Ethiopia, Sudan and Tigray: Humanitarian Situation

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Westminster Hall

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

It is a genuine pleasure to see you in the Chair for today’s extremely important and particularly timely debate, Ms Bardell. I also thank the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) for securing this debate and for the manner in which he opened the proceedings this afternoon, on the day that the joint report of the United Nations Human Rights Office and the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission joint report has been published. And as we have already heard from several Members, the debate falls on the first day of the anniversary of the start of the armed conflict in Tigray.

As we heard from the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson), this debate also gives us the opportunity to discuss last week’s military coup in Sudan and the consequences it will have not just for the unfortunate Sudanese victims but for the region as a whole, which seems to be descending further into conflict and violence.

As the right hon. Member for Islington North said, the joint report of the UN Human Rights Office and the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission was published this morning. It points the finger of blame at all sides, saying unequivocally that all parties to the Tigray conflict have committed violations of international human rights, and of humanitarian and refugee law. Some of these may amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity. It also says that most violations in the period covered by the report were committed by Ethiopian and Eritrean forces, but recently there have been increased reports of violations by Tigrayan forces as well. No one emerges with clean hands. As always, it is innocent civilians who suffer at such times.

Over the past 12 months, the people of Tigray have had to endure unimaginable horrors as war has raged through their country. Tens of thousands of people have died, millions have been displaced, and reports of crops being destroyed, property looted, massacres and summary executions of civilians are all too common. Almost inevitably, as the hon. Member for Putney said, there have been reports of widespread humanitarian abuses, including the use of rape and sexual violence against women and girls as a weapon of war. In the words of Sir Mark Lowcock, the former UN under-secretary-general for humanitarian affairs, it is being used

“as a means to humiliate, terrorize, and traumatize an entire population today and into the next generation.”

Six months ago, the UN reckoned that around 22,500 women would require support as a consequence of conflict-related sexual violence. Therefore, we have to assume that today, sadly, many more Tigrayan women and girls are going to have to seek help. They join that depressingly long list of women and girls from just about every part of the world who have been raped and abused by men carrying guns.

What is worse, those men carrying guns act in the almost certain knowledge that they will never be held to account for their actions. At the very least, the women and girls who have suffered those awful crimes deserve justice and those perpetrators not being allowed to believe that they act with impunity. I urge the Government to work with the UN, the non-governmental organisations and other international partners to ensure that all countries have legislation to ensure effective prosecution of sexual violence as a stand-alone international crime.

Despite the Ethiopian Government’s attempted communications blackout, reports continue to filter through of appalling crimes being perpetrated against the civilian population. We have heard that about all sides—let us be clear that all sides are responsible—but in particular about Ethiopian and Eritrean forces. In May this year, the US-based Catholic News Service ran a piece on the testimony given by an Ethiopian Catholic priest, who said that killings, abduction and rape by Ethiopian soldiers and their Eritrean allies were commonplace. The priest, who for obvious reasons did not want to be identified, accused the Ethiopian troops and their allies of ethnic cleansing:

“They want to annihilate Tigray. By killing the men and boys, they are trying to destroy any future resistance. They want to make sure that nobody can question their actions in future…They are raping and destroying women to ensure that they cannot raise a community in future. They are using rape and food as weapons of war.”

His observations echo those of the Patriarch Mathias, head of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, who accused the Ethiopian army and its allies of the highest form of cruelty and brutality in Tigray.

War and conflict, however, do not exist in a vacuum. As the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) said, on top of everything else people have suffered, they now face the prospect of famine. Ninety per cent. of the Tigrayan population are in urgent need of humanitarian assistance, including 400,000 people who face famine-like conditions already. Millions are on the brink of hunger, food stocks that ran out at the end of August are not being replaced, fewer than one in 10 of the trucks required to carry food and fuel to the people of Tigray has made it through, and 100,000 children in Tigray are suffering from life-threatening acute severe malnutrition and could die in the next 12 months.

The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) was absolutely right to draw a parallel between what is happening in Tigray and what happened in Rwanda in the ’90s. We cannot allow history to repeat itself. By any measure, this is a deep humanitarian crisis. As the head of the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs said in September, it is a “stain on our conscience”.

Similar to the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Rotherham, and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), I ask the Minister in her response to the debate to tell us what assessment has been made of the impact of the Government’s cut to the overseas aid budget on the situation in Tigray. Also, what initiatives have been taken by her Department to support the United Nations and other agencies to prevent the humanitarian crisis from deepening? What have been the most recent discussions between the FCDO and the Governments of Ethiopia and Eritrea to bring the conflict to an end? What is her Department doing to ensure that those who use or encourage rape and sexual violence as a weapon of war are brought to justice?

At the start, I said that the crisis took a turn for the worse last week when there was a coup in Sudan. The military dissolved the transitional Government and seized control, arresting and imprisoning Government members and putting Prime Minister Hamdok under house arrest, in chilling echoes of the oppressive regime of Omar al-Bashir. It is extremely worrying that members of the former Government have now found themselves in hospital. We have all seen or heard reports of excessive illegal force being used against civilian protestors, with at least three people killed last week. Exact numbers remain unknown, as a result of an internet blackout. Sudanese doctors have reported a series of other injuries from beatings, suffocation on tear gas and being run over. [Interruption.]

[Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)]

Order. The sitting is suspended for 15 minutes if there is one Division in the House, or 25 minutes if two Divisions happen, as expected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hannah Bardell (in the Chair)]

The debate may now continue until 4.26 pm.

[Brendan O'Hara]

Thank you, Ms Bardell. It is a pleasure to be back. Picking up where I left off, as we have heard from the right hon. Member for Islington North, the types of human rights violations that we are currently seeing in Sudan are entirely consistent with that country’s long and documented history of abuses against protesters, human rights defenders and those perceived as political opponents of the regime. In addition to the questions I asked regarding Tigray, I would appreciate if, in replying to the debate, the Minister would tell me what contact, if any, has been made with the leaders of the military coup regarding the detention of the Prime Minister and members of his Cabinet. What assessment has her Department made of the impact of the coup on the stability of the region as a whole? Has she or her Department had any contact with Sudan’s nearest neighbours about the potential impact they think this coup will have on them? Would she clarify the current position on UK arms exports to Sudan and if and how, in light of the coup, that will be reviewed? Likewise, on the levels of military support currently being provided by the UK to the Sudanese army, how does she see the coup affecting that?

To follow up the point from the hon. Member for Putney, what use is the Government planning to make of Magnitsky sanctions against military leaders in Sudan? If I could add to that Ethiopia and Eritrea as well, which are complicit in these appalling violations of human rights, both in Sudan and Tigray. Finally, I want to thank once again the right hon. Member for Islington North for securing this debate and the hon. Members for Rotherham, for Tewkesbury and for Putney for their contributions. It is vital that this debate is not allowed to slide off the agenda and lose public attention. People are depending on us to keep it in the spotlight. I am glad to be part of that this afternoon.

Elections Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 26th October 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Fleur Anderson]

In many respects, supporting good causes is done by campaigning. For many charities, the causes of the symptoms they are seeking to address will be back in Government policy. The policies that we decide all the time obviously have an immediate impact on people on the ground. Charities work with those people and need to change the policies to change the issue they are addressing.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that charities by their nature have expertise and understanding—for example, of homelessness, third-world debt, climate change, or whatever—that we in this House have to learn from? The idea that they should be restricted simply to raising funds to alleviate an issue, rather than trying to engage and inform the debate, is simply preposterous.

[Fleur Anderson]

I absolutely agree. For example, during this Bill Committee, we have relied on expert advice from the Royal National Institute of Blind People about the impact of these changes on people who are blind or partially sighted across this country. As the representative organisation of those people, who will be affected by the Bill in how they vote, the RNIB should be giving us expert advice. In the future, having to work out how much money it has spent jointly and severally with other organisations, which tier it falls into and whether it will get on to the list will all have an effect on whether or not we receive that expertise, which helps us to be much better decision makers.

When we consider that the Conservative party spent £16 million in the last general election, we see that lowering the spending threshold for groups to register during an election from £20,000 to £10,000 is clearly aimed at deterring smaller organisations, community groups and single-issue groups, which the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute mentioned, such as groups concerned with refugees, disability rights, women’s rights and LGBTQ issues. Community groups campaigning on a single issue in our constituencies may fear running afoul of changing election rules, which will have that chilling effect.

I ask the Minister whether there will be a review of the impact of the lobbying Act as we go forward with the Elections Bill, because I think that they go together. To know what impact the lobbying Act has had on campaigning will be very instructive. Perhaps there has been such a review already, and I did not know about it. If not, will there be a review of the impact of that Act and this legislation on campaigning, particularly single-issue campaigning?

If existing party activity is redefined as joint campaigning, smaller unions that spend only very small amounts on regulated activity and do not come close to meeting the threshold for registering with the Electoral Commission could find themselves having to register and submit a complex and comprehensive return, despite having not spent any of their own funds on a campaign. Should not they be spending their money on frontline service provision and advocacy, rather than filling in complex and comprehensive returns that do not add to transparency but only decrease our democracy? This will be a huge bureaucratic burden on small organisations; it is both completely unnecessary and overly burdensome.

Labour’s amendment 76 seeks to reduce the chilling effect and remove the burdens of additional regulation by exempting registered charities and community interest companies from the notification and registration requirements. In the community organisation that I worked for just before I became an MP, there was a fantastic organisation called SEN Talk—special educational needs talk.

For years, I supported it in becoming a CIC. It is a long process. The organisation had to go through a lot of measures and have a lot of transparency. It was doing a lot of frontline work with parents and children with special educational needs, but also it was advocating to the council for the changes that it needed in order to operate on behalf of parents, and to the Government, and working on Select Committee reports, for example. If that organisation were asked to then submit returns but did not know exactly when the election period was and feared falling afoul of this, it would have to cut down on its frontline services or not take part in the advocacy that really does help it to stand up for children with special educational needs. It would put that organisation in a real bind, and it is just one example.

This proposal has also, as I have mentioned, been called for by Bond—the overseas aid network—and several other third-sector organisations. Setting up a registered charity takes considerable time and effort, and these entities must already, by law, identify their trustees—or, in the case of CICs, their directors—and publish their accounts. There are already robust transparency initiatives regulating charity governance, so it is highly unlikely that those seeking to exert undue influence in elections would pursue this approach as a means of evading regulation. I would like to know how many conversations the Minister has had with CICs, in particular, about the effect of the Bill.

Registered charities cannot exist for solely political purposes, and charities that do engage in political activity in pursuit of their charitable objects are already closely monitored by the Charity Commission. These organisations would still have to register with the Electoral Commission as a non-party campaigner if they met the existing spending thresholds.

Amendment 77 would recognise the need for all campaigners at elections to submit to electoral regulation by the elections regulator, and to be transparent about their purpose if they are seeking to campaign to influence voters at election time—but without duplicating the compliance burden for those organisations that already routinely are required to be transparent.

I urge all hon. Members to support these very reasonable amendments, which would allow small organisations and single-issue campaigns to continue to campaign.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady]

Absolutely. Where are those decisions ultimately made? Here, in rooms like this one. We are engaging with charitable organisations on this Bill. We are being advised and lobbied on matters in the Bill by organisations that are making representations to us, have frontline experience, and are delivering in a whole range of sectors. We have heard from domestic organisations and from Bond, the international development network.

I am sure all Committee members have diligently read the written evidence submitted by Bond, EB14. I strongly encourage them to do so, because it explains the challenges and difficulties faced by these organisations, which are having to comply with election registration regulations and reporting requirements, and finding it incredibly difficult. There is evidence in that document—we heard it from the hon. Member for Putney as well—that many organisations are already choosing simply to step back, so their voices are not being heard. That goes back to the narrative of what exactly the Bill is trying to achieve, in terms of suppressing debate and political participation in this country.

Although clause 24 is not quite as draconian as clause 23, it is still pretty oppressive. Amendment 96, tabled by the SNP, could achieve much the same as the Labour party amendments in exempting registered charities from these incredibly stringent new reporting requirements. The threshold of £10,000 could easily be reached once everything that had to be calculated was taken into account, such as staff time, resources, and collaboration with other organisations.

It would be easy to hit that threshold, potentially unexpectedly. The charity would then face another burden if it was sanctioned. There have been examples, referred to in the written evidence, of charities that inadvertently crossed the threshold and did not report that appropriately, and then faced fines. That is fair enough, if that is the regime, but it is another cost. That is money that people have given to those charities. It might be taxpayers’ money, received through gift aid, that has to be spent on fines, compliance and regulation, deterring the charity from political participation and delivery of frontline services, when it already exists in a rightly strong and tightly regulated environment.

