay to steal before we feel we have to act in legislation? [Interruption.] Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence; I am sorry, but I have heard this argument several times and it is spurious. We should want to be the envy of the world by having the most robust electoral system, and that can be achieved by doing what Northern Ireland voters have been doing for a very long time, and what most voters who turn up to the polling station with their polling card think they already have to do: prove who they are and that they are eligible to vote where they are trying to.

3.15 pm

Elections Bill

Alex Norris Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 17th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

I think the hon. Gentleman may be confused as to the reasons why we are making this change. We have had several transfer of functions orders to ensure that we minimise disruption due to the wording around the membership of the Speaker’s committee.

We propose to amend clause 15 so that the Minister of the Crown appointed to exercise concurrent membership of the Speaker’s committee with the Secretary of State does not have to have specific responsibilities in relation to the constitution, or any other portfolio, in order to be appointable. These amendments will not amend the overall Government membership of the committee because, as is currently the case, the Secretary of State and the Minister would not be able to attend committee meetings jointly and deputisation would not be available to the other Government member of the Speaker’s committee.

Additionally, amendments have been tabled to update the Bill to reflect the recent machinery of government change. On 8 December, elections policy was formally transferred from the Cabinet Office to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. Some provisions in parts 5, 6 and 7, and in certain schedules to the Bill, currently refer to “the Minister”. That is defined in clause 60 as meaning the Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office. In order to bring the Bill into line with the new allocation of responsibilities within Government, these amendments replace those references so that they refer only to the Secretary of State. I urge the House to support these practical amendments.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to speak for the Opposition in these proceedings. I am taking on this role partway through matters, but fortunately I stand on the shoulders of outstanding colleagues, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), who did a tremendous job and will no doubt continue to do so. Having read the Official Report of the Committee stage, I suspect that the Minister is rather relieved to face off with me rather than my hon. Friend—although she is in her place, so perhaps it is a two-for-one proposition.

Although the personnel may have changed, the fundamentals have not. This is a bad Bill. It is full of solutions in search of problems. Rather than opening up our democracy to greater participation, it will do the opposite, all the while further weakening our democracy to dodgy finance. It is conventional to call it Trumpian, but it is not even that. It is the sort of partial nonsense that can be seen in US statehouses: partisan leaders who just cannot help themselves, gerrymandering and seeking to tilt election outcomes by putting their thumb on the scale. Do not take my word for it, Minister; the Government should have heeded the calls from the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in its excellent report, when it said that the Bill ought to be paused.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Tomlinson]

In that case, why does my local Labour party insist on photo voter ID when it comes to select my opponent in each election?

[Alex Norris]

I confess that I had hoped the hon. Gentleman would ask me that. I have been a Labour party branch secretary, branch chair, constituency secretary, constituency chair, councillor, Member of Parliament and shadow Minister, and I have never once been asked for voter ID at a meeting. That has only ever happened in cases where certain Labour parties were in special measures and it was seen as a proportionate protection. It is proportion that we are talking about.

The hon. Gentleman said in a previous contribution that there is enthusiasm in Swindon for the measure to tackle that one solitary aspect of personation. In fact, if we were to replicate the findings of the pilots he relies on across the country, 184,000 people who wanted to vote would be turned away and would not return. That makes it 184,000 to one; this is racking up faster than Downing Street parties. The Cabinet Office itself says that that approach will exclude 2% of the electorate without the right form of ID, but according to the Electoral Commission the actual figure of those without the right ID will be between 1 million and 3.5 million.

In addition, the people excluded will not be evenly spread and that goes to the heart of the Government’s problems with inclusivity in the Bill. Some 77% of people in the UK hold a full driving licence, whereas the figure for black people is 53% and the one for Asian people is 61%. Similarly, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the poorest are six times more likely than the best-off to miss out under these proposals—the measure is not inclusive.

