Oral Answers to Questions

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

2. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on reforming the UK’s human rights framework.

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

5. What steps he is taking in response to the publication of the Independent Human Rights Act Review published by his Department in December 2021.

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

7. What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on reforming the UK’s human rights framework.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dominic Raab]

I thank the hon. Lady, because she raises a good substantive point. We want to strengthen and reinforce the right of free speech, in particular given some of the judge-led privacy law we have, but also some of the encroachments on free speech we have seen in political debate. I think constituents of Members in all parts of the House would recognise the difference between free speech, lawful protest and, frankly, the downright sabotage that we have seen by groups such as Extinction Rebellion, where we are right to legislate to protect the freedoms of others.

[Mr Carmichael]

This is not new territory for the Secretary of State. He has been around this course. He failed last time of course, because he could only do what he wanted by leaving the European convention on human rights. That is still the situation now, so will it be Government policy that we should follow the human rights example of Belarus in leaving the protections of the convention?

[Dominic Raab]

We have been around this house a few times. It is precisely because our reforms through a Bill of Rights can make a substantial difference by injecting some common sense without leaving the European convention that we will proceed. I will give one example. I visited HMP Frankland in Durham. It is a high-security category A prison. One of the challenges in dealing with terrorist offenders, particularly those who could infect the minds of others, is the issue of separation centres. We are increasingly seeing litigation claims claiming article 8 as a right to socialise getting in our way. That is a good example for the common-sense approach and the balance we want to have. I am very surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is opposed to it.

Committee on Standards: Decision of the House

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Monday 8th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

I see that the Leader of the House is in the House, so it is a surprise to see the Minister for the Cabinet Office at the Dispatch Box today. He and I have faced each other across the Dispatch Box many times, and it is always a pleasure, but I am sure he, like me, wishes that his days as the nightwatchman were a thing of the past. Defending valiantly against hostile bowling on a sticky wicket of his Prime Minister’s creation—it is as if 2019 never ended.

That is because last week the Prime Minister damaged himself, and, despite the bravery of some Conservative Members, he damaged his party; but most importantly, he damaged our democracy. We are fortunate in this country: voters may not always agree with politicians—they often do not—but they do trust that disagreements are sincere, that their representatives are acting in the way that they think is in the public interest, and that we can resolve our disagreements in debate and at the ballot box. But when the Prime Minister gives the green light to corruption, he corrodes that trust; when he says that the rules to stop vested interests do not apply to his friends, he corrodes that trust; and when he deliberately undermines those charged with stopping corruption, he corrodes that trust—and that is exactly what the Prime Minister did last week.

Now, today, the Prime Minister does not even have the decency to come here either to defend what he did or to apologise for his action. Rather than repairing the damage that he has done, the Prime Minister is running scared. When required to lead, he has chosen to hide. His concern, as always, is self-preservation, not the national interest. It is time for everyone in this House, whatever their party, to draw a line and to send a message to the Prime Minister: enough is enough; we will not stand by while he trashes our democracy.

The case of the former Member for North Shropshire is simple. Everyone in this House has enormous sympathy for the tragic circumstances in which he lost his wife. His pain and his anguish are unimaginable. I wish to express my condolences to him, as I did at the time. The Committee on Standards rightly took those awful circumstances into account when considering his conduct. There was a serious and robust process. He had prior notice of the charges against him. He had legal advisers with him. He was invited to appeal against the commissioner’s findings in writing and in person, and he did so. The findings were clear—

“an egregious case of paid advocacy.”

He took money to lobby Ministers. That is against the rules, as it is in any functioning democracy, and it is corrupt. The Prime Minister should have told the former Member for North Shropshire that the right thing to do was to accept his punishment. His duty of care demanded that he do that. His duty to defend standards demanded that he do that. Basic decency demanded that he do that. Instead, the British people were let down, and the former Member for North Shropshire was let down, used as a pawn in an extraordinary attack on our commissioner for standards. We had threats to have money taken away from schools, hospitals and high streets unless Members voted to undermine the commissioner; Ministers sent out on the airwaves the morning after the vote to call for her to consider her position; and a sham committee proposed so that the Government could set the judge and jury for future cases. This was a deliberate course of action, but the Government were caught off guard by the public outcry and they have climbed down.