The Government should accept the amendments. If they genuinely believe in levelling up, surely they want to hear from organisations that have frontline experience of the difficulties and challenges being faced by ordinary people day to day, and that are identifying solutions that will help to raise standards in society and level up. In fact, we are seeing a levelling down, suppression of debate, sticking with the status quo, and a message not to challenge anything coming from the Government who happen to be in power now.

We have learned in this Committee and in others that the chances of an amendment succeeding are middling to none. Nevertheless, I look forward to the Minister’s response to my points.

[Brendan O’Hara]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right, though I admire his endless optimism that the chances are middling to none. He is far more optimistic than me that the Government will ever move an inch. That does not mean that the arguments cannot be made. Indeed, there is every reason for the arguments to be made.

At general elections, every single one of us has been made to think, question and commit one way or another to an idea coming from a third party or campaigning organisation. That is exactly how it should be in a democracy. When we put ourselves forward for election, people have a right to know where we stand on the big issues of the day—whether that is homelessness, third-world debt or support for those suffering domestic violence—and where better to do that, for a charity or third party organisation, than a general election? People are not asking us just as individuals; they are asking all those who put themselves forward for election in this country where they stand, because our public have an absolute right to know that.

The real question is about the motivation of the Government in introducing the measure in the first place. Campaigning is a core function of many organisations. It allows them to highlight areas of concern and contribute to the wider public discourse, from a position of authority and experience, from which every one of us benefits. We have all heard from numerous third party organisations of their concerns, but these measures will make an already complicated area even more confusing and burdensome for those issue-based campaigning organisations. They face new rules that may see them inadvertently fall foul of legislation and, as a result, step a long way back from their activity. They will shrink back from that public debate, which can only harm our democracy. That will dampen public debate, and the voice of those marginalised groups they represent will be further diminished.

Organisations will quite rightly engage in campaigning 12 months prior to a general election, but the vast majority of that campaigning will not be focused on that general election. Those organisations campaign every day of the year, every year of a decade. That is what they are there to do; they are there to inform and to advocate.

What is really troubling here is the purpose test and whether it can be passed. It is confusing. The legislation says that the purpose test can be passed if it

“can reasonably be regarded as intended to influence voters to vote for or against political parties or categories of candidates, including political parties or categories of candidates who support or do not support particular policies”.

That is all well and good, but the confusion arises because that is not the intention of the charity of a third sector organisation. The interpretation comes from someone else, and it is their perception of what counts as political campaigning. Even if the charity is clear that that is not its intention, it could be decreed by someone else that it is. The result is that the charities will shrink from those areas of concern—homelessness, domestic abuse—for fear of falling foul of the legislation. Many of us on this side of the Committee think that that was probably the Government’s intention from the start.

[Kemi Badenoch]

Amendments 76 and 90 would exempt from the transparency requirements provided by the lower tier of expenditure registered charities, charities exempt from registering with the Charities Commission, and community interest companies spending more than £10,000 across the UK but less than the existing notification thresholds. Amendment 77 would allow those groups to forgo the usual notification process for the lower tier and instead provide only their charity or company number.

The Government are clear that any group spending significant amounts in UK elections should be subject to scrutiny. That is essential to ensure transparency for voters and to maintain the level playing field for all participants in elections. It is therefore right that all types of third party campaigner should be subject to the same sets of rules where they are trying to influence the electorate. The amendments would undermine those principles, and the Government cannot accept them.

Additionally, third party campaigner regulations do, and should, focus on the purpose of campaigning activities conducted by all organisations, not just specific types of organisation. Charities and CICs can always choose to spend less than £10,000 in the period before an election if they do not want to register with the Electoral Commission.

--- Later in debate ---

I simply do not accept the argument made by the hon. Member for Glasgow North. He asked how charities would know when an election was forthcoming, but he also said that charities specifically are doing that around election time. He is making two almost mutually exclusive points. The fundamental point made by SNP Members was about charity participation in elections, rather than political finance transparency, which is what the Bill is about.

[Brendan O’Hara]

I ask the Minister a very, very simple question. How will a charity or any other organisation—

[Patrick Grady]

Or a Back-Bench MP.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Indeed, or a Back-Bench MP—how will they know when they are in that 12-month period before a general election?

[Kemi Badenoch]

The fact is that we all have a fairly good idea of when an election will be. Although snap elections can be called, the fact is that everybody will be in the same situation.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I am not giving way again on that point. Third party campaigning groups will not have any special intelligence. People will need to take that into account when they are campaigning politically. People seeking to influence the electorate should all be subject to the same laws.

The debate is not about whether charities are nice groups or nice individuals, which is 50% of the argument made by SNP Members. To be perfectly honest, it sounds like Opposition Members want charities to make their political arguments for them, because they think they are more acceptable.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I am no longer giving way on that point.

That is not how we want to regulate our politics or our electorate. Charities should make points on their own—not in the way that SNP Members are saying, as if there are other political reasons that would be helpful to them, rather than the Government. They accuse us of playing politics, but it sounds to me as though they are the ones doing that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kemi Badenoch]

The hon. Lady knows that I cannot answer any questions about when elections are forthcoming. That does not change the premise of our argument. I do not know; she does not know; charities do not know; no third party campaigners know. The law is equal for everybody. I am afraid we simply do not accept the argument that there should be special rules and exemptions for particular groups.

Charities can supply the relevant information, and the amendment would increase the administrative burden for the Electoral Commission—a point it has made several times—and not allow it to obtain all the necessary information covered in the notification requirements. Under the amendment, charities and community interest companies would not have to provide the name of a responsible person. That information cannot be obtained through Companies House or the Charity Commission because it is specific to electoral law.

It is important to identify a person who will be responsible for ensuring compliance with electoral law. Naming a responsible person also acts to protect third parties from being liable for expenditure that has not been authorised by that person. Allowing charities and community interest companies to be exempt from that requirement would risk their duty of compliance and protection falling away, which would not be right. In the light of the reasons I have given, and the minimal burden on charities that the measures will generate, we oppose the amendment.

[Brendan O’Hara]

I have a question for the Minister, which I think is a perfectly reasonable and fair question to ask on behalf of charities. How do they know right now that they are not 12 months out from a general election? How do they know where their spending is in relation to the next general election, and that they have not already exceeded the threshold? The question is whether she thinks it is fair for charities inadvertently to fall foul of the legislation, with their having absolutely no way of knowing where they stand because the Government have changed the rules around about them. Will she address the basic issue of fairness to our charities?

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kemi Badenoch]

Third party campaigners are subject to limits on their controlled expenditure in the periods leading up to parliamentary elections in the UK, including devolved elections. The time during which those spending limits apply are known as regulated periods and are 12 months long for UK parliamentary elections and four months long for the relevant parliamentary elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Regulated periods can be longer where they overlap. It is right that any campaign that could influence the electorate at an election should be regulated and subject to a spending limit. While significant amounts of spending might take place following the announcement of a poll, elections are often known, rumoured or expected to take place long before the poll date is announced and a Parliament is dissolved, which is the point that we are debating.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Can the Minister explain how the House can legislate on the basis of a rumour of when a general election might be? How is that any way to run a country?

[Kemi Badenoch]

That is not what we are legislating on; that is a statement of fact. Just as with every intervention the hon. Gentleman has made, it is a point we all acknowledge that while elections are at expected times, they can happen at different times: earlier or there may be snap elections, though rare. That does not change the fundamental point under discussion.

Opposition Members seem to be annoyed that there is a regulated spending period at all. I am afraid that that is not going to change. Campaigning and political activity, which can occur up to 12 months or more in advance of an election, may have a significant influence on its outcome. Having a short regulated period, as proposed by the amendment, would mean that spending, which does influence the electorate, is likely to fall away from being regulated and reported. That fatally undermines the principle of transparency and spending limits.

Elections Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 26th October 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Cat Smith]

In its current form, without the amendments, the Bill allows promoters of electronic material to avoid placing an imprint on the material if it is not “reasonably practicable” to do so. Instead, it allows the imprint to appear

“in a location that is directly accessible from the electronic material.”

The amendment would make things clearer for voters so that material is more transparent, and allows voters to make more informed decisions.

As evidenced in Scotland’s recent parliamentary elections, the clause will in practice lead to almost all imprints appearing on a promoter’s website or home page rather than on the actual material. I do not feel that is strong enough. It cannot be classed as an imprint if the voter has to go and seek that information on the home page of a website. For most observers of the material, there will be no discernible change from the situation as we see it now—they will not be able to see a promoter’s details. It should be a requirement that imprints appear on the material itself. It would bring digital material in line with the imprints on printed material, where political parties have to include an imprint on every single piece of content.

While it is positive that Scotland’s recent parliamentary elections were the first in the UK to be conducted with a digital imprint rule in place, it was disappointing that a loophole was left in the legislation, which is now being carried forward into the Government’s Elections Bill. All political parties in Scotland took advantage of the loophole in May, placing an imprint on their home page and not necessarily on the material that was being promoted. This provision does not provide any security against sharing, downloading and re-promoting, where many voters will see material second or third hand as organic content as it spreads over social media.

Numerous stakeholders wrote to the Minister to highlight their concerns. I have certainly seen concerns expressed by the Electoral Reform Society, Fair Vote UK and Transparency International, who have highlighted to elections offices in Scotland that there is a risk that the imprint may be lost or removed, deliberately or accidentally, when the material is shared. A significant amount of sharing happens off the platform, as users download videos before resharing them on messaging apps that are often encrypted. The imprint is then, of course, disconnected from the content. This is a huge loophole; it could be the equivalent of attaching an offline political ad’s imprint using a paperclip. The first recipient would then clearly and inconspicuously remove it before showing anyone else. It is essential that the imprint be embedded so that it is always connected to the political advertisement. I urge the Government to close the loophole and make it clear that the video, image or online campaign materials must contain a clear imprint within the material, as is common practice with many political video advertisements in countries such as the United States.

These sensible and pragmatic amendments would close a loophole that we have seen in Scotland and stop the legislation being implemented for UK-wide elections with a glaring loophole in it.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

Very briefly, we will support the amendments. There is no doubt that as a Parliament and a country we are behind the curve and are playing catch-up with those who are experts in digital campaigning. What we do have in our armoury is the demand for transparency. That is all we asking for here: transparency on who is funding and who is the source of these digital political advertisements. That is essential.

We have concerns about what the Government mean by “reasonably practicable”. We need a higher threshold than that. I fear that it would be far too easy for people who are expert in such matters to get around that and to present a convincing argument to the laity on what is reasonable and practicable and what is not. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood was right that we have an opportunity to get this right, or certainly to start to close that gap.

The Scottish Parliament elections showed that parties and campaigners largely understood the regulations and were able to comply with them. Anyone who followed those elections, particularly on Twitter, could not have failed to see every candidate changing their Twitter bio during the campaign to explain that. People understood it and people did it.

We have to be alive to the fact that there are people out there who are far more advanced in their technology and their understanding than we are. We should be closing every loophole available to them, to ensure that transparency is increased and that there is no way for them to come out. So we will support amendment 87 and 88.

[Kemi Badenoch]

The Government are opposed to amendments 87 and 88 because they seek to remove a much-needed element of flexibility in the digital imprint regime for campaigners. Under our proposals, an imprint must be included as part of the material being promoted. Only when it is not reasonably practicable to do so can the imprint be in an alternative location—one that must be directly accessible from the material.

We have looked at this issue closely. Clause 37 is not a loophole for campaigners to exploit, to avoid including an imprint in the material. Instead, it is a reasonable and practical provision that ensures that campaigners are able to comply with the requirement to include an imprint in digital material, regardless of the digital platform they are using. This is an essential provision that must be retained.

As Members will know from their own experience of campaigning online, there will be many instances where it is impractical to include an imprint within the material itself. For example, a text-based tweet on Twitter could constitute material that requires an imprint, but given the character limit, including an imprint would leave little room for anything else. That is why, under our provisions, where it is not reasonably practicable, a promoter could instead comply with the rules by including an imprint in a location directly accessible from the material. That could be done by including a hyperlink in the material or by placing the imprint in a user’s Twitter biography.

The Government are mindful that the digital imprint regime must strike the right balance between increasing transparency in digital campaigning and having a regime that is proportionate and enforceable. The Opposition’s amendments would undermine those efforts as they do not provide for any flexibility on the location of the imprint. That could have the unintended effect of incentivising campaigners to avoid certain digital platforms or mediums for a campaign, due to the unreasonable burden of doing so.

The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood said that there was another loophole in terms of material being republished that would not include the imprint. That is not the case. Clause 37 does cover republished material—I am not sure whether she has a different interpretation—and I will come on to republished material when we debate clause 37, when I will explain more fully how the clause does that.