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the Bill also includes provisions for totally free and suitable photographic ID for anyone who needs it, so the poor are protected?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris]

The hon. Gentleman reads my mind, because I was about to turn to that issue. I was going to say that the Government will now instead rely on a voter card. First, putting hurdles in the way will take people out and reduce turnout. That alone is a bad thing, but, again, the effect will not be evenly distributed; it will be harder for those in rural communities, who have further to travel, to make good. Indeed, what about those who live with a disability and all the extra burdens in their lives—why on earth would we give them another one, not least when we are not really solving a problem?

The Association of Electoral Administrators has raised serious concerns about the huge burden on overstretched local authorities, which will be supposed to deal with photo ID cards alongside the burden of registering significant numbers of new or overseas electors—I will reference them shortly—ordinary registrations and renewed postal voters. We know that that that burden peaks at the same time, approximately six weeks before an election, because, funnily enough, people work in those cycles.

Governments ought to bring people together, and the Government have succeeded with these provisions, as they have united civil society. They have united academia and cross-party Select Committees against them. Why will the Government not listen? If they want that secure, fair, modern, inclusive and transparent Bill, they should accept the amendments. Should they not do so, we will know what they really want from the Bill.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

My hon. Friend is making excellent progress. One point made by Government Members is that people could apply for ID. Even where non-photographic ID was used in the trials and given to everyone, about 1% of people were turned away just because they had forgotten to take it from their house to the polling station. Now in a number of our seats 1% is a margin of error that would have changed the course of an election, and in tight years it could change the course of who is in government. Does he think it is right that the measures could change the course of who governs this country?

[Alex Norris]

I want the course of elections to be changed by people—by those eligible to vote. Although some of the seats in this place come down to very fine margins, across virtually every council area there are hyper-marginal seats, and indeed hyper-marginal councils, that will swing on this measure. As I have said, the Bill seeks to tackle something that has yet to be proved to be a problem.

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech thus far. He has talked about the need for photographic ID. The Equality and Human Rights Commission made it clear that the groups that would be affected included people from different ethnic minority backgrounds, older people and, more important, disabled people. The Bill is doing more to disenfranchise disabled people by depriving them of accessibility.

[Alex Norris]

My hon. Friend knows that of which she speaks. In this place she is a leading campaigner on such issues, and that is exactly what the campaign groups and the representative groups are saying. The only people who do not seem to understand that point are the Government.

Let me now turn to inclusivity. Our amendment 2 seeks to retain the current requirement for returning officers to make specific provision at polling stations to enable voters who live with blindness or partial-sightedness to vote without any need for assistance from the presiding officer or any companion, and to change the nature of that provision from “a device” to “equipment”. As it stands, the Bill could have the dangerous consequence of removing the fundamental principle that electoral staff must enable voters to vote

“without any need for assistance”.

Although we recognise and support the broader duty in the Bill to enable all people living with disabilities to vote, it is wrong not to carry over the previous requirement to enable people to vote

“without any need for assistance”.

[Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that that measure will create a postcode lottery for people who are partially sighted or blind, because it will depend on which returning officer will decide what equipment will be provided?

[Alex Norris]

That is an excellent point. The question of who provides the requisite equipment and who does not will differ greatly between authorities. I cannot believe that that is the Government’s intention, and I hope that in her closing speech the Minister will clarify how the problem is to be resolved.

Let me now deal with new clause 1. If the Government were truly serious about improving democratic engagement and modernising democracy, they would extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds who live in this country. Much has already been said on the subject, but I want to add a significant element to the debate. The greatest risk to our democracy, and to democracies globally, is apathy. If people stop valuing it, they will care less when they see it eroded. The best way to build a culture of participation is to start early. We already expect to remain connected to 16 and 17-year-olds through education, employment or training. We should be using that time to teach and develop an interest in citizenship—in our rights and responsibilities. The right to vote is an anchor in that regard. Let us use the time that we have with those young people to talk about voting—about their local councils, and about national Government.

[Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)]

One issue that I discuss regularly with my constituents, especially young voters, is their wish to participate in our democracy, and when I visit schools, colleges and sixth forms up and down the country, that issue arises time and again. Does my hon. Friend feel that this is a missed opportunity for the Government to include those young people in our democratic process?

[Alex Norris]

I share my hon. Friend’s view. What I hear during my visits is very much in line what she is hearing. We know that 16 and 17-year-olds, when given the chance, take it very seriously. In Scotland and Wales, they have higher rates of turnout than 18 to 24-year-olds, with 75% voting and 97% saying that they would vote in future elections. They have also accessed more information from a wider variety of sources than any other age group. They have taken it seriously, and we ought to take them seriously.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Evans]

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

[Alex Norris]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I hoped that we were going to talk about his new clause, but instead, as he knows as well as I do, he is creating a false equivalence between a licensed event and going to vote in a polling station, where, as yet, I have not been offered a pint at the ballot box. Maybe that will be in the next elections Bill.

[Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Voting Labour is much more dangerous than having a pint.

[Alex Norris]

The hon. Gentleman knows that I will always take an intervention from him, so should he wish he will find me in listening mode.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

With regard to voter participation among 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland, another reason we have such a healthy turnout is that all the elections in which they participate are conducted on a proportional basis. There are amendments tonight that would extend that to elections to this House. Will the hon. Gentleman be supporting them?

[Alex Norris]

I have significant issues with new clause 13, as drafted, which simply asks to introduce a proportional system. For something as seismic as that, there ought to be greater detail about what is being proposed. I am also a strong believer—this speaks to new clause 5 in the name of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara)—in the desirability of a citizens convention on our democracy that would look at voting systems but also look a lot more widely. This is a good moment and a good mechanism to reboot our democracy.

On new clause 14, in my name, and new clause 10, having left the European Union, we need new, easy-to-understand arrangements that are fair. People who live in this country ought to have a say in how it is run and the services that affect their lives. It is odd that the Bill does not do more for them, and indeed does more for those who do not live here than those who do. The provisions we seek to implement would address that, and I hope they are looked on favourably.

Turning to new clauses 2 and 9, the Bill creates another odd paradox. It opens the floodgates for a potentially large influx of foreign-based money into our democracy, but at the same time makes it harder for civil society organisations, charities and trade unions to have their say, despite the massive contribution to British life that they make. What is fair or transparent about that?

Labour Members are on record as thinking that 15 years is a reasonable and proportionate amount of time for someone to retain a vote after leaving the UK and for the arrangements to ensure that they can to remain practical. We fear that the Government have created a system vulnerable to overseas interference. It allows a person to call up any and every local authority to say that they were resident in the area 30 or 40 years ago, provide flimsy proof—it will not be photo identification, that is for sure—and then be able to donate massive sums of money. I would hope to hear from the Minister that that is not the intention, but nevertheless there is a chance to make good on it. New clause 2 would simply prevent anyone registered as such an overseas elector from donating to political parties in the UK, while new clause 9 would require individual and company donors to be based in the UK while making those in charge of companies liable for any offences caused. We also have new clause 16 tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne). So if the Minister really does not want to see that weakness in our democracy, she has a real menu to choose from and she will find us very supportive, because these are proportionate safeguards.

Research from The Times shows that the Conservative party was able, through existing methods, to accept about £1 million from UK citizens living in tax havens ahead of the 2017 general election. The Bill takes away the barriers that kept it at £1 million. The strength of feeling on the issue is shown by the variety of other new clauses—2, 8, 16 and 18—that cover that subject. As the Government seek to ensure that those in tax havens have a stronger voice, they are seeking at the same time to undermine the ability of civil society organisations, charities and trade unions to engage in our democracy. Amendment 3 would remove those provisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris]

There are many difficult decisions to make in this place—matters of fine balance, of public policy or of genuine disagreement—that are hard for all right hon. and hon. Members, but this is not one of those. This is a bad Bill brought forward by a bad Government in the pursuit of bad intentions. They have pushed it through without pre-legislative scrutiny, avoided the Committee of the whole House and changed the electoral system for duly elected posts in this country between Second Reading and Committee and during Committee stage.