This was not a tactical mistake or an innocent misjudgment swiftly corrected by a U-turn—it was the Prime Minister’s way of doing business, a pattern of behaviour. When the Prime Minister’s adviser on the ministerial code found against the Home Secretary, the Prime Minister kept the Home Secretary and forced out the adviser. When the Electoral Commission investigated the Conservative party, the Prime Minister threatened to shut it down. When the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards looked into the Prime Minister’s donations, the Prime Minister tried to take her down. Government corruption—there is no other word for it.

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

Will the Leader of the Opposition give way?

[Keir Starmer]

I will in just a moment. It is said that the Prime Minister does not believe that the rules apply to him, but it is worse than that. He absolutely knows that the rules do apply to him; his strategy is to devalue the rules so that they do not matter to anyone any more and to go after those charged with enforcing the rules so that breaking the rules has less consequence. That way, politics becomes contaminated. Cynicism replaces confidence and trust. The taunt that politicians are all in it for themselves becomes accepted wisdom and, with that, the Prime Minister hopes to drag us all into the gutter with him. No way. It only serves to convince people that things cannot get better, that Government cannot improve people’s lives, and that progress is not possible because politics does not work.

In the right hands, used in the right way and for the right reasons, politics can work, because politics can be a noble cause to build a better country and a better world. For some, it is also a great personal sacrifice. The plaques in this House to Airey Neave and Jo Cox, and the empty seat where just weeks ago Sir David Amess sat, are testament to that price. If we are to honour their memory, we have to defeat the politics of cynicism propagated by this Prime Minister.

[Mr Carmichael]

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for giving way. One of the rules we have always observed in this place is that we do not whip House business. Just about everything that has happened since last week can be traced back to the determination of the Government to whip that. Does he share my concern that we have heard nothing from those on the Treasury Bench today to say that, if we on this side of the House participate in future exploration of the rules, there will be no repetition of whipping the votes either for or against when those measures return to this House? Indeed, without that undertaking, it would be very difficult for anyone on this side to accept that what we hear from those on the Treasury Bench is a good faith exercise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alberto Costa]

I want to move on, as other Members want to speak.

I believe that there is an important role for the Committee on Standards, in particular with its lay people. I think that it ought to be a Committee that drafts and amends the code of conduct and the associated rules. I do not think that the Committee on Standards is the appropriate body for me or my 13 colleagues to adjudicate on Members against whom a complaint has been brought. But I would go further: I think that the commissioner needs to be empowered and that the rules need to be clarified. The commissioner should have the same role as she does with the independent expert panel, which is that she investigates and presents her case to the panel, but importantly, she does not advise the judges on that panel. Also, we need to amalgamate the IEP and bring in more former High Court judges to help us in this process, to ensure that Members of the highest governing body of the United Kingdom—this House of Commons—are disciplined by people who have the requisite judicial experience when it comes to regulatory and disciplinary matters.

[Mr Carmichael]

I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for the independent complaints and grievance procedures. Does he now think, with the benefit of hindsight, that he was wrong to vote against them?

[Alberto Costa]

I want this process to move forward. I have a great deal of respect for the right hon. Gentleman; we have worked together on a cross-party basis on a number of things. I am trying to give the House the benefit of my experience. I was the only lawyer on that Committee until recently. If Members do not want a system that is adjudicated upon by the best people in our land, they are not just doing themselves ill service; they are doing their constituents ill service as well.

I want to wrap up, because I know that many Members want to speak. I say once again that the lay people on the Committee on Standards and the commissioner are people of the utmost integrity, but being of the utmost integrity does not mean that they are suitable for adjudicating on disciplinary matters affecting Members of the House of Commons. Mr Speaker, I invite you to assist this House in coming together and moving towards the process that we rightly adopted for the IEP, in amalgamating the IEP and in having a panel of very senior people with judicial experience, so that we never again have the situation that we had last week, when a Member felt that he did not receive the proper system that he felt entitled to receive. I stand by the comments I made in the report—my name was on that report—and I look forward to coming back to the House with a draft of an amended code of conduct and a new process. I also look forward to hearing the Chairman of the Standards Committee finally confirming to this House that, at almost every Committee meeting, he has listened to my concerns about process.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank you, Mr Speaker, for accepting the application for today’s debate from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain). It is, unfortunately, very timely and necessary, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing it, and on the manner in which she introduced it.