Digital campaigning has become an integral part of campaigners’ efforts to communicate messages and ideas to voters. It must continue to be facilitated, while providing the electorate with increased transparency about who is promoting campaigning material online and on whose behalf. Our provisions do that. For all the reasons that I have outlined, the Government oppose the amendments

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady]

To be fair, I have already made that point. I am very happy to submit myself to the electorate under any proportional system that the Government want to introduce. The hon. Gentleman can be sure of the SNP’s support for a Bill introducing such a system; we have said that many times in this House.

The experience of preferential voting in Scotland is that results can change, and that has not always been to the SNP’s advantage. In fact, owing to the nature of Scottish politics at the moment, there is a clear trend with transfers. Where the SNP is a voter’s first preference, they cast their vote for that party. That is the very clear trend. In fact, in the ward that I mentioned, the SNP won the vote in the recent by-election, under first past the post; we got the most votes. We had an excellent candidate in Abdul Bostani. He got the most first preferences, but because of transfers, he lost out, so that ward is now represented by two Labour councillors, one Green councillor and one SNP councillor. It was a Conservative vacancy, incidentally; I say that for anyone who has not turned up to enough of the Committee sittings. That proves my point on the issue on which the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme was trying to catch me out. It proves the value of preferential voting systems.

Ultimately, it is for England’s Members to make a determination about what electoral system is used by their local authorities, but Government Members have to think very carefully about the consequences of this.

[Brendan O'Hara]

Does my hon. Friend agree that any lingering doubt that any of us may have had about the Government’s motivation in introducing the Bill is done away with by the parachuting in of this new clause? It is utterly self-serving, completely politically partisan and fundamentally undemocratic. Furthermore, does he agree that we and our colleagues should get out of here as quickly as possible, because Scotland needs to escape this nonsense?

[Patrick Grady]

If by “here”, my hon. Friend means the Union, yes, I entirely agree; if he means this Committee Room, I am afraid I do not agree, because I know how desperate Sir Edward is to chair our final sittings next Wednesday, so it is important that the Committee takes as long as it can to consider every one of these new clauses in great detail. I therefore look forward to all the speeches from the Conservative Back-Bench members of the Committee, who will now rise in defence of this major constitutional change that the Government want to bring forward. When they do, I urge them to reflect on the growing divergence that we have spoken about. This is not a levelling up or a coming together, but a growing apart of the constituent parts of the country, which have pretty fundamentally different perspectives on how democracy is, and should be, done. Although it is not for SNP Members to tell Members from England how their local elections should be determined and run, they ought to think about the issue carefully before they cast their vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O'Hara]

To correct the record, I said that it is utterly self-serving, and completely politically partisan, and fundamentally undemocratic.

[Kemi Badenoch]

And I still reject the hon. Gentleman’s point. The fact is that we have a Labour Mayor at the moment; we have had more Labour Mayors than Conservative Mayors; and first past the post gives accountability and strength to the people who are elected.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Brendan O'Hara]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 11—Automatic Voter Registration—

“(1) Registration officers must take all reasonable steps to ensure that all persons eligible to register to vote in elections in the United Kingdom are so registered.

(2) The Secretary of State must by regulations require public bodies to provide information to registration officers to enable them to fulfil their duty under subsection (1).

(3) Regulations under subsection (2) must apply to the following public bodies—

(a) HM Revenue and Customs;

(b) the Department for Work and Pensions;

(c) the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency;

(d) the National Health Service, NHS Wales and NHS Scotland;

(e) schools and further and higher education institutions;

(f) local authorities;

(g) HM Passport Office;

(h) police forces;

(i) the TV Licensing Authority;

(j) Job Centre Plus;

(k) the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Local Communities;

(l) the Department for Transport;

(m) the Department for Health and Social Care;

(n) the Home Office; and

(o) the Ministry of Justice.

(4) Regulations under subsection (2) may also apply to other public bodies.

(5) Registration officers must—

(a) use the information provided by the public bodies listed in regulations under subsection (3) to register otherwise unregistered persons on the appropriate electoral register or registers, or

(b) if the information provided does not contain all information necessary to register a person who may be eligible, contact that person for the purpose of obtaining the required information to establish whether they are eligible to register and, if so, register them on the appropriate electoral register or registers.

(6) If a registration officer has registered a person under subsection (5), the officer must notify that person within 30 days and give that person an opportunity to correct any incorrect information.

(7) Where a person is registered under subsection (5), that person shall be omitted from the edited register unless that person notifies the registration officer to the contrary.

(8) Nothing in this section affects entitlement to register to vote anonymously.

(9) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to registration officers on fulfilling their duties under this section.”

This new clause would require registration officers to enter eligible voters on the register, and provide for them to receive the necessary information from a number of public bodies.

New clause 13—Voter registration at universities and colleges—

“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations require universities and colleges to provide to registration officers the information they hold that is required for the officers to register their students to vote.

(2) Universities and colleges must share with each student the information relating to the student that the university or college proposes to provide to the relevant registration officer, and must give students the opportunity to withhold consent to the provision of the information.

(3) If a student withholds consent under subsection (2), the university or college must not send their information to the registration officer.

(4) Nothing in this section affects entitlement to register to vote anonymously.

(5) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to registration officers, universities and colleges on fulfilling their functions under this section.”

This new clause would require universities and colleges to submit to registration officers the information necessary to register their students to vote.

[Brendan O'Hara]

For all the rancour and argument that there has been in this Committee over the last few weeks, I think we all agree that voting is a fundamental democratic right that has to be protected. As it is a fundamental democratic right, surely it is incumbent on those in power to seek to maximise participation right across our society and to encourage everyone in society to have their say and make their voice heard. It is our job in this House to ensure that the citizens we represent can exercise that democratic right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cat Smith]

I rise to speak to new clauses 11 and 13, which are tabled in my name. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have had discussions about the security of elections, and there has been much talk about whether individuals can fiddle results and how elections can be stolen. I tabled the new clauses with the hope of making our elections more secure, because we know that when the electoral register is more accurate and more complete, it is harder for malign actors to fiddle it round with just a few votes. At the moment, having 9 million voters either missing entirely or registered incorrectly is a weakness in our democratic system. It is a move to improve the security of our elections to have a more accurate electoral register.

I liked the point made by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute: we do not register to pay tax, so why do we register to vote? I believe that it is very important to vote, and I tell anybody who will listen how important it is to take part in our elections, but I am aware that many people do not have figures like me in their lives—they are probably grateful for it. Given that we know we can have automatic voter registration and a more accurate electoral register, it strikes me as utterly bizarre that we would not want that—that we would not want a more accurate electoral register and not want to know that when we go to the country everyone who should be registered to vote can vote and hopefully does vote. I would like to see increased voter turnout, but at the moment people are falling at the first hurdle when they find that they are not on the electoral register.

New clause 13 is specifically about colleges and universities, because we know that younger voters are far less likely to be registered than older voters. There is a real gap.

[Brendan O'Hara]

The hon. Lady has reminded me of our very first evidence session and what she said to Richard Mawrey QC, which was that increasing turnout and participation makes fraud harder. Much of the Government’s case in this whole debate has been about stopping fraud and cheating, and in response to her question, Richard Mawrey said,

“that is absolutely right, because fraud is obviously a relatively risky occupation, and the more bogus votes you have to put in, the more difficult it is.”––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2021; c. 11, Q9.]

He agreed entirely with the hon. Lady that to widen participation and to increase the franchise is to diminish fraud. Does she agree that automatic voter registration would do exactly that and exactly what the Government have been calling for?

[Cat Smith]

I thank the hon. Member for reminding us of the evidence that we heard at the beginning of the Committee, or that at least some of us heard—those of us who were listening or who were members of the Committee at that point.

The new clauses—I agree with that tabled by the SNP, too—are all about improving the security of our elections. We did not spend so many hours of our lives debating clause 1, on voter ID, with the Government arguing consistently about the security of elections, only for them to look at these new clauses, which deal with just that, and say, “Well, not those ones.” One could say that it is starting to look a little partisan.

I implore the Minister to look carefully at the new clauses. I appreciate that she is new to the role, and I would be very willing to open a dialogue with her to find ways to get those missing millions on to the electoral roll, because I believe that cross-party consensus can be found. I do not think any member of the Committee would argue that people should be missing from the electoral roll. Our electoral roll should be accurate in reflecting where this country’s voters are and whether they are registered, giving them the opportunity to go and vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Brendan O'Hara]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 8—Voting from age 16 in parliamentary elections—

“In section 1(1)(d) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (definition of voting age for parliamentary elections), for “18” substitute “16”.”

This new clause would lower the voting age to 16 in UK parliamentary elections.

[Brendan O'Hara]

It gives me enormous pleasure to move new clause 4, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North. The SNP believes passionately in this and has supported lowering the voting age for all UK elections since the 1960s.

Winnie Ewing, our first Member of Parliament, spoke about the franchise for 16 and 17-year-olds in her maiden speech way back in 1967, so we come at this as early adopters of the idea. It was with enormous pride that the SNP Government introduced the franchise for 16 and 17-year-olds in the Scottish independence referendum in 2014. That gave us all an enormous sense of pride.

To give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote is to say that they have an equal say and as much of a stake in the future of the country as any other age group—[Interruption.] Sorry, was there an intervention or was that just a general murmur? That Scottish independence referendum set a precedent: it said that 16 and 17-year-olds should have a say on all constitutional issues that affect them. Subsequently, their voting record in Scottish parliamentary and local elections has proven that they are no more or less capable than any other age group in society of making an informed decision. We are absolutely delighted that the Scottish example was followed very quickly by the Welsh Senedd. Now, Welsh 16 and 17-year-olds can vote in elections for their own national Parliament.

The same young people, however, alongside their peers in England and Northern Ireland, cannot have a say on which Government is elected to this place. It is striking that the issue has become so divisive and partisan, particularly given that the last UK-wide lowering of the voting age—from 21 to 18 years old back in 1967—attracted little or no attention or controversy. It is even more remarkable not only because the UK was one of the first democracies to lower the voting age to 18, but because there is now overwhelming proof that lowering the voting age to 16 and 17 years old works. Scotland has shown that it works, so this is not a step into the darkness or a wander into the unknown, but unlike the lowering of the voting age from 21 to 18 years old, it has become hugely controversial, divisive and partisan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Brendan O'Hara]

Unfortunately, my hon. Friend is not on the side I was looking for interventions from, but I will absolutely give way.

[Patrick Grady]

Indeed, but we have been arguing throughout the Bill that the Government are trying to suppress democracy, and this just goes to show that they are not even willing to allow their Back Benchers to engage with such a fundamentally important proposition. Is it not even more ironic that the Conservatives in the Scottish Parliament supported votes at 16? Perhaps what that demonstrates is that the Government view the devolved Assemblies as lesser places, so they can have strange experiments and expand the franchise if they want to because they do not have the supremacy that this place enjoys.

[Brendan O'Hara]

I admire my hon. Friend’s powers of provocation, and still the Government Members slumber. Still nobody gets to their feet—[Interruption.] I will take that intervention. No, it was not an intervention. It was just a chuntering from a sedentary position. Perhaps the Minister could speak for them all. Can she explain to us why this is okay for Scotland and Wales? Why, when it has been so demonstrably successful in both of those devolved Administrations, are the Government so absolutely opposed to extending the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds? The Conservative party in Scotland is okay with it. Someone will tell me if the Conservative party in Wales is not, but, as far as I am aware, it did not oppose it. Why is it okay for Scotland and Wales, and not okay for young people in England and Northern Ireland?

[Cat Smith]

I rise to speak to new clause 8, tabled by me and my hon. Friends. It was good timing for the SNP spokesperson to open the debate on the age of enfranchisement. The Labour party would extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. The Welsh Labour Government have done it, and we have seen it work well for a number of years in Scotland. We know that the record of voting in the Scottish parliamentary and local elections proved that 16 and 17-year-olds are more than capable of casting their votes and making informed decisions.

Since this year’s Senedd elections, Welsh 16 and 17-year-olds can now vote for their Members of the Senedd. The experience of the Scottish referendum showed that, when given a chance, 16 and 17-year-olds have a higher rate of turnout than 18 to 24-year-olds, with 75% voting, and 97% say that they would vote in future elections. Only 3% said that they did not know. That flies in the face of some of the arguments that I have occasionally heard in opposition to this idea, although we have not heard any yet today, that say that young people would not be well informed. We know from analysis of the referendum in Scotland that 16 and 17-year-old voters accessed more information from a wider variety of sources than any other age group, so, arguably, they are incredibly well informed and not necessarily biased towards one political persuasion.