The Bill has been rushed. It has been debated today on tiny margins—Third Reading will last for seven minutes. The Government could have sought to build consensus, if they had really wanted to tackle the problems that they said they did, but they have not.

What is the sum total of the Bill, when we take account of what the Government have proposed? If someone lives in this country, it will be harder for them to vote. If they live in a tax haven, it will be easier for them to take part. If they work for a poverty charity, it will be harder for them to express their views, but if they have deep pockets, it will never have been easier—[Interruption.] Government Members have had their opportunity; now I will have mine.

The Electoral Commission—an anchor institution in protecting politics from itself—is again to be fettered. That is what the Government want. They want silenced opposition and weaker rules on big money.

As the Minister said in her summing up and in previous stages of the Bill, I know that she has not liked the Opposition, the issues that we have raised or how we have raised them. All I would say is, if she does not like what we have raised, she should wait for the public conversation on the Bill and the conversation in the other place. People will see through it.

I will finish by saying to hon. Members, as they make their decision on the Bill, that there are important questions coming up in the coming days that will define their time and this period in Parliament. This is one of those, because it is indelible. It will be on the statute book and they will be tied to it. We as custodians of this democracy should not be making such changes that weaken it in this way.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Norris Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Amanda Milling]

As my hon. Friend said, the Foreign Secretary hosted the first UK-Israel strategic dialogue with Israeli Foreign Minister Lapid. They held substantial discussions on how to broaden and deepen our bilateral relationship, including by co-operation across science, technology, trade and innovation.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

7. What recent assessment she has made of the human rights situation in Cameroon.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Vicky Ford)]

The human rights situation in the north-west and south-west regions of Cameroon is deeply concerning. Around 2.3 million people need humanitarian support and my Department has planned £5 million of humanitarian aid this year, which will help those affected by the crisis. We are urging all actors, including the Cameroonian Government, to remain engaged in efforts to find a peaceful resolution to the crisis.

[Alex Norris]

The Biya Government’s hard-handed approach to calls for reform from those living in the Anglophone region has led to violence, 765,000 persons being displaced from their homes, and 800,000 children out of school. We have a long-standing connection to Cameroon and I am glad to hear from the Minister about efforts so far, but will she make a full-throated commitment today to a peaceful resolution to the crisis, and say what diplomatic efforts will be made by her and her colleagues over the next few months to bring it about?

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Norris Excerpts

Tuesday 8th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

The UK has an internationally respected and robust arms trade licensing regime. We have a close working relationship with the allies that are involved in the conflict in Yemen, to minimise civilian casualties and collateral damage. It is completely legitimate for all countries around the world to defend themselves against external aggression, and we are proud of the work we are doing to help the people of Yemen through this difficult time.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

What recent assessment he has made of the political and security situation in Cameroon.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (James Duddridge)]

The Government are deeply concerned at the situation in the north-west and south-west regions of Cameroon. We are assisting humanitarian efforts, and today I can announce that we are increasing funding to the humanitarian efforts by £4.5 million, bringing the total for this year to £13.5 million.

[Alex Norris]

I am grateful to the Minister for his answer and for his clear commitment, as I am to the Chair of the Select Committee for his interest in this area. What is going on in Cameroon is concerning for us all, whether we are talking about the multiple hundreds of thousands of displaced persons internally or in neighbouring countries, the more than 1 million people going hungry or the significant and continuing violence, including last month’s suicide bombing. This country has a special connection to Cameroon and a special responsibility to be part of a peaceful future there, as does France. It is hard to see a future settlement that does not involve both countries, so will the Minister tell us what conversations he has had with his counterpart in France about working together to bring about a peaceful solution?