I listened to your statement before the debate, Mr Speaker, when you spoke about the best traditions of the House, and my mind went back to a conversation that I had with a colleague not long after I was elected to this House. It was basically to the effect that the day anybody found me standing here making a speech about the best traditions of the House, they could take me out and shoot me because my useful life would be over at that point. The House will therefore appreciate, I hope, that I have picked my words and what I am about to say with extreme caution.

I do not think that the convention of not whipping House business is the best tradition of the House, but it is certainly a very important one. I do not know whose decision it was to whip the motion and amendment last week, but it was a seriously colossal error of judgment. They have damaged the authority of the Prime Minister, they have damaged the credibility of the Leader of the House, and they have seriously undermined the ability of the Government Whips Office to do the job with which it is charged. Some might say that that is a silver lining, but the cloud, which is the damage to Parliament as a whole, is otherwise impenetrably dark.

As others have said, we now need to move on and look at what we do to go ahead. I take the point of the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) that we need to consider questions of process. I remain to be convinced about the need for an appeal, but given that this is a committee and not a court, and the process is not informed by legal practitioners, I see the argument for there being a fresh pair of eyes on such matters. If, however, all we do in the process about which the Leader of the House was speaking last week is tinker around with a few procedural matters, we might as well not bother. That is simply not equal to the task before us of restoring public confidence in the House’s ability to deal with its own standards and discipline.

On those right hon. and hon. Members who have outside interests or second incomes, I do not favour an outright ban on second jobs, as that would have the unintended consequence of making more people see this as an occupation from which there would never be any departure. The idea that people can come here for a term or two and then return to whatever profession or occupation they had beforehand is good and sensible, but this weekend I saw reports about the time given by some right hon. and hon. Members, and the money they received in return, which I think is simple indefensible. As we look to what we do in future, we must consider that, and at very least we must have a cap on such matters.

Let me return to the point that I made in my intervention on the Leader of the Opposition. If the Government are approaching this as a good faith exercise, we should hear a commitment from the Treasury Bench that not only will there be no repetition of whipping House business, but that when any proposals are brought forward they will give us a cast-iron guarantee that Members will not be whipped. When you are in a hole, stop digging. The Government look as if they have stopped digging, but I still get the sense that somehow they cast rather envious and wistful glances in the direction of the shovel.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Oral Answers to Questions

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Iain Stewart]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am well aware of the representations the catching sector in Scotland has made over quotas it lost when we were a part of the common fisheries policy. That saw Scottish quotas swapped for the benefit of a foreign-owned vessel. I am sure that being an independent coastal state must mean that we look after our truly domestic businesses first and foremost.

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

I hope the Minister is aware that the next few weeks will be the most important weeks of the year for businesses exporting fish to continental Europe. Nothing should be done that will affect confidence in the reliability of supply from these shores. These are the same people who were absolutely hammered in the first week of the year as a consequence of the shambolic start to the year. They were promised compensation by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs at that stage. I have spoken to one supplier in Shetland who has been told that if he had allowed his fish to rot on the quayside, he would have got full compensation, but because he sold it at a significant discount in the domestic market, he will get nothing. Surely that it is not how it was supposed to work?

[Iain Stewart]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point. If he cares to send me the details of that firm, I will certainly follow that up with my colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and make sure that the scheme has been working as it should have been.

G20 and COP26 World Leaders Summit

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend. That is a brilliant idea. Kew has played an amazing midwife role over the centuries in taking plants from one part of the world, nurturing them and then planting them with huge advantage in other parts of the world. That is certainly something I would be happy to take up with him.

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

The Prime Minister is absolutely right that this is a moment for turning words into action. One very important but quite small action that he and his Government could take now is the creation of a ringfenced pot for the development of tidal stream energy in the next round of contract for difference options. This is a decision that has to be taken by the end of this month. Will the Prime Minister talk to his colleagues in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Treasury to make sure that that happens?

[The Prime Minister]

This is a point I have now heard several times from those on the Opposition Benches. Without having perhaps all the technical expertise, I am very impressed by the tidal proposals I have seen. What I will undertake to the right hon. Gentleman is not an absolute commitment on contract for difference or the strike price for tidal power, but I will certainly go away and look at it again.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Wednesday 20th October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

Business action is critical if the Government are to achieve the goal of reaching net zero by 2050. That is why, since the COP President-designate took on the role, he has been actively calling for business to join the race to zero—a UN-backed campaign supported by the UK Government. It requires businesses to take robust short-term action to halve global emissions by 2030 and to achieve net zero emissions as soon as possible. There are now 4,470 companies that have signed up to Race to Zero.