A lowering of the voting age has been called for many times over the years. I have called for it many times since I was elected. It would enable young people to have their first experience of voting, often when they are still in full-time education. I know from studies that I have read over the years that if an elector votes the first time that they are eligible to vote in an election, they are far more likely to go on to develop a lifetime habit of voting and engaging in democracy. Again, it comes back to security in elections. One of the best ways we can make our elections safer and more secure is by increasing turnout. A good way of increasing turnout in the long term is to maximise the number of people whose first opportunities to vote come when they are still in full-time education, when they are still very much supported to vote.

At the moment, with the voting age for England and Northern Ireland coming in at 18—it has been 18 for UK general elections, and in Scotland and Wales as well—for many young people their first vote comes at a time of great change in their lives. They might be starting out in the world of work, might have gone off to university to study, or might have recently moved out of the family home. It is far better that we give young people an opportunity to vote and give the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds so that we can increase the chances of an electorate that is engaged in the process and that votes. That is better for the security of elections.

[Kemi Badenoch]

I was amazed to hear the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute, who is clearly suffering from significant amnesia if he claims not to have heard the arguments on votes at 16. As the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood said, the subject has been debated time and again, certainly every single year since 2010. There is no need for me to rehash the arguments. I ask him to ask his parliamentary researcher to research Hansard. Given our manifesto commitment to maintain the current franchise at 18, and having been elected on that principle, the Government have no plans to lower the voting age. We will not support the new clause.

[Brendan O'Hara]

Yet again the Minister is outrageously dismissive. A part of her job is to answer questions in Committee. This is an important Committee. To say, “Go and ask an SNP researcher” is an absolute outrage. Minister, you have a responsibility to this House to answer direct questions and I am afraid you have been sadly lacking in doing that. We will not push the clause to a vote this afternoon, but we will test the will of the House on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 5

Voting by convicted persons sentenced to terms of 12 months or less

‘In section 3(1A) (exceptions to the disenfranchisement of prisoners) of the Representation of the People Act 1983, after “Scotland” insert “or a parliamentary election”.’—(Patrick Grady.)

This new clause would allow prisoners serving a sentence of 12 months or less to vote in UK parliamentary elections.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Patrick Grady]

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

As with the other new clauses we are debating in this sequence, new clause 5 is about levelling up the franchise for election to the House of Commons with that of the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Elections (Franchise and Representation) Act 2020 is a genuinely historic piece of legislation. It introduced the widest franchise that has ever existed in these islands, possibly in western Europe. In May this year more people were eligible to vote in the Scottish Parliament elections—indeed, more people did vote—than in any other election ever held. That is even more remarkable given the context of the global pandemic and the severe restrictions on the practicalities of voting and the challenges that people faced in terms of social distancing. More people also voted for the SNP than had ever voted for the SNP before.

The 2020 Act was remarkable. It included, as we have just discussed, votes at 16, and the extension that we will come on to. It also included a small number of prisoners serving sentences of 12 months or less. The Electoral Commission reckoned from electoral returning officers’ data that about 38 eligible prisoners had registered to vote in the election. It is a small number—probably it could be larger—but it is nevertheless significant. In 2005, the European Court of Human Rights found that the blanket ban on prisoner voting in the United Kingdom meant that the country was in breach of article 3, protocol 1, of the European convention on human rights. The Scottish Government therefore see the introduction of this provision as an important step towards compliance with that judgment and respecting the fundamental rights that exist even for people who have been incarcerated.

The legal system in Scotland also now exercises a presumption against short sentences, but that approach and the right to vote if serving a sentence of 12 months or less are both rooted in the principles of inclusion and a desire for rehabilitation. There is therefore not only a human rights imperative to the new clause—to bring the United Kingdom further into line with the judgment handed down by the European Court of Human Rights—but the importance of aligning the franchise across the different legislatures of these islands. That is something that the Government ought to consider and support, although I suspect we will hear the opposite.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O'Hara]

On the contribution that refugee communities can and do bring to Scottish society, will my hon. Friend join me in acknowledging and congratulating the contribution made by the Syrian community on Bute? They fled an atrocious, most awful situation in their homeland to come to Bute and are now business owners. Their children have grown, come through the school system and are now at university. These people work and contribute to Scottish society in every single respect, as every other Scot does. The difference is that they cannot vote when it comes to choosing a Government in this place.

[Patrick Grady]

I absolutely echo everything my hon. Friend says about the incredible contribution of Syrian refugees, particularly in his constituency but in others as well. Refugees from other parts of the world were delighted at the opportunity to take part in the Scottish Parliament elections in May and would dearly love the opportunity to make their voices heard in elections to this place, and indeed to stand as candidates. We spoke about a by-election held in a ward within my constituency boundary, Partick East/Kelvindale. Abdul Bostani, the SNP candidate who achieved a plurality of votes but was unsuccessful because of the preferential voting system, is a refugee from Afghanistan. Our proportional representation list in Glasgow was headed by Roza Salih, one of the “Glasgow Girls”, originally from Kurdistan, who has fought for the rights of refugees. What greater message of tolerance and inclusion can we send than by welcoming people in that situation right into the heart of our democratic system? Equally, what opposite message do we send when such people are excluded, denied the opportunity to vote and denied other fundamental rights that we should have as human beings—rights that cannot really be taken away from them but that are simply denied to them? The right to vote ought to be such a right.

Again, there are two principles behind the new clause. First, the right to vote—that innate right to participation and freedom of speech. In modern democracies, it is understood that the right to vote is part of that fundamental right to freedom of speech. Secondly, levelling up the franchise. I do not think the Minister properly addressed this point in her response to previous new clauses; maybe she can attempt to do so in her response to this new clause. Why are the Government content with, and why do they welcome, the diverging franchise? More people than ever before are able to vote in elections to the Scottish Parliament, and indeed to the Senedd Cymru, whereas the overall effect of the Bill, as we said right back on Second Reading, will be fewer people having the opportunity to vote, because the Government are going out of their way to make it more difficult. Why do they see that diverging franchise as a good thing or something that they do not need to take an opinion on? I look forward to the Minister explaining why the Government want to continue the hostile environment for refugees in regard to their right to vote and responding to those other points on the divergence of the franchise.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Brendan O’Hara]

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

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North, who laid out a compelling and detailed case as to why extending the voting right to foreign nationals and widening the franchise is so important. What we have seen is a widening of the franchise in Scotland at exactly the same time as this place seeks to narrow the franchise.

In February 2020, the Scottish Parliament passed legislation extending the vote beyond EU nationals and Commonwealth citizens to include foreign nationals with leave to remain and refugees, adding 55,000 people to the register altogether. That is in stark contrast to what is taking place down here at Westminster. The Scottish Parliament did so because Scotland wants to be that open, welcoming country and that place that is home to anyone who wants to call it home, and it wants to recognise the enormous contribution that EU nationals have made to our country, our society and our general wellbeing. We want to welcome those EU nationals who want to be part of Scotland and we want to give them a stake in, and a responsibility for, the future of the country. The Scottish Parliament has made the decision that anyone who is legally resident in Scotland will have a say in our future, and that is only right.

However, while the Scottish Parliament and Scotland in general seek to reassure EU nationals that they are valued and welcome and we view them as an integral part of our future, the UK Government, at best, use them as a bargaining chip and, at worst, see them as an inconvenience. They may be allowed to pick fruit, or to drive lorries in an emergency, but they most certainly will not be treated as equal or valued citizens. We have got used to having a wide, diverse and growing franchise in Scotland, because that is good for our country and for our democracy. I strongly advise the UK Government to look to Scotland for a lead and to make the status of EU nationals equal across the various Administrations of these islands, because that is ultimately the right thing to do and it is only fair that they do it.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

We have been talking so far about making the Bill less confusing and more streamlined to enable more people to vote—that being the aim—as well as about ensuring that voting has integrity. It will be very confusing to be on the doorstep telling people to vote, depending on whichever agreement we have at the time with different former colleagues in the EU. It would really simplify voting if the new clause were agreed or could at least be considered as the Bill goes forward. It will be very difficult for people to work out whether they possess these voting rights at the time each election happens. To ensure that more people vote and that it is as easy as possible to do so, voting should be as simple as possible, and allowing all EU nationals to vote is the simplest way.

[Kemi Badenoch]

Our position has always been that after our exit from the EU existing voting and candidacy rights should be maintained where possible. The new clause would extend the parliamentary franchise to EU citizens where no such rights previously existed, as I said during our debate on the previous amendments. Those who are nationals of a member state have never been able to vote in UK parliamentary elections by virtue of their EU citizenship. If an EU citizen becomes a British citizen, they will be eligible for the parliamentary franchise from that point. The right to vote in parliamentary elections and choose the next UK Government is rightly restricted to British citizens and those with the closest historical links to our country.

[Brendan O'Hara]

I thank the Minister for that pre-prepared paragraph. We will push this new clause to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady]

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

I am not sure how Sir Edward Leigh, one of the other Chairs of the Committee, will feel about this, because I know that he was looking forward to chairing the final session next Wednesday. I will just have to keep this going until the rise of the House, and then for both sessions on Thursday, so that he has the opportunity to hear the Committee conclude its considerations. Otherwise, we will just have to get on with it as quickly as we can—I think we all need a break.

This is a relatively straightforward new clause, and I look forward to hearing the Government’s response to its principles, because it reflects the concerns that were expressed earlier when we considered part 3 and the powers of the Electoral Commission. The Government had real concerns that it was not an effective regulator—that it lacked teeth and was somehow not capable of exercising either the deterrent or the punishment when electoral offences took place. The new clause is a way of giving the commission the powers for which it asked, and to change the relatively arbitrary upper threshold of £20,000 that it can levy as a fine for certain offences to a much more proportionate response, either as a proportion of the total spend of the organisation or individual being penalised, or to a maximum of £500,000, whichever is greater.

[Brendan O'Hara]

Has my hon. Friend, like me, barely slept at night since hearing the tales of widespread personation, voter fraud, intimidation and postal vote harvesting—all manner of fraud, theft and deception—that came from Government Members in the first two or three days, when they used to participate in the Committee? Does he share my confidence that they will look at what is contained in the new clause and support it in order to give the Electoral Commission the full force of the law, and so that the guilty will not go unpunished, as they have insisted throughout, and a £500,000 penalty is just the thing to do it?

[Patrick Grady]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and the point about proportionality is very important. We have heard about the rampant corruption in the UK electoral system and the complete inadequacy of the police, the Electoral Commission, local election returning officers and so on. A picture has been painted throughout the passage of the Bill. Why would the Government be content to keep the maximum level of fine at £20,000, when the Electoral Commission says it is really not adequate to provide either a deterrent or a punishment?

One example on which everyone in this room will find a point of consensus was when the Liberal Democrats were fined £20,000. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] They are not here to defend themselves—it is a wee shame. In all seriousness, the investigation that year found that 307 payments totalling £184,676 were missing from the Liberal Democrats’ spending return without a reasonable excuse. In return, they were fined £20,000, which was the maximum that the Electoral Commission could levy.

I would not suggest that is the mindset of the Liberal Democrats, but less scrupulous participants in our electoral process might think that £20,000 was a price worth paying for not reporting figures that were nearly 10 times that amount. To be clear, I am not saying that was the case with the Liberal Democrats, but perhaps other, less scrupulous participants might adopt that attitude.

We should adopt a more proportionate system by simply raising the maximum threshold. We are all familiar with the scene in “Austin Powers” where Dr Evil demands a ransom of $1 million as part of his nefarious plan to take over the Earth, and everybody laughs because it is not a huge amount of money in the modern world that he has woken up in. Similarly, a fine of £20,000 does not adjust for the rate of inflation and cost of inflation—not least the increases that we are experiencing as a result of the Tories’ disastrous Brexit policies.

A fine of £20,000 is not as high as it could be, so a maximum of £500,000 is slightly more realistic in the modern world, and then the proportionality of the 5% gives the Electoral Commission that extra flexibility and additional teeth that it might need to serve as a deterrent or to take action in the event of a breach. I have no doubt that the Minister will have lots of creative reasons for rejecting the new clause, and I look forward to hearing what they are.

Elections Bill (Eighth sitting)

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 19th October 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Cat Smith]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North on tabling this amendment. It was so good that I tried to table exactly the same amendment a day after him, but he beat me to it, so he is nimble on his feet as well. We share the concerns that he and the RNIB have raised that the Bill weakens protections for blind and partially sighted voters by removing the limited legal protections that used to exist. Removing the requirement to provide tactile voting devices leaves blind and partially sighted voters somewhat to a postcode lottery.