[James Duddridge]

That is an excellent point. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his passion on Cameroon, and I know that a number of colleagues share concerns, which the Government of Cameroon understand. We regularly engage with a number of partners, including the French and Americans, and the UN, where there have been resolutions. I intend to travel to Paris, covid permitting, in the next few months to discuss areas of mutual interest across the continent where we can work together, and Cameroon will be high on that list.

Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office

Alex Norris Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

The CSR will be an opportunity to make sure the various aspects my hon. Friend mentions are covered, but I can reassure him that there is no obligation we have undertaken that we will not discharge.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

The anxiety on the Opposition Benches is that this signals a diminution in Britain’s commitment as a global leader at a time when global leadership is so badly needed, and that we are going instead to retrench to narrow national interests. It is very welcome that the Foreign Secretary said that that is not the case and he has a chance to prove this right now with regards to the covid-19 vaccine. What we are seeing is that the wealthiest countries are buying up lots and lots of the prospective doses, which is entirely natural if countries act as individuals, but if we want to globally tackle this horrendous virus, it is a very bad way to do it. So I wonder, in the spirit of global leadership, whether the Foreign Secretary could tell us what actions he is taking now for a just and medically beneficial approach to a global distribution of a vaccine of which we do not have enough doses yet?

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very focused and legitimate question. Obviously, the UK is seeking to lead at every level. We have the trials and the research that our world-beating scientists are undertaking, particularly Oxford and Imperial, but there are others as well. On top of that, one of things we have been working on, through our contributions both to CEPI—the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations—and also through the Gavi summit, which I have already mentioned, is to make sure not only that we can pioneer and innovate a safe and usable vaccine, but that we can raise the money to make sure that there is a fair and just, equitable distribution. We want to make sure everyone in this country is immunised by this vaccine, but we also want to make sure that is true for other countries around the world. I think that is particularly important both for the moral reasons that, I think, he and I agree on, and for practical reasons, which is that it would safeguard us—Europe and the people of this country—from a second wave of the virus.

China

Alex Norris Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

My right hon. Friend is right, particularly in relation to 5G, but there are the other areas, and that is exactly what we are doing.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Government rejected an amendment to the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill that was designed to stop human tissue involuntarily harvested in China entering the UK market. I have since met the Minister for Asia, and I am pleased by his commitment to this. In the light of what the Foreign Secretary has said today, will he make a commitment that, if those amendments are reintroduced in the other place, the Government will look at them seriously anew?

[Dominic Raab]

Yes, we will certainly look at them very carefully.

Hong Kong National Security Legislation: UK Response

Alex Norris Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dominic Raab]

I agree with the spirit of my hon. Friend’s question. The ideal thing would be for China to step back. If China does not step back, we will consider all the possible actions and measures that we might wish to take. Fundamentally, rather than just wait for international co-operation on the specific issue of what will happen to those who are not willing to stay in Hong Kong, we feel that we have a duty—as a matter of international law, moral responsibility and historical responsibility—to come out and lead. That is why we have said that we will allow the 300,000-plus passport holders, along with their dependants, to come to the UK in the way I described.

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is right that we take our special historical responsibilities seriously and take a significant interest in this issue, but we know that, when we do take an interest in such issues, diaspora communities at home suffer more. The Chinese community and people of Chinese heritage in Nottingham and, frankly, across the country, have had a horrendous first five months to this year, with abuse increased in staggering amounts. Can I therefore seek assurances from the Foreign Secretary that, as well as the admirably assertive role he is going to play on the international stage, he is working with his colleagues across Government to formulate a sympathetic package and a thoughtful way of supporting Chinese people and those of a Chinese background in this country, because they really need us now?

[Dominic Raab]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I have a councillor in my constituency, Xingang Wang, who is not only one of the most hard-working businessmen, but one of the most hard-working councillors, and I am sure we all have examples of that across the country and across the political divides. It is crucial that we say to the Chinese community here that we value their contribution, that our stance is in relation to the Government of China and their violation of the rights and the autonomy of the people of Hong Kong. We will extend warm engagement to the people of Hong Kong and embrace them in the way I have described with the change of status so that they can come here, and I fully support what the hon. Gentleman said.