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

T6. I thank the Secretary of State for International Trade for her visit earlier this year to the European Marine Energy Centre in Stromness, when she heard that it has a very compelling case for the next round of contract for difference auctions to have a pot within a pot for tidal stream generation. We are disappointed that the first draft does not include the pot within a pot, so will she and the President of COP26 renew their representations to the Treasury for its inclusion so that we can take advantage of the opportunities?

[Anne-Marie Trevelyan]

It was a wonderful visit and I thank the right hon. Gentleman and the community for welcoming me so heartily. All these new technologies will help us meet net zero, not just in the UK but across the world. We want to continue to see investment in them. I know that the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, my right hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) will continue to champion these issues.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Thursday 23rd September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I congratulate the new Minister on his appointment, and call Alistair Carmichael.

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

1. With reference to his Department's “COVID-19 Response: Autumn and Winter Plan 2021”, if his Department will publish scientific evidence in support of the efficacy of mandatory vaccine passports.

[The Minister without Portfolio (Nigel Adams)]

And I congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on a magnificent display in Chorley over the last week. I think that if there were to be an election there, the majority would be in six figures following such a splendid occasion. Chorley turned out for it.

The Cabinet Office conducted a review of covid status certification, which found that its use would have a public health benefit, on the basis of evidence gathered from bodies such as the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies and from the events research programme. Analysis of the ERP conducted by Public Health England found that certification should reduce the likelihood of someone transmitting highly infectious amounts of virus to large numbers of attendees. The autumn and winter plan published this month set out the Government’s position, which is that we will keep mandatory certification in reserve in case it is required to help prevent unsustainable pressure on the NHS and to enable venues to remain open more safely.

[Mr Carmichael]

I welcome the Minister’s very full answer, and I welcome him to the Dispatch Box. It was always a pleasure to work with him in his previous role, and I hope it will be a pleasure to work with him in this one as well.

The Government have had no fewer than 13 different positions in relation to vaccine passports. They have said “yes” three times, “no” four times, and “maybe” or “we are having a review” six times. Rather than just asserting that the evidence is there, will the Minister commit himself to publishing it? If he is ever going to take his own Back Benchers with him, let alone the general public, the case will have to be made, and the Government have not made it yet—and, incidentally, are we going to get a vote before vaccine passports are introduced?

[Nigel Adams]

We have published brief summaries of the evidence in the autumn and winter plan, which is publicly available on gov.uk. As I said earlier, we are keeping vaccine certification in reserve in case it is required to help prevent pressure on the NHS. We hope that it will be unnecessary, but the responsible thing to do is prepare for all eventualities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Barclay]

As I recall from my recent time in the Treasury, the levelling-up fund is not a one-shot opportunity and there will be future iterations and bidding processes. The first round is applied, but there will be future rounds as part of that. Obviously, that will also be shaped by the forthcoming spending review that the Chancellor will lead.

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

T6. People in fishing communities will have been interested to hear the Paymaster General assert earlier that we are taking back control of our territorial waters. May I invite him to clarify that? When he says territorial waters, does he mean water up to the 6-mile, 12-mile or 200-mile limit?

[The Paymaster General (Michael Ellis)]

I think the right hon. Gentleman knows full well what is meant by British territorial waters, and I invite him to accept that it is this Government who do everything they need to do, and they will continue to protect our territorial waters.

Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill (Instruction)

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Monday 13th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

How wonderful to be pre-empted on a core remark that I was going to make anyway. What I ought to say first, however, is that while there is some similarity between the concepts of Prorogation and Dissolution—as the Clerks have observed in calling them “cognate matters”—in that they are both prerogative acts affecting the sitting of Parliament, they are, beyond that, quite distinct. Dissolution is the end of a Parliament before a general election, providing an opportunity for the electorate to exercise its judgment on the Government of the day. Prorogation is simply the formal ending of a parliamentary Session. The Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee wrote to me recently saying that there was

“no read across from prorogation and dissolution”,

and I agree with that.