I see where the Minister is coming from, but I disagree. While she sees it as prescriptive and stifling innovation, I see it as providing a baseline for a level playing field. That does not stop returning officers being innovative. Obviously as technology advances we will come across things that will help us to make voting more accessible for people of many disabilities or impairments. The legislation as it stands creates the risk of a postcode lottery with different systems being used in different areas. Although that might open up to innovation, it risks leaving some blind and partially sighted voters without adequate systems in place to help them to vote in secret and independently.

The RNIB has been consistent and has done excellent reports after every major national election outlining just how few blind and partially sighted voters get the opportunity to vote independently and in secret. It is something that I have raised many times over the years and I had higher expectations for the Bill. I am disappointed that clause 8 does not go far enough. We support the general gist of the clause in terms of making voting more accessible for those with disabilities, but it really only scratches the surface of the quite radical action that is needed to make our democracy more accessible to disabled people.

I share the concerns of the disability charity Sense that 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 a broader duty designed to enable all disabled people to vote is a good thing, the wording of the new duty does not carry over the previous requirement to enable voters to vote without any need for assistance. As a result, I think polling stations will not be required to ensure that disabled people can vote independently. I seek the Minister’s clarification on that.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, though I am greatly disappointed both in the Minister for not having met with the Royal National Institute of Blind People and in my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North. She said that she listened carefully to his argument, and if he had just been more persuasive, this could have been the first time in 38 years when a Minister was persuaded to change her mind. Really, Minister? Let us be honest: this amendment is never going to pass because the Government have an entrenched position on it, and they were never going to listen to reasonable and decent arguments put forward by a reasonable and decent charity.

Fundamentally, voting is a visual exercise, and the frustration and humiliation felt by blind and partially sighted people at their inability to vote independently and in secret has been an open sore for many years. This afternoon, Government Members have talked extensively about secrecy and the privacy of the ballot, but that does not seem to extend to blind and partially sighted people. There are currently 350,000 voters in the UK who cannot vote without having to share their preference with a returning officer or anyone who happens to be within listening distance. Four fifths of blind or partially sighted people said that they were unable to vote independently and in secret.

Respondents to the RNIB survey said such things as:

“The voting booth was right beside the queue for the check in desk; it wasn’t closed off and I had to verbalise my choice to my partner…a person, waiting in the queue beside the booth, audibly sighed. I don’t feel I get privacy”.

Another respondent said:

“My helper disagrees with my vote and I have no way to be sure she voted as I wished”.

Another said that

“it’s a totally humiliating experience from start to finish,”

and the whole thing is predicated on

“assumptions that everyone can see.”

Things are far from perfect at the moment, but the RNIB, which is the UK’s leading sight loss charity, is extremely concerned that the Bill will make a bad situation even worse, as it weakens the protections that exist and could make it even harder for blind or partially sighted people to cast their vote independently and in secret. Could the Minister tell me what experience the Government have and what expertise they drew upon in reaching their conclusion that the RNIB does not have? What sources of evidence did they seek to get to this point that the UK’s leading sight loss charity, which she has not met, does not have?

Elections Bill (Fifth sitting)

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I thank the hon. Lady for that point of order. I have had no communication from the Government. Regarding more time, it is perfectly in order for the Committee to come to an agreement, either between the usual channels or by way of an amendment, to allow more time. I will leave it to the hon. Lady to discuss with her colleagues and the Government whether they want more time. I am sure that my colleagues and I will be perfectly open to that, but it is entirely up to the Committee. We are in your hands.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

Further to that point of order, Sir Edward. I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood. It is outrageous that the Government should seek to parachute in something in addition to the scope of the Bill without any debate. There was no debate on Monday night, because the Minister, the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher), did not engage with the House. He turned up and read a pre-prepared statement. He did not engage. He did not even take an intervention from his opposite number. It is farcical that it should happen in such a way that no questions were answered and there was no scrutiny. This did not appear from thin air. The Government knew that this was happening; yet I believe they held it back from the Committee. I think it is only right that the Committee should have a chance to bring back expert witnesses so that we can have testimony from them on what this crucial part of the new scope will mean for the entire Bill.

[The Chair]

I can only repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood. That is a perfectly fair point, and if the hon. Gentleman wishes to table an amendment to that effect, I am sure that the Government will listen very closely. I am completely in the hands of the Committee.

We will start with clause 1, and the question that it stand part of the Bill. Members will note my grouping and selection, and that several detailed matters relating to voter ID will be covered in debates on amendments later today. Clause 1 introduces the schedule on voter ID. I would be grateful if Members could please restrict their remarks to the principles of the proposals. That is quite important. I am sure that we can have a very wide-ranging debate that will be more like a Second Reading debate, but remember that there are loads of amendments later, so there is no point in getting into detail now. We will have plenty of time to discuss the detail.

Clause 1

Voter Identification

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cat Smith]

The situation in Northern Ireland actually came about over a much longer period. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute somewhat of an expert on these issues, but in Northern Ireland we did see huge swathes of personation going on in the 1980s. The politics in Northern Ireland in the 1980s was very different from the politics that we see in England, Scotland and Wales in 2021.

[Brendan O’Hara]

I have been trying, both on Second Reading and in Committee, to tease out where the Northern Ireland comparison comes from and how the Government believe that the situation we have in the United Kingdom in 2021 in any way resembles that in Northern Ireland in the ’70s, ’80s and ’90s, which led to the change. Nobody has managed to give me an answer to explain what the similarities are and why the Northern Ireland example is being used to advocate this change.

[Kemi Badenoch]

Can I come in on that point?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Clarkson]

The hon. Lady says that there were only four cases. Of course, there were only four cases that we are aware of. That goes back to the point that was made throughout the evidence sessions: it is an incredibly easy thing to do, so we do not know the quantity. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme said, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I have to ask her what an acceptable level of voter fraud is. Are four cases of fraud okay? Do we just let that go, and say, “It’s fine. There’s a cost-benefit analysis to a bit of electoral fraud.”? How many election results have to be overturned before we say that this is actually an investment worth making?

[Brendan O’Hara]

None of them has been overturned.

[Cat Smith]

I do not think that any elections have been overturned, as the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute says from a sedentary position. We have to work on the basis of what we know, and what the facts are. We can only go on the cases that are reported, but we know that 758 people in just a handful of councils were turned away and did not come back. That is an unquestionable fact.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alec Shelbrooke]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and my—what a lively start we have got off to!

I intend to speak to the principle of the Bill, because we will come to amendments later. Despite my point of order, it is interesting that the American electoral system keeps being referred to, because it speaks to the wider issue of faith in elections. We have seen some disgraceful activity by the former President in America, which leads to an undermining of the basis of democracy.

There is no doubt that electoral fraud has taken place in this country, and I struggle to think of another crime that we would be willing to say we do not need to do anything about. I struggle to think of another crime where we say to the victims, “Well, it wasn’t many of you, so we’re not going to bother with it”. There is a very important principle about where we stand in this place.

[Brendan O’Hara]

The right hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that currently there is no law to stop electoral crime. Laws to stop electoral crime are in place at the moment and they seem to be working; as we have heard, Tower Hamlets and other elections have been refought. Does he accept that there are existing laws to tackle exactly what the Bill intends to tackle?

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, because, of course, Richard Mawrey said in his evidence that the threshold for proving in electoral law as it currently stands is too high to really get over the bar. By bringing in an extra set of checks and balances, we hopefully get away from the point that we would have to try to prove these cases to get over what is a very high electoral bar.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alec Shelbrooke]

The point I am making, drawing on the comments that have been made, is about faith in the electoral system, and this clause creates those levels of faith. It is all very well trying denial and complacency about where we are today, but we have to accept that we now have a mass media system in the world that makes it very easy for conspiracy theories to grow and be built very quickly. We must be in a position to ensure that our elections are deemed to be as safe and secure as possible.

I was disappointed on Second Reading that, when I intervened and asked Members about the recommendations of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, those recommendations were pretty much dismissed out of hand. It was argued that they did not apply in this country, but the OSCE has made it clear in its reports that the security of our elections cannot be guaranteed without voter ID, and that is a very important point.

Those who have done election monitoring will know that many countries in the G20, let alone the G7, ask for voter ID, and I fear that we are in a period of history where democracy—which is a precious thing, and must always be developed and worked on—is under threat from those who refuse to accept election results. I am basing those comments more on what has happened in the United States than what has happened in this country, but what happened there is pervasive because of mass media. This Bill is trying to ensure that the perception of the security of elections, which is a very important thing, is clear in people’s minds.

From the very beginning, there has been entrenched opposition to the idea of voter ID. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood—who I have a great deal of respect for, as she knows, and I enjoy serving on these Committees with her—talked about cuts to local government funding, but my council, Leeds City Council, is spending £10 million on the European city of culture campaign. The council bid for it before the referendum, then we left, so it is not getting the money and it is spending £10 million on it. It cannot say that it is being starved of funds when it is spending £10 million on something that is pretty irrelevant and certainly creates some lively debate in my home city.

When we come to debate the voting age—I know that we are not discussing that now—there will be some very important points to make about how the UN defines who is a child by saying that anybody under the age of 18 cannot fight on the frontline. Again, it appears that we are dismissing international bodies to suit the argument that is being made on the day.

I end my remarks by simply saying that this clause is a very important part of the Bill, ensuring that people have faith in our electoral system and that we do not allow a growth in voter fraud. We heard in evidence that bringing cases of voter fraud to court involves meeting an exceptionally high bar and that the financial constraints mean that people are not willing to bring those cases forward, so we cannot close our eyes and say that voter fraud is not happening because it is not getting to the courtroom. The proposals in the Bill go a long way to making people feel that when they cast their ballot, they have an equal say in those ballots, compared with people who may want to act criminally.

[Brendan O’Hara]

I always suspected throughout the passage of the Bill, whether on Second Reading or in our evidence sessions, that there was absolutely no evidence that voter ID cards would address an identified problem. In the evidence that we heard in four sessions over two days, not even the Government’s star witness said that personation was a sufficiently big issue to make voter ID cards essential to tackling it. Overwhelmingly, every single person who spoke to us about the subject said that the issue that needs addressing is postal vote fraud.

[Paul Bristow]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not paying attention to Councillor Peter Golds during the evidence session, who turned around and said on a number of occasions that personation was a relevant thing in Tower Hamlets. Was the hon. Gentleman asleep during that evidence?

[Brendan O’Hara]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I was not asleep; perhaps he should temper his language somewhat. I suggest he reads Councillor Golds’s evidence, which I will come to in a moment. He talked in such great detail about postal vote fraud: it was the biggest issue in Councillor Golds’s extremely detailed and voluminous file. In fact, he was reduced to anecdotal evidence about personation and a gentleman with large feet and red shoes. That is the nub of where he was. Every person and even the Government’s star witness, as I would class Councillor Golds, was unable to give any evidence that personation at polling stations was a major problem.

[Aaron Bell]

The hon. Gentleman dealt with Peter Golds there, but what about the case in Peterborough? Surely the requirement to introduce CCTV that Gillian Beasley told us about says it is not an anecdotal problem. It is a real problem. That step has had to be taken in Peterborough for deterrence. The Bill enables deterrence without the expense of CCTV.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Again, I will not use the language that the hon. Member for Peterborough used, but read the evidence. Gillian Beasley said that

“we have seen less personation”—[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2021; c. 21, Q23.]

in recent years; she followed that up by saying that postal voting is her concern. The Government are looking in the wrong place and they know that. They are doing it for reasons about which one can only speculate.

[Jerome Mayhew]

There is one clause in the Bill on voter ID and there are five clauses on postal votes, so it is not right to say that the Government are looking at the wrong place. The Government are addressing all the issues with our voting system.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Again, it came out from the evidence session that postal vote fraud is the major issue and that is what is concerning the vast majority—if not all—of our witnesses.

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful for the second opportunity to address this. We heard from Mr Mawrey QC, who is also an election judge. In his judgment in the Birmingham cases, which I referred to during the evidence session, he said that

“there is likely to be no evidence of fraud if you do not look for it.”

The whole point is that we need to look for it.

[Brendan O’Hara]

With all due respect to the hon. Gentleman, if a Government ignore the problem in front of their nose and then run about trying to find evidence of a problem when there is no evidence that that problem exists, I suggest they are wasting their time. The problem to be addressed is around postal voting. Richard Mawrey said that Birmingham, Slough and Woking were all cases that involved postal vote fraud; voter ID was “neither here nor there.”

[Chris Clarkson]

The hon. Gentleman says that the Government are wasting their time looking for something of which there is no evidence, but he also says that it is a waste of time to look for evidence of it. Would he clarify his position?