Palestinian School Curriculum: Radicalisation

Alex Norris Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2020 Westminster Hall

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Charles. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) on securing his first debate. He started with a tough subject, for which I admire him. Like other right hon. and hon. Members, I declare an interest as I visited the region with the Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding and Medical Aid for Palestinians.

We all care deeply about the education of children across the world. Nobody comes to this place thinking that that is not exceptionally important. It is even more important in the vulnerable refugee communities that are rightly at the forefront of the Department for International Development’s work. I want to be clear that there is no place for promoting hate or intolerance in school curricula or textbooks anywhere in the world. We have a double responsibility where UK aid may be present, either tangentially or in another form.

Last month, I visited the consul general. Hanging outside his residence is a sign that reads,

“Our mission in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. To advance the United Kingdom’s security and prosperity through a just peace between a stable, democratic Palestinian State and Israel, based on 1967 borders, ending the Occupation by agreement. To strengthen the ties of friendship between the Palestinian and British peoples.”

That is a worthy goal and a worthy ideal that I suspect all 650 MPs would just about agree with. That is the context for the debate. With a sense of sadness, I echo the point made by the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) that perhaps we are having this debate a few months too early. The exceptionally important review of the Georg Eckert Institute will set a context beyond the anger that has properly flown around, and settle things in independent facts. As a result, we will have a better discussion.

I do not mean to be critical, but I was concerned by references to the IMPACT-se report. When Alistair Burt, who is no longer of this parish but who was admired on both sides of the House, was the responsible Minister, he said in a written answer that he was “concerned at…the allegations” in the report and was

“working to commission a robust study”

of it, but that his assessment was that it was

“not objective in its findings and lacked methodological rigour”.

As long as our debates are based on such facts, we will struggle to move forwards. We have a responsibility to try to assemble the best facts.

The Department was right, therefore, when it said last March that it wanted to take an active interest in the issue in conjunction with international partners. If we are to have something that everybody has confidence in, it is best to act collectively, and the EU is an obvious actor in that place. The Opposition have supported the review throughout, and we will to continue to support it, because it has significant implications. What stems from the review will have an impact on the lives of refugee children—what they learn, where they learn and whether they receive an education at all. Those are exceptionally important matters that make a significant difference to people’s lives. We need to work collectively. It was bad when the United States unilaterally pulled out of UNRWA, because that does not promote anything. Even if a country has problems with institutions, to act in that way does not promote peaceful goals and certainly not a two-state solution.

We were expecting the review to be completed in September, so we are six months on. Since it was launched, there has been a lot of change in the Department’s leadership. There have been four Secretaries of State in that time; the Minister is the third Minister who I have shadowed. There is a fear that things will be missed. We hope that there will now be a period of stability and genuine commitment to the Department by the Government.

I know and respect the Minister. He is a good Minister who will do a good job. Like me, he is a plain speaker, so I have some plain questions that I hope will some get plain answers. When will the report be published? What are the Government doing to roll the pitch so that we are ready to act on those recommendations? What conversations are taking place with the Palestinian Authority and what is the nature of those conversations? The hon. Members for Henley (John Howell) and for Darlington (Peter Gibson) mentioned the importance of the Palestinian Authority, and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) asked the Minister what the Palestinian Authority are willing to do. From talking to colleagues in the sector, my understanding is that the PA have said that they are willing to accept criticism and to engage. That has to be the right thing to do.

I do not know the hon. Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) well, but he made the outstanding contribution of the debate and spoke brilliantly when he said that we have to see the issue through a lens of reform being possible. That was not the tone of the whole debate. We need to work on it as a moving thing and a live thing. To do that, we need the debate.

UNRWA is another live matter. We were flyered outside the Chamber by someone wanting to put a report about UNRWA into our hands. Many people use this subject—I am not referring to hon. Members who have engaged with it seriously and soberly—as a proxy measure to damn UNRWA’s work and undermine it. We do that at our peril. UNRWA supports 5.5 million refugees with a range of vital services including education, healthcare, social services, infrastructure services and microfinance, about which the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mary Robinson) spoke strongly. When we undermine UNRWA, we pick at and risk those things.