The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 expressly did not affect the prerogative power to prorogue Parliament. Our Bill to repeal that Act, which is what we are considering today in Committee, therefore does not touch on matters of Prorogation. To do that would significantly widen the scope of the Bill beyond the manifesto commitments of this side of the House and those of the other side of the House, who were clear in their manifesto that they wished to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. It would even go beyond the short title of this Bill. Therefore, it is inappropriate to put such measures in the Bill.

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

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but it is not wholly accurate to say that the Bill does not relate to Prorogation. If she has regard to clause 3 and its inclusion of the words “or purported” in relation to the exercise of prerogative powers, she will be aware that there are some who feel that that raises the question of justiciability in relation to the Miller and Cherry cases. Is that not in fact an instance where the Bill does touch on Prorogation?

[Chloe Smith]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that thoughtful point, but I think he is incorrect. In my view, clause 3 does not do that. The intention of the clause is much more specifically related to Dissolution decisions, and it is my entire argument here from the Dispatch Box that we are dealing today with Dissolution, not with Prorogation, and that the two should be kept quite separate.

[Mr Carmichael]

That being the case, why do the Government’s own explanatory notes on the Bill refer to the Miller and Cherry cases?

[Chloe Smith]

Because clause 3 is careful, as the explanatory notes set out, to absorb recent case law, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would want us to do. I know that the hon. Member for Rhondda thinks that that is important, because he has given us a tour de force of the history in this area. The point still stands, none the less, that clause 3 is about Dissolution, having had regard to relevant case law. That does not make it about Prorogation, as much as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) might wish it to. It is not about Prorogation.

I ought to take this moment to reflect on what we are actually voting on today. The hon. Member for Rhondda has suggested that there might almost be a trap here. I hesitate to suggest that he is laying a trap for Government Members to vote on. That would hardly be in his character, I am sure. However, a few suggestions have been made in the Chamber this afternoon that, if Government Members were to vote against his motion right here, right now, we would be saying that Prorogation was in fact justiciable. I think I can answer that one fairly clearly in saying that we are voting on an instruction to this Committee here today that we should have leave to make provision relating to the Prorogation of Parliament. I am really doing nothing more there than reading from the Order Paper, so we can be quite clear what today’s vote consists of.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I will not detain the House for long but, because I was not able to intervene latterly on the Minister’s speech, I wish to put on record that the motion of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is required to be passed for this House to debate this matter today. In the event that the Bill gets its Third Reading, it will go to the other place, where very different rules apply. In the other place, it is required only that the House should determine that the matter is in scope, whether or not the ex facie scope is achieved.

Essentially that means that, when the Bill goes to the other place, the unelected Chamber will be able to debate this matter. It is surely perverse that the Government should deny the elected Chamber the same opportunity.

Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading
Monday 13th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

Yes, that is right. I am grateful to my hon. Friend and to all hon. and right hon. Members who served on the Joint Committee and spent a considerable amount of time looking at these issues. That is the kind of consideration that we ought to give to our constitutional affairs rather than taking them in a hurry—a point that I was making earlier. Let me acknowledge my hon. Friend’s point and thank him and others for the work that they did.

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

On clause 3, may I take the Minister back to the inclusion of the word “purported” and, in particular, draw her attention to paragraph 166 and the comments of Baroness Hale in relation to the Joint Committee report? She says that

“it looks as if it is saying, “Well, even if what we did”—

that is what the Government did—

“was not within the power that you have been given by the statute, the courts can’t do anything about it.”

She goes on to say:

“If that is the case, the courts would be very worried about that, because it would mean that the Government—the Prime Minister—had done something that was, at least arguably, not within its powers.”

There is some force and logic in the argument of Lady Hale, is there not?

[Chloe Smith]

This is a good opportunity for me to be absolutely clear about the reference to the word “purported” in this clause. This has been included to take account of previous judicial decisions—in particular the cases of Anisminic Ltd v. the Foreign Compensation Commission 1969, and Privacy International v. the Investigatory Powers Tribunal 2019. In the latter, the expectation was expressed that the drafting legislation would have regard to the case law and ensure that the drafting made it clear if “purported” decisions—that is decisions that would be considered by a court to be invalid—were intended to be outside the jurisdiction of the courts. What clause 3 does is present an opportunity to Parliament to be absolutely clear on whether it thinks that such things should be outside the jurisdiction of the courts. It is the Government’s position and presentation that they ought to be, and I hope that hon. Members will join me in that.