[Brendan O’Hara]

I absolutely will. My position is that there is no evidence whatsoever. Policy must be made on the basis of evidence. We have a limited time in this House in which to act and legislate. It is a waste of that precious time, I believe, for a Government to run around looking to create a problem to find a solution for. We should address the problems that we know exist, and those problems that have to be attacked.

Even Lord Pickles, in his evidence, said:

“I did not recommend photo ID”. ––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2021; c. 16, Q13.]

He also said that fraud

“is not endemic within the system”,––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2021; c. 8, Q5.]

However, somehow, Lord Pickles has now embraced this voter ID card with the zeal of a convert. It is further evidence of a Government with a solution looking for a problem.

Councillor Golds gave chapter and verse on the problems of postal voting in Tower Hamlets, and he was extremely convincing. Fair play to Peter Golds and the people who he has been working with—they have identified a serious problem—but to try to segue that into pretending that ID cards at polling stations will somehow solve what we saw at Tower Hamlets is frankly nonsense. It is not there.

[Tom Randall]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Brendan O’Hara]

I will in a moment. Ailsa Irvine, of the Electoral Commission, admitted that

“we are starting from a high base of public confidence.”––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2021; c. 46, Q64.]

There is confidence in this system—that the system works and is sufficiently robust.

[Peter Gibson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Brendan O’Hara]

I will in a moment. There is nothing perfect. There is no way on earth that we can stop every sort of crime, but this Government and this Committee should concentrate on identified problems, rather than seeking to find problems and then provide a solution as they see fit. Now, there were two hon. Gentlemen bobbing.

[Tom Randall]

Just briefly, on Councillor Golds’ evidence, he did make reference to the Jehovah’s Witnesses who had been marked as having voted on the register in the polling station when, of course, they would not have done. I appreciate that it was anecdotal evidence, but does that not go to the heart of how difficult it for someone to realise that they are a victim of electoral fraud? If a non-voter was a victim of personation, they would not go to look for it.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Nobody on this side of the room is saying that electoral fraud should not be punished. It absolutely should be punished. It should not be tolerated and should never be tolerated. Any victim of it deserves justice. However, that must be evidence-led and proportionate. This is neither.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Brendan O’Hara]

I will come to the right hon. Gentleman in a moment.

[Peter Gibson]

I am incredibly grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I wish to provide clarity, in respect of the report by Lord Pickles. I have a copy in front of me. Recommendation No. 8 states:

“The Government should consider the options for electors to have to produce personal identification before voting at polling stations. There is no need to be over elaborate; measures should enhance public confidence and be proportional. A driving licence, passport or utility bills would not seem unreasonable to establish identity. The Government may wish to pilot different methods. But the present system is unsatisfactory; perfection must not get in the way of a practical solution.”

[Brendan O’Hara]

The hon. Gentleman is making my point for me. He did not recommend ID cards. He did not. If he mentioned taking a utility bill, he is not talking about registering for and receiving a voter ID card. As he said, he did not recommend it. In the first bit of evidence, Lord Pickles says he did not recommend voter ID cards.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

The hon. Gentleman has made the point, quite rightly, that there is electoral law in place that can be used to prosecute fraud, but we heard in evidence that there is a very high bar for people, not least financially. Prevention is better than prosecution. Preventing electoral fraud from happening in the first place is surely better than trying to prove it has happened and prosecuting.

[Brendan O’Hara]

At the risk of repeating myself, nobody is saying that we should not root out electoral fraud and that it should not be punished to the full extent of the law, but this Bill, and particularly voter ID cards, will not solve it. If there were a Bill in front of us that said, “We will beef up the Electoral Commission. We will give the police more powers of prosecution. We will allow greater transparency in how we find and prosecute people who are cheating the system,” it would have unanimous support, but the Government are trying to pretend that the introduction of voter ID cards will stop this, and that is simply not the case.

[Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are different types of prevention of electoral fraud? One was outlined in the evidence from Peterborough. The witnesses said they could put up CCTV cameras, which would cost them nothing because they would borrow them from the police. That is a much more proportionate measure to prevent fraud, and there would not be the risk that it would stop people and put up a barrier to voting.

[Brendan O’Hara]

I could not agree more. We do not support ID cards, but that does not mean we are turning a blind eye to electoral fraud. There are proportionate ways of preventing it. This is not even a way of stopping it. We are not even saying that this is the wrong way to stop electoral fraud; this is nothing. This will achieve virtually nothing.

[Cat Smith]

The hon. Gentleman is drawing on the evidence of Lord Pickles, who did not say that photo ID cards should be required to prove identity; he also included utility bills. The forms of ID listed in this Bill are very limited. When international examples are given of where ID cards are shown, they are often from countries that have a national ID card, so does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that this may be a back-door way of bringing in an ID card, which I am sure many Government Members would wring their hands at? The Prime Minister himself said that he would eat it if he was ever asked for it. Should the Government not be a bit more up front about their real reasons?

[Brendan O’Hara]

There is an argument to be had about what the hon. Lady says about the introduction of ID cards. Perhaps the plan is to introduce ID cards via the back door.

The right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell spoke about the OSCE report. As I said on Second Reading, if we were inventing an entirely new system from scratch—if democracy was invented tomorrow in the UK—there would be an argument to be had and we could bat back and forth whether to do it, but to impose ID cards on to the system that we have at this stage, with all the democratic history that we have, smacks of something other than what we are being told it is for.

The politics of this is interesting. Rob Connelly, the returning officer from Birmingham, got to the nub of the political argument we are hearing when he said:

“I asked a senior politician…what evidence he had of personation, and his response was, ‘I haven’t actually got any, but I just know it goes on.’”––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2021; c. 55, Q82.]

That sums up the argument that we heard on Second Reading and in Committee this morning. There is no evidence—it is a hunch—and policy cannot be made without evidence. There is no evidence of this. Politicians believe it happens, and therefore we must go and do something about it. We gather the experts—the great and the good—and they tell us that it is minimal and inconsequential: it is neither here nor there. However, the Government decide to plough on regardless of the evidence.

Gavin Millar supported Rob Connolly when he said:

“It is not a problem of any great consequence in our system.”––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 16 September 2021; c. 108, Q165.]

He explained that it is actually the most inefficient way to indulge in electoral fraud. The risks are enormous, the chances of detection are much greater and it is such a tiny margin that it will make no difference. The Government are looking in the wrong place, and they are pursuing it on a hunch. He was right to say that the Government should focus on registration instead of voter ID cards.

[Cat Smith]

The hon. Gentleman is making a point about following the evidence, but should the Government not also follow what is going on in the courts? Is he aware of the case in Braintree, where there was a voter ID trial, of Neil Coughlan, who had no voter ID? The Supreme Court is due to hear that case next year. The Committee might end up legislating on the matter before hearing what could be quite a useful verdict from the courts about the way in which the policy disenfranchises voters.

[Brendan O’Hara]

I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. I was unaware of that case, but it does seem to suggest that we are getting ahead of ourselves somewhat.

Moving on, what is the point of an evidence session if we are going to ignore the evidence? I refer the Conservative members of the Committee to the words of Baroness Davidson on voter ID—perhaps the only time her words were wise. I will not repeat what I said on Second Reading; it is there for all to see if they wish to go back and find it. Suffice to say, Baroness Davidson was correct in her assessment of voter ID cards in May, and she is correct today.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

The hon. Gentleman seems to have a slight contradiction in his opinion. He said that there was minimal voter fraud and that we should take no notice of it. He has picked on one Conservative politician out of hundreds and used that as an argument.

[Brendan O’Hara]

I rise slowly to my feet, because I have no idea what the right hon. Gentleman is talking about. I will sit down as slowly as I rose if he wants to make that point again.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I am merely making the point that to dismiss one argument because there are not lots of people coming forward with an allegation, to then pick on one person out of hundreds of Conservatives and say, “Therefore, this is why we should not do it,” seems slightly at odds with the balance of the argument.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Absolutely not. The idea that I would take any political lead from an unelected baroness is utter nonsense. I simply used her as an illustration of the deep divisions in the Conservative party.

[Cat Smith]

In the intervention the hon. Gentleman took, he was accused of using as evidence one Conservative politician. Have the Conservative members of the Committee not just taken the example of one Labour constituency party in Tower Hamlets, when there are 650 constituencies?

[Brendan O’Hara]

A good point well made. What was striking about the evidence session was that Conservative Members were reduced to asking the witnesses leading questions. If it had been a court, the judge would have slapped them down almost immediately. It was reduced to, “Motherhood and apple pie is good. Do you agree?” and “Yes, we do.” It was nonsense. The evidence session showed that voter ID cards are a priority for nobody but this Government.

Almost all the witnesses referred to the need to tighten up postal votes. That was summed up by Gavin Millar, who said that is

“hugely inefficient compared with other forms of fraud that have been perpetrated, particularly since postal voting on demand”––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 16 September 2021; c. 108, Q165.]

The Government are looking in the wrong place. There is no evidence that personation is widespread; that is based purely on anecdote. I went into the evidence sessions believing that the measure was a solution seeking a problem; I came out of them absolutely convinced of it. We will support the Labour party when the Committee divides.

[The Chair]

Before I call the next speaker, it is not in order to be tediously repetitious. The debate is proceeding extremely slowly. On the lack of evidence and on other points, if I have heard it once, I have heard 100 times. Try to keep speeches to the point and pertinent to clause 1. I call Aaron Bell.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Randall]

An electoral card will be issued free of charge. I am sure that between the passage of this legislation and the introduction of that scheme there will be a lot of publicity surrounding it, to make sure that the new system that is to be introduced will be well understood. The Government are used to widespread publicity schemes. I see the point that the hon. Lady makes, but I am sure that can be addressed in the fullness of time.

The point was made that no significant election has been swung or affected by electoral fraud. I gently suggest that the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, a London authority only 18 minutes from here on the tube, which has a directly elected Mayor and a multi- million-pound budget, is not insignificant when it comes to elections—it is very significant.

For my final point, I declare an interest as a former chairman of Poplar and Limehouse Conservative Association. I know Councillor Golds personally. I speak to him as a friend as well as a witness to this Committee, and he made a point to me in writing afterwards. I will read the email from him, which stated:

“When we were preparing the grounds for the petition we investigated personation. We were a small, cross party group acting voluntarily and at our own expense. I was doing most of the legal digging and the amount of time required to prove personation would have been enormous. We had evidence via marked registers but quickly found canvassing and potentially obtaining statements would have been incredibly time consuming. People who are disengaged from politics and voting are unlikely to wish to make statements for submission to a court of law. We did refer to some of the worst cases in various statements but personation…was not one of the nine grounds that we concentrated on.”

Tower Hamlets has come up a lot in this debate so far. The absence of personation as the main ground in that case should not be interpreted as meaning that there was no personation in that election. The point is that investigating it is incredibly difficult. The fact that it was volunteers working on it, who stumped up their own money, which they have not got back, is perhaps one reason why that ground in that claim was not gone into in such detail.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Does not the hon. Gentleman think that it would have been helpful in his lengthy evidence session if Peter Golds had actually said that to the Committee, rather than saying it as an afterthought in a private letter? That is surely the whole point of holding an evidence session.

[Tom Randall]

I wish Councillor Golds had had a whole evidence session to himself, but unfortunately he had to share one and we had to listen to other witnesses, which I shall not go into now, but I think that was an unfortunate timetabling measure.

There is a fundamental weakness in the system as it stands. For that reason I will support this part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady]

Thank you, Sir Edward. I think there is a slight difference between someone voluntarily taking part in different parts of the economy and someone exercising their fundamental right to vote. The Prime Minister himself has not ruled out vaccination certification, so we will wait to hear what those on the Government side of the House have to say about that a couple of weeks down the line.

The point that the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton touched on there is the divergence across these islands. He is perfectly entitled to make that point. It is interesting, because in the devolved areas, rather than making it more difficult for people to vote, we have been making it easier to vote and more proportionate. We will get on to more of this later in the Bill, but in Scotland the franchise has been extended to 16 and 17-year-olds, to all EU nationals with settled status and to refugees, and nobody is being asked to turn up with voter identification in the devolved areas. We will have people on increasingly different franchises—[Interruption.] I am glad this is of such interest to Government Members, because they are supposed to be defenders of the Union, and they want to keep this glorious country, as they see it, together and keep us in a United Kingdom. Actually, what they are doing is increasing divergence and showing that Scotland and Wales can adopt a far more liberal, all-encompassing and participative approach to democracy. Here it is being made more difficult and increasingly narrow. That is a challenge for people who want to protect the Union.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Scotland extended the franchise to the groups that my hon. Friend mentioned, but one that he did not mention was people in prison with 12 months or less to go on their sentence. Would I be correct in saying that, by extending the franchise, Scotland achieved its higher ever turnout at the elections in May and ensured that people have faith? It is not just about creating rules; it is about creating faith in the system. The Government do not have to go down this draconian ID card route to create faith in the system; they just need people to believe that what they elect is what they get, and Scotland is doing that.