When I visited the occupied territories last month and I was at the Aida refugee camp, I met UNRWA staff and my first question was about textbooks. Their analysis was that, in their opinion, less than about 3% contravene UN principles, largely on age appropriateness, gender representation and inclusiveness, rather than on issues with Israel; they said that, in response, they had supplemented the curriculum with human rights content. I am interested to hear the Minister’s reflections on whether that chimes with the best information he has. The hon. Member for Witney (Robert Courts) suggested that the curriculum was saturated. It is absolutely critical that we know the facts, so we know where to go next.

[Jim Shannon]

I am always respectful to other hon. Members, but if an evidential base proves that the money has been used for ulterior motives, which is wrong, surely that cannot be ignored.

[Alex Norris]

No, absolutely. This is a case where 97% or 99% compliance will not give hon. Members or people worldwide much confidence. Of course, 1% is too much, but that is the basis to start from. We need to start from the evidence base, which is why we need the report.

[Steve McCabe]

I want to be clear that I understand my hon. Friend’s point. Earlier, he criticised the IMPACT-se study and said that he would like a more objective study, which is why we should wait. I am happy with that, but surely the impressionistic view that has been given to him, that 3% is not compliant and that there is some supplementary material, is also a subjective assessment. Should we not be wary of putting too much emphasis on that? Would we not be better to settle for his original proposition that, if there is doubt, let us have the clear unbiased objective report and a guarantee that action will be taken on its findings?

[Alex Norris]

I am grateful for the intervention. On the IMPACT-se point, those were not my words, but the words of the then Minister. On UNRWA, I take the point that we need to see it in the round, but I do not see UNRWA as a particularly politicised operator, and it was on its numbers that I was relying.

From my time with UNRWA, it was clear that if its support stopped quickly, which it could if other Governments act as the United States did, there would not be significant support for people who desperately need it. The Government ought to be commended on their actions when that happened. I hope we can sustain that.

[Dr Cameron]

Surely that is exactly the point. UNRWA should act quickly to address all the concerns and issues that have been raised. All hon. Members want aid to reach people who are desperately in need, but at the same time, they do not want aid to be used counterproductively or in a way that promotes terrorist ideologies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris]

Absolutely. I am sure the staff of UNRWA do not want to be in classrooms teaching such things either. We have common cause here—we need to look at the evidence, because what we need to do will flow from that.

It is important that we look at the wider context. We are answering a fundamental question: why are young Palestinians being radicalised? We have picked one element of the issue—a very important element of it—but I also saw military courts where children were offered arbitrary sentences that were shorter than the period of time they would have been detained to have a full trial. We heard first-hand stories of inconsistent access to life-saving medical treatments. We visited suburbs that had been developed around and heard from children about their lack of hope for their community. Everyone will have seen the physical checkpoints and walls that those children have no prospect of ever passing through. Their lives are lived under the constant threat of demolition. We heard from Israel defence force soldiers, who said it was a part of their operating procedure to inconvenience and to disturb Palestinians, especially young men.

That is the broader context. We serve nobody if we choose only a little bit of context to try to answer the whole question. I know today we have focused on a very important issue—the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North is right to raise it—and we should find solutions, because it gets to the very core of why we use aid spending in this country. However, we will serve no one in the pursuit of a two-state solution if we look like we are picking sides.

As I stood up to speak, I thought about my friends who often have contrasting views on these issues, and I thought, “I hope that when I sit down, I will at least have disappointed them equally.” That is the territory that we are in here and that is the spirit in which we need to continue these conversations. Hopefully, we can revisit it after we have seen the report.

[Sir Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Minister, I would just point out to him that if he stops speaking at 4.25 pm, that will give the mover of the motion two minutes to wind up. I call the Minister.