[Mr Carmichael]

In the interests of clarity, is the Minister telling the House that the Government are asking Parliament to give them the power to do things that exceed the powers given to them and that nobody should be able to gainsay them?

[Chloe Smith]

I am proposing that the House understands the use of the phrase “purported”, which, clearly, the right hon. Gentleman does—I have no dispute with him on that point—and that hon. Members join us in acknowledging that it is right to be aware of the case law and to respond to it. The decision in front of us is whether purported decisions relating to this area should or should not be included in clause 3. It is our contention that they should be, because we believe that the entire area of dissolution and the calling of Parliament is intended to be outside the jurisdiction of the courts. That is a perfectly legitimate question to put to Parliament. It is for us here in this Chamber to decide on that, and the reason for doing so would be that we think that such decisions are political rather that judicial in their nature. Fundamentally, the check on the exercise of power is for the electorate to decide on rather than the courts. Therefore, as I have said, the function of clause 3 is to set that out very clearly. I will now move on to clause 4, which deals with five-year maximum terms.

The purpose here is to ensure that a Parliament lasts no longer than five years. We do that by providing that Parliament will automatically dissolve five years after it has first met. In doing so, the clause returns us to the general position before the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill was enacted. We are confident that five years is the appropriate length for the maximum parliamentary term. Our Parliaments have seldom lasted a full five years, and, in practice, they have often been dissolved sooner. In fact, we can see that parliamentary terms have very often developed their own rhythm. For example, from the history books, we can see that a strong Government seeking a fresh mandate might seek a Dissolution after four years. Anything less than four years is usually a sign of some political crisis or emergency. Often, Parliaments are dissolved out of political necessity rather than choice, to put a policy or political question to the electorate or to resolve a political crisis.

Elections Bill

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is getting into the detail of what is actually being proposed, which is excellent. He makes the important point that schedule 1 has a widespread and broad-based list of identification. In fact, 98% of the population hold those forms of ID.

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

These proposals were trialled in 2019, and during that trial 2,000 people were turned away for not having the correct form of identification. Of those 2,000, 700 did not return to vote. Whether it is voter suppression is a question of semantics, but it is hardly encouragement, is it?

[Chloe Smith]

Under this Bill, as is clear in the impact assessment and the associated documents, there will be a widespread public communication campaign to ensure awareness so that people know what to bring with them to the polling station, which is only right. That is exactly what we would expect, because we want people to be able to take part in our elections.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chloe Smith]

I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has raised that point, because there are two things to be said. The first, which I shall come to shortly in my remarks, is about how we are updating the franchise to reflect the position of EU citizens. The other important thing, which is worth making clear at this juncture, is that parts of the devolution settlements apply to electoral policy and so it is important to be clear that in this Bill we are looking at measures that will apply UK-wide—a full analysis is available, of course, in the Bill documents. That means we will have consistency at parliamentary elections, but a natural consequence of devolution is that there may be differences at other levels. I think we would both accept that and seek to work to make those arrangements a success for voters who may experience both sets of arrangements and for the hard-working election staff who may administer both sets.

As I have completed my remarks on overseas electors, I shall carry on moving through the Bill. At this point, I wish to address the Liberal Democrats’ reasoned amendment. It may come as little surprise that, regrettably, they take two opposite positions in one amendment: on the one hand they would like British citizens to participate more—indeed, that was their manifesto position—and on the other hand they do not. The official policy of the Liberal Democrats is to support votes for life, and the policy paper that they published in July 2019 said:

“There is no reason why”

expats

“should be treated any differently to those who continue to live in the UK.”

I agree. The Bill puts in place tougher measures against foreign interference and foreign money, but overseas British citizens are just that—British—and are therefore able both to vote and to donate. There is a long-standing principle, originally recommended by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in 1998, that permissible donors are those on the UK electoral register.

[Mr Carmichael]

The Minister references the Committee on Standards in Public Life; why has she not included in the Bill any of the Committee’s recommendations on campaign finance?

[Chloe Smith]

I shall come to campaign finance shortly, but is that all the right hon. Gentleman has to say on overseas voters?