[Patrick Grady]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Compare that to the “Oh no, here we go again” response to the sequence of snap elections and uncalled for and unprepared for ballots that have happened in the UK in recent years, because of the utter chaos and incompetence shown by the Conservatives.

My hon. Friend brings me on to my next point, which the Labour spokesperson touched on. We as elected politicians are not impassive observers, as perhaps parliamentarians can be on other aspects of legislation, where we can take an objective view. All of us have an active interest in who elects us and how we get elected. I join the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood in paying tribute to election administration staff in councils up and down the country—later in the Bill we will talk about the role of the Electoral Commission and who gets to mark our own homework. If it has been tough south of the border, it has been even more so north of the border, where there has been another referendum, local elections and the devolved Parliament elections, on top of all the UK-wide ballots and plebiscites that have had to be administered.

I also pay tribute to our party activists and volunteers, as I am sure everybody in this room will—perhaps we can get one point of consensus. They are in many ways the backbone of the electoral process and political engagement of this country. They are the people who stand outside the polling stations in the pouring rain and the blazing sun—sometimes in Scotland that can be within the same 10 or 15 minutes. We can have all four seasons in one day or even just a couple of hours—that is certainly true of the last couple of elections we have had. These people play an incredibly important role. If there was widespread personation, with people turning up in dodgy rain jackets, funny moustaches and thick eyeglasses to repeatedly impersonate other voters, it would kind of be noticed. That is the point of having the system we do.

We have polling agents, counting agents and voluntary observers. That is a hugely important part of trust in the system. It happens at counts as well, when we watch how the ballot papers come out and how they are sorted and so on. We have heard examples of electoral malpractice and intimidation outside polling stations. Exactly: we know about it because it has been witnessed and reported. It has been covered on the news, because it makes for a bit of drama if people are shouting at each other outside a polling station—the cameras like to go and see that. It should not happen, and that is why people have been punished for it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady]

There we go: that is the benefit of having these evidence sessions, and we should thank, congratulate and treat with respect all the witnesses we heard. I echo the points of order that were made earlier on: I hope we get to have more evidence sessions when it becomes appropriate, so we can hear about the extension to the Bill’s remit that the Government have made.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Looking back at the evidence given by Maurice Mcleod, it got to the point that the Government are aiming at the wrong target with this Bill. Does my hon. Friend not agree with Maurice Mcleod and, indeed, Gavin Millar, who both said the Government should prioritise a registration drive, increasing participation and opening up? As Maurice Mcleod said:

“I do not really understand why you are not automatically registered. I remember turning 18; you get your national insurance number because going out to work and paying your…tax”.––[Official Report, Elections Public Bill Committee, 16 September 2021; c. 88, Q133.]

However, people are not automatically registered. Does my hon. Friend not think this Bill should look at automatic registration rather than seeking to disenfranchise people?

[Patrick Grady]

Yes. I hope as the Committee progresses we will be able to look at precisely that issue. That brings me quite neatly on to what I hope will be my final point of concern: what is really needed is a massive voter education drive. We need a new wave of civic engagement, helping people to understand the critical role they play in democracy and decision making in this country. As the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell said, irrespective of our views on a matter, we as politicians should be able to express those views, and try to convince the voters and win as many of them over to our side of the argument as possible. That is what is vastly needed, and that need for civic education and massive voter registration drives in order to encourage as many people as possible to take part came out in quite a lot of the evidence, as well. That requires us to live up to our promises, not make false promises and pretend that things are going to happen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Bristow]

No, no—a very brief one. Hon. Members have doubted the evidence of voter fraud and personation, as a very small thing, but I encourage them to look at some of the evidence we have from Peterborough. When walking down busy streets in Peterborough, we often see large crowds gathering, with people chanting, singing and handing out various leaflets. That is not on a Saturday when we are watching Peterborough United; that is on a Thursday afternoon, when people are marching towards the polling station. We have had evidence that a number of councillors and activists in Peterborough who have gone to prison as a result of voter fraud are now acting as tellers and counting agents, participating in the democratic process.

A lot of people have talked about the advantages of the CCTV that was offered by the chief executive of Peterborough City Council. I ask hon. Members who have said that this was a good thing why they feel it was necessary for Peterborough City Council to install CCTV at polling stations. It was there in order to combat personation.

[Brendan O’Hara]

Does the hon. Gentleman not believe that Peterborough council has the right to implement a bespoke solution for what it may or may not perceive to be a particular problem, but that having a blanket ID card from Truro to Thurso and beyond is completely and utterly disproportionate? If Peterborough council wants to introduce CCTV, then let it. I imagine that Argyll and Bute Council has no intention of introducing CCTV or anything else, because we believe our democracy is quite robust.

[Paul Bristow]

The people of Argyll and Bute probably have great satisfaction with, and faith in, their electoral processes, down to the quality of their Member of Parliament. I am sad to say that in Peterborough, people perhaps do not have that faith, so CCTV is there in order to give people faith in the security and integrity of the ballot. That is the point I am trying to make, because I think that rather than suppress democracy, voter ID cards give people greater confidence in the electoral process and the idea that their vote will count. We hear that not just in Peterborough, but in Tower Hamlets, Oldham, Birmingham, Slough, and across the country. These are not isolated incidents: they happen across the country, and they undermine our democracy.

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Rebecca Harris.)

Elections Bill (Sixth sitting)

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 22nd September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Kemi Badenoch]

The amendment would ensure that private companies could not take any part in any aspect of producing or administrating voter cards and anonymous elector’s documents. We cannot agree to the amendment. It is an entirely unnecessary restriction, clearly raised for ideological reasons, with no consideration for the practicalities. I remind Opposition Members that the private sector already plays numerous roles in elections—it prints documents, ballot papers and poll cards; it manufactures equipment such as ballot boxes and polling booths; and it delivers poll cards and postal votes. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling made the point well; we on the Conservative Benches can spot socialism coming from a mile away, and this is nationalisation through the back door.

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

Whether this is about socialism or whatever else—we can debate that—we have just come out of a personal protective equipment scandal. So much of this Bill has been predicated on public trust and on building public trust. In light of the fact that the public have been so horribly stung in that PPE scandal, we have to rebuild trust. The idea of the landlord of a Minister’s local boozer saying, “I can make those cards for you,” runs a shiver down our spines. In the interests of building public trust, this surely has to be taken in-house, because if it is not we will be in grave danger of repeating the scandal we have seen with PPE.

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that straw man argument, which shows that he did not listen to what I just said. Does he seriously think that all the ballot papers and poll cards that are being printed are being produced by mates—

[Brendan O’Hara]

rose—

[Kemi Badenoch]

No, I am not giving way any more. I would say that he does not think that. An ideological point is being made, and we will not have it.

The hon. Member for Putney made a point about GP surgeries having our data. GPs are private contractors. This conflation of what is private and what is not, and this lack of understanding of how services are delivered, is poor. The Carillion argument in particular is a specious one. Many organisations both private and public fail occasionally. We have debated these issues on the Floor of the House many times, and there is no point in my repeating them, but public sector organisations also fail. We do not then decide that we are going to rip up everything and that they will no longer provide any services; we try to fix what has gone wrong. I do not accept those arguments at all.

Government and local authorities will, as ever, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland said, seek to ensure best value for money for the taxpayer. That is the right thing to do, rather than the ideological ping-pong that we are seeing here. I say to the hon. Member for Putney: nice try, but we are not accepting the amendment. If any aspect of the production or administration of either of these documents could best be served in the private sector, then that must be an option that is available. We are not being prescriptive about how we are going to do this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Brendan O'Hara]

On the length of time, so much of what we heard on Second Reading and today was about the integrity of the ballot and about ensuring that every vote counts and that no vote is there wrongly, but suddenly we seem to have a pivoting on this point, with convenience somehow trumping democracy. The Minister accepted that queues will be longer, because people will have to produce a voter ID card, so are we really saying that the inconvenience of having to check the veracity of somebody’s vote—that it is absolutely correct—is more important than them actually having that vote?

[Kemi Badenoch]

No, I do not think so. I do not think that the point the hon. Gentleman is making applies to this amendment. Of course, we want every single vote to be counted, but as the amendment is drafted, how long would we have to wait, and what would the procedure be under it?

[Brendan O'Hara]

The answer would be that we wait as long as we need to get the right result.

[Kemi Badenoch]

Exactly—that is the point I was coming to. As the amendment is drafted, it could be a way in a marginal election of unduly delaying the announcement of a result. We want to ensure that people do not have their votes taken away and used by others who should not be using them. The examples we saw in Tower Hamlets and so on are part of the reason for the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kemi Badenoch]

I can actually answer the question, because I asked it myself; I thought it was an interesting point. The reason is that the requirements when applying for those types of card are different. Getting a 60+ Oyster card is a significantly more stringent process. People need a passport, driving licence or combination of different proofs of age and address to apply for the 60+ Oyster card. People do not have to have that for the 18+ Oyster card, for example. We have gone through and looked at what the basis for stringent checks would be. The point I am making is that we considered the level of security checks required to get each type of identification and the likelihood that someone holding further forms of identification would already hold one of the permitted types of identification. That is why this is the case.

[Brendan O’Hara]

My question is on the specifics. We have been talking about a card that is accepted by the Scottish Government and, indeed, by Police Scotland. Why specifically is the Scottish young person’s national entitlement card not accepted for this purpose?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I am sorry, but I do not know the details of the Scottish entitlement card. Perhaps if I can see the reasons and the application process for that, I might be able to give an example. I have given the basis for how the decisions were made. I cannot comment on various forms of identification used in various places, I am afraid.

The list of identity documents that will be permitted for the purpose of voting at polling stations that is included in the Bill is already broad. That said, it is recognised that available forms of identification will change over time, and that is why the Bill includes provisions to allow the list of acceptable identification to be updated through secondary legislation. For example, there are plans for online provisional driving licences, which will be considered for inclusion if appropriate. We completely understand the need to make sure that as many people as possible are able to get the ID that they need, and we feel that this provision and the free voter card are enough to make sure that voters will have the identification required, so we will not support the amendment.

Afghanistan: FCDO Update

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Monday 6th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Chris Law. Ah, not here. Brendan O’Hara.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

An easy mistake to make, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Spirit Aid, the charity founded by the Scottish actor David Hayman, currently has doctors, teachers and others, and their families, stranded in Afghanistan. On 25 August, 28 August and again on 3 September, I contacted the Foreign Office, the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence. I have no idea whether those emails have even been opened. Will the Secretary of State commit to open the emails and read the names of the people on those lists? When will he be in a position to tell me and, more importantly, those terrified people in Afghanistan exactly where they stand?

[Dominic Raab]

I explained why there was a backlog of emails; it was partly due to the surge of new contact that we received in the narrowing window of the evacuation and the decision consciously to focus on the resource of getting people on to the flights. However, as has already been said before the House, we will make sure that we give a response to all the hon. Members’ emails that we have received by close of play today, with the relevant triaging and signposting to the specific Department that is processing that type of claim.

Official Development Assistance and the British Council

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Wednesday 30th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) [V]]

The decision by this Government to take essential, life-saving money away from the world’s poorest people is absolutely shameful. The fact that the Government of one of the richest countries in the world have decided arbitrarily to reduce the help that they give to the poorest and most vulnerable people on the planet, particularly in the middle of a global health pandemic, simply beggars belief. It must be the final abandonment of what little was left of the UK’s reputation for moral leadership.

The Government know, and any Member, such as the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford), who intends to support these cuts should know, that this is not a consequence-free decision. Taking away more than £4 billion of life-saving aid guarantees that tens of thousands of the world’s poorest people are going to die. Everyone should also be aware of the consequences of what they are signing up to, because this is not like pulling the plug on the building of a new school. This is not putting off the construction of a new bypass because money is tight. This is not suspending the restoration of the Palace of Westminster because we can no longer justify the cost. This is a decision that will kill people. People are going to die as a direct result of this decision, and there is absolutely no running away from that reality.

This is also the ultimate betrayal of the thousands of people who work in our NGOs and our charity sector—people who strive day in and day out to alleviate suffering and to deliver food and bring comfort to the world’s most marginalised communities. At a time when charities such as the Scottish Catholic International Aid Fund, Compassion UK, the wonderful Mary’s Meals from my Argyll and Bute constituency, Oxfam, Plan International and so many others are being asked to do so much more with so much less, this is a kick in the teeth that they neither needed nor deserved.

