European Union Referendum Bill

Debate between Anne Main and George Howarth

Thursday 18th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

My hon. Friend said that her father might have thought she was eccentric voting at the age of 18, when she was first allowed to do so. The fact that she has a poster of Nick Clegg on her wall seems to add to her father’s view. Does she need some help in this matter?

[The Temporary Chair (Mr George Howarth)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is referring to the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg). I really hope that we are not going to spend a great deal of time talking about the artistic merit of what hangs on the hon. Lady’s wall.

[Mrs Main]

I have been gently chided from going down that route. The point is that a referendum is something that has been rattled around for a considerable time. We are now having one, thanks to the fact that we have a Conservative Government who have promised to deliver a referendum, and deliver it we shall. I do not wish to muddy the waters of something so vital, so important and so longed for by trying to move the franchise down to the age of 16 or 17.

I look forward to all sides expending as much effort and energy on this matter to ensure that those people who currently have the franchise exercise it. That will be the best way to ensure that we get a vote that represents the true wishes of the people of this country. Those people of 18 will be living with the consequences for a very long time—just as those of us in our fifties have lived with the consequences of what our parents chose for us. We should stick with our current franchise, and not be considering passing an amendment that does something so momentous as extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. Such a decision may be for another day. All the implications raised by the hon. Member for Ilford South could be discussed then. We could consider who should vote at general elections and at local elections. That is an important issue, but it is not for today. I shall vote with the Government and not support the amendment.

Devolution and the Union

Debate between Anne Main and George Howarth

Thursday 20th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Howarth]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Given what I have said, it follows logically that I do agree with that.

I was going to say a word in response to the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) but she seems to have disappeared. [Hon. Members: “She has moved.”] Oh, I am sorry. She put forward an argument about the Barnett formula, but there is a different, less polarising way of expressing her points that actually supports her underlying argument. I do not personally—and neither, I am sure, do most colleagues, certainly on this side of the House—have any difficulty with the Barnett formula. What I want is a Barnett formula for England, or something equivalent, and others will make a strong case for something similar for Northern Ireland and Wales. The issue is how we get a fairer distribution of resources.

[Mrs Main]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Howarth]

I will not give way, because I have not got a lot of time, but I hope the hon. Lady will agree that what I am saying—

[Mrs Main]

indicated assent.

[Mr Howarth]

The hon. Lady nods in assent, as what we are saying is very much along the same lines; I just put it in a slightly different way. I think we need a better system of distributing resources, certainly to areas such as mine where the need is great yet is not currently being addressed.

I want to talk briefly about some of the powers. This is not an exhaustive list, but it suggests the sort of areas we could move forward on: innovation, research and development, housing, skills, employment support, infrastructure and, in the longer term, transport, policing, waste disposal and fire and rescue services. Those are the areas we should be, and indeed are, talking about.

I hope we can have this discussion out in the open. What slightly disturbs me is that there are a lot of discussions going on behind closed doors. We need an open discussion about this.

On the Liverpool city region, another issue that arises is what sort of leadership and accountability would be appropriate. There is an issue about whether we have an elected leader, or an elected metro-mayor as some seem to call it. The position that most of the leadership of the councils on Merseyside—and possibly the wider population—take, and which I share, is that we do not want to be prescriptive about this. The Chancellor made the point that there is no one-size-fits-all solution, and I agree, but quiet pressure is being applied behind closed doors, not least from Lord Heseltine, to go along a particular road.

As it happens, I personally would not rule out the possibility of having a directly elected mayor, but I do think it needs to be the subject of proper discussion, and I also believe that that discussion needs to take place out in the open, transparently and publicly, and that, if it goes that far, because this would be a big departure, some means of consulting the public about having an elected mayor should take place, and I personally would favour a referendum on that.

Kevin Williams

Debate between Anne Main and George Howarth

Wednesday 22nd February 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate under your chairmanship, Mrs Main. I congratulate the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) on the clarity that he has brought to the case. It is difficult to bring all these facts together and make them comprehensible, and he did that very well. I also pay tribute to the dignity and tenacity of Anne Williams and all those who supported her in taking this case so far and for drawing it to the attention of Members of Parliament and the Attorney-General.

In our culture, we are not equipped as parents to deal with the loss of a child. That lack of preparedness is even greater when the circumstances in which the death occurs have never been properly explained or officially put on the face of a verdict from a coroner’s court. We need to recognise that there is a huge burden of honour involved in what we are doing today in relation to what happened to Kevin Williams in the coroner’s court.

I wanted to take part in this debate because I attended one day of the inquests that took place. At the time, I was with two constituents, Mr and Mrs Joynes. I was appalled at the way in which the proceedings were conducted, and I have two points to make. The first one, which has been mentioned repeatedly this afternoon and on many other occasions, is that the decision to make a cut-off point at 3.15 had the effect of insulating everybody who was responsible for everything that happened after 3.15 from any criticism or any action. People talk about the 3.15 cut-off because it is important. Things happened and people were still alive after that, but the presumption of the inquest was that nothing happened after that, or that anything that did happen was not relevant to the conduct of the inquest. In the Coroners Act 2008, I tried to move an amendment about that in the event of future incidents, but, unfortunately, I was unsuccessful.

My second conclusion after spending a day at the inquest was that the whole thing was set up on a preconceived presumption, which was that those who were killed may have, in some way, been partly responsible for their deaths. It was significant that on the day that I was there—from what I can gather, it happened on all prior and subsequent occasions—one of the issues that was relentlessly pursued was the alcohol content in the blood of the deceased. Obviously, in some cases, that may have been relevant, but the issue was pursued on a presumption. It was as if they were saying, “We know about football fans. We know how they behave and we know that they may have been responsible.” That was the feeling that I left with, and I was outraged at the time and remain so today.

The whole process of conducting mini inquests—from recollection there were eight on the day that I attended—is unacceptable. Again, that makes a presumption about what happened. What we have heard subsequently, and what the inquiry that is being conducted into the paperwork by the Bishop of Liverpool will show, is that every individual’s case was different. What happened to each and every one was different. What caused the events is known, but how individuals were treated and dealt with was specific. As those inquests were so truncated, they could not explore all that in every case.

I welcome the fact that the Attorney-General has made a positive statement about what may happen in the near future. For all the reasons that the hon. Member for City of Chester and others have given, the verdict in the case of Kevin Williams is invalid. Moreover, because of the 3.15 cut-off point, all the verdicts are potentially—I stress “potentially”—invalid. It is possible in a lot of other cases that something could have happened to prevent the death of someone who was still alive beyond 3.15. I have no hard and fast suggestion about how to deal with that, but the Attorney-General, as a very competent lawyer, will recognise the point that I am making. This case may not necessarily be a precedent, but it may well be a model that applies in other cases where people think it is appropriate. I am sure that the Attorney-General will give a great deal of thought to the important points that have been made during the debate.

[Mrs Anne Main (in the Chair)]

I plan to call the shadow Minister at 3.42 and the Attorney-General at 3.50.