Let me turn to the voting rights of EU citizens, an important subject that has been asked about. Part 2 of the Bill updates the voting and candidacy rights of EU citizens who reside in the UK and moves to a more reciprocal model that fits our new arrangements. We stand by our commitments to those EU citizens who were resident here before our exit from the EU, so any EU citizen who was a resident before the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020 and has legal immigration status will retain their voting and candidacy rights. That goes beyond our obligations under the withdrawal agreement. For EU citizens who have moved to the UK following our EU exit, local voting and candidacy rights will be granted on the basis of bilateral agreements with the individual EU member states that will reciprocate arrangements for British citizens who live there.

We all want to make progress this afternoon, so let me move on as fast I can through the rest of the Bill. I have set out the ways in which the Bill will bolster the security of our elections; let me move on to the enforcement of electoral law. A critical part of our electoral system is and must continue to be effective, independent regulation, and the Electoral Commission has a vital role to play. Lord Pickles found that the

“current system of oversight of the Electoral Commission—by the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission—does not provide an effective third-party check on its performance”,

so we think it is right for Parliament to have an increased role. The Bill will introduce a strategy and policy statement that will provide guidance to which the commission will have to have regard in the discharge of its functions. It will be subject to statutory consultation, parliamentary approval and regular review.

We will also improve the parliamentary structures that hold the regulator to account. The Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission currently has a limited remit; the Bill will therefore give it the additional power to examine the commission’s compliance with its duty to have regard to the strategy and policy statement. That will allow Parliament to better scrutinise the work of the commission. Together, the reforms will facilitate parliamentary scrutiny of the Electoral Commission’s work while respecting its independence.

It is a shame that Her Majesty’s Opposition’s reasoned amendment misrepresents scrutiny by Parliament and misunderstands—or again wilfully misrepresents the fact—that the commission remains governed, in law, by its commissioners. We are also clarifying that the Electoral Commission should not bring prosecutions, and that prosecutions should remain with the existing prosecution authorities.

Let me move on to political finance, which right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned. We already have a comprehensive regulatory framework for campaigning that is rooted in the principles of fairness, transparency and the importance of a level playing field. We want to ensure that our electoral law continues to uphold those principles, which is why part 4 of the Bill will update and strengthen our political finance laws to restrict all third-party spending to UK-based entities and eligible overseas electors; to increase transparency around third-party campaigning at elections and the registration of new political parties; and to prohibit parties and campaigners from unfairly expanding their spending limits. The Bill will ensure that campaign spending can come only from sources that have a genuine and legitimate interest in UK elections, by restricting all third-party spending to UK-based entities and registered overseas electors, above a £700 minimum threshold.

On the regulation of third-party campaigners, it is right that those who campaign at elections and seek to influence voters are subject to transparency requirements and rules that maintain a level playing field. Those principles already apply. The Bill seeks to balance the burden of regulation, relative to the level of campaign spending, with the importance of a thriving and diverse public debate.

The Bill will not change the definition of what constitutes controlled expenditure for a third-party campaigner. The Electoral Commission already provides guidance, developed with third-party groups, on what constitutes such expenditure. To ensure that any other legitimate categories of third party that may emerge in future are not significantly restricted in their ability to campaign, a power will be given to the Secretary of State to amend the list of legal entities eligible to register as campaigners under section 88(2) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Any change to that list made via a statutory instrument will be subject to the affirmative procedure and therefore subject to parliamentary scrutiny in both Houses. The Opposition amendment is simply wrong: the last time I checked, democratic parliamentary procedure on an SI is not “unilateral” change by a Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise to colleagues for this brief intervention, but I have heard that the all-party parliamentary China group has invited the ambassador of China on to the estate next week. As one of many in this place who has been sanctioned by the Chinese Government, I find that reprehensible, because Mr Speaker himself condemned the sanctioning of Members of Parliament here in very strict terms.

I have notified the chair of the all-party group, my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham), as well as the vice-chair, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who I see in his place. I wonder if you would give your view, Mr Deputy Speaker, about whether such a visit should happen. The representative of the Government who have sanctioned us, trolled us, broken some of our email accounts and taken our characters around the world is coming to Parliament next week, and I think that is unfathomable.