I still find it utterly bewildering that the confirmation of slashing aid for the world’s poorest was in the integrated review of security. The idea that by making the world’s poorest people even poorer we will somehow make ourselves safer is an absolute nonsense. Are this Government really asking us to believe that the best way to make the people of the United Kingdom safer and more secure is to slash vital humanitarian aid, particularly to parts of the world that are already riven by conflict, war and famine, thereby forcing tens of millions of desperate people to uproot themselves and their families and go in search of a better, more secure future? It is a ridiculous notion, and they know that it is a ridiculous notion. But what makes this betrayal of the world’s poorest utterly grotesque is that, having announced that they were taking away billions from those poor communities, the Government announced that they are to spend it on increasing their stockpile of nuclear warheads. We all know that they will always find the cash for their weapons of mass destruction.

Some might not like it, but the country has a fundamental moral obligation to help those in what we now call the developing world, not just because we can afford to help them, which is reason enough in itself, but primarily because this country is in no small way responsible for the situation in which many now find themselves. For more than a century, the United Kingdom grew rich and powerful on the back of the world’s poor. The British empire invaded, conquered, divided and plundered half the world and very often left behind it an impoverished wasteland, so it is about time that this country woke up to the fact that it has a moral responsibility to assist those abandoned to live with the consequences of British imperialism. It should not be running away from that responsibility.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for facilitating this debate, and I echo the point made by the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) at the start of the debate that this is not the vote that we were promised on the specific issue of the cuts to 0.7% foreign aid spending. I sincerely hope that the Government do not try to spin that it is, because we know that it is not.

We must have a vote on the cut to the foreign aid budget, because every Member of this House must have the opportunity to register his or her approval, or otherwise, of that decision. Members cannot be allowed to hide behind crocodile tears or meaningless words of regret, and no longer can they hope that, by choosing to stay silent, they will not be asked to come off the fence.

Everyone in this House must have the opportunity to go on the record and say yes or no to cutting the overseas aid budget; to say yes or no to the stark humanitarian costs of the decisions they make. When that vote does come, no one in this House will be able to pretend that they did not know or understand the consequences of their actions.

Finally, this Government love to talk about global Britain and the role that they see for the UK on the world stage. If the UK decides to cut overseas aid, we have to assume that global Britain has, in reality, become drawbridge Britain.

Palestinian School Textbooks: EU Review

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Wednesday 30th June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) [V]]

It is pleasure to see you in the Chair for this morning’s debate, Dame Angela.

As many hon. Members have said, this is not the first time that this issue has been discussed in the House. In the past 20 years, there have been accusations of widespread antisemitism and incitement to violence and hatred contained in Palestinian school textbooks. They have been repeatedly raised by pressure groups and politicians, so it was right that the European Union, being understandably vigilant, should ask the independent Georg Eckert Institute for International Textbook Research to carry out a study of the issue.

Despite highlighting some legitimate areas of concern, the Eckert report says that, while still not perfect, the changes recently made to the curriculum show that the Palestinian Authority are heading in the right direction, and the report significantly tempers some of the wilder accusations and allegations that we have heard from certain quarters about the PA routinely using the curriculum to incite violence and hatred or promote antisemitism. Indeed, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said, the Eckert report concludes that

“the textbooks adhere to UNESCO standards and adopt criteria that are prominent in international education discourse, including a strong focus on human rights”.

In terms of antisemitism, the report specifically mentions two examples, both of which were deemed to be and were rightly condemned as antisemitic. They should never have been there, and it is absolutely right that both have now been positively altered as the report says, or removed completely from the latest editions of the books—a fact recognised by the Georg Eckert Institute.

Let me be clear: we in the SNP believe that wherever antisemitism is found, it must be called out and condemned absolutely and unequivocally. There must be zero tolerance of antisemitism and we must all be vigilant in guarding against it. Although not complacent in any way, I am reassured that in the context of Palestinian school textbooks, the Eckert report says that, while there is recognition of the long-standing political and military conflict, antisemitism does not seem to be as widespread as was first feared, there are signs of improvement and it does not appear to be the endemic problem that some would have us believe.

As I said, the Eckert report does identify other areas of concern, but when addressing whether the textbooks are guilty of promoting or glorifying violence, it says that although there are “escalatory” examples in the textbooks, it did not find that, in the context of a region where, for the best part of a century, there has been active armed conflict, the depiction of the “other side” in the school textbooks as an aggressor or as violent necessarily equated to that igniting hatred. Indeed, the report goes on to say that it is important to acknowledge that such indicators are generally very rare and that there are also numerous instances of the school textbooks calling for tolerance, mercy, forgiveness and justice.

As we have heard, one of the main sources of the allegations is the Israeli organisation IMPACT-se, the Institute for Monitoring Peace and Cultural Tolerance in School Education, a self-described

“research, policy and advocacy organization”,

whose main aim appears to be to lobby parliamentarians and media outlets across Europe and the United States to, I would argue, exaggerate and amplify these claims in order to get them on to the political agenda—rather successfully, it would appear. Let us be in no doubt about IMPACT-se. On page 15 of the Eckert report, it says that IMPACT-se research is

“marked by generalising and exaggerated conclusions based on methodological shortcomings.”

It recommends that any future IMPACT-se investigation be based on a

“comprehensive examination of the textbooks, contextualising the specific passages”

that it uses, as well as recognising those elements within the textbooks that

“promote tolerance and peaceful coexistence.”

Of course, as we have heard, IMPACT-se has form. The shortcomings of its methodology and its lack of objectivity have been commented on before in this House. As recently as September 2017 in a written answer, the ever honest and hugely respected former Foreign Office Minister Alistair Burt said that the Government were sufficiently concerned at what an earlier IMPACT-se report had alleged about Palestinian textbooks to decide to meet with it to discuss its findings. However, the UK Government in 2017 concluded that the IMPACT-se report was not objective in its findings and its methodology lacked rigour, before observing that

“some claims were made on the basis of a partial or subjective reading of the text”

and

“some findings are presented out of context”.

Yet, immediately on publication of the Georg Eckert Institute’s lengthy and nuanced report last week, IMPACT-se was straight out of the blocks, telling anyone who would listen that the report supported its claim that

“the Palestinian Authority systematically incites…a million children to antisemitism, hate and violence every school day.”

It is a ridiculous analysis of a serious report and one that probably tells us more about IMPACT-se and how it operates than anything else. Although it is perfectly legitimate to disagree with the findings of the Eckert report—I am sure that all sides will find plenty to argue about—what is not acceptable is to deliberately distort and twist what the report says. I find it deeply concerning that such a brazenly partisan group is still being listened to and is still able to find such an unquestioning audience.

I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate, he will reassure the House that the UK Government still consider IMPACT-se not to be a trusted source of reliable information and, its having been so discredited for the inaccuracies and inadequacies in its research, no UK Government funding will go towards that group.



We have heard many times this morning that anti-Palestinian groups have been raising in the contents of these books for years. As the Eckert report makes clear, there are areas of legitimate concern and some important changes are needed. However, attempts to portray Palestinians as somehow uniquely hateful and violent are utterly nonsensical. Ironically, those making them have been engaging in exactly the same sort of demonisation and distortion that they allege of the Palestinian textbooks.

We could go through the Eckert report line by line, arguing over every last dot and comma but, as other Members have said this morning, there is a much bigger picture here: the continued illegal occupation of Palestine, which is now in its sixth decade. I just wish that those parliamentarians most vocal about the content of Palestinian children’s school textbooks were as vocal about the destruction of Palestinian children’s schools.

I have seen the ruins of a Palestinian school. I have walked among the rubble of the demolished school buildings of the Bedouin village of Abu Nuwar. I have seen the pain, the fear, and the devastation that the demolition of a school causes for an already weak, poor and defenceless community. I cannot help but wonder where the outrage on the Benches opposite is when Palestinian schools are demolished by the Israeli army in order to make way for more illegal settlements? Why are they so silent when Palestinian children are being killed, beaten, arrested and detained without trial? Often their homes are being bulldozed. Where is the condemnation and outrage about the 66 Palestinian children who were killed, or the 600 who were injured during the bombardment of Gaza? Where are the debates and demands for action about the 141 schools in Gaza that were damaged, or the 53 schools in the west bank that have been earmarked for demolition?

Perhaps we would pay greater heed to the howls of protest from the Benches opposite about the content of Palestinian children’s schoolbooks if they were equally vociferous in calling out the outrageous human rights abuses that those same Palestinian schoolchildren face every single day of their young lives.

Deforestation in the Amazon

Brendan O'Hara Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr McCabe. I join other hon. Members in congratulating the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) on securing the debate and on laying out clearly and convincingly the reality of the situation in Brazil today. Although he painted a bleak and depressing picture, what he said needed saying, and I thank him for saying it.

We all recognise the importance of the rainforest and the disaster that would follow from its destruction, but it seems that, rather than doing everything possible to save it, the Government of Brazil have effectively given a green light to criminal networks to pursue illegal logging, mining and cattle ranching, thereby accelerating the destruction of the forest. It is right that President Bolsonaro is called out, as he has been in this debate, but we should not fool ourselves into thinking that we are blameless in all this. We are not, because, as the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) says, on our doorstep—in this city—financial institutions are complicit in the destruction of the rainforest. The Guardian revealed in 2020 that British banks and finance houses had given more than $2 billion to Brazilian beef corporations implicated in deforestation.

Of course, although the implications of the Amazon’s destruction affect the entire planet, they are most keenly felt by the indigenous peoples whose territories are being stolen and destroyed and whose human rights are being routinely violated. The Brazilian Amazon is home to approximately 25 million people, but it is also the poorest region in Brazil, with the worst socioeconomic indicators. Since coming to power, President Bolsonaro has scaled back enforcement of environmental laws, weakened the power of the federal environmental agencies and removed many of the protections and rights of the indigenous people.

As Sônia Guajajara, the leader of the Articulation of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil, said recently:

“He is committing one crime after another against the peoples of the forest and against the environment.”

She says that he is not only a risk to indigenous peoples but that

“it has turned into a global problem, because what he’s doing here has an impact on the planet”.

As the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) said, so fearful are the indigenous people of Bolsonaro and his policies that they have petitioned the International Criminal Court, asking that an investigation be opened into allegations of human rights abuses.

Sadly, across the world, indigenous people are among the most marginalised groups in society. They have historically faced systematic discrimination in everything from healthcare to education and from work to legal rights. They often have little or no political representation. Routinely, their lands have been seized and they have been forced to relocate when others have decided that they have to. All too often, they face persecution and violence and the destruction of their culture, language and traditional way of life. And the people of the Amazon rainforest are no different.

As Myrna Cunningham, a Nicaraguan woman and president of the Centre for Autonomy and Development of Indigenous People, says:

“Indigenous peoples have a different concept of forests. They are not seen as a place where you take out resources to increase your money—they are seen as a space where we live and that is given to us to protect for the next generations.”

Unfortunately, Myrna Cunningham’s concept and vision of what the forest is and how it should be used is not shared by everyone. As we have heard, President Bolsonaro, since coming to power, has actively pursued policies that erode protections for indigenous land and the indigenous people of the forest, and make it easier for non-indigenous Brazilians to carry out economic activity in the Amazon. He has attempted to shift more authority away from agencies whose job it is to protect indigenous rights, and handed it over instead to the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food Supply, which has a vested interest in expanding development in the rainforest. During Bolsonaro’s first year in power, there was a staggering 135% increase in illegal invasions, illegal logging, land grabbing and other infringements in indigenous areas. According to the Brazilian Government’s own figures, the level of deforestation of indigenous land is now higher than it has been in a decade.

Of course, there is a terrible human cost for those communities seen to be standing in the way of so-called progress, as forest clearings frequently result in violence, forced eviction, harassment, intimidation, death threats, arbitrary arrests of community leaders and even murder. Human Rights Watch reported that illegal deforestation and violence in the Amazon were largely being driven by criminal gangs. Twenty-eight people have been murdered, four have faced murder attempts, and there were more than 40 cases of death threats in 2019 alone.

One indigenous reserve that has suffered more than most is the area of the Yanomami, which in one year saw deforestation soar by almost 1,700%, and where there are no fewer than 536 current requests for mining rights. I will conclude with the words of Davi Kopenawa, a spokesman for the Yanomami people, who said,

“The Whites cannot destroy our house for, if they do, things will not end well for the whole world. We are looking after the forest for everyone, not just for the Yanomami and the isolated peoples. We work with our shamans who understand these things well, who possess wisdom that comes from contact with the land.”

I just wish more shared that wisdom.

[Steve McCabe (in the Chair)]

I am going to shave a few seconds off each of the Front Benchers’ speeches to give Mr Shannon a chance, but I ask him to wind up at 3.31.