[Mr Carmichael]

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary China group—in fairness, one of 22 vice-chairs—may I say to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) through you that I very much share his concerns? It is obviously necessary for us to engage in every way possible, but when the engagement is of the nature he described, that goes beyond normal engagement, and that should be a matter of concern across this Chamber.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

I am extremely grateful to Sir Iain Duncan Smith for his point of order and giving me forward notice of it, as well as to Alistair Carmichael following on. I am also grateful that he informed the chair of the all-party parliamentary China group. The Speaker and Deputy Speakers are not responsible for the operation of APPGs. In the first instance, I suggest that he put his points to the officers of the APPG in question. Indeed, the vice-chair having said what he did gives incredible strength to the arguments.

Further, if the right hon. Gentleman believes that the APPG has breached the rules, he is advised to contact the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. He might also wish to know that the Standards Committee is undertaking an inquiry into APPGs. As he just stated, it is a matter of public record that Mr Speaker is very concerned about the sanctioning of any Members of this House by the Chinese Government for carrying out their duties as Members of Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I want to take a few seconds to place on record my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) on her excellent maiden speech. I am sure it is a matter of easy consensus in the House that Lib Dem maiden speeches are all too rare these days, and I thought my hon. Friend’s speech was exceptionally fine. As a former Chief Whip for my party, I was delighted to hear her declare her intention to prosecute her constituents’ case with an independence of mind to match that of the late Cheryl Gillan.

“If I am ever asked, on the streets of London, or in any other venue, public or private, to produce my ID card as evidence that I am who I say I am…then I will take that card out of my wallet and physically eat it in the presence of whatever emanation of the state has demanded that I produce it.”

Those are not my words, but the words of the Prime Minister. I think we should watch the Division lists this evening with some interest. I have no doubt that he will perform that feat of gastronomic improbability while lying in front of a bulldozer to stop the creation of a third runway at Heathrow.

The difficulty that the Government face in introducing the Bill is that their proposals for voter identification seek to produce a solution for which there is no obvious problem. That is not to say that voter personation does not happen. We have heard instances of it described today, and indeed we knew for many years that it was a substantial and real problem in Northern Ireland. That is why, having identified the problem, it was right for the then Government to act to end it. But to justify the measures in this Bill, the Government should first have provided evidence to show there is a problem, and they have singularly failed to do so.

The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) said the Bill would have benefited from prelegislative scrutiny, and he is absolutely right. The cost-benefit analysis is to be seen in the pilot that the Government carried out in 2019 when, of the 2,000 people who were turned away from polling stations, 700 did not return, which should give us serious pause before we go down this road.

If the Treasury Bench, having missed the opportunity for prelegislative scrutiny, are able to get this Bill, in its current form, through both Houses—I anticipate that will be a bigger ask in the other place—they should undertake a programme of post-legislative scrutiny to ensure that the promises they make tonight are honoured in the execution.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) told me that she appears on the electoral register as Christine Jardine, but her passport shows her married name. That is by no means unusual, as in Scotland one’s name is the name by which one chooses to be known. That sort of thing could have been teased out by prelegislative scrutiny, but it is now too late.

There are many other issues about which I am concerned but, unfortunately, time is against me. I will vote against the Bill tonight.

Afghanistan

Alistair Carmichael Excerpts

Wednesday 18th August 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend has anticipated exactly the point I was about to make. The Taliban has said that it will not allow Afghanistan to become a haven for terrorists again. Yesterday, in the press conference, it said it would not allow anything to happen in Afghanistan that would lead to attacks elsewhere across the world. However, we must look at its actions, not its words, and, as he has just pointed out, its action has been to release thousands of high-value Taliban, al-Qaeda and Daesh fighters. Its actions are completely different from its words, and it is essential that we recognise the probability that Afghanistan will once again become a breeding ground for the terrorists who seek to destroy our way of life.

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

The right hon. Lady is making exactly the points that I hoped to hear from the Prime Minister and did not. The reasons that we went into Afghanistan in 2001 remain valid today. If the actions taken in recent weeks render a military solution to that problem impossible, we have to have a non-military solution. What does she see that non-military solution as being?

[Mrs May]

I will refer to that issue later. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the question of a military solution has not been there for some time, because our combat mission ended some years ago, but we have been trying to provide support to enable a democratic Government to take proper control of that country. I would be happy to talk to him sometime about my views. I think that we should possibly have reconsidered the idea of trying to impose a western example of democracy in a country that is geographically difficult and relies a lot on regional government when we were going down that route, but I will not go down that road any longer, despite his temptations.